· Product Development – Modified chip design borrowed from another organizational group – Presented a technical paper on the results at company conference 9 members (US, Israel,

Work Groups and Knowledge Sharingin a Global Organization

www.bsscommunitycollege.in www.bssnewgeneration.in www.bsslifeskillscollege.in

1www.onlineeducation.bharatsevaksamaj.net www.bssskillmission.in

WWW.BSSVE.IN

Work Groups and Knowledge Sharing

Service Improvement – Gathered data from marketing employees in another

division – Held customer meeting to discuss ways to improve

infrastructure

10 members (2 cities in China)Project Mgt, Quality, Engineering

•Wireless Network Upgrade



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Work Groups and Knowledge Sharing

Product Development – Modified chip design borrowed from another

organizational group – Presented a technical paper on the results at company

conference

9 members (US, Israel, Singapore)CAD, Applications, Engineering

•Digital Signal Processing Device



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Why create these work groups?

• Projects – require knowledge, skills, and abilities of members who are geographically dispersed and/or have functional expertise (DeSanctis & Monge, 1999; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000)

– Geographic dispersion: work force spread across manufacturing facilities, R&D labs, design centers, field offices, and headquarters

– Cross-functionality: tasks demand specialized personnel for product specifications, service requirements, and customer needs



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Costs of geographic dispersion

– Difficult to develop common understanding – Trouble coordinating work at a distance

The Probability that two people will communicate as a function of the distance separating them (1-100 meters) - Communication drops significantly after 100 feet (Allen, 1977)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Costs of cross-functionality

– Problems reconciling dissimilar points of view – Challenging to integrate different ideas

“Thought-worlds” can inhibit product

innovation (Dougherty, 1992)

The technical people

The field people

The manufacturing people

The planning people www.bsscommunitycollege.in www.bssnewgeneration.in www.bsslifeskillscollege.in


WWW.BSSVE.IN

Benefits of social networks

– External task communication / knowledge sharing (Tushman & Katz, 1980; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992, Hansen, 1999)

– Tap unique, non-redundant sources of knowledge (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973; Lin, 2001)

Quality

Engineering

China

US

a

b



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Propositions

• (1) – the relationship between external knowledge sharing and performance will be stronger when work groups are dispersed

• (2) – the relationship between external knowledge sharing and performance will be stronger when work groups are cross-functional



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Field Study

• Research site – Fortune 500 telecommunications company, 100,000+ employees, global operations

• Data sources – 20 group interviews, 182 group leader surveys, 957 group member surveys (73% response rate), and performance ratings

• Project types – product development, service improvement, process management, manufacturing operations



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Work Groups

• Geographic dispersionMean (SD) = 3.42 (1.13)Range (1.00-6.47)

• Cross-functionalityMean (SD) = 0.90 (0.47)Range (0.00-1.89)

1 - immediately next to 2 - same hallway 3 - different hallway 4 - different floor 5 - different building 6 - different city/state 7 - different country

* Engineering * Manufacturing * Quality * IT * Marketing * HR * Finance



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Knowledge Sharing

Step 1: Face-to-face interviews (20 work groups) – tacit/codified, stand-alone/dependent, examples

Step 2: Five categories (1:never – 5:a lot) – (a) general overviews, (b) specific requirements,(c) analytical techniques, (d) progress reports, and(e) project results

Step 3: Aggregation – Intragroup: Mean (SD) = 3.90 (.39)

– External: Mean (SD) = 2.38 (.58) www.bsscommunitycollege.in www.bssnewgeneration.in www.bsslifeskillscollege.in


WWW.BSSVE.IN

Performance• 182 work groups rated in competition on

dimensions of teamwork, problem selection, appropriateness of method, innovativeness, quality of results, and clarity of presentation

Mean (SD) = 1.65 (0.68)

N=21

N=77

N=84

3

2

1

Corporate

Divisional

Regional



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Results2.2

Wor

k G

roup

Per

form

ance

(mea

n)

Geographically Dispersed

Cross-Functional

High

Low

High

Low

1.4

1.8

External Knowledge Sharing

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2

External Knowledge Sharing Low High Low High



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Summary

• Dispersed, cross-functional work groups are increasingly common in global organizations

• There are coordination costs for dispersion and cross-functionality in work groups

• However, work groups can benefit when members share knowledge externally



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Managing the Innovation Process

Geographic Dispersion



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away

• Required Readings

• Supplemental Readings

• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation at a distance requires mutual knowledge

• Innovation through virtual teams is over-hyped

• Innovation is shaped by communication and culture

• Innovation is affected by global changes in work



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Cramton, 2002) • “Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration”

• Mutual Knowledge (knowledge that the parties to a communication share in common and know they share in common)

• Vulnerabilities (1. Failures to communicate and remember information about context, 2. Uneven distribution of information, 3. Differences in what information is salient to sender and receiver, 4. Differences in speed and timing, 5. Uncertainty about the meaning of silence)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Lipnack & Stamps, 1997) • “Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and

organizations with technology – Chapter 1: Why virtualteams? The new way to work ”

• Virtual Teams (group of people who interact through interdependent task guided by common purpose)

• How Are They Different? (work across boundaries, rely heavily on technology)

• Everybody’s doing it (HP, Eastman Chemical, US Commerce Dept)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Armstrong & Cole, 1995) • “Managing distances and differences in geographically

distributed work groups”

• Factors Affecting Distributed Work Groups (communication – face-to-face and electronic, cultural norms – corporate and national)

• Problems Across Distances and Differences (1. misunderstandings in communication, 2. strangely escalating conflicts)

• Practices That Span Distances and Differences (face-to-face communication, leadership, learning, norms)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Carmel, 1999) • “Global software teams: Collaborating across borders

and time zones – Chapter 1: Why we are seeing moreglobal software teams”

• Global Software Team (separated by a national boundary while actively collaborating on a common software/systems project)

• Catalyst Factors (specialized talent, acquisitions, reduction in development cost, globalized presence, reduction in time-to-market, proximity to the customer)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(O'Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994) • “GlobalWork: Bridging distance, culture, and time –

Chapter 1: Introduction: Fault lines in the new globalbusiness landscape”

• Four Emerging Faultlines (1. The global consumer, 2. The global corporation, 3. Global jobs, 4. Knowledge as a global product)

• Management Competencies (cross-cultural communication, technological understanding, leadership in business teams, facilitation skills for working with organizations)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What if face-to-face communication just isn’t possible?

• What goes wrong in virtual teams that fail?

• What types of training compensate for real experiences?

• What global changes in work facilitate innovation?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Intra-Organizational Networks



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation can arise through structural holes

• Innovation is transferred through informal networks

• Innovation can arise through weak ties as well

• Innovation often requires change in social structure



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Burt, 1992) • “Structural holes – Chapter 1: The social structure of

competition”

• Network Benefits (information – access, timing, referrals) (control – tertius gardens, entrepreneurial motivation)

• Structural Holes (separation between non-redundant contacts)

• Competition (players with structural holes have higher rate of return)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993) • “Informal networks: The company behind the chart”

• Informal Networks vs Formal Networks (naturally-occurring ties vs reporting relationship ties)

• Three Types of Networks (advice, trust, communication)

• Implementing Change (identify key players using a network map)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1996) • “The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak

ties for technical advice”

• Weak Ties (relationships with acquaintances or strangers)

• Electronic Communication (can facilitate access to useful technical advice)

• Organizational Motivation (important for increasing likelihood of help from a request)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Gargiulo & Benassi, 2000) • “Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes,

and the adaptation of social capital”

• Network Closure vs Structural Holes (cohesive ties vs non-redundant ties)

• Tradeoff (safety from cohesiveness vs flexibility from ‘holes’)

• Adapting to Change (managers with structural holes had an easier time adjusting)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Rogers, 1995) • “The diffusion of innovations – Chapter 1: Elements of

diffusion”

• Diffusion (process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system)

• Process (innovation – idea, practice, or object perceived as new) (communication – create and share info towards understanding) (time – first awareness, current stage, and rate of adoption) (social system – interrelated units engaged in solving problem)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What if structural holes aren’t feasible to create?

• What if formal networks constrain informal networks?

• What if there are no incentives for weak ties?

• What if network closure is required for consensus?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Inter-Organizational Networks



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation may benefit from a more open process

• Innovation can be sparked by knowledge brokers

• Innovation often resides in networks of firms

• Innovation is one product of strategic alliances



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Wolpert, 2002) • “Breaking out of the innovation box”

• Open Innovation Will Be More Sustainable In Long Run (investment in innovation follows boom-bust cycle)

• Network Of Intermediaries (third-party companies that facilitate exchange of information)

• Intermediary Candidates (IBM alphaWorks, Xerox alphaAvenue, baby boomer retirees)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Hargadon, 1998) • “Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous

innovation”

• Knowledge Brokers (firms that span multiple markets and technology domains)

• Example Firms (IDEO, Design Continuum, Andersen, McKinsey & Co., HP, Boeing, Edison & Co., Elmer Sperry)

• Innovation Activities (access, learning, linking, implementation)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Ahuja, 2000) • “Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:

A longitudinal study”

• Innovation Through Patents (international chemicals industry)

• Direct/Indirect Ties Positively Related to Innovation (source of resources and information for firm)

• Structural Holes Negatively Related to Innovation (benefits of trust outweigh benefits of brokerage)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Powell, et al., 1996) • “Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of

innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology”

• Locus Of Innovation Resides In Networks Rather Than Firms (biotechnology industry)

• Network Examples (R&D, outside investors, clinical trials/evaluation, manufacturing, marketing/licensing, supply/distribution, investment/join venture)

• Experience And Centrality In Network Related To Success (relevant knowledge is widely distributed – outside of firm)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Stuart, 1998) • “Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An

investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry”

• Positions Of Firm Associated With Propensity to Collaborate (high-technology industry)

• Strategic Alliances (contractual asset pooling or resource exchange agreements)

• Formation Of Alliances Predicted By: (crowding – technological segments with many active firms) (prestige – track record of developing seminal inventions)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What are the incentives for firms to open innovation?

• When do knowledge brokers obstruct innovation?

• How do firms know which network ties will help?

• Are benefits from strategic alliances always equitable?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Organizational Features



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation requires experimenting and prototyping

• Innovation relies on recognition of opportunities

• Innovation arises from knowledge creation in firm

• Innovation on a regular basis can prevent inertia



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Leonard-Barton, 1995) • “Wellsprings of knowledge – Chapter 5: Experimenting and

prototyping (pp. 111-134)”

• Experimenting And Prototyping (develop diverse portfolio of technological options)

• Real-world Examples (experimenting – encouraged alloy failures at J&J) (prototyping – camera ‘wrecking crews’ at Kodak)

• Creating A Climate For Experimenting and Prototyping (intelligent failure and role of failure in knowledge building)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(O'Connor & Rice, 2001) • “Opportunity recognition and breakthrough innovation in large

established firms”

• Opportunity Recognition (bridge that connects a breakthrough idea to the initial innovation evaluation process)

• Example Breakthroughs (Dupont’s Biomax material,GE’s digital X-ray technology, GM’s alternative power supply, IBM’s new microchip)

• Improving Odds of Recognizing Opportunity (gatherers, hunters, and radical innovation hub)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Markides, 1997) • “Strategic innovation”

• Strategic Innovation (breaking rules of the game to shift market share)

• Example Firms (Canon caught Xerox by focusing on quality not speed) (Apple caught IBM by focusing on pc not mainframe) (Southwest caught American by flying point-to-point not hubs)

• Redefining Business (share, reuse, and expand core competencies)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) • “The knowledge-creating company – Chapter 1: Introduction

to knowledge in organizations (pp. 3-19)”

• Organizational Knowledge Creation (capability of a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout organization, and embody it)

• Japanese vs ‘Western’ Approach (continuous, incremental, and spiral innovation)

• Making Tacit Knowledge Explicit (metaphor and analogy, personal to organizational level, ambiguity and redundancy)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Tushman & O'Reilly, 1997) • “Winning through innovation – Chapter 1: The tyranny of

success (pp. 1-15)”

• Tyranny of Success (success followed by failure; innovation followed by inertia)

• Innovation Streams (systematically different kinds of innovation over time)

• Ambidextrous Organizations (celebrate stability and incremental change as well as experimentation and discontinuous change simultaneously)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What about the large costs of experimentation?

• Who should be responsible for finding opportunities?

• How do employees convert tacit to explicit knowledge?

• Are ambidextrous organizations a reality?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Organizational Learning



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation is often a product of absorptive capacity

• Innovation can result from efforts of lead users

• Innovation is closely tied to organizational learning

• Innovation requires focus on window of opportunity



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) • “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and

innovation”

• Absorptive Capacity (ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends)

• Individual / Organization (cognitive knowledge structures / R&D communication)

• Path Dependence (capacity critical because cumulative and expectation forming)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(von Hippel, 1988) • “The sources of innovation – Chapter 8: Predicting the source

of innovation: Lead users (pp. 102-122)”

• Lead Users (face general needs, but well in advance of marketplace) (positioned to benefit significantly by solving problem)

• Examples (open source programs by developers, white-out by secretary)

• Methodology (identify trend, identify lead users, analyze insight, test concept)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Argote, 1999) • “Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and

transferring knowledge – Chapter 1: Organizational learningcurves: An overview (pp. 1-34)”

• Organizational Learning Curves (as organizations produce more of a product, the unit cost of production decreases at a decreasing rate)

• Rate Differences (80% average, though much variation across organizations)

• Curve Predictors (quality of individuals, technology, and coordination)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Brown & Duguid, 1991) • “Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:

Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation”

• Communities-Of-Practice (informal groups of people connected through shared interest)

• Work Practice Disconnect (manuals do not often reflect how work is really practiced)

• Learning and Innovation (best done in the context of real work practices)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Tyre & Orlikowski, 1993) • Exploiting opportunities for technological improvement in

organizations”

• Episodic Pattern Of Technological Change (initial burst of adaptive activity followed by stability followed by additional adaptive activity followed by stability…)

• Window Of Opportunity (energy levels are high and situation is novel at initial burst)

• Managerial Implication (focus attention on need for change while providing resources)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What if R&D is not available for absorptive capacity?

• Who are the lead users for non-existent markets?

• When do learning curves signal innovation?

• How does one identify a window of opportunity?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Market Changes



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation through architecture is distinct

• Innovation can be radical and discontinuous

• Innovation follows cycles of technological change

• Innovation maps onto a technology S-curve



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Henderson & Clark, 1990) • “Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing

product technologies and the failure of established firms”

• Architectural Innovation (not incremental or radical, but rather changes in the architecture of a product without changing the components)

• Example (semiconductor photolithographic alignment equipment industry)

• Implication (architectural changes are difficult for firms to recognize/correct)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Utterback, 1994) • “Mastering the dynamics of innovation – Chapter 7: Invasion

of a stable business by radical innovation (pp. 145-166)”

• Radical Technological Innovation (technology that invades – and eventually overwhelms – the established technology)

• Example (America’s ice industry: machine-made replaced harvested)

• S-Curve (development slow at first, and then accelerates with a dominant design, and then slows again as efforts shift to new technology)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Anderson & Tushman, 1991) • “Managing through cycles of technological change”

• Cycles Of Technological Change (technology progresses in cycles that hinge on discontinuities and emergence of dominant designs)

• Creative Destruction (fundamental to capitalist progress – Schumpeter)

• Competency-Destroying (obsolete existing know-how, nullify mastery of old)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Foster, 1986) • “Innovation: The attacker's advantage – Chapter 4: The S-

curve: A new forecasting tool (pp. 89-111)”

• S-Curves (learning followed by diminishing returns; repeated)

• Examples (artificial hearts, pocket watches)

• Forecasting Tool (competitive analysis of effort put in and results achieved)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Christensen, 1992) • “Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve. Part I:

Component technologies”

• S-Curve Scope (more applicable at the industry level than firm level)

• Reverse Causality (lack of technological progress may be the result, rather than cause, of a forecast that a technology is maturing)

• Component Innovation (attacking firms have a disadvantage with new components)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What about reconfiguring existing service innovations?

• When are radical innovations not worth pursuing?

• How do firms manage multiple competencies?

• Has the S-curve ever made an accurate forecast?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Origin of the Process



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovations are not created equal

• Innovations are often modified rather than original

• Innovations have costs for productivity…but also drive economic growth

• Innovations are driven by leaders (and their firms)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Christensen, 1997) • “The innovator's dilemma - Chapter 1: How can great

firms fail? Insights from the hard disk drive industry”

• Innovator’s Dilemma (keeping close to customers – sometimes to the fatal end)

• Sustaining vs Disruptive Technologies (increased rate vs redefined performance trajectory)

• Established vs Entrant Firms (founded before vs after advent of the technology)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Morison, 1966) • “Gunfire at sea: A case study of innovation”

• Continuous-Aim Firing (keep sight and gun barrel on target throughout ship roll)

• Basic Invention vs Combined Elements (gun, elevating gear, and telescope were combined)

• Scott -> Sims -> Teddy Roosevelt (personality / status / determination + innovation = adoption)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Hounshell, 1984) • “From the American system to mass production, 1800-

1932 - Introduction”

• Mass Production (assembly line manufacturing techniques)

• Examples (Henry Ford’s Model T, Eli Whitney’s cotton gin)

• Productivity Dilemma (increase product changes = decrease productivity)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Mowery & Rosenberg, 1998) • “Paths of innovation: Technological change in 20th

century America - Introduction”

• Alfred North Whitehead (“The greatest invention of the 19th century was the invention of the method of invention”)

• Institutionalization of Scientific Method (R&D) (incremental learning, modification, and refinement)

• Economic Growth (a consequence of technological change…)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Tedlow, 2001) • “Giants of enterprise: seven business innovators and the

empires they built - Introduction: The big picture”

• Founding and Building New Businesses (Americans do best???)

• Innovators (Carnegie, Eastman, Ford, Watson, Revson, Walton, Noyce)

• Innovators vs Innovating Companies (business leaders who become inseparable from their firms)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• How often do disruptive technologies come along?

• How often do innovators have access to President?

• What about small firms with little R&D budget?

• What about all of the businesses leaders that fail?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Standards, Patents, and Open Source



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation may not always lead to efficiency

• Innovation process takes on many different forms

• Innovation can rise out of standards wars

• Innovation is the subject of many economic theories



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(David, 1985) • “Clio and the economics of QWERTY”

• QWERTY vs Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) (standardization on the “wrong” system)

• Possible Explanations (technical interrelatedness, economies of scale, and quasi-irreversibility of investment)

• Implication (beware that path dependence can result from chance)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Raymond, 1999) • “The cathedral and the bazaar”

• Cathedral vs Bazaar (carefully crafted by individuals vs large masses)

• Examples (Microsoft Windows vs Linux Kernel) (Qualcomm Eudora vs FetchMail)

• 19 Lessons (e.g., great programmers know what to rewrite and reuse, release early and often, recognize good ideas)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Shapiro & Varian, 1999) • “Information Rules: A strategic guide to the network economy

– Waging a standards war (pp. 261-296)”

• Standards Wars (two incompatible technologies vie for de facto standard)

• Examples (DVD vs Divx, Lotus 1-2-3 vs Excel, Netscape vs IE)

• Key Assets (control over an installed base, intellectual property rights, ability to innovate, first-mover advantage, manufacturing abilities, strength in complements, reputation and brand name)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Teece, 1987) • “Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration,

strategic partnering, and licensing decisions”

• Innovators vs Imitator-Followers (innovators do not necessary hold the long-term market)

• Examples (RC Cola Diet Diet Coke, DEC vs IBM PC)

• Explanations (appropriability, dominant design, and complementary assets)

vs



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(von Hippel, 2001) • “Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source

software”

• User Innovation Communities (ability to create exactly what it wants without requiring a manufacturer to act as its agent)

• Examples (Apache open-source software, high-performance windsurfing)

• Required Incentives (want to innovate, want to reveal innovations)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What are signs that an innovation should be killed?

• How does bureaucracy facilitate innovation?

• When do standards lead to less innovation?

• Can economic theories predict rather than explain?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Individual Contributions



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation is best motivated from the inside out

• Innovation is guided by roles in the organization

• Innovation is a product of work strategies

• Innovation is facilitated by dissent



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Amabile, 1988) • “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”

• Individual creativity is key to the innovation process (production of novel and useful ideas)

• Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Motivation (internal vs external factors that motivate creativity)

• Creativity Intersection (resources, techniques, and motivation)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Roberts & Fusfeld, 1981) • “Staffing the innovative technology-based organization”

• Innovation Process (1. preproject, 2. possibilities, 3. initiation, 4. execution, 5. outcome evaluation, 6. transfer)

• Critical Functions (1. idea generating, 2. entrepreneuring/championing, 3. project leading, 4. gatekeeping, 5. sponsoring/coaching)

• Multiple Roles and Career-Spanning Role Changes (more than one critical function at different stages in career)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Kelley & Caplan, 1993) • “How Bell Labs creates star performers”

• Expert Work Strategies (taking initiative, networking, self-management, teamwork effectiveness, leadership, followership, perspective, show-and-tell, organizational savvy)

• Training Knowledge Professionals (implement productivity enhancement groups)

• Differential Returns (woman and minorities benefited even more)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Nemeth, 1997) • “Managing innovation: When less is more”

• Social Control vs Innovation (execution vs going out on a limb)

• Majority vs Minority Status (conformity vs dissent toward norms)

• Integrating Healthy Disagreement (open doors for innovation opportunities)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Shapero, 1985) • “Managing creative professionals”

• Environment for Creativity (tolerating deviance from the norm)

• Process of Creating (preparation, incubation, illumination, verification)

• Creative Problem Solving (1. soak self in problem, 2. play with problem, 3. suspend judgment, 4. come up with two solutions, 5. when stuck…)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• Is there hope for the non-intrinsically motivated?

• Are the five critical functions necessary for all firms?

• When does training inhibit creative production?

• Should dissenting majority opinion become a norm?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Technical Communication



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation can be fostered in R&D labs

• Innovation is driven by scientists and engineers

• Innovation requires organizational boundary roles

• Innovation benefits from technical communication



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Allen, 1977) • “Managing the flow of technology – Chapter 3: The

communication system in technology: An overview”

• Scientists vs Engineers (learning for learning’s sake vs professional preparation)

• Science vs Technology (literature-based knowledge vs firm-based knowledge)

• Gap-Filling Science (reduce delay of technical communication between science and technology)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Tushman, 1977) • “Special boundary roles in the innovation process”

• Boundary Roles (link internal network to external sources of information)

• Internal Communication Stars (consulted most frequently on technical matters)

• Two-Step Process (technical staff communicate with internal stars, who in turn communicate outside of the organization)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Ebadi & Utterback, 1984) • “The effects of communication on technological innovation”

• Technological Innovation (projects funded by National Sea Grant Office)

• Researcher Communication (higher individual frequency of communication across projects associated with greater project success)

• Project Centrality (higher project centrality scores associated with greater project success)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Pelz & Andrews, 1966) • “Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for

research and development – Chapter 3: Communication”

• R&D Labs (services/equipment or interacting scientists?)

• Effective Scientists (sought and received more contact with colleagues)

• Controlling for… (experience, supervisory status, PhD, and lab type)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Sosa, Eppinger, et al. (2002) • “Factors that influence technical communication in

distributed product development”

• Communication Drivers (interdependence, organizational bond)

• Communication Barriers (physical distance, overlapping time, cultural differences)

• Communication Media (preferences shift depending on physical distance)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• How are scientists and engineers similar?

• When are boundary roles counter-productive?

• What if nobody wants to communicate with you?

• Does the content of communication differ by media?



WWW.BSSVE.IN


Cross-Functionality



WWW.BSSVE.IN

2

Overview

• Take-Away



• Caveats



WWW.BSSVE.IN

3

Take-Away

• Innovation can be fostered by heavyweights

• Innovation can be hindered by thought worlds

• Innovation relies on team functional diversity

• Innovation requires organizational adaptation



WWW.BSSVE.IN

4

(Clark & Wheelwright, 1992) • “Organizing and leading "heavyweight" development

teams”

• Types of Development Project Teams (functional, lightweight, heavyweight, tiger/autonomous)

• Heavy-Weight Structures Are Most Effective (example – Motorola’s Bandit line of pagers)

• Change Required in Fundamental Behavior (example – Fred / Team A vs Jim / Team B)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

5

(Dougherty, 1992) • “Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in

large firms”

• Linking Technology/Market With Product Design (contribute to innovation and new product success)

• Departmental Thought Worlds (technical, field, manufacturing, planning)

• Organizational Routines (interdepartmental relations, market definition, product standards)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

6

(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) • “Demography and design: Predictors of new product team

performance”

• High-Technology Industry (increasing reliance on new product teams – e.g., photo)

• Designing Cross-Functional Teams (should there be more or less diversity– of which types?)

• Functional Diversity Related to External Communication (external communication related to manager performance)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

7

(Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995) • “Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in

the global computer industry”

• Global Computer Industry (product innovation facilitates adaptation)

• Inertial Organizations vs Malleable Organizations (slow shifts vs punctuated equilibrium and fast change)

• Compression Model vs Experiential Model (squeezing well-known vs improvising uncertain process)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

8

(Griffin & Hauser, 1992) • “Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering,

and manufacturing”

• Automobile Industry (parallel component projects, e.g., headlight and taillight)

• Marketing, Engineering, Manufacturing (new product development in two different teams)

• Phase-Review vs. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) (traditional vs. Japanese development process)



WWW.BSSVE.IN

9

Caveats

• What if you don’t have access to heavyweights?

• When do thought worlds help knowledge acquisition?

• Is too much functional diversity harmful?

• How does time pressure affect functional integration?



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 1 - Introduction and Overview

What does it mean to innovate?

What does it mean to manage innovation?



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 10, 11 – Geographic Dispersion

Have you worked in a team where another member was located in a different city or time zone? If yes, please describe what it was like to work with this person, and how your team attempted to innovate under this condition. If no, please describe what aspects of the situation would concern you in order for the innovation process to occur on a team like this.



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 12, 13 – Intra-Organizational Networks

Think about a time when you needed to move an innovative project forward in an organization that required help from a “friend of a friend.” How did you get advice for the problem? Did you go through your friend first, contact the “friend of a friend” directly, or do it some other way?



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 14, 15 – Inter-Organizational Networks

Describe how an innovation (either in a firm you worked for or read about in the popular press) has benefited from and/or been constrained by inter-organizational networks such as strategic alliances, joint ventures, and other partnerships.



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 16, 17 – Organizational Features

In your opinion, what is the most innovative company in the world today? State your reasons why and describe characteristics of the firm that you believe contribute to its success, such as its management practices, employee base, product development process, organizational culture, etc.



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 18, 19 – Organizational Learning

Think about an organization in which you have worked. Name three things that it could have done (but didn’t) to improve innovation on the whole. Why didn’t it do them? Could it have done them? What improvement strategies would you have recommended to the CEO?



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 20, 21 – Market Changes

Think about an industry you have worked in recently. What was the single most important innovation to occur during its lifespan? Describe how your company, as well as other companies in the industry, reacted to the innovation.



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 2, 3 – Origin of the Process

List up to 5 innovations you encountered in your previous work experience that could have been (or were regarded as) “home runs” and describe why you think each failed (or succeeded).



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 23, 22 – Standards, Patents, and Open Source

Of standards, patents, and open source, make a case for which one will have the biggest impact on innovation in market-based economies. Be sure to include support for your logic.



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 4, 5 – Individual Contribution

Think about a time when you needed a particular resource (e.g., money, time, support) to see an innovation through from start to finish. What obstacles did you face in securing the resource and how (if at all) did you overcome them?



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection ExerciseLecture 6, 7 – Technical Communication

Describe your unique expertise in the most recent position you held. How did you ensure that others knew to come to you when related problems arose? How did you maintain your expertise in the face of continuing demands to be innovative in your work?



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Name: _________________________

Reflection Exercise Lecture 8, 9 – Cross-Functionality

Describe a cross-functional team of which you were a member. What function did you represent? How many other functions were represented? Provide some insight into how your team was able to innovate given the different perspectives members brought to bear on the task.



WWW.BSSVE.IN

Documents

· Product Development – Modified chip design borrowed from another organizational group – Presented a technical paper on the results at company conference 9 members (US, Israel,