Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1447212
76 SMT007 MAGAZINE I FEBRUARY 2022 their jobs, which too oen is technical firefight- ing, and very occasionally, technical improve- ment implementation, customer calming, and corporate reporting. e SMEs literally don't feel they have any alternative to "go get Fred" when the wheels come off. To what extent does corporate culture help or hinder effective knowledge transfer? One contributor is the difficulty in justifying the easy-to-capture (and immediate) direct costs of paying employees' wages, against the dif- ficult-to-monetize (and much longer-term) benefits to the organization. At least we're starting to recognize and study the problem. Acceptance and effectiveness of well-intentioned knowledge transfer policies varies between companies, levels, and even between "silos" within companies. A 2019 study by Tandemploy 1 suggested only one- third of employees surveyed believed "their company promotes the exchange of informa- tion and knowledge," though managers were almost twice as likely to believe that state- ment than non-managers. Lack of time set aside during the workday was a recurrent rea- son given for inhibiting the sharing of knowl- edge, though a considerable majority wanted to share with their colleagues the knowledge they had gained. Given our Western empha- sis on the bottom line, it seems logical that demonstrating the value of a knowledge trans- fer's contribution to the finan- cial health of the organization should make a compelling argu- ment for passing on the experi- ence and knowledge to the new technical workforce. Failure to effectively transfer that knowl- edge could be a real, monetary cost over time. A collaborative study 2 with an associated "lost- cost-opportunity" calculator 3 purports to make real dollar penalties associated with failure to effectively share knowledge within an orga- nization available to decision makers. I have no independent way to evaluate its accuracy, but even the fact that it exists is hopeful. Here are a few actions decision makers might consider: • Committing resources: A hypothetical North American company that realizes its long-term interests are better served by facilitating the offline time for knowledge transfer, visible evidence of their commit- ment would be permitting these knowl- edge transfer activities to be scheduled, at least partially, during the regular 40-hour work week. Arguably, that would be visi- ble evidence of a company's commitment. • Incentivization: e argument can be made for a company to pay overtime for a series of sessions that equally divide hours between those at work and those aer work. Back before the margin pressure got too great, one of my employers did just that, though eventually, the aerhours part became an unpaid expectation which was unstated, but clearly understood, of salaried workers. • Speculation: Many companies have (by various names) a "total cost of ownership"