The New Venture Capitalists of the Knowledge Economy

Bart De Wever's column in today's De Standaard touched on a number of relevant issues: since Flanders has few, if any, natural resources and most of its traditional/historical manufacturing industry (iron & steel, non-ferrous metals, industrial machinery, wool & cotton, glass, ...) has scaled down, been taken over by foreign corporations and/or been off-shored, the only 'resource' it has left to export is its knowledge, i.e. brainpower. Which leads Mr De Wever to discuss the current state of education in Flanders, and in particular the need to adjust the education system to the changing demands of society. 

It reminds me of one of several amazing quotes in the series of YouTube clips "Did You Know?" (for instance this one focused on Technology): "We are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist,... using technologies that haven't been invented... in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet." It strikes me that the real venture capitalists today are in fact our student generations: taking considerable risk in choosing to specialise in a given discipline to become a knowledge expert in that area, in the hope but without any certainty that this investment of time and money will provide for a decent income (the ROI).

It all used to be so different, when diplomas were an entry ticket to almost-sure jobs (often: jobs for life)!

My point here is: Don't we also need to change the way we treat (and reward) these new venture capitalists in the knowledge economy ? 

Consider in that context what Drucker said: "the assumption on which all organizations have to conduct their affairs is that they need the knowledge worker far more than the knowledge worker needs them" ! How long before these new venture capitalists will say - in true Dragons Den style - "I will come to work for you, but I want (double the) equity" ?

Managing Knowledge versus Managing Change

Rainy day in the Alps - time for a new post !


I recently came across Guy St. Clair's blog on the connection between KM/Knowledge Services and - what he calls the "much-discussed and much-maligned" field of change management. As I see it, one cannot go without the other! They are the proverbial two sides of the same coin.

• 'Innovation' - according to Webster meaning "the introduction of something new", according to Wikipedia derived from the latin 'innovare' = "to renew or change" (!) - may also be defined as "creation of new knowledge or insight": it is by taking a departure from the 'norm', from what others are doing or have done before, that new insights may be created.
  
• Being innovative is therefore predicated on how well you (as an organisation) manage your current knowledge BUT ALSO on your capabilities for challenging that current knowledge and come up with new knowledge/insights; i.e. for learning.
• It is in this context not enough to effectively manage one's current knowledge (incl. capturing & disseminating), since this will only sustain the current knowledge, not improve/renew it: Without (organisational and/or individual) capabilities for learning you will be unable to challenge currently held beliefs and insights (for instance when observations do not match expectations) and come up with new insights: 'Learning' is as much the un-learning of current knowledge as the learning of new knowledge !

'Learning' is therefore in many respects synonymous with 'changing', and the respective processes are very similar: where e.g. Kolb talks of Active Experimentation (= planning, applying, trying out) -> Concrete Experience (= practice) -> Reflective Observation (i.e. does the practice match the theory?) -> Abstract Conceptualisation (= developing theory, or (new) knowledge) the most basic change process involves Planning -> Doing -> Checking -> Acting.

Hence: 

• (sustainable) innovation requires effective knowledge management in combination with (organisational and individual) learning capabilities; 
• and the development of learning capabilities is in many respects the same as the development of capabilities to change.

I therefore always introduce myself as specialist in "management of knowledge, innovation and change" since these are intricately and inextricably interlinked. 



Note that many years ago the introduction of Total Quality Management (TQM - for which PDCA provides the foundation) also faced this same challenge: TQM not only required a change in operating processes, but also a change in organisational culture !

Creativity and Innovation

So I'm in Paphos, Cyprus, on a week-long seminar entitled "Inspiring and enabling the 21st century Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching with ICT". 


We had a discussion on the difference between 'creativity' and 'innovation'. 
Here's my take:

• creativity is the expression of imagination
• innovation is turning creativity into added value

As I see it, you can be creative without being innovative: part of learning the arts (incl. painting, sculpture, ceramics) is learning various techniques to express one's imagination. No need to be innovative. In fact, at first it is often about copying existing work, to demonstrate skill (in applying technique); the next step is to let loose one's imagination, and translate what's in your mind into something tangible - and thus shareable.


What's in your mind (or in your heart) does not need to be 'new' as such. But its expression (as a drawing, painting, dance, song, ...) will be unique.


And yes, in some cases, there is also innovation: think of works by Gaudì, le Corbusier, Picasso (cubism), ... In these and other cases you do not even need to like the 'art' - which by definition is creative - to be able to appreciate their innovativeness, their total departure from 'the norm', from what others do or have done.


Therefore you cannot be innovative without being creative: even incremental improvement requires someone to 'see' the opportunity to do something better - and by definition different - by connecting dots that no-one else tought to connect.

Admittedly, 'different' does not always mean 'better'. Absent 'added value' such ideas will be - or should be - discarded.  

Yet again exceptions prove the rule: some people have made millions on, let's be honest, really stupid inventions (that were not innovations).