Y Curious - Knowledge Management Between the Generations

[Year]

Y Curious

Newell Hampson-Jones

Knowledge Management between the Generations

1


Y Curious: Knowledge Management between the Generations

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................2

2.0 Literature Review..................................................................................................................................................4

3.0 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................................................6

4.0 Knowledge Management and the Generations Defined .............................................................................9

4.1 Knowledge Management...............................................................................................................................9

4.1.1 The Theories behind Knowledge Management .................................................................................9

4.1.2 Knowledge Management in Practice................................................................................................ 11

4.1.3 The Learning Organisation ................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 Defining the Generations ............................................................................................................................ 15

4.2.1 Who are the Generations?................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.2 What Challenges does Generation Integration Present?............................................................. 16

5.0 Higher Education ............................................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 The Benefits of Higher Education............................................................................................................... 19

5.2 Proposed changes to the Higher Education sector................................................................................. 21

5.2.1 The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance .......................... 21

5.3.2 Current government proposals........................................................................................................... 25

6.0 Standardisation ................................................................................................................................................. 28

6.1 How Standards are defined ...................................................................................................................... 28

6.2 Compliance with standards......................................................................................................................... 30

6.3 The Benefits of Standardisation and Compliance.................................................................................. 31

7.0 Recommendations for Knowledge Management between Generations................................................ 36

7.1 Generational Knowledge Framework...................................................................................................... 37

7.2 Organisational Knowledge Committees .................................................................................................. 39

8.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 42

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................................. 61

Appendix A – The Higher Education Structure in England ............................................................................... 44

Appendix B – The role of mission groups in higher education ........................................................................ 47

Appendix C – Standardisation in Historical Context ........................................................................................ 57

Appendix D – Categories of British, European and International Standards .............................................. 59

Front cover image: (Bejar, 2011)

2


1.0 Introduction The last 40 years have been shaped by disruptive generational transition; as Baby Boomers are

replaced by a rebellious Generation X who are now seeing the technology rooted Generation Y enter

the workplace with Generation Z to follow in coming years. With the workforce in what feels like a

constant state of flux, surely there is a need to ensure that the knowledge and experiences of the

generations leaving the labour force is not lost? Anthropologist, Elizabeth Lindsey understands the need

for maintaining the knowledge of previous generations, saying,

“When an elder dies, a library is burned.”

(Lindsey, 2011)

Lindsey’s suggestion appears to agree that we need to manage how knowledge is passed between

generations and how the generations could work together to create further knowledge. This will enable

societies, economies and organisations to continue progressing and improving, without fear of

haemorrhaging valuable knowledge.

My previous work felt that knowledge management would become a vital tool for Generation Y and

become ingrained into practice, almost to a cultural level:

In the hands of the new generation, Knowledge Management as a concept or theory

may subside but not because it is irrelevant. I believe we will see the value of

Knowledge Management thrive and integrate itself so closely to Generation Y’s

lifestyle that it will become a part of mainstream culture. Knowledge Management

has no danger of being discredited by the latest generation, we have only seen signs

of embracing the concept and helping it grow and reach it potential. It is becoming

too big to be defined by business and economy alone and I believe that Knowledge

Management is on its way to becoming a staple part of the sociological make-up of

Generation Y.

(Hampson-Jones, 2009)

I still agree that knowledge management has a subversive presence in Generation Y’s business thinking;

however I also believe the role of knowledge management when looking between generations has far

greater impact and could enable that presence to become more overt and structured. The impacts a

generation focused knowledge management structure could have are vast. Insuring that the same

mistakes made by previous generations are prevented to increase the speed and reliability of

innovation and evolution and, on an organisational scale, having generational transition knowledge

management strategies can ensure the organisation’s processes and policies are always of the highest

possible quality.

In order to investigate what strategies and tools can effect generational knowledge management, this

study will explore knowledge management strategies and generational transition, focusing specifically

on the roles higher education and standardisation play to organisations and economies. I feel that as

the subject of generational knowledge management is so vast, this sort of focus can ensure the

recommendations made are much more proactive and can make a practical difference to

organisations. I also believed at the conception of this project, that the knowledge management traits

of both areas are similar. They perform knowledge creation roles in different areas of the economy

and finding a structure where the two feed into each other and indirectly collaborate could improve

the performance of both and assist organisations and the wider economy.

3


With the scope of the study set, three objectives have subsequently been established against which,

success of the research can be measured:

• Explore knowledge management theories and frameworks available to and used by

governments and organisations.

• Analyse higher education’s role within the context of it being a possible component of an

economic knowledge management strategy, making appropriate recommendations

• Examine the role of standardisation within the same knowledge management context,

exploring how it could affect economic and organisational strategies, also making

recommendations

I hope these objectives will be met by first exploring knowledge management theory and defining the

generations and their trait before exploring the role higher education plays on the economy. Specific

discussion will fall on the benefits and funding structures of the sector, with the exploration of the sector

will be grounded with knowledge management perspective. This will be followed by an analysis of the

role standardisation plays within the economy. Particular attention will be drawn to the definition of

standards, the processes that enable their publication and tools of compliance. The discussion will end

on the benefits of standardisation and compliance to organisations and the economy and the

relationship between standardisation and knowledge management theory.

I feel the analyses set out above will create suitable grounding for the recommendations, which are

made in the hope they have potential to be, to some extent, practically applied within organisations

and possibly within government policy. I also believe that the recommendations that come as a result of

these analyses can be measured against the objectives above and judged on their ability to meet

those objectives.

It is my overall hope that this study will show how trans-generational knowledge management can

affect the economy and organisational performance and detail knowledge management strategies

and tools which can bring benefits to both.

4


2.0 Literature Review Knowledge management research has, for the most part, been focused on how it can be a driver for

organizations wishing to create a competitive advantage. One definition considered most authoritative

(Davenport & Prusak, 2000) believed that data must be contextualised to become information and the

contextualisation process requires institutional knowledge. (Drucker, 1988) Taking cues from successful

Japanese companies, the process of creating such knowledge is examined in a study which defines the

creation process in to four methods (Nonaka, 1991). This study has been influential in further studies

afterwards, credited with its importance in understanding the nature of knowledge and fuelling further

study in to the identification, analysis and utilisation of knowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 2000) and

criticism of the over-emphasis on information technology and management over knowledge

management (Senge, 1990), (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).

Other researchers have explored the importance of learning to the organisation. One influential study

considered learning from experience a delusional myth, due to a number of factors that include the

impact to learning horizons of employee turnover and the complex consequences decisions and actions

could have outside of the view of the employee (Senge, 1990). However, this channel of research

conflicts with other research into organisational learning, including one study which goes as far as to

criticise previous scholars’ work for being confusing with vague, unclear and ideological, but no plan of

action. (Garvin, 1993) This looked instead at the foundations of problem solving through learning and

defined a structure for managing and measuring organisational learning. This has been explored

further in later research, specifically focusing on the importance of experience to the learning

organisation and learning histories (Kleiner & Roth, 1997).

Despite a wealth of research into knowledge management, the most popular research, in my opinion is

quite myopic. Focusing purely on the organization when there is a wealth of more holistic approaches

to take, looking at the sociological impact of knowledge management and cascading that

understanding down to organisational learning behaviour. The most societal minded research I have

discovered has all come from one source, which happens to be the most philosophically minded of

researchers. This research looks outside of business and establishes knowledge management as a social

paradigm (Drucker, 1993). Whilst a previous study from the same source established knowledge

management as a tool for organisational competitive advantage (Drucker, 1988), this later research is

a progression of that study taking a route that I feel has been overlooked by others, linking the

practice to the economy as a whole.

This study explores knowledge management within reference to the transitions and divides of

generations, specifically exploring Generation Y’s impact. There appears to be an amount of confusion

as to the definition of Generation Y in the research I have found. Whilst the Baby Boomers &

Generation X have relatively clear definitions (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008) the

confusion in the range of Generation Y is best shown by two conflicting reports, released within the

same month by the same organisational body but from two research teams. One report believed

Generation Y was born between 1979 and 1991 (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008) whilst

the other research team pushed the date back to 1980, without a cut-off date. (Burkinshaw & Pass,

2008). It is intriguing to see that although there are subtle referrals (Burkinshaw & Pass, 2008),

(Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008), little of this research touches on the importance of

knowledge management between the generations. A further case study (Erickson, 2009) looks

specifically at Generation Y’s integration in to the workplace and the conflicts it may cause, however I

still feel there is woefully little referral to knowledge management strategies, merely an understanding

of the need for management of generational knowledge, but no recommendations. It is clear then, that

5


there is a gap for research in to knowledge management paradigms looking in to this issue, which I

hope this research will begin to address.

One area of exploration for this study is the relevance of higher education to the knowledge

management debate. Higher Education research mainly focuses on definition or impact of the sector,

however one particular piece of research explores the Canadian higher education system’s importance

to knowledge management, looking specifically at the dynamics of social and market knowledge.

(Buchbinder, The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role of Knowledge, 1993)This research

appears to, whilst not referring directly, integrate the work of one seminal piece of research which

defined the role of education. This study explored education in the societal context (Dewey, 2007),

paying specific attention to the understanding of knowledge in that contemporary environment and the

relevance education had to these theories. Interestingly, this study pre-dates knowledge management

as defined in prominent business research (Drucker, 1988); (Drucker, 1993); (Nonaka, 1991) but

appears to have linking concepts organically integrated in to the study to deliver a strong

understanding of the interactions between education and knowledge management. This research also

compliments and adds to a range of studies which explore the role of universities in the context of the

knowledge economy (Altbach, 1987); (Buchbinder & Newson, 1991);

As well as this research that specifically links to the area of focus in this work, there is a wealth of

research recently conducted which has connections to Buchbinder’s work, looking at the impact of

marketization in the UK higher education system. (Scullion, Molesworth, & Nixon, 2011); (Nordensvärd,

2011); (Barnett, 2011). In addition, there is a plethora of factual data research which has use in being

applied in the context of knowledge management and generational transfer. Whilst I strongly

disagree with some of the data analysis in these reports for its lack of understanding the importance of

knowledge (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1999), the related

data and information provide an excellent foundation for contextualisation (Universities UK, 2010).

Research relating to standardisation, the other focus in this study, seems quite dislocated from

traditional business-focused academic research. There are a number of corporate documents which can

give qualitative information regarding the interests and drivers of standardisation bodies (British

Standards Institution (BSI), 2011) as well as information on the relationship to the economy from those

bodies’ perspective (European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2010). Factual data is also

available detailing the role of the UK’s national standards body, as defined by the UK government

(Department of Trade and Industry, 2002). The subject is also the focus of an academic study which

focuses on information technology but with a wider exploration of government policy. (Fomin,

Pedersen, & de Vries, 2008).

Interestingly, a bulk of academic research for standardisation found appears to focus primarily on the

electro technical or information technology sector (Blind, 2006); (Fomin, Pedersen, & de Vries, 2008).

This implies that the subject, in relation to business practice, has not been explored with much breadth.

The business focused research that is available, however, shows the value of standardisation, not only

as an economic benefit (Swann, 2010); (Swann, Temple, & Shurmer, Standards and Trade

Performance: The UK Experience, 1996) but as a strategic tool, with participation becoming a specific

positive aspect to a company’s knowledge management strategy (Yajizi, 2006); (de Vries H. , 2006).

One study explores standardisation in relation to entrepreneurism (Krechmer, 2006), however this is

also within the framing of electro-technical research, so makes no mention of standards like BS 25999

– Business Continuity Management, which was in development at the time of the study. I can only

conclude that whilst there is research on standardisation, it is quite polarized with specific studies

looking at key areas or studies of those areas which briefly include standardisation. It appears that the

majority of this research is market driven but for a few examples (Swann, 2010), one of which is a

study exploring the benefits of standardisation education to the economy and to society (de Vries H. J.,

6


2002). This created a powerful model which has been the driving force behind a number of practical

initiatives, most importantly, the formation of a European Working Group on the subject, proving that

research providing social knowledge can have a deep, positive impact on the market.

3.0 Research Methodology To construct the design for my research, I opted to use Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill’s ‘research onion’,

detailed below. This guide helped me construct what I felt was an apt structure for my personal

research preferences, looking at philosophy, methods and time horizons in specific detail to create

what I feel is a rounded methodology for me.

Figure 1 - The research 'onion' (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009)

The first step as defined by the research onion above is to understand what philosophy to take. It’s

possibly more accurate to understand the philosophy of the researcher, rather than imply the research

itself has a philosophy and I feel I have usually held an interpretivist philosophy when researching. I

believe that business strategy cannot be simply defined to set structures; were that the case, then every

business would be able to succeed by following a set number of steps. I do agree that frameworks and

structures can guide, assist and even enhance businesses, but there’s always an indefinable element

which decides whether a business is successful or not and that exists within the human factors of that

business. I believe this philosophy is one which works very well with knowledge management concepts

as people will interpret and digest information to create their own tacit knowledge. It would be

difficult to accurately present information and define exactly what subjective views will be taken from

it; they are shaped by how the person in question deconstructs and comprehends the world around it. I

feel it is best to present and understand a range of meanings, which can be then translated to theorise

how a subject could react and what actions may stem from that. Most importantly, this philosophy

establishes that all research is fallible to perspective. Where I have interpreted the information found,

7


a different researcher may come to starkly different conclusions. I don’t believe this can damage the

credibility of any research, it can only enhance it, spurring on the need for further research to support

both perspectives; encouraging innovation.

I don’t believe there are many research projects that have looked at generational transition from a

knowledge management perspective and of those that have; I would not expect any to have

specifically looked at the relevance of higher education and standardisation within this context. This

study, therefore, is an exploratory one. The purpose of an exploratory study is to find further

understanding of a situation; asking questions and assessing it from a new perspective. This was always

the driving force of the study, trying to create a new perception of knowledge management. I felt that

one criticism of knowledge management as an academic genre has been that it is, in many ways,

unquantifiable. Knowledge cannot be measured and I couldn’t feel a practical root in much of the

grounding theory of knowledge management. For this reason I decided to propose a problem-the issue

of retaining an managing knowledge as generations enter and leave the workplace-and explore the

possibility that there are possible tools and solutions to that problem already existing; in this case

higher education and standardisation.

Building a theory around these parameters required an inductive approach. Whereas deduction

requires a hypothesis to be proven or disproven, the exploratory nature of this project means there can

be no hypothesis based on proving or disproving previous theory. In fact, any hypothesis would be

rootless and, in my opinion, as effective as plucking a random thought from the sky. I think this a

natural choice considering I’ve chosen an interpretivist theory as one begets the other; theories are built

through the interpretation of the evidence collected. This then creates a need for further research to

disprove or support the theories and recommendations proposed.

I have to admit that choosing these sectors to focus on was motivated more by the ability to

incorporate my employment in to the study than anything else. I felt this gave me an advantage in

some ways; I was able to devote more time in understanding the issues of each sector. This led to

strategy which relied on archival research over any other. This allowed me to focus on already

existing theories and interpret them under these new parameters. The scope of research found was

wider than I had anticipated in the proposal, where I thought there may be scope for expert interviews

and surveys. The amount of research found influenced my decision to commit resources towards

building the theory from these sources alone. I do concede that some may the view that primary

evidence would strengthen this research. I would, however, contend that as I am approaching this

research from a new perspective, with an inductive approach the theories built in this project need to

have a strong foundation in the evidence provided through archival research. If they cannot stand up

to that scrutiny then I do not see how they could with any other research strategy. Furthermore,

establishing these theories and recommendations has established need for further study, but more

importantly, this study can take a deductive approach to prove or disprove the wider theories

presented in this project.

With the approach and strategy decided on, it’s clear that a mono method has been chosen, for

reasons that match the above. My proposal stated that I would choose to create a multi-method study

but, as stated above, a lack of resource-mainly time resource-meant that focusing on the creating the

exploratory theory took priority over later testing that theory. Were the opportunity to present itself, I

would like to do that research and discover how these theories stand up against practical scrutiny. The

decision to stick with a mono-method, archival research study did present an opportunity to make this a

longitudinal study. My proposal stated that I wished to keep the project cross-sectional and only

examine the current situation, building theory from those conditions. I decided to continue with that

mainly due to the fact that higher education is in a unique period of transition, meaning the discussion

of current practice and proposals produced far more research that I anticipated in the proposal. I did

8


consider adding a longitudinal dimension to the study, most notably by comparing the Dearing and

Robbins reports to the Brown review but I was concerned that this would make the research too broad

and lose the practical focus that I wanted to ensure was present throughout. Again, I would welcome

the opportunity for a similar study to explore these theories and issues from a longitudinal perspective

as I would be interested in whether such a study would support the findings of this project.

In my proposal I hoped the methodology outlined would provide what I termed then as “a credible

and strong research project”. Credibility is difficult to absolutely define, however my intention was to

produce work that would inspire further study and, if that further research were to occur, for this

project to stand up to the scrutiny I would expect from subsequent research. I believe that this has been

done. I am confident in the recommendations made and feel that the more pertinent proposals and

could bring long term benefits. Whilst it could be argued that there may be flaws in the methodology,

namely the lack of primary research, I feel the exploratory nature of this project, my preference as a

researcher to use an interpretivist philosophy and the results brought from both justify the decisions that

were made.

9


4.0 Knowledge Management and the Generations Defined Central to this study is the role of knowledge management, but how is knowledge management

defined and what effects can it have on a business or an economy? Over the course of this chapter, I

shall explore previous knowledge management theory in depth, which will provide the grounding for

both this study and the recommendations arising from this research. Of particular interest is the building

of practical knowledge management models and the tools used by organisations to manage their

knowledge as well as the knowledge economy as a concept, all of which have a strong influence on the

recommendations made later. The second half of this chapter is devoted to how the generations have

been defined, the challenges of generational transition and will explore any relationship between

knowledge management and the generations.

The objective of this chapter is to present the foundation theories that will shape the course of this

investigation and influence the recommendations brought as a result of the study.

4.1 Knowledge Management

4.1.1 The Theories behind Knowledge Management

Drucker was arguably one of the first academics to introduce knowledge management theory, when he

said,

“To remain competitive-maybe even to survive-[most businesses] will have to

convert themselves into information-based organizations, and fairly quickly. They will

have to change old habits and acquire new ones. And the more successful a company

has been, the more difficult and painful this process is apt to be.”

(Drucker, 1988)

Drucker’s work appears to have been written with the intention of being revolutionary, however it also

appears to be evoking the zeitgeist, judging by research of the time that followed. Noticing the

importance of a computerised workforce, Drucker was sounding a warning that the future would be

dictated be a de-industrialisation of society and an intellectualisation of industry, widening the effects

of knowledge and exponentially increasing the importance and benefits to a company that

understands the role knowledge plays within in. This would in turn create the “knowledge economy”.

The migration to the knowledge economy is considered by Drucker to have begun within America as

post-WWII de-industrialisation saw the labour market forced away from ‘blue collar’ jobs and herded

towards information focused ‘white collar’ roles. These jobs required the labour force to transfer their

skills and become, as Drucker terms it, “knowledge workers” Knowledge workers are college educated

and adept at dealing with intangibles, using data, information and knowledge empower themselves

enough to make educated decisions as opposed to performing rote tasks. The knowledge worker also

started exhibiting traits that became more virulent as the knowledge economy rose. These workers did

not believe that to become a good manager they needed to work through the labour roles and up the

organisational ranks. Instead, the knowledge workers preferred to educate themselves to increase the

speed of their rise to management-in some cases moving in to management immediately after

furthering their education. This impression of advanced mobility is proposed by Drucker’s belief that

the root of the knowledge economy can be found in those post-WWII years, where he declares,

10


“One possible factor may have been the GI Bill of Rights after World War II, which

by offering a college education to every returning American veteran established

advanced education as the ‘norm’ and everything less as ‘substandard’”.

(Drucker, 2007)

It was Drucker’s belief that the shift towards the knowledge economy had completed by 1990;

however one could argue against this theory by referring back to Senge as well as Devenport and

Prusak who refer to the continuous evolution of knowledge. In fact, keeping that in mind, I would go

further to argue that the shift to a knowledge economy could never be truly complete due to the need

for economies to be diversified to mitigate the risk of economic failure. An example of where such

failure due to a lack of economic diversification could be seen in the global banking crisis of recent

years. It could be said that these crisis stemmed from an over reliance on the knowledge economy and

lack of industrial diversification; that a balance between the two aspects need to exist for economies

to survive. This line of thinking doesn’t perfectly match Drucker’s thoughts in the ‘Post-Capitalist Society’;

however one can arguably see parallels in the make-up of the economies affected by the banking

crash to Drucker’s work.

Whilst Drucker was highly influential in knowledge management’s conception as a concept, it was other

academics that would create the tools and structures for the process to thrive. Nonaka’s influence came

in taking Drucker’s ideals and theories and applying them to real world practices, creating definitions

of knowledge and identifying practices of management of that knowledge in the real world. Nonaka

decried the Western management structures and their approach to information, saying,

“Deeply ingrained in the traditions of Western management, from Frederick Taylor to

Herbert Simon, is a view from the organization as a machine for “information

processing”. According to this view, the only useful knowledge is formal and

systematic-hard (read: quantifiable) data, codified procedures, universal principles.

And the key metrics for measuring the value of new knowledge are simply hard and

quantifiable-increased efficiency, lower costs, improved return on investment.”

(Nonaka, 1991)

Nonaka’s preference was for companies to transform their cultures in to being more like their Japanese

counterparts who, he believes, are much more understanding of the organic nature of innovation.

Nonaka believed that the Japanese approach was concerned more with the creation of knowledge

rather than the processing of information. These company cultures understood the importance of

adding contextualisation to information gathered to create knowledge; subjectivity and instinct and

insight play just as important a role in innovation as data. Nonaka went on to use this approach to

define knowledge in detail with the example of Ikuko Tanaka, declaring that,

“Explicit knowledge is formal and systematic. For this reason, it can be easily

communicated and shared, in product specifications or a scientific formula or a

computer program. But the starting point of Tanaka’s innovation is another kind of

knowledge that is not so easily expressible: “tacit” knowledge, like that possessed by

the chief baker at the Osaka International Hotel. Tacit knowledge is highly personal.

It is hard to formalize and, therefore, difficult to communicate to others.”

(Nonaka, 1991)

11


The example referred to by Nonaka is the creation of a bread making machine by Muatsushita

Electrical Company, of whom Tanaka was an employee. Using science and explicit knowledge, like x-

ray techniques, the company was unable to understand why the bread maker could not produce

cooked through bread-the specific issue being within the kneading of the dough. It was only when

Tanaka observed the process that she realised there was a specific technique that the Hotel’s baker

had mastered over years of experience. Rather than using explicit knowledge to create a theory and

put that theory in practice. The baker had experimented, using various threads of legacy knowledge,

personal experience and-most importantly-trial and error. The difficulty was in understanding and

translating this knowledge to make it useful. It is this process of translation which is key. Nonaka sets out

a model to define how he feels knowledge can be created and transformed between the categories, a

set out below:

Tacit to Tacit Tacit to Explicit

Observing, imitating and practicing under the

mentorship of an employee. Also known as

‘socialization’.

Using data from around the company and

applying personal tacit knowledge to create a

new source of knowledge. Also known as

‘externalization’.

Explicit to Tacit Explicit to Explicit

Absorption of a new source of knowledge in to

personal process, converting the knowledge in to

tacit knowledge. Also known as ‘internalization’.

Collating data from different sources to create a

new knowledge source. Also known as

‘combination’.

Figure 2 - Nonaka's model of knowledge transfer (Adapted from Nonaka 1991)

The management of knowledge can be mapped to this model to evaluate and improve effectiveness.

Combination could appear by many to be the most achievable aim and many may look to shift

strategy accordingly; however that would be an incorrect assessment of how this model can be

implemented in a practical environment. Knowledge transfer and creation must be balanced between

all stages, to harness and nurture innovation. This means that knowledge management frameworks will

need to make reference and integrate all four processes.

4.1.2 Knowledge Management in Practice

So how can Nonaka’s model be integrated in to knowledge projects effectively? There is difficulty in

doing this due to the base conceptual nature of the knowledge management philosophy, as Davenport

and Prusak explain,

“Knowledge management is an evolving practice. Even the most developed and

mature knowledge management projects we studied were unfinished works in

progress. Most of their managers, however, were able to articulate specific business

and knowledge management objectives, some had already achieved some of their

goals.”

(Davenport & Prusak, 2000)

Knowledge is a continuously moving concept as once it is mastered, more knowledge is discovered and

new lines of enquiry presented. I believe this could appear to imply a generational influence on

knowledge creation. Davenport and Prusak acknowledge this when they examine the various

12


knowledge projects that have been managed. The results appear to diverge in to three categories.

Knowledge repository projects collate information, data and knowledge to make it accessible to wider

base. There are three identified types of repository projects, according to Davenport and Prusak: The

external knowledge repository, which could be competitor knowledge and research structured internal

knowledge, which would be internally produced research and informal internal knowledge repositories,

which could be databases of captured tacit knowledge built up through employees’ experience. One

issue with knowledge repositories is they mere consolidate knowledge and are not exploratory,

meaning new knowledge is most likely to be found rather than created.

Knowledge access and transfer projects create a pull system for knowledge transfer, rather than a

push system. That is to say that a person seeking certain knowledge is directed to the person or

resource that may have that knowledge and transfer occurs once the two are connected. It is similar to

a directory of resources, but is not a library of knowledge as repository project would be. Finally the

knowledge environment is the most proactive of knowledge projects. These projects focus on creating a

culture of knowledge and include the work needed to create and manage a learning organisation,

aspects that are key to the recommendations made later in this study.

4.1.3 The Learning Organisation

A learning organisation is defined as one which has become skilled at creating and transferring

knowledge within it and able to respond to that knowledge, if necessary, by modifying its behaviour.

The company is in many ways modelled on the learning individual and benefits, whilst not all tangible,

generally err towards the long term. Senge popularised the learning organisation as a concept,

describing it as an organisation,

“Where people continuously expand their capacity to create the results they truly

desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective

aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn

together.”

(Senge, 1990)

Senge’s words echo Davenport and Prusak’s assertions of knowledge management as an evolutionary

practice, but do so in a way specific to organisations adding a pragmatic element. Creating a learning

organisation is closely linked to effective knowledge management and an area which most companies

aspire to, but rarely are able to reach. Garvin believes there are five vital areas for companies to

encourage focus upon, each having a distinct mental approach, behaviours and tools to succeed, as he

goes on to describe:

“Learning organisations are skilled at five main activities: systematic problem solving,

experimentation with new approaches, learning from their own experience and past

history, learning from the experiences and best practices of others and transferring

knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organisation.”

(Garvin, 1993)

These areas noted by Garvin interlink with the “component technologies” referred to by Senge earlier.

These technologies-systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning-

could all be mapped to Garvin’s solution adding strength not only in the theories themselves, but the

potential for practical applications, which are evidenced in Davenport & Prusak’s work. The concept of

the learning organisation could be argued, like knowledge management as a practice itself can be, to

be a theoretic philosophy. I would not subscribe to this view myself as there are practical

13


implementative aspects to the strategies suggested by Nonaka, Senge and Garvin and evidenced in

Davenport and Prusak. The pragmatic approach of knowledge management is very closely linked to

the technologies available, which can be used to drive relevant projects.

Hansen, Nohria and Tierney look at the technological relationship between knowledge management

projects’ theory and practice and how the infrastructures could be the bridge between concept and

practice. The study describes two knowledge management strategies which have been discovered in a

number of consultancy firms: codification and personification. Of the strategies, codification deals with

the explicit knowledge, whilst personification is concentrated on building creativity and individual

expertise through tacit knowledge. In many ways one could argue the approaches work at odds to

each other, which the authors appear to agree with when they discuss the different technology

requirements:

“The two knowledge management strategies require different IT infrastructures as

well as different levels of support. In the codification model, managers need to

implement a system that is much like a traditional library—it must contain a large

cache of documents and include search engines that allow people to find and use the

documents they need. In the personalization model, it’s most important to have a

system that allows people to find other people.”

(Hansen, Norhira, & Tierney, 1999)

Further discussion on the subject brings forth interesting revelations. As the diagram below shows, the

authors believe reducing investment in technology will deliver more progress when pursuing a

personalization strategy but, conversely, indicate investing heavily in technology for a codification

strategy will bring the greater results:

14


Figure 3 - How Consulting Firms Manage Their Knowledge (Hansen, Norhira, & Tierney, 1999)

Hansen, Nohria and Tierney believe that over-investment in technology could make processes complex

and cumbersome if out of sync with the organisations strategy, however one must question whether this

is still relevant in the contemporary society. Upon examination, it appears that the personalisation

model, alongside Garvin and Senge’s learning organisation analyses, could have an increased impact

when the processes are integrated within the knowledge economy. That said, technology has also

played an important part in the development of the knowledge economy; becoming most recently one

of the most vital drivers of the economy. Software to enhance the knowledge cycle has been

developed and many organisations have the opportunity to choose their technology strategies and

tools, rather than spend costly time and resources developing them in order to enter or maintain

position in a market.

The opening up technology in to an open source market has helped fuel the importance of areas like

social networking, where the ability to connect, share and collaborate is enhanced. In many ways the

rise of open source social networking chimes with Garvin’s assertion that the ability to connect with one

another will be catalyst for the knowledge economy, enabling it to create and assimilate new

knowledge. Drucker argued,

“‘Only connect’ was the constant admonition of a great English novelist, E.M. Forster.

It has always been the hallmark of the great artist, but equally of the great scientist-

of a Darwin, a Bohr, an Einstein. At their level, the capacity to connect may be inborn

and part of that mystery we call ‘genius’. But to a large extent, the ability to connect

15


and thus to raise the yield of existing knowledge (whether for an individual, for a

team, or for the entire organization) is learnable.”

(Drucker, 1993)

This point again has great relevance to recent events. One could argue that the recent banking crisis-

where there were stories exposing the lack of understanding of the financial instruments being traded

by those who traded them, were an example of an inability to connect and a failure of knowledge

management. It may be disputable, but nonetheless possible, to claim that those who created the

financial instruments that led to the banking crashes were as Drucker terms, geniuses. The ability to

connect this genius to the knowledge worker in a way that ensured the thorough understanding of how

these products worked, however, appears to have clearly failed even with the tools to connect widely

available. If this is a factor to the crisis, then the question then must be asked: how did this happen?

These social networks could have been, and in some cases were, catalysts for learning and go a long

way to strengthening the knowledge economy. It could be that, it the issue has arisen through the

normalisation of these ideologies to the latter generations, possibly due to a sociological over-reliance

of technology-as warned by Hansen, Nohria and Tierney-which could arguably have hampered

descending generations’ abilities to connect. I also believe that whilst technologies have been created

to connect, as generations evolve, they have forgotten the driving reasons behind making these

technologies for the market; those reasons being to create a learning organisation able to connect for

the transferring and sharing of knowledge. It’s very noticeable that a majority of these theories were

built at least a decade ago and we have seen, in that time, a new generation enter the labour force; a

generation which might understand that learning and knowledge is important, but doesn’t understand

why it is important. It is for this reason that it is important to define the generations in order to

understand how they interact, specifically in a knowledge management context.

4.2 Defining the Generations

4.2.1 Who are the Generations?

There has been a comparatively rapid shift in business thinking over recent decades. Davidson

appears to agree with my earlier sentiment regarding technology, believing this evolution could be

technology based; linked to the rise of the internet, saying:

“Just as steam power and the assembly line changed the 20th century, two inventions

have changed the workplace in the 21st: the internet and the World Wide Web.”

(Davidson, 2011)

Technology has always been important to generational shifts. As Davison says; many shifts have been

the result of the impacts of disruptive technologies. But while technology is undoubtedly important, one

cannot assume it is the only defining factor of a generational perspective. Drewery, Riley, Staff,

Worman, & Line explored the different aspects of the generations and discovered a number of traits.

Most interesting is that the study discusses the presence of knowledge workers throughout in the

summing up, but frustratingly does not expand on this elsewhere.

The impetus of this study was to examine and predict the issues of Generation Y entering the workforce

but, by this research’s measurement, we have seen much of this generation integrate already, although

not all of it. Furthermore, the study points out that we are about to see the following generation,

Generation Z, arriving as well. Interestingly, it appears that whilst Generation Y was a revolution from

Generation X, Generation Z is a mere increment from Y, with both sharing very similar traits. It is for

16


that reason, then, we will continue to look at the impact Gen Y has had, using it as a template for

managing Gen Z’s impending entry. There is also another issue this study presents that was not

previously a factor of this study but is still relevant to the recommendations and catered for. That issue

is the withdrawal of the Baby Boomers from the workforce, which has begun only most recently. Gen X

and Gen Y have both been disruptive generations, but the Baby Boomers and, as mentioned

previously, Gen Z both appear to be incremental generations to their respective predecessors. This

makes the prime area of focus in the study the difficulties of 3 largely differing generations managing

knowledge together as the one leaves and another enters. As we begin to see the Baby Boomer

generation depart from the workforce, it is interesting to note that the study found that they have a

stronger concern about social responsibility than any other generation group when they consider

employment, adding,

“This is different to common belief that Gen Y value social responsibility more than

other generations. Although many of that generation do value social responsibility,

their choices and behaviour are not driven by this.”

(Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008)

One area that is a common descriptive trait of Generation Y that Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, &

Line qualify is the tendency of this generation to blur work and social lives, creating a work/life

balance that previous generations would describe as unhealthy. It appears that this generation can

justify social integration to improve employability. This matches with the rise in social networking over

recent years and is further qualified by the noted likelihood of Gen Y employees to recommend their

employer. Consider the issues that generational integration could present for an organisational culture

and this becomes highly relevant as the happiness of Gen Y employees could carry more weight than

their predecessors because they can encourage new talent to join the organisation. With that in mind, it

is interesting when Burkinshaw and Pass state,

“Our research shows that most organisations have not fully embraced the needs of

Generation Y employees of the opportunities afforded by Web 2.0 technologies.

(Burkinshaw & Pass, 2008)

The risk of not catering for generational integration could be high and the non-preparedness of

organisations would have a telling negative effect on their economy. This means that understanding the

possible issues of generational integration, as the recommendations will show, is vital to organisations

succeeding in a knowledge economy.

4.2.2 What Challenges does Generation Integration Present?

Understanding the issues generation integration can present can help prevent these issues from arising

and affecting an organisation’s performance. Drewery et al identified the key areas of concern for the

four generations in the work force:

• Veterans – Retention & Customer service

This generation is concerned with being able to work, refusing to retire and wishing to remain

employed both in the market and by society. They measure their relevance by their respect,

which can be earned through retention and demonstrated through customer service.

• Baby Boomers – Performance measurement

17


This generation does not equate pay to meritocracy, feeling that good performance does not

result in financial reward but loyalty and experience does. They also believe in a divided

work/life balance and avoiding overflow between the two.

• Generation X – Internal communications

The majority of Gen Xers are happy with the resources provided for their job; however this is

concerned a prime concern in measuring their productivity and happiness. If relevant

knowledge is not communicated to them, motivation may fall and productivity reduce.

• Generation Y – Leadership and Development

The diagram below details the factors important to Generation Y employees, but also how

these factors may affect relationships with preceding generations:

Figure 4 - Possible sources of generational conflict from the perspective of Generation Y (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008)

18


Erickson’s study in to the working practices between generations show further issues that could occur.

The issues presented match those above, but in more refined situations, with one executive advising,

“Josh isn’t doing much here to disprove the theories that some people have about

Generation Y: a life experienced through machines, no respect for what’s gone

before, and a constant need for praise, entertainment, and instant gratification. Josh is

intelligent and tech-savvy, sure, but he won’t get very far by trying to make a name

for himself on the backs of his boss and the members of his work group.”

(Erickson, 2009)

This advice is relevant and appears to agree with the findings of Hansen, Nohria and Tierney, where

technology reliance saw personalization practices hindered, but when contrasted to Drewery. et al.,

there are also issues on the other side of the generational gap. Snook explains how traditional

management beliefs may not be suitable for the more contemporary employee, stating,

“Acceptable models of leadership have shown their softer side. This shift in the

predominant leadership model reflects the move from an industrial to an information

economy. In factories, you need strict rules and you reward people based on very

simple and clear productivity metrics. Knowledge workers don’t respond well to such

rigidity, and fearful service employees would have trouble putting on a good face for

customers. “

(Snook, 2008)

Comparing these studies it is becoming clearer where the divides fall and for what reasons.

Understanding these issues can present an ideal dynamic which can maximise the ability to provide

possible frameworks to resolve generational friction. In an ideal organisational culture, leadership

would soften and nurture younger employees, encouraging their development. To compliment this

dynamic, Generation Y employees would respect the pre-existing hierarchies and use their ability to

blend their social and work lives to drive their performance. The main difficulties the organisation could

encounter on the way to this ideal include the lack of trust in ability that appears to exist towards the

younger generation and the over ambition of that generation, which could fuel the conflicts shown in

Erickson’s case study. Through effective knowledge management, tools and frameworks can be

constructed to assist with implementation, integration and bridging the divides seen between

generations without technology interference, as seen in the recommendations of this study.

19


5.0 Higher Education The previous chapter established the role of the knowledge economy and defined the generations. I

feel there is strong evidence to support the view that the UK has been transitioning in to a knowledge

economy, which has been accelerated through influx of Generation Y to the labour force. I believe one

key factor to this move has been education, in particular the rise in perceived importance of higher

education.

In order to understand the role this sector can play within the knowledge economy, understanding the

complexity of the structure and systems in place is vital and background reading for this subject can be

found in Appendix A.

The objective of this chapter, however, is to create an informative base of knowledge directly

applicable to or influencing the recommendations and arguments made later. I hope this objective will

begin to be met through detailing the benefits the higher education sector brings to the UK in both a

financial and knowledge management context. As the sector is in a state of transition, the analysis of

economic benefits will be followed by an exploration of the arguments for a selection of funding

proposals as well as an exploration of the future funding structures proposed by the UK government.

These evaluations will have a significant impact on the recommendations made later, especially when

exploring them in the context of practical implementation. It is my hope that the information and

discussion provided in this chapter will form a strong, contextual foundation which can naturally link

between the two focal subjects of this study: knowledge management and generational transition.

5.1 The Benefits of Higher Education As mentioned earlier, the higher education (HE) sector is transitioning to meet the needs of the modern

economy, with new funding structures proposed which will change the make-up of the sector

dramatically. In order to understand the arguments behind the proposals, an understanding of the

benefits of the sector is needed. Kelly, McLellan and McNicoll concluded that in the 2007/2008

financial year the sector added £59.25 billion output, of which £22.44 billion was direct and £35.81

billion was indirect. This meant a GDP contribution of £33.41 billion which split to direct and indirect

contributions of £15.16 billion and £18.25 billion respectively. This study also stated that the sector

brings export earnings of £5.3 billion. The report concluded saying,

“The evidence confirms that higher education (defined as the universities together

with the expenditure of their staff, international students and international visitors) is

a substantial industry, with a significant impact on the national economy. It also

reveals that higher education is particularly effective in generating GDP per capita,

compared to several other sectors of the economy.”

(Kelly, McLellan, & McNicoll, 2009)

The positive benefits of the sector to the UK economy is reaffirmed by London Economics, who detail

that the net present value for the government in funding an undergraduate degree is currently

£81,875 per degree awarded. The study goes further to add,

“The rate of return provides an indication of whether the Exchequer investment is

worthwhile relative to the next best option (generally considered to be the cost

associated with long term borrowing). If the rate of return exceeds the cost of

borrowing (30 year UK Gilt currently trading between 4.25% and 4.75%), then the

investment might be considered to be worthwhile. The Exchequer rate of return

20


resulting from the funding of undergraduate degrees stands at between 11.0% and

12.1% overall”

(London Economics , 2011)

With such a high rate of return for the exchequer there are clear public benefits for the economy that

come from the higher education sector. These benefits are not wholly limited to the public purse, with

individuals benefitting, according to London Economics’ calculations, to a similar rate of return, 12.1%,

giving the degree earned a net present value of £117, 342. In the higher education debate

surrounding the tuition fees vote the Conservative MP for Reading West, Alok Sharma, declared,

“Students realise that having a good degree adds value to their prospects and is a

passport to a better job. OECD figures clearly indicate that UK graduates earn, on

average, 50% more than those who finished education at A-level.”

(Hansard, 2010)

The figure itself is of some consternation, particularly as he goes no further to detail these calculations.

London Economics agree that there is significant benefit to the individual, calculating an increase in

salary of £112,000 over a graduate’s lifetime (London Economics , 2011). Whilst this evidence

supports Mr Sharma’s view that there is benefit to the individual through higher education routes, I feel

the amount London Economics provides calls in to question the Mr Sharma’s accuracy in his quoting of

the OECD.

This evidence goes some way to proving that there is an immediate financial benefit to both the

economy and the individual through the higher education sector. The fact that the individual reaps

significant long term benefit has been the root of argument for many who ask why the taxpayer should

fund something which is to the individual’s advantage. But when one considers the fact that the public

finances benefit at an extent which places higher education as one of the most effective forms of

investment for the country, this argument can seem moot. The government benefits extensively from this

investment which fuels the economy. This benefit is exponentially larger when one considers the

progression from industrialised to knowledge economy that the UK has seen in recent decades, placing

universities and further education at the forefront of economic stimulation for an economy. Buchbinder

is a great advocate of universities, believing they provide social knowledge which could benefit wider

society, saying,

“The academic staff, charged with the production and transmission of knowledge are

the core f the university along with the students who are recipients of that

knowledge and often engage in its production as well…A key ingredient in the

production and transmission of social knowledge is autonomy; autonomy of the

academic worker and autonomy of the academic institution.”

(Buchbinder, 1993)

Buchbinder presents a role for higher education, using knowledge management ideas. He sees the

sector as vital to creating knowledge for society that the market would not be able to provide due the

unprofitable nature of it. Whilst some could say that knowledge management tools, like those

recommended by Nonaka, Senge and Garvin could soften the market’s stance to unprofitable research

as a method of encouraging innovation. Buchbinder believes truly social research would still be in

decline, which he feels will impede society and the economy. Buchbinder is clearly a proponent of the

21


current autonomous financial system and, it appears, he finds an ally in the form of the Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) who believe,

"Public investments in education, particularly at the tertiary level, are rational even

in the face of running a deficit in public finances. Issuing government bonds to finance

these investments will yield significant returns and improve public finances in the

longer term"

(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010)

Even after the consideration of the OECDs recommendation to fund higher education, there is still

debate focused around the balance of value to individuals and the state. Alongside the issues raised

earlier by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee on standards and the nature of the

funding structure in higher education had provoked increased scrutiny. This scrutiny meant a review of

the sector was required to evaluate and recommend the way forward for higher education in England

therough the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, led by Lord

Browne of Madingley at the request of the government.

5.2 Proposed changes to the Higher Education sector

5.2.1 The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance

The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance was launched on November

9th, 2009 by the then First Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson. The remit of this review-commonly

entitled the Browne review-was to re-evaluate the funding of higher education, ensure it remained a

viable choice to international students against competitors from other higher education systems and

simplify an over-burdened student support system. Mandelson launched the review, stating:

“We need universities to continue to thrive and meet this vision, and Lord Browne

and his team will examine the balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers,

students, graduates and employers…

This is an important piece of work that will require extensive consultation with all

who would be affected by any changes, including current and potential students.”

(Gill, 2009)

Considering this Browne review was a reaction to the earlier Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills

Committee report and looking at the quotes close to the publication from HEFCE in appendix A (Higher

Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010), one could perceive that there was widespread

expectation that tuition fees would rise. The report went further than this. Believing the 2006 rise in

tuition fees did not harm demand from students, the panel suggested the removal of the tuition fees

cap with government underwriting all fees up to £6,000 and a regulatory levy system on the amounts

paid above that to contribute to the cost of borrowing the government would incur through the student

loans system. (Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, 2010). It was the

panel’s belief that these proposals would empower students and quality-an issue of consternation in the

previous committee report-would be increased by the forces of market competition. The review stated:

“Our proposals are designed to create genuine competition for students between

institutions, of a kind which cannot take place under the current system. There will be

more investment available for the institutions that are able to convince students that

it is worthwhile. This is in our view a surer way to drive up quality than any attempt

22


at central planning. To safeguard this approach, we recommend that the HE Council

enforces minimum standards of quality; and that students receive high quality

information to help them choose the institution and programme which best matches

their aspirations.”

(Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, 2010)

The headline proposal, that the tuition fees cap should be removed, garnered a lot of criticism. The UK

students’ representative body, the National Union of Students (NUS), attributed an overnight 11 point

drop in approval of the government, using evidence from another opinion poll showing public support

for a graduate tax over the review’s proposals by way of justification for this claim. The NUS

president at the time, Aaron Porter, stated:

"Lord Browne's dangerous proposals are clearly out of touch with the public mood

and would put our future at risk.

"The Government must now rethink this review to ensure the fair and sustainable

funding of students and universities that recognises their central importance to our

economy."

(National Union of Students, 2010)

The NUS had themselves presented a rival blueprint for funding, which became one of the most widely

publicised alternatives in a field of many. The blueprint was portrayed by many-including the NUS-as

a graduate tax (BBC, 2010); however this is a vast simplification of the system. The misconceptions and

miscommunications in the media appear to have led the review panel, when discussing a graduate tax,

to present a structure vastly different to the NUS blueprint, as the table below shows.

23


Figure 5 - The comparison between a graduate tax and the NUS blueprint (Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, 2010)

The NUS blueprint proposed that a stakeholder funded national education trust be set up through an

Act of Parliament. This would be managed by a board of trustees, independent from government with

various stakeholders who will channel the funds earned through this system via the current funding

councils. Contributions will come from graduates, their employers and employers of current graduates,

with students making their contribution for a fixed twenty year period after completing their course.

The employer contribution would be derived by an introduced academic credit structure to encourage

more part-time work-study balance to those unable to take the financial risks of full-time study. For

24


those employing students who have completed their education in the traditional way, tax benefits will

encourage the employees to make a lump sum payment towards the employee’s credits. The employee

may also have the choice to make a fixed annual payment which could mean the blueprint becomes a

retentions device for employers of skilled workers.

Compare this to the information presented by the Browne review above, and there are stark

differences between what appears to be the panel’s perception of a graduate tax and the actual

blueprint that NUS had presented. Firstly, and most perplexingly, the ‘Payment terms’ incorrectly states

that payments are made indefinitely under graduate tax, which is never mentioned in the NUS

submission. In fact, studying the other stakeholders’ proposals, I have seen no evidence to conclude that

there were any suggestions of a tax scheme which required lifetime repayments, be they from the

university mission groups1 (Russell Group of Universities, 2010), (1994 Group, 2010), (London

Economics, 2010) (Aston, 2010) or third party think tanks (Mulheirn & Shorthouse, 2010), (Rich, 2010)

The review makes another mistake when evaluating the graduate tax. Under ‘Protections for graduates

on low incomes’ the panel state that graduates pay tax upon crossing the income threshold; another

point flatly disputed when compared to the NUS Blueprint, which sets a threshold of £15,000 per

annum. I have not found any evidence to suggest these were anything other than assumptive mistakes

made by the panel and I feel this must draw question to the legitimacy of the review if the evidence

submitted was not scrutinised properly. I am also concerned that the final two points, ‘Relationship

between students and universities’ and ‘Incentives for institutions’ seem rooted more in market

ideological theory than grounded in the evidence I have seen; a claim which is echoed by later

criticisms of the review. The most damning criticism of the review came from Times Higher Education

who discovered that the review commissioned only one research survey (Morgan, 2011a), much of

which showed clear disagreement with many of the policy proposals put forward in the final document

(Morgan, 2011b). This led the publication to state:

“Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said the level

of expenditure, ‘particularly on research, is astonishingly low for a report of this

magnitude and importance’.

He said the market research should have been published to ‘lend confidence to the

conclusions that were reached about the likely responses of students, their advisers

and universities’”

(Morgan, 2011a)

These criticisms bring in to question the reliability of the report which is not only worrying for the

influence that had been bestowed upon it by the government but, most frustratingly, also calls in to

question the recommendations by the review which could have a positive impact. Recommendations like

the inclusion of part-time students into the student loans system, an increase of student places by 10%

before removing the student quota altogether or the merging of the four2 separate bodies of oversight

in the sector in to one. This idea could increase access-one of the key aims of the review-by linking

academic standards, funding and social mobility, creating an authoritative body whilst still respecting

the autonomy of the sector. These aspects could really enhance generational knowledge management

for the economy and improve the effectiveness of knowledge workers as well as improving the

transition of the UK into becoming a well-managed knowledge economy. The criticisms levelled at the

1 The role of mission groups in the sector is explained in Appendix B.

2 As well as HEFCE and QAA, the Browne review recommends the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and Office of

the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) are merged to form the ‘Higher Education Council’.

25


review and the reaction by the public of the radical proposals meant that a full-scale adoption was

impossible for the government, which has led to a portfolio of adapted proposals from the Department

of Business Innovation and Skills.

5.3.2 Current government proposals

On November 3rd, 2011, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills announced the policy that

they would be progressing with over the following months. The policy included:

• Graduate contribution threshold being increased from £3,290 to £6,000 per year, with

charges of £9,000 “in exceptional cases”. The funds to afford the fees will be loaned to

students, with no payment made by then until after graduation and a threshold is reached,

replicating current conditions.

• The threshold at which students begin repaying their loans is increased from £15,000 to

£21,000.

• The announcement of a higher education white paper, to be published in winter, 2010.

Minister for Universities and Science, The Right Honourable David Willets MP said of the policy,

“We have taken account of an extensive range of views including endorsing the key

recommendations of Lord Browne’s independent review of HE funding and student

finance.

Good quality higher education is important in itself, but also to the economy in the

long term delivering highly skilled and well educated employees to businesses. The

current system of funding for universities is unsustainable and in need of reform.”

(Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) , 2010)

This policy has been implemented in two stages. Firstly, using a clause in previous legislation, a vote

was called in parliament where both fee levels were both passed, by slim majorities. The votes in

favour of these measures could have been influenced by the expectation of the white paper, which

was intended to justify the policy; however this paper has still not been presented at the time of

writing.

These policies were immediately criticised from a range of perspectives, although praised by some

mission groups who saw a rise in graduate contribution thresholds-another term for tuition fees-as

necessary for the sector to survive the swingeing public funding cuts the sector will endure in future

years. The funding letter to HEFCE from BIS stated the expectation of public money for teaching to

reduce from £4.9bn in 2010 to £2bn in 2014, in cash terms. (Cullerne-Brown, 2011a) This money is

expected to be made up by the increase in tuition fees and therein lies where issues of this policy have

begun to be exposed.

The initial expectation, above, that £9,000 tuition fees would be only in exceptional cases-a phrase

repeated in parliament by Vince Cable in the debate prior to the vote securing the passing of the

tuition fees levels-have been proven to be naïve at best. BIS had declared and provided guidance to

the Office of Fair Access (OFFA) to ensure that those charging over £6,000 are committed to widening

participation to those from low income households. Without the white paper, though, OFFA cannot

regulate the market with the stronger powers that ministers have stated they would have (Cullerne-

Brown, 2011). Furthermore, once the deadline for universities submitting access agreements, which are

key to the rationale behind setting fee levels for universities passed, it was announced that every

26


university in England will be charging over the £6,000 threshold. (Shepherd, 2011) The embarrassment

was compounded as fees announced by universities all exceeded £6,000 by a considerable margin,

with many choosing to set the full £9,000 amount. The policy was made even more untenable when the

access agreement to OFFA from Cambridge University was made available with the contents

particularly damning indicating the initial effects of the policy could be far more negative than

ministers from BIS have understood. Reporting on the matter, Boffey reported that,

“Cambridge's submission confirms that its ‘principal milestone is to increase the

proportion of our UK undergraduate intake from schools in the UK state sector’. But it

adds: ‘Given the uncertainty regarding application trends in light of the new financial

circumstances, our minimum objective for 2012 will be to maintain our intake

profile.’”

(Boffey, 2011)

Put simply, Cambridge was refusing to increase its access target for 2012, they year the new tuition

fee levels would apply from, as they were convinced the fee levels would deter students from low

income backgrounds to apply. This matches with the polling data that has been released showing that

many current students in higher education would not have applied under 2012 fee levels (BBC, 2011)

and the survey commissioned for, but unused by, the Browne review which stated the fees cap should

have been raised no higher than £6,000. The existence of both surveys heavily detracts from the

government’s messages about their policy, but more damaging is evidence submitted to the Business,

Innovation and Skills Select Committee. Lord Browne first appeared to offer reticent concern over the

current policies being implemented by the government, saying to the committee,

“By having a cap, most people would agree that people tend to migrate towards it.

If you do not have a cap, it is a very different decision-making process.”

(Baker, 2011)

Browne’s suggestion does appear to make a modicum of sense, whereby the placing of the cap levels

makes it more acceptable, from the public’s perception, to charge the full amount. There can be a

vacuum of responsibility, which appears to be the case at the moment, where universities can blame

ministers for setting the cap at the limit and ministers can blame universities for taking advantage of

the cap. Without the cap, the full responsibility of the fee setting is laid at the feet of the universities

only who have to decide how to progress. Either way, the public won’t accept the fees as fair but,

under current conditions, blame can appropriated to the government’s naivety and lack of foresight,

not university heads’ perceived greed. One could argue the decisions taken would be far different had

the whole responsibility been transferred to the universities and that-ironically-this policy has done

more harm for the sector than the Browne reviews’ ultimate recommendations.

This view is arguably backed up by another compelling evidence submission by London Economics

(London Economics , 2011), detailing the possible implications of these decisions and the effects certain

scenarios can have on public finances. Within this evidence it is suggested that:

• As a whole, students and graduates under these policies will be £1. 489 billion per annum

worse off and, whilst the exchequer will be better off in the short term, the cost associated with

student loans will rise to £3.591 billion p.a., if average fees are £7,500 (as per original

treasury calculations).

27


• On average, graduates will take 10 years more to repay their loans than they do under the

present system (14-15 years) and, if the average fees exceed £7,500, then the exchequer

can expect to recover no more than 35% of loans given. The current estimated average level

is close to £8,500, which could incur the exchequer an additional annual cost of £181.8m in

just Resource Accounting and Budgeting charges. These charges estimate the proportion of the

nominal loan value that would not be expected to be repaid in present value terms.

Despite the obvious cost burdens being placed on the exchequer, the long term shift in ultimate debt

burden appears to be the driving force behind this policy. It seems the government want to, instead of

funding the sector directly, offer funding routed through students with the treasury as guarantor, taking

this money off of the national balance sheet. These loans will have interest charged at the retail price

interest (RPI) plus three percent during the time of study with an income based progressive interest rate

structure in place once the graduate enters the employment market. Whilst the latter interest rate

seems fair, the interest rates charged during the study time incur hidden costs during the term of study

and the use of RPI instead of the lower consumer price index has been calculated to cost graduates up

to an additional £5,000 more (Trades Union Congress, 2011). The presence of these interest rates also

mean the student funding system becomes even more inaccessible for practicing Muslims (Abrahams,

2010). London Economics’ evidence submission goes on to conclude that:

“London Economics’ analysis of the outcomes following the Browne Report and the

content of the Government's proposed White Paper suggests that first time

undergraduates attending English HEIs will be significantly worse off, while higher

education institutions may be marginally better off. Despite the £2 billion increase in

the annual cost of student loans, the Exchequer will be better off in the short term;

however, the lost taxation receipts resulting from fewer graduates and the impact on

educational exports will have a long term negative impact on the Exchequer. The

piecemeal changes to the system of student support have also made it more complex

than was previously the case.”

(London Economics , 2011)

I find it most interesting the exchequer stands to lose taxation receipts as a result of these plans, which

could be seen as evidence of the UK’s emergence as a knowledge economy. This evidence shows just

how important the funding argument is to the knowledge economy as a whole as the lost tax receipts

will mean a contraction in the progress of this knowledge economy. This begs me to ask, as we await

the arrival of Generation Z to the work force, could a knowledge management framework accurately

assess the impacts of funding proposals whilst adding an extra dimension to the benefits of higher

education which, whilst noted in the knowledge management context, have not been referred to within

the recent debate surrounding funding proposals. The financial argument that is dominant is no doubt

important, however it appears that value of social knowledge that this sector brings has been ignored,

which hopefully will be addressed in the recommendations of this research.

28


6.0 Standardisation This study aims to look at two areas which I feel could assist the management of knowledge between

generations. In the previous chapter, I looked at higher education; evaluating its benefits and

highlighting the importance of recent events to generational transition and the knowledge economy.

This chapter looks to explore how standardisation can benefit, again with the intended focus being

knowledge management between the generations. Where higher education has a role in training

future knowledge workers, the standardisation process can be harnessed to ensure knowledge is

created and available to share between the generations whilst still contributing to the economy, having

an important impact on the recommendations made later on.

So that these recommendations have a strong foundation of base information, this chapter will detail

what standards are, discussing the role each level plays. Whilst the historical context of standardisation

is discussed in Appendix C, this chapter looks at defining the types of standards and their practices, the

tools and methods by which an organisation can comply to standards and-most importantly the benefits

that standards can offer the economy and organisations, with an explicit regard for knowledge

management theories and processes.

6.1 How Standards are defined British Standards Institution (BSI) has identified six commonly considered levels of standards, detailed in

the diagram below.

Figure 6 - The 6 Levels of Standardisation (Hampson-Jones, 2011)

Corporate Technical Specifications are explicit sets of requirements to be satisfied by a material,

product, or service. For example, the product specifications of a laptop or iPod. These standards are

quick to write because the contents are easily controlled by the wishes of the company or company’s

dedicated employees producing them. Moving up the diagram, each level takes longer to write. This is

because for each further progression up the scale, more varied stakeholders enter the process,

meaning the final standard requires consensus from a wider spectrum including, in some cases, the

public that are within the remit of the produced standard.

29


Private standards are privately owned process or policy documents. For example, a company’s

branding guidelines or the equality/health and safety policies which add a level above legislation

tailored to the explicit needs of the company.

A Publicly Available Specification (PAS) is a consultative document based on the formal national,

European or international Standard model. They are standards which begin as sponsored projects by

stakeholders wishing to drive the creation of a best practice document. Any organisation, association or

group who wish to document standardized best practice on a specific subject, can commission a PAS,

subject to the BSI acceptance process. This could be for areas where there is little to no known market

for a formal standard, like in innovative technologies or newly researched practices. The timescale for

the development of a PAS can be shorter, typically around 8-12 months as it does not have as strong

a concern for consensus as standards on higher levels; a PAS invites comments from any interested

party but does not necessarily incorporate them into the final publication. Some PAS standards have

been ascended to British Standards, the most recent example of this is BS 11000 – Collaborative

Business Relationships, which began as PAS 11000. (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011a)

British Standards are formally produced British national standards from BSI. Within this and the higher

levels, there are several categories of standards.3 The process for the production of British Standards is

explained within its own standard, BS0 (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2005a); (British Standards

Institution (BSI), 2005b). This process starts with the proposal of a new work item. Most work items may

be born within the committee, but new work can be proposed by any member of the public. Once a

proposal is received, a business case is made for it within the committee, to fulfil acceptance criteria

and the proposal is entered into the formal acceptance process. Upon acceptance, a small group of

experts will draft the standard and then present this draft to the technical committee for wider

consultation. Once the committee has approved the draft, it goes out for public comment — this is when

anyone is free to propose changes or additions to the draft document. The public comment stage

ensures that every national, European and international standard is transparent and accepted by the

wider public. Once the public comments have been considered and appropriate actions taken, the

draft progresses forward for final approval, which can only reached through consensus. The secretary

or chairperson of the committee then gives endorsement to publish and the standard becomes

available to the public. Standards are reviewed at least once every 5 years, to ensure they remain

relevant and any industry innovations are accounted for. One of 5 decisions is made: confirmed without

change, confirmed after minor amendment, confirmed after major amendment, withdrawn or declared

obsolescent.

There are differences in the European and International standardisation processes from the BSI process.

There is still the public consultation process after which, taking into consideration the resulting comments,

a final version is drafted. This draft is then submitted to the body’s members. For the publication of

European standards, a weighted formal vote must be made to ratify the document. (European

Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2010); (European Committee for Standardization (CEN) , 2009)

After ratification by CEN, each of the National Standards Bodies adopts the European Standard as an

identical national standard and withdraws any national standards which conflict. For example, the

European Standard on toy safety, EN 71, has been adopted as NF EN 71 by AFNOR in France, EVS

EN 71 by EVS in Estonia and BS EN 71 in the United Kingdom. The standard is published by the

national standards body, who may also add a nationally relevant foreword if needed.

The ISO standardisation process is also slightly different to both CEN and BSI processes, explained in

the ISO/IEC Directives Supplement (International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2007). A

draft International Standard (DIS) is made available, at the enquiry stage, to all ISO member bodies.

They are then all entitled to vote and comment on the document during a five month period. If the DIS 3 The categories of British Standards can be found detailed in Appendix C.

30


receives 100% approval, it may proceed directly to publication once any comments received have

been addressed. Otherwise, a final draft International Standard (FDIS) is sent to all ISO member

bodies for voting for a period of two months, together with the report of voting on the DIS which

includes all the comments received and how these have been addressed. ISO’s process subscribes to a

one member one vote process for the production of international standards, which differs from CEN’s

weighted vote process and, most importantly, BSI’s consensus building model.

6.2 Compliance with standards Laws have no value if they cannot be enforced. Standards have a similar caveat, in that they have no

value if companies cannot be compliant to them. There are a number of ways for a company to

become compliant:

• Self-assessment

The company evaluates the criteria of a standard and declare that they meet this standard.

This can be dangerous and leave the company open to legal challenges should they be proven

to be noncompliant. There are self-assessment tools available, designed by third parties, to

help companies mitigate such risk. (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011b)

• Testing

Testing, where products are laboratory tested to meet a standard’s specifications, has a

number of issues. Firstly, testing is a snap shot in time. A sample may work at that moment,

under the conditions set, but may degrade over time to mean it would not comply later on.

Furthermore, should any design or operational changes be made to the product, retesting

would be necessary.

Test subjects could also be susceptible to golden sampling; a company could choose its best

products to go through the process, already confident these products will pass. Most test

centres should already understand these issues, meaning any report or certificates gained

through testing should be very specific, not saying that the product meets a standard, but

instead, “The sample submitted complied with the requirements of [standard number]”.

• Certification

Certification is a system of continual assessment to a standard, meaning the issues mentioned

above which arise through the testing process are reduced. Certification’s continual assessment

means that changes in design are considered and integrated into the process, so it could be

considered more than just a test and more than just a quality control system.

• Accreditation

One example of a successful accreditation scheme is BSI’s Kitemark®. The Kitemark® is a term

and mark owned by BSI and issued under license to those companies which enter the

accreditation scheme.

The process for obtaining a Kitemark® is more stringent than certification due to the fact that

the mark issued to show accreditation has greater consumer responsibility than a certification.

Not every standard has a Kitemark® scheme, however their processes are similar. A pre-audit

visit is required to ensure the scheme is suitable for the company, products and systems. This is

followed by an initial random testing against the relevant standard. A site visit then evaluates

the company’s process systems to ensure that they have the capacity to maintain the product or

service’s quality. With all the data collected a Kitemark® scheme manager reviews this

31


information before making a decision on awarding the licence. The process does not end with

the issuing of the licence, however. Continuing assessment visits and audit tests are made to

ensure that the requirements continue to be met and systems maintained. (British Standards

Institution (BSI), 2009)

With the above considered, the relationship between standards publisher and compliance body must

be defined. Whilst a standards body may publish a standard, they cannot claim authoritative

regulatory powers over those standards. Therefore, any organisation can, if it wishes, be established

as a testing house or certification/accreditation body. Border and Danvers define the relationship

between of compliance and standards body when they say of BSI,

“All…activities and products are entirely voluntary on the part of those who choose

to use them. However, in many cases, complying with a British Standard or being

able to demonstrate third-party product certification will offer an attractive and cost

effective short cut is discharging statutory obligations…Its product testing and

certification businesses simply assess a product against a set of objective criteria

(typically, but not necessarily, a British Standard). They don’t say that it is ‘good’, ‘high

quality’, or necessarily fit for the purpose to which someone might wish to put it;

simply that is meets or fails to meet the requirements stipulated”

(Border & Danvers, 2010)

The clarification here is that BSI does offer the compliance services as detailed above, however these

are dealt with independently from the standard publishing aspect of the organisation, meaning they

are no more or less authoritative to other companies. Border and Danvers also clarify the statutory

powers of standards, in that there are none, directly. A company has no legal obligation to comply

with a standard however formal compliance does add an indirect legal aspect to standardisation that

must be considered. If an organisation were to declare compliance, however a product or service was

proven to not meet the standard, then the company making the declaration becomes legally culpable.

6.3 The Benefits of Standardisation and Compliance Standards can benefit a wide base of stakeholders; however the focus for this study is those benefits

gained by companies and the economy. Standardisation is, as stated previously, voluntary but

compliance can be occasionally coerced by government mandate. It is interesting to note, however that

there are more benefits to companies complying voluntarily than there are through mandate.

Explaining why government would set the mandate, Henry observes,

“As a general rule, those measures in the standards and conformance infrastructure

that are mandated in law are more likely to be those where, left to itself, the market

would fail to deliver an acceptable outcome for the community. Thus, government

intervention in the market is justified. The intervention is often related to safety; but

also includes more fundamental aspects of the market like legal metrology and

performance standards for credence goods.

Measures for voluntary application are more likely to benefit business. In that case,

the benefit to business outweighs the costs of implementation and the market will

adjust itself, once an agreed benchmark is established through the standard.

The benefits of implementing a standard for business include:

a) Enhanced market share due to market demand for standards compliance.

32


b) Preferential treatment by government.

c) Simplifying business to business trade

d) Improved production efficiency.

e) Reduced hence inventory costs as a result of the need to hold fewer varieties.”

(Henry, 2010)

This approach is strengthened through historic evidence. The earliest results of formal standardisation

proved to what extent voluntary standards can help companies improve processes and save money.

BSI’s first standard was written for steel sections and published in 1903. It reduced the number of

different structural steel sections in common use from 175 to 113. More impressively, varieties of

tramway rails in use reduced from 75 to 5. The estimated cost of production reduced across the

industry, by £1m, approximately £91m when calculated to contemporary value. (Woodward, 1972)

Border and Danvers believed that there were cost advantages to companies complying with standards

and evidence seems to back up these claims. Hampson-Jones details anecdotal evidence from BSI of

the cost saving Companies find that using standards can reap great benefits as well. He reflects that:

• Train company First Group reduced energy consumption by 31% using the environmental

management standard, ISO 14001.

• Both LG Electronics India and Shree Cement (SCL) used the European energy management

standard EN 16001 to reduce energy consumption by 22 and 2% respectively.

• Amba Research reduced information security costs by a 33 % using the international

information security standard ISO/IEC 27001. (Hampson-Jones, 2011)

Added to these financial benefits, standardisation can benefit have a larger non-financial benefit to a

company, engaging the company in the knowledge transfer and management process. De Vries and

van Delden identified the importance of standardisation to knowledge management, saying,

“Nonaka distinguishes individual knowledge, processed by single operators, and

shared by members of an organization. By definitions, standards are intended to

capture organizational knowledge and they should be used by several people and

may also contribute to their individual knowledge. Company standards target one

organization (sometimes some of its suppliers) whereas ISO standards target a

multitude. Another distinction can be made between external and internal

knowledge. External knowledge lies outside the walls of an institution, like

knowledge from competitors, consultants and standards bodies like ISO. Internal

knowledge is generated in the organization and is easy to access and use.”

(de Vries & van Delden, 2006)

De Vries and van Delden refer to their belief here that standardisation is an important tool for

knowledge externalization, turning tacit knowledge-as defined by Nonaka earlier-in to explicit

knowledge, however they later go to show that standardisation is far more wide ranging than this.

Standardisation is the collation and sharing of both tacit and explicit knowledge to enable the

production of aggregated best practise explicit knowledge; refined explicit knowledge. Therefore

standardisation is a catalyst for both the externalisation and combination of knowledge. De Vries and

van Delden go further, however, and remark that the standardisation committee meetings and the

33


sharing of explicit knowledge as well as the practical use later on of this explicit knowledge show that

standardisation also benefits the efficient socialization and internalization of knowledge, respectively.

This appears to be backed by Swann who noted that standards contribute £2.5bn to UK GDP and

specifically said of standards that,

“There is no doubt that standards, containing – as they do – a lot of codified

knowledge act as important instruments in the dissemination of best practice. They

can be seen as essential instrument of technology transfer.”

(Swann, 2010)

Blind and Gauch also believe standardisation is vital to knowledge management, creating a model

which specifies how standardisation is vital to the specific potential in research as a knowledge

management tool, seen below.

Figure 7 - Standards in the research and innovation process (Blind & Gauch, 2007)

It is clear from this model that standardisation is a vital tool throughout the research, development and

diffusion process; however different standard types perform different roles and bring different

benefits to the process. Early on standards are needed to understand and transfer knowledge through

the basic research in to strategic level research. Statistical measurement standards can convert this

knowledge from strategic to applied research, a view which is also backed by Williams who states,

“Raw data does not give sufficient information to enable anyone to see the overall

picture, so the data must be processed to provide the information required. Manager

of laboratories and test houses need standard methods for analysing and determining

the precision of test results.”

(Williams, 2010)

Interface standards on specific interface practices, like design and cleanliness of laboratories can

quicken the research in to the experimental stage at which point interoperability and quality

standards-like ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems can ensure this research is diffused into market.

Consider Blind and Gauch’s research from a macroeconomic perspective and we see further benefits

34


for the wider economy as a platform and catalyst for innovation, enhanced by the knowledge

management tools standardisation offers. Swann further qualifies this view, when he asks,

“How do standards support innovation? We can find several mechanisms at work

here. First, standards support the division of labour, and the division of labour

supports certain types of innovation activity. Second, open standards can help to open

up markets and allow new entrants and as economists know very well, the new

entrant is a powerful force for innovation. Third, the existence of generally accepted

measurement standards allows the innovative company to prove that its innovative

products do indeed have superior performance. And fourth, standards help us derive

the greatest value from our networks. Open standards allow innovative entrants to

take advantage of network effects, an sell add-ons which are compatible with the

core technology and enhance its functionality.”

(Swann, 2007)

This support for standardisation as an innovation catalyst seems further qualified by a 2010

publication from the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union (ITU). It keeps the focus on

how knowledge management techniques have been fuelling the success of new disruptive technologies

but specifically on how standards help new technologies thrive through interoperability. The most

fascinating aspect of this document is that it notes the possibility that the role of standardisation in

society could be greater in developing countries; enabling and fostering the support of innovations

which have access to far fewer resources within these markets, saying:

“The interoperability afforded by standards enables new forms of knowledge

exchange. Interoperability, achieved through agreed upon ICT standards, enables

information sharing within governments, between governments and citizens, and more

ubiquitously, in the global information society. This type of access provides new

avenues for citizens in developing countries to access emerging forms of digital

education, medical and health diagnostic information, and to participate more

actively in cultural and political life. ”

(International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2010)

This is an important consideration as standards could be a route through which developing countries

can support and retain intellectual property which may benefit the local market as a whole. I believe

this evidence shows standardisation helps stimulate innovation. At the micro-economic level, a company

benefits when a product reaches a far wider market with much lower entry, development and testing

costs through following standards during the design and management process. At a macro-economic

level, the benefits are also wide ranging. Swann, Temple and Shurmer (1996) found significant

advantages to UK international trade through the standardisation process, concluding,

“One main finding is that UK standards appear to increase UK exports and UK

imports, though the effect on exports is stronger than on imports...The second finding is

that idiosyncratic UK standards appear to have a stronger positive effect than

internationally equivalent standards.”

(Swann, Temple, & Shurmer, 1996)

35


The fact that standards offer a trade surplus has obvious direct benefit to the economy, especially in

current conditions; however the second finding is most striking. UK standards appear to have greater

impact than their international comparatives, which could itself add to the trade surplus. In essence, not

only is standardisation creating best practice knowledge which is being improving the quality of

products exported, but this best practice knowledge could be exported itself, to UK trade’s benefit.

This evidence could be considered to show that standardisation is not just a tool that can, co-

incidentally, be used in a knowledge management context. Despite being a presence in business

practice since 19014, I believe that standardisation is a perfect example of a quad-dimensional

knowledge management process. If a company were to participate in the standardisation process, by

providing members of staff to take part in the committee activities, one can map the standardisation

committee process back to Nonaka’s model form knowledge creation to show the knowledge

management benefits given to the organisation. Externalization and combination occur through the

publishing of standards from this process and internalization occurs when the standard is read and

implemented by an employee. More importantly, though, for those actually involved in the process

internalization occurs much sooner and with far greater understanding, meaning the process is more

reliable. The nature of committee meetings and consensus building in the British standardisation process

means that socialization is also occurring throughout the process. This implies that knowledge not

explicitly captured by the committee can be tacitly captured by the individual committee member and

used either personally or externalized within the organisation, independent from the standardisation

process. Whilst it can be accepted that this positive benefit is difficult to measure, it nevertheless shows

important non-financial benefits of participation in the standardisation process as both a tool and-in

the case of the recommendations made later-a template for an organisation’s knowledge management

strategy.

4 Further information regarding the history of standardisation can be found in Appendix C

36


7.0 Recommendations for Knowledge Management between Generations I believe the evidence presented in this study so far has shown that knowledge management has a role

to play in the modern economy. I don’t envisage it to be to be the sole factor in assisting generational

transitions within the workplace or the economy, however it could be important in ensuring that as

generations leave the workforce, they do not take with them knowledge which would impede

organisational and national economic performance. Any solution must look at three key knowledge

management areas: the transfer from those generations leaving the workforce, managing of this

knowledge by the experienced generation within the workforce, simultaneously creating further

knowledge and integrated by the generation entering the workforce. Each proposal will explore how

each role is fulfilled by the relevant generation; I have mapped the generations to their roles below:

Figure 8 - The responsibilities of the generations within these proposals

It is important to note that Baby Boomers appear both in the transfer and management roles. This

generation is beginning to transition out of the workforce, which presents an urgency that businesses

and governments must heed, motivating them to explore how to keep the knowledge gained by this

generation.

Below I present two solutions. The first, the Generational Knowledge Framework, was originally

created to be focused towards macroeconomic policy level, however I also believe it can be scaled

down to an organisational framework and so have also explored this possibility. It is a theoretical

framework for nations and organisations to manage their knowledge and maintain their competitive

economic performance. The Organisation Knowledge Committee is the second recommended proposal

and a suggested tool for organisations to manage generational transitions within their company

effectively. The intention of this tool is that, whilst it can be complementary to the national framework

and improve the organisations performance within that framework, it can be independent of the

framework as well. This ensures that if an organisation was within an economy which did not have the

Generational Knowledge Framework implemented, it can still ensure its generational knowledge is

managed effectively.

37


7.1 Generational Knowledge Framework Creating a national knowledge framework can be vital for a nation’s economic performance. Reading

back to Drucker such a framework could be considered the appropriate response to his theories on the

productivity of knowledge. What I believe should be the biggest concern to a government is when

Drucker says,

“The productivity of knowledge is going to be the determining factor in the

competitive position in a company, an industry, an entire country. No country,

industry or company has any ‘natural’ advantage or disadvantage. The only

advantage it can possess is the ability to exploit universally available knowledge. The

only thing that increasingly will matter in national as in international economics is

management’s performance in making knowledge productive.”

(Drucker, 1993)

The lack of any ‘natural’ advantage means that the knowledge economy can become the true leveller

between the economies. In order to compete, nations cannot organically grow their own knowledge.

Instead a competitive management framework is needed to encourage and nurture the knowledge

already existing within the nation but, more importantly, to make that economy preferable for talented

knowledge workers and encourage their immigration. I propose the following model can ensure this at

a government policy level, however at this level responsibility falls not only upon government, but on

the private sector as well. This model can be adapted to an organisational level, with the Organisation

Knowledge Committees discussed later on integrated in to the framework.

The Generational Knowledge Framework (GKF) can be viewed in two ways; as an economic model or

as an organisational model. From the economic perspective, the Generational Knowledge Framework

takes the knowledge worker from school leaving age until retirement, managing the possible routes a

knowledge worker can take and providing the resources to ensure that the economy and society best

benefits from the talent within it. In the organisational sense, the GKF can be used as a guide to chart

the career of a knowledge worker within the company to ensure effective maximisation of their

knowledge assets.

As the diagram above shows, this model has 3 stages: explicit knowledge absorption, tacit knowledge

creation and knowledge redistribution.

Explicit knowledge absorption refers, at the macroeconomic level, to tertiary education, where explicit

knowledge is input for the knowledge worker to absorb and integrate. At a national level, this role is

vital, equipping the knowledge worker with skills that can be used later on in the workplace which is

why I recommend the responsibility of funding and managing this activity rest under government, not

the market. Some might find the view of the university being used as a training ground for the

Explicit

Knowledge

Absorption

Tacit Knowledge Creation

Knowledge Redistribution

Time (Years of experience)

Figure 9 - The Generational Knowledge Framework model

38


knowledge economy as a travesty, away from the autonomous nature of the sector discussed earlier;

however Davidson looked at the history of the higher education sector and compared the modern

structures to the reforms made for the Industrial Revolution, seeing that very few changes had occurred

since then. Davidson states,

“The industrial world of work does not want individuality. It wants workers who

know their specialised task and perform it routinely and like clockwork. Especially

after Frederick Winslow Taylor’s famous time and motion studies of the late 19th and

early 20th century, efficiency was king and the goal of education was, implicitly and

explicitly, to train a future labour force for mass production.”

(Davidson, 2011)

This clearly marries with the way the debate on education has formed, with focus placed purely on the

training of students to enter the workforce and the benefit received by the students for the training. If

Davidson, quoting later on in the article from the US Bureau of Labor, is right to say that graduates will

change careers four to six times within a lifetime and 65 percent of the jobs that will be available

upon graduation for students currently entering US high schools don’t exist yet, then transferrable

knowledge that can later be adapted to become skills becomes vital. For those studying in the science,

technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) areas, these transferrable skills could come from

areas like the humanities where analysis and comprehension are valued and could enable a student to

build a foundation of soft skills alongside their more task based skills set. This would be a similar

approach to the education system in the US, where the first year of studies is devoted to giving

students a broad understanding of a range of subjects to build a foundation of transferrable skills. This

knowledge could be the foundation for the knowledge worker’s future career and their productivity

within organisation and the economy. This consideration brings with it a new issue, namely the one of

funding which has become so controversial. The transience of the labour market means that social

knowledge, as defined by Buchbinder, becomes more valuable for the long term economy. Knowledge

demanded by the market is demanded on current data and information; however social knowledge

can become the building blocks for future market based innovations.

I understand and agree that the market can theoretically bring consumer benefits to students,

empowerment through choice being one of the most quoted, but with a labour market so transitory how

are students and consumers empowered when the information on offer to make a choice is based on

current expectations, with no consideration of future roles that could emerge? The marketised system

currently proposed in the UK does not appear to consider this. Furthermore, the evidence presented in

chapter five has shown-at the very least-perceptive barriers to entry for possible future knowledge

workers. Without intervention, we could see a long term contraction in the knowledge economy, along

with the workforce trained for that an economy. I believe we must look past the individual and look at

the long term benefits to the economy of funding not only the tuition of future knowledge workers, but

the production of social knowledge as a whole. For the UK higher education sector, I am concerned that

the proposed changes to the structure that were analysed in chapter five are myopic in their short-term

perspective and damaging to the long-term British knowledge economy. Furthermore, I am not

confident that such a market based structure is suitably effective for the early stages of this

Generational Knowledge Framework.

At an organisational level, the explicit knowledge stage can represent training schemes for new

Generation Y or Generation Z graduate employees. Like higher education is at the national economic

level, this stage will be the foundation of the effectiveness of the employee’s ability to create new

knowledge as well as share that knowledge later on.

39


Tacit knowledge creation refers in both the economic and organisational senses as the act of

employment. It is during this time that the knowledge worker can create tacit knowledge built on to the

explicit knowledge assimilated earlier on. After a significant period of tacit knowledge creation, the

employee begins phasing in to the knowledge redistribution stage. This plays more significance as the

worker progresses, but they must always maintain the tacit knowledge creation activities in order to

maximise possible knowledge creation. In the economic GKF, knowledge redistribution would take the

ideal form of engaging in standardisation activities. This would enable the worker to add benefit to

the economy and society by creating widely available and used knowledge and ensuring this

knowledge is effective. Increasing national standardisation participation could also benefit an

organisational GKF framework, due to the benefits detailed in chapter six. In addition to these

benefits, the standards produced through participation, and more importantly compliance, would

further enhance the organisations explicit knowledge absorption stage for the organisation. There is

also the option for the organisation can also internalise the knowledge redistribution process, by

creating Organisational Knowledge Committees, which are explained later on in this chapter.

One key concern emerging from the Generational Knowledge Framework is to remove the perceptive

barriers of entry to higher education as a route in to the knowledge economy; this will be vital to

maintaining and improving economic performance and generational knowledge management. It is with

this in mind that I believe a fully funded higher education sector can reap far more benefit than a

market driven sector. Arguments about the sustainability of the sector must be challenged when the

return on investment currently stands at 11-12% (London Economics , 2011). It is highly unlikely, mainly

due to political rather than rational reasons, that a publicly funded higher education structure is an

attainable prospect in the UK. Looking at the NUS Blueprint in more depth could present a possible

solution. I don’t believe it is a complete solution to the issues faced by the sector in its current form;

however it can be a strong foundation for future analyses through which a system reflecting the

changing needs of the economy can be found. This is, obviously a long term ideal and not possible in

the current climate. What is possible however is providing evidence to support the generational

knowledge framework through a public/private sector scholarship initiative. This scholarship would

similar to current schemes where an employer would pay for a students’ tuition fees and offer a

maintenance bursary in return for the student being contracted to work for them for a period of time.

The scholarship system I propose would see a STEM company guaranteeing post-study employment,

but the government would fund the fees as well as offer a maintenance bursary. The student would

need to be contractually obliged to meet conditions for both the government and the employer. To the

government, the student would be obliged to study the full length of the course and, after gaining a

pre-determined amount of experience (roughly 5-10 years) would begin participating within the

national standardisation sector for a previously set minimum amount of time. To the employer, the

student would be contracted to work for a set period of time. The scholarship could be managed by

the student loans company, with the caveat that if the student were to break the contract, they would

have to repay the amount received in real terms through the same loans system as other graduates,

but with no prospect of the debt being written off. It may appear that the employer is reaping the

most benefit, however the STEM sector has a shortfall of qualified employees as many graduates

decide to move in to non-STEM jobs, an issue that has been of serious concern to the government

(Mellors-Bourne, Connor, & Jackson, 2011) for which the solution could come through knowledge

management strategies.

7.2 Organisational Knowledge Committees Organisational Knowledge Committees (OKC) are intended to mirror standardisation committees

discussed in chapter six and create committees for knowledge sharing within the organisation. These

committees can be complimentary to an organisational GKF, with experience generations sharing tacit

and explicit knowledge with incoming generations who may offer a different perspective which can

benefit the organisation. As the diagram below shows:

40


Each department of the business has an experienced representative within the group. In the case of the

diagram above, the committee has experienced knowledge workers from Marketing (Mkg in the

diagram above) and Human Resources (HR) alongside the legal and financial departments (Law & Fin

respectively). The committee must including one member of the senior management (SM) who will act as

the chair, overseeing and navigating proceedings. Selection criteria for the experienced

representatives should not be chosen by how long they have been within the company; this could result

in the committee becoming too introspective and damaging its knowledge creation potential. The basis

of selection for the experienced panel should be that the employee has over a set number of years

relevant work experience. I would also recommend that whilst the departments represented should be

static, the people representing departments should be changed for each meeting, ideally selected

through a randomised system. This means that as much perspective and new knowledge is brought in to

the process as possible. These employees would then sit with randomly selected employees with less

than 5 years’ work for the process of knowledge creation on an agenda set by the senior manager

and previous committees.

The focus of each committee meeting should be a one day workshop focused on producing, through

consensus, an agreed report to be distributed to the company. In creating this report the

Organisational Knowledge Committee, like a standards committee, manages to ensure all knowledge

creation elements defined by Nonaka are present during the day. Similar to the process described in

chapter six, externalization, internalization and combination all occur connected with the reports’

creation and socialization and internalization are vital to successful consensus building. It would be

hoped that free, open discussion and debate can create new knowledge which can be considered for

implementation within the organisation, ideally offering individuals similar autonomy to universities

within the committee. In many ways, the process is intended to create social knowledge tailored for the

organisation’s culture. There is the possibility that the meeting could spawn further actions and policy or

process documents to be created. The role of the senior manager in these cases would be to decide

how to proceed, with either the committee becoming a project team or individuals being required to

complete the arising task.

I believe there would be a number of benefits attached to the Organisational Knowledge Committees.

As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the OKC could be a vital part of any graduate scheme or the

induction of labour market entrants to the organisation, solidifying their Explicit Knowledge creation,

but also assisting their tacit knowledge creation by teaching and using skills that may not be present

when seeking consensus and debating issues. Integrating the Organisational Knowledge Committees

could add motivation for the employee; giving them the impression of empowerment and collaboration

to the strategic decisions of the company. As stated in chapter four, keeping Gen Y and Gen Z

employees motivated could invoke the trait shared within these generations of recommending the

organisation to other talented knowledge workers.

SM

Mkg Fin

HR Law

Organisational

Knowledge Committee

Figure 10 - Organisational Knowledge Committee model

41


This proposal could also play a significant positive bearing on any generational conflicts, like the one

seen in Erickson’s work. In the case study, a Generation Y employee, Josh, felt their manager, Sarah,

was stymieing their progress by excluding his ideas. Josh later disclosed the idea to a senior manager,

Sam, who liked the idea. Unknown to Sam, there were contextual reasons why it was not the best

option for that situation, hence Sarah’s refusal to accept the suggestion in the first place which now had

to be navigated, causing more work and reducing productivity. It was, as Erickson puts it:

“A classic case of impatient Generation Y meets ‘pay your dues’ Generation X”

(Erickson, 2009)

There are a number of issues with the relationship that are tackled by the case study, but I also believe

an Organisation Knowledge Committee could have helped prevent these issues arising. Had the

company an OKC programme, Josh may have already raised his idea there. If he hadn’t, Sarah may

have succeeded in managing Josh’s expectations by suggesting that the idea should be taken to the

committee, noting it has positive aspects and explaining the reasons why it was not apt at present.

Encouraged, Josh could present the idea to Sam and other employees who would either create the

contextual knowledge to allow this suggestion to be implemented or reach an understanding why it

cannot and begin the process of fixing the issues preventing implementation. If the decision is reported

and distributed to all employees, the project could be assisted by another employee who has

knowledge which could contribute to the solution. In short, the Organisational Knowledge Committee

could be the impetus for many possible routes of long term knowledge creation and create an

environment very similar to, if not mirroring a learning organisation.

As well as these internal benefits an Organisational Knowledge Committee can bring external befits to

an organisation that is already involved in standardisation activities. As the process itself mirrors the

standardisation committees detailed in chapter six, the Organisational Knowledge Committee can act

as a mirror committee for any work currently in progress. The organisations’ employees can comment

on national standardisation activities and possibly make a difference to the industry, not just the

organisation which, if successful, can greatly increase the motivational benefits mentioned above. This

also means an indirect benefit occurs to the national economy if organisations put in place

Organisational Knowledge Committees, through increased indirect consensus in the process.

The recommendations made here are exploratory by nature and, whilst some are less than likely under

current conditions, I believe there are proposals that can be quickly initiated in the short term to bring

benefit to the economy and to organisational performance. I feel the Generational Knowledge

Framework can be vital in ensuring national knowledge economies build a competitive advantage,

although understand the limitations that currently exist. With that consideration, the scholarship which

mirrors the GKF is a far more pertinent solution which can also provide evidence which will back or

disprove the framework. I also believe Organisational Knowledge Committees hold great potential for

defining an organisation’s culture and increase and benefit that organisations’ knowledge creation and

management strategies.

42


8.0 Conclusions It was earlier declared that generations can take with them the knowledge they have created. I set

this study with three objectives, focused on discovering how knowledge management can be used to

prevent this happening as the generations transition and, more specifically, how the higher education

and standardisation sectors can both contribute and bring benefits to knowledge management

strategies that may arise.

On analysis of the evidence presented, I believe there is a clear connection between all these factors

and that, when managed effectively, higher education and standardisation can combine within a

framework to manage the transition of knowledge between generations. The Generational Knowledge

Framework establishes a route for a knowledge worker, showing how they can traverse from higher

education, through employment and into the standardisation process to the benefit of the employee,

the organisation and that knowledge economy. In mapping these links, the need to analyse traits of

each area that affect the wider framework arises, bringing with it further recommendations and

conclusions.

Higher education has a role to play as a training ground for knowledge workers and whilst I accept

that to some the idea of higher education being framed in this way is horrific, evidence shows the

historical role of HE was just that. This does not mean that the idea of education for education’s sake

has no relevance; in fact it is very relevant. The economy that workers are entering into has changed

and continues to do so. The role of higher education continues to be training of the workforce but the

method has to change. It needs to offer a far broader foundation of knowledge which can be

transferrable as the knowledge economy evolves under new generations. This means the higher

education sector is far more important for generational knowledge management that pure skills based

training should be integrated with traditionally soft skills based education, like the arts and the

humanities. This more rounded understanding can improve knowledge creation and impart “soft skills”

which can fuel innovation.

For higher education to fulfil its potential funding is going to need to be addressed. From the

perspective of this study, the proposals are inadequate to ensure the benefits of higher education are

maximised. Perceived barriers to entry are present, meaning talented workers may decide against the

higher education route and not fulfil their potential. Furthermore, the argument of empowering the

consumer falls when the argument being made is purely based on financial evidence. The student as

consumer is far more likely to pure direct skills based education as this could be perceived to maximise

their rate of return later on. The knowledge management perspective, however, disputes this view, as

the lack of soft skills will hamper knowledge creation and innovation. As I mentioned in chapter seven,

it is unlikely that full government funding will ever return, however the NUS Blueprint presents an

interesting line for further study which could see a more workable system in place which considers not

just the financial benefits, but the economic knowledge management factors. It should also be

remembered that higher education is one of the major national knowledge creation vehicles, requiring

funding from multiple sources to produce both market and social knowledge. One other vehicle for

knowledge creation and management is the standardisation sector.

Standardisation plays a role at the opposite end of the generational knowledge management

paradigm. Where higher education is more focused on training a new generation how to understand

and use knowledge, standardisation is concerned with distributing the knowledge from previous

generations to ensure it is not lost. At its purest definition, standardisation is a knowledge creation tool

and, if participation in the process by knowledge workers was high within an economy, a vitally

positive tool for that economy. This participation also directly benefits the participants as organisations

have access to the explicit knowledge, their employees have the potential to gain and bring into the

43


organisation tacit knowledge. If the standardisation committee process can be mirrored within an

organisation, it can be a knowledge creation tool to harness the tacit knowledge within. Further

benefits through standardisation arises through compliance, which has a large economic contribution,

but also an immediate organisational financial benefit which can come through cost savings as well as

increased revenues stemming from possible marketing and branding advantages that are attached to

the compliance to a standard.

The benefits of standardisation, as well as higher education are mostly measured in financial terms and

this is where I feel issues arise in that not enough research looks at non-financial benefits in both

sectors. Standardisation is a very thinly researched subject and I would recommend that further study in

needed in a number of related areas. One example would be to measure the practical act of

standardisation against the objectives of the concept. Standardisation can be a knowledge

management tool to create knowledge and benefit generational transition. It would be interesting to

see qualitative research examining whether the process fulfils that role and, if not, how it differs, what

issues arise and how this issue can be prevented. Higher education research could explore the

importance of the sector in non-financial terms could provide evidence to support funding of social

knowledge projects which have a wider benefit away from the market as well as projects which

support generational transition, like the scholarship project in the recommendations. There also appears

to be opportunity for continuing research in to the subject of knowledge management between

generations which widens the scope of this study; looking further than higher education and

standardisation. Research looking at further education, pre-tertiary education and the role technology

has played in generational transition could present a wider panorama of the role knowledge

management can play and create new frameworks, recommendations and solutions which can

complement or contradict the conclusions of this study. I am absolutely convinced that in meeting the

objectives set for this research, only further questions have arose which require us to consider seriously

the role of knowledge management between generations.

44


Appendix A – The Higher Education Structure in England Whilst the standardisation industry can be considered very stoic and stable, the higher education sector

within England is at a crossroads. With criticisms levelled from many directions, some institutions are

being called to justify their existence and others, their practice. A debate over the purpose of higher

education has raged through areas of society with no sign of abating. Prior to entering this debate I

feel it is important to contextualise and understand the conditions of the sector as they currently stand

and examine the proposed journey ahead for the affected institutions.

The UK Higher Education sector lies within the public sector, but is unique in that the institutions within it

are autonomous; not owned by the state, but in receipt of government funding to operate. Each

institution manages its own degree award standards with respective internal management processes;

however the power to award degrees and the authority for an institution to call itself a university are

both legally protected, bestowed upon institutions by the Privy Council. These decisions are influenced

and managed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) an external and

independent body evaluating the maintenance of academic standards in universities. (Quality

Assurance Agency (QAA), 2010)

This funding issue is particularly difficult due to the devolution of powers meaning the Welsh Assembly

and Scottish Parliament direct their respective universities’ funding and the United Kingdom Parliament

oversees the English and Northern Irish institutions. Funding is set by the Parliaments and distributed

through various national funding bodies, as the diagram below shows.

Figure 11 - Funding in UK Higher Education (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2004)

For the sake of focus, this research will follow recent debates and concentrate upon the English branch

of the sector, which is currently under the remit of the Department of Business Innovation & Skills (BIS -

formerly the Department for Education and Skills, as seen above). The Higher Education Funding

Council for England (HEFCE) distributes the funds allocated by BIS within the broad policy guidelines of

the Secretary of State, who-at the time of writing-is The Right Honourable Vince Cable MP. On

45


occasion, HEFCE can advise the Secretary of State on funding matters, but they have no authority upon

which to set any funding levels.

Funds from HEFCE are distributed to 253 institutions of which 123 are further education colleges,

providing higher education courses, and 130 are higher education institutions (HEIs) to support

teaching, research and related activities. In setting out their methodology for granting these fees, HEFE

say,

“Institutions receive most of their funding as a ‘block grant’. They are free to spend

according to their own priorities within our broad guidelines. We do not expect them

to model their internal allocations on our calculations because they are autonomous

bodies that set their own strategic priorities.”

(Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010)

The issue of autonomy is a vital one for the higher education sector as it is one so staunchly defended.

Some could claim that the defence of this independence can create an over-defensive hostility to

responsibility. HEFCE are quick to point out that despite autonomy there still exists accountability, both

to them and to Parliament as well as clarifying HEIs ability to source additional funding:

“Institutions are accountable to HEFCE, and ultimately to Parliament, for the way

they use funds received from us. As independent bodies, they also receive funding

from many different public and private sources. This gives them scope to pursue

activities alongside those for which they receive HEFCE funds.”

(Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010)

HEFCE’s assertion that HEIs receive funds from a variety of sources, adding that their funding makes up

less than forty percent of the sector’s income and student tuition fees are usually another main source of

funding, is interesting when one considers the timing of this report. The QAA had earlier been criticised

for not holding to account enough the universities under its remit and not showing enough transparency

of its academic standards processes (Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, 2009),

however this report has been disputed within the sector and the organisation itself with the Chief

Executive, Anthony McClaran saying,

“It wasn't describing a sector I could recognise. It seemed to be placing a great

weight on a narrow evidence base.”

(Curtis, 2009)

With such a politically charged subject this isn’t the first, nor will it be the last, report on higher

education to be criticised for narrow evidence gathering. Part of the consternation fuelling the critical

committee paper appears to stem from the issue of funding the sector. The final paper was censorious

of the defensiveness of some university heads when challenged on their levels of academic standards.

It went so far as to take the telling step of making specific note of the role the public purse has in the

sector’s financing, despite standards measurement not appearing to be intrinsically linked to funding.

The committee declared:

46


“It is unacceptable for the sector to be in receipt of departmental spending of £15

billion but be unable to answer a straightforward question about the relative

standards of the degrees of the students, which the taxpayer has paid for.”

(Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, 2009)

This is not a lone example of the sector’s financial structure being used to place political pressure upon

it. Brown expressed concern at the scrutiny the sector is being put under, defending the British quality

control systems as some of the most elaborate globally with many institutions receiving positive

feedback; feedback which is backed by student evaluations and surveys as well. But there issues, which

the article points to, when Brown says,

“Whilst some of the problem areas, such as grade inflation, are relatively recent,

others, notably external examining and assessment, are of long standing. Moreover,

the imminent intensification of competition allied to an almighty resources squeeze

will test both institutional and external quality-control mechanisms as never before. It

must be seriously questionable whether the limited, incremental and frankly muddled

programme of work set in train by the Funding Council, the sector and the QAA will

prove adequate in these circumstances. We may be back at all this again before very

long.”

(Brown, 2010)

Brown again brings to the foreground the issue of funding and its apparent dislocation from the

management of academic standards. Brown’s assessment was to prove to be accurate in the months

following this article. The role of public funds in the higher education sector had already been under

increased scrutiny from a range of perspectives in recent months, some sympathetic and some critical.

47


Appendix B – The role of mission groups in higher education The article enclosed below from Times Higher Education details the role mission groups play in the

higher education and their influence. It should be noted that Teesside University joined University

Alliance in 2010 and are believed to be affiliated with both UA and million+

Do you want to be in my gang?

19 November 2009

Some say mission groups help air vital issues collegially, but others think they selfishly expose the

sector to divide-and-rule tactics. Melanie Newman looks at the group dynamics

Academic disputes are so bitter, goes the old saw, because there's so little at stake. The number of such spats

might be expected to grow as academics are asked to demonstrate their value in a time of shrinking resources.

Institutions, too, face calls to deliver more with less, but individual universities can be counted on to refrain from

sniping at each other publicly. Despite recent exhortations by the Government and the Confederation of British

Industry for the sector to become more competitive, institutions tend to depart from an Oxbridge-style

gentlemanly rivalry only when a takeover is mooted. Under questioning by MPs on the Innovation, Universities,

Science and Skills Committee earlier this year about the comparability of degrees between universities, not a

single vice-chancellor broke ranks to proclaim the superiority of his or her courses. Suggestions that any new

quality assurance regime should focus more on some parts of the sector than others were never voiced publicly.

Such discretion suggests that the sector as a whole would act collegially in these straitened economic times,

suppressing private differences to present an image of unity before the Government and the public. The websites

of the five university mission groups - the Russell Group, the 1994 Group, the University Alliance, Million+ and

GuildHE - give few indications that this is not the case. Only the Russell Group, in a set of "aims and objectives"

that makes frequent references to "leading universities", hints at rivalries.

Libby Aston, the new director of the University Alliance and former director of research at the Russell Group, says

the groups "support and reflect the diversity in the sector rather than being in direct competition with each

other". They support the work of Universities UK, the vice-chancellors' forum, by "bringing universities more

closely into the policymaking process in order to improve it", she adds.

But events this year suggest that the groups' relationships with one another and with UUK may be a little more

complicated. In spring, the Russell Group threatened to leave UUK after the latter announced plans to put up its

annual subscription fee. UUK has declined to reveal its fees, but the University of Leeds has disclosed that it pays

£51,000, while Lancaster University is charged £26,000. Some Russell Group members are understood to have

argued that their subscription money would be better spent on strengthening the mission group's own position.

48


Rick Trainor, principal of King's College London and a former UUK president, called an emergency meeting, gave

a rallying speech and peace reigned - for a while.

This summer, after heavy lobbying from Million+, the Government offered 10,000 additional student places to

the sector without extra funding in a bid to accommodate some of the large numbers of students who had been

denied entry to university. Times Higher Education understands that UUK was initially planning to accept the

extra numbers, but the Russell Group and the 1994 Group argued that this would be tantamount to accepting a

cut in the unit of resource - the cash sum universities are given, per student, for teaching. The newer universities

maintained that the unfunded places were a one-off response to an usual situation and agreed to take them.

As the new term began and the extent of the funding cuts the sector was likely to face became clearer, tensions

mounted. One vice-chancellor from a Million+ institution accused universities of acting like "turkeys fighting over

who will get it at Christmas". Malcolm McVicar, vice-chancellor of the University of Central Lancashire, told

Times Higher Education that the sector was divided internally. "The mission groups reflect the divisions that exist

and might be exacerbating them," he said.

A month later, Michael Arthur, head of the Russell Group, argued that giving research money to universities other

than the 25-30 top institutions amounted to funding "mediocrity". He said that 90 per cent of research funding

should be concentrated on this elite: giving any more to the rest would "come at a price".

But Andrew Wathey, vice-chancellor of Northumbria University and deputy chairman of the University Alliance,

accused the Russell Group of inciting "unfounded panic" and said funding research based on "heritage" was a

sure path to mediocrity.

Marie-Elisabeth Deroche-Miles, a senior lecturer in English at the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne in

France, has just completed a paper on the UK university mission groups, which is due to be published next year.

She offers a theory about why the groups are so much more combative than their members.

She says: "Individual institutions can't denigrate each other publicly for many reasons: political correctness,

possible fear of litigation, a possibility that the media may see the attacked institution as the underdog and

support it." Neither would universities wish to sully their "incredibly smooth and well-polished fronts" with petty

digs at one another, she adds. They leave the "dirty work" to the mission groups.

"My prediction is that the fiercer the competition becomes between higher education institutions in the current

market context, the more outspoken their various representatives are going to be."

The mission groups exist to highlight the differences between parts of the sector, Deroche-Miles adds. If they are

not sufficiently vocal, they will lose their raison d'etre. "It is in their intrinsic interest to air their positions clearly

and often enough that member institutions keep recognising themselves in the message and keep belonging."

Deroche-Miles believes the groups are a negative influence in the sector. "Their propensity to hire professional

communicators, to sometimes adopt the language of businesses competing for the same market and to defend

fairly aggressively the agenda of particular sections of the higher education sector is now promoting disharmony

rather than just mere diversity," she says, adding that the Government will not be slow to exploit these divisions.

Sir David Watson, professor of higher education management at the Institute of Education, suggests that by

undermining an unspoken agreement among universities to maintain one another's reputations, the mission

groups could damage the sector's future success and autonomy. In his new book, The Question of Morale:

Managing Happiness and Unhappiness in University Life, he writes: "What lies behind much of the historical

success of the UK sector is the concept of a controlled reputational range. It is important that institutions at each

end of the reputational pecking order can recognise each other, and have something tied up in each other's

49


success. The self-appointed 'gangs' in the system don't help much in this respect. For them, 'autonomy' is mostly

bound up in getting a third party (the Government) to restrict the freedom of manoeuvre of their rivals." He

points to the jockeying that has taken place after each research assessment exercise - "for which 2008 is no

exception".

Criticism also comes from Rob Cuthbert, professor of higher education management at the University of the West

of England. Watson's description of the groups as gangs "captures the mentality and posturing very well", he says.

"It's about 'respect' and avoiding being 'dissed'. That was notably true for Million+ in its earlier CMU (Coalition of

Modern Universities and later Campaign for Mainstream Universities) days. Now that it's a think-tank, it is much

closer to being what a useful pressure group should be."

Cuthbert characterises the Russell Group as suffering from a "reverse Groucho Marx syndrome - these are

universities that want to belong to a club that only has members like them". The 1994 Group is "like the Football

League Championship - everyone knows there's a Premier League, but they use a label that avoids the issue". For

the University Alliance, "it's more about not being left out. If the others are all in gangs, the alliance wants to be in

one too, even though they aren't so sure where their own neighbourhood is." He looks most favourably on

GuildHE, which he sees as "less interested in division and more like a real mission group on retreat, finding

gentler ways to engage".

Mission groups are not representative constituencies, he stresses, and should not be treated as such by the

Government: "They are pressure groups, pure and simple."

That point was behind the disquiet with which some in the sector greeted the recent appointment of the Russell

Group's director-general, Wendy Piatt, to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills advisory panel on

New Industry, New Jobs, Universities and Skills, albeit in a personal capacity.

"We should protect our ability to discuss policy issues collectively within UUK or other fully representative

bodies," Cuthbert says. "The groups are developing in different ways, but the growth of activity within group

boundaries may weaken cross-sector collaboration and exchange on such core issues as teaching and learning,

widening participation and even on how students' unions are developing."

A few years ago, UUK floated a proposal for a new structure that included mission groups as "constituencies". The

membership threw out the idea. In future, regional higher education associations may play a bigger part in UUK,

Cuthbert suggests. "Although their effectiveness varies between regions, they do have universities of all kinds

sitting around one table."

But would the sector be better off without mission groups? Many students and academics have never heard of

them, suggesting that any animosity created by their competitiveness is having little effect on the ground.

Alice Hynes, GuildHE's chief executive, admits: "Most colleagues and even senior policy staff, if asked to put all

universities into their mission groups, would get it wrong." Many would be surprised to learn that Durham

University is not in the Russell Group and that the University of Hertfordshire and Liverpool John Moores

University are in not Million+ but the University Alliance, she adds.

Julius Weinberg, who as acting vice-chancellor of the unaffiliated City University London has no conflicts of

interest, says it is inevitable that groups will form in a sector as large and diverse as Britain's. "We have to be

realistic. We do have to be careful that the common interest isn't damaged; but I think the sector is mature

enough to deal with competition between groups, and UUK is good at drawing institutions' attention when it

starts getting out of hand."

50


A few years ago, he says, there was talk that the groups would put UUK out of business. "Now there's an

acceptance that we still need UUK and if it wasn't there we'd have to invent it."

If the mission groups' rise is inevitable, so is the decline of UUK as the dominant voice of higher education. As

Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, says: "On so many issues it is impossible

for UUK to adopt a position because of the diverse interests of its members." He is a supporter of the mission

groups. "You could see them as a testament to the diversity of our higher education sector," he says. "The

difference between Rose Bruford College - a wonderful place - and the University of Oxford is immense, and it is

inevitable that they will have different interests and that a single body will be unable to represent them."

Jeroen Huisman, director of the International Centre for Higher Education Management at the University of

Bath, agrees. "When the members of UUK do unite and agree on a position, what comes out is often a weak signal

to government, or mere lip service. It will say 'higher education is important', and we're left thinking: what do

universities actually want here?

"I see it as a good thing that the Russell Group stands up and makes a plea for a certain point and Million+ argues

from a different perspective," says Huisman. "Then at least we know that there is something to debate."

Paul Marshall, executive director of the 1994 Group, concurs, arguing that mission groups speak out when no one

else will. In 2006, the 1994 Group admitted that some universities needed to focus more attention on teaching. It

founded an annual "student experience" conference jointly with the National Union of Students. At a fringe

meeting at this year's Conservative Party Conference, Wes Streeting, the NUS president, condemned the mission

groups for pursuing a self-interested agenda, but he praised the conference.

Marshall continues: "With their recent comments on the need for research concentration; for additional student

numbers; and the reliance of UK higher education on international student recruitment, (vice-chancellors)

Michael Arthur, Les Ebdon and Paul Wellings opened up recognisably controversial debates, but ones that clearly

needed to be had." He concludes: "Would it really have been better for the sector if they had all remained silent?"

Influential voices

Universities do not wish to sully their incredibly smooth and well-polished fronts with petty digs

at each other. They leave the dirty work to the mission groups

RUSSELL GROUP

Chair: Michael Arthur, vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds

Director-general: Wendy Piatt

Subscriptions: £35,000

Number of members: 20

The Russell Group of research-intensive institutions, most of which have medical schools, was formed in 1994 by

a group of vice-chancellors who held a meeting at the Hotel Russell in London.

"Many would say that their objective was pure and simple: to make sure that the new universities did not get their

hands on research and other funding," says one senior source who asked not to be named.

No university has left the group since its inception, but several have joined subsequently, including King's College

London and Cardiff University in 1998 and Queen's University Belfast in 2006.

51


In 2006, the Russell Group "professionalised" by appointing Wendy Piatt director-general, with a remit to set up

an organisation (officially a company limited by guarantee) to produce research and evidence-based policy. Piatt

says: "If we are going to promote a greater understanding of the needs, priorities and importance of world-class

research universities, we have to produce the evidence and clear information."

Most of the group's research is not disseminated publicly, and it relies heavily on behind-the-scenes influence

with the Government and the Labour Party. Piatt used to work in Tony Blair's strategy unit; her PA, Carol Glenn,

worked for Labour MP Diane Abbott; and former research fellow Sarah Chaytor is the daughter of MP David

Chaytor, currently suspended from the party in the wake of the expenses scandal. Policy analyst Julie Tam has

worked as an adviser to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; and Elizabeth Hayward, wife of

Peter Hain MP, has handled recruitment for the group in the past.

While Daniel O'Connor, the group's press and external relations officer, previously headed the Westminster office

of Stephen Williams, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Universities Secretary, sector sources have suggested that the

group's links with the Conservatives have suffered because of its close connection with Labour.

The Russell Group rejects the mission group label. "We tend to use the phrase 'representative/membership

organisation' to describe ourselves," a spokesman says.

University of Birmingham

University of Bristol

University of Cambridge

Cardiff University

University of Edinburgh

University of Glasgow

Imperial College London

King's College London

University of Leeds

University of Liverpool

London School of Economics

University of Manchester

Newcastle University

University of Nottingham

University of Oxford

Queen's University Belfast

University of Sheffield

University of Southampton

University College London

University of Warwick

UNIVERSITY ALLIANCE

Chair: Janet Beer, vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University

Director: Libby Aston



The group started out in 2006 as the Alliance of Non-Aligned Universities, a group of 18 universities that defined

themselves by not belonging to the other mission groups. It later became the University Alliance, with 23

members.

52


Three institutions have since left (including Cranfield University and the Institute of Education) and two have

joined. This year, Libby Aston, formerly director of research at the Russell Group, became director of the alliance.

Members of the group are sometimes seen as disparate, but Aston says they are all "actively engaged in their

economic and social environments with close links to the professions and new industries and have a deep-rooted

commitment to access through flexible provision".

She continues: "Mission groups play a valuable role in supporting the work of Universities UK through bringing

universities more closely into the policymaking process in order to improve it."

Aberystwyth University

Bournemouth University

University of Bradford

De Montfort University

University of Glamorgan

University of Gloucestershire

University of Hertfordshire

University of Huddersfield

University of Lincoln

Liverpool John Moores University

Manchester Metropolitan University

Northumbria University

Nottingham Trent University

The Open University

Oxford Brookes University

University of Plymouth

University of Portsmouth

University of Salford

Sheffield Hallam University

University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

University of Wales, Newport

University of the West of England

MILLION+

Chairman: Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire

Chief executive: Pam Tatlow

Subscriptions: Million+ declined to say, but fees are understood to be about £20,000


The Coalition of Modern Universities formed in 1997 and changed its name to Campaign for Mainstream

Universities in 2004. It brought together vice-chancellors from the post-1992 universities who wanted to

persuade Universities UK to take on their concerns. (To date only one UUK president, Roderick Floud, has come

from a post-1992 university.)

In 2007, the CMU rebranded itself as a think-tank, Million+, and has since published a series of reports.

Pam Tatlow, its chief executive, says: "There are risks in the sector being divided, and there would be merit in the

mission groups and UUK uniting around common causes. However, there are hierarchies in current funding

regimes that encourage different priorities. While these remain, interest groups are likely to continue.

53


"We have recognised the disadvantages of a mission-group approach by refocusing as a university think-tank."

University of Abertay Dundee

Anglia Ruskin University

Bath Spa University

University of Bedfordshire

Birmingham City University

University of Bolton

Bucks New University

University of Central Lancashire

Coventry University

University of Derby

University of East London

Glasgow Caledonian University

University of Greenwich

Kingston University

Leeds Metropolitan University

London Metropolitan University

London South Bank University

Middlesex University

Napier University

University of Northampton

Roehampton University

Southampton Solent University

Staffordshire University

University of Sunderland

University of Teesside

Thames Valley University

University of the West of Scotland

University of Wolverhampton

GUILDHE

Chair: Ruth Farwell, vice-chancellor of Bucks New University

Chief executive: Alice Hynes

Subscriptions: £11,000-£30,000


The Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) was formed in 1991 by heads of colleges offering higher education

programmes. Some SCOP members left the group when these colleges were given taught degree-awarding

powers.

In 2006, SCOP became GuildHE. Three of its current members do not belong to Universities UK.

"GuildHE is not a mission group," says Alice Hynes, chief executive. The body is one of three formal

representative bodies (alongside UUK and the Association of Colleges) that the Government consults when it

wants a response on cross-sector issues such as swine flu and the new immigration rules.

Hynes says: "We would all be better served by taking a common stance, creating a common front and delivering a

few simple messages ... in the 'HE ecology', it is unwise to damage parts of the system that are underpinning the

whole."

54


Arts University College Bournemouth

Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln

Bucks New University

Harper Adams University College

Leeds Trinity University College

Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts

Newman University College

Norwich University College of the Arts

Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

Rose Bruford College

Royal Agricultural College

St Mary's University College Twickenham

University College Birmingham

University College Falmouth

University College Plymouth St Mark and St John

University for the Creative Arts

University of Cumbria

University of Winchester

University of Worcester

Writtle College

York St John University

UNAFFILIATED UNIVERSITIES

Robin Baker, vice-chancellor of the University of Chichester, says: "One might naively assume that the richness of

UK universities' geographical spread, their combined turnover, the number of people (ie, voters) they employ and

serve, the sector's profile internationally, not to mention the scale of its contribution to the nation in terms of

knowledge, must make it an extraordinarily powerful direct influence on government thinking and policy.

"The reality is, of course, different. It does not take any politician or senior civil servant long to recognise that

there are few more fertile environments to try out divide-and-rule tactics than higher education.

"This is not a sector that is cohesive. The existence of the lobby groups (crudely characterised as 'we are the best',

'we are almost as good', 'we are better than you think' and 'it's size that matters and that's us') that co-exist with

Universities UK (and GuildHE) simply advertises this."

Aston University

University of Aberdeen

Bangor University

University of Brighton

Brunel University

Canterbury Christ Church University

University of Chester

University of Chichester

City University London

Cranfield University

University of Dundee

Edge Hill University

Glyndwr University

Heriot-Watt University

University of Hull

55


Keele University

University of Kent

University of Wales, Lampeter

Liverpool Hope University

Queen Margaret University

The Robert Gordon University

University of Stirling

University of Strathclyde

Swansea University

University of the Arts London

University of Westminster

1994 GROUP

Chairman: Paul Wellings, vice-chancellor of Lancaster University

Executive director: Paul Marshall


Total members: 19

The first meeting of the "small and beautiful group" of research-intensive universities (without medical schools)

was held in 1994 at the Reform Club; the vice-chancellors of the universities of Durham, East Anglia, Essex,

Lancaster, Sussex and York were present.

A few months later, the '94 Group was formed with six other universities. In May 1997, it changed its named to

the 1994 Group.

The London School of Economics and the University of Warwick have left the group since 2006 to join the

Russell Group. The most recent entrant is the Institute of Education.

Paul Marshall, who was named executive director in 2006, says the group was formed by the older universities as

a response to polytechnics gaining university status. "It made sense to come together to see if they could establish

clear mutual positions on important policy and funding issues."

The group became a formal lobbying organisation in 2005 in advance of the introduction of tuition fees. "We

work closely with Universities UK," Marshall says. "The 1994 Group can magnify the power of (UUK's) collective

message through our own lobbying."

University of Bath

Birkbeck, University of London

Durham University

University of East Anglia

University of Essex

University of Exeter

Goldsmiths, University of London

Institute of Education, University of London

Lancaster University

University of Leicester

Loughborough University

Queen Mary, University of London

University of Reading

Royal Holloway, University of London

56


University of St Andrews

School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

University of Surrey

University of Sussex

University of York.

(Newman, 2009)

57


Appendix C – Standardisation in Historical Context Human society has understood the need for creating measurement systems since its inception. The

earliest discovered examples of such systems were found excavating artefacts of the Indus Valley

Civilization, existing between of 3000-1500 BC. Their measurements for length, mass and time are

considered extremely precise and have been influential throughout the maturation of society; the

weighting units were approximately 28 grammes, making them similar to the Imperial ounce. (The New

World Encyclopaedia, 2009) Within the first Magna Carta of 1215, standard measurements held

significance, with clause 35 stating:

“There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter),

throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet,

and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardized

similarly.”

(British Library , 2011)

As these instances show, standardisation as concept and need existed long before the first standards

were written. These examples, however, are difficult to consider pure standards. For a start, they were,

to their contemporaries, legislative measures to aid a society’s performance. One could argue that they

are those societies’ contemporary equivalence to fiscal policy as tools to harness socio-economic

efficiency. Standardisation in its current form grew out of needs established by the British Industrial

Revolution.

From 1850 onwards, the emerging British rail network changed the face of trade in the country.

Previously, markets had been local and the rail lines being built offered producers the ability to

transport goods into new markets and collaborate nationally with other suppliers. As Woodward points

out:

“Now the engineering shops of Birmingham, the steel mills of Sheffield, the cotton

looms of Manchester had all Britain on their doorsteps — and beyond England there

were further markets to conquer in all the other countries of Europe which, with

England, were thrusting forward with their own railway networks and industrial

development.”

(Woodward, 1972)

Whilst the emergence of the rail lines was a positive economic catalyst for the UK economy, it also

created a number of problems:

• The diversity of the sizes and quality of products made in different regions increased the risk

for businesses to order from outside their locality and damaged competition and efficiency.

• Matching components bought from different regions together to form a whole unit could very

rarely be done without costly adjustment.

A letter to The Times in 1895, presenting the example of a contractor who had to procure iron girders

from Belgium to complete an order, encouraged London iron merchant Henry Skelton to write:

58


“Rolled steel girders are imported into Britain from Belgium and Germany because

we have too much individualism in this country, where collective action would be

economically advantageous. As a result, architects and engineers specify such

unnecessary diverse types of sectional material for given work that anything like

economical and continuous manufacture becomes impossible…no two professional

men are agreed upon the size and weight of girder to employ for given work and the

British manufacturer is everlastingly changing his rolls or appliance, at greatly

increased cost, to meet irregular unscientific requirements of professional architects

and engineers.”

(Woodward, 1972)

Skelton’s letter was the catalyst for a number of acts which resulted, on April 26th 1901, in the first

meeting of the Engineering Standards Committee, formed with two representatives each from the

Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Institution of Naval Architects and the

Iron and Steel Institute. The intention was clear. This was a non-legislative method of creating agreed

best practices within industry, created by industry. It was self-regulation for increased efficiency.

The Institution of Civil Engineers later became the British Standards Institution (BSI) and in 2002,

became the UK’s National Standards Body (NSB) (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011c). Within the

focus of this study reference to standardisation will focus on 3 organisations in particular; BSI, the

European Standards body CEN/CENELEC and the international standardisation body, ISO. The

European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation; CEN) is the European

standards body, comprising of member states in Europe. CEN is the only recognized European

organization according to Directive 98/34/EC for the planning, drafting and adoption of European

Standards (EN) in all areas of economic activity with the exception of electro technology and

telecommunication. ISO (International Organization for Standardisation) is the world's largest

developer and publisher of international standards. The organization is a network of national

standards bodies from 163 countries, allowing only one member per country. BSI was a founding

member of both organisations and can still exert influence on their practices.

All three organisations are non-governmental, however the work produced generally bridges the areas

of the public and private sector where legislation and formal regulation would be detrimental, but free

market individualism could lead to widespread inefficiencies. In some cases the work can be started by

government mandate, but in many cases work is driven by the self-aware industry- an industry aware

of the need to collaborate for corporate social responsibility or efficiency reasons.

59


Appendix D – Categories of British, European and International Standards

60


(British Standards Institution (BSI), 2009)

61


Bibliography 1994 Group. (2010). Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance Phase 2: Call for Proposals.

Submission from the 1994 Group. London: 1994 Group.

Abrahams, J. (2010, November 24). Islamic students challenge student loan plans. Retrieved May 1,

2011, from The Journal: http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/7189-islamic-students-

challenge-student-loan-plans

Altbach, P. G. (1987). The knowledge context: Comparative perspectives on the distribution of

knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Aston, L. (2010). Proposal for a Graduate Contribution Scheme in England: A report by University

Alliance. London: University Alliance.

Baker, S. (2011, March 24). Let's not do this again in a year or two, Browne says. Retrieved April 30,

2011, from Times Higher Education:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415588

Barnett, R. (2011). The marketised university: defending the indefensible. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion,

& E. Nixon, The Marketisation os Higher Education and the Student as Consumer (pp. 39-51).

Abingdon: Routledge.

BBC. (2010, July 15). Graduate tax: Who stands where? Retrieved April 30, 2011, from BBC.co.uk:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10648900

BBC. (2011, April 27). Maximum fees 'would have put students off', says survey. . Retrieved April 30,

2011, from BBC.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13193652

Bejar, D. (2011). The Visual Topography of a Generation Gap (#2, Brooklyn, NY). Retrieved May 07,

2011, from Daniel Bejar:

http://www.danielbejar.com/Visual_Topography_of_a_Generation_Gap.html

Blind, K. (2006). The Impact of ICT Standards. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a Strategic

Tool (pp. 155-166). Geneva: IEC.

Blind, K., & Gauch, G. (2007). Standardization benefits researchers. Wissenschaftsmanagement, pp.

16-17.

Boffey, D. (2011, April 23). Tuition fees will deter state school students, admits Cambridge. Retrieved

April 2011, 30, from Guardian.co.uk:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/23/tuition-fees-state-school-cambridge

Border, K., & Danvers, M. (2010). BSI Operations induction course. BSI, unpublished.

British Library . (2011). Magna Carta. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from British Library Treasures in Full:

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2005a). BS 0: 2005 A standard for standards– Part 1: Development

of standards– Specification. Chiswick: BSI.

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2005b). BS 0: 2005 A standard for standards–Part 2: Structure and

drafting– Requirements and guidance. Chiswick: BSI.

62


British Standards Institution (BSI). (2009). Kitemark® - delivering quality, reassurance, trust. Hemel

Hempstead: BSI.

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2009, March). Part 5. What are the different types of standard?

Retrieved May 14, 2011, from The BSI Guide to Standardization - Section 1: Working with

British Standards:

http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/NSB/WorkingwithBS5.p

df

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011). The British Standards Institution Annual Report and Financial

Statements 2010. Chiswick: BSI.

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011a). BS 11000. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from BSI Group:

http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/en/Assessment-and-Certification-services/Management-

systems/Standards-and-Schemes/PAS-11000/

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011b). BSI BS 25999-2 Business Continuity Self-assessment Online:

BCM. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from BSI Global: http://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigate-

by/Assessment-Tools/Self-assessment-tools/BCM2/BS25999-2-/

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011c). BSI British Standards' role as the UK's National Standards

Body. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from BSI Group: http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-

and-Publications/About-BSI-British-Standards/Our-role-as-an-NSB/

Brown, R. (2010). The Current Brouhaha about Standards in England. Quality in Higher Education, 129

— 137.

Buchbinder, H. (1993). The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role of Knowledge. Higher

Education, 331-347.

Buchbinder, H., & Newson, J. (1991). From social knowledge to market knowledge: Higher education in

the information age. The Gannet Centre Journal, 17-30.

Burkinshaw, J., & Pass, S. (2008). Innovation in the Workplace: How are organisations responding to

Generation Y employees and Web 2.0. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and

Development.

Cullerne-Brown, W. (2011, March 15). Hot seats don’t come any hotter than the perch of OFFA director

Martin Harris. In an interview, he refutes suggestions that the government has pushed OFFA

beyond the legal pale, then reveals a more astonishing problem. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from

Research Fortnight:

http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=arti

cle&articleId=1041998

Cullerne-Brown, W. (2011a, January 20). How to read HEFCE's funding letter from BIS. Retrieved April

30, 2011, from Research Blogs:

http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2011/01/how-to-read-hefces-

funding-letter-from-bis.html

Curtis, P. (2009, September 29). Will the new head of the HE watchdog take on universities? Retrieved

April 30, 2011, from Guardian.co.uk:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/29/anthony-mcclaran-head-university-

watchdog

63


Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know.

. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Davidson, C. N. (2011, April 28). So Last Century. Times Higher Education , pp. 32-36.

de Vries, H. (2006). Standards for Business - How companies benefit from participation in international

standards setting. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a Strategic Tool (pp. 131-142).

Geneva: IEC.

de Vries, H. J. (2002). Standardisation Education. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of

Management.

de Vries, H. J., & van Delden, M. (2006, March). How to integrate standardization in knowledge

management. ISO Focus, pp. 37-38.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) . (2010, 11 03). Progressive plans for higher

education. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from News Distribution Service for Government and the

Public Sector:

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416343&SubjectId=2

Department of Trade and Industry. (2002). Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom

Government and the British Standards Institution in Respect of its Activities as the United

Kingdom's National Standards Body. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and Education. Teddington: Echo Library.

Drewery, K., Riley, A., Staff, H., Worman, D., & Line, F. (2008). Gen Up: How the Four Generations

Work. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Drucker, P. F. (1988). The Coming of the New Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Drucker, P. F. (1993). The Post-Capitalist Society. New York: HarperCollins.

Drucker, P. F. (2007). The Essential Drucker. Oxford: Elsevier.

Erickson, T. (2009). Gen Y in the Workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN) . (2009). Internal Regulations Part 3: Rules for the

structure and drafting of CEN/CENELEC Publications (ISO/IEC Directives – Part 2, modified)

2009-08 corrected version. Brussels: CEN.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2010). Change: 2009 Annual Report. Brussels: CEN.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2010). Internal Regulations Part 2: Common Rules for

Standardization Work. Brussels: CEN.

Fomin, V. V., Pedersen, M. K., & de Vries, H. J. (2008). Open Standards and Government Policy:

Results of a Delphi Survey. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Gill, J. (2009, November 9). Lord Browne to lead fees review. Retrieved April 2011, 30, from Times

Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409011

Hampson-Jones, N. (2009). The Impact of Generation Y on Knowledge Management. Grenoble:

Grenoble Graduate School of Business.

64


Hampson-Jones, N. (2011). Standards and Standardization. Chiswick: BSI.

Hansard. (2010, December 09). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 09 Dec 2010 (pt0003).

Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.paliament.uk:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101209/debtext/10120

9-0003.htm

Hansen, M., Norhira, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? Boston:

Harvard Business School Publishing.

Henry, J. (2010). Economic Impacts – Micro Perspective. In D.-G. Choi, Standardization: Fundamentals,

Impact and Business Strategy (pp. 115-134). Seoul: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

Secretariat.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2010). Guide to Funding – How HEFCE allocates

its funds. Bristol: HEFCE.

Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance. (2010). Securing a Sustainable

Future for Higher Education. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. (2009). Students and Universities – Eleventh Report

of Session 2008–09. (HC 170-I). London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2007). ISO/IEC Directives Supplement —

Procedures specific to ISO. Geneva: ISO.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2010). Measuring and Reducing the Standards Gap.

Geneva: ITU.

Kelly, U., McLellan, D., & McNicoll, I. (2009). The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy, Fourth

Report. London: Universities UK.

Kleiner, A., & Roth, G. (1997). How to make experience your company's best teacher. Boston: Harvard

Business School Publishing.

Krechmer, K. B. (2006). The entrepreneur and standards. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a

Strategic Tool (pp. 143-154). Geneva: IEC.

Lindsey, E. (2011, February 23). Elizabeth Lindsey: Curating humanity's heritage. Retrieved May 12,

2011, from TED:

http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_lindsey_curating_humanity_s_heritage.html

London Economics . (2011). The Future of Higher Education: Written submission from London Economics.

London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

London Economics. (2010). Fair funding for All: An analysis of the relationship between student support,

graduate contribution and the funding of universities in England: scenarios for the future. London:

million+.

Mellors-Bourne, R., Connor, H., & Jackson, C. (2011). STEM graduates in non-STEM jobs – Executive

Summary. London: BIS.

Morgan, J. (2011a, 01 06). Now that's research impact: 'paradigm-shifting' Browne drew on a single

opinion survey. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from Times Higher Education:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414764

65


Morgan, J. (2011b, March 03). £6K must be ceiling, survey told Browne. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from

Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415358

Mulheirn, I., & Shorthouse, R. (2010). Funding Undergraduates: Designing a fair market in Higher

Education. London: Social Market Foundation.

National Union of Students. (2010, 10 18). Government must 'rethink' Browne review as poll shows

opposition to tuition fee hike. Retrieved April 2011, 30, from

http://www.nus.org.uk/en/News/News/Government-must-rethink-Browne-review-as-poll-

shows-opposition-to-tuition-fee-hike/

Newman, M. (2009, November 19). Do you want to be in my gang? Retrieved May 14, 2011, from

Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409118

Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Nordensvärd, J. (2011). The Consumer Metaphor versus the citizen metaphor: different sets of roles for

students. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon, The Marketisation of Higher Education and

the Student as Consumer (pp. 157-169). Abingdon: Routledge.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1999). Higher Education to 2030

Volume 2 Globalisation. Paris: OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Education at a Glance

2010: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2004). Quality assurance in UK higher education: A guide for

international readers. Retrieved April 29, 2011, from QAA:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/international/studentGuide/English_readers.asp#item3

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2010). Who we are and what we do. Retrieved April 30, 2011,

from QAA: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/WhatWeDo.asp

Rich, J. (2010, November 16). Fairer Funding: An alternative plan for funding students and HEIs.

Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://www.johnnyrich.com/Fairer_Funding.html

Russell Group of Universities. (2010). Funding Higher Education in England: What are the Options?

London: Russell Group of Universities.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Busienss Students; Fifth Edition.

Harlow: Pearson Education.

Scullion, R., Molesworth, M., & Nixon, E. (2011). Arguments, responsibility and what is to be done about

marketisation. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon, The Marketisation of Higher Education

and the Student as Consumer (pp. 227-236). Abingdon: Routledge.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:

Doubleday.

Shepherd, J. (2011, April 20). Tuition fees 2012: all universities to charge undergraduates at least

£6,000. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Guardian.co.uk:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/20/tuition-fee-charges-universities-2012

Snook, S. (2008). Love and Fear and the Modern Boss. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

66


Swann, G. M. (2007). Standards are central to wealth creation. Wissenschaftsmanagement, pp. 26-27.

Swann, G. M. (2010). The Economics of Standardization: an update. London: Department of Business,

Innovation and Skills.

Swann, G. M., Temple, P., & Shurmer, M. (1996, September). Standards and Trade Performance: The

UK Experience. The Economic Journal, pp. 1297-1313.

The New World Encyclopaedia. (2009). Indus Valley Civilisation. Retrieved April 2011, 26, from The

New World Encyclopaedia:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Indus_Valley_Civilization

Trades Union Congress. (2011, April 12). Using RPI to set student loans will cost graduates up to £5,000

more, says TUC. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Trades Union Congress:

http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-19467-f0.cfm

Universities UK. (2010). Higher Education in Facts and Figures. London: Universities UK.

Williams, G. (2010). Standards for Statistical Methods, Tools and Techniques. Teddington: National

Physics Laboratory.

Woodward, C. D. (1972). The Story of Standards. London: BSI.

Yajizi, M. (2006). Actively building global standards. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a

Strategic Tool (pp. 13-18). Geneva: IEC.

Documents

Y Curious - Knowledge Management Between the Generations