Just some ideas - I would like to have something about the notion that we are actually creating something neither needed nor considered before, and also indicate [positively, of course] that we do NOT have a pre-destined approach to be taken; also the 70% could become "dated"
"Breaking new ground in the understanding and advancement of the new knowledge [intangible] economy"
"Connecting leading-edge thinkers in the realm of intangible assets and the new economy"
"An open community of thought-leaders advancing our understanding of the intangible economy"
"An open-air marketplace of challenging ideas and new groundwork for the growing intangible economy"
Maybe we can "Frankenstein" [pardon the negative image] some of the better parts and pieces of these notions
Thanks for the invitation to particpate, and I look forward to many many engaging conversations
I have recently been actively involved in a BSC community, as my close friend is one of the key members of the community. I think it is helpful for those who come to visit the site if the site tells quickly and simply "to whom this community is targeted" and "what themes/topics the community talks about"
For your reference, this community of BSC (which is only limited to practitioners, no consultants) is called XPC, and the site mission tells "The Premier Community for Practitioners Seeking to Achieve an Execution Premium". Sounds a bit snobbish but relatively clear.
I prefer to keep the word "management" as my main interest area is how to use IC or ICM for the sake of enterprise/organization growth. But if this community wants to include broader topics (not only micro enterprise-level management issues but also macro-economical themes, which is also important), how about creating sub catogories in the site?
I do hope that we can keep the focus of the overall site broad because there are many people today approaching IC from a single silo...
At the corporate level, there are active discussions around branding, KM, IP, performance measurement, valuation, innovation, human capital and, to a lesser degree, IT and process. But we also need discussions at the enterprise level about how all this fits together.
There is also much work being done at a macro level to understand the role of intangibles in economies and in the development of cities, clusters, regions and nations.
....and I think there is a need to have a place where all those points of view, not to mention all the different regions of the world, can meet and form cross-disciplinary understanding.
The good news is that the ning platform (that we used to build this site) allows the ability to create groups. Each of the "silos" mentioned above can form a group but also participate in a broader discussion. My thinking was to let the groups emerge but maybe I should create the page so that people get the idea that the possibility is there. I will work on that soon.
In the meantime, let's try to get some more feedback before we set the wording in stone.
In order not to reinvent the wheel, and also to allow you to see how a discussion like this can expand and lead, I would encourage you to join the group "Knowledge Management Experts" on LinkedIn and look at the thread for renaming Knowledge Management that Art Schlussel started. It is a GREAT discussion and shows how the tendrils of this discipline separate, then emerge, then intertwine again. It also demonstrates the degree to which silos have emerged [and in many cases bias our interpretations].
I agree that we should be an open community of thought-leaders.
But I have had this feeling that I want us to do more than just talk with each other. I feel that the business community needs a place where they can go and "get started" with their understanding of IC.
Is it too much to hope that we can have advanced discussions but also be able to create a simple set of Guides for the IC newbie?
By the way, I am going to launch a few of intro Guide questions soon.
I think an IC newbie can be a thought leader so I see no contradiction in having advanced discussions as well as simple guides. Indeed, one can say that complex discussions may best be built on simple elements.