Here are the slides and comment streams from today's program that featured:
The New Economics - Peter Bretscher will share his thoughts on integrating intangible assets and enhancing the economic value paradigm with a subjective value metric resulting in an integral new business model and understanding of the next economy.
Is Now the Time to Create CKO's? - Matthew Loxton says When I did my Masters in KM I had been focused on how to fix infuriating operational problems at work, but part of the coursework included Drucker and other luminaries who thundered on about how every firm would have a CKO...but there are still no CKO's inside companies. If 80% of the value of firms is in the IC, then why do we all have a CFO but no CKO?
Justine Tang: Peter, how can motivating staff be valued?
Justine Tang: It is because economists understand correlations by quantative data, isn't it?
Mary Adams: Is it fair to call this an expansion of Michael Porter's value chain?
Debra Amidon: I hope not...instead, it is examining the new elements of the innovation value-system (I hope).
Bill Miller: Metrics need to be ranked in important? A key metric is the probablistic nature of market demand for the offering.
Manfred Bornemann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve
Ken Jarboe: Picking the right metrics is clearly the key -- any thoughts on process of identifying key metrics?
Debra Amidon: Peter: We've reached some similar conclusions - evaluating the 'value-flow' with EU-funded NEFFICS project [www.neffics.eu] on Business Model Innovation. Would be useful to compare notes!
Mary Adams: Like Peter, Matthew also started on the "production" side...
Frank Leistner: Are all those "Knowledge XXX" roles really KM? Or is it just cool to add the knowledge word?
Gordon McConnachie: Matthew this development cycle is quite understandable as ICM started in companies BEFORE it was taken up by academia.
Gordon McConnachie: Your historical summary and present day position is a very excellent one.
Frank Leistner: Would you agree that the key role of a CKO is integration of otherwise less connected elements of the organization
Mary Adams: Great point Gordon. I'm trying to decide what that means for IC theory--are we forcing this on businesses or giving them a vocabulary for what they are already doing?
Ken Jarboe: Is there really any business that doesn't rely on knowledge? Isn't the real trick in creating all of those back ground factors to make companies ready for KM? I understadn that it is difficult -- but that is where the real payoff is.
Gordon McConnachie: Many companies do pieces of ICM ............few do it systematically .............and in line with their inherent culture…. All we can do is faclitate their development.
Debra Amidon: Knowledge Management has always been and has always been an oxymoron. Innovation, instead, is the environment within which you manage the flow of knowledge. Innovation provides the common language and shared vision. Thus we have witnessed the emerging role of the Chief Innovation Officer [CInO].
Debra Amidon: And Ken - to your point: Innovation applies to all enterprises, not just businesses.
Ken Jarboe: Exactly right about growing understanding of value of IC. FYI--Story in today's FT about how banks are trying to use IP as recognized collateral on loans.
Debra Amidon: Matthew: YOu are correct - the explosion of new knowledge markets sets the stage . Check the work of Bryan Davis our taxonomy: http://www.kikm.org/portal/page2.htm.
Frank Leistner: Do you really think the mistakes are all rectified? I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I fear...
Sadly yes, I have seen some that clearly were just an IT role with a new badge, and some are for software developers of course, but luckily most of the roles I am seeing out there are really KM roles. The titles are a mess, but still really KM jobs.
To your second point yes, that is typical "reversion to archetype", people tend to revert to old habits and spend on shiny toys when they should be spending on thinking and doing. Alas, that is just the nature of the species, and it takes time and continual beatings to change ;)
In my mind the key to the next level of change is a combination of groundswell of awareness (and loads of practitioners) and the act of institutionalizing KM and IC under a CKO role. Once you have that role recognition, a lot of behavior follows, again simply because that's the kind of animal we are.
Although each line manager really could "do finance" correctly and rationally, you really do have to have a CFO to make it happen institutionally.
Since 80% of value is IC, it doesn't make sense to have a CFO that watches the 20% but no CKO to watch the 80%
Frank Leistner said:
... I have seen several job ads lately that turned out to be IT directors in the end, and their job was organizing the IT Infrastructure, nothing about community, nothing about integrating HR, Communications, IT and Line functions.
I also think there is still a disconnect in many organizations (not my own, luckily) where people say "knowledge is their biggest asset", but the money gets all spend on the portal and "knowledge system", and no funds left for investing into a strategic role like a CKO, community manager etc.
“Intellectual property has become one of the most important resources in the 21st century. It’s now an accepted fact that, just like financial capital or commodities or labor, IP is more than an economic asset – it also forms the basis of a global market” Manny Schecter, chief patent counsel at IBM. (Forbes 2012)
In general I agree, that there is a growing number of people that "get it", @Matthew Loxton. On the other hand there was a recent phase where more and more people thought this time the have the silver bullit by using Social Media (and that they could get by "cheaper" this time around). What it is interesting to see, is that Google Trends (https://www.google.ch/trends/?q=knowledge+management ) is curving down on the term Knowledge Management - both in search as well as in publications - but I think that is largely due to other terms being used increasingly that actually describe KM activities, but might not use that label.
Personally I switched from KM to Knowledge Flow Management a few years ago - as I think it is a lot more about enhancing the flows than to "manage" knowledge which is what very much connected to the human mind (s.a. http://www.masterknowledgeflow.ch/ )
Great discussion and hopefully we can all help to fuel the momentum to raise the awareness even more (incl. the believe that long-term investments are worthwhile and needed).
Matthew Loxton said:
@Frank Leistner: Do you really think the mistakes are all rectified? I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I fear...
Rectified, no, but they aren't the showstoppers they used to be, so in my view we can at least partially ignore them and say that KM has now truly "arrived" and deserves to be institutionalized.
We still have far too many people who think that KM=Technology, but that number is dropping and far more people understand that technology is the smaller part of the equation.
These days for every KM magazine that is entirely about software applications, there is one that deals entirely with the other side.
When I am asked to explain KM, I usually incorporate two statements - firstly that KM is 80% about people and <20% about technology, and secondly that KM is not a branch of IT, but a form of Applied Psychology. It is a stable mate of I/O Psychology rather than of IT.
Matthew -- I agree that there are differentials in your ability to help companies deal with their knowledge management concerns. I would posit that all companies would have some version of problems - even a the most basic level. Whether they want or are willing to accept help is always another matter :)
On the issue of a company that uses others' innovations, I see that as a key KM issue of knowledge absorption and utilization. Have you given any thought to the difference needs of pioneers versus fast-followers?
And on the loan collateralization comment, I am waiting to see how they deal with the valuation problem. It is being set up as an insurance structure, so the real issue is the pricing of the insurance vehicle (which can be a real mess- ask all those folks who were into credit default swaps a few years back).
Matthew Loxton said:
@Ken Jarboe: Is there really any business that doesn't rely on knowledge? Isn't the real trick in creating all of those back ground factors to make companies ready for KM? I understadn that it is difficult -- but that is where the real payoff is.
Well I doubt it but since there is a variance and all activities will fall on a continuum in which some are certainly more dependent on knowledge than others, I will allow for the remote possibility of a guy that says "knowledge schmoledge, we don't need no stinkin knowledge"
A firm that simply copies other people's innovations might have far lower knowledge needs than one that innovates, and firms that simply supply labor might also be far lower on the scale than those supplying expertise.
I haven't yet seen one in which knowledge has no significance, but maybe there is one out there someplace and if there is, I can't help them! ;)
Ken, right, willingness and awareness are the biggest obstacles in my view. Some firms take unwillingness one step further and don't even want to be made aware! I have come across two firms that don't want to take either of my questionnaires in case it is taken by staff as an indication that management would do something about gaps identified.
Great point, and yes there is something very interesting about "fast followers".
In general followers are just the laggards, but there is a niche group that innovate on how to follow very quickly so that the initial turmoil and shock of innovation has passed by but the market is still open. While I have some philosophical reservations about what is essentially a form of parasitism, there is something very interesting about a firm that knows its limitations, and instead of blowing the farm on innovations beyond their capability, focus on closely watching their ecosystem for novelty and then being very good at identifying those with promise and then copying not just fast, but efficiently - often refining and improving as they go.
In some senses I think that these are the very best KM targets because they absolutely know the value of good ideas but aren't blinded by their own apparent magnificence.
Of course they produce less IP, but probably have just as much IC as the innovators.
Kenan Jarboe said:
... I would posit that all companies would have some version of problems - even a the most basic level. Whether they want or are willing to accept help is always another matter :)
... Have you given any thought to the difference needs of pioneers versus fast-followers?
@Justine Tang: Peter, how can motivating staff be valued?
I'd make a "before" and "after" view. Using the indicators you are interested in.
Below a sample with four clusters to compare. KPIs are "profit" and "motivation index" (survey among employees?).
You can take any KPI that may make sense (sick days, invest into education....) and combine it with any other.
I'd recommand to take one of the KPIs "out of the controller's toolset" or management's dashboard so they do not feel lost dealing with "soft indicators".
Link for download Excel: http://bengin.net/12/4_vect_justine_e.xlsx
it is as reduced version based on the templates: http://bengin.net/beta/basic_master_e.htm
@Justine Tang: It is because economists understand correlations by quantative data, isn't it?
Sometimes I doubt that economists understand correlation really. The key point for me is (for vector type 1) that interpretation of data is often demanding and needs experience.
And often it is not easy to transfer the insights one gained out of interpretation to another peer. Say from a financial expert to an engineer :-)
Visualisation of correlation makes it easier to share the same view and to find more sustainable solutions. Especially when it comes to correlate strategic with operational data.
@Mary Adams: Is it fair to call this an expansion of Michael Porter's value chain?
The core of the start was that I had to "invent" an integral "Innovations-project-management-system" (1983).
A framework (and checklists) with lot of creative space for the development team. It started from (potential) customer's problem and possible solution and ends with phase-out and disposal of product.
And as you may see below. The Know-How-Bubbles while the development process were special intangible objects that had to be localized and cared about. Potentials for patents and spinoff.
Porter was not in any radar for that orientation.
The enterprise pyramid (the real is 3D) is based on that framefork for innovation process and the "value-network" is a fairly good solution for analysing and optimizing possibilities how enterprises should interact (on each level: Resources, processes, offerings).
I know Porter too little to give a reasoned opinion. "Value chain" seems a little bit flat and linear.
Debra Amidon: I hope not...instead, it is examining the new elements of the innovation value-system (I hope).
Tried to show that in the process of intelligent companies two types of "values" result. One (monetary) from external (customers) and another, an internal rise of potential that economic theory leaves out of consideration.
The largest one is ic - as we all know but classic framework and quantitative metrics in economist's tool set are not able to show.
PDF is available for download from http://www.bengin.net/12/2_x_use_values2012_e.pdf
You may blow up the pdf to see the small items.
If you like/have visio use this link: http://www.bengin.net/12/2_x_use_values2012_e.vsd
The other visualizations are in the ppt: http://www.bengin.net/12/ickc_final_e.pptx
Taking this potential as a starting point (and customer's needs/markets as the variable) could lead to new strategic options.
(sry took time to make visual)