Archive for the ‘training’ Category

T5-5 Expertise Directory with a Twist: “Getting Surprised with Each Other’s Talents”

February 17, 2010

In 2006, I designed and facilitated a KM planning workshop for a new cross-functional KM Team. Among my objectives were (1) to motivate individual team members and (2) to show them in a concrete way the advantages of an expertise directory. I introduced a module that generated so much energy and enthusiasm among the team members that I repeated this module in other KM workshops for other organizations.

This is how the process flows:

  1. Individual seatwork: Each team member is provided a 3′ x 4′ kraft paper (or Manila paper) and a black felt pen. The instruction is: “List down all your talents, both technical and non-technical.” A few members asked guidelines on how to identify their talents. My answers were: “In what tasks/skills do your colleagues often ask you for assistance?” “Recall 1-2 very successful task/projects you did; what talents did you use?”
  2. Public posting: After a team member is done, she/he posts her/his work on the wall.
  3. Comment/feedback on each other: After all team members’ work had been posted around the walls, each team member is given a red (or any colored) felt pen, goes around and reads everybody else’s work. Anyone can write comments on anyone else’s work, e.g. “you forgot to add skill XX.” “I didn’t know you are good at YY!” “Prove it!” “You are too shy to mention skill ZZ!” “You should have joined Project @@!” Approval of a skill can be conveyed simply by a red asterisk.
  4. Answer comments: A team member, if she/he wishes, can write her/his reaction to a comment using a blue (or another color) felt pen.
  5. Plenary discussion: The team sits down and the facilitator leads a group discussion on insights and learning from the content (output) and process, and how they each felt about the process. As facilitator, I conclude by proposing “Let us collect your outputs and use this as inputs to your internal KM Team Expertise Directory.”

My own insights and learning from this module are:

  • Team members often express surprise at knowing (and at previously not being aware of) many of each other’s talents. For example, they were very surprised that a medical doctor colleague had learned the skill of laying out bathroom tiles! KM is about harnessing talent, and it starts with recognizing it.
  • The module was able to reveal to them the value of an expertise directory, especially one that includes both technical and non technical skills. For example, a non-technical skill (or a skill that does not appear in the ordinary CV or resume) that is useful for the organization is the ability to act as emcee (from “MC” or master of ceremonies) in a ceremony, conference or public event.
  • The commenting process creates a space where KM Team members mutually acknowledge and affirm each other and their skills (this works well when the KM Team members know each other beforehand). It is a process that generates much interactive energy, team building and motivation.
  • The process supports openness about one’s abilities and gaps, at the same time that it reveals individual styles and preferences such as hesitance to publicly announce one’s talents, and personal boundaries in self-disclosure. Such hesitance is acknowledged and respected by the group instead of challenged.
  • All outputs taken together can reveal new systemic insights. In one organization, the CEO herself read the postings and then remarked “We have enough talent to put together a chorale and music band.”

What do YOU think? Tell us.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index


T0-1 A Quick Way for an Organization to Adopt a Common Understanding of KM

October 10, 2009

A few years ago, CCLFI was helping in the KM training of the secretariat staff of the Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industries. In one of the meetings I sat beside the Chairman of the Board. He was scheduled to give a talk during the closing ceremony to mark the formal end of the KM training project. He asked me what KM is all about and I explained it to him as simply as I can. I promised to send him on the next day a one-sentence definition.

During the subsequent training session, I explained to the secretariat staff what transpired between me and their Chairman. I asked them: can we formulate together the one-sentence definition and decide to adopt it for common use by the secretariat staff?

The result is the “KM Elevator Pitch” below. We called it an “elevator pitch” because you can quickly recite it to anyone inquiring about KM while you both ride an elevator. It must be so short but meaty that you have “pitched the ball” (delivered your message) by the time you emerge from the elevator.

Once formally adopted, the KM Elevator Pitch can also serve as the standard KM definition that everyone in the organization must understand and memorize, and be ready to recite to anyone asking what KM is all about.

Note that the sample KM Elevator Pitch below:

  • Covers all three types of intellectual capital;
  • Includes two basic action words or verbs: “source” and “deploy”;
  • States the purpose and benefit of KM.

Below is what I sent the Chairman of the Board on the next day.


KM elevator pitch

Note that there is an embedded link in this blog post. It shows up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on the link to create a new tab to reach the webpage pointed to.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Appreciating Nonaka’s SECI Model (#23)

May 13, 2009

Let us review the four critical tasks of a learning organization (numbers 1-4 refer to the figure below):

  1. Build those tacit knowledge in workers that contribute most to value creation;
  2. Convert useful tacit knowledge into explicit forms that are easier to reproduce, replicate and reuse; this explicit knowledge is collected in an organized fashion into a knowledge repository or Organizational Brain;
  3. Provide the right explicit knowledge to be reused or practiced by the right knowledge workers; if substantial volumes of explicit knowledge have been collected, it becomes possible to recombine, digest, analyze, correlate and otherwise “mine” the collection to generate new insights and conclusions that are actionable;
  4. Procure needed expertise or knowledge from outside.

4 critical tasks in a learning organization

The tasks revolve around the green quadrant because (a) it is the quadrant where most value creation takes place, and (b) most of the knowledge in an organization is located in the green quadrant.

According to Laura Birou, only 10-20 percent of an organization’s knowledge is explicit. Robert H. Buckman of Buckman Laboratories estimates this fraction at only 10 percent. William H. Baker Jr. estimates it at 20 percent. Furthermore, not all of this explicit knowledge is captured in the organizations’ IT-based information systems. What IT does well is facilitate the replication and transmission of explicit knowledge so that more knowledge workers can use/practice them, convert them to their tacit knowledge, and create value for the organization.

Notice that the well-known SECI model of Nonaka addresses all four critical tasks of a learning organization:

  1. Socialization: tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer from expert to learner
  2. Externalization: conversion to explicit group knowledge
  3. Combination: combining new explicit knowledge with other existing explict knowledge
  4. Internalization: conversion back to individual tacit knowledge

Nonaka SECI model

The SECI model is not the only mix of knowledge pathways that performs the four critical tasks. In the previous blog post, notice that the Case Study 3 organization also addresses all four critical tasks of a learning organization. The mixes of knowledge pathways do vary from organization to organization.

In Case Study 3, the explicit group knowledge is in the form of a Learning-Oriented Systems Manual (=organizational brain), which at this point in time is not yet web-based. This illustrates the fact that although information technology can be an excellent enabler, it is not an absolute necessity for a learning organization.

(Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the websites pointed to.)

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

free counters

Knowledge Pathways: 3 Case Studies (Practical Hint #22)

May 11, 2009

Please first review the previous blog on “Knowledge pathways in a learning organization.” The following three case studies are drawn from our KM consulting experiences at CCLFI.

Case Study 1. These are the new knowledge pathways resulting from the KM initiatives of a big government ministry/department:

pathways 1

The characteristics of this organization’s KM initiatives are as follows:

  • Membership of the cross-functional KM Team is drawn from about 20 functional units.
  • The KM team was involved in the KM audit, KM strategy formulation and KM action planning activities.
  • Nurturing of the KM Team took the form of KM training using experiential exercises and KM mentoring as the team members “learn KM by doing KM.” Their practice projects are various web-based KM toolkits.
  • The KM Team launched a wiki to reconstruct the KM history of their department, the first Philippine department to formally set up a KM unit in 2001.
  • The KM Team practiced in documenting a sample business process (procedures to be followed by a retiring staff) and placed their output in the department intranet.

Actual feedbacks from KM Team members:

    “I am more confident now to promote KM in [my unit]; being equipped with all ideas from the KM meetings and workshop.”

    “[I learned] that I love my work more – because of the KM challenge. Would like to see this work and take part in its success.”

    “KM also responds to the heart of the worker by way of interaction, collegiality and peer learning. To me this is a very holistic approach in the development of the person/worker.”

Case Study 2. These are the new knowledge pathways resulting from the KM initiatives of a government regulatory agency:

pathways 2

The characteristics of this organization’s KM initiatives are as follows:

  • A KM Team was set up consisting of a Process Sub-Team, a Technology Sub-Team and a People Sub-Team.
  • KM training was through workshops that use adult experiential learning processes.
  • The central KM initiative is mentoring of the KM Team in setting up their intranet and organizing/uploading content.
  • The next activity was mentoring the KM Team in documenting and automating a business process through their new intranet.

Actual feedbacks from KM Team members:

    “The development of the Intranet was a very challenging activity. To be able to put all the information and knowledge in a one-stop shop for the benefit of the organization is just a great achievement.”

    “What I like is the part where we are actually doing the hands-on, applying what we have learned from the lectures”

    “The development of the Intranet system gave me freedom to speak my mind by contributing some articles for uploading at the Intranet”

Case Study 3: These are the new knowledge pathways resulting from the KM initiatives of a multi-sectoral organization consisting of representatives from the national and local governments, local community organizations and non-government organizations, and private sector. The red arrows show where and how tacit knowledge is increased through practice.

pathways 3

The characteristics of this organization’s KM initiatives are as follows:

  • Their biggest problem is high turnover of membership resulting in constant loss of knowledge and long learning curves of new members.
  • The solution was (a) training in team learning including convening Lessons-Learned Meetings or LLM to elicit and document what works well in existing procedures and (b) compilation of administrative and technical documentations into a “Learning-Oriented Systems Manual.”
  • A subset of the Manual was used for briefing of new members.
  • The executive committee adopted a new vision: “to become a living, learning organization.”
  • LLM was adopted as an organizational habit: “what worked well” and “what did not work” was answered and documented at the end of every activity: meetings, field operations, etc.

Actual feedbacks from the members:

    “I learned that learning can be tremendously fun… the atmosphere becomes conducive if you have fun while learning.”

    “The process, the flow, the sequence of events were very well placed and very appropriate that even the games brought us to higher levels of interaction.”

    “Here, we are taught to take notice of those that are not usually taken notice of in the ordinary course of thinking.”

    “I passed through the `unlearning’ stage, then the `learning’ stage, then perhaps it may be more than this, but the end of it is the ‘appreciation’ stage.”

Overall observations:

  • Documentation is not the end-point of the KM pathways; the end-point is adoption/practice by other employees for their more effective action.
  • The mix of KM pathways varies across organizations; it responds to what the organization wants from KM.
  • “Learning by doing” coupled with mentoring/coaching is an effective knowledge transfer from consultant plus learning by client. There are three secrets to good KM: practice, more practice and still more practice! (smile)
  • Experiential workshops are effective in helping KM team members understand and appreciate KM.
  • Participation, team practice and involvement tends to develop sense of ownership on the part of KM Team members.

(Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the websites pointed to.)

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Q24- KM and Power: Constant(?) Bed Fellows

April 21, 2009

When two persons of unequal power, authority or influence interact, the result is different from those described in my previous blog post (“12 Types of Learning”):



The root causes of human behavior lie in past experiences (extreme left box in the diagram). Therefore the most effective (or most insidious) method of controlling human behavior over the long term is through training (from earliest childhood) and religious or political indoctrination. The social nature of knowledge implies that groupthink and imposed visions and values are the next most effective mechanisms. “Carrot and stick” (or rewards and punishments) methods achieve shorter-term results.

Power differentials exist everywhere. You see this dynamics as it occurs every day between boss and subordinate, between parent and child, between professor and student, between government and citizens, between a person pointing a gun at another person, etc. Most likely you participate in it too, both from a superordinate position and from a subordinate position in the same day and in the same organization! We are part of the problem! I label it a “problem” because vertical dynamics are easily anti-learning.

We often do the above interaction types out of unconscious habit. If we do it to another who is our equal we appear to him as arrogant, presumptuous or disrespectful. For example, criticism triggers an equally unconscious reaction from the other person of defense, counterattack and debate that result more to mutual irritation than to mutual learning. Praise could appear as patronizing.

The terms “knowledge transfer” and “learning” hardly apply to the interactions in the above diagram, unless we stretch our common understanding of those terms to apply them to hierarchical societies such as North Korea and fundamentalist religious-military groups like Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and Taliban in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas. What happens in these societies is a coerced or indoctrinated replication of belief systems from parent to child, and from leader to follower.

Learning hardly happens or happens slowly. We saw in Q8 (“Wanted: Workable Tools for Voluntary Paradigm Shifting”) that in vertical or hierarchical societies, learning is extremely slow. Below I reproduce the table from Q8. Notice from the table that two factors result to mankind’s very long Unlearning Cycles: (1) institutionalized vested interests and/or (2) institutionalized rules to prevent people from thinking freely.


In real-world organizations, the knowledge dynamics is often a mix of KM-across-power-differentials and KM-across-equals, or what we can call vertical KM and horizontal KM. Leadership and culture affect this mix from organization to organization. Even in development-oriented organizations, this mix shows up clearly in how projects are evaluated. I wrote about the difference between vertical learning and horizontal learning, or between conventional project evaluation and post-project knowledge capture including lessons-learned sessions. Again, the cultural momentum and context of an organization determine how the mix is tilted between vertical and horizontal dynamics:


The challenge is how to develop perspectives and effective tools for conscious shifting of the mix away from vertical towards more of horizontal dynamics. One way is by using military force to shift a nation from dictatorship to democracy, as what President Bush started by invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Another way is to help organizations voluntarily shift towards becoming learning organizations. In Q26 I will write about how this shift has been unconsciously but inexorably taking place over the last three centuries.

What do you think? Do you agree that we may all be participating in this problem?

(Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the websites pointed to.)

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Q13- Learning = KM + “Power of the Third Kind”?

February 6, 2009

I have asked this question to participants in many KM workshops: “Estimate what percent of your present total knowledge came from your formal schooling.”

The average of answers across many workshop groups is about 20%. Of course, older and more experienced participants give much smaller percentages.

What does this result mean?

We learn more from work and from life than from school! We spent so much money, many years, technology and much planning to get that 20%. Yet we got the 80% without planning, technology, money, etc. In fact, I will make a strong statement: “We got the 80% largely unconsciously.” We learn from work and from life all the time, but we do it without planning, haphazardly and without any system or technique.

Imagine how much more we can learn from work and from life if we did it consciously — with deliberate planning, system and technology! The system, science and technology of learning from work has a name: it is called “organizational learning.” The system, science and technology of learning from life has no name yet; in my non-government organization (CCLFI) we call it “conscious living.” That is why our organization is called Center for Conscious Living Foundation, Inc.

The first thing we need to do is to change our mindset. How?

I first ask corporate people how long is the on-the-job-training they provide to new recruits. I get answers from a few weeks to a few months. Then I make a strong statement: “We, all of us, are still undergoing on-the-job training!”

We must think or always remind ourselves that every day, hour or minute we are spending on our job, we are learning. It is time we discard the limiting assumption that we have stopped learning after our on-the-job training period. We are still learning! We are learning 24/7!

So, the first thing we need to do is to place ourselves in a continuous learning mode.

For example, after (or even during) any activity we must always step back, reflect and ask ourselves:

    What worked?
    What did not work and why?
    What new insights did you gain?
    Did you change the way you see or think about something?
    What external factors facilitated (or hindered) success?
    How differently would you do it next time to achieve better performance?

You need to write your answers, or else you may forget what you learned. By the way, the answer to the question “what worked well” is an example of knowledge because — remember the definition of “knowledge” in KM — it will provide you or whoever will repeat the activity a capacity for doing it better.

Learning from work means being a more reflective, more watchful and more self-aware knowledge worker.

In the February 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Bill George and his associates wrote about how to be an inspiring and empowering leader. They asked 75 members of the Advisory Council of the Stanford Graduate School of Business what is the most important capability that leaders must develop. Their answer was nearly unanimous: self-awareness.

A leader must have the Power of the Third Kind!

Tell us what you think.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Q10- “Power of the Third Kind” for Political Conflicts?

January 25, 2009

KM is about effective work performance. How do we extend the limits of human performance? Is it through technology? or knowledge management? or perhaps something else?

Let us look at an interesting case: a training program for “ultimate warriors” for the U.S. Army Special Forces.

Designed by Dr. Joel and Michelle Levey, the Ultimate Warrior Training Program was designed to achieve peak levels of performance and teamwork under extreme conditions of danger and distress. According to Dr. Levey, the goal of the program is for the elite soldiers to be able to “recognize, understand, and influence/control their internal mental, emotional and physiological experience, and that they could strengthen the mindful clarity they’d need to choose a wiser path of action even under conditions of extreme stress.”

Their means to overcome or stretch personal limitations were a combination of outward Western technology and inward Eastern behavioral tools:

  • Equipment for multiple-synchrony brainwave feedback, for learning how to move to a state of deep attunement among team members;
  • Improvement of the quality of communications;
  • Finding an inner state of calm intensity in which they can focus their mind for self healing or remain calm and alert for long periods of time;
  • Control that follows from awareness;
  • The power of mindfulness at work;
  • Aikido, for cultivating a greater sensitivity to inner energy flow and for transforming the energy of inner and outer conflict.

We are seeing new formulas for training warriors to attain the Power of the Third Kind (see previous blog on “Q9- An Exercise in Team Learning: Some/the(?) Root Causes of September 11”)

Listen to Lao-tse:

An unintended benefit of Dr. Levey’s innovation was enhanced quality of communication and relationship with their families. Wives and children reported that their husband or father openly shared their feelings and fears, and seemed more in control of their emotions.

Post-program gains over some pre-program conditions were:

      Ability to manage stress: 92%
      Clarity with regards to personal values: 83%
      Access to extraordinary states of awareness: 82%
      Access to extraordinary perceptual abilities: 201%
      Ability to learn and integrate new ideas: 109%
      Sense of bonding with team: 30%
      Ability to blend effectively with team: 43%
      Ability to extend sensory awareness: 72%

Perhaps it is time to think the unthinkable, the ultimate in personal mastery and work performance among corporate executives and employees: corporate warriors! And how about ultimate leaders — leaders who win without fighting wars?

Lao-tse again:

Would that Israelis and Palestinians and their leaders discover and listen to Lao-tse.

What do you think?


=>Back to main page
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

D21- Training versus Learning-in-Action

January 3, 2009

In a previous blog, I pointed out (see: “F9- Economics of (Unconscious) Learning”) that much of our knowledge came from working/doing than from schooling/training. We learn much more from working/doing, but this learning is often largely unconscious. The antidote is “learning-in-action” where a team, after performing an action or project, sits down to reflect and document what they learned, what worked and what did not work, what success and failure factors they experienced, what insights they gained, etc. This process has many names: after-action review, post-mortem, lessons-learned session, etc. Its objective is simple: before team members disband and forget what they learned, the knowledge gained from doing is captured in a document and thereby made available to future teams who will perform the same or similar activity or project. If the document is web-based and placed in a searchable knowledge repository, then the re-use of knowledge is better facilitated. Two good examples are the US Army’s Center for Army Lessons Learned and Xerox’s Eureka system.

This means that learning can take place without leaving the workplace!

The usual HRD mental model of training is that learning time is at the expense of production time. That is why many corporations adopt an upper limit to number of training days per year (usually two weeks for every worker). Learning (knowledge acquisition) and working (knowledge application) are assumed to be two different activities occurring at different times and different contexts. They are, in other words, usually viewed as either/or activities instead of both/and activities.

Here are more distinctions between training and learning-in-action:


*In their book “The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action” authors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton of Stanford University concluded from their four-year research that “…one of the most important insights from our research is that knowledge that is actually implemented is much more likely to be acquired from learning by doing than from learning by reading, listening, or even thinking.”

=>Back to main page
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Practical Hints for Learning Facilitators (#3)

December 31, 2008

Based on blogposts D18 (“Teaching versus Facilitating Learning”) and D19(“Debate versus Discussion versus Dialogue”), here are some practical hints for learning workshop facilitators (numbers below refer to the four stages to generative dialogue in D19):

  • Don’t mix bosses with their subordinates in the same workshop group, or else you may be stuck in 1. This is more true among Asians, whose tendency is to respect or bow to authority.
  • To move faster from 1 to 2, state a ground rule at the start: no one should monopolize or dominate participation; everyone should be given a chance to speak out.
  • The minimum goal is to reach 3 and stay there as long as possible; in actual practice, the group can shift quickly between 1, 2 and 3 within a short period of time, or different participants will be at different stages 1-3 at the same time.
  • To help move the group to 3, be a model to the group of the ability to suspend judgment; for example, continue to visibly and seriously pay attention, accept and listen to what a participant is saying, even when many are showing signs of judgment (sniggering or laughter, booing or making sounds of disapproval) of what a person is saying. If the group misses your modeling, be explicit by saying, for example, “You noticed I did not react or make judgement in any way on what he just said; I continued to be open and to listen. Be aware when you are making a judgment, and try to suspend it…..”
  • Awareness of one’s own assumptions is necessary to stay in 3. Help the group practice being aware of their personal assumptions and judgments by asking someone who just made a judgmental statement: “You just said that….. Let us practice awareness of assumptions and judgments here. Reflect on what you just said; what are the assumptions and judgments behind what you said?” The rest of the group can help in answering this question; just be factual and refrain from making any judgment on the judgment itself, or from adding more judgments or alternative judgments. As learning facilitator, if you yourself make the mistake of making a judgment, it will show up as mild but very visible signs of approval or disapproval: half-smile, quizzical look, surprise, etc.
  • As learning facilitator, you can be candid about your own internal process. For example, you can say: “Upon hearing that statement, my tendency was to disagree. However, I saw that tendency immediately and I held back and said to myself ‘I should continue to listen; he may have a point that I do not see yet'”. This kind of intervention also demonstrates to participants the ability to be aware of your own thought processes or metacognition – another skill needed to move to 3. It also demonstrates the value of being aware of (and being able to name) a process.
  • You can ask a participant (particularly someone you sense is entertaining a private reaction): “Miss X, what were you just now thinking when you heard Mr Y said what he just said?” Whatever her answer is, tell the group that it should be regarded as an internal report of Miss X, instead of Miss X’s judgment of Mr Y.
  • It can happen that by simply listening to different ideas, someone (or you as facilitator can do it, if no one seems to come out) may come upon a way to combine, reconcile, adjust/readjust or build upon two or more of these ideas to come up with a new or seemingly better idea. Point out this process of synergy and its importance (for moving to 4). Teach the importance of being aware of or keeping track of group processes (especially to participants who are technical people and thus have a tendency to see only the content and not the process).
  • If you see signs of ego investment (e.g. defending an idea simply because it is “his/hers”) this can block movement to 4. Remind the group that they are after a group output and group ownership.

=>Back to main page
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

D11- Tangible versus Intangible Assets

December 14, 2008

I described in an earlier post (see: “KM is Not Enough!”) the factors that contribute to good performance or value creation:


We must note the following to better grasp the intricacies of tangible and intangible assets:

  • In the last two decades, market values of most corporations now far exceed their book values (for example, as of December 12, 2008 the market-to-book ratios of 215 industry groups listed in Yahoo! Finance averaged 4.458). This means that intangible assets are contributing more than tangible assets in creating value.
  • There are many evidences across various sectors and disciplines that intangible assets are more important than tangible assets in creating value (see previous post on “Intangibles: More Essential for Value Creation”).
  • International accounting standards recognize “intangible assets” as such if they are: non-physical, owned by the corporation, and can generate future economic benefits. Because of the ownership criterion, many corporations do not consider the human capital they hired and the intangibles that their personnel create (e.g. internally developed software and other structural capital) as assets to be entered in their books of account, although these definitely contribute to value creation by the corporation. In fact, training is often considered as a cost item, instead of a capital investment item. The intangible assets commonly recognized by accountants are: goodwill, brand, intellectual property rights like patents and copyrights, licenses/franchises and similar legal agreements, etc.
  • The intellectual capital accounting school of KM (e.g. Karl Erik Sveiby, Leif Edvinsson, Thomas Stewart, Patrick Sullivan, Baruch Lev, etc.) recognizes three categories of intellectual capital: human capital, structural capital and stakeholder capital (which includes customer capital proposed by Hubert Saint Onge) – which contribute to value creation but are missed by traditional accounting methods. These three categories are also recognized as “knowledge assets”. Note, however, that stakeholder capital is only the externally-facing part of Relationship Capital in the model diagrammed above (see next blogpost “D12- Relationship Capital versus Stakeholder Capital versus Consumer Capital”). Elements of intellectual capital are often not entered in books of accounts – a management gap which paved the way for various methods of “intellectual capital accounting”, Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard, US Securities and Exchange Commission’s “colorized reports”, etc.
  • Knowledge assets are mainly intangible and often not entered in books of accounts. A common example of tangible knowledge assets is technology, which is a form of “embedded knowledge”. Examples of knowledge assets not always entered in book of accounts are trade secrets and internally developed patents (those that were not bought or sold by the organization).
  • To encompass the wide range of factors (including natural capital, social capital, indigenous knowledge, traditional or government-sanctioned access rights, cultural capital, etc.) that contribute to value creation, whether tangible or intangible, whether measured or not by accountants, we proposed the term “metacapital” (see the bottom of the previous post on “Valuation of intangible assets”).

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

free counters