Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

5. Commonalities <strong>of</strong> TF and ICR
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden
Although coming from different directions (public sector and policy making on <strong>the</strong> one hand, small and
medium enterprises on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r) TF and ICM show some major commonalities, which have already
been explained above and shall only be summarised here. These points do not claim to be exhaustive
but capture some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> basic features that TF and ICM have in common:
Collaborative knowledge construction;
Considering multiple individual perspectives to provide an extensive scope <strong>of</strong> opinions and views;
Importance <strong>of</strong> thorough selection <strong>of</strong> participants;
Moderated process (combination <strong>of</strong> subject experts and facilitators for communication);
Require managing extremely high complexity (includes focussing and prioritising goals);
Goal <strong>of</strong> reducing complexity for future decision making;
Divide collaborative knowledge construction and (later) decision making;
Require a creative and productive environment for open communication.
6. Strategies to build a creative and productive environment
It is not easy for someone who has been designated as an expert to deliver <strong>the</strong>ir one own valuable
knowledge and personal experience to a group. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it is a privilege to participate in a
process that will create <strong>the</strong> foundation for strategic decision-making. The prerequisites for a
successful process are highly important.
Building a knowledge sharing culture requires using two essential elements: The first is enabling <strong>the</strong>
participants to act as individual experts – not as representatives <strong>of</strong> vested interests – (e.g. <strong>the</strong> sales
team as opposed <strong>the</strong> R+D team, or <strong>the</strong> accountants). If <strong>the</strong>y can see <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> giving <strong>the</strong>ir first
loyalty to <strong>the</strong> process, as opposed to <strong>the</strong>ir o<strong>the</strong>rwise legitimate vested interests 7 <strong>the</strong>n this will facilitate
freedom <strong>of</strong> speech and promote thinking outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘organisational box’. The second is <strong>the</strong> right
balance <strong>of</strong> named and anonymous contributions to discussion processes (e.g. combining face-to-face
workshops, brainstorming, visioning etc with two or more rounds <strong>of</strong> Delphi). The intention is to tap into
as much tacit knowledge as possible in such a way that it is made available to all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> participants in
<strong>the</strong> process.
Using communications’ technologies to facilitate learning is to ensure that not only <strong>the</strong> ‘input’
information that <strong>the</strong> organisation needs is generated and provided but especially that <strong>the</strong> ‘output’
information is ga<strong>the</strong>red, processed, or even re-processed when necessary and distributed in user
friendly formats.
Open innovation systems are supported by letting Foresight play an enabling role in <strong>the</strong> “fast track
development <strong>of</strong> open innovation systems”. In industrial R+D contexts Coombs and Georghiou (2003)
have noted that, “Partnerships for innovation is seen as <strong>the</strong> core for knowledge based economic
initiatives”, such as industrial networking. This has been noted in <strong>the</strong> rapid growth in collaborative
R&D, alliances, and technology-based joint ventures. An estimated 20 to 25% <strong>of</strong> business revenues
stem from alliances between two or more companies (Larsen, 2000). These may combine capabilities
across sectors.
Creating “learning champions”, or <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> ‘boundary-spanners’, may be realised by
selecting appropriate key participants. They should have <strong>the</strong> vocation to develop advanced
understanding <strong>of</strong>, and skills in, managing <strong>the</strong> knowledge required to ensure “process sustainability”.
These people should be pro-active in informal 1-to-1 encounters and in distilling from open meetings
<strong>the</strong> insights into how <strong>the</strong> process is being shaped, which obstacles are encountered and how <strong>the</strong>se
are overcome, which pitfalls or errors should be avoided in <strong>the</strong> future and how <strong>the</strong> most effective
7 This may be seen as almost impossible in some contexts considering <strong>the</strong> importance placed on <strong>the</strong>ir serving as
“organisational ambassadors” in <strong>the</strong> classical diplomatic sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> a country’s Ambassador! Such barriers can only
come down in a climate <strong>of</strong> ‘non-threatening’ openness and trust.
338