Most consultation firms are presently trying to implement processes and technologies that will transform individual experience into organizational knowledge. They try to preserve these experiences and make them available to employees as continuation of progressive acceleration towards collective learning. These experiences are geared towards the improvement of competitiveness and to facilitate response to market changes. Knowledge dynamics is however an art that should be utilized for organizational development. It is definitely divided into technical and scientific knowledge. Individuals familiar with technical know-how utilize it to read and interpret data and act on the basis of generalizations. Scientific knowledge is however propositional as it takes on the form of casual generalizations. It assumes that since A has happened then B will certainly follow. However, we can not say that since all experience is helpful, it should be incorporated into organizational knowledge. There is a great discrepancy when we think about this area. Knowledge is only helpful if it can be used as a recipe or solution for the specific situation present.

If individuals were taken as part of organization knowledge, then a great deal of modification has to be done for them to fit in. since each organization has particular means of operation, managers can only use knowledge in a more flexible and opportunistic way rather than in a planned and careful way. Experience in the work place, and with the organization culture considered, then individual knowledge is considered helpful to the company. More so, if the possessed knowledge is tacit knowledge, then they will be very useful to the company. This is because personal intuition is in play rather than the formal explicit type of knowledge. This will make it manageable since the managers can tell what is inherent in the individual and what is explicit in accordance to the way the individual reacts to situations. The managers will then seek to establish policies and procedures that will transfer, store, develop and disseminate the organizational knowledge.

If the organization is to be considered as a brain, then several aspects have to be taken into consideration. First and foremost, who will feed the brain with information? How will this feed occur and who is to control what type of information is fed? How will it be synthesized and how will others be aware of the expected outcome?

Managers use what is referred to as the experiential knowledge which is basically a narrative of how real people deal with real problems in the world. If they are the ones that will feed the organization with knowledge, and then who will determine the checks and the balances? The manager is considered as being overall. However, if the manager utilizes ethical communication as a tool of advancement, then the rest of the workforce will be involved in decision making. Borrowing knowledge from different quarters is helpful especially in situations where others have been through and come out successfully. Therefore, if this information is to be fed through consultative forums between the top management and the workforce, then it is easy to adapt to recipes that will provide solutions to difficult challenges. The outcomes will therefore be in form of market capitalization, increasing profit margins, a surge in client retention and employee turnover rate. These will be experienced through out the organization and society as well. This will tell whether the information was well synthesized and what needs to be done to increase adaptive capability in cases of difficult challenges. Therefore, if organization is referred to as a “brain”, then those in it must be prepared to work towards the creation of information helpful to the organization. Managing the knowledge will be the next step so as to keep the knowledge circulation and modifiable to suite dynamism of the market and clientele needs.