Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

The Beehive: A Practitioner’s Metaphor for Knowledge
Markets
Philippe Leliaert
SyntaxisNetworking, Blaasveld, Belgium
pl@syntaxisnetworking.com
Abstract: This presentation provides practical insights into how <strong>the</strong> bee-keeper metaphor, first presented at
ECIC09, can help understand and manage knowledge market dynamics within organisations (and beyond), in a
significant departure from <strong>the</strong> way markets traditionally operate. Knowledge markets that mirror <strong>the</strong> dynamics <strong>of</strong>
physical or financial markets fail because <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> knowledge assets - and intangibles in general - cannot be
determined using typical spot-transaction based approaches. Crucially, <strong>the</strong> extreme context-dependent nature <strong>of</strong>
knowledge makes that its true value can only be determined as and when – and every time –it is used, i.e. mostly
some time after <strong>the</strong> exchange took place. By its nature, <strong>the</strong>re is no “objective market value” <strong>of</strong> knowledge, and
<strong>the</strong>refore nei<strong>the</strong>r can its price be determined. Pentaho’s bee-keeper model, which has been used as a metaphor
to describe and explain commercial open source business models, has previously also served to visualise <strong>the</strong>
workings <strong>of</strong> internal knowledge markets at an international network <strong>of</strong> independent consultants. Using this model,
<strong>the</strong> development and sharing <strong>of</strong> knowledge are kept separate from its application in commercial contexts, at
which point (financial) value is determined. In doing so, <strong>the</strong>re is no longer any pressure to put a financial value (or
price) to knowledge being shared; but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> knowledge is determined retrospectively every time it is
used .Individuals’ contributions to <strong>the</strong> “Communal Body <strong>of</strong> Knowledge” (CBOK) are tracked through an
intermediate construct, which can be called “credits”. Thus, each individual can hold a number <strong>of</strong> credits in
proportion to his/her contributions made to any given knowledge asset. That same proportion later serves to
determine each individual’s allocation <strong>of</strong> revenue from <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> that knowledge asset. The more one contributes
to a given knowledge asset (relative to o<strong>the</strong>r individuals), <strong>the</strong> higher one’s proportion <strong>of</strong> related credits and
<strong>the</strong>refore also <strong>the</strong> higher one’s allocation <strong>of</strong> future revenues earned from <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> that knowledge asset.
Conversely, as soon as one elects to no longer contribute to a given knowledge asset <strong>the</strong>n one’s amount <strong>of</strong>
related credits will remain fixed but likely decrease as a proportion <strong>of</strong> all related credits (assuming o<strong>the</strong>rs continue
to make contributions).The credits essentially act as options on (an allocation <strong>of</strong>) future revenues. It should be
clear that a secondary internal market in credits is <strong>the</strong>refore possible: credits can be traded since <strong>the</strong>y represent
a right to part <strong>of</strong> future revenues generated by <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> related knowledge assets. In that respect, <strong>the</strong>
credits related to different knowledge assets may well carry a different value, since credit value is linked to <strong>the</strong>
asset’s likely or potential future revenues. A fur<strong>the</strong>r refinement is that contributions to <strong>the</strong> CBOK may be weighted
according to <strong>the</strong> community’s appreciation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> added value <strong>the</strong>y bring: for instance, ano<strong>the</strong>r classification
model for Intellectual Capital may at this point bring little added value to <strong>the</strong> related CBOK, whereas cases
studies detailing <strong>the</strong> practical use <strong>of</strong> Intellectual Capital Measurement in companies remain rare and are
<strong>the</strong>refore very valuable. In that case it is essential to incorporate a rating or voting functionality into <strong>the</strong>
knowledge sharing platform (cf. <strong>the</strong> reputation functionality at amazon.com or eBay.com). The bee-keeper
metaphor was recently updated and expanded to explain <strong>the</strong> differences with business models for proprietary
s<strong>of</strong>tware and for open source service/support companies. In <strong>the</strong> same vein <strong>the</strong>se updated versions can now also
serve to visualise how different organisations deal with <strong>the</strong> exchange <strong>of</strong> knowledge both within <strong>the</strong>ir organisation
and with external entities (incl. customers, partners, competitors, suppliers, regulators, former and prospective
employees, etc.), and how this is reflected in <strong>the</strong>ir respective business models. By using holo-maps - graphical
representations <strong>of</strong> how value, including knowledge, is exchanged in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se business models – one can
demonstrate how significantly different <strong>the</strong> respective business models treat in particular motivation and reward
for sharing knowledge. They moreover illustrate how o<strong>the</strong>r components <strong>of</strong> Intellectual Capital (Human, Structural,
and Relational Capital) contribute to <strong>the</strong> mix <strong>of</strong> value being exchanged between <strong>the</strong> various actors. The
presentation will fur<strong>the</strong>rmore discuss <strong>the</strong> managerial implications <strong>of</strong> applying <strong>the</strong> above insights into one’s
knowledge management processes, and <strong>the</strong> crucial role that trust and reputation have in measuring and
managing <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> knowledge in an organisation, and beyond.
Keywords: knowledge markets; bee-keeper model; reputation; holo-maps
565