it doesn’t have to be hard. Gabrielle Benefield suggested dinner parties last week. Since many of us are also food nuts, that might make it extra interesting…

Willem

thanks for your comment. I’d say Yes, and… just a little software Too much and it might constrain innovation in much the same way certification often seems to do.

Succes en plezier,

Willem

To me, one of the key and very sensible practices to monetize knowledge is to capture it in software. Actually, software can be viewed as ‘executable knowledge’. We carefully listen to the needs and goals of our users and clients, and then evolve a software system that meticulously captures the insights, practices and knowledge gained. Next, we find an appropriate business model (and license) that allows us to capitalize on it, that ‘valuates’ our executable knowledge.

A software system seems like a nice blend of all your points above.

Succes en plezier,

Martien.

Nice post.

The thing about your list is that each approach to generating revenue has a number of strengths and weaknesses.

Protecting revenue using patents gives the most control, however it also prevents growth.

Using the knowledge in your work means you cannot scale and make money from other people using it.

And so on. I think Cognitive Edge are seeking to find an optimal approach, both giving benefit to the community but also protecting their IP. At some point, they make have to chose what is most important.

Chris

Even when looking at the controversial point number 8, the certifications, it is possible to see that the functioning of education systems, from primary schools to universities, share common principles and methods with certification programs. Again the point is the real value provided versus the costs.

One school course and one certification with one trainer can be valuable and good while another school and another certification can be crap.
It is possible to find similar examples on both sides, good and bad, for consulting or for licenses and for the other points. It is possible to find cases of good ones that deliver a fair amount of value and cases of bad ones that do not, again for each one of the points.

This means that, from my point of view, picking up one of the points and describing the downsides or upsides of each one is an over-generalization.

I think it could be effective to look deeper at a more fine grained level, without bias and with constructive comments.

Perhaps there are just too many conferences (sorry, ‘events’) these days. Same people, same ideas being recycled, and everyone is striving to promote the Next Big Thing. Perhaps instead we need micro-conferences, where small groups (hey, 7+-2 maybe) gather together in cafes and pubs, have edgy conversations and continually interleave with one another. I think the big conference is a dead idea. Massive overhead in time and cost with minimal reward.

Also, re Cynefin/CALM, this talk (more on Chris’s post) of CE’s proprietary approach to ideas is disturbing. Trying to understand that better, as CE spokespeople seem to be saying something different.

I’m glad you guys attended, and have shared your thoughts in the blogosphere. Thanks.