I found out about a doctoral dissertation about “short term profit vs long-term expertise”, via this article. So someone else, to be exact Siw Marita Fosstenløkken, already wrote about what I had dreamed of writing about.
Now I ask myself: is there a cutting edge one could add to her research? How do we need to rethink with her insights, think further…?
1. What I learned
I really liked the idea of classifying consultancies and communication agencies as professional service providers. Nice term – really nails it. What’s their service? Knowledge + workforce.
2. The cutting edge
Could it be “how much influence does expertise have in external communication to customers”? Is the lack of expertise of these professional service providers a real concern to potential customers? What is more important: the references or topic-oriented innovation / knowledge?
Shouldn’t this be more openly communicated:
- a low fluctuation rate= positive
- “Our knowledge is not only project-based – we’re out in the market, in the academic field – but we also don’t lose our sense of reality – we keep our routinely manner and our A level employees”
The open source dilemma
But in order to show that we value expertise – and we do it for real, not like our competitors – we would need to publish quite a lot of knowledge. We need to prove that we invest in this field. But wouldn’t we give away everything? And here we come to the usual open source dilemma: once you open source it, you can’t sell it.
- everyone uses your stuff –> reputation.
- people are too lazy to take your stuff one step further and hire you as a consultant to do that for them.
That’s at least what Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams argue in Wikinomics.
BTW: Good question for the next blog post: Is expertise identical to knowledge?