Process knowledge
politicalantibody:
mostlysignssomeportents:
mostlysignssomeportents:
ALT
If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/04/08/process-knowledge-vs-bosses/#wash-dishes-cut-wood
“Intellectual property” was once an obscure legal backwater. Today, it is the dominant area of political economy, the organizing regime for almost all of our tech regulation, and the most valuable – and most controversial – aspect of global trade policy:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/04/01/minilateralism/#own-goal
Despite (or perhaps because of) its centrality, “intellectual property” is one of those maddeningly vague terms that applies to many different legal doctrines, as well as a set of nebulous, abstract thought-objects that do not qualify for legal protection. “IP” doesn’t just refer to copyright, trademark and patent – though these “core three” systems are so heterogeneous in basis, scope and enforcement that the act of lumping them together into a single category confuses more than it clarifies.
Beyond the “core three” of copyright, patent and trademark, “IP” also refers to a patchwork of “neighboring rights” that only exist to varying degrees around the world, like “anticircumvention rights,” “database rights” and “personality rights.” Then there are doctrines that have come to be thought of as IP, even though they were long considered separate: confidentiality, noncompete and nondisparagement.
Finally, there are those “nebulous, abstract thought-objects” that get labeled “IP,” even if no one can really define what they are – for example, the “format” deals that TV shows like Love Island or The Traitors make around the world, which really amount to consulting deals to help other TV networks create a local version of a popular show, but which are treated as the sale of some (nonexistent) exclusive right.
It’s hard to find a commonality amongst all these wildly different concepts, but a couple years ago, I hit on a working definition of “IP” that seems to cover all the bases: I say that “IP” means “any rule, law or policy that allows a company to exert control over its critics, competitors or customers”:
https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/
Put that way, it’s easy to see why “IP” would be such a central organizing principle in a modern, end-stage capitalist world. But even though “IP” is treated as a firm’s most important asset, it’s actually far less important than another intangible: process knowledge.
I first came across the concept of “process knowledge” in Dan Wang’s Breakneck , a very good book about the rise and rise of Chinese manufacturing, industrialization and global dominance:
I picked up Breakneck after reading other writers whom I admire who singled out the book’s treatment of process knowledge for praise and further discussion. The political scientist Henry Farrell called process knowledge the key to economic development:
https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/process-knowledge-is-crucial-to-economic
While Dan Davies – a superb writer about organizations and their management – used England’s Brompton Bicycles to make the abstract concept of process knowledge very concrete indeed:
https://backofmind.substack.com/p/the-brompton-ness-of-it-all
So what is process knowledge? It’s all the knowledge that workers collectively carry around in their heads – hard-won lessons that span firms and divisions, that can never be adequately captured through documentation. Think of a worker at a chip fab who finds themself with a load of microprocessors that have failed QA because they become unreliable when they’re run above a certain clockspeed. If that worker knows enough about the downstream customers’ processes, they can contact one of those customers and offer the chips for use in a lower-end product, which can save the fab millions and make millions more for the customer.
This just happened to Apple, who seized upon a lot of “binned” microprocessors that were headed to the landfill and designed the Macbook Neo (a new, cheap, low-end laptop) around them, salvaging the defective chips by running them at lower speeds. The result? Apple’s most successful laptop in years , which has now sold so well that Apple has exhausted the supply of defective chips and is scrambling to fill orders:
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/04/07/macbook-neo-massive-dilemma/
Process knowledge is squishy, contingent, and wildly important in a world filled with entropy-stricken, off-spec, and stubbornly physical things. Work with a particular machine long enough and you will develop a Fingerspitzengefühl (fingertip feeling) for the optimal rate to introduce a new load of feedstock to it after it runs dry. Even more importantly: if you work with that machine long enough, you’ll have the mobile phone number of the retired person who knows how to un-jam it if you try to reload it too fast on your usual technician’s day off. This kind of knowledge can mean the difference between profitability and bankruptcy.
So why isn’t process knowledge given the centrality in our conceptions of what makes a corporation valuable?
Keep reading
ALT
THIS is an important post about a fundamental principle of the working environment that is well-known by every one except upper management - those who actually design and control the workspace.
Process Knowledge is almost impossible to monetize and cannot be directly owned by a company or a government. It BELONGS to the workers, which is one reason why a well-run corporation takes good care of its staff
Discussion in the ATmosphere