When “Knowledge Configuration Management” is in place, quantitative analysis of your “knowledge stock” becomes again possible.
Obviously, the parameters must be tailored to the specific categorisation of “knowledge snippets” that will have been negotiated with knowledge producers.
Why introducing again quantitative analysis, after criticizing it in the previous section?
Consider this as possible side effect, not a mandatory element of a “knowledge retention” policy.
Introducing quantitative analysis after adopting the new approach could be useful to actually share the costs of producing and maintaining a specific “knowledge snippet” with all its users.
And it is not only useful for “Internal Transfer Pricing” (e.g. to identify how other parts of your organization should contribute to the investment on knowledge production), but also when spinning out a unit or negotiating a joint venture, and in IPR management.
Obviously, also if the demonstrated value or cost of an item is X, corporate policy realities could result in a lower transfer price, considering the balance as “overheads”, paid by the organisation as a whole, e.g. for processes that, while being managed by a specific business unit, are actually the reason for the organization to exist.
The risk? If you forget what is “core” to your business, some excessively entrepreneurial elements of your organization might quarrel about considering their support processes as “core business”- and ask others to contribute to their own costs.