Does it give us the level of detailed understanding to feel confident?

Let me outline some different thoughts, coming from some detailed research that is swirling around in my mind today. It’s a little complicated, but lets try.

I apologize this is a little longer than ideal so maybe take it in bite seized chunks.

Seeing an organizations business model but through whose eyes?

Is the business model important? Of course it is but how we see its value all depends on who are you, what you are looking for, knowing what provides the real value creation within that specific organization becomes important to appreciate their business model.

Understanding the business model of organizations is important, it can tell us much, if it is well designed and explained.

.Today we are stuck looking into our business organizations through a very selective window, often chosen by the leadership of the organization, designed deliberately  into what they chose to report upon.

It is what they believe they want to tell you about ‘selected’ activities and outcomes that are actually going on. Do you believe these selective opinions?  I certainly do not on many occasions regard them as transparent as I would like.

Firstly, financial numbers alone give a limited guidance, they hid so much to make it difficult for the outside to really gain full confidence in their understanding of what lies underneath.

If organizations rely simply on ‘just’ the numbers, this tend to be a ‘static’ set of figures that reflect something recent and everything in the past. That is not helpful in knowing where organizations are heading or if they are well-equipped to get there.

If financials are no real use for the future – what is?

Numbers alone do not give us confidence to invest in the organizations future; we only blindly invest in a historical position actually. We take better comfort from the forward-looking statement that is positioned to fill this future thinking space.

Is this really good enough? I don’t think so and so do plenty of others – that is way there is a serious call for changing this. We do need better knowledge and insights.

Surely we all need to recognize this reporting must change, we live in rapidly changing environments where established organizations are increasingly being caught out.

We need to understand more of the why. We need to know what is making up the present and future thinking of the leadership of organizations. For this the business model is not a bad place to gather around, decide and explore its relationship parts to form an opinion if what the leadership is thinking, is making future sense.

There is a call for a more integrated reporting structure that is forward-looking. This might help.

There is a growing argument for a more integrated reporting framework with one of those pushing for this is the IIRC. IIRC has as its objectives to enhance market and context specific insights, it wants to place a greater emphasis on the longer-term strategy and reveal the behavioral triangle of governance, risk and remuneration.

It is seeking this out through how the business model works expecting a clear linkage of the dynamics and key relationships that it depends. Now that, for me, is good news. They are suggesting this comes through business narratives.

But will this make a real difference to attempt to describe the business model (BM), unless we have a standard way to evaluate and describe this. I don’t think the IIRC is yet there in what this needs to have contained within the BM Narrative but they are moving along a good track, if it is not the best track – more on that another time perhaps.

What is driving this call for reporting change?

There are a set of issue that are driving this move towards a more integrated reporting. The open question is will it make the real difference, restore confidence, and allow stakeholders, the many and varied  investors into the ‘hearts and minds’ of our organizations to show a shared belief. Will it bring back trust within our organizations?

So who wants to see what is made up within any integrated business model?

There are so many interested parties wanting to understand our business organizations. The current proposal is to present the business model through Business Narrative thinking for telling the real story. This clearly raises a greater set of question in my mind:

• Whose context will these narratives be targeted towards, what will form the nature of them and will we see or simply ‘sense the value that lies within these BM Narratives?
• Will we gain that clarity on the leadership objective and ‘decent’ insights into their strategy and the thinking that is making this up?
• Will they be clear, not replace one set of flowery statements with another. A business model should clarify a compelling picture of how, if it is constructed well by identifying those drivers of development and future (sustaining) performance.
• We don’t want it loaded with safe haven or harbour statements with financial positions, but some forward analysis and explanations that provide the context and construct of why this business model can deliver, and what are its risks and critical aspects of the BM.

Of course we need to accept these will still be a partial understanding to retain competitive advantage.

Do our organizations want to talk about their business models or will they feel they are revealing too much? Will they lack that real confidence because sometimes they don’t know what does truly make up their business model in real value points? The business model and its related parts needs significant understanding and opening this up might reveal inherent weakness.

Forget all the present loaded documents that ‘spin’ themes, generalize on priorities and time-frames – do they offer decent explanations of actions, comprehensive and quantified information?  Do they map this back to strategic priorities?

Will organizations leaders be comfortable to put their necks a little more on the chopping block? Can we, should we encourage this? Yes we should, that is why they are there, to be paid to manage risk and opportunities, to navigate and deliver and be well rewarded for these efforts.

It is a different balancing act, needing deeper evaluation of all the implications of revealing the business model, without it turning into simply ‘bland’ statements that will give little fresh value.

You can go on and ask a series of further questions:

• Do we as outsiders really extract useful information today – is what is currently being produced and talked about really insightful or bland statements of possible intent?
• Do we really know if the present BM have a clear integration, the parts in its total design, not just work and fit with each other but actually ‘talk’ to each other.
• How much can we expect on tangible comments on sustainability, risks and impacts to existing strategies? We should.
• Will organization invest enough in decent graphics that help explain their business model or just prettify their reports?
• Can we grasp differences within the different  business units and their business models or do we just accept the top picture?

We need stuff we can relate too, that will help us understand or a narrative has no real value, just more soothing balm. There are real, significant questions any move to pushing organizations towards reporting on their business models. Today this is being explored through present trials and experimentation in a number of our top organizations.

These are the pioneers working through this. This early adopters recognize a more open, forward-looking outlook will attract more positives than keeping present stakeholders and investors in the dark. Informing them of a better business model narrative of the future intent can give greater understanding and confidence.

How would organizations go about this BM narrative task?

Should these be top down or bottom up? The top-level business model is usually made up of multiple business models underneath. The larger and more complex the organization the harder it might be to describe a ‘generic’ business model. How will this be resolved?

We would also want to search for a certain consistency across organizations offering where proirities lie, alongside some clear and measurable KPI’s to help in any assessments

 How will the leadership of organizations deal with failures? It is far more beholden of the leadership today to talk about the  failures but place these within the real learning that came out of this and actions it has taken from this so this becomes an expected rhythm of advancing the knowledge and learning.

Do we expect to understand what are the external drivers prompting discussion and informing relevant decisions? Do we get the relevant joining of the dots to provide a more integrated picture? Explicit linkages that give context to strategy to direction

The questions are many and complex.

Can this be achieved, or are we perhaps raising our expectancies way to high. I expect the way to high would be the winner here, sadly. Will the business narrative follow a prescribed format or be allowed to evolve and through a set of emerging practices become the accepted leading practice that will eventually be broadly adopted? Most probably.

We know the Business Model is made up of key resources and relationships that enable the real engagement and point towards a distinctive value proposition. What is needed in all business model narratives is the coverage of all the basic building blocks that frame the discussion as a universal starting point.

What to integrate within this business narrative might be tough:

• Provide distinctive understanding of what our brand strives to be?
• What would transmit real values and clarity to the reader?
• Provide future stories and scenarios that paint that BM canvas for what we are doing in the ‘here and know’, that gives it the ‘richness and vibrancy’ people want to here.
• Put the people side into the BM equation – to discuss the learning behaviors and intentions that will underpin the BM – our people and where they really fit within the business model design to make it work through knowledge and innovation contribution.
• Explain the make-up of the critical intellectual capitals that will generate the future value creation
• Clarify the value propositions and their key building blocks

We do need to evoke a powerful narrative as the journey that others would want to be on

The really challenging part of any move towards building and communicating the BM narrative resolve around some perhaps “hairy” internal challenges

• A cohesive team that can stay on-message
• Meets investors needs
• Offer a picture of sustainable value- actions that drive
• Offer information that is used to manage the business, not all but enough!
• It is structured and coherent
• Has alignment and consistency between actions and rhetoric
• Showing the places and activities where an organization is managing for value.

There is a really strong case to look more towards the future

Organizations by making this move to having good, helpful and well-structured constructs of their business model is a step towards being more open, more willing to engage. These moves will help the stakeholders to want to become a better knowledgeable partner wanting to get involved. Ones that by being clearer on what is making up an organizations business models today and by discussing these can reduce conflicts, help navigate in this more complex world.

What will happen if organizations start adopting a business narrative around their business models?

I am excited in what I read about what the integrated reporting is presenting as potential results. Equally I am troubled. Adopting the business model, even in just a narrative reporting form can offer really value but it needs designing well, to be a substantial advancement in our understanding of organizations view of the future.

I do hope the central change aspect of reporting, based on the business model suggested by the IIRC, is managed well, otherwise we miss a further opportunity to change a rather broken down, out of date reporting mechanism that is “not fit for today’s or tomorrows purpose.” We do need to be more forward looking and understand the relationships that make up the value within our organizations, the business model helps in this.

What do you think? Any thoughts on this? We are arriving a different point on reporting and the business model and its understanding will become even more important to our future.

Main References here:

Steve Denning- Mastering the discipline of business narratives.

PwC- Trust through Transparency

Integrated Reporting (IIRC)

* This article was extensively revised on 15th February from the original.

The post Seeing a business model through whose eyes? first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

Are we working towards understanding the material sustainability issues better and linking them to financial drivers and where we fit within these complex issues?

There is such an increasing need to develop or simply updating our business language to build stronger cases for change, improvement and broader community engagement but these still seem to be missing.

How are organizations aligning their organizations not just with their own strategies but those in the wider world that contribute into a more sustaining future? We are needing to answer a fair few of these questions in my opinion.

The lack of engagement, of common understanding

Within each corporation there is this overwhelming need and growing concern to engage, to engage our employees, provide them a clearer sense of purpose and offer a better understanding of what a ‘higher’ purpose they are working towards looks like in their language not just through the eyes of the corporate board.

How does the external world perceive us, how do we attract new investment, greater stakeholder engagement.  How can we achieve this in better ways than we are doing today?

Many of those traditional measures of purpose left over from the 20^th century are simply not working. The social contract between employer, employee and their communities has broken down and this ‘sense of drift’ is certainly making it far more difficult to galvanize each part of the renewing growth equation – including government – to fix it, to be part of a common united sense of solution that connect and resonate across all ‘vested’ parties.

The Integrated Reporting movement (www.theiirc.org )

I’m not sure how aware we all are on the work being undertaken under the auspices of the integrated reporting movement .  This  is a process that results in changing the communication mechanisms provided by an organization, most visibly a periodic integrated report, about value creation over time.

An integrated report is a concise communication about how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value over the short, medium and long-term.

Arguable much of the change to achieve Integrated Reporting needs to be driven by companies themselves and the development of the IIRC framework is enabling companies to shape the process based on their own experiences.

A useful starting place to pick up on this

A useful report to initially read is ‘Understanding transformation: Building the business case for Integrated Reporting’ that set out to understand the processes that companies go through as they move towards Integrated Reporting. The organisations participating in the research are at different stages but all are involved in the IIRC’s Pilot Programme, which aims to help develop an International Integrated Reporting Framework

The work being presently undertaken

Over 100 global businesses and 50 institutional investors are directly involved in the IIRC’s work. This includes some of the world’s most iconic brands, such as Coca-Cola, Clorox, Microsoft, Hyundai, Tata, Unilever, Marks and Spencer, SAP and National Australia Bank.

Their engagement within the Pilot Programme are trialling the principles, content and practicalities of the Framework for two years to provide feedback and build business momentum towards its implementation.

By tracking their experiences over the two-year duration of the pilot, the aim is to capture the changes and benefits of adopting Integrated Reporting. This will help to build the business case for a wider shift towards Integrated Reporting and help to generate support among key stakeholders, including internal audiences, boards, investors and regulators.

The business and investor benefits of <IR> are seemingly compelling.

According to latest reports, the empirical evidence from the IIRC Pilot Programme shows that enables the articulation of strategy and how the business is creating value over time.

This information potentially provides the new lifeblood of capital markets. enables a better communication of the material factors that create value over the short, medium and long term. It works towards investor decision-making and the efficient allocation of capital, essential aspects needed for us all to understand.

The next step of a Consultation Draft of the International <IR> Framework

According the website after a successful three months of engagement and the launching the Consultation Draft of the International Framework at events in 10 of the world’s largest capital markets, extensive consultation has taken place with organizations across the world.

From South Korea to Sweden, Italy to Indonesia, and the Netherlands to New Zealand people have evaluated and commenting on the Consultation Draft.

The IIRC are using received submissions to shape the Framework which will be published in December 2013.

We certainly require more integrated thinking for us to all gain this greater sense of identity.

 If we can achieve a means of presenting the material about the organization’s strategy, governance and performance on commercial, social and environmental issues then this is a significant step forward. By the ability to effectively connect these often siloed areas, businesses are able to provide not only an update on past performance but also a long-term perspective of future value generation.

Integrated Reporting is, therefore, potentially moving us to good, or at least, better reporting. It provides and equips companies to manage their operations, brand and reputation strategically and to manage better any risks that may compromise the long-term sustainability of the business.

If this initiative does allow organizations to present their material information about the organization’s strategy, governance and performance on commercial, social and environmental issues in an integrated fashion

 Regaining engagement through in integrated reporting will benefit many.

I think this collaborative work can potentially advance some of the important areas we need, to regain the engagement within communities. Of course this integrated reporting will have far more initial value to the financial markets and direct investors but if we can begin to see a better, cohesive, articulated business story provided by organizations then it can begin to ‘flow through’ in many different ways.

Beyond the financial community, I think we can all gain by understand the specific business models better, we can begin to appreciate the assets that make up value creation far more and these will be far more based around the intellectual capital assets within organizations and we will begin to gain a higher sense of where innovation is contributing within this integrated reporting.

The value for us all is to become engaged in this work

I think this is a body of work that is well worth exploring and keeping engaged with, it may be a good catalyst for changing our thinking and attitudes and partly help us move finally away from antiquated reporting based on the last century and reporting on assets that are extremely limited on what is making up the real worth of one organization over another.

It is certainly about time that reporting within organizations became significantly better to understand where the real value creation is derived.

If the IIRC can offer a better integrated framework for reporting, something that offers a more cohesive reporting structure that is sadly lacking today, thirteen years into a new century, then we can all benefit from this better understanding.

We can then revise our views on the value and appreciation of what makes up the organization for its value creation – past, present and future – and then decide accordingly, if it has real worth or not going forward, from each of our unique stakeholder perspectives.

The post Shifting attitudes, think responsibly. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

How do we capture all the activities that have the potential to generate wealth within organizations?  Most remain hidden as they lie within out knowledge-based capital. This the second part of two posts (part one here) discussing our need to capture and report on ALL our assets, both the tangible and intangibles.

Knowledge-based capital today is more important to understand in its make up than often the reported financial numbers. One generates the other and investors need to see what goes into an organizations knowledge capital to provide them with continued confidence or not.

Recently the OECD provided an extensive report on “Supporting Investment in Knowledge Capital, Growth and Innovation”

I spent a fair amount of my time this last Saturday working through this document from the OECD. No, it was not because I had nothing better to do, it was simply because it ‘points’ towards one area I totally believe needs resolving, capturing knowledge and where it resides and how it works.

Then we can begin to place increased focus upon improving the capabilities and capacities we all need for innovation to do its necessary work, that of regaining our growth and vitality in many markets. The problem is we often do not know which are the most valuable or critical to focus upon.

Also if we can capture this understanding well, the recognition, once and for all, that people and what they do is vital and often completely undervalued. The recognition of the importance of our intellectual capital we might begin to create more of the environments necessary to nourish it. To allow this ‘creating’ to take place more effectively than today and value it for what it truly provides.

The present impasse in grappling with this knowledge generating side within our business organizations has been a lack of regulatory requirement to disclose that much around any knowledge generating activity for fear of ‘revealing’ the competitive advantages.

What is discussed is only what management chose to provide for giving a ‘certain gloss’ to their reporting or unyielding probing by interested parties.

Certain countries, especially in Northern Europe have been able to make far more headway on getting intellectual capital statements recognized and part of a annual reporting but these are still not easy to align and compare.

Knowledge-based capital is far too important not to understand today. Yet we avoid embracing the idea, we prefer to reject this type of asset and capital reporting with cries of “too difficult”

The movement today is towards narrative formats

How can we move forward? The suggestion is narrative reporting. Generally speaking, narrative disclosure can take several forms: companies can publish an Intellectual Capital Statement or include a description of their intangible assets in the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section or the report on environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) and sustainability.

What is recognized is that narrative reporting need not be purely qualitative. It can include some form of valuation. There is on-going argument this might be based on KPI’s tailored to an industry but realistically very few report on recognized KPI’s, comparable with others in their industry or field.

Also how would you tackle differences in national approaches. Standardising our reporting has never been easy and when you contemplate ‘capturing’ more intangible aspects, it gets significantly harder. Yet we must try.

There is a movement towards sustainability reporting as the basis for these narrative reports. For instance the Global Reporting Initiative. (GRI). This is seeking a broader acceptance of what can make up a more integrated reporting framework. Discussions have a long way to go to bring in the harder, less tangible aspects though.

Narrative formats have both risk and benefit to report upon.

Investors chase for a better understanding of what is actually going on within organizations. Organizations push back, yet attracting fresh and on-going investment is the life blood, so some form of ‘uneasy dance’ takes place while you have no regulatory guidelines or enforcement.

Information gaps are increasing, sometimes for both the investor and the manager fail to be identified and recognized, as serious warning signals. Many get caught in this inability to identify ‘what makes up’ the organizational capital and lose their investments or jobs from this lack of appropriate understanding.

Strategic and operational weaknesses need to be ‘jumped upon’ very quickly, if spotted, yet the more intangible ones often remain hidden to investors and even management and what effect this might have. High profile people, when they leave create these tensions and performance concerns.

Can you imagine if you have a real drift of your talent walking out of the door, what that does to future performance?

Achieving a greater transparency

We need to have a more transparent understanding of the value of people, of the systems, dependencies, relationships and these make up intellectual capital. The push for achieving better board governance and effectiveness does push the board to question more and more, in the depth and breadth of information they receive and act upon.

The arguments for putting in place more effective narratives of performance that connect across the business in more coherent and effective ways, surely reputations are enhanced?

By thinking about ways to align reporting and communication strategy, the ‘being forced’ to collate a coherent set of narratives and contextual information has market attractiveness advantage. It gives growing confidence. So where should the unit of assessment take place?

Stating value creation and business models has the narrative potential

One view I particularly favour has been outlined by Vivien Beattie and Sarah Jane Smith in their academic paper “Value Creation and Business Models: Refocusing the Intellectual Debate”

We should focus on the business model, even for our intangibles or by extension our knowledge-based capital. I think this is absolutely right.

The business model and how we can describe it has become more ‘top of mind’ and significantly improved in its place through visual tools like the Business model canvas by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur.

Equally a number of other visualizing techniques caught up in this canvas modelling movement, such as the culture mapping canvas, business opportunity canvas or the different value proposition discovery methods, have the incredible potential for the most powerful way for narrative reporting to make a business come alive.

Today the people side, or the articulating of the value of the intangibles, is not adequately addressed in these canvases we have. We need to bring them into telling the business model value story far more.

We need to tell the value creation story

The business model should be articulating how the company will convert resources and capabilities into economic value. It is the ‘transformation’ of resources into future potential value that tells us the “why and how,” in their potential, to decide to  invest or not, to believe in or not.

Venture capital always looks extremely hard at the team within any start up or needing new capital. They seek to go under the bonnet and know what is making this ‘opportunity’ tick or not.

Financial statements are totally inadequate to evaluate today’s business

By not capturing the intellectual assets or all the knowledge-based capitals we are left with a totally out of date, inadequate set of financial statements. These today  totally fail to inform those on the outside as well as often those inside at the top of organizations, where the real wealth creation aspects lie.

We live far more in a knowledge based world that is generating more today than our physical assets yet we lack the ability to clarify this. We need measures, frameworks and clarity on where the knowledge lies and its make up in ways that capture these and can describe them effectively focusing upon the value creation points that will exploit future opportunities.

The Business Model can be the crucial focal point, even more than today

We need to push for at least obtaining a narrative description of the knowledge-based assets and there is nowhere better than how organization’s management perceive their business models, what and where are the drivers and value propositions and how they are communicating on their strategies and value creation and the essential enablers of this.

Incidentally with effect from 1 October 2013 in the United Kingdom, organizations will also have to prepare a strategic report as a result of changes to the narrative reporting framework in the UK, intended to increase the quality of narrative reporting and introduce a clearer reporting structure. Can this go further?

We do need to refocus many of the fragmented debates around knowledge, our intangibles and intellectual assets and for me there is no better place than lifting this up to where the business model tells the compelling story or not.

 If not, then don’t expect future investments, you will not deserve them.

Part one – the background. Pushing towards a new frontier- visualizing the future

The post Visualizing the innovating future through narrative reporting first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

We need to frame these capabilities in much better ways, as they mostly remain shrouded in mysteries to render it difficult to know what each business actually needs to  invest in, to achieve their goals.

Knowing what and where they need to improve their innovation capabilities becomes a critical need to know point for gaining unique competitive advantages.

So much of innovation activity is left to chance and it leaves all involved as vulnerable, open to being beaten to the next ‘big’ innovation breakthrough. I would strongly argue that organizations should build their innovation capabilities in systematic ways, yet few do, let alone understand what this truly means. We simply need too.

Understanding the ‘beating heart’ of organizations

One of the biggest gaps is trying to put a finger on the pulse of what makes up innovation. So much of the capabilities are intangible, locked up in those intellectual capitals of the organizations.

Those that center on  people, their networks and relationships, the make-up of the structures that support their activities or restrict them, the ability of applying good or bad practices, the every day routines of each of the individuals that work within the organization.

These touch the very nerve center of organizations; you are striking at the very core of organizations, those intellectual combinations they make up so much that determines organizational performance. They expose or they enhance organization performance.

To some degree management wants to be able to measure these intangibles but it also can provide some ‘chilling and damning’ evidence of inefficiencies and managements lack of ability to really improve internal performance, let alone market performance.

It is usually the external factor, of poor market performance, kicking in that galvanize the need for internal change. This then becomes reactionary, often too late and market advantages can quickly dissolve.

Knowledge-based capital needs fully capturing.

The critical need today is to capture the rise in the importance of all the knowledge-based capital aspects. Business organizations are recognizing knowledge-based capital.

Knowledge-based capital is critical. As shown above it is becoming more important than the product. Organizations are recognizing the value of knowledge.

Were you aware that the value of many of the world’s most successful companies resides almost entirely in their KBC. In 2011, for example, physical assets accounted for only about 13% of the value of Nestlé, the world’s largest food company. (source OECD)

What is knowledge-based capital?

OECD describes it as such: Knowledge-based capital comprises a variety of assets. These assets create future benefits for firms but, unlike machines, equipment, vehicles and structures, they are not physical. This non-tangible form of capital is, increasingly, the largest form of business investment and a key contributor to growth in advanced economies.

One widely accepted classification groups KBC into three types: computerised information (software and databases); innovative property (patents, copyrights, designs, trademarks); and economic competencies (including brand equity, firm-specific human capital, networks of people and institutions, and organisational know-how that increases enterprise efficiency) (Corrado, Hulten and Sichel, 2005).

Knowledge-intensive is the new wealth creator

As products are becoming more knowledge-intensive, educations have produced knowledge aware and savvy employees. We are pushing outside our one organization into growing networks to collaborate where this is this consistent acceleration of new information and use of communication technologies all intensifying the need to manage knowledge. Knowledge is today’s valuable commodity, yet we poorly measure it.

Equally, knowledge-based capital is essential to investment decisions and where the potential for growth can lie. The use of data analytics, external networks, outsourced R&D and our changing management practices are reinforcing that organization change is needed, yet we are not sure on where to invest or how to structure these.

We are poking around a little bit too much. More like searching for the needle in the haystack, rather than controlled experimentation and exploration.

Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, suggested within his speech at a conference on the New Sources of Growth project in 2012 : “As someone who spends a lot of time monitoring the economy, let me put in a plug for more work on finding better ways to measure innovation, R&D activity, and intangible capital. We will be more likely to promote innovative activity if we are able to measure it more effectively and document its role in economic growth”

Are we advancing our understanding of knowledge-based capital?

The good news today, is we are seeing some advances on capturing and measuring knowledge-based capital. Recently the OECD produced one of its usual 300 page plus reports – so few read them – on “Supporting Investment in Knowledge Capital, Growth and Innovation”

This report summarizes OECD’s attempt to provide the evidence of the economic value of knowledge-based capital and to help meet the policy challenges it raises. These are across the areas of innovation, taxation, entrepreneurship, competition, corporate reporting and intellectual property.

Something that is not easy to summarize at all, as all have simmered away under different ‘doctrines’ and ‘churches’ of denomination, pursuit and faiths.

Learning to communicate our understanding of our real internal value

We do need to find better ways to unite and describe the value creation that knowledge-based capital brings. In particular our intellectual and organization capital and the importance this has to have sustaining investment put into it for future wealth creation

Part two discusses the suggested way forward, through narrative reporting. I believe this should also be through the broader narrative of the business model as the medium for this as we slowly open up in our (long await) acceptance about the importance of our intangibles and the contributions made through these knowledge-based contributions.

Part two– a way forward. Visualizing the innovating future through narrative reporting concludes.

The post Pushing towards a new frontier, visualizing the future. first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.