The Union's Knowledge Strategies to Reach Success in the Implementation of Remote Operating Centers (COR)

Introduction

In modern capitalism, knowledge has become a necessary factor, as much or more than labor or capital. To be more exact, it is an intermediary factor. Knowledge goes into production, governing practices, processes, and resources. In the productive circuit of industrial capitalism, work generates knowledge, and knowledge, in turn, creates value. Thus, capital, to accrue value, not only must “subsume” this “living labor” but also the knowledge it generates and puts into the circuit. There reside precisely the difficulties of this “subsuming” which, to put it short, fails to reduce knowledge to capital. In summary, within the process of value creation, knowledge is a complex mediator since its valuation does not respond to the categories of tangibles. Moreover, they differ widely from the liberal or Marxist thought in their respective theories of value. According to (Rullani, 2004) “neither the theory of value, of the Marxist tradition nor the currently dominant liberal tradition can account for the transformation of knowledge into value.” Knowledge certainly has a value in use --for users, for society-- but does not have a cost reference value that can be employed as a yardstick to determine the exchange value, functioning either as marginal cost –neoclassical theory—or reproduction cost –Marxist theory--. Indeed, (Rullani, 2004)when applying this “duality” a curious situation arises, since, in contrast to most tangible goods, knowledge has economic value (exchange value) only when used. The fundamental problem underlying the duality of value (use and exchange) is that both are built on the properties of the object and not the relationship. For this reason, the design of value must be built on the notion of process and relational structure.

So, if we accept that we are living in a knowledge society, reducing the unions in general, and the miners in particular, to negotiations or better said transactions due to wage differences, knowing or not knowing, that they are those instances of the organization where knowledge capital is concentrated, is not only timeless but preaches that we are not reducing a complex unit of value production to a cognitive liability. This speaks of the fact that the management structure and its conception of work belong to previous societies, to say it in a non-pejorative way, which indicates that under the current conditions of mining in our country, the generation of waste in all its variety could prevent all kinds of structural transformation.

Due to the acceleration of change, we are entering into a qualitatively different world that is difficult to understand and assimilate. We are witnessing the birth of the “network society” (flat, transversal, dynamic structures) extremely different from the traditional “pyramid society” handed down from Roman times. The network society is characterized by agility, flexibility, ubiquity, malleability, and creativity. Likewise, the new way to create value means putting knowledge into the circuit (Espejo, 2015),(Espejo & Foss, 2018).

Complexity demands the development of attitudes and competencies around knowledge sharing and development motivating people to synchronize in a responsible managerial culture based on dialogue. Failure to do so will accelerate the organizational waste in all its variety.

Agility, flexibility, ubiquity, malleability, and creativity all create the efficiency required of 21^st-century enterprises, without which they are highly unlikely to be able to reinvent themselves. (Cárdenas-Figueroa., 2019)

Companies capable of internalizing and managing viability mechanisms will lead to a change in productive models in the new economy. These companies are flatly structured, organized around processes and relationships, high coherence and congruity will define and shape the paradigm of the company of the 21^st century. These changes require us to think of new ways to approach organizations as systems, not in the input/output model but as relational. If we have gone from such rigid forms as hierarchies to plastic forms, such as networks of collaboration, then we must imagine that these accrue to different strategies of information and communication.