Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Corporations, networks ... what next?

150 years ago corporations started using auditors according to the law and under control of the state. It was (and to a certain extent is) the world of separation. Access to business information/knowledge was and is a privilege of auditors and consultants. Hence not only audit and consulting emerged to assist corporations in business war for profit, markets, customers ... but (in contrast) also informal networks emerged to understand what business world is doing, as we can see from blogging and other social media. This second world has only one law – copyright and is "above" the states borders. It watches business as usual and tests new business models ...

In fact we can see 2 models:

The known model is: corporation – auditor/consultant – public.

What's the networked model?

Let's rename the parts of the abovementioned model: corporation (persons) – auditor/consultant (person) – public (person). In fact we get the "person - person" model "above" the states borders and law where personal knowledge matters – Knowledge Persons.

Why these models are different, if they look like the same but are written in 2 languages?

I think it's because corporations mostly deal with tangible things. A confirmation for this are the audit standards. It's a space for tangibles where things can be lost and therefore are being secured. Information and knowledge are also "things" here.

If networks are not being built like corporations, they (networks) are open – welcome people to join and benefit from one level collaboration, with a direct access to information/knowledge flows ... And their "person – person" model can include ideas creation, design, production, sales, explanations, consumption ... according to public contract (a network charter). Audit and consulting can be included too and must measuring, correcting knowledge that is a building unit for sociobusiness networking.

So, as we can see a symbiosis of corporations and informal networks can be. For example, some corporations can be the production units within the network.

Can the corporations acquire the open network? Oddly, but openness is an obstacle for that because corporation can't be open as the networks can.

The next entity, I suppose, will be audit/consulting for networking. It will mediate interaction of the persons again, but differently. If we do network, we should audit understanding of interaction to accept it or not and correct it to build our global sociobusiness life or netliving.

I think auditing/consulting the networks will be a function of their openness, but I don't know where is a place for the states here?

Sunday, February 25, 2007 blog is among Knowledge Management blogs

Stan Garfield, Worldwide Knowledge Management Lead at Hewlett-Packard Co. added this blog to his list of Knowledge Management (KM) blogs.

KM is still of interest to the persons who work for global corporations.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

"Knowledge Person" brand?

As you may know brands are most valuable assets in business world. But how this value can be shared?

1.A corporation as a centralized authority of its network (outsourced research and development, production, supply, call centers, etc.) takes/owns a brand name and therefore convert it in money and glory. Don't laugh – glory is important for marketing in a form of various charities (as if they are for saving the world), which support a core business. Instead of naming the participants of the network and sharing the value among them it looks like the corporation do everything (and takes almost everything). Yes, it governs the network, but who said that those who make the parts of the end goods and services can't understand governance and must be hidden? Transparency can't improve that, because it works like a shop-window – you can't enter and rearrange the order (or disorder).

2."Knowledge Person" brand can be a true networking brand to open the network participants and share the value among them. Who are the participants? - those who form a project from their own parts and agree to collaborate openly. In this case everyone can join, who is who and does what are seen publicly. Don't mix it up with transparency. It's openness that protect such the true networking business that doesn't contradict social needs because customers can participate. "Knowledge Person" brand can be a global "budget" for wealth redistribution, if to use it for luxury market where price is a second question (business apparel and accessories, real estate, for instance).

The relevant discussion you can find at Knowledge Persons group. Join!

Sunday, February 04, 2007

A space for consulting

You know consulting business is usually perceived as something top oriented - writing the strategies, audit, rather expensive legal cases, etc. And therefore consulting and consultants are mainly a kind of top society, sometimes snobby – not because of rocket science, but because of affiliation to so-called top decision makers, which is difficult to connect if you're not among well known consultants or don't serve the big consulting houses.

But it's only a part of truth.

In fact there are many areas that have daily problems to solve. Sales (I'm not about MLM) or production can be the examples. Even if you're management consulting consultant without managerial dogmas you probably could find the clients in these "routine" areas.

Don't tell them that you're going to consult/teach them. Tell them that you would like to sell their goods and services, for instance, and being a smart consultant you will realize how many reserves are not yet being used ... Sales is most critical for any business and it's revenue potential ("budget") is bigger than what is being spent for audit or any other consulting activity.

The space for consulting exists even if not to use this word (consulting). Be the smart Knowledge Persons and try keeping independence.