The When is offered to ‘all of us’ (not [just] you) as a way to segment discussion and bring some structure to discussion
Both who & when are prototype examples not definitive pronouncements - IMHO we lack & need a way to have incrementally productive discussion leading to action.
DD Commercial Partner process is very different to the curious person journey. Curious person
On day 1 of contact there’s no difference only as day 2 or 20 dawn’s.
I don’t understand what this curious person category is unless you mean universally everybody who hears of BIG for the first time and doesn’t instantaneously dismiss it?
Part of our problem is conversations that I’ve been in have different people talking about different stakeholders at different times on the journey within any/ every topic leading to no progress in those discussions.
The information needs of a just heard big are different from the information needs of somebody who has studied the book and is ready to take an exam AND the information needs are different from the information needs of that same person when having a discussion in their organisation that they wish to implement BIG across their responsibilities.
We need to deal with each focus area with focus that allows arriving at a solution without the distraction of "but that doesn’t work universally for everybody and everything at every time” because the answer is “yes it doesn’t we’ll have a complimentary jigsaw piece for that part of the puzzle, Now stay on topic till we finished this piece”
DD needs to come out of a discussion thread and into a document which can be commented on.
This Comment really confuses me: documents are for conclusions and threaded posts on forums are for ** exploratory discussions**
N’est Pas?
DD not agree at all that the first port of call is the Community - not at the moment.
my rationale is There appears to be no benefits to the signed nor to the CIC of signing up to the website except the download of the bok and the capture of their address.
The capture of the address might be more attractive where people can see more value
It is a suggestion.
Empirically we proved the current arrangement is underperforming. If we want a performant arrangement I think that means there needs to be a change
n’est Pas?
DD believe the goals of welcoming a curious person into the content lead to them attending
Yes & That should continue. There is no arguement against but a suggestion to augment the in-flow
DD can demonstrate our community to Partners
That only takes a number from Google analytics or even a web page visitor counter - not a name
DD Without contacts - I can’t do any of that - and I can’t see doing any of this has any value for me
The suggestions are hypothesis about ways to increase not reduce.
The generation of interest, the ability to recognise that interest and the contact with interested parties are separate things not a single thing.
When thought about separately new approaches may suggest themselves.
DD dont see much difference in asking people to join the community and become a member
Nor do I see much difference but I do see a significantly more valuable proposition to the potential signee hence my repeating the suggestion.
I simply don’t see any benefit for someone signing up to the website over the ability to download the BoK - whereas I do see benefit to all parties of being within a discussion space.
The equation seems to me to be we can’t possibly be worse off and we might just be better off so it seems a no-brainer to try - AFAICS
DD the community does not compute at all
If you sign up to the website to download the PDF the only elements of proposition are “here is a freebie in exchange for your ID” - a well-known tactic in marketing circles that is equally well appreciated now by the average user and I would suggest has a generally negative reputation.
If you read the forum you can do that without restriction. An offer of good faith and good will.
If you wish to contribute then as an anti-spam measure you must create an ID which can be deleted if you abuse that privilege - So I suggest there is an entirely different equation in value exchange and good governance of respectful communications. 2¢
DD step missing in your A-D journey
Then let’s capture it because I was only trying to illustrate that we need to separate out the different: themes, interest, time scales, information flows, touch points, responsibilities, actions, triggers, etc because at the moment when having conversations we have never moved beyond generalised chat because there is insufficient clarity caused by rolling all the exceptions into the conversation about all of the “we could” such that we haven’t arrived at “we are and it’s generating results”
DD Credentialisation is needed by trainers an
I put the time and effort into placing the CIC’s assets and creating a good deal more besides to set that up too and again the uptake is zero. In fact even the requests for people to review has fallen on deaf ears.
DD certify Level 3 people - but that is a way off -
People can be certified at level 3 by a grandfathering scheme as exemplified by the way ISACA established the CGEIT credential some years ago.
I’ve already suggested to you but I’ll say it out loud here. we c-sh/ould give away exams as a pump priming activity in parallel with selling them so the potential purchase can see a existing cadre of credential holders.
We should make distribution of the BoK a viral activity carried out by everyone who has been interest forwarding it to colleagues and we sh-/c-ould use the BoK itself as the vehicle that leads people down the sales funnel.
Place the capture of details at the point where somebody either wants: an Exam or Consultancy/ Training support or Community membership - This isn’t about reducing information capture It’s about increasing it
DD have as yet not considered the Professional Partner - or teh Solution Provider
Are these new stakeholder types that you don’t believe are covered by the illustrations I attempted to make inclusive in types I to V above?
