Manufacturing operations have ever been complex and sophisticated by nature. As an independent unit, manufacturing operations rely on varied levels of input from pretty much every operational unit within a business. Many of its own targets depend solely on other operations that work in parallel by ultimately a knowledge managed process. A simplistic example can be given when a manufacturing operation unit aims to reduce its reject percentage per shipment or increase its production efficiency per capital; the information required to do so within other operational units is assumed to have been prepared and accurately post processed ready to handover for a manufacturing operation. This “turn key” style approach is perhaps inconsistent with the practical operational challenges involved in order to achieve this rather ambitious target. An advanced review of this framework is something worthwhile looking into, but regardless of that; in order to achieve and work towards this operational excellence programme, the business unit architecture must be deeply appreciated, understood and communicated accurately using the right communication tools.
Many corporations may choose to focus on smaller elements within the operation and perhaps naively treat day-to-day problems independently but the solution relies heavily within the architecture of the overall operation and business work flow. Organisationally, the solution may be effectively addressed within higher directorship roles and implemented through the lower level management input. All of this without any empathy to the organisationally lower operations such as technical and project execution integration may be much more challenging than when empathy is well diversified throughout the various leadership subcultures within the organisation.
Throughout engineering research, the formation of management has been envisaged within the methodologies used within a project. The application of management is then practiced in order to organise and re-order data, followed by concluding. However; there seems to be a missing association to the practice of directorship within research due to the complex nature of some research subjects.
In other words, when a piece of research is to be conducted, research methodologies are primary applied to manage the project and conclude ideas but how can you tell that the project has a level of directorship being applied within it.
Well first of all, setting the aim of the project is perhaps more accounted towards directorship than the outcome of the research methodologies applied in the project. In order to encompass and prove some directorship within the project, a well defined background and context needs to be introduced, and a philosophy of the researchers views on the existing literature should ideally be communicated with strong emphasis on critical thinking. This approach tends to give the project depth within its field and enlightens the reader on the issues the researcher wants to address. Definitions can help with directorship because defining concepts within certain realms and features then limiting their research exposure tells us a little more about the researches vision and direction for which the research aims to go towards. In many cases, the research outcome may incur irrelevancy to the big questions that were initially aimed at addressing but as long as there is a re-establishment of relevancy in the project definition, directorship may still be sensed and strategically applied when ever a new revelation in knowledge is presented.
Knowledge as a concept consists of several factors that need to be satisfied in order to represent its meaningfulness. After many thoughts on its usefulness, it appears that simply using the word knowledge becomes impractical without having a context for which this knowledge is sought in or to be sought from. For example, when the action of “gaining knowledge” is intended by a person or technological means, he (or the technology) cannot simply act to gain or collect knowledge without a target area or milieu for which this knowledge exists or comes from or absorbed by.
It becomes apparent that ‘Knowledge’ in its true meaning in the event described above becomes void or not so relevant after all when the direction is not defined. In other words, seeking knowledge without a direction is an improper appreciation of the notion of “knowledge” per se.
It seems as though its a concept that is more accurately defined when; a process of appropriation of tangible (or presumable) independent variables through a common focus or bias is in effect.
Therefore, can we define the term useful ‘knowledge’ as the accumulation of independent cues/ideas that have to be processed and then appropriated into a strategic direction (or undertaken through a particular underlying awareness of a biased notion (or with a cognisant view)? Does this definition enable better controlled value adding strategies and can this be observed and tested?
This blog aims to explore, critically review and experiment with new ideas surrounding theoretical and conceptual frameworks that exist to enable practical value adding implementation strategies within the engineering field.
Several abstract concepts will be under review in order to achieve a holistic, contextual and technical understanding of some of the contributing factors so that a potential focus area for further investigation can be defined effectively.