Page 450 -

Future Challenges for KM 433

Similarly, Sveiby ’ s Intangible Asset Monitor ( Sveiby 1997 ) focuses on external struc-
ture, internal structure, and the competences of people. External structure contains
customers, suppliers and other “ external ” stakeholders. One selects the ones that are
relevant. In most private companies, this will be the customer and in the public sector
organizations will use other stakeholders, such as community members. Many com-
panies have such valuable alliances with their suppliers that they must be included
too. Internal departments will have internal “ customers ” that will form their external
structure. Tobin ’ s q ( Tobin 1998 ) is a metric that looks at the ratio between the market
value stock price multiplied by the outstanding shares and replacement value of physi-
cal assets. It serves to quantify the value of knowledge on an objective basis at the
global level.
In order to complete the cycle, it is also extremely important to know when to
divest knowledge assets. We need to understand why, when, where, and how to for-
mally divest parts of the knowledge base. After having invested so much — how can
we throw it away! An opportunity cost analysis should be carried out to identify which
knowledge assets are no longer contributing to competitive advantage. Examples of
divesting knowledge would include:
• Selling, licensing, donating a patent
• Spinning off or selling a business unit
• Outsourcing a function of the operating process
• Terminating a training program
• Retaining, relocating, or fi ring individuals with obsolete or ill-fi tted skills
• Replacing or upgrading information technology systems
• Terminating partnerships, alliances, and contracts

Figure 13.3 summarizes the different types of intellectual assets and the relative ease
with which their value can be extracted.

Intellectual Property Issues

At fi rst glance, intellectual property issues may appear to make knowledge implemen-
tation quite problematic. However, two dimensions need to be considered for KM
applications. The fi rst is that when discussion occurs around intellectual property and
authorship, even ownership, of content to be posted and shared company-wide, con-
cerns need to be further elucidated. Most practitioners have found that the concerns
expressed by knowledge workers revolve around attribution and unwanted attribution.