Seems like more of the article could address specific examples. Corporate training is usually specific to an organization's challenges and often taught by practitioners. I would be very concerned about turning over my company's competitive advantage in I.P. related to how we build leaders, to a generic academic institution which has no obligation to keep my technology proprietary. I believe a company's training approach is what gives them a smart competitive advantage and I would suggest most companies are not going to turn that responsibility over to a consultancy or university.

Hi Dennis. Thank you for your response to my editorial. The I.P. concern is very interesting to me. While I understand the hesitation, I believe I.P. is one of the biggest barriers to our industry's growth. Why? Because there are limited barriers to entry to our industry - anyone can play - and a lot of them do. So a large population of "experts" thinks up something and goes through great efforts to protect it rather than go through great efforts to give it exposure, get it evaluated, stepped on, dialogued, debated, improved, etc. Because we're not transparent with our ideas, they don't progress forward and improve. Our industry suffers because we move too slow. I encourage less I.P. I wish our experts would collaborate more not less. I wish we would protect less and take on a more altruistic pursuit to better O.D. Let's follow the lead of progressive industries like the communications industry, the consumer packaging goods industry who are in constant collaboration even with competitors. I know this is dangerous for many, but I believe it's one thing that might push us forward, faster. Thanks for your comment and insights.