As the title suggests this Literature discuss about the importance of network and networking for innovation. It covers journals done by others before; how organization organize their pool of knowledge, the method of networking base on case study and the problem arise from networks explained. It emphasizes the difference between IT and Information System from Human relationship networking in conducting business.
According to this paper, it argues that these insights appear to be relatively poor understanding of the existing knowledge management (KM) literature. Thus, the contribution of the KM literature to date in terms of understanding innovation has been limited by a rather narrow focus on IT-based tools and systems, premised on a cognitive information process of KM. These IT-based tools and systems create the structural network but, as the cases below will demonstrate, do not necessarily encourage the social networking process so necessary for communication and sense making. This paper also highlight the over emphasis on IT and disregard of human involvement in the network.
This paper also discusses the limit and the contrast between two case lead in the discussion which is:
(1) The cognitive network model; and
(2) The community networking model
From what we know about knowledge management is that it is a process of production, distribution and consumption of knowledge and knowledge products. It can also be defined as harnessing the intellectual and social capital of individuals in order to improve organization learning capabilities, recognizing that knowledge, and not simply information, is the primary source of an organization innovative potential (Marshall 1997)
As the global economy and the way we run organization change to the age of globalization we now able to see that organization structure are getting more horizontally, bureaucratization, decentralization, and coordination through increasing use of information and communication technologies (ICT). However as businesses are stretched across time and space, reorganizing along process or product line, and restructured around virtual teams, they lose opportunity for innovation through casual face-to-face sharing of knowledge and learning induced by proximity learning.
The researcher found that from the learning literature had emphasized people management issue, such as selection, motivation and reward, trust, organizational development and culture. On the other had the researcher found that KM literature paid little attention to those issues instead focus more on IT and information system (IS) to create network structures, which can link together individuals distributed across time zone and distance.
The researcher took two companies for their case study. The first one is Ebank and the second one is Brightco. Ebank follows the approach of Cognitive Network Model while Brightco follows the Community Network Model .
To begin with let’s start with Ebank. They are one of Europe largest investor in IT and located in 70 country worldwide. In 1996 they start an innovative project called “vision 2000”. Its purpose is to create a world-wide communication infrastructure using intranet technology across countries and in addition the top management thinks that resources were being wasted because different units and departments failed to learn from one another. The project was launched led by the corporate IT group and funded centrally. The pilot involve mostly technical It specialist from different business units world-wide and was focused on creating a corporate intranet infrastructure which would allow far-flung business unit to connect, this pilot highlight the benefits of intranet for knowledge sharing and persuaded them to develop their own intranet, resourced with local funds and people which means everybody develop their own system. The result of developing intranet technology to increase knowledge sharing across the functional and geographical boundaries within banks was not achieved. Instead the outcome turn out to be not standardize and unrelated intranet projects causing people within the organization not learning anything from each other. Lack of recognition of the need for creating some shared understanding through active involvement were the culprit. Moreover there was an assumption that as long as the network infrastructure were in place people will learn by themselves. There were too much emphasis on technology that they forgotten the human involvement.
For the case of Brightco they are one of the world largest manufacturers and service provider of specialist material handling equipments with its headquarters in Sweden. Half of it business are in service rather than manufacturing. They launch a project called Sales service Support Project (SSP) in respond to a corporate study of business processes which pointed to a need to improve co-ordination and communication across Brightco. So basically Brightco is implementing its own Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) with the help of Intsoft, to design, organize the team and implement the network. Once the infrastructure was in place they send a the team from the project to travel to sites to deliver initial training. Though it is time consuming but the end result was stakeholder know how to use and utilized the system. For example, an email site which emerge initially informally for “frequently asked questions” provide an important network for user at local sites to learn from one another about implementation problems in other sites. Brightco were at least successful in implementing a common business information system which is being used by most of its European division.
This are the case illustrate several fundamental problem with IT-driven approaches which are considered. First they assume that all, or most, relevant knowledge in an organization can be made explicit and codified. Second, they are underpinned by a partial view of KM, focusing more on processes of exploitation then on processes of exploration, third they are supply driven- assuming that if information is widely available it will be applied in new ways to develop innovation.
The first problem; assumption that knowledge can be made codified, explicit knowledge which will typically be more value to innovation process (Grant 1996, Hall 1993) Yet Tacit Knowledge is knowledge which cannot be communicated, understood or used without “knowing subject” (popper 1972, Lam 1998) . Attempt to codify tacit knowledge may only produce knowledge which is useless, difficult to verify, trivial, redundant, irrelevant to a wider audience, politically naïve, and inaccurate.
The second problem; problem of exploitation versus exploration, most of the IT-driven approaches has been on increasing efficiency by exploitation of existing knowledge rather than on encouraging more explorative processes.
The third problem; problem if supply and demand of knowledge. Supply demand approach focus on using IT-based tools to build network for the supply of knowledge and information which will then, somehow miraculously be applied and used to develop innovative solutions. Demand driven approach tend to be more concerned with the creation and application of knowledge in innovation projects. The motivation and attitude of multiple stakeholder are seen as crucial and consequently there is an emphasis with human networking process which can encourage sharing and use of knowledge which is relevant for innovation.
As for conclusion here two contrasting view of KM process.
Cognitive network model (Ebank)
· Knowledge for innovation is equal to objectively defined concept and facts
· Knowledge can be codified and transferred through networks: information system have a crucial role
· Gains from KM include exploitation through the recycling of existing knowledge
· The primary function of KM is to codify, capture and transfer knowledge through networks.
· Critical success factor is technology
· The dominant metaphors are the human memory and the jigsaw
Community network model (Brightco)
· Knowledge for innovation is socially constructed and based on experience
· Much knowledge is tacit and is shared and made sense of through active networking within and between occupational group and teams
· Gains from KM include exploration through the sharing and synthesis of knowledge among different social group and communities
· The primary function of KM is to encourage knowledge sharing through networking
· The critical success factor is trust and collaboration
· The dominant metaphor factor are the human community and the kaleidoscope
The conclusions from the research done by the researchers are that the community network model is more effective in creating a learning organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment