Intellectual property developers and creativity

Because ‘IPD5 is a neologism o f this thesis, there is no direct literature in this area. The principle sources that allude to this area are the writing about gurus, but in this work I differentiate IPDs from gurus. This differentiation has been started in the previous section and will be continued in the following chapters. In this section I draw on some strands in the literature that raise questions about how best to understand the work of IPDs.

Leadbeater (1999) emphasises the importance o f non-rival goods in the knowledge economy, and it is largely non-rival goods that EPDs produce - software, books questionnaires, where your ownership of the good does not preclude my owning it too. They also produce non-rival goods in the sense that my model or framework does not

discredit yours. For example Pedler, Burgoyne & BoydelFs (1991) 11 characteristics o f the learning company do not ‘disprove5 Senge’s (1990) five disciplines. They are, instead, different ways o f describing similar phenomena. Leadbeater observes that ‘Non-rival goods ... are often jointly and incrementally produced by teams of people5 (p. 181). This will be explored in relation to the experience of the IPDs in Chapter 4.

There are a number o f lifetime models of human development. In a sense Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy o f needs is an early example of such a progression. Buchanan and Huczynski (1991) see Maslow as embracing an eight stage model, recognising his interest in both the transcendent and the aesthetic in addition to the usual six levels of need cited in less thoughtful textbooks. Torberf s (1991, p. 46) sevenfold formulation, and a similar sevenfold model developed by Boydell & Leary (1996, p. 17) based on the work o f Rudolf Steiner, offer other models of human development. These frameworks can be used for considering the basis on which IPDs are offering their IPs. It seems clear that IPDs will tend to offer nourishing fare only to people on the same or earlier modes of development. As we pass through the development process we can ask more and more penetrating questions. An example that came home to me recently in a conversation with Tom Boydell, one of the respondents to my survey, was about how IPDs might find work to do. Tom said, ‘At this stage in my life I am looking for the work that needs me, rather than the work I need5. This perspective will enable him to speak to the condition o f those whose work embraces a yearning for meaning, rather than only a wish to get on, and to earn money.

But the IPD’s generativity can be seen as not just a function of personal variables. In considering what makes for creativity in organisations, Amabile (1988) suggests that because ‘major corporations select individuals who exhibit relatively high levels of these personal qualities, the variance above this baseline may well be accounted for primarily by factors in the work environment5 (p. 128). This is a universalist argument, that everyone can become a developer o f IPs. Of course many IPDs are self-employed, or are the owners of their own businesses. So in these cases, if attention is to be paid outside the self of the creative individual, then it needs to be directed to the milieu in which they operate, which can include customers, publishers, fellow-EPDs and so on.

Watson (1994) suggests that both managers and researchers are rhetoricians or

wordsmiths, ‘using words every day to make sense o f what they are doing and to persuade others5 (p.S85). He cites Mangham & Pye (1991), who use a craft metaphor, of

‘wrighting5 to describe this process. A wright is someone who shapes ‘the material with which he or she works... someone who inherits and is shaped by a tradition and yet remains capable of going beyond that tradition and shaping it5 (p. 27). Watson argues that these words apply to both managers and researchers. His work raises the question of whether this perspective can be applied to the IPDs described in this thesis.

Coulson-Thomas (1997) points out that that leading edge companies are moving beyond being consumers of management tools, techniques and approaches (in other words, intellectual properties). They are becoming producers of IPs in order to differentiate and achieve their distinctive visions. Practitioners such as Matthews (1998) and consultants

like Newman (1997) agree. This trend, which has been confirmed by a number of articles during 1999 in the Financial Times where Chief Executives of knowledge intense firms indicate that they expect their executives, managers and professionals to be producers o f new IPs. If this trend is becoming more the case, this raises questions for the viability of the niche that current IPDs occupy. It also enhances the relevance o f the questions explored in this research about the processes that IPDs follow and the context in which they work best.

Reflection

Leadbeater’s (1999) discussion of non-rival goods invites consideration of the issue of the impact o f the non-rival nature o f IPD’s goods on their process o f production. The human development framework invites consideration of the impact of IPD’s level of

development on the nature and appeal of their IPDs. Amabile’s (1983) perspective raises the question of the extent of the impact of the context on the work of IPDs and which contextual features seem most salient. Watson’s (1994) ‘wrighting’ analogy is

particularly cogent in raising questions about the difference between researchers and writers. It seems clear that IPDs can be well described as wrights, but if, as Watson suggests, researchers can too, does this break down the difference between them? Coulson-Thomas’s (1997) view o f the proliferation of IPDs in organisations poses intriguing questions about the future of IPDs.