

  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

Partnering proposition

simon

BIG-CIC is on a quest for partners.

They come in shapes and sizes.

There are those that are seeking knowledge in order to use it.
There are those that are seeking to develop knowledge which deal with related topics.
The development life cycle community would be one
So would be the product, program and project management communities.
There are those who wish to spread knowledge that may be seperate to above but will have overlaps with category 2

I know I’m treading old ground yet again 🙁

A combination of a broken memory (mine), plus a topic that has been running for a while, plus a conversation that hasn’t had many voices contributing (that I’ve seen any record of) means that another airing does serve us in clarifying the proposition.

Clear Evaluation Of Proposition

If anyone is to pursue financial return and with it possible obligations (including to pay a fee for the use of IP ) then we need to set out the partnering proposition with the route to benefit very clearly stating the duties, rewards, rights and obligations attached that to allow those considering partnering to correctly assess the risks/ reward and the cost to benefit.

They are not yet completely clear to me. Do others have definitive statements and or aspirations and or ideas to share and/or must do/ must not do limits or fears?
If so please contribute to this thread

Am I Right ?

I believe the publicly stated and agreed position includes:

Anyone can use the intellectual property without restriction.
Anyone extending the knowledge base is obligated to place all of the extensions under the same licence as the big CIC’s body of knowledge. That requires placing new knowledge in the public domain.
The CIC needs to be funded and some form of licencing agreement…? might be something, maybe some how, etc (this bit seems entirely foggy see https://big-exams.logicalmodel.net/flarum/public/d/28-workstreams/7 Where I said we’d want a licence and apparently the situation is “not necessarily/ definitively”¿)

Just Suppose…

… That I had extensive IP created over many years that explores the relationship between capital used to Run the Organisation and Change the Organisation (RtOCtO), I had IP created over many years about how to manage programs in a portfolio of change that used projects as a vehicle to deliver components under control into a future operational state.

Further: suppose that I viewed the BIG Body of Knowledge as a useful initiative gathering momentum.

I currently can conceive that I could position my material legitimately in supporting ideas within BIG

I can describe the linkages between Principles and Components and responsibilities with a good mapping to various Development and Product Life Cycles and methods for managing collaborative endeavours across the whole spectrum of Exploratory to Deterministic Engineering from New Market/Product Development through Incumbent CashCow sustainment to Low margin utility products or Market exit.

Is the But Valid

I think with the current understanding I have as summarised in the above the moment I do that then all my IP becomes public domain.
I am no longer left with any offering as a partner. I may generate revenue but my capital is forfeit.
What capitaall I had is now all open to my competitors AND all my potential customers to use without my involvement.

That’s not necessarily the end of the world but it is not appealing on first assessment.

Thus as I see it at the moment the quest for partners needs clarity of the true proposition and maybe adjustment to the current scheme.

So What is the position?

All the ‘T and C’ of agreement (Contract) need to be identified.
If I take current products and:

Make the ways in which they support BIG explicit with aligned vocabulary
Present them in the marketplace for sale
Make sales and so
Collect revenue

What am I losing, gaining, risking, How do I approximate prospects,…?

In addition/ alternatively is there some way that the BIG CIC might make sales on my behalf collect the revenue and return a share to me?

As a buying customer would I get any BIG CIC confirmation of quality of product? As a seller would BIG CIC give me any marketing advantage reducing my cost of sales? Any customer funnel?
Does that mean an exclusive?

I expect others have ideas and un-answered questions too (?)

Sharing of possibilities will help us arrive at concrete proposals. That would then make recruitment of partner arrangements as a target a more focused proposition

3¢ 🙂

ChrisB

One question that you rightly points out needs clarification, is when is content/IP that a partner generates that incorporates BIG content but is not solely BIG content considered to fall under the CIC sharealike license? I am thinking here of things like a white paper, or marketing splurb, or an assessment or an implementation roadmap where some parts are from BIG but others are from the partner?

One option is to put the BIG Content in one document and the rest in another, and simply reference the BIG content from the partner content, but this is likely cumbersome and impractical in most cases.

And of course, what do we about training course materials that cover BIG exam content but are not developed by BIG?
We can look at the PMP experience, where PMI had to take back control by making REPs use PMI generated course materials as well as PMI content rather than having REPs generate their own course materials as a way to get around this issue (with a consequent dumbing down of the course materials but won’t get into that here 🙂).

In terms of generating revenue for the CIC, I believe the only viable solution is that partners pay a royalty for using BIG content - they pay a %age of sales to the CIC on a formally agreed basis when they make money from using BIG content, and they agree to provide feedback and specific data from each engagement for CIC marketing and CIC knowledge base extension - it can be anonymised to support client confidentiality where required of course. The partner can also of course contribute content to the CIC to extend BIG content whether in the BOK or exams or case studies, etc..
For a successful engagement of any kind both parties will be contributing their collective knowledge and expertise, and the partner is taking most of the investment risk in the opportunity, so I think a royalty based on payment by the client is a fair option. I can understand that some partners may think they will need to pay less, or for other reasons it is beneficial for them, to simple pay the CIC a small fixed fee in advance to license the BIG content and not worry about royalties. So perhaps that choice can be available too, but I think it is likely to be a less sustainable, less rewarding and less motivational path for the CIC, however.

simon

ChrisB
Agreed
And what we have this year doesn’t have to be what we have in place next year… One Can be a bridge too the other.

simon

I spoke to @DD yesterday and I believe he took an action to publish a detailed straw man

I believe he intends to clean up some Partnering Proposition proposal (That were drafted by members of the CIC or maybe the data club?)

When placed in the public domain we can comment until refined sufficiently.
when it is at a state where we can salute it we will be in a position to actively start outreach.

That I understand is also dependant on an action that Dave has undertaken which is to clean up a preliminary list of potential partners with a view to those of us who have interest making outreach.

Caio
Simon



  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)