Here’s the punch line of the question (position) posed to David Maister at his web site:
[Knowledge Management] in fact is an iffy investment long term investments are not necessarily the right thing to do Putting the cash into image, marketing and golf may pay off more (JH of CT)
David couldn’t believe it! He begins his reply:
“It is hard to believe I have just read the conclusion as written here”
You can see his entire well reasoned response on his web site (IS IT ALWAYS WORTH IMPROVING? (scroll down to it)). The questioner also opined:
If the firm thinks client demand is inelastic — lowering prices won’t increase volume enough to make up the revenue loss — then KM is a net loss (although societally valuable). If the lawyers don’t have to work as many hours to turn out a contract, then they have to bring in even more business by taking it from other firms.
Here are my questions of you, reader: Do you agree with JH’s views? (Do you think lowering your cost is self-defeating?) Do you think that reference to “elasticity” proves JH is not a lawyer? Why do you think people hold these peculiar views? Where do you think competitive advantage resides?