Reshaping business and the world by leveraging knowledge intangibles
Have we made IC concepts too complicated?
We have been having a rich discussion on the original Guide question What is IC? There is a wonderful diversity of viewpoints and approaches. This is all a good thing.
But I also worry about this diversity. Will it keep our community (not just the ICKC but the entire global IC community) from coalescing around a set of basic principles of IC management?
My hope with the Guides was that we would be able to distill the basics of IC down to a set of basic principles that would be accessible to any businessperson. Maybe this is the impossible dream but it is, it seems to me, the only way that IC can break through to the mainstream.
Is there a way that we can identify this path? Should our discussions be divided into "The Basics" and "The Complications" or maybe "The Rest of the Story"? Would this enable us to seek a common ground for beginners and still host advanced conversations for experts.
Am I dreaming the impossible dream or do others share this view? What should be our path? Please share and help us figure this out!
Tags: Guides, IC, advanced, basics, beginners, experts
Views: 4
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug McDavid on -
@Mary -- My initial thought on this is that there are two conversations to have. One is among practitioners and proponents of IC. In that conversation the complexities are all fair game, because the nature of the work is intrinsically complex, and far from any static standardization. Where there are standards, they'r emerging, and a source of the complexity of the back-room conversation. The front room conversation is with the unconvinced and potential beneficiaries. In that conversation a tone of results-oriented enthusiasm is appropriate
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Adams on
-
Thanks Doug - I think you have captured it!
Do you think it will work to host both conversations here? I hope so. If so, when people go to the Discussions page what are the titles of the Categories (listed in the upper left of the page) that would help them know where to go? [Note: this is the emergent idea that I had with the Categories "Ideas" and "Guides"--but we need to fine tune this]
Back Room - Front Room
Theory - Practice
Advanced - Beginners
Consultants/Academics - Businesspeople
Emerging - Standards
Advanced - Basics
Something else....?
The germ of an idea that I have had is that the Basics discussion could become a set of "open source" components as an introduction to IC management--things that we all can point to as the basic building blocks of IC management. (I tried to introduce this idea in my explanation of Guides but we're not there yet on the concept).
If we get these two arenas well defined, these discussion could really help us channel the strength of our community...
Please keep the ideas flowing. We are figuring this out in real time!
-
-
Another idea for the titles:
What We Are Still Figuring Out - What We Know
Will we be able to reach a consensus on What We Know...(I hope so)?!
-
Permalink Reply by Galen McPherson on -
Mary:
I like your list and the segmentation that it provides. I particularly appreciate two categorizations: Front Room - Back Room, and Consultants/Academics - Businesspeople, although the second might be redundant to "Theory - Practice".
Another idea to "float" to the group is that of providing some form of emerging/learning mentoring forum, whereby volunteer members stand ready to establish a one-on-one relationship with a "learner" for some period of time, helping to evangelize the community. This notion will need some more "noodle time" for actual implementation, but I think that it might serve the inquisitive beginner well to have a "dedicated counselor" to aim them in the right direction, if not to give guidance directly.
I think that a key to the successful implementation of any and/or all of these segmentations will be to have volunteers from the community acting as moderators. In spite of your amazing energy, I feel that you personally would soon become overwhelmed were you the only one moderating the site, and I also feel that any unmoderated segment would soon diffuse into too many threads or evaporate for lack of guidance.
In fact, in the interest of cooperation and our own development and growth, I might even recommend "team moderation" whereby we pair ourselves with another resource that we have found in this community. I know that I could certainly benefit from a closer association with many of the contributors here, and I would hope that they could see value in pairing with me as well.
And thank you so much for all the effort that you have invested in this thus far, as it is turning into a more and more valuable resource by the hour.
Galen
-
Permalink Reply by Doug McDavid on
-
Just quickly, I like your ideas for categories as different dimension. I tried to give them labels, not sure how successfully:
Audience
Concepts
Experience
Viewpoints
Maturity
Depth
I'm not strongly proposing those as categories -- just food for thought. I think some of the points you indicate on the dimensions could become categories, as well. So, for instance under "Theory", I am interested to talk about things like general systems theory, complexity theory, ontologies, etc. as related to IC. Then there are war stories to share under "Practice"!
I am interested in this topic of classifying the space here. It stems from the early part of my career, where I served in the library field It's appropriate to think about classification in a forum devoted to IC :-)
Mary Adams said:Thanks Doug - I think you have captured it!
Do you think it will work to host both conversations here? I hope so. If so, when people go to the Discussions page what are the titles of the Categories (listed in the upper left of the page) that would help them know where to go? [Note: this is the emergent idea that I had with the Categories "Ideas" and "Guides"--but we need to fine tune this]
Back Room - Front Room
Theory - Practice
Advanced - Beginners
Consultants/Academics - Businesspeople
Emerging - Standards
Advanced - Basics
Something else....?
The germ of an idea that I have had is that the Basics discussion could become a set of "open source" components as an introduction to IC management--things that we all can point to as the basic building blocks of IC management. (I tried to introduce this idea in my explanation of Guides but we're not there yet on the concept).
If we get these two arenas well defined, these discussion could really help us channel the strength of our community...
Please keep the ideas flowing. We are figuring this out in real time!
-
Permalink Reply by John James O'Brien, CRM, MALT on -
Segmentation can sometimes feel like fragmentation. The reality of tight schedules plays into navigating among the categories. For myself, I must consider this environment among (too many) others that I participate in. The easier it is to feel that I have grasped where the discussion is, the easier to jump in. The more places that one must visit to garner a context for participation, the less likely that time will allow doing so. The broader the dialogue, IMO, the more likely it acts as catalyst for innovation.
I like Doug's front room/back room metaphor and do appreciate the need for a free ranging exploration of complexities(back room) as well as the positive presentation of outcomes (which seems rather like sales) in the front room. I wonder, however, how the two combine here.
Mary, not arguing against the idea of categories and sub-categories (I'm a knowledge architect after all). Merely noting aspects that may require consideration both in the development of this space and in subsequent assessment as patterns emerge to guide development.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Selby on -
I'm running a Government-sponsored ICM consultancy service for SMEs in Hong Kong. It goes under the title 'ICM Lite'. After taking part in academic conferences and presentations by NCP to a European government, I had concluded that the main problems were:
- too much academic jargon;
- too much 'management consultants' jargon' (hated by SME bosses);
- lack of standardization of terms (is it Intellectual CAPITAL Mannagement or Intellectual ASSET Management?...)
I took the Chinngis Khan management approach and forced adoption of a single set of terms (regardless of whether or not they are the best) and most importantly here, created a standard set of terms in Chinese for the same things (there are four current Chinese translations of 'ICM'.)
I will upload the 'user manual'
S - Attachments:
-
-
ICM Brochure (Eng).pdf, 7.8 MB
-
-
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting all these different categories. I absolutely agree that there should be two basic discussion areas. I was looking for the perfect names for the front and back rooms and was suggesting different pairings. Wasn't sure if front and back room would be self-explanatory.
The idea is that if someone goes to the discussion pages, the main categories will be:
Front room [whatever we call it]
Back room [whatever we call it]
Stories
Our Community
What's the right set of names?
Thanks for the feedback!
© 2012 Created by Mary Adams.
