The Impact of Innovation and Information Communication Technology on Human Resources: A Review

1

2

These proceedings have been published by the Telkom University (Tel-U) and Telkom

Corporate University Center (TCU-C). Postal Address: Faculty of Economic and Business

Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi Terusan Buah Batu Bandung 40257 Indonesia

Knowledge Management & Case Study Center Telkom Corporate University Center 2nd floor Information Building Jl. Gegerkaong Hilir no. 47, Bandung 40152 Indonesia

Statement of review All papers resproduced in these proceedings have been indepedently peer reviewed, by at least two qualified

reviewers, with DIRJEN DIKTI requirement.

All papers reproduced in these proceedings were presented at International Seminar and Conference on Learning

Organzations (ISCLO) held at Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Mega Kuningan, Jakarta, Indonesia between 5 – 6 November,

2014

Disclaimer The opinions, advices and information contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies

of the ISCLO Scientific Commitee or its members. Whilst all due care was taken in the compilation of these proceedings, the ISCLO Scientific Commitee does not

warrant that the information is free from errors or omission, or accept any liability in relation to the quality, accuracy

and currency of the information.

Copyright Copyright © 2014 International Seminar and Conference on Learning Organization and the Authors. The author(s) assign to the International Seminar and Conference on Learning Organization (ISCLO) an

educational nonprofit institution, non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of

instruction; provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also

grant a non exclusive licence to the International Seminar and Conference on Learning Organization to publish this

document on the ISCLO website and in other formats for the Proceedings 2nd International Seminar and Conference

on Learning Organization 2014. Any other use is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s). Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the

Copyright Act, 2014, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with

the terms and licenses issued by the copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those

terms should be sent to the International Seminar and Conference on Learning Organization at the above address.

List of reviewers (ISCLO Scientific Commitee) The conference organisers would like to express their gratitude for the contribution made by the following reviewers

of papers reproduced in these proceedings.

3

Prof. William Hickey, PhD (Solbridge International School of Business, Korea) Prof. Togar Simatupang, PhD (School of Business and Management ITB, Indonesia) Prof. Jann Hidayat Tjakraatmadja (School of Business and Management ITB, Indonesia) Prof. Peter Charles Wood, PhD (Malaysia Multimedia University, Malaysia) Prof. Zulikha Jamaluddin (Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia) Prof. Dr. Ir. Riri Fitri Sari MM MSc (Indonesia University, Indonesia) Prof. Andreas Budiharjo (Prasetiya Mulya Business School, Indonesia) Prof. Dermawan Wibisono (School of Business and Management ITB, Indonesia) Prof. Sucherly (Padjajaran University, Indonesia) Prof. Lim Cher Ping, PhD (Hongkong Institute of Educator, Hongkong) Ade Irma Susanti, Ph.D (Telkom University, Indonesia) Dr. Yudi Pramudiana (Telkom University, Indonesia) Dr. Sutanto (Universite de La Rochelle, France and University of Sebelas Maret Solo, Indonesia) Dr. Ningky Sasanti Munir (PPM School of Management, Indonesia) Dr. Teguh Widodo (Telkom University, Indonesia) Dr. Dodie Tricahyono (Telkom University, Indonesia) Dr. Darwina Binti Hj. Ahmad Arshad (Univeriti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia) Dr. Jafar Sembiring (Telkom University, Indonesia) Dr. Jamari (University of Twente, The Netherlands and Univerisity of Diponegoro, Indonesia)

4

Editorial

It is with pleasure that I present the full papers of the 2014 International Seminar and Conference on Learning

Organization (ISCLO).

Each paper represents a substantial contribution to the learning organization in all its defined forms, such as

Corporate Learning, Corporate Univeristy, Leadership Pipeline, Global Competitiveness, Managing Diveristy,

Knowledge Management, Instructional Design System, and Learning Technology & Methodlogy. With such

dynamic business environment, learning organization is required to anticipate any uncertain future. Companies are

required to be able to enhance their business’ excellence and sustainability. Learning organization means that the

corporates should facilitate the learning process for all their members, including their stakeholders, and

continuously make improvements. In addition, an organization is expected to learn collectively and continuously to

obtain, organize and use knowledge for the success of the organization. Learning organization, furthermore, means

empower people in and around it to build a sustainable competitive advantage.

As we all know that the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 is approaching. ASEAN Economic Community

(AEC) will be the goal of regional economic integration by 2015. ASEAN Economic Community whose platform is

similar to the European Economic Community (EEC) can be a serious threat to those who are not ready yet.

Although the spirit behind the establishment of the AEC is to reduce poverty and economic disparities among the

ASEAN member countries through a number of mutually beneficial cooperation, in practice, AEC will also trigger a

frontal competition in the levels of nations, industries, companies, and even, up to the individual (labor).

The crucial issue of AEC is related to the movement of human capital which includes a group of highly skill and

have international certification. Those who have a license and certification can freely enter anywhere including

Indonesian market. And vice versa, with their international certification, experts from Indonesia can freely take part

in other ASEAN countries. This condition undoubtedly becomes a great threat to those who are low competent ; in

contrast, it becomes great opportunities for those who are of global standards.

Like two sides of a coin, AEC could be a deadly threat and at the same time be a lucrative opportunity. AEC pushes

us to let outsiders enter our markets, but it provides us the way to grab far greater and profitable opportunities. The

implementation plan of the ASEAN Economic Community is not merely discussing the economic relations among

the countries that predictably will be more widely open. Basically it is not only the country that has an intention in

this case, but also the people in it. Globalization, undeniably, has made the national boundaries become blurred

(borderless). Through AEC every individual would have equal opportunity to achieve something, to improve his/her

welfare as well.

Overall, there is clear evidence of an emerging body of knowledge around learning organization. Presented in these

proceedings are 66 papers. The conference had 79 papers submitted for review, and these proceedings therefore

represent an 82% success rate upon review. The conference overall had 66 presentations delievered. These

proceedings represent all presentations made at the conference.

Enjoy reading these proceedings and I hope that they contribute further to the advancement of ideas around work-

intergrated-learning and responding to the challenges of this space

Sri Praptini Rahayu 2nd

ISCLO 2014 Chairwoman

email : [email protected]

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

The ISCLO Conference 2014

The Impact of Innovation and Information Communication

Technology on Human Resources: A Review

R. Mustafaa, S. Syahputrabc*, M.Y. Mustafad, Y.A. Sadelie

a Universitas Fajar of Makassar, Indonesia

Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Fajar, Jl. Prof. Abdurrahman Basalamah

101, Makassar b Telkom

University, Bandung, Indonesia Faculty of Communication and Business, Business Administration Program

Jl. Telekomunikasi No.1, Bandung c PhD candidates, Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business, Universiti

Utara Malaysia, 06010 UUM Sintok, Kedah Darul Aman

Malaysia d Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia UKM Graduate School of Business, 43600 UKM

Bangi, Malaysia e Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi

Makassar Bongaya, Indonesia Jl. Letjen Pol. A.

Mappouddang No. 28, Makassar

Abstract Literatures show that innovation does not solely deal with research and development, process and production issues, but

they are matter of social aspects as described by the ‘the social network theory of innovation’ (which also known as the fifth

evolution of innovation studies in term of technological development) as the consequences of the innovation nature which

become more complex and systemic. Nevertheless, within the frame of this evolution, few studies have carefully noticed

the significance of human resources roles from organization-level view as important determinant in the context of relation

between social-based innovation and Information, and Communication Technology. From literature study and the method

of this study, this paper suggests that emerging and profound Knowledge-Based Economy (KBE) approach, which inter-

relates and interplays with social innovation, influences the organizational structure and process. From the structure of

organization, the paper examines and compares between the role of agents within group level and organizations or firms

level in term of how the appropriate learning processes are taking places within different systems building development

stages. This comparison is then put into the conditions of building the systems of innovation. The study calls this approach

“system building vs. appropriate learning”. From the process within internal organization, the paper examines appropriate

learning processes taking place at the level of group and organization and the relevant consequences on the knowledge needs.

The paper has some results for further discussion on (1) institutional shaping and re-shaping as well as development and re-

development in relation to the human resources demand, and (2) the initial models of human resources role at group and

organizational level within organization in the knowledge-based economy.

© 2014 R. Mustafa, S. Syahputra, M.Y. Mustafa, Y.A. Sadeli. Published by Telkom Pub. Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The ISCLO, Department of Communication, University of

Telkom, 20342 Bandung, Indonesia. Keywords: ICT, social and system innovation, knowledge, learning, human resources.

13

1. Introduction

Recent studies of innovation show the systemic and complex nature dealing with the complex relations and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-8122342210. E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected] interactions among agents of the system. The institutional settings of these relations and interactions are used in order

to capture, diffuse, use, and produce knowledge as the core element of the innovation. The development of ICT as

the fifth technological revolution, in term of Perez’s work [1] opens unexplored interesting research works from

innovation studies perspective. The paper studies this unexplored interesting works, by studying the impact of ICT development and systems of

innovation on human resources demand. The writer realizes that it is hard for this paper to cover the whole part of

the system or greater part of the system. To examine the impact of ICT development and systems of innovation, the

study compares the characters of system building process and the learning types of agents. This comparison is called

“system building vs. appropriate learning”. The paper discusses some preliminary results; some of them may become

sources for further explorative research.

1.1. System of Innovation

The term of “innovation” has been the most spoken word in the 21st century from different fields of study, both

theoretical and practical orientations, at all layers of organizations. Perez [1] studies this trend as the fifth development

of technological revolution while Kotsemir & Meissner [2] described this trend to their work on the evolution of

innovation model. The recent development of this study shows that innovation is systemic and complex in nature [3,

4, 5]. One of the approaches to deal with this systemic and complex nature of innovation is “systems of innovation”.

System of innovations study these characteristics [3, 6, 7]. Freeman [8] and Edquist [3] identified some important elements from the definition of systems of innovation; (1)

agents, (2) institutions and or organizations, (3) the relation and interactions among agents and organizations, (4) the

institutions that set and rule agents activities, and (5) knowledge acquiring, diffusing, distributing, producing, and

using. The development of this system follows the concepts of path-dependent and therefore evolutionary

development [3, 6], under the dynamic conditions of uncertainties, qualitative changes and irreversibility [9], while

the performance of the system depends on the quality of its sub-systems that constitutes with trials and errors

mechanism [10]. Agents that consist of government, academic organizations or universities, and firms or private organizations are the

main elements of this system. Interactions between or among agents result in one’s influence over others or in that

ones are influenced by others. According to Smits and Kuhlmann [7], the level of interaction among agents may take

place within intra-organization or inter-organizations. The characteristics of interactions or interplays among agents

are context specific, which means that geographical characters and institutional settings considerably influence these

relations [3]. This raises the importance of social consideration. The institutional sets are “the rule of the game” of the relation and interactions among agents. In Smits’ work [7],

institutions can function as intermediary infrastructures or supporting infrastructures. As intermediary function,

institution develops interface and exchange of knowledge between supply-side agent and demand-side agent, while

supporting infrastructures are used to support both sides including intermediary infrastructure to the working of the

system. The role of institution is “the striking characteristics of the innovation system approach” [3].

14

1.2. Knowledge-Based Economy

The main accepted features in the system of innovation approach that knowledge is the major factor in the economic

growth and that “innovation processes are systemic by nature” [5] is the main basis of Knowledge-Based Economy

(KBE) concept. The way knowledge is processed is the main concern of the system of innovation studies to the

extent that these processes are complex: it involves many different heterogeneous agents from different levels within

the organization [3], facing specific and context-based institutional settings in term of policies [4, 6, 11] and

organizational structure [3], technological development and regimes [1]. This knowledge within the firm is in the form of codified or tacit knowledge [3, 4]. Some knowledge can be easily

available to transfer, to translate, to use, and to re-produce and some others or tacit knowledge need special exchange

mechanism. The process of knowledge transfer within the organization or inter-organizations is the main concern of

policymakers in order to be competitive or to develop their systems of innovation. In other terms, knowledge is

classified as applied, technological or organizational knowledge [4], or is distinguished between “know-what”,

“know-how” and “knowwhy” [9] Agents are the only system of innovation creators; innovation is characterized as the “man-made” [10]. Agents (from

all supply- and demand sides, intermediary and supporting infrastructure) are the “repository of social knowledge”

[11]. From selected studies of systems of innovation, they show that the role of agents as the central element of the

systems [6, 11]. Most of these studies focus on (1) how the policy makers, or governments in the perspective of

systems of innovation particularly on national level, develop a Knowledge-Oriented Policy, or KOP, [6, 12] in which

the knowledge acquired and distributed is important, not just producing new knowledge production as in the case of

Neo-Classical framework [13], and (2) where learning is the main process. An aspect of human resources requirement

relates to skills, The Impact of Innovation and Information Communication Technology on Human Resources: A Review

competencies and personnel, to support the KOP framework especially emphasized by Cohendet and Mehyer-

Krahmer (2005). They proposed the role of communities as the intermediary to their policy framework. Llrena and

Schenk in another aspect shows the role of organizations, German Federal Ministry for Research and Technology

(BMFT) and of Transport (BMV), in term of learning the two technologies which are a-synchronic. These two studies

examine human resources from different layers; group levels in Cohendet and Mehyer-Krahmer and organization

levels in Llrena and Schenk. As mentioned above, learning is the main process in the knowledge-based policy paradigm and in the systems of

innovation. All studies on systems of innovation put learning as the main process of knowledge management [2, 3,

5, 10, 12] and divide learning into learning by doing, learning by interacting, learning by using [3], learning on system

levels [10] and learning by exploration and exploitation [12]. Both types of learning are described in the context on

how policy in the systems of innovation frame is developed, transformed, and implemented. The question on where

this learning occurs is not specified.

1.3. Information and Communication Technologies and Systems of Innovation (ICT): The Role and Relations

Under the techno-economic paradigm, Perez [1] has shown that ICT development is the fifth technological

revolution, in which this development shapes the previous technology regimes and further affects all aspects of life;

social, political, economic, and technological. Perez [1] listed some features of this ICT development that creates new

as well as redefines infrastructure such as world digital telecommunication, e-service basis, high-speed physical

transport links. The key message of Perez’s work on technological revolution is that the new technology, where

during early phase of its life cycle or between the period of gestation and paradigm configuration, and which is

supported by other emerging technologies, will “lead to massive replacement of one set of technologies by another”

and involve “profound change in people, organizations and skills” [1]. In another point of view, Edquist [3] described that innovation process is not in isolation; other elements of the

system play their roles in interlinked conditions. Technology development takes place in the form of cluster [12]. In

15

this circumstance, ICT development influences the systems of innovation; the quantity and quality of agents

interactions are increasing as the ICT shortens the time and space boundaries. The massive information pools as the

basis of knowledge resources, responsive institutions to adapt and change, and the abilities of agents to conditions of

more-interaction lead to more networks establishment, to massive information processing, and to face the fast

changing institutional settings. One consequence of this influence is that the systems of innovation also influence the

ICT development more rapidly. The relation between ICT development and the systems of innovation leads to a

system dynamics condition in which there is a loop relation with feedback mechanisms that either reinforce or weaken

the relation [14].

2. The Method: Human Resources Position Constitutes to Dynamic Relation of ICT Development and

Systems of Innovation

As mentioned above, the role of human resources to the knowledge management is important. This role, however,

varies across different levels of organization; for example, group level and organization or management level.

Meanwhile, in the context of systems of innovation characteristics, the knowledge processing significantly considers

learning as the fundamental activities. (1) What are the agents’ positions in the dynamic relation of ICT development

and systems of innovation framework? (2) How are the learning processes undertaken by agents within different

organization contexts? (3) Who have the critical roles within these learning processes? This paper tries to approach

these questions. This paper is a literature and exploitation study. The paper studies the recent selected literatures in the area of systems

of innovation, KBE and knowledge management and policy. From this study, it suggests that, although the role of

agents is specified as important and the learning is the critical process within the context of systems of innovation,

no studies are covering together these system elements. The lack of this is reasonable since (1) the systems of

innovation studies are more macro orientation, (2) and studies of KBE, knowledge management or policy are more

on micro perspective such as focusing on organizational level (government or firms). Therefore, an exploitation in

term of covering together both two elements (of agents and learning process) is the method to deal with the study’s

questions. In order to discuss the possible answers to these questions mentioned above, this study compared the (1) way the

systems of innovation was built, designed, and developed, with (2) the learning process that took place during the

system building. The rationale of this comparison is that the system building process requires different institutional

[3], social [5], political [5], and technological settings [1]. Consequently, the system building processes require

learning processes that take place in different types. In other words, these two conditions are important. Therefore

the role of agents to tackle these conditions is crucial. How agents do learn within these conditions is interesting in

order, for example, to solve the emerging problems and to manage the organizations to show their existences and to

be competitive. The comparison between building the systems of innovation and what role learning may critically play is

called “system building vs. appropriate learning” approach. The “system building vs. appropriate learning” is related

to Edquist’s work in comparing the concept of the system between Nelson and Rosenberg and Carlson [3]. Edquist

describes that, partly, elements of the system are designed consciously and, partly, over extended time of period

elements evolve spontaneously. In other part of Edquist explanations, citing the words from Lundvall [3], he

mentioned the type of learning as learning by doing, learning by using, and learning by interacting. Learning by doing

deals with “increasing the efficiency of production operations”, learning by using is for “increasing the efficiency of

the use of complete system”, and learning by interacting is about “involving users and producers in an interaction

resulting in product innovation”. The paper did not consider the learning type by Llrena and Schenk [12], Fischer &

Fröhlich [4] or King [9] for the limitation of this paper.

3. Discussion

16

The “system building vs. appropriate learning” consists of two dimensions: the dimension of “system building” and

“learning type”. The “System building” dimension are “as-designed” and “spontaneously” element. Meanwhile,

“Learning type” has learning-by-doing, learning-by-using, and learning-by-interacting element.

• As-Designed Element

By comparing the “as-designed” element with the whole elements of learning type, the study argues that

“asdesigned” system is relevant for all learning types; all types of learning are able to take place in “as-designed”

condition of the system. It can be further argued, then, that when the system of innovations in the part of designed

consciously (asdesigned) then human resources demand takes into consideration all aspects of learning. These

conditions have influenced both levels of group (that constitutes to learning-by-doing and learning-by-using) and

organization or management levels (that constitute mostly learning-by-interacting as it deals with inter-organization

relation). Putting this on the frame of relation between ICT development and systems of innovation, the study suggests that

the development of ICT takes into consideration learning processes on both levels of group and organization or

management. It further means that learning in both levels to knowledge management program is important for ICT

development. Human resources demand to this circumstance considers the qualification of decision-making skill on

both strategic and tactical goals. The “as-designed” condition is near to the period of deployment within the four basic phases of each surge of

development by Perez [1]. Within this period firms or organizations can manage their social, economic, political

factors. The conditions of this period are not under uncertain and complex.

• “Spontaneously” Element

Comparing “spontaneously” element with all types of learning, the study argues that only learning-by-interacting

may be able to take place within the “spontaneous” situation of the system in the evolving process. The further

argument is that only an organization or management level has influence in term of interaction with external

organization. From the point of ICT development and systems of innovation relation, the study then suggests that during the

evolving system characterized by spontaneous the level of organization or management is important for the

development of ICT. It further means that the role of top management level is more important than the other

management level. In this circumstance, human resources demand is directed to qualifications on strategic goals. It is in the period of installation and of maturity of Perez’s “surge of development” [1]. This period is uncertain and

complex in nature. The dynamic and progressing-conditions of social, economic, and political factors are what the

organizations or firms are facing. Therefore, the top management level should handle, tackle, and manage the

competing existing and emerging paradigms, and the potentials but fully unexplored innovatory technologies to name

a few. All in all, the top management should do strategic decision-makings to this comparison. Other important considerations to this comparison is that when “as-designed” system building considers the whole

learning types, it can be proposed for further discussion that human resources demand deals with general management

competence, while for the other relationship it deals with social competence. Consequently, further critical question

is whether social competence relates to more strategic decision making and whether managerial competence relates

to more tactical decision making?

4. Conclusion

It is, indeed, clear that the ICT development within the context of systems of innovation is far from fully understood.

It is said so since the characters of the systems of innovation, which is complex, systemic, path-dependent, The Impact of Innovation and Information Communication Technology on Human Resources: A Review

17

interrelated, need more research efforts from multidisciplinary approaches and perspectives in order to exploit the

recently explored sub-systems. One of the efforts that this paper tries to explore is to study the relation between ICT development and the systems

of innovation from the perspective of the position of human resources need within the relation context. The result of

this exploration is considered as very immature in the framework of the characters of the system as a whole.

Nevertheless, as Edquist [3] has noted, the systems of innovation study or approach is built by both conceptual and

empirical works.

References

[1] Perez, Carlota. (2005). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: the Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Cheltenham, UK:

Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. [2] Kotsemir, Maxim Nikolaevich, & Meissner, Dirk. (2013). Conceptualizing the Innovation Process - Trends and Outlook. (12 April 2013).

Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2249782 website: [3] Edquist, Charles (Ed.). (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. New York: Routledge. [4] Fischer, Manfred M., & Fröhlich, Josef (Eds.). (2001). Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems. Heidelberg: Springer. [5] Llrena, Patrick, & Matt, Mireille (Eds.). (2005). Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy: Theory and Practice. Heidelberg:

Springer. [6] Cohendet, Patrick, & Mehyer-Krahmer, Frieder. (2005). Technology Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy. In P. Llrena & M. Matt

(Eds.), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Heidelberg: Springer. [7] Smits, Ruud, & Kuhlmann, Stefan. (2004). The Rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation Policy. International Journal Foresight and

Innovation Policy, I(1/2), 29. doi: 10.1504/IJFIP.2004.004621 [8] Freeman, Christopher. (2008). Systems of Innovation: Selected Essays in Evolutionary Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing,

Inc. [9] King, William R. (Ed.). (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. New York: Springer. [10] Zander, Udo. (2008). Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: an Empirical Test. In B. Kogut

(Ed.), Knowledge, Options, and Institutions. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. [11] Smits, Ruud, & Kuhlmann, Stefan. (2002). Strengthening Interfaces in Innovation Systems: Rationale, Concepts and (new) Instruments.

Paper presented at the STRATA Consolidationg Workshop, Brussels. [12] Llrena, Patrick, & Schenk, Eric. (2005). Technology Policy and A-Synchronic Technologies: The Case of German High-Speed Trains. In P.

Llrena & M. Matt (Eds.), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Heidelberg: Springer. [13] Bach, Laurent, & Matt, Mireille. (2005). From Economic Foundations to S&T Policy Tools: a Comparative Analysis of the Dominant

Paradigms. In P. Llrena & M. Matt (Eds.), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Heidelberg: Springer. John, Sterman D. (2000). Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World. Boston: McGraw-Hill.