Comments on: Managing Intangibles http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/ Linking Behaviour to the Bottom Line Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:52:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dove Lane » Blog Archive » Can KM Be Fun? – Part 1 of 2 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-91281 Dove Lane » Blog Archive » Can KM Be Fun? – Part 1 of 2 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:58:51 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-91281 [...] In a perfect business world, all activities could be measured and valued and included on the balance sheet. That is to say, in a perfect business world based upon current accounting standards that grossly fail to assign value to intangibles, such as customer good will, employee satisfaction, brand name, intellectual capital, and social network relationships. I discussed this previously here. Here are some discussions of the issues behind valuing intangibles, such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s SFAS 141 and 142, and the factors that drive intangibles. [...] [...] In a perfect business world, all activities could be measured and valued and included on the balance sheet. That is to say, in a perfect business world based upon current accounting standards that grossly fail to assign value to intangibles, such as customer good will, employee satisfaction, brand name, intellectual capital, and social network relationships. I discussed this previously here. Here are some discussions of the issues behind valuing intangibles, such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s SFAS 141 and 142, and the factors that drive intangibles. [...]

]]> By: Bruce Lewin http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-91141 Bruce Lewin Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:30:22 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-91141 Hi Gichonjo, thanks for this, have a look at this page which is one way to skin the human capital cat! http://www.fourgroups.com/capital Hi Gichonjo, thanks for this, have a look at this page which is one way to skin the human capital cat! http://www.fourgroups.com/capital

]]> By: Gichonjo G Munene http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-91139 Gichonjo G Munene Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:34:29 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-91139 This is quite interesting.The article has provoked my thinking and I wish you can try to adress the issue of valuation for the intargibles which you almost touched.How can we then value human capital? Gichonjo G. Munene-MBA This is quite interesting.The article has provoked my thinking and I wish you can try to adress the issue of valuation for the intargibles which you almost touched.How can we then value human capital?

Gichonjo G. Munene-MBA

]]> By: Four Groups’ Blog » The Value of Intangibles http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-82285 Four Groups’ Blog » The Value of Intangibles Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:16:32 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-82285 [...] Building on the piece on Managing Intangibles, I’m planning on adding some further examples of the increasing significance of intangibles in management. The first comes via the Bradman Group and CIO Magazine and is titled “9 Reasons Why Application Developers Think Their CIO Is Clueless“. Some select examples; 1. The CIO is a control nut. 2. The CIO is aloof. 6. The CIO thinks changes can happen overnight. 7. The CIO doesn’t know the difference between resources and talent. [...] [...] Building on the piece on Managing Intangibles, I’m planning on adding some further examples of the increasing significance of intangibles in management. The first comes via the Bradman Group and CIO Magazine and is titled “9 Reasons Why Application Developers Think Their CIO Is Clueless“. Some select examples; 1. The CIO is a control nut. 2. The CIO is aloof. 6. The CIO thinks changes can happen overnight. 7. The CIO doesn’t know the difference between resources and talent. [...]

]]> By: Nick Jacobs http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-80415 Nick Jacobs Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:38:48 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-80415 Very interesting article Bruce with lots of thought provoking content. It is also very interesting reading other posted comments as clearly there can be much debate about the concept of managing, controlling or even measuring intangibles but more importantly I think is the notion that businesses should take into consideration the intangible impacts on the overall business operation. Just being aware is a good place to start as it is always relatively easy to measure and make business decision on the tangibles. So, no challenging remark from myself but just a complement for tackling this subject in the first place caiuing readers to both ponder and think. Very interesting article Bruce with lots of thought provoking content.

It is also very interesting reading other posted comments as clearly there can be much debate about the concept of managing, controlling or even measuring intangibles but more importantly I think is the notion that businesses should take into consideration the intangible impacts on the overall business operation.

Just being aware is a good place to start as it is always relatively easy to measure and make business decision on the tangibles.

So, no challenging remark from myself but just a complement for tackling this subject in the first place caiuing readers to both ponder and think.

]]> By: Timothy Platt, Ph.D. http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-73603 Timothy Platt, Ph.D. Fri, 02 May 2008 07:01:00 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-73603 This is very interesting, though I have to add that I find myself orienting more to degree and quality of quantifiability, and ability to connect that into knowledge systems (as opposed to keeping it as that much more unqualified data), than I am with tangible versus intangible per se. As such I see a well crafted balanced score card analysis as a validly quantifiable tool insofar as it connects strongly into business plans and models, and into ongoing processes and governance and in ways that can be empirically, quantifiably validated. OK, I am also a mathematician by training with a background in math logic and topology etc so I may the wrong person to ask to identify the tangible candidates in a police lineup. I would probably just pick the tesseract (alias the 8-cell or octachoron). As you focus on making intangibles tangible I guess you would go after the one with two aliases too. Humor aside though I look to quantifiability. At the same time I look to see if it is a tool that when properly applied simply reinforces and optimizes ongoing processes and operations, or if it provides insight that can lead to new innovation and break-away understanding and new processes. Six Sigma falls squarely in the first of these two and has to be viewed as such or you might find yourself simply optimizing the rearrangements of the deck chairs on the Titanic, as your business seeks to do better and better for a shrinking market and market need. Think potential road kill from not preparing for the impact of disruptive technology as one point where this becomes important. So tangible versus intangible is important but it is only one approach I see as valid and necessary, and as one tool (metatool?) in my (meta)tool chest. This is very interesting, though I have to add that I find myself orienting more to degree and quality of quantifiability, and ability to connect that into knowledge systems (as opposed to keeping it as that much more unqualified data), than I am with tangible versus intangible per se. As such I see a well crafted balanced score card analysis as a validly quantifiable tool insofar as it connects strongly into business plans and models, and into ongoing processes and governance and in ways that can be empirically, quantifiably validated. OK, I am also a mathematician by training with a background in math logic and topology etc so I may the wrong person to ask to identify the tangible candidates in a police lineup. I would probably just pick the tesseract (alias the 8-cell or octachoron). As you focus on making intangibles tangible I guess you would go after the one with two aliases too. Humor aside though I look to quantifiability. At the same time I look to see if it is a tool that when properly applied simply reinforces and optimizes ongoing processes and operations, or if it provides insight that can lead to new innovation and break-away understanding and new processes. Six Sigma falls squarely in the first of these two and has to be viewed as such or you might find yourself simply optimizing the rearrangements of the deck chairs on the Titanic, as your business seeks to do better and better for a shrinking market and market need. Think potential road kill from not preparing for the impact of disruptive technology as one point where this becomes important.

So tangible versus intangible is important but it is only one approach I see as valid and necessary, and as one tool (metatool?) in my (meta)tool chest.

]]> By: Peter A Hunter http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-72679 Peter A Hunter Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:48:52 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-72679 Bruce The survey itself is tangible but that attitudes that it purports to represent are not. I worry that we may confuse what is real, the piece of paper, with the intangibles it claims to represent. measuring either will not change what they are. I agree that the greatest benefits are to be found in those aspects of an organisation that are hard to measure, but I suggest that measuring them will not generate a true picture, or create change. Peter A Hunter Bruce
The survey itself is tangible but that attitudes that it purports to represent are not.
I worry that we may confuse what is real, the piece of paper, with the intangibles it claims to represent. measuring either will not change what they are.
I agree that the greatest benefits are to be found in those aspects of an organisation that are hard to measure, but I suggest that measuring them will not generate a true picture, or create change.

Peter A Hunter

]]> By: Bruce Lewin http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-72656 Bruce Lewin Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:20:54 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-72656 @Peter, I think its a case of semantics and philosophies... Is the employee survey now 'tangible' because we've got some data? Is the business process now 'tangible' because it has been mapped? Hopefully, all management tools go a long way to making things easier to work with and go some way to making things easier to manage. That said, there's still a lot of slippage around and regardless of one's approach, it is my belief that the greatest benefits are to be found in 'the gaps' and those aspects of an organisation that are hard to measure, manage and work with! @Peter,

I think its a case of semantics and philosophies…

Is the employee survey now ‘tangible’ because we’ve got some data? Is the business process now ‘tangible’ because it has been mapped?

Hopefully, all management tools go a long way to making things easier to work with and go some way to making things easier to manage.

That said, there’s still a lot of slippage around and regardless of one’s approach, it is my belief that the greatest benefits are to be found in ‘the gaps’ and those aspects of an organisation that are hard to measure, manage and work with!

]]> By: Peter A Hunter http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-72558 Peter A Hunter Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:16:36 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-72558 Bruce “Trying to make tangible the apparently intangible” I have to agree with Motty, is an intangible process. Try to substitute the word unknowable for intangible and it becomes more apparent how crazy this aspiration really is. The solution lies around the difference between working with the intangibles and trying to manage them. “Managing” something that you cannot measure is a logical impossibility. “Working with” something you can’t measure is something that everybody does every day whenever they interact with another human being. Trying to make relationships and concepts such as trust, honesty, pride, commitment, engagement, tangible is a futile waste of energy when all we have to do is create the environment that is conducive to their development. This differs significantly from the normal environment created by managers of suspicion, divisive competition, blame and target setting Bruce
“Trying to make tangible the apparently intangible” I have to agree with Motty, is an intangible process.
Try to substitute the word unknowable for intangible and it becomes more apparent how crazy this aspiration really is.

The solution lies around the difference between working with the intangibles and trying to manage them.
“Managing” something that you cannot measure is a logical impossibility.

“Working with” something you can’t measure is something that everybody does every day whenever they interact with another human being.

Trying to make relationships and concepts such as trust, honesty, pride, commitment, engagement, tangible is a futile waste of energy when all we have to do is create the environment that is conducive to their development.

This differs significantly from the normal environment created by managers of suspicion, divisive competition, blame and target setting

]]> By: Bruce Lewin http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/comment-page-1/#comment-72459 Bruce Lewin Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:20:16 +0000 http://www.fourgroups.com/blog/archives/13/managing-intangibles/#comment-72459 @Peter >I don’t quite agree with your proposition that intangibles can be managed Hmm... fair enough... as I alluded to in the article, many management tools attempt to make tangible the apparently intangible, 360 feedback and BPR being just two examples... >We can work with intangibles but not manage them. This is an interesting idea - what is the difference between 'working with' and 'managing'? >Human interactions are on another level of complexity and while not completely intangible do frequently defy prediction or logic Sure, they aren't the easiest things to work with. That said, our own work with 4G and particularly around the relationships would suggest its easier than first impressions would suggest! @Peter

>I don’t quite agree with your proposition that intangibles can be managed

Hmm… fair enough… as I alluded to in the article, many management tools attempt to make tangible the apparently intangible, 360 feedback and BPR being just two examples…

>We can work with intangibles but not manage them.

This is an interesting idea – what is the difference between ‘working with’ and ‘managing’?

>Human interactions are on another level of complexity and while not completely intangible do frequently defy prediction or logic

Sure, they aren’t the easiest things to work with. That said, our own work with 4G and particularly around the relationships would suggest its easier than first impressions would suggest!

]]>