Socially intense operations

Post web era revealing flaws in practitioners' view of organizational development During the initial years of the new millennium, it became clear that the established ways of leading, building and organizing efficient and attractive businesses needed to be revitalized. The so-called web-era had given most practitioners a doomsday feeling in the sense that established businesses would have to give way to new web-based businesses. In fact, it went so far that some established players started their own web-based competitors to compete with their own business instead of giving new players an opening into the business.

The confused feeling could well be traced to what we came to call the transition period. What we saw was that established businesses also had equally established views on how businesses should be built, managed, and organized. These established views relied on solid scientific and empirical basis as they had been formulated well over a period of some 100 years.

Society at large had learned, at least since the days of Frederick Taylor, to build efficient and rational businesses adapted for primarily industrial activities. With the strong growth of the service sector during the last decades of the 20th century, many of these established views had been influenced, but the result had mainly materialized as a copy of the lessons of industrialism. Porter's appreciated publications that influenced most service providers can be seen as a masterpiece in this area. Kursiv text In the highly confused situation that arose at the end of the last millennium, the need to get guidelines for how the service operations would develop came in high demand. The vision became the most central management tool and the visionaries, the bearers of the future vision and the faith in the future, flocked around the top management in all types of businesses.

In this era of visions, not only service operations came to be influenced by the vision doctrine, but it also splashed back on industrial dittos. The vision, which had been in the toolbox for longer some time, came to be seen as more or less a natural law for a given business. There was even talk that indicated that "an employee should be able to wake up at two o'clock at night and right there and then be able to rabble the company's vision", an expression showing how central the vision was and how much energy and resources were put into it as the overall management tool.

We have chosen to call the last decades of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the transition period and by that we mean in the real sense not the breach between industrial and service production but more so the breach between the views of how businesses should be built, managed, and organized.

Transferring fluent knowledge versus fixed knowledge Industrial production is predominantly about transferring knowledge through products. Since the infancy of industrialism in England, the world has learned massive amounts about how knowledge can be packaged into products and spread prosperity around the world. The service businesses also seek to add value through system affiliations through connection to products and to the production of services.

The efficiency mantras that industrial production has taught us, are the ones we are happy to transfer to the service production arena, and naturally so, since for the first time in history we have managed to manifest our knowledge on a large scale using the product as a knowledge carrier. It has become synonymous with finding the Holy Arch and therefore it seems logical for us to see all types of knowledge transfer through the same or at least resembling success equations.

However, we can state that the success of the service delivery has been highly variable with the industrial logic as the bearer of the answer to how the modern service-based business should be built, managed, and organized. As previously pointed out, the process metaphor, with its genes from the industrial arena, has significantly affected the parts that the service management school has addressed and in a positive way in many respects, seen from the efficiency perspective. However, as we have also mentioned, using the same logics has not led us to achieve the same success in all parts of service production area and what was supposed to provide the basis for an answer, the knowledge management school, failed in establishing itself as the complementary counterforce that it initially seemed to be posed for.

So, in addition to service management and relatively simpler service matters where the process has been and is in focus, the more complex services have instead come to be about the individual's capacity. It seems that the leaderships of many organizations today need to focus more on attracting individuals than building the actual businesses. Regarding these more complex services, the individual is seen as the obvious focal point for development and for delivery.

We have, numerous times, experienced that there is a built-in tension between the parts of the operation which are governed by the process and the parts that have become individual dependent in knowledge transfer and refinement. One way to illustrate this is by studying the performance of the individual-centered services.

In many, not to say in an overwhelming proportion, of cases studied, it turned out that the key individual performed a large part of the service delivery that was devoted to the process governed part of the business. The reasons given by the respondents were typically that "it goes faster if I do it myself" and "quality and customer relationship is my responsibility and then I want to do everything from A to Z to have control".

What can be understood in this context in the study of key individuals but which remain unspoken is a third reason which is about a combination of convenience on the one hand, in the sense that the development rate perceived by the key individual is sufficient, and, on the other hand, that if the process governed concepts of the entire operation, were used more frequently, which by the way would be in accordance with the business's overall intent, the expectation of available time at the key individual’s end, would create demands for change or development.

We have noted that for key individuals in these situations, the view of development needs does not always correlate positively with the management’s view of the needs. A very probable explanation for this is that key individuals live so intimately in their external relationships that the perspective becomes largely different. This can be perceived as a problem, needless to say, and the indications signal that many good business ideas have fallen on the relatively closeness and developed relationship between key individuals and customer representatives as they get stuck in a not- invented - here - like situation where the relationship over time creates an information inferiority rather than the opposite.

On the other hand, if handled properly, there is often a strong creative force in the key individuals that can be traced to their relative closeness to customers and partners and to the simple fact that they get to guide themselves during the day and they avoid the risk of being interrupted in their daily work. We have time and again seen examples of how the most knowledge-intense concepts are actual development incubators. The trick is to spread the knowledge in the business as a whole and not to allow key individual dependencies to arise. This is to many the million-dollar question. We believe we have an answer which lies in the moving of packaged, conceptualized, knowledge across the archetype concepts (S,K,R) identified (see below).

Above all, key individual dependencies, but also in many cases mental fatigue have come to light in this development. We have documented severe situations surrounding key individual dependencies. Situations that have negatively affected the key individual in question and others in his or her vicinity.

The fact that the individual is the central factor in the equation also becomes clear when we see to the broader perspective where several concepts and functions have come to dominate the scene in recent years. All aimed at handling the key individuals. We talk about talent management, cutting-edge competence, key individuals, rigorous recruitment, and development processes, expanded HR functions and a general attitude that the individual rules the labor market and that established businesses must adapt to a large extent to accommodate these individual capacities and wishes. Employment conditions in many different forms are adapted to please the key individual. Sometimes we have asked ourselves why these individuals are employed at all, given that they live as self-employed entrepreneurs under the wings of a hiring company, they might as well run their own business.

In other words, it is these highly qualified key individuals who will carry out the knowledge transfer in the more advanced cases of the business. There is often an unspoken established truth and fear of building a different image than that these individuals are the central building blocks on which the business rests and not least prevails a strong fear of "disturbing" these individuals, a fear that is about being seen so central to the business that it risks being shaken to the grounds in case the key individual decides to leave the company.

In summary, we can conclude that the contemporary perspective of business leaders and owners seems to be: • That the knowledge that can be transferred to a process-oriented part of the business is regarded as owned by the business and corresponds to the structural capital being built and thus becomes considerably easier to defend in terms of investment and, • That the parts of the business that handle services with a more complex and higher knowledge transfer component are to be handled by individuals whose loyalty may be the compensation for the structural capital not built to a large extent and that loyalty can be secured through co-ownership programs, bonus programs and various other measures to tie the key individual to the business. • That at a higher level, the business must work to produce both simpler and more complex services to ensure efficiency and to build lasting value. In other words, liquid knowledge will be made as solid knowledge as much as possible according to the prevailing management doctrine. In this context, practitioners tend to point out new future openings for this movement using AI and technology in general.

Social intensity portrayed over three service concept archetypes There is reason to believe that aggregated and jointly processed knowledge takes development forward, that a large part of the processing takes place through interaction between units represented by individuals who understand and operate in organizational gaps and that this phenomenon will exist for a considerable time, to a large extent and that these interactions are valuable for individual actors and for society.

The challenge seen from this perspective means that we benefit from establishing some clear starting points in our effort to portray the socially intense environment and operation: • The transfer of knowledge is central. • The transfer of knowledge differs depending on the complexity of the service. • The transfer of knowledge takes place to varying degrees between individuals, organized in one of the operations of the participating parties. • The transfer applies to liquid knowledge and does not handle fixed knowledge transfer, i.e., products. • Parts of the business can be more easily process-oriented, while other parts are difficult to fit into strict process logics. • There are different archetypal knowledge transfer concepts that complement each other.

In accordance what we wrote above, we have mentioned two schools that have acted norm-setting or idea-promoting for the development of service production. One, service management, can be said to be suitable mainly for services with relatively low complexity and the other, knowledge management, which never became a school, but at least was intended to, handle services on the other side of a complexity continuum.

In our research and later in our practice, we have identified these two schools as present in the everyday life of a given service business. We illustrate these two with the table below:

Characterstics	Service concept	Consulting concept	Advisory concept
Concept type	"S"	"K"	"R"
Degree of knowledge transfer in the customer meeting	Low	Average	High
The team's inner support	Pep talk	Supporting	Sharing
Team situation example	(Telephone) customer service desk	Bank counseling personal lines	Due diligence
The customer meeting	Minutes	Defined type meetings, 20 - 100 minutes	Series of meetings, often challenging to set meeting end times
Recruitment criteria	High pace, flexibility, scheduled working hours, telephone- and mail efficiency	Developed own drive, experience from one-on-one customer meetings, a will to support other team colleagues	Strong professional knowledge and know-how, project experience, experience from takin on different roles in customer meetings, will and experience from sharing knowledge
Customer formation	One individual	One individual	Several reps from client's and customer's side, often third party, partner, in meeting

Based on our experience of management consulting, we felt that there was a lack of a level between these two identified positions. We drew on our own experience and, also, conducted interviews in other businesses and in the process, we were able to define a third archetype that we came to call the “K” concept.

When we compiled our impressions and sorted these positions according to the degree of bilateral knowledge transfer, an image emerged that showed three archetypal knowledge transfer concepts. We came to call them the service, the consulting, and the advisory concepts, differing in the degree of bilateral knowledge transfer in the customer meeting.