What You Know
By Dr. Joel Orr, Chief Visionary, Cyon Research Corporation

What’s the big deal about knowledge in the PLM arena? And what is the distinction between knowledge and information? And why should you care?

Let me address that last point first: You should care because it is really a matter of your livelihood. Knowledge is important, and growing more so by the day.

In WIIFM (“what’s in it for me?”) terms, that means that the more you know about knowledge and its role in engineering, the more employable you are.

While you can find a variety of ways people look at this picture, the words “knowledge” and “information” are now generally viewed as fitting into an arrangement like the one below:

The world—(is designated and described by)—>data—(consisting largely of)—>facts and other assertions—(which form patterns called)—>information—(that can become)—>knowledge—(when it is known by people, and is the basis of)—>wisdom—(when it is applied to problems)

More generally, knowledge is what a person knows about things.

Without knowledge, PLM collapses—especially the “L” or “lifecycle” part. People are part of the manufacturing picture, and they are not easily replaced by computers or machines.

But as software gets smarter, it is able to begin to capture the knowledge of people. Systems more and more can work with simple forms of knowledge, bringing much more to bear on a problem than just data and information.

For manufacturing companies, increasing the use of computer-stored knowledge is a competitive requirement; they cannot afford to refrain from doing it. So there are efforts under way to “capture” knowledge, to make it possible for the experience of one professional to inform the work of all, through the computer.

Expert machinists are aging, retiring, leaving, and are not being replaced by young machinists. So their knowledge leaves with them. It’s the same in many technical areas. This is something that keeps company managers awake at night.

Designs and products are so numerous; you can’t find a part when you need it for a new design. So you design yet another, exacerbating the problem and losing many of the benefits of lean manufacturing.

When management hears about “knowledge management,” their ears perk up. Could this be the answer to their problems? It just might. All they need do is get the knowledge out of the heads of the employees and into their PLM systems.

That brings us to the “double-edged-sword” aspect of knowledge. If knowledge is what makes me important to my employer, why would I want to put it into the computer? Isn’t what I do already “knowledge-based engineering”?

To be brutally honest, you need to consider your knowledge as an asset, and as a leverage point in your negotiations with your employer. There is no question that you can make your employer more productive by allowing your knowledge to be captured, to become part of the corporate knowledge base. And it is also clear that the more of it you transfer to your employer’s computers, the less dependent on you the employer becomes.

We don’t think in these terms, usually. Most of us just want to do the best job we possible can. We want to be valued by our employer, and we want our value to be expressed in tangible terms, like money.

Most employers are not out to exploit their engineering professionals. They are looking for a “win-win” deal: loyal, high-quality service in exchange for good pay and benefits, in a pleasant work environment.

In the past, knowledge—and the closely related intellectual property—were not part of the negotiations that define the employer-employee relationship. But now, they must be “put on the table.”

If you read most employment contracts, you will find that your employer owns any intellectual property you create while you work for them. You sign away your right to that property when you accept the contract.

But perhaps it is time to re-think employment relationships. I am not questioning the fairness of current arrangements; after all, you are not forced to work for your employer, and they are not forced to hire you. I am simply pointing out that the knowledge you have about your work, your profession, has taken on a more tangible aspect with the advent of knowledge-management software.

Now that software is available to make people less important to PLM than they were in the past, it’s time to consider the value of your knowledge. On the one hand, your employer will become more competitive if it can be captured and used by others; on the other, that reduces your value to the company. On the one hand, you want your employer to prosper; on the other, you don’t want to make yourself superfluous.

Discuss this with your colleagues, and with management. The power and value of knowledge in PLM are growing. Both you and your company should benefit thereby.