I3 UPDATE / ENTOVATION International News
No. 32: September 1999
Black Box Knowledge: An Open or Shut Case? - David J. Skyrme
Atlas of Knowledge Innovation - Debra Amidon and Darius Mahdjoubi
Giving Words to Intellectual Capital - Debra Amidon
Meeting Space Matters - Debra Amidon
Snippets - Knowledge Harvesting, Anticipator
Welcome to this edition of I3UPDATE / ENTOVATION International News. Since our last edition you should have seen the announcement of the new ENTOVATION web site at http://www.entovation.com, though you will have to wait a bit longer for the upgraded Knowledge Connections web site (http://www.skyrme.com). Both are examples of packaging knowledge (another of our 7Ps of Internet marketing), the theme that kicks off this issue. An Atlas of Knowledge Innovation and activities involving Skandia are also featured.
I3 UPDATE is also available by email. See the administrative information page.
David J. Skyrme
David J. Skyrme
Many knowledge management programmes focus on codifying and packaging their organization's tacit knowledge into a form that is more readily accessible to everyone who needs it. Hence intranets and their associated databases (of organizational information, best practices, expertise profiles etc.) are prevalent and frequently the first project in many initiatives. Much of the knowledge we use in our every day activities has been packaged in some explicit form, for example:
- processes: these may be embodied in procedure manuals, forms, workflow software, computer programmes etc.
- documents and databases: of customer and market knowledge, reference information etc.
- other explicit knowledge: magazines, web pages etc.
- embodied knowledge in products: office equipment, cars etc.
New products represent our collective evolving knowledge base. Knowledge of materials, applications, product performance, user requirements is converted into useful artifacts. In fact, we use products sublimely unconscious of the wealth of knowledge that has actually gone into them. If they do the job we expect of them we don't even inquire as to what knowledge they contain. But should we?
The term 'black box' is used in electronics to describe a unit "whose circuitry need not be known to understand its function" (Collins dictionary). It is when things do not go as expected, that some of this inner knowledge is important. Too frequently we take the output of black boxes - whether calculators, computer programmes or display consoles, at face value, when perhaps we should be more inquisitive. It is only when things are obviously wrong that we query them. Complex systems, whether aircraft control systems or microcomputer chips often have bugs or flaws that become apparent over time, such as the Floating Point Divide problem in an earlier Intel Pentium (whose story by the way is told in 'Creating the Digital Future: The Secrets of Consistent Innovation at Intel' by Albert Yu).
Frequently the knowledge that went into the black box (or more importantly that which was considered but not used) was not formally recorded or has been lost over time. It is said, for example, that we could not today build another Saturn rocket, an important milestone in the history of space exploration. Another example is the specialist knowledge that is needed to decommission nuclear reactors in power stations, since much of the tacit knowledge of engineers who installed them is being lost when they retire.
The Need to Know
Perhaps I am more inquisitive than most, but I do like to know something about the working of the black boxes that I use. This is probably due to the fact of feeling helpless when they fail to perform as expected. For example:
- A few years ago I had a new car with all the latest electronic engine control systems etc. On five different occasions it would not start, and my garage had to send out the tow truck and replace its 'black box' - the manufacturer after all would not let mere garage mechanics tamper with their wizardry. Weren't things much simpler when you could fiddle with the individual components and kick (sometimes literally) a car back into life. When I was a computer sales person I once had a customer who insisted on buying the older PDP-8 model from me. Why? It had boards and circuitry you could mend yourself cheaply, whereas in the later (and then current) model, lots of this circuitry disappeared into the black box of an integrated circuit!
- Some web pages I commissioned seemed fine on the screen, but slow to load. This prompted me to open the file and look at the code. It turned out to have several levels of nested tables. They had been automatically generated by the web developer's software, creating redundant and sometimes sloppy code, as well as not being very future proof. The developer of the pages was apparently unaware of the working of his web generation tool. If you want something even more horrendous, just look at the HTML output generated by Office 2000!
Now I'm not saying that users need to know everything that goes on inside such packages, but I do suggest that most users would be wise to open a box slightly and probe a bit, if they are to have confidence in its capabilities. Depending on how critical the box is to the task in hand, you might need to know:
- Its pedigree - what design principles, what prior knowledge is it based on
- The reputation of its supplier - does its black boxes generally do what it says they will, and will it (like Intel) fix them when design flaws emerge?
- The sources of inner knowledge - who really knows how this box works in details, and are they accessible (hence the importance of providing pointers to people on knowledge objects)
- How it works in outline - this should help you be better users, and also help in fault rectification (for example, knowing something about how the Internet works has often helped me pin down who is responsible - my phone carrier, ISP or software supplier)
- What temporary work-arounds are there if the box suddenly and abjectly fails (like my car!)
Often we are too busy to spend much time on exploring these questions. We want to pick up the box (or knowledge object) and start using it. The question is whether we can afford to accept the supplier's attitude of "trust us - it works". But will it keep working e.g. beyond 1 January 2000? In such cases, we need to be sure that someone has opened the box for us and has checked it out. As in many areas of management, it needs a careful balancing of costs, benefits and risk. And if we do not have the knowledge to do it ourselves, we need access to knowledgeable people who we can trust to do it for us.
As Internet commerce and knowledge markets grow (e.g. see I3 UPDATE Nos. 20and 26, the number of ways of packaging knowledge for sale will grow. As well as conventional methods of selling consultancy or publications we can expect to see:
- table-d'hote knowledge - basic packages of core knowledge e.g. "how to" guides
- a-la-carte knowledge objects available on a pay-as-you-go basis, direct from originators
- quality assessed knowledge objects with 'wrappers' describing and validating their contents
- knowledge bundles - customized combinations of knowledge objects at a discounted package price
- knowledge guidance tools - helping users select appropriate knowledge objects as they work through a set of tasks
- knowledge stores - both automated and serviced by humans: one stop shops for knowledge
- knowledge 'on tap' - 'round the clock' expertise for sale via knowledge communities or hubs on an 'as needed' basis
- knowledge exchanges - knowledge forums, clubs, auctions and other places for interacting with peers and experts
Some packaging makes knowledge more open and accessible (e.g. conversations with experts). Other packaging, while encapsulating knowledge as easily reproducible objects, is less context specific and adds layers between originators and end users.
Like black boxes, they pack a wealth of knowledge into a small package, but how do you know that the package is really doing what you expect it too? Most packages, whether explicitly stated or not, are dependent on other (usually tacit) knowledge for their overall effectiveness - e.g knowledge of applicability, how to use effectively, and perhaps most important of all: where it should not be used. Such meta-knowledge, and the content of wrappers for knowledge packages is often more valuable than the knowledge objects themselves.
Another perennial consideration concerns the modification of standard packages. The more generic a black box is, the less valuable it is in any particular circumstance. This is as true with knowledge packages as it is of computer software. Customization enhances usefulness but it also brings problems. How do you incorporate updates of the original from the originator? Some problems of year 2000 compliance of software packages is not that the packages themselves are not compliant, but that users have modified them.
As more and more knowledge packages are created by producers, users face that age old dilemma: "should they open the box or keep it shut?"
Update - Other articles in this series The 7Ps of Internet Marketing cover Portals, Positioning, Page Impressions, Progression and Payments.
Debra M. Amidon and Darius Mahdjoubi
"I saw the earth without any borders
Without any fighting, without any fear;
So, captain, give the order,
We're going to the next frontier."
- recollections of Apollo commander Eugene Cernan
as written in a song by Paul and Ralph Colwell
Shortly after the astronauts of Apollo 17 reached the moon, the world awakened to a new perspective of bringing a vision into reality. It required more collaboration and faith than anyone previously dared to dream. Results were wondrous - beyond expectations. Similarly, executives today are caught in a quandary. They can continue to utilize the tried-and-true methodologies (unsuited for today's economic environment) or they can experiment with the unknown and venture forth with management initiatives that project innovation, creativity and responsible risk.
Interest in an economy based on knowledge and intellectual capital has grown exponentially around the world. Executives and general managers are wrestling with the implications of knowledge as an inexhaustible and renewable resource. Managers burdened with traditional concepts and methodologies are not able to implement knowledge-based strategies. With markets merging and technologies converging, the real competitive game will be in how well we incorporate knowledge as a resource and then manage the process of innovation.
This is an excerpt of an article, soon to appear in the 1999 Handbook of Business Strategy. It examines the nature of the new knowledge value proposition in the context of innovation strategy - the single competence necessary to thrive in the 21st century. It illustrates the comparative advantages of a knowledge-innovation strategy versus classical business planning and offers a concrete map for migration of management processes, which capitalize upon the opportunities afforded in a robust knowledge economy.
Integration of knowledge as an interdependent variable into conventional business methodologies creates a dynamic no less dramatic as the shifting from a flat earth view of the world to a global view. Initially, the world was seen as 2-dimensional - similar to how many business managers perceive their business environment today. Design a market matrix, create a balance sheet and manage the process in a simple methodical linear mode. Build the better mousetrap and the market will beat a path to your door.
In contrast, a 3-dimensional global view capitalizes upon the dynamics of the multiple compounding effects of what we might describe as a kaleidoscopic economy. It is not the speed of change of a variable, or the speed of change of multiple variables. It is the compounding effect of the speed of change of multiple variables creating a business environment that is difficult to understand, much less manage. The challenge is not to make existing businesses bigger; it is to create new businesses. It is not to evolve existing technologies as much as it is to envision products and services, which meet the unarticulated needs of customers or an unserved market and to do so ahead of the competition. Today, the market operates with a systems dynamic we do not yet understand.
The Innovation Atlas - A Metaphor
We use the analogy of the Atlas (i.e. a system for depicting and measuring world views) and the metaphor of road maps to illustrate the migration from business planning to a knowledge-innovation strategy. We are discovering the increasing need for story telling, simulation, and sense making as a way to understand the enormity and complexity of the transformation.
Analogy, in logic, is the name of an inductive form of argument, which asserts that if two or more entities are similar in one or more respects, then a probability exists that they will be similar in some other respects. Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995 ) further indicate: A metaphor or an analogy is a distinctive method of perception. It is a way for individuals grounded in different contexts and with different experiences to understand something intuitively through the use of imagination and symbols. No analysis or generalization is needed. Through metaphors, people put together what they know in new ways and begin to express what they know but can not yet say. As such, metaphor is highly effective in fostering direct commitment to the creative process in the early stage of knowledge creation.
A geographic Atlas provides a systematic presentation of the World - or part of it - on a flat surface, although the earth is a globe. It provides a methodology needed for planning and implementing travel. It is generally considered a comprehensive resource of the world, as we might know it today. Usually, it consists of three distinct, albeit interrelated, parts:
(1) Mapping for organizing commonalties,
(2) Scaling to provide measurement and relational information and
(3) Compass for direction.
Similarly, Business Planning is the current representation of the process and plans necessary to position a particular enterprise with competitive advantage in a particular industry or region of the world. It provides a methodology to define business plans usually based upon a product/market portfolio. It includes a similar set of techniques for
(1) Mapping according to organization capabilities and financial investments,
(2) Scaling based upon external market share measurements and technology positioning, and
(3) Compass to allocate internal resources to specific project plans.
Ordinarily, a business plan has no explicit role for knowledge and the innovation process is defined according to the flow of technology (i.e., materials into products and services for the customer). It is an analytic routine based upon the tacit assumption of an extrapolation of current 'run rates' (i.e., today's knowledge at best). Innovation Strategy, on the other hand, provides a focus on the future - the products that are yet unarticulated and the markets yet to be served. It is comprehensive process to integrate the financial, behavioral and technological aspects of the firm. It provides a methodology to articulate business strategy in terms of leadership positioning and the subsequent related business plans. A solid innovation strategy consists of the same three parts utilized in a different way:
(1) Mapping considers all the resources - human, financial and technical - to be integrated as a continuous learning system
(2) Scaling measurements consider the intellectual capital of an enterprise - often described as the difference between book value and market value, and
(3) The Compass provides a coherent, common vision within which internal and external variables are leveraged to optimal value, including the flexibility to capitalize upon unexpected market changes.
Innovation strategy, by definition, assumes an explicit role for knowledge and is more of a synthetic process based upon vision and uncertainty.
The new Knowledge Value Proposition
A new knowledge economic dynamic is operating that creates a management environment in which the old traditional policies and practices are not sufficient. Most companies are operating on a value proposition based upon Cost, Quality and Time.
- As the marketplace becomes hyper-competitive …
- As the performance metrics become more complex and intangible, …
- As the organization becomes more networked, …
- As people become more empowered and energized, …
- As process becomes boundary-less.
Enterprise will become increasingly reliant upon technology. As enterprises become more reliant on technology and its attendant
complexity, they will become more dependent upon the knowledge and behavior of employees as well as other stakeholders - both inside and external to the firm. Simultaneously, performance metrics will become more hidden, intangible - related to what leading management philosophers have defined as intellectual capital. Therefore, the traditional value proposition of cost, quality and time - although still very important - is just not enough. These elements create a framework for analyzing innovation effectiveness:
Performance, Behavior, and Technology. The new knowledge value proposition emerges to balances these complex, interdependent factors. A focus on one aspect will have an automatic effect on the other elements. Only a balance among the three will enable an enterprise to be centered and capable of managing forward toward sustained prosperity.
What follows are some of the items to consider under each management factor. These are intended to provide ideas for discussion. The actual elements will differ from organization to organization, industry to industry, and country to country. However, the universal concept is that a management system requires the balance of all three, and the interrelationship among the factors may be more important than the discrete categories themselves.
- Performance - Metrics for investments and profitability; asset identification (i.e. financial, technological, and intellectual);
qualitative/quantitative success measures; budget level; resource mix; rewards/incentives; tax structure, and creative financing mechanisms.
- Behavior - Learning networks of expertise; system dynamics; reporting relationships; staffing patterns; cultural and cross-cultural aspects; liaison relationships; collaborative strategies; sense of purpose; work imperatives; individual/organizational balance; development plans; learning philosophy; role responsibilities; work design; simultaneous parallel activities; cross-fertilization of ideas; cross-functional teaming; global souring; benchmarking best practices; periodic review and evaluation; and communication strategies.
- Technology - Electronic communication infrastructure, intelligence system, service delivery techniques; technology advancements; transformation; shared technology resources; collaborative groupware; workflow documentation, intranets, corporate portals, decision support, computer memory and network management tools.
It is easy to recognize that the behavioral aspects (e.g. psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, etc.) are the crux of the productivity paradox. This is precisely the driver that has led executives to begin to assess the implications of the human capital as a tangible, measurable asset. How can it be measured and leveraged? The new knowledge value proposition - interestingly enough - corresponds to the three sub-themes of the knowledge movement. The first is Financial Capital with an intent to calculate and monitor the Intellectual Capital, best exemplified by Leif Edvinsson, Skandia AFS (Sweden), Karl-Eric Sveiby
(Australia) and Baruch Lev, New York University (USA). The second is the focus on Social Capital embodying the concepts of the learning organization articulated by Chris Argyris, Harvard University, Peter Senge, MIT, and Hubert Saint-Onge, The Mutual Group (Canada). The third is the focus on the Technological Capital - IT as knowledge processing - best articulated by Tom Davenport, Peter Keen, and Kent Greenes, SAIC (formerly from British Petroleum - UK). The most important - and the least understood - may be how to account for the behavioral aspects of the organization. According to our surveys, culture is by far the most difficult and critical challenge facing organizations today. How does one incentivize a culture of knowledge sharing in an organization steeped in competitive values and suffering the aftermath of re-engineering and downsizing? This is precisely the dimension that is not usually represented in traditional business planning models and is the rationale for executives to migrate toward a more robust knowledge-innovation strategy approach to the business.
Migrating from Planning to Innovation
Migration from business planning to innovation strategy is inevitable and challenging because it is related to changing the dominant mindsets. Migration implies a sense of journey over time and space, as well as challenge and change. Elaboration of innovation strategy is not a matter of size or scope of the enterprise; it is more a matter of defining an explicit role for knowledge in the business endeavors. The whole organization must be engaged in the process of developing of their Atlas of Innovation, including the mapping, scaling and compass for the enterprise. Compared to financial analysis, there are no 'generally accepted innovation principles.' Although structures for innovation can be developed, they are usually too generic to be useful. Instead, they must be custom-made according to the specific needs of each business. Managers should create procedures and enable stakeholders to take part in this process.The first step in the articulation of an innovation strategy is the mapping of the organization structure of the entire process. Although such structure may seem arbitrary, an innovation architecture must:
1) facilitate the migration from business planning to innovation strategy,
2) expedite the application of knowledge-sensitive external and internal evaluation methodologies
3) elucidate the specific nature of the given business.
In this context, a possible mapping of innovation may be organized under four main headings as follows:
- Technological Innovation
- Social (Human) Innovation
- Market (Customer) Innovation
- Organization (Leadership) Innovation
The above classification is consistent with Drucker's statement (1974 ) that
"innovation is an economic and social term. Its criterion is not science or technology, but a change in the economic and social environment, a change in the behavior of people, as consumer or producer."
Each of above four groups of innovation has sub-classifications. For instance, the first - Technological Innovation can further be classified into 1. Product; 2. Process; 3. Plant; 4. Equipment; 5. Operation. These categories are broader than the traditional classification of technology into product and process. Each of the above sub-classifications can be further subdivided. Product Technological Innovation may be organized into Function, Form and Ergonomics. Such a classification of innovation makes it possible to look at capital differently. In addition to financial capital, our business evaluation might also include, "social-human capital," "technological capital," "customer-market capital," and "organization-leadership capital."
Just as with the Egyptians, Persians, Minoans, Greeks, Abassynians, and Europeans of times past, the future belongs to those who have the willingness to venture into the unknown. They used their intuition, imagination, sense of adventure, and tools they innovated to explore the environment beyond the limits.Moving beyond traditional business planning practices will not be easy; the rewards will be great. Today we measure what we can measure, rather than measuring what is important. Now we underestimate the true potential of information technology, knowledge processing and worldwide communications. Today we have little sense of how to measure the true value of social capital, which is far more a function of interaction, interdependence and collaboration. To do so - and understand the relationship among the three - requires multi-dimension visioning and courageous leadership.
The Knowledge-Innovation Atlas scopes the new classification schema, the scaling and measurements systems and the compass to chart new directions.
Because something hasn't been done before is no reason not to innovate. We must learn to create the business plans for emerging markets. Thus, we will unleash the bountiful opportunities afforded the next millennium. We will do so systematically and with renewed purpose.Although much has been written on knowledge management and the knowledge economy, the reality is we know very little about the real implications of this inevitable transformation. One thing is certain, the journey into the next frontier will bring forth new value for knowledge and the innovation processes in ways unimagined.
Emails: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
See also http://www.entovation.com/whatsnew/atlas1.htm
The full article is published 2000 Handbook of Business Strategy, published by Faulkner & Gray, September 1999. For further information and publication details, contact Pam Goett (Email: Pamela.Goett@faulknergray.com).
What is in a word?
Shortly after Leif Edvinsson became the first chief knowledge officer in the world, he was publishing a glossary of terms. The IC language was, indeed, being invented real-time. In his early Skandia supplements to the annual report, included words, such as 'competence development expense,' 'empowerment index,' 'innovation capital' and more. As the concepts have evolved, so has the language.These glossaries found their way into studies of the Brookings Institute and were published in the business press - magazines and newspapers.Most recently, Leif - together with Arne Richtner, Ericsson Business Consulting - have produced the most extensive lexicon to-date in the knowledge field. This handy brochure entitled "Words of Value" includes almost 200 definitions of terms that only a few years ago would have been considered a foreign language. He refers to the Italian economist Ferdinand Galini who came up with the definition of value in 1750:
"value is a relation between persons."
What follows is a teaser - an example from letters of the alphabet:
Asynchronous innovation work
Community of practice
Human Capital Index
As you can see, some of these terms have become common knowledge; others are works in progress. In response to the question why Ericsson joined Skandia in this joint project, Arne says:
"We must also create networks of scope, exploiting new opportunities through fusion of skills. Without that platform, our dialogues might turn into a mess of monologues. Hence the needs of Ericsson and Skandia converge."
Visit the website (http://www.ericsson.se/intellectualcapital) where everyone is welcome to participate in the evolution and refinement of the emerging language of IC and value creation. It features a continually updated version of the lexicon, news articles, etc. It also includes a word clinic, where you can join the networking community, suggest new words, propose changes in existing definitions, discuss developments and share ideas and opinions on the topic of this new IC language.
As to where this project might evolve, Leif says:
"Evolution and innovation are by definition unpredictable processes. But of course, I can give a rough idea of some directions."
"We did not inherit this world from our parents,
we have borrowed it from our children"
- Jan R. Carendi, CEO of AFS, Skandia
The paint was not yet dry as I made my own visit to Skandia in August, 1996. When I first met Leif Edvinsson, I told him, "I know that the word thinks you are a Chief Knowledge Officer, but you are not. You are a Chief Innovation Officer." He agreed and invited me to Sweden for the Knowledge Innovation assessment. The intensive research workshop was held in a newly renovated facility aside the harbor - the place to go where people can "get some inspiration or ideas to implement...place where people meet and act." The result was the Supplement to the Skandia Annual Report - 'Power of Innovation.'
Now there is a new publication produced by Skandia Future Centers authored by Ingrid Tidhult (email: firstname.lastname@example.org), the Centre cultivator in Vaxholm, Sweden. This knowledge publication is unique. "Memories from the Future" is an extraordinary exploration of the roots of the IC movement based in a facility that has entertained thousands of visitors in pursuit of viable knowledge strategies - as companies, government agencies, nations in transition. Ingrid begins with her own words of a guided tour: "The world is changing - we are leaving the industrial world behind. We can work anywhere, in the car, at home, etc - but what we really need is a meeting place, like this, where we can share our thoughts, ideas and experiences. And above all - knowledge. Knowledge is the only thing that is multiplied when shared."Through a magical compilation of her own diary entries and photographs of the Center - people who have visited and influenced (and no doubt been influenced by) the Skandia Future Center, Ingrid captures the imagination, intuition and innovation that has been the hallmark of the IC movement. For instance, even in the topical outline:
- We live in a Global World
- Shaping the Future as an Asset
- Digital Saloon Cultivator
- Preparations...beginning January 1996
- The Meeting Place
- Visualizing Intellectual Capital in Skandia
- Knowledge Cafe
- IC the Future
In May, I returned to the Center for the Knowledge Concert that was webcast live on the internet with Silvard, the international concert pianist (http://www.entovation.com/services/concert.htm). It was wonderful to see the place - now expanded to multiple buildings - humming with activity - students performing research, corporate executives from another company in retreat, staff energized with new projects, distribution of new publications, modern stand-up computer equipped with the latest Internet connection technology, press interviews, pottery exhibition of a local artist...and more.
There are plans now for several Centers in different locations around the world. And as if the foundation established with the Centers is not enough, Ingrid ends her 'story' describing plans to collaborate with the new owners of the Vaxholm Castle - so visitors will have "a journey into the ancient past, followed by a knowledge safari into the future." I wonder what their imagination will do to convert fortress-like quality of the castle into the flexible, inspiring and creative environment that nourishes ideas and innovation. Stay tuned...
After my negative comments about FORTUNE's customer service in the last edition, I am pleased to say that the magazine has now started arriving, despite their being unable to trace my subscription. No explanation, no email or letter - just the magazine, which is what I wanted in the first place. And I am not disappointed - a veritable source of quality analysis about developments in ecommerce and business in general.
Knowledge Harvesting Workshops
Knowledge Harvesting is an interview-based methodology for capturing the tacit, expert knowledge of top performers and converting that expertise into explicit guidance and support information for novice learners/users. The developers of the process - LearnerFirst - are running a series of workshops at its HQ in Birmingham Alabama. October 12-14; 26-28; November 9-11;
November 30- 2 Dec; December 14-16. For details email: email@example.com
An interesting new interactive software tool for "Value Transformations", can be seen at http://www.anticipator.com
20 September - 8 October. Online Facilitation. Online course at Knowledge Ecology University. Instructors: Mihaela Moussou and Nancy White.
22-24 September. Telework '99. 5th Annual European Assembly on Telework and New Ways of Working. Aarhus, Denmark. Keynotes include Kevin Kelly on the networked economy and Michael Hawley from the MIT Media Lab.
22-24 September. KM World '99. Conference and Expo. Dallas Convention Centre. "The biggest KM event in the world."
27-29 September. Intranets for Knowledge Management, Amsterdam. "An event organized by specialists". First Conferences.
28-29 September. Knowledge Management for Enterprise Advantage. Washington DC. DCI.
14-15 October. Knowledge Management '99. The Strategic Planning Society Conference, London. Line up of speakers suggests a a quality event, despite its so-so brochure with no on-line links.
Tel: +44 171 608 0541.
1-2 November. Collaborative Workplace: Ways To Increase Business Intelligence By Sharing Knowledge. Interesting themes include virtual groups, storytelling, storyboarding, communities of practice. Atlanta. IIR.
3-5 November. Intranets for Knowledge Management USA '99, San Francisco. First Conferences. Contact Vicky Smith
23-25 November. Knowledge Summit '99. The Fourth Annual European Event, London. David Skyrme is Speaking on K-Commerce. The 4th in a series of highly respected events. Business Intelligence.
6-8 December. Enterprise Intelligence International. KMCI’s Annual World Summit, Orlando, Florida. An impressive line up of quality speakers as well as exhibits and award ceremony.
7-9 December 1999. Online 99. "the world of information under one roof". Big, somewhat bitty, but something for everyone working in information and knowledge centres. London.
© Copyright, 1999. 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: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Web: http://www.skyrme.com http://www.entovation.com
® Knowledge Innovation is a registered trade mark of ENTOVATION International.