|
|
First, I would like to
challenge the concept of needing to define something. I find
definitions to be extremely limiting. They become permanent representations
of the thing being defined and leave no room for interpretation, adaptation,
or evolution over time. Instead I like to think about the distinctions
of something. This is an evolving description -- a running list of
the manifestations and characteristics of the thing. Distinctions
allow something to take on different guises in different contexts.
They allow you to accumulate a list of those manifestions and characteristics
over time. They also allow you to include what something is not
in addition to what it is, to set boundaries around the thing
being described. They provide people with a much richer sense of meaning
and understanding. In short, something moves from being a dead
set of words to being alive in the mind of the receiver.
Including different people's definitions of intellectual capital or
knowledge in a book or article is a method of beginning to list their
distinctions.
Some of the different
distinctions of Intellectual Capital that I use (in addition
to the ones already expressed by Tom Stewart and Leif Edvinsson in their
recently published IC books - both, by the way, really were developing
a list of IC distinctions at the beginning of their books, rather than
classic definitions):
- The sum of an enterprise's:
- collective knowledge,
experience, skills, competences, and ability to acquire more
- work outcomes, services
and other intangible manifestations of the application of these
to the strategic intent of the enterprise
- relationships and
processes that facilitate this application, its delivery of value
to the marketplace, and its delivery of strategic advantage back
to the enterprise
- An enterprise's competences;
the artifacts and measurements of its intangible resources; the capabilities
and interactions of its formal organizations, informal communities,
customers, and partners; and the knowledge, skills, and potential
of its employees and other stakeholders
- Rather than a definition,
the example I always use when I talk about IC is:
For Microsoft, in a nutshell, IC is its intangible assets:
- the knowledge and
skill of its programmers
- the software they
write
- the licenses through
which the software is protected and made available to the marketplace
- the share of the market
held by that software all resulting in making Bill Gates the richest
person in the country and Microsoft one of its most successful
companies
- Intangible material and
relationships that have been or could be formalized, captured, and
leveraged to produce a higher-valued asset
- the difference between
book value and market value
- what investors really
should care about, but have never had access to
- What IC is not
is what is shown on the balance sheet and other financial statements
- What IC is not
is what an enterprise understands and manages as its most valuable
asset
Some of the different
distinctions of Knowledge that I use:
- accumulated experience
and learning:
- what, why, how, who,
where, when, how much
- formal education and
lessons from just everyday living and working
- facts, stories, images
- documented, spoken,
tacit
- conscious, unconscious
- a simple way to think
about the difference between data, information, and knowledge is that
as you move through the data to knowledge continuum the material takes
on increasing levels of meaning and the perceiver gains increasing
levels of understanding
- Another way to look at
this distinction:
I like to use the metaphor of the brain to help understand knowledge
and intelligence. Put simply, my conception is that the brain is billions
of neurons which store data. What gives us knowledge is the links
between them, as well as the access paths we have created which allow
us to follow the links. Together these let us make sense of the data
stored in all of those cells. We achieve intelligence when we become
aware that all of these cells in our brain and our body are collectively
one living being capable of reasoning, feeling, and connecting to
and impacting other beings and the environment in which we live.
Organizational knowledge
and intelligence are much the same. When we just have a bunch of
data and information scattered in different sources -- databases,
documents, e-mail messages, conversations, people's heads -- little
meaning is provided to the organization or its individual stakeholders.
It is only when we begin to link these through technological and
sociological connections, to provide access through these links
in meaningful ways that the organization gains knowledge. And it
is only when the separate entities are linked and aware that they
are connected and interdependent, that the organization gains intelligence
-- a deep sense of being "one", of being whole. Of course, the existence
of this knowledge or intelligence doesn't add value to the enterprise
by itself. Only when the knowledge and intelligence is applied to
the purpose of the enterprise and its customers does it become a
valued asset -- intellectual capital.
- organizational knowledge
takes many forms; internally it can be knowledge of (just a sample):
- culture, history
- strategic direction
- organizations, partnerships,
and other formal relationships
- communities of practice,
communities of interest, networks, and other informal relationships
- individual people
- processes
- products, services
- systems, tools
- patents, technologies
- written and unwritten
rules
- where these are located;
how to find or access them
- how to use or apply
them -- how to get things done
- how to succeed around
here
- who do or could we
know or work with
externally, it can be
knowledge of (just a sample):
- customers, markets,
and their needs, wants, and activities in the marketplace --existing
and potential
- competitors and our
position relative to them -- near term & strategically, overall
and in specific markets and situations
- laws and regulations
impacting the enterprise now or in the future
- emerging technologies
and other trends of possible significance to the enterprise
- suppliers, partners
-- existing and potential
- investment market,
sources of capital
- other parts of the
extended enterprise -- owner, sister business units or companies
in a larger corporation or holding company, subsidiaries
- global -- countries,
cultures, climates - political and geographical, economics, global
locations of the enterprise operations and markets
most knowledge remains
in people's heads and never gets formalized, documented, and shared;
in addition to knowledge about the above, there is much knowledge
they carry we rarely try to find out about or leverage for the purpose
of the enterprise, for example:
- languanges spoken
and cultures/customs understood
- outside interests
such as hobbies that could be tapped by the enterprise
- who do they know in
the outside world where we could potentially benefit from the
relationship
- professional affiliations
- adult education, workshops,
conferences and other non-work related learning
- knowledge acquired
in previous jobs that isn't being utilized
- all of the thousands
of ideas and suggestions that everybody thinks about, but rarely
get heard or acted upon
- What knowledge is not
is most of the stuff companies and information systems functions have
been paying all of their attention to for decades and investing all
of their billions of dollars in with little or no return
|
