Brandon Hall Research, domain analysts for the e-learning industry and providers of  information about tools, technologies, and best practices related to employee training and enterprise learning have just released a comprehensive new guide called Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase 2009: A Buyer’s Guide to 120+ of the Best E-Learning Content Development Applications.

According to their press release, "the current edition of this online, database-driven KnowledgeBase contains 10-20 page profiles of 122 content development tools" including:

• 65 products to create online courses
• 26 products to create online tests and assessments
• 20 products to create software simulations
• 23 products to help you convert your legacy content to e-learning
• 9 products to create non-software simulations
• 8 products to create instructional games

They also include two online software applications:

• A selection tool that helps you narrow your product search by filtering out the tools that don’t meet your needs
• A comparison tool to help you see how two similar products differ

I recently published an article called What’s on your e-learning bookshelf? In it, I listed my shelf of “go to” e-learning texts. I’ve re-published the picture of my shelf below, so that you can see, right there in the middle, a text called E-learning Tools and Technologies by Horton and Horton.

In the early part of this decade learning and development professionals and educators found this text to be an invaluable reference resource. If you had a requirement to understand a new training modality or learning channel in a hurry (as many of us did in five or six years ago as we faster, better, and more integrated communications networks burgeoned) the Horton and Horton text was a good place to begin to find out about it. However, as we reach the end of the decade, the tools and some of the technologies in text (I have the first edition) is looking decidedly dated; Blogger.com was still owned by Pyra Labs; podcasting is not given a look-in in any shape or form. As far as I could discern through a brief search (on Amazon, Wiley Books Online, and Google Books), the 2003 edition is still in print.

The outcome of this is that while the text is still full of good advice, useful information, and valuable insight into topics associated with e-learning design, development and delivery, many  of the products it highlights are deprecated (Authorware), redundant (GoLive), or changed beyond recognition (most products featured in the text). In my view this is where resources like the Brandon Hall KnowledgeBase come into their own. While, necessarily, the text and the information is not as rich as in the Horton and Horton book (see Figure 1 for a comparison between the layout of the two resources), it’s competitive advantage is that is delivers bang up-to-date, regularly refreshed information, and a easy-to-use selection and comparison utility to choose and compare products.

Figure 1. Side-by-side of the texts: Horton (l), Brandon Hall (r)
[Click to enlarge]

In one sense, this is the threshold between the analog and digital forms of information delivery. Putting my cultural anthropology hat on for a moment, I would characterize this as a liminal state. Liminality has been described as "the place in between" (La Shure, 2009)  infused with ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy.

For example, as a university lecturer delivering a course on learning technology do I include E-Learning Tools and Technologies on the required reading list, or the more up-to-date Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase? How do I set a question on the information in the latter source as it is in one sense, just a list and description of products and their capabilities, with none of the context provided by the former text? Which is more "academic?" Does this reflect the text’s accuracy? Is the cost ($795 annual subscription) of Brandon Hall membership justifiable for students, or people who just was occasional access to information, as opposed to about $40 for the out-of-date Horton and Horton text. How much is the information worth?

These are  difficult questions to answer satisfactorily.

I have no doubt that over time, e-texts will become integrated into the mainstream of academic, professional, and consumer activity. Online libraries like MyAthens already provide access to a range of electronically-available materials for a nominal fee to the individual user as membership to institutions, universities, and libraries.

E-readers like the Kindle, and e-book software like Lexcycle Stanza (recently purchased by Amazon) are beginning to provide the facility to view electronic versions of printed texts.

Maybe this electronic means of access will become more generalized; I use Stanza on my iPhone and it’s changing my reading habits. Perhaps the current practice of hard- and e-texts being used in concert will become firmly embedded as the most effective method of using the old and the new. As usual, people will do what works for them, and the usual rules for adoption of innovations will apply.

Yet the question remains: How out-of-date is too out-of-date?

I think that my Horton printed text still has great value, especially in the context it provides for e-elearning-related technologies; yet I can’t rely on it to provide current information about specific e-learning authoring applications. With over ten years experience in the learning and development industry, I feel competent to apply my well-developed critical faculties to find out what I need from the range of knowledge and information at my disposal. Could I make my tacit, hard-earned ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information available to some-one else? Probably not.

How do you use the resources at your disposal? I’d love to hear your views and about your experiences – let me know.

___________

References:

Brandon Hall Research. (2009). Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase 2009: A Buyer’s Guide to 120+ of the Best E-Learning Content Development Applications. [Internet] Available from: http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/atkb/atkb.shtml Accessed 29 June 2009

Horton, W., & Horton, K. (2003). E-learning Tools and Technologies: A consumer’s guide for trainers, teachers, educators, and instructional designers. Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana

La Shure, C. (2009). Liminality. [Internet] Available from: http://www.liminality.org/about/whatisliminality/ Accessed 29 June 2009

–

After yesterday’s excursion into science fiction to demonstrate that the concept, if not the reality of mobile learning (m-learning) has been around for a good part of the last century, today’s post returns to the altogether more prosaic task of identifying the characteristics of m-learning. I think that the best way to approach this is to characterize m-learning’s parent domain, e-learning.

So, let me remind you of my favorite definition of the characteristics of e-learning and consider if they also apply to m-learning. In his influential 2001 text E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age, Marc J Rosenberg argues that e-learning is based on three fundamental criteria (pp.8-29):

1. E-learning is networked making it capable of updating, storage and retrieval, distribution and sharing of instruction or information. So important is this criteria that Rosenberg describes it as fast becoming an “absolute requirement” [his italics] of e-learning.
2. It is delivered to the end-user via a computer using standard internet technology so that even though the definition of what a standard technology is may evolve as the internet matures, e-learning will be deliverable on that channel
3. It focuses on the broadest view of learning: learning that goes beyond “e-training” (Beyond E-Learning, 2006, p.11). E-learning is at the core of the “smart enterprise – a high-performing organization that allows knowledge and capabilities, enabled by technology, to grow and flow freely across departmental geographical or hierarchical boundaries, where it is shared and made actionable for the use and benefit of all” (2006, p.39).

A discussion on m-learning then, must in part be dedicated to the technologies underpinning the broader e-learning domain. In this context, ‘mobile’ generally means portable and personal, like a mobile phone or media player. While ‘mobile device’ typically means PDAs and digital mobile phones, it might more generally be taken to mean any device that is

small, autonomous and unobtrusive enough to accompany people in every moment in their every-day life, and that can be used for some form of learning, for example an MP3 player.

(Kineo and UFI/Learndirect Mobile Learning Reviewed. p.5)

Many examples of learning with mobile technologies fit in to this description, and broadly speaking they all align to the “absolute requirement” to receive and transmit digital voice and data communication over a network – though not necessarily wirelessly, as we shall see).

According to a number of sources including Gartner (M-Learning Opportunities and Applications) and  Kineo & UFI/Learndirect (Mobile Learning Reviewed) mobile handsets are, and will be the “dominant m-learning devices for some time: there were more than 1.2 billion shipped in 2008” (Gartner, p.6). There are four basic categories of devices:

1. ‘Smartphones’ or Converged Media Devices (CMDs) have an identifiable operating system, are Web-capable and support installable applications, such as PDF and content readers. They are able to render a wide range of digital data types so they can act as sophisticated m-learning platforms.
2. Enhanced phones don’t have an open operating system but have some audio, video and Web capability, and typically support simpler installable applications using programming tools such as Java Platform, Micro Edition (Java ME).
3. Basic phones are low-cost devices that can support voice and text messaging
4. Non-telephony mobile devices are audio/MP3 players and video-enabled media players, the dominant product in both markets belonging to the Apple iPod family of players.
5. Hand-held games consoles are lightweight, portable devices include in-built screens, games controls and speakers. The dominant manufacturers include Nintendo (DS) Sony (PSP) and Nokia (N-Gage).

In 2008, CMDs were a growing minority, comprising approximately 15% of all devices shipped globally; enhanced phones made up a little more than 60%, and the remainder were basic phones. Of the potential mobile learning devices, mobile phones are clearly the most commonplace. According to a recent report by Strategy Analytics (cited in Mobile Learning Reviewed, p.4), there are 1.5 billion mobile phones on earth, with 10% year-over-year adoption expected through 2008. In 2005 the Financial Times reported that UK mobile phone penetration was about 86% of the adult population. By 2006, the penetration rate for Western Europe was reported as 100%, which means there was a mobile phone for every person in the population.

The media player market is one of the biggest IT success stories in recent years. The market leader is Apple’s iPod. Since 2001, Apple has sold over 100 million iPods worldwide. Many other players compete in the personal media player marketplace including Archos, Sony, iRiver, Creative, and Microsoft. While functionality varies according to manufacturer and brand, we can say that a media player is a portable mass storage device that allows content to be downloaded and used offline. Music storage is obviously their primary use, but their mobility and storage capacity makes them ideal mobile learning devices. A significant increase in the audio- and video podcast download market demonstrates that consumers have extended the potential of these devices beyond their intended capacity as über Walkmans.

Kineo (p.6) assert that:

The commercial market for MP3 downloads is highly developed, though monetizing non-music formats (e.g. podcasts and vodcasts) has proved more challenging. In effect the ‘book on tape’ market has jumped formats to become the commercial podcast market via iTunes and Audible.
The ease of providing podcasts and vodcasts for download has a potential cost advantage, as they can be downloaded for free (assuming the user is on a fixed price broadband line), unlike download or access to learning content via a mobile phone or CMD. Thus, mobile devices used for learning do not require continuous connection. Also, once on the iPod, learning content does not require internet connection for it to be accessed, so there need be no ongoing costs of access after initial download.

Given the almost ubiquitous nature of these devices, it’s not surprising that educators and organizations with an interest in distributing electronic learning content are now considering the potential for these devices to support a previously unavailable channel to communicate and transfer knowledge to learners.

More…

________________________

References:

Jones, N. (2008) M-Learning Opportunities and Applications. ID Number: G00163293 Gartner Research [Internet] Available from: http://www.gartner.com (Subscription or purchase required) Accessed 17 February 2009

Kineo and UFI/Learndirect (2009) Mobile Learning Reviewed. [Internet] Available from: http://www.kineo.com/documents/Mobile_learning_reviewed_final.pdf Accessed 17th February 2009

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001) e-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age London: McGraw-Hill.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2006) Beyond e-Learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

–

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin. And Remember…

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is the most successful book every written. A handy electronic reference book, its chief selling points are the words ‘Don’t Panic’ written in large friendly letters on the cover, and that it’s cheaper than its closest competitor, the Encyclopedia Galactica. The Guide’s reporters travel the length and breadth of the Milky Way, drinking heavily, going to lots of parties and generally having a great time. Their experiences, which include everything from how to mix the greatest cocktail in the galaxy to life on Earth (“mostly harmless”) is then passed on via the SubEtha net to every copy of the Guide, giving people the opportunity to misinterpret the inaccurate copy. Much of the guide’s content is plagiarized from the back of cereal packets, and some of it is just made up. Its most useful advice concerns towels.

Now I’m not going to labor the point about blogging (without the wild parties, sad to say), Wikipedia, and the SubEtha / world wide web “net” but here’s a description of the Guide itself:

…A device that looked rather like a largish electronic calculator. This had… a screen about four inches square on which any one  of a million “pages” could be summoned at a moment’s notice. It looked insanely complicated, and this was one of the reasons why the snug plastic cover it fitted into had the words DON’T PANIC printed on it in large friendly letters. …The reason why it was published in the form of a micro sub meson electronic component is that if it were printed in normal book form, an interstellar hitchhiker would require several inconveniently large buildings to carry it around in.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (pp.26-27)

Sound familiar? Of course it does.

Man seeks Nokia charger for his retro cell phone 

That was 30 years ago. Back in the future, we can say that the we live at a time where the socio-cultural, economic and technical foundations exist to change the way that we acquire learning and knowledge in as profound a way as the introduction of printing in Western Europe in the 15th Century. We can now potentially carry our knowledge with us without “several inconveniently large buildings” to carry it around in. The current generation of portable digital devices (including smart phones, PDAs, and media players) is that they can support a digitally-mediated, connected learning environment, providing a convenience of instant access to a range of people and resources, as well as the ability to process data in a way that wasn’t possible even five years ago.

Next time: The altogether more prosaic task of describing the characteristics of E-Learning as I understand them, and a context for M-Learning.

______________________

References:

Adams, D. (1979) The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (pp.26-27) London: Pan Paperbacks

“Don’t Panic” image Courtesy British Broadcasting Corporation

–

…this tool is exciting, [and] exhibits great potential, but needs a little work to get it past the finish line. Having said that, I can easily see it being a common part of the web experience in time to come, particularly if the developers can sustain the “fun factor” supplied by navigating through content in this environment.

I’m pleased to say that since then Cooliris has moved forward. While updating my Foxmarks today, what should I see on their (Foxmarks’) homepage but the self-same Cooliris, under their ‘Other add-ons we like’ category. If you’d like to try the application for yourself, click here to go to their website.

In my view it’s great that there are fun educational applications available; when confronted with the task of providing learning and development services for the organizations and institutions that we’re involved with, it’s sometimes easy to forget that above all else, learning should be a rewarding experience for everyone.

So well done to PicLens and maintain the development effort guys!

–

…this tool is exciting, [and] exhibits great potential, but needs a little work to get it past the finish line. Having said that, I can easily see it being a common part of the web experience in time to come, particularly if the developers can sustain the “fun factor” supplied by navigating through content in this environment.

I’m pleased to say that since then Cooliris has moved forward. While updating my Foxmarks today, what should I see on their (Foxmarks’) homepage but the self-same Cooliris, under their ‘Other add-ons we like’ category. If you’d like to try the application for yourself, click here to go to their website.

In my view it’s great that there are fun educational applications available; when confronted with the task of providing learning and development services for the organizations and institutions that we’re involved with, it’s sometimes easy to forget that above all else, learning should be a rewarding experience for everyone.

So well done to PicLens and maintain the development effort guys!

–

Systems of creation, production and distribution

The commonly-held notion that a knowledge economy is a services economy is misleading. As information and knowledge add value to basic products manufacturing and services are becoming increasingly integrated into complex chains of creation, production and distribution. At the core of the economy are goods producing industries, linked into value chains which see inputs coming from knowledge-based business services and goods related construction and energy industries, and outputs going to goods related distribution service industries[1].

Convergence or divergence

One feature of the emerging knowledge economy is increasing evidence that the nations of the world are polarizing, rather than converging, in economic terms. Standard growth theories suggest that economies subject to market forces should converge in terms of per capita GDP levels, either absolutely or relatively. But the reality is quite different.

Countries appear to be moving towards two peaks or nodes, one at high incomes and one at relatively low incomes. This polarisation of countries into different strata of economic activity and of living standards is becoming both pronounced and persistent – what is often referred to as “twin-peaks dynamics[2].” What the future will show as the knowledge economy unfolds remains to be seen, but there is little in the recent historical record to assure policy makers that market forces will deliver a continuing process of convergence to US levels. In such a world the consequences of policy failure or inaction can be dramatic.

Divergence and concentration

These same dynamics may cause changes in the industrial structure of knowledge economics. Many contend that increasing inequality can be observed at the international, national, regional, household and personal levels – that the rich are getting rich, while the poor are getting poorer. Some economists suggest that increasing returns from network economies and learning economies characteristic of knowledge economies will lead to industrial concentration – a world of winner takes all[3]. Others contend that the expansion of the knowledge driven economy will create a proliferation of material, firms and activities at all points and at all levels, suggesting that no one can expect to enjoy continued control of markets.

There may be temporary monopolies but they cannot last. And it is misconceived to think that the key lies in being at the point of delivery of the product: the low cost and ease of access to the delivery mechanism mean that the rents are driven down at the delivery level and instead migrate back up the value chain to those with genuinely scarce factors and competitive advantages[4].

Whichever proves true, the knowledge economy will see the development of new business models.

Footnotes:

[1] Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

[2] Sheehan, P. and Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy, Victoria University Press, p100. See also Quah, D. (1996) ‘Convergence Empirics Across Economies with (Some) Capital Mobility,’ Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1) pp. 95-125 [Internet] Available form: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2235377 [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[3] Arthur, W.B. (1996) ‘Increasing Returns and the New World of Business’, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996, pp. 100-109

[4] Kay, J. In: DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

–

Systems of creation, production and distribution

The commonly-held notion that a knowledge economy is a services economy is misleading. As information and knowledge add value to basic products manufacturing and services are becoming increasingly integrated into complex chains of creation, production and distribution. At the core of the economy are goods producing industries, linked into value chains which see inputs coming from knowledge-based business services and goods related construction and energy industries, and outputs going to goods related distribution service industries[1].

Convergence or divergence

One feature of the emerging knowledge economy is increasing evidence that the nations of the world are polarizing, rather than converging, in economic terms. Standard growth theories suggest that economies subject to market forces should converge in terms of per capita GDP levels, either absolutely or relatively. But the reality is quite different.

Countries appear to be moving towards two peaks or nodes, one at high incomes and one at relatively low incomes. This polarisation of countries into different strata of economic activity and of living standards is becoming both pronounced and persistent – what is often referred to as “twin-peaks dynamics[2].” What the future will show as the knowledge economy unfolds remains to be seen, but there is little in the recent historical record to assure policy makers that market forces will deliver a continuing process of convergence to US levels. In such a world the consequences of policy failure or inaction can be dramatic.

Divergence and concentration

These same dynamics may cause changes in the industrial structure of knowledge economics. Many contend that increasing inequality can be observed at the international, national, regional, household and personal levels – that the rich are getting rich, while the poor are getting poorer. Some economists suggest that increasing returns from network economies and learning economies characteristic of knowledge economies will lead to industrial concentration – a world of winner takes all[3]. Others contend that the expansion of the knowledge driven economy will create a proliferation of material, firms and activities at all points and at all levels, suggesting that no one can expect to enjoy continued control of markets.

There may be temporary monopolies but they cannot last. And it is misconceived to think that the key lies in being at the point of delivery of the product: the low cost and ease of access to the delivery mechanism mean that the rents are driven down at the delivery level and instead migrate back up the value chain to those with genuinely scarce factors and competitive advantages[4].

Whichever proves true, the knowledge economy will see the development of new business models.

Footnotes:

[1] Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

[2] Sheehan, P. and Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy, Victoria University Press, p100. See also Quah, D. (1996) ‘Convergence Empirics Across Economies with (Some) Capital Mobility,’ Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1) pp. 95-125 [Internet] Available form: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2235377 [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[3] Arthur, W.B. (1996) ‘Increasing Returns and the New World of Business’, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996, pp. 100-109

[4] Kay, J. In: DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

–

Learning organizations and innovation systems

In a knowledge economy, organizations search for linkages to promote inter-organizational learning, and for outside partners and networks to provide complementary assets. These relationships help organizations

1. spread the costs and risks associated with innovation
2. gain access to new research results, acquire key technological components
3. share assets in manufacturing, marketing and distribution.

As they develop new products and processes, organizations determine which activities they will undertake individually, in collaboration with other organizations, in collaboration with universities or research institutions, and with the support of government[1]. We can say that, as such, innovation is the result of numerous interactions between actors and institutions, which together form an “innovation system.”

These innovation systems consist of the information flows and relationships which exist among industry, government and academic and other institutions in the development of science and technology. The interactions within these systems influences the innovative performance of organizations – and ultimately of the economy. The ‘knowledge distribution power’ of the system, or its capability to ensure timely access by innovators to relevant stocks of knowledge, is can be seen as a major determinant of economic growth.

Strategy and location

One of the consequences of globalization combined with advances in communications technologies has been a strengthening of world competition, and the emergence of a new form of ‘global competition’. Most organizations in a dominant market position are, by necessity, multinational or transnational organizations. To compete successfully with their rivals, organizations must compete head-to-head in all markets (including their home market), and they must rapidly attain a global scale in production and/or rapidly roll out products and services into multiple markets in order to do so. In this environment, competitiveness depends increasingly on the coordination of, and alignment of a broad range of specialized industrial, financial, technological, commercial, administrative and cultural skills which can be located in many locations around the world[2].

Production is being rationalized globally, with organizations combining the factors, features and skills of various locations in the process of competing in global markets. There are three major dimensions of change involved:

• increasing national (locational) specialization
• increased international ‘fracturing’ of value chains or chains of production – witnessed in increased intra-industry and intra-firm trade
• greater line-item by line-item trade imbalances

An increasingly apparent consequence of this development in industrial ertia is substantial structural dislocation in local, regional and even national economies, and a consequent need for substantial structural adjustment.

Clustering in the Knowledge Economy

Networks and geographical clusters of firms are a particularly important feature of the knowledge economy. Organizations find it increasingly necessary to work with other firms and institutions in technology-based alliances, because of the rising cost, increasing complexity and widening scope of technology. Many organizations are becoming multi-technology corporations locating around centers of excellence in different countries. Despite improved capability for global communication, firms increasingly co-locate because it is the only effective way to share understanding[3]. Consequently, skills and life-style are becoming increasingly important locational factors.

As we enter the age of human capital, where organizations merely lease knowledge-assets, organizations’ location decisions are increasingly based upon quality-of-life factors that are important to attracting and retaining this economic asset. In high-tech services, strict business-cost measures are becoming less important to growing and sustaining technology clusters … Locations that are attractive to knowledge assets will play a vital role in determining the economic success of regions[4].

Economics of knowledge

In the knowledge economy there are new ground rules. Knowledge has fundamentally different characteristics from ordinary commodities and these differences have crucial implications for the way a knowledge economy must be organised[5]. The whole nature of economic activity, and our understanding of it, is changing.

Unlike physical goods information is non-rival – not destroyed in consumption. Its value in consumption can be enjoyed again and again. Hence, social return on investment in its generation can be multiplied through its diffusion. Ideas and information exhibit very different characteristics from the goods and services of the industrial economy. For example, much more than is the case with a frozen dinner or a haircut, the social value of ideas and information increases to the degree they can be shared with and used by others. More important, the costs associated with their production are distributed very differently over time. While up front costs associated with the production of traditional goods such as a car or house may not necessarily be high, each item is still costly to produce. The more of these one produces, the more likely one will eventually encounter scarcities that drive up production costs and reduce the size of social returns. In the case of innovation, ideas and information, however, the opposite would seem largely to be the case. While up front development costs can be very high, the reproduction and transmission costs are low. The more such items are (re)produced, the greater the social return on investment[6].

Traditional economics is founded on a system which seeks to optimise the efficient allocation of scarce resources, but because of the unique characteristics of information and knowledge the very meaning of scarcity is changing. Indeed, the scarcity defying expansiveness of knowledge is the root of one of its most important defining features. Once knowledge is discovered and made public, there is essentially zero marginal cost to adding more users[7].

More…

References:

Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

Footnotes:

[1] OECD. (1996) The Knowledge-Based Economy, OECD Paris, p. 16. [Internet] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/8/1913021.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[2] Hatzichronoglou, T.(1996) Globalisation and Competitiveness: Relevant Indicators, STI

Working Paper 1996/5, OECD, Paris, p. 7.

[3] Cantwell, J. In: DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

[4] DeVol, R.C. (1999) America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, Milken Institute, Santa Monica

[5] DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p.5

[6] Industry Canada (1997) Towards a Society Built on Knowledge [Internet} Available from: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ih01644e.html [Accessed 20p August 2008]

[7] DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p. 6.

–

Learning organizations and innovation systems

In a knowledge economy, organizations search for linkages to promote inter-organizational learning, and for outside partners and networks to provide complementary assets. These relationships help organizations

1. spread the costs and risks associated with innovation
2. gain access to new research results, acquire key technological components
3. share assets in manufacturing, marketing and distribution.

As they develop new products and processes, organizations determine which activities they will undertake individually, in collaboration with other organizations, in collaboration with universities or research institutions, and with the support of government[1]. We can say that, as such, innovation is the result of numerous interactions between actors and institutions, which together form an “innovation system.”

These innovation systems consist of the information flows and relationships which exist among industry, government and academic and other institutions in the development of science and technology. The interactions within these systems influences the innovative performance of organizations – and ultimately of the economy. The ‘knowledge distribution power’ of the system, or its capability to ensure timely access by innovators to relevant stocks of knowledge, is can be seen as a major determinant of economic growth.

Strategy and location

One of the consequences of globalization combined with advances in communications technologies has been a strengthening of world competition, and the emergence of a new form of ‘global competition’. Most organizations in a dominant market position are, by necessity, multinational or transnational organizations. To compete successfully with their rivals, organizations must compete head-to-head in all markets (including their home market), and they must rapidly attain a global scale in production and/or rapidly roll out products and services into multiple markets in order to do so. In this environment, competitiveness depends increasingly on the coordination of, and alignment of a broad range of specialized industrial, financial, technological, commercial, administrative and cultural skills which can be located in many locations around the world[2].

Production is being rationalized globally, with organizations combining the factors, features and skills of various locations in the process of competing in global markets. There are three major dimensions of change involved:

• increasing national (locational) specialization
• increased international ‘fracturing’ of value chains or chains of production – witnessed in increased intra-industry and intra-firm trade
• greater line-item by line-item trade imbalances

An increasingly apparent consequence of this development in industrial ertia is substantial structural dislocation in local, regional and even national economies, and a consequent need for substantial structural adjustment.

Clustering in the Knowledge Economy

Networks and geographical clusters of firms are a particularly important feature of the knowledge economy. Organizations find it increasingly necessary to work with other firms and institutions in technology-based alliances, because of the rising cost, increasing complexity and widening scope of technology. Many organizations are becoming multi-technology corporations locating around centers of excellence in different countries. Despite improved capability for global communication, firms increasingly co-locate because it is the only effective way to share understanding[3]. Consequently, skills and life-style are becoming increasingly important locational factors.

As we enter the age of human capital, where organizations merely lease knowledge-assets, organizations’ location decisions are increasingly based upon quality-of-life factors that are important to attracting and retaining this economic asset. In high-tech services, strict business-cost measures are becoming less important to growing and sustaining technology clusters … Locations that are attractive to knowledge assets will play a vital role in determining the economic success of regions[4].

Economics of knowledge

In the knowledge economy there are new ground rules. Knowledge has fundamentally different characteristics from ordinary commodities and these differences have crucial implications for the way a knowledge economy must be organised[5]. The whole nature of economic activity, and our understanding of it, is changing.

Unlike physical goods information is non-rival – not destroyed in consumption. Its value in consumption can be enjoyed again and again. Hence, social return on investment in its generation can be multiplied through its diffusion. Ideas and information exhibit very different characteristics from the goods and services of the industrial economy. For example, much more than is the case with a frozen dinner or a haircut, the social value of ideas and information increases to the degree they can be shared with and used by others. More important, the costs associated with their production are distributed very differently over time. While up front costs associated with the production of traditional goods such as a car or house may not necessarily be high, each item is still costly to produce. The more of these one produces, the more likely one will eventually encounter scarcities that drive up production costs and reduce the size of social returns. In the case of innovation, ideas and information, however, the opposite would seem largely to be the case. While up front development costs can be very high, the reproduction and transmission costs are low. The more such items are (re)produced, the greater the social return on investment[6].

Traditional economics is founded on a system which seeks to optimise the efficient allocation of scarce resources, but because of the unique characteristics of information and knowledge the very meaning of scarcity is changing. Indeed, the scarcity defying expansiveness of knowledge is the root of one of its most important defining features. Once knowledge is discovered and made public, there is essentially zero marginal cost to adding more users[7].

More…

References:

Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

Footnotes:

[1] OECD. (1996) The Knowledge-Based Economy, OECD Paris, p. 16. [Internet] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/8/1913021.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[2] Hatzichronoglou, T.(1996) Globalisation and Competitiveness: Relevant Indicators, STI

Working Paper 1996/5, OECD, Paris, p. 7.

[3] Cantwell, J. In: DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

[4] DeVol, R.C. (1999) America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, Milken Institute, Santa Monica

[5] DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p.5

[6] Industry Canada (1997) Towards a Society Built on Knowledge [Internet} Available from: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ih01644e.html [Accessed 20p August 2008]

[7] DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London, p. 6.

–

In the 21st century, comparative advantage will become much less a function of natural resource endowments and capital-labour ratios and much more a function of technology and skills. Mother nature and history will play a much smaller role, while human ingenuity will play a much bigger role.

(New Tools, New Rules: Playing to win in the new economic game. p.101)

As I discussed in much finer detail (and in the context of e-learning rather than the economy) in this post, in my view we as a society are on the cusp of a knowledge revolution akin to the explosion of information made possible after the general availability of printed texts following the invention of movable type and the printing press in 1440.

As this century unfolds, the skills used by people will increasingly be those that are complementary with information and communication technology; not those that are substitutes.

Now read on…

What makes the emergence of the knowledge economy important is that it is, in some significant respects, different from the industrial economy we have known for most of the last two hundred years. Some of the key differentiators include:

Information revolution

The IT revolution has intensified the move towards knowledge convergence, and increased the share the knowledge stock of advanced economies. All knowledge that can be distilled as information can be transmitted globally at relatively little cost. Knowledge per se has attained more of the properties of a commodity. [1]

Flexible organization

Flexible organizations reduce waste and increase the productivity of both labor and capital by integrating worker cognition and action at all levels of their operations.In doing so they eliminate many layers of middle management, which are dysfunctional in terms of information flow[2]. Flexible organizations also avoid excessive specialization and compartmentalization by defining multi-task job responsibilities (which calls for multi-skilled workers) and by using teamwork and job rotation.

Flexible organizations merge agility and high product quality with the speed and low unit costs of mass production. They do this by more fully utilising the human capabilities of their workers.

Knowledge, skills and learning

Information and communication technologies have reduced the cost and enhanced the capacity of organizations to converge knowledge, and process and communicate information. In doing so they have substantially altered the ‘balance’ between explicit and tacit knowledge in the overall quantum of knowledge. As access to information becomes easier and less expensive, the skills and competencies relating to the selection and efficient use of information become more crucial, and tacit knowledge in the form of the skills needed to handle explicit knowledge has become more important than ever.

Information and communication technology investments are complementary with investment in human resources and skills[3]. Whereas machines replaced labor in the industrial era, information technology will be the locus of explicit knowledge in the knowledge economy, and work in the knowledge economy will increasingly demand uniquely human (and tacit) skills – such as conceptual and inter-personal management and communication skills.

Innovation and knowledge networks

The knowledge economy increasingly relies on the creation, distribution and use of knowledge assets. The success of enterprises will become more reliant upon their effectiveness in creation, harvesting, absorption and utilization of knowledge.

A knowledge economy is driven by the acceleration of the rate of change and the rate of learning of the contributors to the economy, where the opportunity and capability to get access to and join knowledge-intensive and learning-intensive relations determines the socio-economic position of individuals and firms[4]. Companies must become learning organizations, continuously adapting management, organization and skills to accommodate new technologies and grasp new opportunities. They will be increasingly joined in networks, where interactive learning involving creators, producers and users in experimentation and exchange of information drives innovation.

More…

References:

Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

Thurow, L. (1991) New Tools, New Rules: Playing to win in the new economic game. Prism.

Footnotes:

[1] This post is primarily drawn from Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

[2] Oman C. (1996) The Policy Challenges of Globalisation and Regionalisation, Policy Brief No. 11, OECD Development Centre, OECD, Paris, p. 19. [Internet] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/8/1913021.pdf [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[3] Soete, L. (1997) Macroeconomic and Structural Policy in the Knowledge-based
Economy. In: Industrial Competitiveness in the Knowledge-based Economy: The New Role
of Governments, OECD, Paris, p. 136.

[4] David, P. Foray, D. (1995) ‘Accessing and Expanding the Science and Technology Knowledge Base,’ STI Review, No 16, OECD, Paris.

–