David Skyrme Associates



How To






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 david@skyrme.com to be removed from this list, which is solely used for distribution of this newsletter.

David J. Skyrme
Managing Editor

Virtual Trust: A Key Ingredient of Successful Knowledge Sharing

David J. Skyrme

"The largest challenge is our culture. People are protective of their departmental boundaries."

"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 person receives.

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 replace.

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:

  1. Calculative - you engage in a relationship based on an ongoing calculation of the costs and rewards of opportunistic behaviour.
  2. Prediction - you use your experience of past behaviour to predict the future e.g. do they regularly meet their commitments.
  3. Capability - the capability of the other party to perform. This may be gauged from status experience, reputation etc..
  4. Intentionality - the disclosure of intentions and aspirations e.g. what is their underlying motive for entering this relationship.
  5. 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 their judgement.

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:

  1. Communicate, communicate, communicate - short and frequent communications help the process of dialogue and trust building
  2. 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 less exclusive).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 to you.
  8. Be prolific with your thanks and praise - people appreciate recognition, even if they are only doing their job. Recognition is in short supply in many workplaces.
  9. Socialise - even informally by email over the network. Informal conversation and identification of shared interests beyond the immediate business tasks, helps builds closer bonds.
  10. 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

ENTOVATION International News

Debra M. Amidon

Message to China

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 country.

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 prosperity?

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.

The New ENTOVATION Connection

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.

Knowledge Agenda Blossoming in Ottawa, Canada

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 (kentek@istar.ca).

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 Burk (cfburk@imtc.on.ca).

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 (peter@blcommunicating.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 (fred.belaire@sympatico.ca) 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 Management (kikm@sprynet.com).

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 alone exploit".

Sound advice for us all.

Finance Community - Heads Down (Up?)

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; www.knowledgecreators.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 (orderdesk@cma-canada.org).

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 Network of DuPont:
Traversing Operational and Strategic Boundaries

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 (nina.v.patel@usa.dupont.com) for more details.

Kentucky Initiative for Knowledge Management

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 (kdave1@mik.uky.edu) for further details.

Leading Lights

Debra M. Amidon featured as the Leading Light in the April issue of Knowledge Inc., a regular newsletter on development in the field of knowledge (http://www.knowledgeinc.com)

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".

A Tale Of Two Exhibitions

Rose Dixon

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?!

Rose Dixon
Email: rose@dixit.demon.co.uk

Call For Papers

'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 restrictive:

  • 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
E-mail: debra@entovation.com

For more information about Agility & Global Competition, including guidelines for authors, contact: Joyce Barker (jbarker@agilityforum.org). Tel: +1 610 758 4887.

New Publications

Commercialising Knowledge

Wentworth Research

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.

Tony Brewer

For more information about Wentworth Research see http://www.wentworth.co.uk or call +44 1784 479900.

Organizational Virtualness

Proceedings of the VoNet Workshop, 27-18 April, 1998.
Sieber, P., Griese, J. (Eds.)
Simowa Verlag, Bern
ISBN: 3-9527463-2-3

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.
Email: client.services@delphigroup.com

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.
Contact: scottdow@ibm.net

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, Paris.
Email: mm.editions1@wanadoo.fr

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.
Email: ConfReg@dci.com

24-26 June 1998, "The Foundations for Dialogue Program" sponsored by DIAlogos.
For further details, contact 617.576.7986 or Eric Deluca (efdlogos@aol.com).

1-2 July 1998. Building the Knowledge Management Framework: The New IT Imperative, London.
Business Intelligence. Tel: +44 161 879 3399.

10-12 August 1998. Winning Strategies for Knowlege Management, Chicago. IQPC.

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.
For more 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: info@skyrme.com    debra@entovation.com
Web: http://www.skyrme.com    http://www.entovation.com

® Knowledge Innovation is a registered trade mark of ENTOVATION International.