As paradigms of innovation shift, so do KM

The primary R&D within organizations used to be done in the top-down fashion, with both research directions and resource allocation dominated by the headquarter. Today we are seeing new products and services developed in ways fundamentally different from the traditional method. The bottom-up approach begins with modifying an existing product by customizing it for a particular segmentation along the dimension of cost or features. Successful adoption by that segment may encourage more segments of the customer population to embrace the new product.

The "blue ocean" strategic thinking advocates looking outside the existing territory to find opportunities not yet recognized. When successful, the sidetracking approach may result in a wide open field that is rewarding to the innovators.

While each of the top-down, bottom-up and from-the-side innovation approaches has its place, the open innovation phenomenon has demonstrated its power in such areas as software (e.g., linux and appache), genome mapping, Internet protocols, and even greeting cards design. One of the results of the myriad ways of innovation interacting with one another is one surprise after another in more and more industries.

Test

Organizational culture shows itself everywhere in an organization

As a resesarcher and a consultant, I used to make frequent visits with managers and executives of a variety of companies. One thing that still interests me even to this day is the fact that some companies just feel so different. And the differences are so pervasive in the organization. They showed on people, products design and quality, processes, and even on minute details of the physical environment. Those companies are both teams and comunities. They are high-performing teams with discipline. They are also communities of members feeling a strong sense of belonging. The pressure is always there, but is manageble. Plenty of supports are provided to help employees grow and enjoy their life. Executives and managers are extremely concerned about the trust factor that glues the elements together. Yes, they do have to deal with crises. But they do it together, and always come out stronger that they were before. This kind of organizational culture is not easy to build, but is not more difficult than competing in the business world either. Everybody plays a certain role. But it's the executives and managers that make the most difference. Business is not nasty and boring because of thoese executives and managers.

Domain-specifc knowledge vs. domain-independent knowledge

Problem solving requires both general problem solving skills and domain specific knowledge. Logical reasoning and creative thinking, for example, are essential in finding a smart solution to a challenging problem. These skills usually can be applied to different fields. That's why some CEOs got to transfer to work in an industry that they did not have much experience. However, if they are to work in, say, a hospital or manufacturing firm, they must possess much knowledge that is unique to the industry. They must know a lot about the product/service, operational processes, and other areas in order to make good decisions. The 80/20 rule is still helpful here. The higher the rank, the more important the general (or domain-independent) knowledge and the less crucial the domain-specific knowledge. Workers and mangers at the lower and middle managerial levels usually contribute mainly by possessing and applying their domain-specific knowledge.

Where does the domain-specific knowledge come from? Some from education. A lot from working experience. Education provides general frameworks. But it's working in the field that substantiates and solidifies the working knowledge. Being in the field is critical in building the expertise in a particular domain. It is important that, if a knowledge management initiate is to be effective, the organization must develop its own implementation program. Looking to benchmarks is a good start and often inspiring. Ultimately, a successful knowledge management program must embody the unique characteristics of the organization.

Community as a form of collaboration

Bounded rationality furnishes the theoretical basis for collaboration. When problem complexity is overwhelming, divide-and-conquer is often an effective problem-solving approach. For many years before the Internet got so convenient, collaboration takes place within the department or the corporation. Communities formed within the organizational boundary, when operating with momentum, unit more brain power into a great value-producing system. The communities that involve the whole world, as radical as it seems, have been demonstrated to be a great business thinking for some companies in certain sectors.

Open innovation through various types of community has captured much attention of mass media. IBM joins effort with the open source software community and puts linux and Apache at the center of their core products. A significant portion of new products produced every year is the result of networking with people they did not hire. Counting amazon, eBay. jeep drivers, Mac users, ..., you'll notice that community, like knowledge, is everywhere. Can one imagine several years ago that community management would turn out to be a core competency of managers and organizations in the knowledge economy?

Inductive learning and deductive learning

Inductive reasoning generalizes and deductive reasoning tests the generalization on a specific case. Effective learning requires both.

Similarly, tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are essential components of an upward spiral. One prompts the other to elevate our level of knowledge. Converting explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge involves the act of internalizing what we learn. Making tacit knowledge explicit reinforces better and deeper understanding of what vaguely and fuzzily exists in our knowledge base. Not a dichotomy, but more a continuum. It's just like water exists in both the liquid and vapor form most of the time.

Wisdom matters the most

Can one be both knowledgeable and stupid? Of course!
One can knowingly ignore the long term and opt for the short term benefit.
Or, knowingly put one factor above everything else that ought to be considered.
That is, wisdom has to to with perspective and priority. And the issue of perspective and priority is tied to the notion of significance. Significance is not a mind work. It is what one treasures out of heart. At least, it is a good blend of mind and heart.

Interesting! from knowledge management point of view, running a business requires both mind and heart. Pursuing a career also requires both mind and heart. Business world is not supposed to be hard and cold. Work is supposed to be an integral part of life. There is always something that can be done to improve the status quo. Enjoying the fun of improving harmonizes work and pleasure, and thus links work and study directly to significance. At the very basic level, one is motivated by the sense of significance.