I3 UPDATE / ENTOVATION International News
No. 19: May 1998
Virtual Trust: A Key Ingredient of Knowledge Sharing - David J. Skyrme
ENTOVATION International News
Message to China
The New ENTOVATION Connection
Knowledge Agenda Blossoming in Ottawa
Finance Community: Heads Down (Up?)
The OZ Network of Du Pont
Kentucky Initiative for Knowledge Management
Leading Lights features Debra Amidon
Welcome to this latest I3 UPDATE / ENTOVATION International News, a free briefing analysing developments in the networked knowledge economy. For this edition we welcome colleagues of ENTOVATION International who attended
recent seminars in Toronto, Ottawa, Delaware, San Diego and New York. If
you do not wish to receive future editions please email email@example.com to
be removed from this list, which is solely used for distribution of this
David J. Skyrme
David J. Skyrme
"The largest challenge is our culture. People are protective of their
"How do you shift from a position of 'knowledge is power' to 'knowledge
sharing is power'?"
"Why should I give freely of my hard won knowledge? What do I get in return?"
All are typical comments I hear from people in companies trying to improve
their knowledge sharing. In general, people like helping other people. It
makes them feel good and allows them to demonstrate their expertise. Why is
it then, that there is this reluctance when the same individuals are in a
corporate setting? One of the underlying reasons is a certain lack of trust:
- Do I trust that this knowledge will used properly?
- Do I trust the recipient not to grab it and use it as his/her own?
- Do I trust the organization to recognize and reward me for my contribution to the corporate good?
Virtual Working Compounds the Issue
If the other person is not someone you can see face to face, but in another
location, the trust issue is compounded. It may be two people who have not
met before. We are all being made aware of Internet scams - mind you they
exist in the real world too: how many times have you received an invoice
for your entry in a bogus business directory? If you get an order over the
Internet, by standard email or Web form, how do you know it is genuine? The
answer is you don't unless you trust the other unknown person.
I now get quite a bit of my business over the Internet, and this may
involve me in expense without even seeing the other person or the colour of
their money. For example, I recently went to present at the VoNet
(http://www.virtual-organization.net) workshop on virtual organizations.
Having cut short a week-end away to fly out on a Sunday, and having
invested in a fully flexible air fare, my wife, just as I was about to
leave, said: "How do you know this virtual thing is not all thin air, and
that it is real?". The answer, of course is that couldn't 100 per cent
guarantee that there was a real event, until I got there and saw the
conference delegates. However, all the indications seemed genuine. In the
final reckoning, it was down to trust. In fact, trust was the topic of two
of the three keynote papers of the workshop - and it was well worth my time
and effort in terms of the quality of contributions (you can donwload the Proceedings from the VoNet web site http://www.virtual-organization.net).
Who and What Do We Trust?
Initially you might think that we only trust people who we know. It is very
clear in working in virtual teams and organizations that trust builds up
over time. However, when you think about it there are many situations where
you trust somebody who is a complete stranger, such as the pilot of your
airline flight. You literally put your life in her or her hands. Trust,
after all, depends on context and often on the position or back up that the
Do you trust what you read in newspapers? Perhaps not always, but generally
you do for those that have build up a reputation over a long period. As you
will read in the Snippet below, I trusted a Financial Times report that happened to be false! Do you trust old bridges crossing a deep river gorge? Well, if it was built by the Romans or has stood unscathed for centuries,
you probably will. Do you trust the parachute you are wearing in a
free-fall descent? Do we always trust ourselves to do the right thing?
Sometimes people get it wrong, like the resident near Mount St. Helens who
saw no reason to move when the volcano blew its top.
We may trust people or things as long as they fulfil our expectations. When
they do not, trust can evaporate quickly and take a much longer time to
When trusting someone or something, you are making a complex judgement,
based on prior knowledge, sense making, assessment of many factors - and
just sheer intuition.
The Nature of Trust
Sirkka Jarvenpaa, speaking on the nature of trust in virtual teams at the
VoNet workshop, describes trust as multi-faceted and ever changing. It can
be both interpersonal, as in many business relationships, or impersonal as
in the case of the airline pilot. She relates a model of trust (Doney and
Cannon) based on five generic processes:
- Calculative - you engage in a relationship based on an ongoing
calculation of the costs and rewards of opportunistic behaviour.
- Prediction - you use your experience of past behaviour to predict the
future e.g. do they regularly meet their commitments.
- Capability - the capability of the other party to perform. This may be
gauged from status experience, reputation etc..
- Intentionality - the disclosure of intentions and aspirations e.g. what
is their underlying motive for entering this relationship.
- Transference - transfer of trust via a third party i.e. if somebody you
trust puts their trust in another individual then you might also, based on
Translating this to the virtual organization Jarvenpaa argues that although
they are dynamic, building of the supportive social structures including
member-support and trust require explicit attention, in all but the most
temporary of situations. She writes:
"In a virtual organization, trust is the heartbeat. Only trust can prevent
geographical and organizational distances of team members from turning to
unmanageable psychological distances. Only through trust can members be
assured of others' willingness and ability to deliver on their obligations."
She adds that trust is initially built on transference and intentionality
(processes 4 and 5 above), but through communication and interaction, that
over time they rely more on predictability and capability processes
(processes 2 and 3). The outcome she calls knowledge-based trust.
Practical Ways to Develop Trust
It is often felt that face-to-face communications helps develop trust. For
example, BP have found that a commitments made when using videoconferencing
as opposed to simply email are more likely to be met. Making a commitment
'eyeball to eyeball' has a more personal impact. My own belief is that ways
of building trust depends on personal preferences and personalities and
that behaviour while out of sight and out of mind is equally important.
While it is difficult to generalize, I propose the following rules-of-thumb:
- Communicate, communicate, communicate - short and frequent
communications help the process of dialogue and trust building
- Offer some knowledge freely and without strings - give away some
knowledge that has some value to you, and will be of significant benefit to
the recipient, such as some key contact names or key source material (after
all, by sharing you have not lost this knowledge, you have just made it
- Make a small commitment and meet it - if you say "OK, I'll send that on
to you", do so. Its amazing with busy professionals how many small things
fall through the cracks, whether through lack of time or disorganization.
Better not make a commitment at all than make one and miss it.
- Don't over commit - a frequent problem of the professional
perfectionist. I'd rather hear "no" from a colleague, rather than "yes",
followed by repeated missed deadlines.
- Disclose your values in carefully managed phases - you don't want to
give somebody your life's history or prejudices, but you do need to make
clear what is driving you to behave in certain ways.
- Make your expectations clear - if you are seeking specific knowledge or
help on a problem, be as explicit as you can. That helps the other party
the ability to give a definitive response.
- Remind colleagues gently if they have not met their obligations or your
trust - don't make a big deal out of it, but don't ignore it either; use it
as a signal to show that you care, and to help them gauge their behaviour
- Be prolific with your thanks and praise - people appreciate recognition,
even if they are only doing their job. Recognition is in short supply in
- Socialise - even informally by email over the network. Informal
conversation and identification of shared interests beyond the immediate
business tasks, helps builds closer bonds.
- Demonstrate interest and commitment to the other person. Do things for
them that will help them succeed.
In summary these are techniques that help build an ever escalating galaxy
of commitments, and by doing so increasing trust and the mutual bonds of
good business and personal relationships.
My own philosophy is one of reciprocity. In a knowledge sharing environment
you get out what you put in. If you are proactive and helpful, and trust
others, then you expect similar behaviour in return. I apply the principle
of tit-for-tat, a principle incidentally, that game theory has shown to be
effective in many business and political situations. You respond as they
behave. If another person takes advantage of you in some way, and they do
not get the message and make amends, you do a measured matching response,
though normally clear communications should obviate the need for this. They
can upset you once, but they do not remain in your knowledge sharing
network to do it a second time.
Finally, trust your instincts. Your own tacit knowledge is much more of a
guide to developing trust than any set of rules or principles.
See A Reader Replies
Debra M. Amidon
On the occasion of my visit to Beijing (15th May 1998).
The world is depending upon a strong China - economically, politically and
socially. Given the scope of its geographic and demographic influence, it
can and will have an extraordinary influence on how our future unfolds.
Peter Drucker suggests that this is a matter of understanding and
effective action - precisely the essence of knowledge innovation.
Therefore, the people of China are encouraged to discover the value of
their ken as society embraces this emerging knowledge economy.
Yours is a history of many managerial secrets yet to be leveraged in the
modern world. Your networks span the globe and harmony is at your core -
even though the recent decades have been laden with upheaval. I have met
several of your leaders and it is clear that the horizon is becoming more
favorable and it holds economic opportunities never before imagined in your
The question is also crystal-clear: Can China - with its rich heritage but
cumbersome bureaucracy - transform into a national innovation system in
which good ideas are created, valued and freely moved expeditiously into
For a lifetime, your country - and even your entire region of the world -
has remained a mystery to me. It took the leadership of one associate from
abroad - Dr. Zhouying Jin - to open a whole new world for me. She -
together with several other Chinese colleagues, including Dr. Jin Chen -
have provided both perspective and vision of what might be possible when
East finally meets West.
Now, I marvel - after one visit to your country - at how much has been
accomplished in such a short period of time. Indeed, individuals can and
must make a difference; for it is the ken in us all which enables us to
innovate our future...together.
Thank you for the positive response to receiving I3 UPDATE. When the newsletter was begun, there was very little material on the web related to
knowledge and innovation. Now, of course we enjoy a wealth of material. Our
objective is to sort through and make some of the most valuable insights
and contacts more visible. Let us know if there is some material you
believe should be featured. the knowledge economy is one of leadership and
sharing. Together, we can innovate our organisations.
From 13-14 April 1998, Fred Belaire and Blaine Kennedy, Ken-Bel-Tek, Inc.,
hosted a "Practicum on Knowledge Innovation(TM) Strategies." Other sponsors
included OCRI, Silicon Valley North, National Research Council, Industry
Canada, JetForm Corporation, NewBridge and others. The full day event with
a focus on the 4 C's - Context, Company, Customer and Conclusions -
preceded the two day annual meeting of the National Research Council with
the theme - Innovation.
The group experimented with a conferencing technology called Grouputer
Group Decision Support System designed for structured meetings to guide
learning, strategic planning, SWOT Analysis, data collection and more. By
capturing real-time insights, participants make their tacit knowledge
explicit. For further details, contact Blaine Kennedy (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Another ENTOVATION colleague Cornelius F. Burk and Henry E. McCandless have
co-authored an article - "Fulfilling the Need to Know" - which appeared in
the Ivey Business Quarterly (Spring 1997) published by the University of
Western Ontario. In calling attention to the information responsibility of
the Board - not even the CEO - they suggest that the board should be "the
directing mind of the enterprise." With public accountability increasing,
they outline a process from outlining intentions through resulting outcomes
- including a call for performance standards. Certainly this is a new
dimension of intangible assets of the firm. For more details contact Neil
We also learned of the Four-Quadrant Leadership model created by Ruben F.W.
Nelson, President of Square One Leadership (Alberta, Canada) which was
featured in the January/February 1996 issue of the Planning Review (now
called the Strategy and Leadership Journal). This article describes the
shift form a preoccupation with administration toward leadership. This is
not necessarily new; but the model itself is worthy of current review. It
effectively integrates the hard and soft realities with the present and
future creating (1) the Intangible Present, (2) the Intangible Future, (3)
the Operational Present and (4) the Physical Future.
One might suggest that communication - both technical and organizational - is at the heart of the process of knowledge innovation. In fact, it is included as one of the ten dimensions. 'Communicating for Competitiveness' - a major study of the effectiveness of internal communication in Canadian businesses - was launched by Peter Turner, Managing Partner, Bottom-Line Communicating. This begins with a Media Review Report and Communication
Audit and results in Debriefing and Communication Guides.
Contact Peter Turner (email@example.com) for further details and participation requirements.
Practicum interviews conducted for the Ottawa Citizen by reporter Michael
Lewis featured the seminal meeting for two days. '"Investors need to look
beyond the balance sheet for the hidden indicators of a company's wealth,
"according to globetrotting Amidon.' In addition, a live radio BMM
broadcast by John Lacharity delivered the message on the morning business
channel in Ottawa, Canada. Describing the nature of kaleidoscopic change
(i.e., 5th Generation), Amidon affirmed that "it is not the speed of change
per se, but the compounding effects of multiple changes happening
simultaneously...and we are operating with 3rd and 4th generation
management techniques." Contact: Fred Belaire (firstname.lastname@example.org)
for further details.
More telling may be the recent initiative of Canada by Design. It includes
a list of guests currently scheduled in the Visionary Speaker Series. For
instance, John Manley, Minister of Industry, presented March 12th - "A
National Vision: Designing a Canadian Knowledge Nation." March 26th, Sheila
Copps, Department of Canadian heritage provided "Designing a Strategy for a
Canadian Knowledge Nation." Other seminars included representatives from
Telecommunities Canada, Centre for International Relations (University of
Toronto) Environics Research Group, Statistics Canada, Bell Canada,
Canadian Cable Television. There was even a session - "Imagined Community."
Contact Bryan Davis at the Kaieteur Virtual Institue for Knowledge
In the Ottawa Citizen (4/13/98), a story by Mike Trickey describes the
recent thinking of George Haynal, Canada's consul general in new York.
"Knowledge is the foundation upon which soft power is built, with the
ability to collect, process and disseminate information in a way that
attracts others to your point of view being the essence of strategy." He
describes soft power at work, whereby traditional values helped influence
world opinion." Amidon adds that it is a matter of leadership, what a
nation might have to learn from another nation and what legacy might be left.
The day's Practicum was hosted by Tony Patterson, Editor and CEO, Silicon
Valley North. In his closing remarks and reflecting on the action item out
of the meeting he said:
"The one thing I'm going to do is make a list, in cooperation with all my
staff, of the intangible assets that we have but do not recognize, yet
Sound advice for us all.
The National Business Meeting of the AICPA (April 19-23) in San Diego,
California, picked up on managing the Intangible Assets as a sub-theme.
There were several sessions dedicated to topics related to the knowledge
economy. ENTOVATION colleague Brett Knowles, co-founder of Know Inc.
(Toronto, Canada), delivered a presentation - "Products and Services
Available in the Intellectual Capital Arena." This included a description
of recent initiatives, a product review and a preview of the contents of
their new web sites (www.knowledgeshop.com;
In a session entitled "Intellectual Capital and the Knowledge Economy: An
Emerging Financial Leadership Role," Debra Amidon hosted the new monograph
- Collaborative Innovation and the Knowledge Economy - which is
co-sponsored by the Canadian Management Accountants, the CEFM sub-group of
the AICPA and CAM-I. Copies are available in both English and French
through e-mail (email@example.com).
In the collective audience of 160+, she inquired:
Q1 How many of you have heard of this new focus on hidden assets,
intangible value, or intellectual capital?
R: About 60% raised their hands
Q2: How many had initiatives which had been launched in their companies?
R: About 24 responded in the affirmative
Q3: How many of you consider this focus to be just a fad.
R: Only 4 raised their hands
This was a bit of a surprise, but it appears that the finance community is
received the message and are seeking guidance on how best to put the
concepts into action. Our work is most timely!
The OZ Group - and informal collection of seven DuPonters promoting an
environment of creativity and innovation - was founded in March, 1986.
[NOTE: Interestingly enough this is the same year that Karl-Erik Sveiby
(then from Sweden) published the Know-How Company, Itami (from Japan)
published Intangible Assets and the 'Roundtable on Managing the Knowledge
Assets into the 21st Century' was organized in the United States. Something
magic about that timeframe?!] The OZ name was conceived in a discussion
with Dr. Edward de Bono, when they were metaphorically describing the
nature of the group..."a creativity pick-up team on a bumpy road to a
brighter future as in the 'Wizard of Oz.' Now the group includes hundreds
representing countries all over the globe and even includes representatives
from several joint ventures, such as Anderson Consulting and CSC.
Debra M. Amidon, recently addressed the group at a meeting hosted by Dr
Parry Norling, Planning Director, DuPont Central Research and Development,
and President-Elect of the Industrial Research Institute. She suggested
that in the end, Dorothy only needed to click her heals three times to
return home. This is equivalent to companies re-affirming their heritage
and roots - which for the most part has been damaged or lost through many
re-engineering and rationalizing efforts - and align for future
opportunities in the knowledge economy. "The renewed focus on knowledge and
innovation has challenged companies to reaffirm their raison d'etre or
sense of purpose in the expanding global environment. What good is our
knowledge if not put to the use of society?!"
In recent years a knowledge management team has been operating and now has
a view of how to operationalize these concepts in what has always been
considered an innovation-competent organization. Ms. Nina Patel, KMIT
Manager, DuPont Corporate Information Science with a session "Internal
Knowledge Management Strategies across Business Units" will be featured
June 11 - 12 in Houston, Texas, at the Knowledge Management in Chemicals
'98 coordinated by FirstConferences (UK). Feel free to contact her
(firstname.lastname@example.org) for more details.
Round 2 is underway in the Kentucky Initiative for Knowledge Management - a
carefully architected research Delphi Study - "In Search of a Descriptive
Framework for Knowledge Management." This is an exploration of possible
frameworks, influences on the conduct of knowledge management, base
attributes, topical issues - including ethics. This project under the
direction of Professor C.W. Holsapple and K.D. Joshi is the extension of
many years of research and now interaction with 30 leading knowledge
experts - both academic and industrial - around the world. The preliminary
results are available in the KIKM Reserach Paper No 118 (March 1998).
Please contact (email@example.com) for further details.
Debra M. Amidon featured as the Leading Light in the April issue of
Knowledge Inc., a regular newsletter on development in the field of
In her interview she described the origins of her thinking, how ENTOVATION
has evolved, and the challenges of corporate innovation, in particular
taking account of knowledge of the customer. The interview concludes with a
description of the concept of Ken:
"Ken is a term for me that captures the essence of the focus on knwoeldge
and innovation. The dictionary definition of ken is both a verb and a noun
- to have 'understanding' and a 'range of vision'. Ken is also an
international term.... so no matter where you go in the world, this little
three-letter word captures the essence of what I believe is needed to carry
us into the next millennium".
Back in early April I made the annual outing to visit HRD (Human Resources
Development) Week at Olympia in London. On the way back I looked in at the
Knowledge Management exhibition in the Royal Horticultural Halls. The
contrast was stark.
HRD massed over 260 stands and was thronged. KM had attracted about 20
exhibitors and about as many visitors. Size is not all of course, but it
made me wonder who the KM exhibitors, consisting mainly of information or
software providers, were hoping to reach.
HRD had everything from awarding bodies to training providers to venue
vendors. In amongst it all there were bazaars of related stands in 'themed
villages' as they call them, for such things as Management Development,
Multimedia, Psychometrics, Training Software and so on.
HRD has a very diverse array of interests, yet it is aimed entirely at
those with responsibility for improving the way that people perform for
their employers, and developing the useful application of knowledge. The
purpose of Knowledge Management can hardly be very different. So I
found myself wondering why the exhibitors at KM had not flocked to Olympia
instead, where they might expect to find more of a market.
The answer could simply be that they don't know any better, or that market
orientation has not yet dawned as a concept in the corporate knowledge base
of the KM fraternity - so much for knowledge management. Another equally
worrying answer could be that Knowledge Management has been coined amongst
an enclave of mainly IT/IS folk who are busy rediscovering much of what the
HR community has known for ever - that IT/IS needs to serve something other
than itself - information needs certainly, and beyond that, the needs of
people who actually have to use and exchange information.
A third possible answer is that KM is still so busy inventing itself that
it doesn't even know yet what it is, let alone who might benefit from using
it. So perhaps it falls into the bracket of a solution looking for a
problem. Cyncial? - certainly, and very sad if even at all true, a sorry
state of ignorance rather than of knowledge.
The shame is that KM is actually starting to provide some very interesting
tools which can, in the right hands, make a marked improvement in some
aspects of people performance. So, despite being cynical, I want it to find
a good home. At Olympia, I found one stand offering Knowledge Management
and Net-based Learning systems: Solstra, a joint development between
Futuremedia and BT. It would be interesting to discover how much business
the stands in the Royal Horticultural Halls generated compared with theirs.
My bets would be on Solstra.
KM vendors cannot seriously expect many HR people to flock to the KM show -
perhaps for next year's venue, KM should consider a village in the HRD
halls. Then we might all start learning about others' areas of knowledge -
and we might even start to manage and apply that knowledge.
Or is that asking too much of KM?!
'Agility & Global Competition':
Innovation in Agile Organizations
The focus of this special issue is on the emergence of a 'community of
innovation practice'. No longer does the creation of ideas reside inside
the research function, nor within the confines of the research laboratory.
Today, all aspects of a company (e.g., finance, manufacturing, engineering,
human resources, information systems) are beginning to assume leadership in
the innovation process-from the creation, conversion and/or
commercialization of knowledge into products and services. Innovation has
been redefined as the flow of knowledge - not the flow of technology per
se. The management of this 'real-time' learning is not confined just to the
company itself, but also includes the wider network of all stakeholders and
even in consort with competitors.
Manuscripts should focus on new techniques and management practices that
enable companies to effectively manage the process of sustainable
innovation. The following topics are intended to be suggestive, not
- How to create a knowledge culture
- Collaboration for innovation
- Frameworks and processes for creating and sharing knowledge
- Essential practical tools and techniques for managing the flow of knowledge
- New measurement and reward systems for innovation
- The role of information and knowledge processing technology
Deadline to receive manuscripts for this special issue is July 30,1998.
Manuscripts and/or inquiries may be directed to the guest editor:
Debra M. Amidon, Founder
ENTOVATION International Ltd.
2 Reading Avenue, Suite No.300
Wilmington, MA 01887
Tel: +1 978-988-7995
For more information about Agility & Global Competition, including
guidelines for authors, contact: Joyce Barker (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Tel: +1 610 758 4887.
Management can increase shareholder value much more easily by leveraging
their firm's intangible assets than its physical assets. The question is:
how? Wentworth Research's recent report Commercialising Knowledge provides
the answer. The intangible assets of a business all depend on knowledge,
which may be located in any of four places:
- As staff competencies; the tacit know-that, know-how and know-why that staff possess
- As business processes; the explicit manifestations of knowledge as operating procedures, application software and technical infrastructure
- As stored knowledge; clerical files and, these days, computer databases
- As intellectual properties; patents, copyrights, trade secrets, brands, trademarks, royalty agreements.
A business can then make money from this knowledge either by transferring
it to its customers or by using it internally to create innovative goods,
services or processes.
The pursuit of knowledge is leading companies away from their traditional
lines of business, which were generally defined in terms of their physical
assets, into new knowledge-based businesses which may have very different
management characteristics. And there is the trap. Unwary managements may
assume that they can motivate and control their new businesses in the same
way as their existing ones. The corporate battlefield is littered with the
bodies of firms that failed for just this reason.
So, either 'stick to the knitting' and make your existing business more
knowledge intensive, or, if you really must venture into a new,
knowledge-based business, do so with caution. But read this report first.
For more information about Wentworth Research see http://www.wentworth.co.uk or call +44 1784 479900.
Proceedings of the VoNet Workshop, 27-18 April, 1998.
Sieber, P., Griese, J. (Eds.)
Simowa Verlag, Bern
You may order the book by Internet at http://www.virtual-organization.net/order_form.htm where you will also find a full table of contents and abstracts. Update (1999). This book is now downloadable (free) from http://www.virtual-organization.net .
May 20-21 1998, Turning Intellectual Capital into a Strategic Asset, London.
Business Intelligence. http://www.business-intelligence.co.uk
June 8-11 1998, Knowledge Management Executive Summit, San Diego, U.S.A.
9-10 June 1998, Online Collaboration, streams on knowledge management and collaboration,
electronic markets and electronic commerce, Berlin.
June 10 1998, The Oil & Gas Practicum Delta Bow Valley, Calgary, Canada.
Sponsored by KPMG, InABox, and the Creative Intelligence Agency and hosted
by Distinct Company.
June 11-12 1998, Knowledge Management in Practice Forum, San Francisco, U.S.A.
16-17 June 1998, KMforum, the first French Knowledge Management symposium,
16-17 June 1998, Knowledge Management in Practice, 2nd International Congress, IKON
(Innovation Knowledge Opportunity Network), London.
June 22-24 1998, The Knowledge Management Conference, Boston, U.S.A.
24-26 June 1998, "The Foundations for Dialogue Program" sponsored by
For further details, contact 617.576.7986 or Eric Deluca
1-2 July 1998. Building the Knowledge Management Framework: The New IT
Business Intelligence. Tel: +44 161 879 3399.
10-12 August 1998. Winning Strategies for Knowlege Management, Chicago.
22-23 October, 1998. Third Annual Symposium on Knowledge Management
"Lessons from the Leading Edge", Williamsburg, Virginia. AQPC.
6-11 December 1998, "The Emerging Leader Program" sponsored by the Global
Institute for Leadership Development. Palm Desert California.
details: +1 781 862 3157.
OK we were had - in I3 UPDATE No. 18 (about the sponsorship of GMT as Guinness Mean Time instead of Greenwich Mean Time!) Carla O'Dell (AQPC) among others told us so. She wrote:
"This was an April Fool's Joke. Several of the big newspapers were duped (
NY Times? or Financial Times?). Makes a good joke but isn't true."
Since I read it in the Financial Times BEFORE 1st April I took it on trust,
and since I was abroad on business on 1st April, missed the later
retraction. In email correspondence with the FT (yes- unlike some other
corporate PR departments they do respond to email!), they said that their
journalists were unaware of the April Fool's ploy by Guinness public
relations department, who failed to mention it was an April Fools joke. A
case of Pure Genius??!! What on earth will they get up to on 1st January 2000?
© Copyright, 1998. David Skyrme Associates Limited and Authors - All rights reserved.
This newsletter is copyright material. In the interests of dissemination of
information, forward circulation is permitted provided it is distributed in
its entirety including these notices, that it is not posted to newsgroups
or distribution lists and that it is not done for commercial gain or part
of a commercial transaction. For other uses please contact the publisher.
I3 UPDATE / ENTOVATION International News is a joint publication of David Skyrme Associates Limited and ENTOVATION International Limited - providers of trends analysis, strategic advice and workshops on knowledge management
and knowledge innovation®
Email: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Web: http://www.skyrme.com http://www.entovation.com
® Knowledge Innovation is a registered trade mark of ENTOVATION International.