Transcript The Process of Internalizing External Knowledge into the

Why Do Some Ideas Get Blocked on the
Way?: The Process of Internalizing User
Knowledge into the Organization
Ayaka Oda
School of Business, Yonsei University
E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Importance of User Innovation
• Importance of knowledge residing outside the firm
Cummings (2004) empirically tested and found that both intragroup and
external knowledge sharing are important for performance in work groups.
• Many firms have engaged in collaborative innovation
• Some authors have also realized the importance of client co-production for
sustainable competitive advantage for IT providers (Bettencourt et al. 2002)
• Iteration: If need information is sticky at the site of the potential product user,
and if solution information is sticky at the site of the product developer, we may
see a pattern in which problem-solving activity shuttles back and forth between
these two sites (von Hippel, 1994)
• First-hand involvement with consumers stimulates imagination more effectively
than abstract market data (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991).
• User as an important source of innovation (von Hippel, 1988)
Introduction
External Knowledge and Boundaries
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
External knowledge is of no use unless an effort is made to internalize such knowledge.
When we say knowledge, we are mainly concerned with explicit knowledge that is
transferable and codifiable (Kogut and Zander 1992, Grant 1996). <-> Tacit knowledge
Codifying existing knowledge into explicit forms and share it via the use of IT tolls will
be severely limited in terms of the contribution to innovation (Swan at el. 1999)
To create and transfer knowledge efficiently within an organizational context is the
central competitive dimension (Kogut and Zander 1992)
The degree of communication between the firm and its environment is affected by
“someone within the firm who is able to communicate both with the technical
information sources outside the firm and with end users of information within the
firm” (Utterback 1971)
Form of user knowledge: Problem raised by users, WOM, feedbacks, suggestions,
reviews
The communication across boundaries is not smooth (Utterback 1971, Carlile 2002).
Introduction
Process Perspective of Innovation
• Three-step technical innovation process: idea
generation, problem solving, and implementation and
diffusion (Utterback 1971).
• Innovation has mainly taken two perspectives: structural
and process.
Swan at el. (1999) mention that “innovation should be
seen, not simply as a ‘thing’ to be transferred from place
to place, but as a complex, time phased, politicallycharged design and decision process often involving
multiple social groups within organizations.”
• It is important to look at the process which produces
innovation (Gruner and Homburg, 2000).
Objective
• To study the mechanism how the user knowledge gets
internalized within the firm.
Basic Assumption:
User knowledge does not get fully processed within the
firm.
• Thus, we are also interested in the reasons why
information gets blocked within the firm.
• Exploratory case study approach is taken due to the
undeveloped topic.
Field interviews, follow-up e-mails, and subsequent
survey.
User Knowledge Internalization Framework
Internalization: The process of knowledge being received, assigned and accepted.
Reception
Assignment
Acceptance
1. Reception: The phase that the user knowledge reaches the
organization through gatekeeper(s).
2. Assignment: The gatekeeper attempts to bring the user
knowledge by assigning it to employee(s) or unit(s) for the
internal solution.
3. Acceptance: The assignee accepts to take the user
knowledge to be utilized or solved, depending on the
characteristics of the user knowledge.
User Knowledge in the Form of Problem
Problem
Reception
Problem
Assignment
Problem
Acceptance
*Problem may not move on to the next stage due to the blocking mechanism in the firm.
1. Problem Reception: The user knowledge in the form of
problem raised by users reaches the gatekeeper(s) of the
firm.
2. Problem Assignment: The gatekeeper attempts to bring the
problem by assigning it to employee(s) or unit(s) for the
problem to be solved in the firm.
3. Problem Acceptance: The assignee accepts to solve the
problem.
Model 1
Problem
Representation
H1
User Value
H2
Problem Weight
H3
H4
Problem
Recognition
Problem
Reception
Model 1
• Gatekeepers: Individuals in the communication network who are capable of
understanding and translating contrasting coding schemes (Katz and Tushman
1980). Internal stars who have a substantial amount of extra- organizational
communication (Tushman 1977).
Past studies suggest that gatekeepers not only gathered and translated external
information, but they also facilitated the external communication of their
fellow team members (Utterback 1971, Tushman 1977, Katz and Tushman
1980).
• Problem Representation: The problem is stated in a way that is easy for the
gatekeeper to understand.
Syntactical approach of knowledge boundary suggests that a shared syntax or
language for individuals to represent their knowledge may ease the difficulties
faced with knowledge boundary (Carlile 2002).
The greater the mismatch in language and cognitive orientation, the greater
the difficulties of communicating (Katz and Tushman 1980).
H1: Problem representation has an impact on problem reception.
Model 1
• User Value: The user who raised the problem is considered as an
important user by the gatekeeper.
Many marketing studies have looked at the importance of
customer value. Butz and Goodstein (1996) define customer value
as “the emotional bond established between a customer and a
producer after the customer has used a salient product or service
produced by that supplier and found the product to provide an
added value.” They further mention that customer value often
leads to customer satisfaction and trust between the two parties.
Also empirical finding shows that closeness of relationship with
customer leads to new product success (Gruner and Homburg,
2000).
H2: User importance is positively related to problem reception.
Model 1
• Problem Weight: The number of users who proposed the problem.
We argue that as more users raise the same problem, it is more
likely that the problem will be received.
H3: Problem Weight is positively related to problem reception.
• Problem Recognition: The gatekeeper recognizes the problem
raised as important. The problem aligns with the firm's overall
goals/direction. (Strategic alignment)
The richness of information will reduce equivocality, or ambiguity.
Simply providing large amounts of data does not necessarily help
information processing (Daft and Lengel, 1986).
Firm Failure: Managerial cognition may lead to organizational inertia
(Tripsas and Gavetti 2000).
H4: Problem recognition is positively related to problem reception.
Model 2
Problem Fitness to
Categorization
Gatekeeper's
Knowledge of the
Problem
H5
H6
H7
Gatekeeper's
Knowledge of the
Organization
Problem
Assignment
Model 2
•
Problem Fitness to Categorization: The problem fits to the filtering system that is used
to categorize problems.
H5: Problem fitness to categorization is positively related to problem assignment.
•
Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Problem: The knowledge of the internal organization
that the gatekeeper has.
When the problem is raised by the game user, there may be terminologies that are
specifically used for the particular game. Thus, gatekeeper shall have sufficient
knowledge about the game in order to assign the problem. Carlile (2002) mentioned
how “knowledge in new product development is localized around particular problems
faced in a given practice.”
H6: Gatekeeper's knowledge of the problem is positively related to problem assignment.
•
Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Organization: The knowledge that the gatekeeper has
on the problem raised by the user.
Semantic approach to knowledge boundary suggested by Carlile (2002) suggests that
the differences and dependencies between functions or groups must be specified.
H7: Gatekeeper's knowledge of the organization is positively related to problem
assignment.
Model 3
Work Motivation
H8
H9
Capability Concern
H10
Responsibility
Problem
Acceptance
Control Variables:
Recognition of Problem Difficulty
Recognition of Problem Importance
Past Experience
Problem's Relevancy to the Target Market
Assignee's Problem-Solving Style
Model 3
• Work Motivation: The assignee is motivated to put an effort into
the work.
We found out through interview that there is no such thing as
economic incentives at Company 100 Inc.
“Intrinsic motivation involves people doing an activity because they
find it interesting and derive spontaneous satisfaction from the
activity itself. Extrinsic motivation, in contrast, requires an
instrumentality between the activity and some separable
consequences such as tangible or verbal rewards, so satisfaction
comes not from the activity itself but rather from the extrinsic
consequences to which the activity leads” (Gagne and Deci 2005).
H8: Work motivation is positively related to problem acceptance.
Model 3
• Capability Concern: The assignee has capability (enough resources)
to solve the problem.
It seems reasonable that problems that involve low information
transfer costs would tend to be selected preferentially (von Hippel
1994).
H9: Capability concern has an impact on problem acceptance.
• Responsibility: The team unit that received the information about
the problem actually finds it necessary to solve the problem. Each
worker finds it responsible about the problem. (Free-rider problem)
“Social Loafing” – The reduction in motivation and effort when
individuals work collectively compared with when they work
individually or coactively (Karau and Williams 1993).
H10: Responsibility has an impact on problem acceptance.
Model 3- Control Variables
•
Recognition of Problem Difficulty: The assignee sees the problem as difficult to solve.
If the assignee perceives the problem as difficult, it may have an impact on the problem
acceptance.
•
Recognition of Problem Importance: The assignee recognizes the problem raised as
important.
If the assignee considers the problem to be critical, s/he may more likely accept the
problem.
•
Past Experience: The assignee has an experience working with a similar problem in the
past.
When trying to solve a new problem, knowledge of the assignee, both tacit and explicit,
becomes important.
Know-how, or tacit knowledge, is defined as “the accumulated practical skill or
expertise that allows one to do something smoothly and efficiently” (von Hippel 1988).
Thus, we propose that past experience will have a positive impact on problem
acceptance.
Model 3- Control Variables
•
Problem's Relevancy to the Target Market: The problem is related to major users.
We are interested in the amount of resource the firm allocates to the problem. If the
firm is too concerned for the major customers/ high-end market, it may be a problem
because destructive innovation may come from the low-end market. Thus, we propose
that the problem is more likely to be accepted when the problem is relevant to the
target market.
•
Assignee's Problem-Solving Style: The assignee's tendency to whether s/he searches
for new ideas (explorative) or puts emphasis on existing issues.
Spatial myopia, temporal myopia, and failure myopia (Levinthal and March 1993).
Exploration vs exploitation (March 1991).
Assignee’s problem-solving characteristics may also have an impact on the problem
acceptance.
Research Setting
Interview - Company 100, Inc.
Date: 11/18/2011
Time: 17:00-18:00
The company was founded in
May 2008, and the firm plans,
designs, and develops mobile
technologies and services.
(Source:
http://www.company100.net/)
Research Setting
Buddy Rush
•
Buddy Rush is a cross-platform, single-player,
action role-playing game (RPG) developed for
Facebook. Facebook data shows that there are
180,000 monthly active users.
Buddy Rush BG
Research Setting
Buddy Rush Team at Company 100 Inc.
Users
Facebook
(http://www.facebook
.com/buddyrush)
/ E-mails
Cyworld
건의사항(http://club.
cyworld.com/sollmo)
Game Development
Team (Planning Team)
[1]
Q&A Team [1]
Service Team
[4, but 1-FB, 1-Cy]
Sends out Daily
Report via e-mail
*Note: The number in brackets are the number of
people who are in charged.
Client Development
Team [1]
Game Server-Platform
Team [4]
Research Setting
http://www.facebook.com/buddyrush
Research Setting
http://club.cyworld.com/sollmo
Research Setting
• Currently Available Data
Daily Reports: 10/13/2011 - 11/21/2011
Original E-mails: 5/2/2011 – 11/22/2011
• On 11/16/2011, there were total of 59 e-mails coming from facebook to
the company.
• However, the daily report for facebook showed the following:
[버디러시-Facebook] 버그 / 건의 Daily Report (11/16)
특별 사항 없었습니다.
감사합니다.
We can see that the problem was not processed from the problem reception
stage to problem assignment stage.
Data Collection
• Unit of Analysis: Problem
• Survey Method will be used.
Survey will be collected for each type of problems.
The questions related to problem reception and
assignment will be answered by the gatekeeper,
and those related to problem acceptance will be
answered by the assignee(s).
• 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree” will be used except for
questions that can be answered by Yes/No.
Measures – Model 1
Internalization
Phase
Problem
Reception
Variable
Definition
Operationalization
Problem
Representation
1. Is the problem stated in a way that is easy for
The problem is stated in a way that is easy for the you to understand? 2. Is the problem written
gatekeeper to understand.
either in English or your mother tongue
(Korean)?
User Value
1. How important is the user to the firm? 2. Has
The user who raised the problem is considered as
the user been raising important issues in the
an important user by the gatekeeper.
past?
Problem Weight
The number of users who proposed the problem.
How many users proposed the same problem?
Problem Recognition
The gatekeeper recognizes the problem raised as
important. The problem aligns with the firm's
overall goals/direction. (Strategic alignment)
1. Do you consider that this problem is
important? 2. Does solving the problem align
with the firm's overall goal? 3. Is the problem
related to payment issue? 4. Does the problem
contain a large amount of information?
Did the problem pass this step?
Was the problem listed on the daily report?
Measures – Model 2
Internalization
Phase
Variable
Problem Fitness to
Categorization
Definition
The problem fits to the filtering system that is
used to categorize problems.
Operationalization
Does the problem raised by the users fit
the filtering system in the firm?
Gatekeeper's Knowledge of The knowledge of the internal organization that
Do you know who to assign the problem?
the Organization
the gatekeeper has.
Problem
Assignment
Gatekeeper's Knowledge of The knowledge that the gatekeeper has on the
the Problem
problem raised by the user.
Did the problem pass this step?
Do you understand the problem well?
Was there a specific person/team that the
problem was assigned to?
Measures – Model 3
Internalization
Phase
Variable
Definition
Operationalization
Work Motivation
The assignee is motivated to put an effort into the work.
1. Do you feel that your reputation will go up in the firm after solving
the problem? 2. Are you motivated to solve the problem? 3. Do you
find the problem or suggestion interesting?
Capability Concern
The assignee has capability (enough resources) to solve the
problem.
1. Do you think the potential cost of solving this problem is high? 2.
Do you think the process speed for this problem is going to be long?
3. Were you overloaded with other work when the problem was
raised?
Responsibility
The team unit that received the information about the problem
1. Were you specifically assigned to the problem? 2. Do you feel
actually finds it necessary to solve the problem. Each worker finds responsible to solve the problem? 3. Do you feel that other
it responsible about the problem. (Free-rider problem)
employee(s) may solve the probloem?
Problem
Acceptance
Recognition of Problem Difficulty The assignee sees the problem as difficult to solve.
Do you think the problem is difficult to solve?
Recognition of Problem
Importance
The assignee recognizes the problem raised as important. (core vs 1. Do you think the problem is critical to solve? 2. Is the problem
peripheral)
related to payment issue?
Past Experience
The assignee has an experience working with a similar problem in Do you have an experience working with a similar problem in the
the past.
past?
Problem's Relevancy to the
Target Market
The problem is related to major users.
Is the problem related to major users?
Assignee's Problem-Solving Style
The assignee's tendency to whether s/he searches for new ideas
(explorative) or puts emphasis on existing issues.
1. Do you tend to solve problems in a novel way? 2. Do you interact
with other team memebers when facing dilemma?
Did the problem pass this step?
Did the assignee accept to solve the problem?
Data Analysis Method
• Regression analysis will be used to test three
of the hypothesized models.
Contribution
• Academic
- This study is one of the first research to look at the micro
mechanism of why external ideas (user knowledge) get
blocked within the firm.
- Also, this study has defined new roles of the gatekeepers.
• Managerial
- As a start-up firm, Company 100 Inc. shall have a lot to
learn from the research findings.
- Managers in other firms may also consider the importance
of user knowledge, and find out what are the blocking
mechanisms that such knowledge gets blocked during the
internalization process.
- They may also realize the important role that gatekeepers
play in internalizing user knowledge.
Limitations
• Since the study was done in a particular context,
out study’s results may not be generalized
beyond the game industry. Further research
should consider testing the model for other
industries for replications.
• Number of gatekeepers may be related to the
problem reception when applied to different
settings.
• The internalization process may be more complex
when the problem needs to be solved by more
than one unit. (Leadership issue)
Future Research Direction
Problem
Reception
Problem
Assignment
Problem
Acceptance
Problem
Solving
Problem
Transcendence
• In this study, we look at how the problem raised by users gets
internalized in the firm. In other words, we look at how the
problem is received, assigned, and accepted in the firm. However,
we may also take a step further and look at whether the
internalized problem actually gets solved. Also, another interesting
phase to look at is whether the problem that was solved gets
processed in the organization at a different level, both spatial and
time wise.
• Also, in this study, we look at how external idea gets processed. We
may also compare the process differences between external and
internal idea. The person who raises idea may more likely have
raised it assuming that s/he can solve it easily.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bettencourt, Lance A., Ostrom, Amy L., Brown, Stephen W., & Roundtree, Robert I. (2002). Client Co-Production in
Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. [Article]. California Management Review, 44(4), 100-128.
Butz Jr, Howard E., & Goodstein, Leonard D. (1996). Measuring Customer Value: Gaining the Strategic Advantage. [Article].
Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 63-77.
Carlile, Paul R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development.
Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
Clark, Kim (1991) Product Development Performance
Fujimoto, Takahiro. (1991). Product Development Performance.
Cohen, Wesley M., & Levinthal, Daniel A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.
[Article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Daft, Richard L., & Lengel, Robert H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural
Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Gruner, Kjell, & Homburg, Christian. (2000). Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success? Journal of
Business Research, 49(1), 1-14.
Tripsas, Mary, & Gavetti, Giovanni. (2000). CAPABILITIES, COGNITION, AND INERTIA: EVIDENCE FROM DIGITAL IMAGING.
[Article]. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1147.
Tushman, Michael L. (1977). Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4),
587-605.
Tushman, Michael L., & Katz, Ralph. (1980). External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into the
Role of Gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071-1085.
Utterback, James M. (1971). The Process of Technological Innovation within the Firm. The Academy of Management
Journal, 14(1), 75-88.