지식집중도 구성요인의 구조적 관계에 관한 실증연구

The world is shifting from the industrial society to the knowledge society, where people pay attention to organizations with intangible assets. In order to explicate the management systems of organizations based on intangible assets, this paper find empirically a theoretical structure of knowledge intensiveness, which knowledge intensity scales of works in organizations. Knowledge intensive organizations claim to produce qualified products and/or services, and even generate new and unique knowledge. Organizations as diverse as law and accounting firms, management consultancy companies, engineering consultancy companies, advertising agencies, research and development units, pharmaceuticals, and high tech companies as typical knowledge intensive organizations. But the notion of knowledge intensive organizations and related concepts such as knowledge intensive work is, of course, not unproblematic. Since all organizations and work involve knowledge, what qualifies as a knowledge intensive organizations or non-(or less) knowledge intensive organization and non-knowledge intensive work, is rarely self evident. We regard knowledge based organizations as units performing knowledge intensive work, and then refer to the key characteristics of the knowledge intensive work are as follows. First, works of knowledge based organization are required on the expertise. Second, the core part of works are performed by experts having expertise. Last, as expertises are consisted of formalized and informal knowledge, knowledge works are required on dialogues, consensuses, persuasions and negotiations based on human and social relationship. Thus, works in knowledge based organizations are going on through manipulating and orchestrating of individual thoughts and languages, and these works are referred to knowledge intensive work. Using these conceptual definition, we refer to the knowledge intensity of work as essential characteristics to works it self and work performing are needed on expertises, and then classify components of knowledge intensiveness of work to knowledge ambiguity required on work, client connectivity and collaboration of work, and results ambiguity of work, which order follows 'input→throughput→output' of knowledge intensive work. This classification of concepts in knowledge intensive work are focused on level of work units, thus in order to fit between level of theory, level of measurement, and level of analysis, we measure knowledge intensiveness of works based on performers, and go to the statistical analysis at work level. Empirical results are as follows. First, it is empirically not supported to concept based model, which are structural relationship among components of knowledge intensiveness in frame of 'input→through→output' paradigm. Rather, empirically supported that the best fitting structural model and the second best one have each exogenous(predictor) variables, which one is work collaboration and the other is client connectivity, these are throughput in knowledge intensive work. Of course, endogenous(criteria) variables are knowledge ambiguity and results ambiguity of work, which orderly input and output of knowledge intensive work. Throughput of knowledge intensive work were stronger factors than input, output components from the Lee(2008)'s exploratory factor analysis. Second, in path analysis results, regressional relationship between result and knowledge ambiguity is weak relatively to others. This may reveal that how a strong culture based on an acceptance of ambiguity(e.g., in roles, power relations, organizational routines and practices etc.) promote(moderate) development of relationship between result and knowledge ambiguity of work, which insisted by Kӓrreman et al.(2004), Robertson et al.(2003) and Willmott(1993). Last, exogenous variable of the best fitting model is work collaboration in multi-industry, but in contrast exogenous one is client connectivity in just professional service sectors. These results suggest, first, as compare formalized knowledges with informal one, the latter focused on knowledging of process(throughput component of work) is more essential than the former based on knowledge of object. Second, if we think that regressional relationship between result and knowledge ambiguity is weak relatively to others because of perceived inconvenience by work performer instinctively to work environment ambiguity or uncertainty(Willmott, 1993), and then, in order to elevate knowledge intensity, culture, structure and HR system at organizational level might be positively moderating(situational) effect on relationships among components of knowledge intensiveness at individual level. Last, theoretical structures of knowledge intensiveness of work in professional service organizations are different from multi-industries includes traditional manufacturing firms. Therefore, further researches will be necessary to multilevel analysis of relationships among knowledge intensiveness at individual level and organizational structure, culture, HR system at organizational level. And also, in order to explicate inherent industrial characteristics of knowledge intensiveness of work in detail, it will be needed on an empirical comparative analysis of knowledge intensiveness of work between professional service and manufacturing sectors.