Reshaping business and the world by leveraging knowledge intangibles
IC and the Education Sector
My work involves directing the analysis of and reporting on the achievement of about half a million students in the pre-secondary education system in British Columbia, Canada. (We used to call this the Kindergarten to g12 system, but we are now expanding education services almost to birth). I recently completed a doctoral dissertation which was supposed to be about how School District Superintendents managed data, but I quickly realized that the real topic was how the education system at large dealt with Intellectual Capital. And what I discovered was that, ironically, the pre-secondary education system is most decidedly a non-learning system, in that it barely recognizes that it has intellectual capital or is unaware that much of the "knowledge" that it claims to have, esp. in relation to teaching practices, is actually habit and opinion and may do more harm than good.
In any case, I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who has experience with, or thought about IC in relation to education, or public services generally.
Tags: Education, IC, Knowledge, systems
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Adams on
-
Fascinating comment Gerald - Although I don't have direct experience with education (other than as a consumer!), I am struck by the parallel with what I have seen at many professional services firms--that high-end knowledge workers tend to think that what they do is an art and that their success has to do with their unique talents rather than with good processes. They don't see the value in capturing these processes and creating shared structural capital. Without a deliberate effort to do so, they can reinforce the perception of their unique talent and value to the organization.
Another example is the book recently released (I haven't gotten through it all) related mostly to the medical field--Checklist Manifesto. The thesis is that simple checklists improve outcomes in a dramatic way. That is, memorializing "best practices" makes even the smartest professionals more effective.
If you haven't read Clayton Christenson et al Disrupting Class, I highly recommend it. It makes the case that technology-based learning will disrupt mainstream education. Although not ideal for all applications, a lot of the basic skills and knowledge acquisition can be shared through programs that move students at their own pace and can be designed for different kinds of learners. This kind of technology has the potential to operationalize what works. I am not suggesting a panacea, just a direction. And clearly, this kind of structural capital is a good place to start.
-
Permalink Reply by Setsuko Morishita on -
We have been working for higher education institutions in IC context for almost 2 years in Japan. We are now facing a very serious problem in University sector from management and operational perspectives. Major reason is the declining 18-year population in our country, while Japan has not been so successful luring international students from other regions, like US and Europe. So, we are now trying to promote IC and ICM concept to Universities and authorities as well. The idea and concept seems to be accepted, but not many understand how to do it. Recently we had a discussion with an expert friend of us who has been engaged in middel education restructuring and reform. He suggested us that even in compulsory education sector, managing IC should be of top priority. I read your comment very interestingly. As we are about to start conversation with the ministry of education, could you give me some additional information?
-
Permalink Reply by John James O'Brien, CRM, MALT on -
Gerald, I know you've done a great deal of work looking at indicators and that the data associated with the liberation of distance education (in terms of district control) seems to open the door to new ways of conceiving performance indicators. This seems a way to break out of the frame shaped by autonomous teachers operating behind closed doors and competing rather than collaborating. It deftly shifts the paradigm through leveraging certain factors at the macro level, as discussed. But, this is a push, rather than pull dynamic (am I correct?).
Still pushing, I wonder whether provincial indicators might require superintendents to assume accountability for IC. Some of the pieces are likely already in place but require definition in IC terms. At the district level, I suspect that such indicators would affirm perceptions based on observation and experience, lending credibility to the exercise (among leaders) and momentum for defining indicators within an IC frame that is tailored to local needs. A challenge, IMO, is to reveal the practical relevance of the domain to those who are driven by measures out of sync with IC thinking. At the school level, IC is a recognition of relational capital, supported by structural capital within a conscious set of human capital. That's grossly simplified, of course, but may provide some frame for discussion within the sector. As in everything, language and coming to an agreed meaning is critical. A real challenge is fear of a loss of control common to any change initiative, lack of trust among players at the macro level and the very practical concerns of time and risk at the micro level. What, then, is the practical benefit of teachers embracing IC and how will this play into the forces involved in bargaining? What aspects of any "community of practice" development might apply? Has this work been approached as a self-forming phenomena reflective of relational capital or as a top down model that is not, in my view, a community of practice at all.
The public sector does not have quite the same capacity to identify the difference between book and market value as one way of getting leaders on board. That is, in the private sector, if market value is X and the capital assets on the balance sheet are Y, then x-y indicates an intangible value that is IC. This equation does not exist in the same terms when considering public sector agencies. So, how can the intangibles associated with public service be identified and defined? To my knowledge, this has not been articulated in IC terms at an aggregate level. However, the bits and pieces shape briefs and proposals for new initiatives in terms of cost avoidance, reduction, etc. We would be better armed with knowledge about expenditures made toward building IC so as to establish a baseline for measures of the benefit.
Riffing off Mary's observation re technology-based learning, I understand that British Columbia integrates technology fairly effectively and that Christenson's premise that this has disrupted traditional education is on target--power shifts to the learner. What does the system need to know under these changed circumstances? That is, what data and what understanding may be lost or added and how does this dovetail with needs at the governance level?
I may be rambling...but there's something in this. Look forward to the exchange of ideas. J.
-
Permalink Reply by Göran Roos on -
Have a look at:
Burgman, R. and G. Roos “Measuring, Managing and Delivering Value Performance in the Public Sector”, International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2004, pp. 132-149.
Garnett, H. M., Roos, G. and S. Pike, “Repeatable Assessment for Determining Value and Enhancing Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education”, OECD, Directorate for Education, Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education [IMHE) Conference: Outcomes of Higher Education – Quality, Relevance and Impact, 8th -9th September 2008, Paris, France
Fletcher, A., Guthrie, J. Steane, P., Roos, G. and S. Pike “Mapping Stakeholder Perceptions for a Third Sector Organization”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2003, pp. 505-527.
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald Morton, EdD on -
Hi Mary. It turns out that I am also responsible for Distributed Learning (technology based) in British Columbia. It does indeed turn out to be "disruptive" in the sense that teachers and students are making educational connections far outside of the educational "box", which is the traditional classroom of one adult and 25-30 students occupied for 6 hours a day. I have been working to thread the educational opportunities provided by DL into the IC perspective, and the fit is good.
Mary Adams said:Fascinating comment Gerald - Although I don't have direct experience with education (other than as a consumer!), I am struck by the parallel with what I have seen at many professional services firms--that high-end knowledge workers tend to think that what they do is an art and that their success has to do with their unique talents rather than with good processes. They don't see the value in capturing these processes and creating shared structural capital. Without a deliberate effort to do so, they can reinforce the perception of their unique talent and value to the organization.
Another example is the book recently released (I haven't gotten through it all) related mostly to the medical field--Checklist Manifesto. The thesis is that simple checklists improve outcomes in a dramatic way. That is, memorializing "best practices" makes even the smartest professionals more effective.
If you haven't read Clayton Christenson et al Disrupting Class, I highly recommend it. It makes the case that technology-based learning will disrupt mainstream education. Although not ideal for all applications, a lot of the basic skills and knowledge acquisition can be shared through programs that move students at their own pace and can be designed for different kinds of learners. This kind of technology has the potential to operationalize what works. I am not suggesting a panacea, just a direction. And clearly, this kind of structural capital is a good place to start.
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald Morton, EdD on
-
Thank you for your interest Setsuko. I have been travelling and unable to provide a proper reply. Over the next 2 or three days I will be able to provide additional information, and hopefully continue a productive discussion with you.
Setsuko Morishita said:We have been working for higher education institutions in IC context for almost 2 years in Japan. We are now facing a very serious problem in University sector from management and operational perspectives. Major reason is the declining 18-year population in our country, while Japan has not been so successful luring international students from other regions, like US and Europe. So, we are now trying to promote IC and ICM concept to Universities and authorities as well. The idea and concept seems to be accepted, but not many understand how to do it. Recently we had a discussion with an expert friend of us who has been engaged in middel education restructuring and reform. He suggested us that even in compulsory education sector, managing IC should be of top priority. I read your comment very interestingly. As we are about to start conversation with the ministry of education, could you give me some additional information?
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald Morton, EdD on
-
Hi John--just returned from Montreal. I like the direction you are going--creating an accountability for IC at the Superintendent level. I should tell you about the some of the Ministry's efforts to create other domains of accountability. Good lessons to be learned. In any case, need to break off now but I hope to continue tonight.
John James O'Brien, CRM said:Gerald, I know you've done a great deal of work looking at indicators and that the data associated with the liberation of distance education (in terms of district control) seems to open the door to new ways of conceiving performance indicators. This seems a way to break out of the frame shaped by autonomous teachers operating behind closed doors and competing rather than collaborating. It deftly shifts the paradigm through leveraging certain factors at the macro level, as discussed. But, this is a push, rather than pull dynamic (am I correct?).
Still pushing, I wonder whether provincial indicators might require superintendents to assume accountability for IC. Some of the pieces are likely already in place but require definition in IC terms. At the district level, I suspect that such indicators would affirm perceptions based on observation and experience, lending credibility to the exercise (among leaders) and momentum for defining indicators within an IC frame that is tailored to local needs. A challenge, IMO, is to reveal the practical relevance of the domain to those who are driven by measures out of sync with IC thinking. At the school level, IC is a recognition of relational capital, supported by structural capital within a conscious set of human capital. That's grossly simplified, of course, but may provide some frame for discussion within the sector. As in everything, language and coming to an agreed meaning is critical. A real challenge is fear of a loss of control common to any change initiative, lack of trust among players at the macro level and the very practical concerns of time and risk at the micro level. What, then, is the practical benefit of teachers embracing IC and how will this play into the forces involved in bargaining? What aspects of any "community of practice" development might apply? Has this work been approached as a self-forming phenomena reflective of relational capital or as a top down model that is not, in my view, a community of practice at all.
The public sector does not have quite the same capacity to identify the difference between book and market value as one way of getting leaders on board. That is, in the private sector, if market value is X and the capital assets on the balance sheet are Y, then x-y indicates an intangible value that is IC. This equation does not exist in the same terms when considering public sector agencies. So, how can the intangibles associated with public service be identified and defined? To my knowledge, this has not been articulated in IC terms at an aggregate level. However, the bits and pieces shape briefs and proposals for new initiatives in terms of cost avoidance, reduction, etc. We would be better armed with knowledge about expenditures made toward building IC so as to establish a baseline for measures of the benefit.
Riffing off Mary's observation re technology-based learning, I understand that British Columbia integrates technology fairly effectively and that Christenson's premise that this has disrupted traditional education is on target--power shifts to the learner. What does the system need to know under these changed circumstances? That is, what data and what understanding may be lost or added and how does this dovetail with needs at the governance level?
I may be rambling...but there's something in this. Look forward to the exchange of ideas. J.
-
Permalink Reply by Alice MacGillivray on -
Hello Gerald. Congratulations on your EdD; it takes passion and tenacity to complete a doctorate while working. As you may recall, we worked together briefly a LONG time ago in the Ministry of Education. Actually my choosing to work elsewhere related to this topic.
Your comments take me in many directions and I'm not sure what your primary interests are. So, for now, I will simply post a few comments and questions. I'm an irredeemable boundary-spanner, so you are touching on many issues that I care about a lot.
* There are many networks and communities talking about education systems not being learning systems. The disciplines, experience bases and language differ, but it is definitely on the radar of many. The settings and cases vary from early childhood through informal and non-formal learning to perspectives and habits of tenured faculty.
* It sounds as if you are thinking about relationships amongst concepts such as data, information, knowledge, evidence, emergence, motivations and social construction.
* I presume you are thinking about the "education system" at different levels (for example learning amongst teachers, classroom learning and how they relate) and at different scales (poverty, stress and learning; what knowledge is privileged and what is marginalized in society as a whole; how work with metrics affects teacher workload and motivation, etc.)
* Taking a systems perspective, I am convinced there are no quick fixes to the questions you raise. The good news is that I think executives have to start treating their organizations as complex systems soon, or costs and issues will take us into crises (in which case we might lose opportunities for constructive change.)
* Recently I worked with the Auditor General on a project that might spur some thoughts if you have not seen it. I think all the references to IC were deleted (we were trying to create something introductory and accessible) but it is implicit in the whole project. Here is the site: http://www.bcauditor.com/knowledge I wish I spent more time on my website providing good links; I tend to do that as-needed through social media.
Wishing you well with change leadership,
Alice
-
Permalink Reply by Galen McPherson on -
This might even seem a bit off-handed or even flippant, but I wanted to offer a short return to Mary's comment about shifting the power to the student in the education/school environment.
I would offer that this is a good thing, allowing each student to take ownership of their own education. This responsibility, feeling accountable for what they have learned, is missing from so many students [I substitute teach weekly in my school district, simply to keep in touch with the classroom environment as I make my observations and "intellectual" conclusions]. I feel that what is needed, in order for this program to be successful, is a series of incremental targets of achievement toward which each student can self-manage. This hybrid of [current government intervention and placing the burden on the teaching institution] with [individual achievement and accountability with societally-agreed targets] might truly reform education in a good way.
Obviously there would still be a role for schools and teachers as venues and mentors, providers of specialized resources and knowledge that the individual can [and must] tap in order to succeed, but I just wanted to provoke comments about this "disruption", personally believing it to be a good thing.
-
Permalink Reply by Alice MacGillivray on
-
There has been work about valuing public sector intangibles (formally and in less quantitative ways) for many years (without some digging I would estimate at least 15 years). The BC government supporting my attending the World Congress on IC in 2000 to present and gather info, and I recall my presentation to executives suggested they might even become accountable for IC measures that would roll up to a BC level in the future. But like so many efforts to achieve standards, the high level work can have a "so what" feel to it.
I'd be interested in Gerald's thoughts about highest priorities or potential quick wins. We could be looking at anything from strengthening learning amongst teachers to overhauling the fundamental nature of student achievement measurement.
John James O'Brien, CRM said:Gerald, I know you've done a great deal of work looking at indicators and that the data associated with the liberation of distance education (in terms of district control) seems to open the door to new ways of conceiving performance indicators. This seems a way to break out of the frame shaped by autonomous teachers operating behind closed doors and competing rather than collaborating. It deftly shifts the paradigm through leveraging certain factors at the macro level, as discussed. But, this is a push, rather than pull dynamic (am I correct?).
Still pushing, I wonder whether provincial indicators might require superintendents to assume accountability for IC. Some of the pieces are likely already in place but require definition in IC terms. At the district level, I suspect that such indicators would affirm perceptions based on observation and experience, lending credibility to the exercise (among leaders) and momentum for defining indicators within an IC frame that is tailored to local needs. A challenge, IMO, is to reveal the practical relevance of the domain to those who are driven by measures out of sync with IC thinking. At the school level, IC is a recognition of relational capital, supported by structural capital within a conscious set of human capital. That's grossly simplified, of course, but may provide some frame for discussion within the sector. As in everything, language and coming to an agreed meaning is critical. A real challenge is fear of a loss of control common to any change initiative, lack of trust among players at the macro level and the very practical concerns of time and risk at the micro level. What, then, is the practical benefit of teachers embracing IC and how will this play into the forces involved in bargaining? What aspects of any "community of practice" development might apply? Has this work been approached as a self-forming phenomena reflective of relational capital or as a top down model that is not, in my view, a community of practice at all.
The public sector does not have quite the same capacity to identify the difference between book and market value as one way of getting leaders on board. That is, in the private sector, if market value is X and the capital assets on the balance sheet are Y, then x-y indicates an intangible value that is IC. This equation does not exist in the same terms when considering public sector agencies. So, how can the intangibles associated with public service be identified and defined? To my knowledge, this has not been articulated in IC terms at an aggregate level. However, the bits and pieces shape briefs and proposals for new initiatives in terms of cost avoidance, reduction, etc. We would be better armed with knowledge about expenditures made toward building IC so as to establish a baseline for measures of the benefit.
Riffing off Mary's observation re technology-based learning, I understand that British Columbia integrates technology fairly effectively and that Christenson's premise that this has disrupted traditional education is on target--power shifts to the learner. What does the system need to know under these changed circumstances? That is, what data and what understanding may be lost or added and how does this dovetail with needs at the governance level?
I may be rambling...but there's something in this. Look forward to the exchange of ideas. J.
-
-
I don't know if you folks are interested in creating a Group for IC and Education but I think it could be a very rich discussion (I am not expert in the field but fascinated that organizations in the business of knowledge are actually trapped in the industrial era with everyone else...)
Another whole thread is openness in academia as seen in http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2010/howtoopena...
I think the Group functionality is open. If you decide to try it and need anything, just let me know. I'm sure we/you could get a big group going....
-
Permalink Reply by Gerald Morton, EdD on
-
I think opening a group is a good idea.
Mary Adams said:I don't know if you folks are interested in creating a Group for IC and Education but I think it could be a very rich discussion (I am not expert in the field but fascinated that organizations in the business of knowledge are actually trapped in the industrial era with everyone else...)
Another whole thread is openness in academia as seen in http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2010/howtoopena...
I think the Group functionality is open. If you decide to try it and need anything, just let me know. I'm sure we/you could get a big group going....
© 2012 Created by Mary Adams.
