Sikm

The Relationship of Learning, Knowledge and Sustaining Innovation

Dr. Richard B. Wallace

Agenda

Why is this research important Research Gap Research Originality and methodology Propositions for managing ideas Propositions for managing “part whole” process Emergent theory Q&A

Importance of the Research

There are learning aspects of knowledge management and there are knowledge aspects of learning (Vera, 2004, Crossan,1999). Both disciplines have a relationship to innovation (Nonaka, 1995, Amidon, 2003). Understanding how learning and knowledge relate to each other and how those relationships relate to innovation provides a different, useable perspective on the problems related to embedding innovation in an organization.

Research Gap

• Organizational learning, knowledge management and innovation research have all focused on their own disciplines

• Organizational learning and knowledge management research has focused on the efficiency and effectiveness versus the relationship

Research Gap ExampleKnowledge Management Process

Comparison

RETENTION

HILSOP

DAVENPORT & PRUSAK

ALMEDA

GRANT

MALHOTRA

ARGOTE

THOMAS

ALBERS

PACKAGINGAPPLICATIONINTEGRATIONDISTRIBUTIONACQUISITIONCREATION RETENTION

HILSOP

DAVENPORT & PRUSAK

ALMEDA

GRANT

MALHOTRA

ARGOTE

THOMAS

ALBERS

PACKAGINGAPPLICATIONINTEGRATIONDISTRIBUTIONACQUISITIONCREATION

AUTHOR

COMPONENT

Organizational Learning Process Comparison

AKGUN

KASL

EDMUNSON

BROOKS

SCHEIN

PAWLOWSKY

MARTENSEN

STATA

THOMAS

DATA COLLECTION/IDEA IDENTIFICATION

ACTIONMAP TO STRATEGICOBJ ECTIVES

KN TRANSPORTATION/DIFFUSION

SENSE-MAKING/INTEGRATION

EXPERIMENTATION

AKGUN

KASL

EDMUNSON

BROOKS

SCHEIN

PAWLOWSKY

MARTENSEN

STATA

THOMAS

DATA COLLECTION/IDEA IDENTIFICATION

ACTIONMAP TO STRATEGICOBJ ECTIVES

KN TRANSPORTATION/DIFFUSION

SENSE-MAKING/INTEGRATION

EXPERIMENTATION

AUTHOR

COMPONENT

INTEGRATION

DISTRIBUTION

CREATION

Van de Venn’s 4 Problems

Strategic leadership Managing ideas Managing part whole relationships Managing organizational attention

Problems with Previous Approaches Organizational learning approaches focused on

the learning aspects of the process Knowledge management approaches focused

on the knowledge aspects of the KM process Innovation studies focused on functional or

technical aspects of innovation.

“The research is all about the importance of innovation . . . What we need is anapproach on how to actually do innovation.” Comment at the Spring 2007meeting of the Association of Managers of Innovation, Greensboro NC

Research Framework - Grounded Theory Approach Reflexive Approach

Surfacing and making explicit the influences and inductive processes of the researcher

Generation of emergent theory from empirical data Theory based on patterns found in empirical data – not

inferences, prejudices or association of ideas Constant comparison between emergent theory (codes

and constructs) and new data

Glaser 1978,1992

Strauss and Corbin, 1998

Grounded Theory Process

Gasson, 2003

Research frameworkWhy is Grounded Theory Appropriate for this Study?

• Learning, knowledge management and innovation are all people centric processes

• Learning, knowledge management and innovation are all heavily influenced by organizational dynamics

• Learning, knowledge management and innovation are all influenced by individual perspective and culture

• Learning, knowledge management and innovation are all interrelated in such a way to make it difficult to assess outside of the environment within which they are being practiced

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Code Rationale Code Rationale

Action Martensen, 1999 Acquisition Davenport and Prusak, 1998

Capture Carroll, 2004 Application Albers, 2003

Change Management Carroll, 2004 Capture Lynn, 1999

Cognitive Learning Agyris, 1978 Change Management Carroll, 2004

Cross Functional Teams Von Krough, 2004 Collaboration Plessis, 2007

Data Collection Davenport and Prusak, 1998 Context Plessis, 2007

Diffusion Brooks, 1994 Creation Von Krough, 2000

Double Loop Learning Agryis, 1978 Distribution Davenport and Prusak, 1998

Experimentation Friedman,2001 Experience Davenport and Prusak, 1998

Identification Thomas, 2001 Exploitation Swan, 2000

Learning Cycle Shani, 2003 Integration Grant, 1996

Questioning Cook and Brown, 1999 Internalization Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995

Relationships Argote, 2003 Packaging Thomas, 2001

Risk Taking Friedman, 2001 Problem Solving McElroy, 2003

Sense making Stata, 1989 Rationalization Bou-Llusar, 2006

Strategic Intent Thomas, 2001 Relationships Argote, 2003

Strategic Intent Thomas, 2001

Trust Plessis, 2007

Use Amidon, 2003

Initial Open Coding

Amidon, 2003Use

Trust

Strategic Intent

Relationships

Rationalization

Problem Solving

Packaging

Internalization

Integration

Exploitation

Experience

Distribution

Creation

Context

Collaboration

Change Management

Capture

Application

Acquisition

Code

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Plessis, 2007

Thomas, 2001

Argote, 2003Thomas, 2001Strategic Intent

Bou-Llusar, 2006Stata, 1989Sense making

McElroy, 2003Friedman, 2001Risk Taking

Thomas, 2001Argote, 2003Relationships

Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995Cook and Brown, 1999Questioning

Grant, 1996Shani, 2003Learning Cycle

Swan, 2000Thomas, 2001Identification

Davenport and Prusak, 1998Friedman,2001Experimentation

Davenport and Prusak, 1998Agryis, 1978Double Loop Learning

Von Krough, 2000Brooks, 1994Diffusion

Plessis, 2007Davenport and Prusak, 1998Data Collection

Plessis, 2007Von Krough, 2004Cross Functional Teams

Carroll, 2004Agyris, 1978Cognitive Learning

Lynn, 1999Carroll, 2004Change Management

Albers, 2003Carroll, 2004Capture

Davenport and Prusak, 1998Martensen, 1999Action

RationaleRationaleCode

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

Amidon, 2003Use

Trust

Strategic Intent

Relationships

Rationalization

Problem Solving

Packaging

Internalization

Integration

Exploitation

Experience

Distribution

Creation

Context

Collaboration

Change Management

Capture

Application

Acquisition

Code


Plessis, 2007

Thomas, 2001

Argote, 2003Thomas, 2001Strategic Intent

Bou-Llusar, 2006Stata, 1989Sense making

McElroy, 2003Friedman, 2001Risk Taking

Thomas, 2001Argote, 2003Relationships

Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995Cook and Brown, 1999Questioning

Grant, 1996Shani, 2003Learning Cycle

Swan, 2000Thomas, 2001Identification

Davenport and Prusak, 1998Friedman,2001Experimentation

Davenport and Prusak, 1998Agryis, 1978Double Loop Learning

Von Krough, 2000Brooks, 1994Diffusion

Plessis, 2007Davenport and Prusak, 1998Data Collection

Plessis, 2007Von Krough, 2004Cross Functional Teams

Carroll, 2004Agyris, 1978Cognitive Learning

Lynn, 1999Carroll, 2004Change Management

Albers, 2003Carroll, 2004Capture

Davenport and Prusak, 1998Martensen, 1999Action

RationaleRationaleCode


CROSS FUCNTIONAL TEAMS

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

ACQUISITIONCOGNITIVE LEARNING

CHANGE MANAGEMENTDIFFUSION

CONTEXTDOUBLE LOOP LEARNING

DISTRIBUTIONLEARNING CYCLE

ORG STRUCTUREQUESTIONING

PROBLEMSOLVINGRELATIONSHIPS

RELATIONSHIPSSENSE MAKING

STRATEGIC INTENTSTRATEGIC INTENT

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

CROSS FUCNTIONAL TEAMS

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

ACQUISITIONCOGNITIVE LEARNING

CHANGE MANAGEMENTDIFFUSION

CONTEXTDOUBLE LOOP LEARNING

DISTRIBUTIONLEARNING CYCLE

ORG STRUCTUREQUESTIONING

PROBLEMSOLVINGRELATIONSHIPS

RELATIONSHIPSSENSE MAKING



MANAGING IDEAS

CHANGE MANAGEMENTCHANGE MANAGEMENT

DISTRIBUTIONDIFFUSION

ORG STRUCTURESENSE MAKING



MANAGING IDEAS

CHANGE MANAGEMENTCHANGE MANAGEMENT

DISTRIBUTIONDIFFUSION

ORG STRUCTURESENSE MAKING



Open Coding Initial Distillation

Axial Coding and Synthesis

• To effectively manage ideas, the organizational fit of those ideas need to be understood. (Organizational fit includes strategic intent and sense-making);

Propositions Developed

in order to manage ideas across an organization the organization needs to have an idea of what it is searching for and why, a means to distribute that new idea or concept to leverage the collective wisdom of the organization and a way of reinforcing new behaviors in order to take advantage of what has been discovered.

Theory Emerges

Example of Interview IndicatorsCODE

Strategic intentSOURCE MATERIAL

They could use the resources of the organization to just go do it

Unless there’s an object – an alternative, you know, what’s your objective? What are you trying to do?

I think that people don’t really – they ask for something; and they don’t really want it

We put an aggressive strategic planning process in place and one of the four components of that was innovation

Try to learn what it is that the organization and/or the people within the organization actually really care about

The key thing is making sure you solve the right problem

You have to know what your organization needs

Building in innovation as part of the business plan

How does innovation tie to what this organization wants to deliver?

So at some point, work in the innovation incubator will advance to the point that there are real product possibilities at which point, we haven’t figured out what the decision criteria are, it would be handed over to the product development group

I might see that giving people the tools to be successful and within the context of an organization that has market integrity helps a great deal

In a lot of management teams there’s a disconnect between what they want, and what they say they want, and what they’re willing to commit

If you move up to a higher level and look down at it, it’s about organizations putting up barriers against stuff that doesn’t fit with that they’re thinkin’ about

If people with certain types and styles are that predictable about how they define innovation, why they want it, and what the characteristics are, they damn sure better know who your customer is

It has to be linked obviously to the company’s strategic plan and it needs to be focused. There’s term that I’ve heard, rope of scope

Innovation is always about enabling a core strategy in helping you create new products and services attuned to, and aligned to, those core strategies

We called it out as a priority. The work that we’ve done over the last couple of years with assets would certainly be a piece of it, but we are trying to figure out how we can leverage knowledge and management and knowledge to help support this new product development function

Brand creation is extremely expensive and time-consuming, so if it fits within our stable of current brands then it has a much better chance of going forward

Network Diagram

StrategicIntent

What are you trying to do? they ask for something; and they don’t really want it

The key thing is making sureyou solve the right problem

Innovation is always about enablinga core strategy

How does innovation tie to whatthis organization wants to deliver?

linked…to the company’sstrategic plan and

it needs to be focused.

•Organizationalfocus

•Introspection

•Scope•Direction

•Strategy•Planning

•Transparency•Understanding

•Linkage•Planning

•Transparency•Understanding

reinforces

undermines

reinforces

reinforces

rein

forc

esrein

forces

Propositions for Managing Ideas

The propositions for managing ideas are:

To effectively manage ideas, the organizational fit of those ideas need to be understood. (Organizational fit includes strategic intent and sense-making);

To effectively manage ideas, there must be some form of idea propagation within the organization (Idea propagation includes diffusion, distribution and organizational structure); and

To effectively manage ides, behaviors must also be managed. (Managing desired behaviors includes change management).

Organizational FitOf

Ideas

•Enabling Core StrategyReal possibilitiesWhat are you trying to do

•Enabling great ideas, persistence of promotion• Alignment of people, removing barriers, common point of departure• Transparency, solving the right problem, enabling a core strategy

•Using organizational resources, tools needed to be successful, leveraging existing knowledge• Context of strategic plan, what is important to the organization and it’s people•Understanding who is the customer, understanding what the organization wants

(Strategic Intent)

(Sense Making)

(Strategic Intent)




Organizational Fit of Ideas

Proposition Function Indicators

ORGANIZATIONAL FIT

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Strategic Intent)

Enabling a core strategy, part of a business plan, solving the right problem, what is important to the organization What are you trying to doReal possibilities

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Sense Making)

Enabling great ideas, persistence of promotion Alignment of people, removing barriers, common point of departure Transparency, solving the right problem, enabling a core strategy


(Strategic Intent)

Using organizational resources, tools needed to be successful, leveraging existing knowledge Context of strategic plan, what is important to the organization and it’s people Understanding who is the customer, understanding what the organization wants

Idea Propagation


IDEA PROPAGATION ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

(Diffusion)

Connecting people and ideas, sharing along the way, people involved solving problems with unique knowledge People interaction, idea collection, idea discussion Sharing information with employees, campaign of ideas, horizontal communication

KNOWLEDEGE MANAGEMENT

(Distribution)

Alignment of people around ideas, connecting ideas and people People interaction, idea collection, idea discussion Campaign of ideas, new ideas from employees, uncover and unleash ideas Going across organizational boundaries


(Organizational Structure)

Mechanism to support ideas and their discussion, sustaining architecture, process and teams, DNA to accept new ideas Internal purpose, chart of capabilitiesSeparation of “church” (corporate) and “state” (people), common culture, approach and set of tools

Desired Behaviors


DESIRED BEHAVIORS


(Change management)

Fearful of change Scared of innovation Changing the culture is hardest piece, changing the organizational DNA to accept new ideas

KNOWLEDEGE MANAGEMENT

(Change management)

Specific organization to manage function Impact of quality and what we know Ownership of ideas, sharing of ideas Defining the way we work

Propositions for Part Whole

The propositions for the part whole relationship are:

To effectively manage the part whole relationship, there must be a diversity of viewpoint and trust. (Diversity of viewpoint and trust includes relationships, cross-functional teams and problem solving);

To effectively manage the part whole relationship, there must be concept understanding and fit of ideas. (Concept understanding and fit includes questioning, context and double loop learning); and

To effectively manage the part whole relationship, new ideas must be generated. (New idea generation includes learning cycle, acquisition, and cognitive learning).

DIVERSITY

OF

VIEWPOINT AND TRUST

•Across boundaries•Informal interactions•Dialogue between functions•Job rotations

(Relationships)

•Multifunctional perspectives, different perspectives•Alignment within the team on process and perspective•Different perspective on solutions•Connections across boundaries

(Cross functional teams)

•Across organizational boundaries•Mechanisms for teams to work together•Collaborative work•Personal connections

(Relationships)

•Distribution of ideas for feedback, codifying ideas and assumptions•Alignment of people•Combination of process and behaviors•Knowing where to look and who to ask

(Problem solving)



KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

Diversity of Viewpoint and Trust


DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINT AND

TRUST

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Relationships)

Across boundaries Informal interactions Dialogue between functions Job rotations

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Cross functional teams)

Multifunctional perspectives, different perspectives Alignment within the team on process and perspective Different perspective on solutions Connections across boundaries


(Relationships)

Across organizational boundaries Mechanisms for teams to work together Collaborative work Personal connections


(Problem solving)

Distribution of ideas for feedback, codifying ideas and assumptions Alignment of people Combination of process and behaviors Knowing where to look and who to ask

Concept Understanding and FitProposition Function Indicators

CONCEPT UNDERSTANDING

AND FIT

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Questioning)

Looking at things differently Asking the obvious , yet unasked, questions Embracing contradictions Filter of the business plans

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Double loop learning)

Looking at things differently, getting feedback and reprocess and repurpose Codifying assumptions in order to question Open minded thinkersTaking the view of the customer or end user Embracing contradictions Suspending judgment


(Context)

Increasing knowledge around research, implications of research Learning the perspective of users Understanding what the organization wants, understands and supports Socializing ideas Story around where we are, where we want to go and how we are going to get there

Generation of New Ideas


IDEA GENERATION ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Learning cycle)

Codify and distribute for feedback Open minded thinkers Asking the obvious unasked questions Make ideas tangible and expose to the real world Meet, discuss, hitchhike ides, take out and test Share mistakes and successes, know why ideas fail

ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNING

(Cognitive learning)

Dialogue and questioning process feedback from stakeholders Advertise and demonstrate success Change process to accommodate the participants Combination of process and behaviors Fail smart and fail quickly


(Acquisition)

Codify knowledge and make it accessible Enable the great ideas that already exist Assume the perspective of the customer or user Codify experience and understanding Learning form failure

The Integrated Grounded Theory

Van de Venn (1986) identified four problems with innovation approaches: organizational leadership, managing attention to new ideas, managing ideas so they get implemented and managing the part whole relationship so ideas become doable and useable. Two of these - managing ideas and managing the part whole relationship are the focus of this study.

The first part of the emergent theory is that in order to manage ideas across an organization the organization needs to have an idea of what it is searching for and why, a means to distribute that new idea or concept to leverage the collective wisdom of the organization and a way of reinforcing new behaviors in order to take advantage of what has been discovered.

The second part of the emergent theory is that in order to make the most of diversity there has to be context for the ideas or concepts and there has to be a continual flow to keep the process fresh.

Adding to the Body of Knowledge

This study addresses the relationship between organizational learning, knowledge management and innovation in practice and thus provides a practical methodology for embedding innovation in an organization.

Questions?

CAPTURE

reflect,distill and

capture insights

CONVERSATIONSspeculating on the futureby reflecting on the past

A QUESTION

what do we need to learn about?

A NEW QUESTIONwhat do we really need

to learn about?

12

3

4

Questioning Loop

Ensuring trustworthiness of qualitative research

Techniques to ensure the trustworthiness of qualitative research*

* Shah and Corley, 2006

Traditional Criteria Trustworthiness Criteria Methods for Meeting Criteria

Internal validity

External validity

Reliability

Objectivity

Credibility •Extended interviews•Large interview population•Cross reference of data types•Investigation of practice

Transferability • Detailed description of:•Concepts and categories•Structures and processes

Dependability •Purposeful samples•Confidentiality

Confirmability

•Separation of findings•Meticulous data management•Verbatim transcripts•Careful notes on observations

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Absorptive capacityCohen

4 common innovation problems

Van de Ven

INN

OV

AT

ION

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

L

EA

RN

ING

KN

OW

LE

DG

EM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

The Knowledge Creating CompanyNonaka

The Knowledge Creating CompanyNonaka

Theory of ActionAgryis, Schoen

Ambidextrous OrgTushman

TODAY

Accelerating adaptive processesIsenhardt

Sustaining InnovationChristenson

Team learningLynn

Understanding strategic learning

Thomas

Key to Mgt innovationStata

Learning strategyMartensen

Environment for innovationFriedman

Framework for org learning and

knowledge managementVera

Mgt and Org LearningSchein

Org learningand knowledge

Bierly

Learning and Knowledge ConnectionCarroll

Knowledge integration and innovation

Hislop

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

IOA

L L

EA

RN

ING

PR

OC

ES

S A

CT

IVIT

IES

• “P

AR

T W

HO

LE

”•

MA

NA

GIN

G ID

EA

S

KN

OW

LE

DG

E M

AN

AG

EM

EN

TP

RO

CE

SS

AC

TIV

ITIE

S•

“PA

RT

WH

OL

E”

• M

AN

AG

ING

IDE

AS

INN

OV

AT

ION

PR

OC

ES

S A

CT

IVIT

IES

• “P

AR

T W

HO

LE

”•

MA

NA

GIN

G ID

EA

S

INT

ER

RE

LA

TIO

NS

HIP

S

What’s Been Done So Far?

Research Design and Methodology – Process for Building Theory

Step Task(s) Rationale1. Review literature Define research questions, note

existing constructsFocus effort, define scope, initial identification of potential codes

2. Select Cases Sample with intent Define data cases

3. Collect Data Identify and record Triangulate evidence

4. Perform Open Coding Define concept headings, organize data

Initial analysis, establish basis for further inquiry

5. Perform Horizontal Coding Determine relationships, combine concepts in categories, refine categories as necessary

Deeper analysis, develop connections, make comparisons

6. Synthesize Data Combine categories into propositions

Integrate categories to build theory

7. Reach Closure Reach theoretical saturation End process where there is only marginal benefit

8. Compare Theory with Literature

Compare and contrast existing frameworks

Improve construct definitions

9. Test Theory with Practitioners

Discuss application of theory with practitioners

Validate the understanding of the theory

Use of Research ware