지식집중도 구성요인의 구조적 관계에 관한 실증연구

An Empirical Study on the Structural Relationships among Components of Knowledge Intensiveness

지식사회의 형성과정에서 전문지식 서비스 산업이 급속하게 확대됨에 따라 무형자산을 강조하는 지식기반조직에 대한 관심이 고조되었다. 그러나 지식기반조직은 대량생산 체계를 갖춘 전통적 산업조직과 상호배타적 산업에 속하는 전통적 전문인력조직과 혼돈되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 지식기반조직의 개념을 보다 명확히하기 위해 우선 산업범주를 초월하여 지식기반조직 여부를 판가름하는 조직 내 작업의 지식집중성에 대한 척도로서 지식집중도에 대한 개발과 탐구가 이루어져야 한다고 보고 그에 대한 이론구조를 밝히고 있다. 본 연구에서는 이동진(2008, 2009a)에서 작업의 지식집중성을 작업자가 개별적으로 인식하는 개인속성으로 개념화하고, 측정 및 분석한 요인구조가 이용되고 있다. 분석결과, 첫째, 지식집중도 구성요인의 구조적 관계는 지식작업의 ‘투입→과정→결과요소’순으로 연역적으로 추론하였으나 실증적으로는 과정요소에 해당되는 협력성과 고객연계성을 예측(외생)변수로 하는 구조모형이 가장 양호한 모형적합도를 보였다. 둘째, 결과모호성과 지식모호성 간 인과관계는 통계적 유의성을 보이고는 있으나 영향력이 다른 구성요인들 사이의 관계에 비해서 상대적으로 미미하였다. 이 결과들은, 첫째, 지식집중작업에서는 과정요소의 지식집중성이 결과 및 투입요소를 예측하는 본질적 요인이라는 점을 시사한다. 둘째, 작업자들이 모호성에 대해 느끼는 불편함으로 인해 결과모호성과 지식모호성 간 인과성이 상대적으로 낮게 나타난 것으로 본다면, 지식집중성을 높이기 위해서는 개인수준에서의 태도와 조직수준에서의 문화, 구조 그리고 HR 체계가 지식집중도 구성요인 사이의 인과관계에 각각 예측변수효과와 상황효과를 미칠 것으로 추론된다. 따라서 후속연구에서는, 지식집중도 구성요인 중 협력성과 고객연계성에 초점을 둔 보다 간명한 지식집중성 척도 개발과 함께, 개인수준의 지식집중도와 태도변수, 그리고 조직수준의 구조, 문화 그리고 HR 체계 특성변수사이의 관계를 분석함으로써 여러 수준으로 이루어진 지식기반조직에 대한 체계적인 실증연구가 이루어져야 할 것이다.

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 if 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).