Knowledge

Annotations:

• However, information transfer is not knowledge transfer, and information management is not knowledge management, although the former can certainly assist the latter. Information technology alone will rarely be the source of sustained competitive advantage, in part because competitors can frequently replicate it.Is information management masquerading as knowledge management? There are three broad objectives frequently advanced by the `knowledge' management movement: . The creation of `knowledge' repositories (data warehouses) for: (a) external information, particularly competitive intelligence and best practice; (b) internal information, such as internal research reports; and (c) informal internal knowledge-like discussion databases. . The delivery of improved `knowledge' access and hence reuse through the development of user-friendly analytical tools. . The enhancement of the organisation's knowledge environment, including the willingness of individuals to freely share their knowledge and experiences.[Teece 2000]

Annotations:

• c[Learning in organisations: a corporate curriculum for the knowledge economy Joseph W.M. Kessels] "Knowledge economy: an economy in which the application of knowledge replaces capital, raw materials and labour as the main means of production.  During the revlution in productiovity this has shifted t managers who applied knowledge to labour. today knwledge wprkers are taking charge. These individuals posses all intelectual means of productions: generating, transmitting, manipulating data; knwoelsdge and information;  The value of a product or service increases as the knowledge is added.  Employees. Traditional distinction was between while and blue collar workers. Drucker makes a diferentaition between service personell and knowledge workers. the latter ones are the actual agents of knowledge economy, the first one enalble knowledge workers to perform theirr knowledge work. To complement the concept Sadler also introduce golden collar workers: highly talented knwoledge workers who are the main source of copnay productivity.The kearning enviroment will enpcourage them to contanctly delvelop and engage in useful and interesting projects. They cannot however work properly without interaction with service workers. These less educated are unlikely to beenfit frm educational enviroment to the same extent. Authors concern is that is the base to create a new ruling class, from which these less educated and socialy disabled will be exluded,      The shift into knowledge economy is reflected i organizational hierarchy. Durign the industrial revolution the powere resided in most imporant means of the roductions : machines , thus machine owenrs were the key players.    Twente University NL and Kessels and Smit, Dronkelaarseweg 13, 3784 WB Terschuur,The Netherlands  Aspointedby Teece, still in 70s knowledge transfer inside the firmwasdominantlyperceived as one-way process, where know eldge was outfromthe R&D to relevant departments, and globally out from US totherest of the world. This is an example of closed innovationdrawnschematicallyin the figre below: EUOpeninnovation Strategy and Policy Group. Closed innovation figure. Sincethenthe political landscape has changed, and now the geographic mapisa network in which knowledge is passed in all directions.Likewisewithinfirms the knowledge is decentrialised and also within the flowofinformation is much more democratic.  The old -closed  model, is eroding due to a number of factors (by Chesbrough (2003)  1:Increase of the availability and mobility of skilled people. othertrends of the market have led to an increase of the mobility ofskilled people. Hence, knowledge and know-how that were once carefully guarded in the fortress of the department of R&D, wasgetting more and more accessible to others. Thus, it becameincreasingly easy for a company to benefit from the experience ofanother by poaching in certain key employees of the competitor.2:Increase of the number of Vcs.  Thenumber of VCs in the US before the 1980s was very small. Thus therewere very little startup attempts by people working in establishedcompanies. Indeed, it was difficult to collect enough capital andtherefore to convince other qualified people to join in the venture.Eventually the tide picked up and between 1972 and 1992 venturecapitalists brought 962 firms to the public market.[The Rise and Fall of Venture Capital Paul A. Gompers •Graduate School of Business University of Chicago] These firms havebeen a source of innovation and jobcreation. Theincrease in the number of VCs has changed the possibilitiesconsiderably and fostered the creation of startup.    3:An alternative to the “shelf”. As a consequence of factors 1 and2 they emerged alternative ways to access markets: instead of sittingon the shelf, a technology can be “taken” by its inventor, whonow has the opportunity to create a startup.Thus, the emergence ofVCs has facilitated the emergence of startups and has greatlyincreased the risk for established companies, to see a technologythey had stored on the shelf leave the ship with their inventorsbefore they could capture its value.ErosionFactor # 4: Increase the number of qualified suppliersThislast factor is also a consequence of the previous factors that havefacilitated the emergence of highly specialized small companies. Thusthe last erosion factor of the closed innovation paradigm is theincreasing number of high quality suppliers that larger companies cannow rely on. AlbertMeige - 19 Nov 2009http://open-your-innovation.com/2009/11/19/the-erosion-of-the-closed-innovation-paradigm/s 

1. Chesbrough's closed innovation paradigm
2. Knowledge transfer

   Annotations:

   • Traditionally training an education offered learning enviroment for the required knowledge, skills and attidutes. Majority of training programs are too broad and do not tackle real life issues. Accordingly to [5,6] only 10% of training programs have a major impact on employee performance.  Knowledge transfer issue addressed by (specify here could be top management of British Petroleum and Hewlett Packard,  Lew Platt, former CEO of Hewlett Packard (HP) once put it, ``If only HPknew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive!'' ).  Knowledge that needs to be transferred is not simply technological. While internal knowledge transfer has no proprietary issues, it is no cost free. (reference check in Teece 2000.,) but surely in means of lost opportunities it has a much lower price.  
   1. Tacit knowledge

      Annotations:

      • Teece 200.  Knowledge about competitors, customers and suppliers is also a part of the mix. Managerial experience, often embedded in operating rules and practices, in customer, supplier and competitor databanks, and in the company's own history. 
      1. Learn from past experience

         Annotations:

         •   Learn from the past experience is one of the key activities of learning company. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” by George Santayana. Sucessfull cases: error free Boeing case. Garvin presents an approach that is similar to the procedure illustrated by Gulliver. It describes the gathering of key experiences as a case study example of the aircraft manufacturer Boeing. In order to avoid making similar mistakes as in the development of the airplane types 737 and 747 (the development of which encountered huge problems) in later projects, a working group was formed (similar to a group in a PPA), the so-called ‘‘Project Homework-Team’’. The team had the order to compare project processes of the machines of the 737 and the 747 with those of the types 707 and 727 (two very successful development projects). The team prepared an experience report of the two first projects and presented a book with appropriate recommendations. Some members of the Homework-Team were then moved into the project teams of the 757- and 767-development. Due to this procedure, the most successful and error free market launches could be accomplished in the history of Boeing. Garvin DA. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 1993;71(4):p.85.]
   2. Explicit knowledge
   3. External

      Annotations:

      • External transferÐfrom one organisation to anotherÐoccurs either as a consequence of deliberate transfer (under learning and know-how agreements), of inadvertent transfer (for instance, spillovers in the context of alliances) or through the imitative activities of competitors. Clearly the external ¯ow of that knowledge protected by intellectual property rights (such as trade secrets) is impeded (to the extent that intellectual property law is effective or deemed to be so), as compared with ¯ows inside the ®rm. However, intellectual property law does not protect much knowledge, and in some cases proprietary concerns may be minimal. In such cases it may be correct, as Brown and Druid claim, that ``knowledge often travels more easily between organisations than it does within them''.8 Their claim appears to derive from the observation that knowledge moves differently within communities than it does between them. ``Within communities, knowledge is continuously embedded in practice, and thus circulates easily.''8 This is undoubtedly true, but as a general rule, internal transfer ought to be easier.a The external transfer of technology is frequently aided by licensing and technology transfer agreements. These not only remove intellectual property barriers, but they also frequently call for technology transfer assistance. The challenges associated with such external transfers are signi®cantly softened (as compared with the internal challenge) by the frequent absence of a requirement for the subsequent transfer of updates and improvements. It is substantially easier to transfer a known technology for which there is operating and transfer experience than it is to constantly and continuously transfer state of the art technology.[Teece 200]

      Attachments:

      • /mindmap/1609379/untitled
   4. Internal

      Annotations:

      • Teece. Tacit knoweledge is of little value if not supplied to the right people at the right time. It is not transferred cost free (reference check in Teece 2000., but surely in means of lost opportunities it has a much lower price.  

Annotations:

• Innovation is always formed in a social system. It is about knowledge sharing and creation in a social context where creative individuals share their knowledge within a group (Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). Innovation is also a process, which can occur in the course of carrying out various business activities. The creation of today’s complex and systemic innovations requires the transfer of knowledge from diverse perspectives. This makes organizations to explore new approaches for creating knowledge and assimilating it into business processes. The source of competitive advantage is related to the capabilities to share, create and utilize new knowledge in a diverged business environment. Due to the fact that innovations become more knowledge intensive, organizations have recognized the key advantage of collaborative learning, co-operation, and synergy that come from utilizing inter-organizational networks. Aspects of knowledge management: extracting valuethrough: (i) disembodied transfer inside the ®rm (internal technologytransfer and utilisation); (ii) disembodied externaltransfer; and (iii) bundled sale of technology (embodied in anitem or device). [Teece, D (2000) Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: the Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context, Long Range Planning: p.37.] Much knowledge is of limitedcommercial value unless bundled in some way. Dynamic capabilities are important as Teece says, The protection of assetvalues from re-contracting hazards will be an enduring featureof the business enterprise. In the global economy we now confront,it is intangible capital which is pre-eminent; but in additionto protecting such capital against re-contracting hazards,one must also focus on generating, acquiring, transferring andcombining such assets so as to meet customer needs.In order to be successful in these activities, ®rms and theirmanagements must be entrepreneurial. They must exhibit capabilitiesthat I have labelled elsewhere as dynamic. Entrepreneurial®rms are organised to be highly ¯exible and responsive.13That in turn requires a set of attributes, which include:. ¯exible boundariesÐa presumption in favour of outsourcingand alliances;high powered incentivesÐto encourage an aggressive responseto competitive developments;. non-bureaucratic decision-makingÐdecentralised or possiblyautocratic, self-managed where possible;. shallow hierarchiesÐto facilitate both quick decision-makingand rapid information ¯ow from the market to the decisionmakers;. an innovative and entrepreneurial culture that favours rapidresponse and the nurturing of specialised knowledge.

1. Examples of types of knowledge which are created through knowledge management
   1. How such knowledge creation/transformation processes is best managed.
   2. Open innovation

      Annotations:

      • According to Chesbrough (2003), the innovation paradigm has changed to an open innovation mode in which utilizing external knowledge sources has a central role and internal R&D is the administration of meta-knowledge about externally available knowledge (Feller, 2004), which objective is to complement and combine internal knowledge with external knowledge.  Innovation can be defined as the outcome of a set of activities that use knowledge to create new value to those benefiting from its use (de Sousa, M., The Sustainable Innovation Engine, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 36, No.4, 2006). In the open innovation paradigm, firms also use external channels togenerate value from their internal ideas and capabilities, and configure their businessmodels to profit from innovations. according to Feller (2004),open innovation can be considered as the least formal way to conduct collaborativeR&D. However, successful innovation requires control in the open innovation paradigm,even more than in the closed innovation paradigm, as firms have to reconfigurestructures and processes continuously to match with the changing businessenvironment. Thus, innovation management also means orchestrating complex socialprocesses in which interaction between different actors creates new knowledge andreveals new business opportunities.The changing innovation paradigm forces firms to reconfigure their structures andprocesses. Thus, innovation management also means orchestrating complex socialprocesses as a game (Dougherty & Takacs, 2004) in which interaction betweendifferent actors creates new knowledge, and reveals new business opportunities.  This trend is driven by two major factors. First, market democratisation is increasing micro-segmentation and demanding more customised solutions in unexpected and unpredictable ways; this requires a higher level of involvement of customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. Second, the increasing competitive pressure and reduction of product life-cycles demand quicker innovation processes at a reduced cost.
      1. Grid computing

         Annotations:

         • The development process in Grid computing can be seen as an appropriate example of the open innovation process, which combines external knowledge sharing with companies’ internal R&D capabilities and processes. A wide array of the leading ICT companies (e.g., IBM, HP, Sun) along with scientific research institutes are working together in a global scale in order to create a robust technology platform for research use, and also for exploiting new emerging business opportunities. The fundamental question is why the firms would share their knowledge with their competitors in this development process.
2. Why has knowledge management and co-creation become the focus of attention in the new economy?

   Annotations:

   • KM by Hull,Peltu Manchester. {wp6) An ability to understand and exploit the relationship between Knowledge Management and Innovation processes is of increasing significance in today's competitive environments, where a dynamic capability to meet rapid change is an essential ingredient in achieving sustainable business success in volatile global and national marketplaces. The observation and analysis of Knowledge Management Practices (KMPs) for Innovation offers important fresh insights into the crucial relationship between knowledge management and innovation. KMPs can also help a company to take practical steps to improve its responsiveness by breaking away from the traditional constraints on innovation caused by a company's culture and history. Hagedoorn and Schakenraad (1989, ref. Pyka, 2002) list the incentive-based and knowledge-based motives of firms participating in innovation networks: high costs and risks of R&D in high tech industries; - quick pre-emption strategies on a world-scale despite a ‘loss’ of potential monopoly profit; - shortening of time-to-market; - exploration of new markets and market niches; - technology transfer and complementary technological assets; and - screening the evolution of technologies and opportunities. Furthermore, Kogut and Metiu (2002) explain the existence of certain open innovation solutions by proposing that in some situations the open innovation model offers more benefits at less cost and risk than the closed innovation model. Thus, in the economic sense, openness is often just the most effective way to operate when developing large-scale, systemic and radical innovation (Feller, 2004). Thus, co-opetition, i.e. co-operation while competing, has increased widely in high-tech industries (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1997). EU report 2014 Research and innovation as a source of growth. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2013/research-and-innovation-as-sources-of-renewed-growth-com-2014-339-final.pdf
   1. UK

      Annotations:

      • In 90's- globalization.  If globalization was the policy buzz of the 1990s to the point that we could breathe it in the air, its 21st century equivalent must surely be the idea of a ‘knowledge-based economy’. Like globalization, knowledge is both a new problem and panacea for our times. If we don’t have enough of it, we are destined to become 3rd world countries. If we are not yet a knowledge economy, or are not ‘in transition’ to becoming one, then organizations like the OECD and World Bank are on hand to guide us in the right direction; the midwife giving birth to this bright new future.  In 1998, the UK (8%) ranked behind Germany (12%), Japan (11%) and the US (8.5%) amongst the G7 in the share of total output accounted for by higher technology manufacturing industries.[ DTI, Competing in the Global Economy - The Innovation Challenge, DTI Economics Paper No 7, 2003, figure 43 Back, sourced from:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtrdind/432/43205.htm ]At the beggining of a millenium knowledge become a dominant asset.  In 2012 UK Compared to other leading economies, the overall level of innovation investment in the UK remains strong. Our research base is among the best in the world, producing high-qu output with unmatched efficiency. The UK performs well on international collaboration and inward investment measures and is number one in the OECD’s ease of entrepreneurship index. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34805/12-p188-annual-innovation-report-2012.pdf] “ Our success depends on how well we exploit our most valuable Driven Economy Our success depends on how well we exploit our most valuable assets: our knowledge, skills and creativity. These are key to designing high-value goods and services and advanced business practi Th h h f d k l d d i ices. Th e y are at t he heart o f a mo dern, know l edge d r iven economy.” The Right Hon Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister Source: 1998 DTI Our Competitive Future, Building the Knowledge Driven Economy Building the Knowledge Driven Economy and innovation . [accessed at http://www.knowledge-management-online.com/competitive-collaboration-in-the-global-knowledge-economy.htmlKnowledge ]  The UK’s innovation ecosystem institutions have a worldwide reputation. The IRS emphasised our aim to maximise the value of the UK’s knowledge economy. The Biomedical Catalyst has allocated a total of £49 million following the first round of applications, with 40 SMEs and 24 universities receiving awards. The Catalyst will provide a total of £180 million of funding over three years for innovative small and medium sized 3 companies and academics to develop solutions to healthcare challenges. These are the first steps towards turning bright ideas into products and services, accelerating the commercialisation of life science technologies and the speed with which they can be brought to market. Recognising the vital importance of collaboration between universities, charities and industry, the £300 million UK Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF), set up earlier this year, supports large capital research projects in UK universities which secure or accelerate significant co-investment from business, charities or endowments. The Fund will secure £1 billion investment in university research infrastructure by attracting and accelerating private sector and charitable investment.  
3. Knowledge broker

   Annotations:

   • What distinguishes knowledge brokers from most other knowledge service providers, like consulting companies, state agencies or business intelligence firms, is the active role they play in providing the links and the development of relationships that address the innovation needs of their customers. They are the active change agents that can help customers continuously adapt to their environment. Adaptability can be greatly stimulated by amplifying differences and building transforming exchanges (the connections and interactions between system agents) (Olson and Eoyang, 2001). However, too much difference might generate a large number of possibilities, possibly reducing momentum for action, and too many exchanges might limit individual behaviour (for example, information overload). In this sense, knowledge brokers can act as intelligent change agents that stimulate difference and increase the number of external exchanges but in a focused way, stimulating innovation while creating momentum for action. In regard to skills and knowledge, Leonard (1995) further identified three major types: (i) public-scientific, (ii) industryspecific and (iii) firm-specific. Knowledge brokers are those entities (organisations and individuals) that facilitate the sharing of these three types of knowledge between knowledge sources and knowledge needs. Besides their technical knowledge, knowledge brokers possess what could be called relational knowledge or knowledge about knowledge, allowing them to know what others know, while providing the managerial and physical tools to access that knowledge.

1. What is the aim of a ‘knowledge creating company’?

   Annotations:

   • [Learning in organisations: a corporate curriculum for the knowledge economy Joseph W.M. Kessels]