1. Relatinoship model between Knowledge Management andInnovation Activity in organizationsThe Second International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital ManagementUniversity Paris-Sud. May 27, 2009Professors: Jose Maria Viedma and Jose Albors. icbs.viedma@telefonica.net Author:Jose Carlos Ramos. jcramos@avanzalis.com 1

2. aim Demonstrate the positive relationship between KnowledgeManagement maturity and Innovation Activity inorganizations.Aware senior management about the critical role of KnowledgeManagement and Innovation, through a scientific justificationIntroduce new competitive approaches based on knowledgeto overcome the actual paradigm shiftParis, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 2 3. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 3 4. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 4 5. research and academic profile Education Masters Engineer of Telecommunication. Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain) MBA Executive. Estema Business School MsC Knowledge Management . Knowledge Associates, The University of Hull (UK) IT in Organization PhD program. Business Administration Departament, PUVPublications related to the Thesis work Paper: New learning network paradigms. International Journal of Information Management. 2008 CiNET Congress presentation, Gotheborg, 2007 Paper in publication process: Management Innovation: Lessons from the OS Community Paper in development process: Actional Intelligence: attitude and value alignment Cowritter in several books on KM and Innovation. IBM (residencies on USA laboratories)Teaching experience (MBAs, specific masters) Ford University. Depending on PUV Postgrade Training Center, PUV Summer University, Campus TI. PUV Inede Business School Estema Business School Adeit. VULecturing in congresses and address several Final ProjectsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 5 6. professional profileAvanzalis Knowledge Associates (Spain)Director PartnerSenior consultant on business strategy and IC IBM Laboratories (Texas, USA)Member of the strategic collaborative solutions workgroupMember of the SMB Management CouncilAitana Business Solutions. IBM Business Partner (Spain)Services National ManagerGlobal Manufacturers Services (old IBM Plant)Project Manager FreelanceEngineer of TelecommunicationParis, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 6 7. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 7 8. hypotesis formulation More maturity onBetterKnowledgesystematization Management on InnovationParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 8 9. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 9 10. doctoral work structure1. Objectives. Motivation2. State of the art3. Work hypothesis. KM&I ModelsuggestedReview or demonstration 4. Method. Fieldwork of hypothesis 5. Analysis. Fieldwork outcomes 6. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 10 11. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 11 12. state of the art: topicsState of the artFoundational Knowledge relationshipInnovationconceptsManagementState of the art is presented using conceptual maps [Novak, 1990], a knowledge management tool.All maps done using CMap Tools [Institute for Human and Machine Cognition www.ihmc.com] Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 12 13. SoA. key concepts State of the art FoundationalKnowledgerelationshi Innovation concepts Management pParis, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos13 14. SoA. key concepts Argyris, C. Double loop learning in organisations, Harvard Business review, no.77502. 1977 State of the artArgyris, C. Actionable knowledge: intent versus actuality. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science; 32, 4; ABI/ INFORM Global. 1996 Ausubel, D. P., J. D. Novak, and H. Hanesian. Educational Psychology: A Cog-nitive View, 2nd ed. New York: Holt,relationshiFoundational Knowledge Rinehart and Winston. 1978 conceptsManagement p InnovationBarton, DL. Wellsprings of knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. 1995 Bessant, J, Hoffman, K., Parejo, M. Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation: a literature review, International Journal of Innovation Manag. London. 1997 Bontis, M. Capital Intellectual: an exploraty study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, pp. 67-76. 1998 Burns,T. y Stalker, GM. The management of innovation. Oxford University Press. 1961 Chesbrough, H. Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review Vol 48, n2 . 2007. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science quaterly, 35, 128- 152. 1990 Davenport, T. y Prusak, L. Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. 1998 Drucker, P. La Productividad del Trabajador del Conocimiento: mximo Desafo. Harvard Deusto Business Review, nm. 98, p. 4-16. 2000 Drucker, P.F. From capitalism to knowledge society. Wobum MA: Buterworth. 1998 Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. The intellectual capital. Management 2000, Barcelona. 1999 EIS. European Innovation Scoreboard. European Commission.2005 y 2007 Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. : The Balanced Scorecard. Management 2000. Bar-celona. 1997 Kirton, C. quot;Adaptation- Innovationnquot;. Long Range Planning, Elsevier. 1984 Nonaka. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, pp. 96-104. 1991 Polany, M., The tacit dimension, Ed. Routledge, Londres. 1967 Schumpeter JA; Scherer FM. Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives. MIT Press. 1984 Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organi-zation. New York, Doubleday/ Currency. 1990 Von Hippel, E., Herstatt, C. Developing new products concepts via the lead user method, Journal of Product innovation management, vol. 9, iss 3, Sept. 1992 Yin, R. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. SAGE 2003 Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Zahra, S. A.; George, G. quot;Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualiza-tion, and extensionquot;. Academy Ramos 20090513ka03 Jose Carlosof14 Management Review, Vol. 27, N 2, p. 185-203. 2002 15. SoA. KMState of the artFoundationalKnowledgerelationshiInnovationconcepts Management pParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos15 16. SoA. KM State of the artFoundational Knowledgerelationshi InnovationconceptsManagement p Alavi, M. Leidner, D. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly. 2001 Alegre Vidal, J. La Gestin del Conocimiento como motor de la innovacin. Universitat Jaume I de Castelln. 2004 BSI (British Standards Institution), various authors. Knowledge Management: a guide to good practice. BSI. 2001 Camisn, C.; Palacios, D.; Devece, C. quot;Un nuevo modelo para la medicin del capital intelectual: el modelo Novaquot;, Ponencia presentada en X Congreso Nacional de ACEDE, Oviedo. 2000 Comisin Europea. EUROSTAT, Community Innovation Survey, Brussels. 1994 Coombs R. 'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in Innovation. Elsevier ScienceResearch Policy 27. 1998 KnowNet. The KnowNet Consortium. Esprit research project EP28928. 2000 Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52. Mentzas Gregoris. A strategic management framework for leveraging knowledge assets. International Journal of Innovation and Learning (IJIL), Vol. 1, No. 2, 2004 Ponzi L. The Evolution & Intellectual Development of Knowledge Management. Leo-nard J. Ponzi. Long Island University. 2003 Sveiby, K. Organizatonial The new wealth: managing and measuring intan-gible assets. Berret-Koelher Publishers, San Francisco. 1998 Teece, D; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-agement. Strategic Management Journal, No.18, p.509-533. 1997 Viedma JM. Strategic benchmarking of IC (SBIC). An IC strategic management meth-odology and strategic information system. E-Know Net. 2001Paris, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and InnovationRef. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos16 17. SoA. InnovationState of the artFoundationalKnowledgerelationshiInnovationconcepts Management p Paris, May 2009 Ref.Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos17 18. SoA. Innovation State of the artFoundational Knowledgerelationshi InnovationconceptsManagement pBoisot, Max H. Is your firm a creative destroyer? Competitive learning and knowledge flows in thetechnological strategies of firms, Research Policy, Vol. 24, 1995, pp. 489-506Drucker, P.F. La innovacin y el empresario innovador, Edhasa. 1986Henderson, R y Clark, K.B. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies andthe failure of established firms. Administrative Sci-ence Quaterly, vol 35, n 1. 1990Adams R., Bessant J. y Phelps, R. Innovation management measurement: A review. In-ternational Journal ofManagement Reviews. Volume 8. Issue 1 pp. 21-47. 2006Arundel A. The Knowledge Economy, Innovation Diffusion, and the CIS. Proceedings of the 21st CEIESSeminar, Innovation Statistics More than R&D Indicators, Athens, April 10-11, 2003, Eurostat, GeneralStatistics, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2003.Arundel, A. Hollanders, H. EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards. MERIT. March, 2005Luecke, R. Katz, R. Managing Creativity and Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. 2003Utterback, J.M. Dinmica de la innovacin tecnolgica, Fund. Cotec, Madrid. 2001Quinn, J., B. Technological Innovation, Entrepeneurship and strategies, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.19- 30. 1977 Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos18 19. SoA. KM & Innovation relationshipState of the artFoundationalKnowledgerelationshiInnovationconcepts Management pParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos19 20. a review of seminal contributions Next two slides show a detailed list of most important works inmanagement discipline along the history It represents a radar diagram organized by 5 main pillars aboutmanagement: Strategy Operations, production, processes and systems Market, marketing and sales People, skills, human capital IT and communications The green bubbles show where KM and Innovation are present, andthe size of the bubble gives an idea of the impact it had Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 20 21. Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 21 22. Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 22 23. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 23 24. KM&I modelIndividual IndividualIndividual actionning andand CKOCKO control Absorb/INDIVIDUAL Tacit and appliedCreate Tacit Internalize Actioni Actioning ng, and Validate applicatmeasure ion Review/ Improve COLLECTIVETacit andExplicitExplicit collectiveShare/ and CKOSocial network,Storageorganization, shared Colaboratesystem Shared repositoryExternalize, socialize Paris, May 2009And transferDoctoral Thesis. KM and InnovationRef. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos24 25. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 25 26. methodological framework Plan the research strategy Case study design 1.Research questions 2.Suggestion or thesis 3.Analysis unit 4.Link data and thesis 5.Criterion for finding interpretationsTheory development Fieldwork Questionnaire arrangement and guides for research Protocol. Relate research questions with analysis issues in case studies Specific evidences found Collected data storage Report generation Multiple source triangulation for verificationAnalysis and external validation Report generation Final review by the own analyzed organizations (sources)Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 26 27. KM variables Absorb/Tacit and appliedCreateTacitIntern alize Actioni Actioning ng, andValidate applicatmeasure ion Review/ Improve Tacit andExplicitExplicit Share/ Storage ColaborateVariableIndicatorIdExternalize, socializeAnd transferRangeThere are systems and tools for capturing knowledge when it happens (A>er Ac0on Reviews,brainstormingrepositories)KinCapt0,1Incorporate: Therearecollabora0vepoliciesandexternalcollabora0onisalsopromoted: capturing,genera0ng,1.Educa0onabsorbing 2.Consul0ng KinAbs1,2,3 3.andcompe0torsmonitoring Valida0on:iden0ing Businesskeyknowledgeareasareiden0ed therelevantissues Valid 0,1There are repositories organized using a taxonomy and there are also procedures to explicit knowledgeinahomogeneouswayalongthecompany:Storage:explici0ng 0.No StorExplic 0,1,2 andcodiingin1.Basicrepositories2.AdvancedIt exists and is recognized the Chief Knowledge Ocer (CKO) role, accountable for KB andrepositoriesCKO0,1 Neededknowledge(internandextern)forworkersac0vityisaccessibleandeasytouseKAccess0,1 Sharing:broadcas0ng Therearecompetencestopromoteopencommunica0on,collabora0onandknowledgesharingin HRColComp 0,1 andcollabora0ng theHRdevelopmentsystems There are Communi0es of Prac0ce, Purpose, internal and mixed (with external members) Social NetworksCoPSNA 0,1 Useful knowledge is applied to produce and perform. The 6 step KM process is adopted in the organiza0oninamoreorlessformalwayKact 0,1Ac0oning:applying,usingandmeasuring TherearespecicKeyPerformanceIndicatorsforKM KPI0,1 theimpactofdoingit When recrui0ng and in HR development policies the corpora0ve values are matched with the individualisassessed.AnopenaZtudetowardslonglifelearningisrequestedHRActVal 0,1 Con0nuousmaintenance,improvementandreviewofKMsystemisdone: Mantain:review, 0.Noimproveand 1.BasicKMImp0,1,2Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation evolu0onante20090513ka03 2.Itallowssugges0onsandimprovementsmadebyusersJose Carlos Ramos27 28. innovation activity variables* VariableIdRangeOrganiza0onhasdoneinnova0onac0vi0esbeforeInOn0,1 Organiza0onabandoneditsinnova0onac0vi0es InAB 0,1 Organiza0onintroducedaneworsignicantlyimprovedproducttothemarketInpdt 0,1 Howdidproductinnova0onhappen?: 1=leadedbytheorganiza0onorthegroupwhereitoperates 2=coopera0ngwithotherrmsInpdtW1,2,3 3=mainlybyotherrmsorins0tu0ons Organiza0onintroducedaneworsignicantlyimprovedprocesstothemarketInpcs 0,1 Howdidprocessinnova0onhappen?: 1=leadedbytheorganiza0onorthegroupwhereitoperates 2=coopera0ngwithotherrmsInpcsW1,2,3 3=mainlybyotherrmsorins0tu0ons ItdevelopsinternalR+DRrdIn 0,1 KindofR+D: 1=con0nuous RdEng 1,2 2=episodic Mainmarketofthecompany: 1=local 2=local/regional SigMar1,2,3,4 3=na0onal 4=interna0onal Organiza0onintroducedneworsignicantlyimprovedproductswhichwherenewtoitsmarket InMar 0,1 Organiza0onhaddonecollabora0veac0vi0esforinnova0onCo0,1 *EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards. Arundel, A. Hollanders, H. MERIT. 2005Paris, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 28 29. outcomes. KM maturityHRColComp StorExplicHRActValKAccessCoPSNAKinCaptOrganization KM level KMImpKinAbsValid KactCKOKPI PHARMACEUTICALDISTRIBUTOR0 0 01010 0 0000 AccidentalAERONAUTICALBROKER 0 1 01010 1 1000 PasiveINFORMATICSOLUTIONSPROVIDER 1 2 12110 1 1001 ActiveACADEMICINSTITUTION0 1 01000 0 0000 AccidentalELECTRONICDEVICESMANUFACTURER 1 3 12110 1 1001 ActivePRINTINGSOLUTIONSFORCHERAMIC 1 3 12110 1 1001 ActiveSTRATEGICBUSINESSCONSULTANCY1 3 12111 1 1112 IntentionalINDUSTRIALBAKERY 0 1 01000 0 0000 AccidentalEXCLUSIVEFURNITUREMANUFACTURER1 3 11110 1 1001 Active WELDINGANDSTAMPINGPROVIDERFOR1 2 11110 1 1001 Active AUTOMOTIVE Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos29 30. outcomes. innovation activityInpcsW InpdtW SigMarOrganization Innovation type RdEng InMar RrdInInpcs Inpdt InOn InABCoPHARMACEUTICALDISTRIBUTOR 0 0 00 11 003 0 0 AdopterAERONAUTICALBROKER1 0 00 11 124 1 1EpisodicINFORMATICSOLUTIONSPROVIDER1 0 11 11 113 1 1StrategicACADEMICINSTITUTION 0 0 00 03 003 0 0No InnovatorELECTRONICDEVICESMANUFACTURER1 1 12 12 113 1 1EpisodicPRINTINGSOLUTIONSFORCHERAMIC 1 0 11 00 114 1 1EpisodicSTRATEGICBUSINESSCONSULTANCY 1 0 12 12 113 1 1StrategicINDUSTRIALBAKERY1 0 11 00 002 1 1 Technology modifier EXCLUSIVEFURNITUREMANUFACTURER 1 0 12 11 114 1 1StrategicWELDINGANDSTAMPINGPROVIDERFOR0 0 00 12 114 1 1EpisodicAUTOMOTIVEParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 30 31. outcomes. relationshipIformatic Exclusivesolutions furnitureBuiness strategic INNOVATION providermanufacturer consultancySTRATEGICAeronautical BrokerPrinting solutions for cheramic EPISODICElectronic devicemanufacturerMODIFIERWelding andstamping providerfor automotive ADOPTer Industrial bakeryAcademic institution Pharmaceutical distributorParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 31 32. content 1. PhD student profile2. Hypothesis formulation3. Doctoral work structure4. State of the art5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation6. Empirical workMethodological frameworkVariablesCase study analysis and outcomes 7. ConclusionsParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 32 33. conclusions and future works Knowledge Management Today is a key element for competitiveness. It was seen as a fashion and very linked to ICT's Its management is complex and still remain great efforts to be done for measuring its impact in business The holistic approach (strategy, productivity, competitiveness, systems and people) is the most complete one As smaller a company is, more strategic KM becomes As larger a company is, more systematic KM becomes The 5 step KM process gives special relevance to actioning knowledge The knowledge worker should: be more thoughtful, invest more time to investigate and study; train himself on new environments, systems and technologies to discern and apply the useful knowledge; be more open to collaborate, to share and work on open standards Organize and work in new ways, it means innovate in management (e.g., the success of the Internet communities)Innovation Many of the competitive advantages achieved with innovation have not been preserved it shows a lack ofsystematization, a poor awareness on collaboration and, barriers to seek, absorb, share and enrich knowledgeKM and Innovation They are a competitive advantage not only for knowledge-intensive activities (KIA), but also for traditionalbusinessParis, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 33 34. final conclusion There is a positive relationship between the Knowledge Management maturity and Innovation Activity in organizationsParis, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 34 35. Further information: Jose Carlos Ramoswww.avanzalis.comwww.josecarlosramos.comParis, May 2009Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03Jose Carlos Ramos 35