The perspectives of Competence Management
Competence management based on literature research can be viewed from 3 perspectives. These are:
• cognitive science perspective;
• organizational science perspective;
• integrative perspective.
Cognitive Science Perspective
The discipline of cognitive sciences of competence management contains the view of psychology and sociology (Erpenbeck, Heyse 1999; Gruber, Renkl 1997; Hänggi 1998) and focuses not only on the description of individual and collective competence and the development of competence classifications (Hänggi 1998) but also on the regulation of learning processes among individuals (Erpenbeck, Heyse 1999).
Organizational Science Perspective
The organizational science perspective of competence management consists of organizational development and strategic business administration (Bach 2000; Freiling 2001; Nonaka, Takeuchi 1997; North 2002; Probst et al. 2000; Reinhart et al. 2002) and concentrates on questions about strategic organization and aggregation of competencies (Freiling 2001; Freimuth et al. 1997; Hamel, Prahalad 1994; Probst et al. 2000) and their distribution and orientation in connection with operational processes (Argyris, Schön 1996; Bellmann et al. 2002; Milberg, Schuh 2002; Reinhart et al. 2002).
Integrative Perspective
The third approach, the integrative competence management, describes and makes employee competences transparent and makes the transfer, utilization and development of these competencies in the organizational competence base possible (Reinhardt, North 2003). By providing models and methods that synchronize employee objectives with strategic corporate objectives this approach also controls the adaptation of competences (Reinhardt, North 2003). A model by Reinhardt and North (2003) was also created for the integrative competence management approach which is presented in Figure 22.
78
Figure 22. Model of Integrative Competence Management (Reinhardt, North 2003:1375)
The model of Reinhardt and North (2003) is divided into 3 phases which are identification, validation, and transfer. It is based on the idea that the individual competence portfolios can be adapted, controlled and developed by the employees themselves (Reinhardt, North 2003). Furthermore the company can also adapt, control and develop their aggregated organizational competence portfolio from the viewpoint of Reinhardt and North (2003). Another feature of this model is its orientation towards the practitioners.
During the analysis according to Reinhardt and North (2003) the systematical identification and study of business fields and connected corporate competence takes place. The derivation of individual competences that is relevant for the organization-dependent tasks of employees use the results of the above mentioned analysis (Reinhardt, North 2003). To fill a role Reinhardt and North (2003) claim that specific methodological, professional, and social competences are needed. The target competence catalogue contains competence roles and its single competence parts (Reinhardt, North 2003). Furthermore a job-dependent competence catalogue that is called task catalogue is also defined. The competence catalog aggregates and structures competencies related to tasks and roles (Reinhardt, North 2003). During the validation phase by using the target competence catalog the actual employee competencies are stated (Reinhardt, North 2003). During this process according to Reinhardt and North (2003) the companies can concentrate on those employee groups who are strategically important and the level of competence can be made measurable. Furthermore the competence domains can be assessed to obtain a differentiated evaluation (Reinhardt, North 2003). Reinhardt and North (2003) emphasise that based upon the demand for and the supply of competence in the company the competence transfer occurring between employees can be developed. In addition isolated competence pools can also be networked and appropriate technical solutions can support the competence information’s dynamic and periodic updating and distribution (Reinhardt, North 2003).
79
From the above mentioned three approaches my research regarding competences found important for knowledge sharing by middle managers falls into the discipline of cognitive sciences (Hänggi 1998; Erpenbeck, Heyse 1999; Gruber, Renkl 1997) since it focuses on individual competences that are required from middle managers to share knowledge.
Competence Management and Knowledge Management
Hong and Ståhle (2005) found that knowledge management and competence management show common characteristics regarding the evolutionary trajectory.
Regarding the common evolutionary trajectory they revealed that these paths are followed (Hong, Ståhle 2005):
• from static to more dynamic;
• from focus on the present needs to focus on more future-oriented needs;
• from rationalistic/cognitive approach to a more interpretative/narrative approach;
• from functional approach to more structural approach;
• from technology-based approach to more social-learning-based approach;
• from isolated and fragmented approach to systems approach;
• from single approach to multi-disciplinary approach.
Table 28 contains the common evolutionary trajectories and the different development processes or stages between knowledge management and competence management.
Besides the common features presented above, differences have also been unfolded by Hong and Ståhle (2005) in connection with the developmental process or stage.
Regarding the stage of documentation and identification knowledge management deals with what the organization knows about its business and organization. On the other hand competence management is rather concerned with individual and organizational levels of skills and competences in Hong and Ståhle’s (2005) point of view. In connection with the stage of leverage and integration, knowledge management has strong sociological and organisational perspectives and the focus of knowledge management is on the strategy-based workplace learning (Hong, Ståhle 2005).
Competence management according to Hong and Ståhle (2005) has rather a strong management perspective, and focuses on integration and performance efficiency.
Concerning the last stage, the generation and innovation, knowledge management focuses on architectural building and visionary planning whilst competence management concentrates on firm- and business-specific dynamics and expertise (Hong, Ståhle 2005).
80
Table 28. Comparison of Knowledge Management and Competence Management Evolution (Hong, Ståhle 2005:141)
Knowledge Management Competence Management
Common Evolutionary Trajectory
1. KM for information processing 1. Competence as resources 2. KM for knowledge sharing and
transfer
2. Competence as integration capabilities
3. KM for knowledge creation and innovation
3. Competence as innovative learning process knowledge and skills: both social and technical)
• list of core competences (category-like list of production skills and technology the firm has)
• mastering chaos, risk and uncertainty
• benefits of self-organization
Focuses on firm- and business-specific dynamics and expertise:
• self-managing systems emphasised in competence-based strategic
management
• meta-competence
• interpretative approach and sense-making model