Ian Caddy

Intellectual capital: recognizing both assets and liabilities

Contends that the current treatment of intellectual capital possessed by organizations (either knowledge intensive or otherwise) has been somewhat superficial. For instance, the terms “intellectual” assets and “intangible” assets have often been used interchangeably, although a case can be made that there are differences between these two groups of assets. To date there has been too much focus on intellectual assets – and to some extent an implied equivalence between intellectual assets and intellectual capital. Considers the issue of the other factor within the intellectual capital equation, namely, intellectual liabilities. For if double entry is to apply in the area of intellectual capital then with every debit (in the sense of a building up) there should also be allowed the possibility of a credit (in the sense of a reducing down). In fact intellectual capital is more appropriately derived as a net figure (subtracting intellectual liabilities from intellectual assets) rather than a mere summation of t...

Managing Orphan Knowledge: Current Australasian Best Practice

To date, managing intellectual capital has focussed on maximising possibilities to create knowledge, while minimising chances of losing knowledge. However, effective intellectual capital management should consider another dimension: orphan knowledge. Orphan knowledge relates to questions such as: Do organisations “unlearn” things or forget things and repeat past mistakes? Do some organisations unnecessarily duplicate equivalent activities within different areas of the organisation? If orphan knowledge exists, then organisations need to understand their potential for creating orphan knowledge. This paper defines orphan knowledge, and provides evidence of its potential by developing various scenarios and relating case‐study analysis from a sample of Australasian organisations. Indications are that even in organisations considered current “best practice” in managing intellectual capital, there is a medium to high potential for orphan knowledge to be created. Future research will determine whether different knowledge types, namely explicit versus tacit knowledge, have differing potentials for knowledge orphaning. Further research will consider the chief knowledge officer’s role in preventing and recovering organisation orphan knowledge.

Orphan knowledge: the new challenge for knowledge management

To date knowledge management within learning organizations has focussed upon maximizing possibilities to create knowledge while minimizing the chances of losing knowledge. However, knowledge management needs to consider a third option: dealing with orphan knowledge. There are situations where organizations forget things and repeat past mistakes. Do organizations really “unlearn” or just merely forget? In answering in the affirmative to this question, various scenarios are presented which may lead to creating orphan knowledge, knowledge forgotten, separated, or isolated within the organization. Orphan knowledge management needs to consider different knowledge types and their ease or otherwise of becoming orphaned. Orphan knowledge management should begin with a status assessment of the organization’s true “knowledge position”. Processes of orphan knowledge recovery or the development of strategies to minimize orphan knowledge should play a significant part in any organization’s strategic knowledge management plan. Within this context the role of the chief knowledge officer is seen as an important part of this strategic knowledge management plan.

From Mass Production to Mass Customization: Impact on Integrated Supply Chains

‘Mass Customization’ can be considered the ‘holy grail’ of manufacturing in which products made are perfectly attuned to customers’ wants and needs. This paper analyses what should be seen as mass customization by developing the mass production/mass customization continuum. In addition, whether all products can be easily mass customized is debatable; where products consist of combinations of goods and services, organizations may find that one component or dimension of the product is more easily customized. The main issue discussed is supply chain change due to mass customization of products. Given that mass customization is significantly different to the mass production paradigm, there should be changes in either the way the supply chain is configured or in the way the supply chain needs to be managed. This paper will consider what changes may impact on a supply chain for mass customized products using the generic supply chain framework. The analysis concludes that both supply chains and their management will be different to supply chains aligned to more traditional manufacturing processes.