Knowledge networks for managing innovation projects

Abstract

Innovation is important for competitiveness. It thrives on the availability of NEW public and private domain knowledge. Thus the ability to access, analyze, synthesize, share, and re-use knowledge is important. These activities grow the available pool of knowledge. It also facilitates learning from mistakes, capturing and enhancing opportunities for future innovation. Formally networking resources improves the ability of any participating enterprise to use/re-use knowledge, in a growing knowledge base. Such a "Knowledge Network" (KN)' enhances knowledge sharing between individuals, groups, and organizations in informal and formal ways. How to successfully design and deploy a successful KN is a challenge and has been researched in the past decade. It requires understanding of social processes and how people learn and share knowledge. KN management requires a proactive, systematic approach to the planning and deployment of formalized networks for knowledge creation and transfer. It includes promoting and improving conditions to cultivate informal and formal networking within a larger network of enterprises. This paper presents a refined methodology for initiating, deploying, managing and operating an Innovation Project KN within the Global Competitiveness Centre in Engineering of the Stellenbosch University. The network involves about 300 users, some 180 projects, and 50 odd generic roadmaps and resides collectively on 6 servers in 4 countries. It incorporates concepts of generic, partial and specific roadmaps, best practise, templates and examples and allows individual teams to capture knowledge about specific projects and expertise in context for later re-use.

Full text

Knowledge Networks for Managing Innovation Projects
CSL Schutte, ND du Preez
Enterprise Engineering Research Group, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
Abstract--Innovation is important for competitiveness. It
thrives on the availability of NEW public and private domain
knowledge. Thus the ability to access, analyze, synthesize, share,
and re-use knowledge is important. These activities grow the
available pool of knowledge. It also facilitates learning from
mistakes, capturing and enhancing opportunities for future
innovation.
Formally networking resources improves the ability of any
participating enterprise to use/re-use knowledge, in a growing
knowledge base. Such a "Knowledge Network” (KN)' enhances
knowledge sharing between individuals, groups, and
organizations in informal and formal ways.
How to successfully design and deploy a successful KN is a
challenge and has been researched in the past decade. It
requires understanding of social processes and how people learn
and share knowledge. KN management requires a proactive,
systematic approach to the planning and deployment of
formalized networks for knowledge creation and transfer. It
includes promoting and improving conditions to cultivate
informal and formal networking within a larger network of
enterprises.
This paper presents a refined methodology for initiating,
deploying, managing and operating an Innovation Project KN
within the Global Competitiveness Centre in Engineering of the
Stellenbosch University. The network involves about 300 users,
some 180 projects, and 50 odd generic roadmaps and resides
collectively on 6 servers in 4 countries. It incorporates concepts
of generic, partial and specific roadmaps, best practise,
templates and examples and allows individual teams to capture
knowledge about specific projects and expertise in context for
later re-use.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
Primary sources of a firm’s competitive advantages
increasingly come from outside the firm itself. Empirical
studies confirm that, in the case of innovation-driven
industries, the acquisition and maintenance of firm-specific
technological capabilities rely on extensive contacts with
external expertise in both local and foreign economies.
Technological innovation is especially characterised by the
acquisition of tacit knowledge through local industry
dynamics i.e. networks and clusters [4].
Although Knowledge is increasingly recognized by
modern enterprises as the most important source of lasting
competitive advantage, the key to obtaining long-term
competitive advantage is not obtained by only administering
existing knowledge. It is found in the ability to constantly
generate new knowledge, and to rapidly move on to new
products and services (Von Krogh and Venzin [32]).
B. Paper Structure
This paper describes the main components of a knowledge
network and defines the knowledge network landscape. A
methodology for deploying and operating a knowledge
network is discussed, followed by its application to an
Industrial Engineering Knowledge Network at the University
of Stellenbosch.
II. WHY KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS
Knowledge Networks are defined by du Preez, Louw and
Lutters in chapter 9 of Bernard and Tichkiewitch [13] as:
“A Knowledge Network signifies a number of people
and resources, and the relationships between them,
that are able to capture, transfer and create
knowledge for the purpose of creating value. An
Integrated Knowledge Network spans all domains,
communities, and trust relationships with the goal of
fostering sustainable innovation that will continue to
promote the competitiveness of its users.”
The following domains contribute to a better
understanding of the KN environment:
• Virtual teams, and the inhibitors for collaboration
• Innovation, and its (inter)dependence on knowledge
• The knowledge creation process
• Innovation Project methodologies
• Collaboration
• How knowledge networking to improves collaboration
Existing research results covers on each of these domains
with significant overlapping. However, each domain
individually and collectively impacts on the success of
innovation projects. A common framework that integrates
these concepts into a single methodology will be useful.
A. Virtual Teams - a Challenge in Collaboration
Virtual Teams enable work across time zones, over long
distances and across geographical and organisational
boundaries. Technological advances have made this working
mode a reality. A number of business models (call centres,
offshore software development, support centres) are based on
this concept. Zigurs and Qureshi [35] suggested that:
"Virtual Teams are not really teams, but individuals
brought together through technology. Virtual work
does not have the traditional characteristics of work
in an organisation, surrounded by people and the
hustle and bustle of work activity; instead it takes
place in a workspace that is of one's own
configuration and time. Virtuality is now associated
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
529

with activities that can take place anytime,
anywhere, and anyway one desires, with no physical,
geographical, or structural constraints."
Some would label “virtual teams” an oxymoron, claiming
that teams lose their identity and existence as they leave the
close confines of face-to-face interaction. A growing
challenge of networked and virtual enterprises is managing
knowledge dispersed across space and time to collectively
achieve joint goals. Interaction of virtual teams is obviously
communication intensive. This implies that knowledge
creation in virtual teams requires reflection and discussion
among a diverse group.
While technology has enabled virtual teams to work
together, there are a number of challenges that have
hampered the successes of these teams [26] including:
Organisation Structure; Coordination; Skill Specialisation;
Trustworthy Relationships; Cultural Considerations; Training
and Knowledge Retention.
Alavi et al [6], Qureshi et al [25], and Yap et al [34]
researched knowledge creation in virtual teams. They
concluded that the challenge lies in understanding the
creation of virtual communities within which the creation of
knowledge takes place and the creation and maintenance of
knowledge networks. Lack of trust and selective sharing is a
further complicating factor in ensuring efficient integration of
and access to information.
B. Innovation is Required to Stay Competitive
Innovation is essential for any enterprise to remain
competitive, survive and grow (Drucker [11]; IBM's Global
Innovation Outlook [2]). Many definitions exist for
innovation. (Drucker,[11]; Tidd et al [31]). A thorough
definition of innovation is provided by Salvendy (1992,
p.1170) [28]:
“Innovation is not just one simple act. It is not just a
new understanding or the discovery of a new
phenomenon, not just a flash of creative invention,
not just the development of a new product or
manufacturing process; nor is it simply the creation
of new capital and markets. Rather innovation
involves related creative activity in all these areas. It
is a connected process in which many and sufficient
creative acts, from research through service, are
coupled together in an integrated way for a common
goal.”
Innovation is not simply an invention or novel idea, but
covers the complete process from developing the idea
through to successfully exploiting it in the market.
C. The Knowledge Generation Process
The key to obtaining long-term competitive advantage lies
in the ability to continuously generate new knowledge and to
move on to new products and services (von Krogh and
Venzin [32]). Rather than viewing firms as devices for
processing information, making decisions, and solving
problems, one should realize that their success are
increasingly based on knowledge-seeking and knowledge-
creation. (Seufert et al [29])
Knowledge is often viewed as an objective commodity
which is transferable independent of person and context. On
this basis people often try to solve problems by improving the
information flow using modern technologies. The potential of
innovative technologies for the capturing and distribution of
explicit knowledge is undisputed. Re-use of this explicit
knowledge is an important aspect of knowledge management,
but researchers argue that there is currently an over-emphasis
on knowledge exploitation (Nonaka and Takeuchi [21]; Swan
et al [30]). However, tacit knowledge is difficult to exploit
due to its close dependence on the knower and the context
where it was created (Kogut and Zander, [17]; Orlikowski,
[22]). Since tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in personal
experiences, subjective insights, values and feelings, it can
hardly be completely communicated and shared. Tacit
knowledge possesses a technical as well as a cognitive
dimension. Whereas the technical dimension contains
informal, personal abilities and skills, often designated as
“know-how”, the cognitive dimension includes our mental
model influenced by our beliefs, values and convictions
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, [21]). When knowledge is transferred
it is suggested that knowledge has to be internalised by the
receiving individual firstly before it can be used.
This is illustrated in the Knowledge Network Spiral in
Figure 1, which describes the processes of socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization as four
conversion modes from implicit to explicit knowledge [7].
• Socialization comprises the exchange of tacit knowledge
between individuals in order to convey personal
knowledge and experience.
• Externalization describes transformation processes. This
means the conversion of implicit into explicit knowledge,
and the exchange of knowledge between individuals and a
group.
• Combination: The transformation of explicit knowledge
into more complex and more systematized explicit
knowledge represents the stage combination (recently
Nonaka renamed this stage systematization,).
• Internalization is the conversion of organization-wide,
explicit knowledge into the implicit knowledge of the
individual. This requires that the individual should be able
to recognize personally relevant knowledge within the
organization.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
530

Figure 1: The Knowledge Network Spiral (Nonaka & Takeuchi [21])
New knowledge is created n all of the above exchange
processes. Knowledge work processes of locating, capturing,
transferring, and sharing applies. Back, Von Krogh, Seufert,
and Enkel, [7] defined Knowledge Network Reference Types,
each pursuing a main knowledge transformation process (see
also Figure 2):
• An Experiencing Network mainly pursues the
knowledge process of transforming implicit knowledge
from one knowledge body to implicit knowledge of
another knowledge body. It supports the members to
exchange their knowledge, best practices, and solutions
through common experiences. In an experiencing
knowledge network, sympathized knowledge, such as
shared mental models and technical skills, is prevalent.
Figure 2: Network Reference Types [7]
• A Materializing Network comprises the knowledge
process of transforming implicit knowledge into explicit
knowledge. It serves to motivate and stimulate people
possessing implicit knowledge to externalize their
experiences and thoughts. In a materializing network
conceptual knowledge is created in the form of analogies
or metaphors.
• A Systematizing Network mainly deals with
transforming explicit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
In this type of knowledge network, existing explicit
knowledge is systemized and refined in organizational
handbooks, yellow pages, newsletters, and training
materials, in order to reuse it more efficiently.
• A Learning Network comprises mainly of the knowledge
process of transforming explicit knowledge (“know
what”) into implicit knowledge (“know how”). It supports
the learning, embodiment, and application of existing
explicit knowledge. As a result, new implicit knowledge
is created.
D. Deploying Innovation Projects in this new Paradigm
Organizations are evolving from well-structured and
manageable systems into interwoven networked systems with
blurred boundaries. To remain innovative and competitive in
this environment, a new paradigm is required. The Boston
Consulting Group [3] suggests that although the importance
of innovation is fully realised by most enterprises, many do
not seem to generate satisfactory profit or competitive
advantage. The problem does not lay in the invention part or
the generation of innovative ideas, but more in the successful
deployment of the innovation process from an idea to a
successful product making money in the market.
Increasingly researchers are highlighting the importance
of knowledge management for supporting efficiently
managing innovation (Johannessen et al [16]; Pérez-
Bustamante [24]; Carneiro [10], Burgelman et al [9]). How
knowledge is used, spread and stored by an organisation's
employees determines whether this organisation has a culture
of stimulating (restraining) innovation.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
531

Innovation happens through the novel exploitation of
existing internal and/or external knowledge. In order to
innovate effectively and sustainably, existing knowledge
should not only be captured, but also shared and integrated in
context. By sharing best practices, inefficient redundancy in
innovation is greatly reduced. The integration of knowledge
helps to exploit complementarities among knowledge assets
and to achieve coordination. Practises of this sharing and
integration are currently not well understood (Leiponen [18]).
Tidd et al [31] view innovation as a process that must be
managed. Enterprises should essentially manage four
different phases in the innovation process (turning ideas into
successful reality):
• Scan: Scan and search their environments (internal and
external) to pick up and process signals about potential
innovation.
• Select: Strategically select from this set of potential
triggers for innovating those things which the organisation
will commit resources to doing.
• Plan: Having chosen an option, organisations need to
resource it - providing (either by creating through R&D or
acquiring through technology transfer) the resources to
exploit it.
• Implement: Finally organisations have to implement the
innovation, growing it from an idea through various stages
of development to final launch - as a new product or
service in the external market place or a new process or
method within the organisation.
Innovation management entails finding the most
appropriate solution to the problem of consistently managing
this process. Park states that the relation between Knowledge
Management (KM) and Research and Development (R&D)
management is intrinsically close, because R&D processes
can primarily be seen as KM processes. It involves
transforming information on technological advances and
market demands into the knowledge required for new product
concepts and process designs (Park and Kim, [23]).
However, the link between KM and R&D management has
been virtually non-existent in the past. Pérez-Bustamante
[24] explains different types of innovation as a flux of
knowledge:
• Defensive innovation takes into account information
about the competitive situation and the market demand,
while
• Offensive innovation exploits information about scientific
and technical advances in order to reach a favourable
position in the market.
Radical innovation is the product of putting together
unlikely bits of information in an irregular, serendipitous
process which is not encouraged by bureaucratic and non-
agile organisations. Agility and speed to innovate responding
to the environment may arise from: commitment to activities
that create new knowledge bases, deployment of incremental
innovations, exploitation of corporate intelligence, adoption
of a horizontal management style that avoids unnecessary
communication layers with management, and achieving a full
integration and dissemination of knowledge within the
organisation while maintaining its flexibility.
Identification
and
Extraction
Structuring
and
Formalisation
Refinement
and
Development
Dissemination Maintenance
Assessment
Identify internal &
External Drivers
Plan Project
Portfolio
Design and
Development
Implementation
Monitor and
Evaluate
Innovation Life Cycle
Knowledge Life CycleCorrelation between
Knowledge and
Innovation Life
Cycles
Identification
and
Extraction
Structuring
and
Formalisation
Refinement
and
Development
Dissemination Maintenance
Assessment
Identify internal &
External Drivers
Plan Project
Portfolio
Design and
Development
Implementation
Monitor and
Evaluate
Innovation Life Cycle
Knowledge Life CycleCorrelation between
Knowledge and
Innovation Life
Cycles
Figure 3: The Correlation between Knowledge and Innovation Life Cycles
[12]
According to Du Preez et al [12], a Knowledge Life Cycle
“spiral” supports the execution of an innovation project.
Knowledge is repeatedly captured, refined, disseminated and
maintained, depending on the progress and success of each
phase of the innovation project including the knowledge sub-
domains under investigation. An innovation management
framework based on successful management of knowledge
along the complete Knowledge Life Cycle is instrumental to
the success of an innovation project.
E. The Case for Integrated Knowledge Networks
In manufacturing the automotive industry is representative
of the evolution towards the networked organization, not only
in a temporal respect, but also with regard to its macro-
economic and over-all social (global) importance. In reducing
manufacturing depth, more and more parts and components
from stand- alone suppliers are linked into a system of
industrial partnerships (Lodge and Walton, [19]; Morris and
Imrie, [20]; Barreyre, [8]).
To excel an enterprise must be able to generate new and
re-usable knowledge through the development of new
products and services. Innovation is a core capability in high
tech firms and to merely focus on the re-use of existing
knowledge does not create any sustainable competitive
advantage. By networking key resources, the enterprise better
positions itself to exploit tacit and explicit knowledge
resulting in growth of the knowledge base and fostering new
innovation. Seufert et al [29] states:
“We are convinced that in order to make effective
use of knowledge, a network must be built up in
which the knowledge and experience of employees
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
532

are available. What is of prime importance is that
creation- and sharing-processes are encouraged, not
just the accumulation of data as in a data-
warehouse.”
The Enterprise Engineering Research Group at the
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of
Stellenbosch defines an Integrated Knowledge Network
(IKN) as:
“A formal network of organisations that position
their systems, processes and people in such a way as
to allow for the integrated transfer of information
and knowledge between the organisations to support
sustainable innovation.”
A recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit [4]
reported that:
”The traditional process of innovation, whereby a
company maintains and funds a centralised research
and development (R&D) department, is gradually
being superseded. In its place, companies from a
variety of sectors are seeking ways to disaggregate
their R&D departments and distribute the innovation
process across a network of external partners and
offshore sites. This enables them to allocate activities
according to the strengths of particular countries
and external organisations, and thereby make their
R&D processes more effective and efficient.”
The use of an integrated knowledge network is important
to enable inter- and intra-enterprise teams to innovate using
their collective experience, and expanding their knowledge.
This collective experience can be exploited only if explicit as
well as tacit knowledge are created, refined and exchanged,
and are captured and structured in a manner that is accessible
to all members. This implies the deployment inter-enterprise
knowledge networks. It clearly poses a number of unique
challenges.
III. THE KNOWLEDGE NETWORK LANDSCAPE
Over time a number of different network variations have
evolved.
A. Knowledge Network Variations
The creation of knowledge in networks to foster
innovation has been labelled different names, with slightly
different meanings and characteristics. It is important to
understand subtle differences to ensure that a generic
methodology caters for most, if not all variations. Below a
number of networks are listed:
1) Social Networks
A Social Network is an informal network of individuals
collaborating through a common social interest, usually using
internet technology. Wikipedia [5]:
“A social network is a social structure made of
nodes (which are generally individuals or
organizations) that are tied by one or more specific
types of interdependency, such as values, visions,
idea, financial exchange, friends, kinship, dislike,
conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations, disease
transmission (epidemiology), or airline routes.”
2) Communities of Practice
Community-of-Practice is a related concept to that of
knowledge networks (CoP). (Wenger and Snyder [33]):
". . .a group of people informally bound together by
shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise."
IBM Global Services has worked with communities of
practice as a form of knowledge networks since 1995
(Gongla and Rizzuto [15]). Communities are part of their
knowledge management strategy and within IBM,
communities of practice are recognised to have a positive
influence on the organization’s ability to stay productive and
innovative.
3) Knowledge Networks
Seufert et al [29] defines Knowledge Networking:
"A number of people, resources and relationships
among them, who are assembled in order to
accumulate and use knowledge primarily by means
of knowledge creation and transfer processes, for the
purpose of creating value."
4) Networks of Excellence
Networks of Excellence is a term used in European FP6
and FP7 Research projects, and refers to transnational multi-
partner projects grouping together the main players on a
given research topic.
5) Joint Ventures
A Joint Venture is a temporary partnership or
conglomerate, formed often to share risk or expertise in a
specific project, for the duration of the project only.
6) Innovation Networks
Innovation Networks refer to the network that may exist
between an inventor, transformer, financier and broker in
order to identify, finance and commercialize new
innovations. See Figure 4.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
533

Figure 4: Innovation Network Organizational Model [27]
7) Integrated Knowledge Networks
Refer to par II.E for a definition of an Integrated
Knowledge Network.
Du Preez and Louw [14] defines the main role-players in
an Integrated Knowledge Network as universities, S&T
Institutions, government bodies, single enterprises,
competitors, suppliers and the market as is depicted in Figure
5. These are organised in different communities, that when
integrated, constitutes a knowledge network.
Figure 5: Components of an Integrated Knowledge Network [14]
An Integrated Knowledge Network is thus an inter-
organisational version of a Knowledge Network.
B. Characteristics of each Knowledge Network Variant
It is difficult to provide a methodology that
accommodates all variations of Knowledge Networks. If
common aspects of each knowledge network variant are
identified, a methodology to address the common
characteristics of each variant may result. Table 1 lists the
main characteristics of each Knowledge Network Variant so
as to identify the common areas, and possible differences.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
534

TABLE 1: MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH KNOWLEDGE NETWORK VARIATION
Network
Variation
Purpose
Individual’s
Commercial
Focus
Association Synergy
Organizational
Participation
Formalization
Social Networks
Social
interaction with
other members
sharing the same
interest
No
Open –
members
normally select
themselves to
join an interest
group.
Group
identification
Private
individuals
Informal
Communities of
Practice
Build member
capabilities
within a specific
domain
Indirectly, in
that each
individual
attempts to
improve his
personal
knowledge, that
is indirectly an
advantage to the
organization
Open –
members
normally select
themselves
within a single
organization
Passion,
commitment,
group
identification
Individuals
normally within
a single
organization
Informal
Knowledge
Networks
Collect and
Distribute
knowledge.
Yes
Normally by
invitation
Mutual Needs,
Job
Requirements,
common goals
Individuals
normally within
a single
organization
Formal
Networks of
Excellence
A common
research goal
and project
Yes - Research
focus
By invitation.
Common
research goal on
organizational
level
Trans-national
organizations
Formal
Joint Ventures
A risk and cost
sharing
agreement
between
organizations
with a specific
commercial
purpose.
Yes
Commercial
Negotiation
Common
commercial goal
Multiple
Organizations
Formal
Innovation
Networks
Ensuring the
successful
commercializati
on of new
innovations
Yes
Commercial
Negotiation
Commercializati
on of an
innovative idea.
Multiple
Organizations
Formal
Integrated
Knowledge
Networks
Collect and
Share common
research
knowledge in a
specific domain
between
members of the
same and
different
organizations
Yes
By invitation,
and commercial
negotiation.
Mutual Needs
and Goals on
Organizational
Level
Individuals in
Multiple
Organizations
(even
Transnational)
Formal
This list is not exhaustive. Paragraph II.C provides a more
complete validation, using the characteristics of a Knowledge
Network proposed by Back, von Krogh, Seufert and Enkel
[7], as well as the suitability of each Knowledge Network
Variation to address the unique requirements of each
Knowledge Network Reference Type.
The authors argue that the definition proposed for an
Integrated Knowledge Network is a generic definition that
comprises most of the other Knowledge Network variants, –
in other words, if Seufert’s definition (see par III.A.3) and the
resulting methodology proposed by Back, von Krogh, Seufert
and Enkel [7] is extended to include inter-organisational
knowledge networks, it is a suitable methodology for
designing, operating and refining most if not all of these
Knowledge Network Variants. The next section presents the
methodology, and proposed extensions.
IV. DEPLOYING INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE
NETWORKS
A. Introduction
Seufert et al’s [29] framework for knowledge networks
comprises of the following components:
Actors (Individuals, Groups and Organisations);
Relationships between actors which can be categorised by
form, content and intensity; Resources, which may be used
by actors within their relationships, and; Institutional
Properties (structure, culture, rules, processes,
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
535

communication plans)
Figure 6 depicts three building blocks:
• Facilitating Conditions: The network's internal structural
and cultural dimensions in which knowledge work
processes take place.
• Knowledge Work Processes: Social interaction and
communication processes on an individual and group
level, which can advance knowledge evolution to an
organizational and inter-organizational level.
• Knowledge Network Architecture: the tool-set used
within social relationships. These tools include
organizational tools as well as information and
communication tools.
This evolved into a methodology, as documented in
“Putting Knowledge Networks into Action”, by Back, von
Krogh, Seufert and Enkel [7]. The authors consider this as an
authoritative work on how a Knowledge Network is deployed
and operated. The structure of this methodology is used as a
framework in this section, to describe the creation,
deployment and operation of an Integrated Knowledge
Network.
Figure 7 presents the sequence of deploying networks.
Figure 6: Framework Knowledge Networks (Seufert et al, [29])
Figure 7: Putting Knowledge Networks into Action: Storyboard [7].
B. The Amended Methodology
The Seufert Methodology was adapted to accommodate
specific characteristics of Integrated Knowledge Networks.
This section amends the methodology to cater for the specific
peculiarities in inter-organisational knowledge networks (i.e.
Integrated Knowledge Networks). Figure 8 illustrates the
Amended Methodology, with the highest level tasks.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
536

Figure 8: The Amended IKN Methodology
The table below summarises the method, and the amendments made for inter-organisational knowledge networking
(Integrated Knowledge Networks).
TABLE 2: AMENDMENTS TO THE “PUTTING KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS INTO ACTION STORYBOARD”
Putting Knowledge Networks into Action Amended Methodology for Integrated Knowledge
Networks
Amendment
1) Designing an Integrated Knowledge Network Structural. Note
(1)
1) The Knowledge Vision a) The Knowledge Vision Scope.
Note (2)
2) Decide on the Network Option b) Decide on the Network Option
a) Identify the Knowledge Strategy i) Identify the Knowledge Strategy Scope.
Note (3)
b) Select and Understand a Process or Task ii) Select and Understand a Process or Task
c) Perform Stakeholder Analysis iii) Perform Stakeholder Analysis
(organisational and individual level,
synergies and opportunities)
Scope.
Notes (3) (6)
d) Understand the Different Type of Knowledge
Needed
iv) Understand the Different Type of
Knowledge Needed
Notes (3)
e) Decide on the Network Option v) Decide on the Network Option
3) Select the Appropriate Network Reference Type c) Select the Appropriate Network Reference
Type
a) Types of Operational Knowledge Tasks and
Types of Knowledge Created
i) Types of Operational Knowledge Tasks
and Types of Knowledge Created
b) Facilitating Conditions Determine the
Knowledge Reference Type
ii) Facilitating Conditions Determine the
Knowledge Reference Type
c) Identified Deliverables Determine the
Appropriate Knowledge Network
iii) Identified Deliverables Determine the
Appropriate Knowledge Network
4) Setup the Knowledge Network 2) Implementing an Integrated Knowledge Network Note (1)
a) Start-up a) Start-up
i) Justification and Communication Plan i) Justification and Communication Plan Scope
Notes (9) (13)
ii) Facilitate Top Management Commitment
and Find Sponsors
ii) Facilitate Top Management Commitment
and Find Sponsors
Scope
Note (8)
iii) Establish a Contractual Framework New
Note (6)
iii) Map your Specific Goals, Tasks and
Activities
iv) Map Specific Goals, Tasks and
Activities
Notes (11) (12)
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
537

Putting Knowledge Networks into Action Amended Methodology for Integrated Knowledge
Networks
Amendment
iv) Organise the Specific Processes v) Organise the Specific Processes Scope
Notes (4) (9)
b) Mapping Processes and Roles b) Mapping Processes and Roles
i) Facilitate the Relationships within the
Network
i) Facilitate the Relationships within the
Network
Notes (12)
ii) Determine the Roles and Responsibilities ii) Determine the Roles and Responsibilities Scope
Notes (4) (6)
iii) Roles and Skills iii) Roles and Skills Scope
Notes (11)
iv) Organise the People and Meetings iv) Organise the People and Meetings Notes (11) (12)
(13)
v) Facilitate Commitment of Members v) Facilitate Commitment of Members Notes (8) (13)
vi) Provide Organizational Tools to Create a
Knowledge-enriching Environment and
to Support People and Processes
vi) Provide Organizational Tools to Create a
Knowledge-enriching Environment and
to Support People and Processes
Scope
Notes (12) (13)
vii) Organize the Appropriate ICT
Architecture
vii) Organize the Appropriate ICT
Architecture
Scope
Notes (12) (13)
viii) Set up a Knowledge Base for all
Network Types
viii) Set up a Knowledge Base for all
Network Types
c) Facilitate Relationships to the Outside World c) Facilitate Relationships to the Outside World
i) Develop the Knowledge Management
Board
i) Develop the Knowledge Management
Board
Scope
ii) Provide or Broker Support to Internal
Network Initiatives
ii) Provide or Broker Support to Internal
Network Initiatives
iii) Integrate and Coordinate with Other
Functions
iii) Integrate and Coordinate with Other
Functions
d) Establish Internal Measurement d) Establish Internal Measurement
i) Choose and Organise the Appropriate
Rewards / Incentives
i) Choose and Organise the Appropriate
Rewards / Incentives
Scope
ii) Establish Measures for the Individual /
Role / Network
ii) Establish Measures for the Individual /
Role / Organisation / Network
Scope
Note (15)
iii) Success Factors iii) Success Factors
5) Measure and Adapt the Knowledge Network 3) Operating and Refining An Integrated Knowledge
Network
Note (1)
a) Internal Knowledge Network Measurement
System
a) Internal and Inter-organisational Knowledge
Network Measurement System
Scope
Note (15)
i) A Health Check for the Knowledge
Network
i) A Health Check for the Knowledge
Network
ii) Symptoms of an Ailing Network ii) Symptoms of an Ailing Network
iii) Actions for Handling and Avoiding
Failures
iii) Actions for Handling and Avoiding
Failures
4) Phasing Out an Integrated Knowledge Network Structure
Note (1)
iv) Fading and Dying with Grace a) Fading and Dying with Grace
b) Contractual Close-out New
Amendment Notes:
(1) Phases: The overall structure of the methodology was
amended to accommodate 4 main steps:
a) Designing the network
b) Implementing the Network
c) Operating and Refining the Network
d) Phasing Out the Network
(2) Vision: For an inter-organizational network the
Knowledge Vision must address the direction, objectives
and requirements of all enterprises involved in the
network. These enterprises may not always be perfectly
aligned; it will sometimes require a visionary leader to
convince all of the benefits.
(3) Mutual Objectives: The objectives of all member
organizations should be addressed.
(4) Mutual Benefit: Organize the sequence of tasks so as to
ensure mutual benefit as early as possible for all
organizations involved.
(5) Network Leadership: In multi-organizational networks,
strong, passionate, and mutually acceptable leadership is
required.
(6) Trust: Trust is an inhibiting factor in virtual teams. In a
multi-organizational context, trust has a commercial
dimension as well.
(7) Contractual Framework: In an environment where
participating organizations may be competing in some
commercial activities, the contractual framework is
especially important.
(8) Commitment and Ownership: Need to be present in
top level (or appropriate levels) within the participating
organizations. But this needs to also cascade down to
individual member level. Communication plans need to
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
538

cater for this.
(9) Branding: To build a network identity and prevent
potential trust issues, the network should have a branding
identity that separates it from the identity of any
participating organization.
(10) Elapsed Time: Consideration should be given to the
difficulty in building up trust in an inter-organizational
network. This may take time, and can adversely delay the
benefits from the network.
(11) Critical Mass: Consideration should be given to ensure
that enough participants per task can allocate sufficient
time so as to ensure that knowledge sharing activities can
reach a critical mass so as to foster new knowledge.
(12) Facilitation: Make provision for ongoing facilitation in
the network activities, identification of leader(s), ICT
architecture and Organizational Tools.
(13) Social Interaction: The Social interaction is important
in building trust relationships. ICT Architecture (such as
Video-conferencing, VOIP etc) can contribute, but
attempts should be made to organize physical workshops
to augment technology interaction.
(14) Network Process Training: Members should receive
basic training in the goals of the network, the tasks on
hand, the organizational process, as well as the ICT
architecture in place to enable it.
(15) Organizational Measurements: Reports on the
contribution, involvement and value of a participating
organization must also be available.
C. Verifying the Methodology
Key Success Factors
A Knowledge Network methodology should attempt to
create, allow and encourage identified Critical Success
Factors. Forfás Innovation Network Report [1] lists a number
of key success factors in the formation of networks. Since
this is focused on the creation of inter-organisational
innovation networks, the authors judged it a sound list of
factors against which to verify the methodology.
TABLE 3: METHODOLOGY VERIFICATION AGAINST THE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Critical Success Factor Addressed Notes
Clear Need: An important condition for the development of a network is that
the members perceive that there is a clear need to belong i.e. the network can
achieve something that the individual members cannot achieve on their own.
Yes Addressed in Knowledge Vision
(1a) and Knowledge Strategy
(1.b.i).
Objectives: Related to the requirement that a network should have clear needs,
there is also the requirement that it should have objectives that primarily reflect
the needs of the member organisations.
Yes Addressed in Knowledge Strategy
(1.b.i) and Stakeholder Analysis
(1.b.iii).
Leadership and Vision: Networks that have a leader who is able to articulate
clear and concise goals are more likely to be successful then those networks
whose members are unclear as to its future direction. The leader should not only
be able to communicate the network’s long term goals but must also be able to
translate those goals into a realistic programme of action.
Yes Vision addressed
Leadership Addressed in
“Determine the Roles and
Responsibilities”
Early Successes: The research has indicated the importance of achieving early
successes in order to get member organisations to continue their involvement in
the network. It is vital, therefore, that networks structure their objectives and
work programme to ensure that members can see a return for their investment in
the short term.
Yes Tasks need to be sequenced so as to
enable early successes for all
members.
Trust: On paper, a grouping of companies in a sector might make the ideal
candidates for a network. However, the successful development of networks has
been found to be very dependent on the level of trust between member
organisations. Since the network involves members who normally act on their
own, the implementation of network activities requires a certain level of trust by
the members. The gaining of trust is particularly important in those networks
whose membership includes companies that compete against each other.
Yes Through mutual goals and
objectives, but with contractual
protection.
Ownership: If the network is to succeed then it will be necessary for them to
take ownership of the development process and drive the network forward. If
the companies do not have ownership of the network they will not be committed
to it. They will perceive that it will have an agenda that may not approximate to
their own
Yes At stake holder and top level
management level.
Also required at participating
individual level.
Time: The formation of a durable network can take time. A considerable period
can elapse before the members have developed trust and confidence in the
network to undertake joint activities. Member organisations need to interact
socially before they can commit themselves to working with other members.
Yes
Critical Mass: The lack of critical mass can delay the outputs from a network. Yes
Key Player: Related to the issue of critical mass, the presence of a major player
with the vision and resources can be influential in driving the network forward.
Yes
Communication/Branding: The development of a clear identity for a network
can be critical for its longevity.
Yes
Facilitation: To be successful networks need on-going facilitation. The inputs
of a network manager in terms of supporting the network, brokering the needs
of individual members, coordinating what is a complex process and
implementing the network’s work programme can have a significant bearing on
its long term viability.
Yes Strong leader(s), Organizational
Tools, and an Appropriate ICT
Architecture.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
539

Critical Success Factor Addressed Notes
Social Factors: An aspect often over-looked in the development of networks is
the importance of social interaction.
Yes Face-to-face meeting, Conferences
etc.
Use of ICT Architecture to create
virtual meetings.
Top-Down Incentives or Pump Priming: The provision of State funding
where submissions involving two or more applicants can obtain higher scoring
points has found to be very helpful in the development of networks.
Yes
Process: While the concept of networks is easy to grasp, operationally a
network is both complex and challenging to operate. The key success factor is
the process or the “how” factor i.e. how companies are attracted to participate in
a network, how their commitment is gained, how the process of developing the
network is managed, how it is structured, how decisions are made, how
communications is handled, how action programmes are delivered, etc.
Yes Generic Network Process /
Methodology Training for
Leader(s) and Stakeholders
Member Training in:
- ICT Architecture Tools
- Organisational Tools
- Network Structure, Goals,
Plans etc.
Forfás [1] lists a number of factors militating against the spontaneous and successful formation of networks. The
methodology was also cross-referenced against these barriers to identify possible gaps (Table 4).
TABLE 4: METHODOLOGY VERIFICATION AGAINST THE BARRIERS
Barriers Addressed Notes
There is a general lack of awareness as to the benefits of networks (as distinct
from networking) among the business community;
Yes See note (4) for TABLE 2.
There is a reluctance to commit time and resources to a process that is not well
understood, or the results of which are not clear;
Yes See note (8) for TABLE 2.
Networks are too closely aligned with ‘networking’ in the mind of business
managers and seen as a quasi-social activity rather than an important business
function;
Yes See notes (14), (8) for TABLE 2.
There is a reluctance to share information and knowledge with other firms,
especially competitors;
Yes See notes (6), (6) for TABLE 2.
Firms are not always well placed to identify the opportunities for network
relationships with other companies since their knowledge and information base
may be limited to their own contacts;
Partially See notes (2), (3), (4), (5) for
TABLE 2.
Membership of a network may expose companies to the danger of “lock-in”
where excessive focus is placed on the affairs of the network to the detriment of
events in the outside environment;
Partially
Even where managers foresee a benefit in establishing a network relationship
they may not have the skills or resources to facilitate or co-ordinate the actual
implementation of the network. This has been referred to (Dixit and Nalebuff,
1991) as the ‘collective action problem’, where a group of individuals or firms
may frequently fail to achieve co-operation, even where it would be beneficial
to every individual in the group.
Yes See notes (5), (12), (14) for
TABLE 2.
V. CASE STUDY: STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY
INNOVATION WORKGROUP AND PARTNERS
A. Background
In 1996 the Global Competitiveness Centre (GCC) in
Engineering at the University of Stellenbosch was founded to
1. Identify,
2. Acquire,
3. Master,
4. Multiply and
5. Transfer
new technology that will support Competitiveness of
enterprises.
Rapid Product Development and Enterprise Innovation
became focus areas. By 2001 the GCC had some thirty
Industrial partners and fifteen research partners, some 40%
from European countries.
Research activities expanded and the challenge became
how to capture and exploit the knowledge and experience in
context with different research projects executed in the
academic and industrial environments. All in order to
expedite knowledge exchange and technology transfer. It was
decided to expand the then Intranet based client server
network and collaboration platform to an Internet Web based
innovation support network.
B. Innovation Support Network
This network had to accommodate users ranging from
undergraduate students to graduate students, post-docs,
researchers at a number of international institutes and also
included several industrial partners. In addition it had to cope
with requirements from industrial projects. Deployment was
done over a six year period with extensive enhancements to
the collaboration platform, developed by a spin-out company
of the GCC.
All information is captured in context of different projects
guided by roadmaps. Each roadmap consists of a number of
steps and each step is supported by appropriate templates,
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
540

examples, best practise information and progress is guided by
check lists. All knowledge is captured in documents and a
document management system ensures access and version
control. Navigation is supported by extensive search
functionalities and inter roadmap navigation is possible.
Project life cycles cover a wide spectrum ranging from
two months to as long as 5 years. Team sizes stretched from
two person teams to as large as 100 persons in commercial
projects.
C. Collaborative Platform
Innovation management activities are supported by the
web based collaborative platform using roadmaps to guide
teams through different innovation projects. A repository of
generic roadmaps populated in collaboration with a number
of EU based research institutions covers a wide range of
frameworks and topics not within the scope of this paper. In
addition own project roadmap templates were developed to
support undergraduate and graduate students for the past five
years in executing projects ranging from semester team
projects in Enterprise Design 444 through graduate modules
for enterprise engineering. Final year projects for industrial
engineering students and Masters and PhD projects were also
included. Functionality of the software platform was
enhanced with feedback from students and industry
collaborators.
D. Users
Users of the network (300) consisted out of voluntary
users as well as captive users and the collaboration protocol
was largely a free participative one.
Not all participants were equally enthusiastic about the
initiative. However, some intense support also came to light
and one of the success stories is the acceptance of the
collaborative platform in conjunction with a commercial
collaborative platform for a network of excellence in the EU
framework.
E. Evaluation Method
To evaluate Case Study knowledge network, the following
evaluation criteria were used:
• The presence of Key Success Factors;
• The presence of Barriers;
• Application of the Amended Knowledge Network
Methodology;
• Benefits Achieved (Discussed in the Conclusion)
F. Evaluation
1) Case Study: Key Success Factors
The Stellenbosch Network was evaluated against the
Critical Success Factors discussed in the previous section.
The results are documented in Table 5. For a definition of
each success factor, refer to table 3.
TABLE 5: THE PRESENCE OF THE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN THE STELLENBOSCH NETWORK
Critical Success Factor Presence Notes
Clear Need
Partially The Network consists of various groups:
- Undergraduate Students
- Post Graduate Students
- Researchers
- Research Partners
- Industry Partners
Each of these groups has different needs, and a single coherent need is
not present at all members in the network.
Objectives
Yes - Support and enable research in Innovation
- Support and enable research in Knowledge Networks
- Act as a collaboration and research medium for all students.
- Create a structure for students to do their projects and research.
- Create a repository of all knowledge accessed and created by all
members.
Leadership and Vision
Yes Academic and Project Leaders available.
Early Successes
Yes Early successes include the ability for new students to quickly access
previous research, and for study leaders to assess the activity and
progress of students.
Trust
Partial In the sub-group of members who are forced through rules to
participate, there are generally a lack of trust in the benefits and
purposes of the network.
Ownership
Yes
Time
Yes
Critical Mass
Yes Critical mass is partially achieved through the enforced procedural
participation at some levels.
Key Player
Yes
Communication/Branding
Partial Despite attempts to change this, the associated branding caused a
perception with some participants that the network is for the benefit of
a smaller sub-group.
Facilitation
Partial Regular face-to-face and virtual (video-conferencing) workgroups are
held.
However, the art of facilitation within each sub-group is not formally
encouraged and enabled, meaning that the workgroups are not as
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
541

Critical Success Factor Presence Notes
effective as it should be.
Social Factors
Yes
Top-Down Incentives or Pump Priming
No
Process
Yes The operation of knowledge networks is inherent of the research, and
key players are thus enabled to manage the network. However, this is
still an evolving field, and new insights are discovered regularly.
Individual members receive ICT architecture training on a regular
basis
2) Case Study: Barriers Present
The presence of the barriers discussed above was also evaluated in the Stellenbosch Network. This is shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6: BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED IN THE STELLENBOSCH NETWORK
Barriers Presence Notes
There is a general lack of awareness as to the benefits of
networks (as distinct from networking) among the business
community;
Present
There is a reluctance to commit time and resources to a
process that is not well understood, or the results of which
are not clear;
Absent
Networks are too closely aligned with ‘networking’ in the
mind of business managers and seen as a quasi-social
activity rather than an important business function;
Partially
Present
At some top management level personnel of the faculty,
the perception exists that “networking” is the pre-
dominant purpose of the Network.
There is a reluctance to share information and knowledge
with other firms, especially competitors;
Absent The Network mostly functions within an established
Research domain where relationships have been built up
over a long period.
Contractual Agreements with Industry Partners are in
place to protect intellectual property.
Firms are not always well placed to identify the
opportunities for network relationships with other
companies since their knowledge and information base may
be limited to their own contacts;
Absent Most partners in the network realised the importance of
network relationships.
Only a barrier in undergraduate students who are joining
the network.
Membership of a network may expose companies to the
danger of “lock-in” where excessive focus is placed on the
affairs of the network to the detriment of events in the
outside environment;
Absent Literature research includes outside sources.
Research outputs from the Network Members are
assessed by outside experts.
Even where managers foresee a benefit in establishing a
network relationship they may not have the skills or
resources to facilitate or co-ordinate the actual
implementation of the network. This has been referred to as
the ‘collective action problem’, where a group of individuals
or firms may frequently fail to achieve co-operation, even
where it would be beneficial to every individual in the
group.
Partially
Present
3) Case Study: Application of the Extended Methodology
The Stellenbosch IKN started before a formal
methodology was available, and looking back, one realizes
now how it could have been deployed differently. But, that is
the nature of living in an exciting and dynamic research
environment! Table 7 documents whether each step in the
extended methodology has been applied in the Stellenbosch
Network, with explanatory notes.
TABLE 7: THE APPLICATION OF THE EXTENDED METHODOLOGY IN THE STELLENBOSCH NETWORK
Amended Methodology for Integrated Knowledge
Networks
Applied Notes
1) Designing an Integrated Knowledge Network
a) The Knowledge Vision Yes The original vision was to develop a knowledge
management structure to support innovation.
Knowledge Management and Innovation were thus
from the beginning core values of the network.
b) Decide on the Network Option
i) Identify the Knowledge Strategy Yes Focus on Innovation
ii) Select and Understand a Process or Task Yes The Process Focus is looking at ways how to incubate
and support innovation for products and services,
using knowledge networking as a basis.
iii) Perform Stakeholder Analysis
(organisational and individual level,
synergies and opportunities)
Yes – indirectly Network Partners were established over time through
joint research programmes, thus ensuring that
synergy existed.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
542

Amended Methodology for Integrated Knowledge
Networks
Applied Notes
iv) Understand the Different Type of
Knowledge Needed
Partially Not well understood beforehand
v) Decide on the Network Option Yes It was clear from the beginning that a network was
required to ensure that significant research could be
delivered.
c) Select the Appropriate Network Reference Type
i) Types of Operational Knowledge Tasks
and Types of Knowledge Created
Yes – in
retrospect
The network was originally more focused on a
Learning and Experiencing Network.
Lately, it has evolved in a Materializing and Re-
systematizing network as well.
ii) Facilitating Conditions Determine the
Knowledge Reference Type
Yes See above
iii) Identified Deliverables Determine the
Appropriate Knowledge Network
Yes See above
2) Implementing an Integrated Knowledge Network
a) Start-up
i) Justification and Communication Plan Not initially This was not done initially, and as a result,
communication and justification remained a problem.
ii) Facilitate Top Management Commitment
and Find Sponsors
Partially Successful in industry partners. Less successful
within the structures of the university.
iii) Establish a Contractual Framework Yes Contractual frameworks established with:
- Industry Partners
- Research Agreements
iv) Map Specific Goals, Tasks and Activities Yes – Partially The network maintains a project register that
manages the activities of individuals.
v) Organise the Specific Processes Yes - Partially See above
b) Mapping Processes and Roles
i) Facilitate the Relationships within the
Network
Yes – Partially
ii) Determine the Roles and Responsibilities Yes
iii) Roles and Skills Yes
iv) Organise the People and Meetings Yes
v) Facilitate Commitment of Members Yes
vi) Provide Organizational Tools to Create a
Knowledge-enriching Environment and to
Support People and Processes
Yes - Partially
vii) Organize the Appropriate ICT Architecture Yes The use of a knowledge management tool, with road-
mapping capabilities creates an environment in which
members share explicit knowledge.
viii) Set up a Knowledge Base for all Network
Types
Yes See above
c) Facilitate Relationships to the Outside World
i) Develop the Knowledge Management
Board
No
ii) Provide or Broker Support to Internal
Network Initiatives
Yes – Partially Good support for the knowledge management tools.
iii) Integrate and Coordinate with Other
Functions
No
d) Establish Internal Measurement
i) Choose and Organise the Appropriate
Rewards / Incentives
No
ii) Establish Measures for the Individual /
Role / Organisation /Network
No
iii) Success Factors No
3) Operating and Refining An Integrated Knowledge
Network
a) Internal and Inter-Organisational Knowledge
Network Measurement System
i) A Health Check for the Knowledge
Network
Yes - Partial
ii) Symptoms of an Ailing Network No
iii) Actions for Handling and Avoiding
Failures
N/A
4) Phasing Out an Integrated Knowledge Network
a) Fading and Dying with Grace N/A The network is still active.
b) Contractual Close-out N/A
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
543

VI. CONCLUSION
A. Benefits
Networks are increasingly recognized as a valuable
facilitator to foster economic development. The review of the
literature [4] attributes a number of benefits to networks, and
the Case Study Network has been assessed against these
benefits listed below:
TABLE 8: BENEFITS OBSERVED IN THE STELLENBOSCH NETWORK
Benefit Observed
Increased Scale and Scope of Activities: the outcomes of collaboration may be applicable to all partners’ market, and
thus may expand individual firm’s customer base. If a firm is part of a customary network, its performance capacity can
be considerably extended through synergies between firm’s different technological competencies;
Yes
Shared Costs and Risks: costs for major innovations, such as a new generation of semiconductors or aircrafts, have
risen rapidly and are now beyond the means of any single firm. Collaboration can share the high costs and therefore
risks of innovation;
Yes
Improved Ability to Deal with Complexity: many key technological developments are complex and draw on a wide
range of scientific and commercial knowledge. This reinforces the need for co-operation from participants in different
fields of expertise and a closer strategic and technological integration between firms is a means for dealing with the
complexity of multiple sources and forms of technology;
Yes
Enhanced Learning Effects: with continuous and rapid market and technology change there are pressures on firms to
improve their learning capacities. Collaboration and networks can provide possibilities not only of learning about new
technologies, but learning about methods of creating future technologies and of the ways those technologies might
affect the existing business. It can teach companies new ways of doing things not only technologically, but also
organisationally;
Yes
Positive Welfare E
f
fect: internalising positive externalities through R&D collaboration results in increased R&D
efficiency and an increase of overall R&D expenditure. A set of benefits underlying the collaboration is one that
considers flexibility and efficiencies;
Yes
Flexibility: networks offer flexibility not in contrast to markets but to hierarchies. Vertically integrated firms establish
overheads and production capacities, and in doing so forsake the flexibility of immediate resource reallocation that
networks provide. Hence, large firm/small firm interaction might be facilitated such that the resource advantages of the
former are linked with the behavioural or creative advantage of the latter;
Some
Efficiency: The efficiency enhancing effect of networks is related to the specific nature of technological knowledge.
Much of the knowledge is tacit—that is difficult to codify in the form of blueprints—and firm specific. It is, therefore,
difficult to transfer easily and quickly through market mechanisms. Collaboration provides a mechanism to transfer
whereby this kind of transfer is based on trust between the partners;
Yes
Speed: Speed may be needed to take advantage of opportunities that might not exist for long, and might require a fast
response. An existing network can put together a package of resources and capacities to meet such challenges in a
customised response which, in its flexibility and scope, lies beyond the capacity of an un-networked integrated firm.
Moreover, rapid product development depends on the reliance on outside suppliers. Mansfield (1988)6 found that time
to market was speeded through a policy of outsourcing to suppliers. The capability to commercialise products can in this
case be seen to rest on the successful exploitation of the knowledge of other firms.
Yes
B. Future Work
Future work is addressing three areas of focus:
• Refine the collaborative environment to incorporate more
dynamic knowledge harvesting and facilitate different
modes of knowledge work
• Expanding the roadmap repository for different
innovation initiatives including extensive serviced
engineering guidance
• Expanding the repositories of technology road mapping
and functionality to exploit more significantly the public
domain technology knowledge.
C. Concluding Remarks
The levels of maturity of Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Networking tools have increased significantly in
the past decade. The importance of knowledge networking
facilitating the efficient management of innovation is widely
accepted.
Innovation feeds on the abundant availability of reliable
knowledge in context. The ability to access, analyse,
synthesize, and share this knowledge is key to innovation. In
turn, the outputs of innovation projects contribute to the pool
of knowledge, thereby incubating significant opportunities
for future innovation. The way knowledge is used, spread and
stored by an organisation’s employees determines whether
this organisation has a culture stimulating or restraining
innovation. In order to innovate effectively and sustainably,
existing knowledge should therefore not only be captured, but
also shared and integrated.
Understanding the components of an integrated
knowledge network as well as their interdependencies is the
start to facilitating enhanced efficient utilisation of such a
network leading to improvement of the operations of
innovation networks.
Expanding on these principles will increase the success
rate of innovation projects, and open new opportunities for
executing innovation projects. Future research will thus focus
on whether Integrated Knowledge Networks can help to
improve the innovation process, and how such a network
should be organised and structured to best achieve this.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
544

REFERENCES
[1] "Innovation Networks", Forfás 2004,
www.forfas.ie/publications/forfas040624/webopt/forfas040624_innova
tion_networks_webopt.pdf
[2] "Global Innovation Outlook 2.0", IBM 2005,
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/www_innovate.nsf/pages/world.
gio2.html.
[3] "Innovation 2005", The Boston Consulting Group 2005,
http://www.bcg.com/impact_expertise/publications/files/Innovation_20
05_Mar2005.pdf.
[4] "Sharing the idea - The emergence of global innovation networks",
Economist Intelligence Unit 2007,
[5] "Social network", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network,
Accessed on 9 February 2008.
[6] Alavi, M., Y. Yoo, and D. R. Vogel, "Using information technology to
add value to management education", Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 40, pp. 1310-1333, 1997.
[7] Back, A., G. von Krogh, A. Seufert, and E. Enkel, "Putting Knowledge
Networks into Action", in Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.
[8] Barreyre, P. Y., "The Concept of'Impartition'Policies: A Different
Approach to Vertical Integration Strategies", Strategic management
journal, vol. 9, pp. 507-520, 1988.
[9] Burgelman, R. A., M. A. Maidique, and S. C. Wheelwright, Strategic
management of technology and innovation, 1996.
[10] Carneiro, A., "How does knowledge management influence innovation
and competitiveness?", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 4, pp.
87-98, 2000.
[11] Drucker, P. F., Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and
principles: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.
[12] Du Preez, N., A. Bernard, N. Perry, A. Candlot, W. Uys, L. Louw, and
C. Schutte, "A Roadmapping and Conceptual Framework Based
Approach For Efficient Knowledge and Innovation Management",
2006,
[13] Du Preez, N., L. Louw, and E. Lutters, "A Knowledge Network
Approach Supporting the Value Chain," in Methods and Tools for
Effective Knowledge Life-Cycle-Management, A. Bernard and S.
Tichkiewitch, Eds.: Springer, 2008.
[14] Du Preez, N. D. and L. Louw, "Managing the Knowledge Supply Chain
to Support Innovation," in COMA'07, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2007.
[15] Gongla, P. and C. R. Rizzuto, "Evolving communities of practice: IBM
Global Services experience", IBM Systems Journal, vol. 40, pp. 842-
862, 2001.
[16] Johannessen, J.-A., B. Olsen, and J. Olaisen, "Aspects of innovation
theory based on knowledge-management", International Journal of
Information Management, vol. 19, pp. 121-139, 1999.
[17] Kogut, B. and U. Zander, "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative
Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology", Organization
Science, vol. 3, pp. 383-397, 1992.
[18] Leiponen, A., "Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of
Business-to-Business Services", Journal of Product Innovation
Management, vol. 23, pp. 238-258, 2006.
[19] Lodge, G. C. and R. E. Walton, "The American Corporation and its
New Relationships", California Management Review, vol. 31, pp. 9-24,
1989.
[20] Morrison, J., M. Morrison, and D. Vogel, "Software to support business
teams", Group Decision and N
egotiation, vol. 1, pp. 91-115, 1992.
[21] Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation: Oxford
University Press, USA, 1995.
[22] Orlikowski, W. J., "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective
Capability in Distributed Organizing", Organization Science, vol. 13,
pp. 249-273, 2002.
[23] Park, Y. and S. Kim, "Linkage between knowledge management and
R&D management", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 9, pp.
34-44, 2005.
[24] Perez-Bustamante, G., "Knowledge management in agile innovative
organisations", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 3, pp. 6-17,
1999.
[25] Qureshi, S., Z. Bogenrieder, and K. Kumar, "Managing participative
diversity in virtual teams: requirements for collaborative technology
support", System Sciences, 2000. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
Hawaii International Conference on, p. 10, 2000.
[26] Qureshi, S. and D. Vogel, "Adaptive Processes for Achieving Socio-
Technical Fit in CSCW Groups", E. Coakes, R. Lloyd-Jones and D.
Willis. The New Sociotech Graffiti on the Long Wall. Springer Verlag.
London, 2000.
[27] Radjou, N., "Innovation Networks", Forrester Research inc 17 June
2004,
[28] Salvendy, G., Handbook of industrial engineering: Wiley New York,
1992.
[29] Seufert, A., G. von Krogh, and A. Bach, "Towards knowledge
networking", Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 3, pp. 180-190,
1999.
[30] Swan, J., S. Newell, and M. Robertson, "Limits of IT-driven
knowledge management initiatives for interactive innovation processes:
towards a community-based approach", System Sciences, 2000.
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on,
p. 11, 2000.
[31] Tidd, J., J. R. Bessant, and K. Pavitt, Managing innovation: integrating
technological, market and organizational change: Wiley, 1997.
[32] Von Krogh, G. and M. Venzin, "Anhaltende Wettbewerbsvorteile
durch Wissensmanagement", Die Unternehmung, vol. 49, pp. 417-436,
1995.
[33] Wenger, E. and W. Snyder, "Communities of practice: the
organizational frontier", Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, pp. 139-
145, 2000.
[34] Yap, A. Y. and N. Børn-Andersen, "Energizing the nexus of corporate
knowledge: a portal toward the virtual organization", Proceedings of
the international conference on Information systems, pp. 273-286,
1998.
[35] Zigurs, I. and S. Qureshi, "Managing the Extended Enterprise, Creating
Value from Virtual Spaces", Dickson, G. and G. DeSanctis.
Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New Models for
Managers. Prentice Hall, pp. 2004-042, 2001.
PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa (c) 2008 PICMET
545