Global Enterprise Environment - Assignment Example

Global enterprise environment Student’s name Professor’s name Class name Executive summary The document is researching on the essence of innovation in the knowledge sharing/creation and learning in different organizations. The discussion of the topic is subdivided into seven sections: 1. The definition of the term innovation 2. Tacit knowledge 3. Situated knowledge 4. Aesthetic knowledge 5. Knowledge Management Systems and Mobile Work 6. Knowledge Repositories 7. Trust and Task Interdependence The situated knowledge has a significant context which is specified, attained by individuals with time, by working at specific sites and having formal and informal communications with others who are also working there. Through the innovation processes in the sharing of tacit knowledge in different organizations, people would be gotten into moving from actions/knowledge, to talking about and reflection upon actions/knowledge. Aesthetic knowledge is applicable in diagnosis of any condition on the basis of the visual inspections of any patient, comprehension of technical drawings by engineers, judging how to make presentations of any product, service and self of theirs to the customers. Trust is playing an essential in persuading the degrees of knowledge dissemination in any team, with lower magnitudes of trust possibly to hinder the dissemination of knowledge. Also whenever task interdependence in the teams is lower, for knowledge dissemination to happen it might be essential to develop the level of trust. Most of the employees have feel that sourcing knowledge in any electronic repository consumes much time in comparison to any work-related time pressure they face while providing clients with solutions. Introduction In most of the firms, knowledge is becoming progressively vital for them to remain competitive over their rivals. Knowledge-intensive firms remain competitive by progressively adapting to their environments. These endless adaptations in the competitive environments are achieved by the continuous generation and application of new insight. It is for this reason, that the article discusses on various ways in which innovation can be applied in knowledge sharing/creation and learning in various organizations. So as to orient the discussion on the above topic, the paper has the following objectives: 8. The definition of the term innovation 9. Tacit knowledge 10. Situated knowledge 11. Aesthetic knowledge 12. Knowledge Management Systems and Mobile Work 13. Knowledge Repositories 14. Trust and Task Interdependence Discussion According to Frankelius (2009), Innovation can be defined as an incident whereby an individual applies of preferable solutions while meeting new necessities, unspoken needs, or prevailing market necessities. Individual accomplish this through any efficient products, process, service, technology, or ideas that freely exists to any markets, governments and society. One often likes any new phenomenon that is essential in some manner. Defining the term, in context with this perspective, could be this: "Innovation is anything that is unique, new, and essential—in any relevant ground—which breaks into (or acquires a foot-hold in) the markets or societies". While anything novel is usually perceived to be an innovation, in economics, management sciences, and various fields of practice and analysis it is usually perceived to be that innovation is any process that would gather different novel thoughts in a manner that would have various impacts on the societies. Innovation is different from improvement because innovation is referring to the perception of doing something not the same instead of doing the same things better. Hatch (2006), argues that technology imposes discipline on individuals who use it. How can innovation be applicable to the sharing of Tacit Knowledge? Rix and Lièvre (2008) presented a practical input to the available knowledge when they developed an approach through partial codification of the tacit knowledge (which they as well term as methodological knowledge and embodied knowing). As they adopted a perception on knowledge well-suited for the methodology-based epistemology, and do not have faith in the tacit knowledge being totally articulated/codified, they believed that there are methods that particular aspects of tacit knowledge that could be made to be articulable. According to Hislop (2009), this approval of a practice-based epistemology is evident in various assumptions they made regarding to knowledge. First, they were basically concerned with the practical knowledge, which they assumed to be extremely embodied, and depended on the context, and kind of knowledge that could only be manifested in individual’s actions in specific contexts. Secondly, they assumed that actions and cognition have mutual inter-dependence. Further, they made assumptions that practices consisted of extra any visible action and behavior of individuals, also being shaped by assumptions and values that can’t be observed simply by watching a person. Further, they made assumptions that vital process while they were attempting to have articulation of tacit knowledge was making individuals to be a ‘reflective practitioners’, who have the ability of questioning, challenging and reflecting upon their behavior, values and conventions. Through these processes, people would be gotten into moving from actions/knowledge, to talking about and reflection upon actions/knowledge. How can innovation be applicable to the transfer of situated knowledge? Sole & Edmondson (2002) considered the problems encountered during what they referred to as ‘the situated knowledge’ in the various locations that any member of dispersed product teams worked at. Situated knowledge is an explicit form of a contextual-embedded knowledge, since it is the knowledge of that context itself, like the knowledge of any physical characteristic of various sites, those individuals who work at it, and the abilities of any facility at various sites. Drew on the perspective which has basis of practice on knowledge, Sole & Edmondson (2012) cleared doubts that the situated knowledge has a significant context which is specified, that it attained by individuals with time, by working at specific sites and having formal and informal communications with others who are also working there. They made conclusion that the dissemination of such knowledge through the sites was probably to be complicated and a process that consumed a lot of time, because of the significant lack of a usual situated knowledge that would normally be existing in any team that is dispersed. For instance, there is a project that was examined by Sole & Edmondson and problems faced them whenever a new chemical which was being produced was supposed to have an extension from the pilot to any manufacturing scale trial. The early pilot experiments were done at one site, whereby the experimental scientists who were responsible did gain significant levels of know-how and comprehension of the manufacturing processes. But, as a result of tools limitations, the manufacturing scale attempts had to be carried out at a site not the same to whereby the pilot attempts had been carried out. This brought about a difficulty since the workers at the new, manufacturing scale trials sites did not possess the comprehensive know-how regarding the pilot trial processes. That know-how was situated, and significantly tacit, being controlled by scientists who were accountable for these pilot trials. The dissemination of that know-how in these sites wasn’t fast or effortless process, and was achieved through the transfer of the scientists accountable for the pilots to the newer and larger trial sites. Thereby, the scientists were capable of sharing their know-how with the local engineers in the sites, who possesses an in-depth comprehension of the abilities of those tools and machinery on their sites. Whereas this led to the introduction of the delaying of the product development processes, that was found to be the chief manner that the relevant workers could disseminate their contexts dependently, and significantly tacit, situated knowledge (Hislop 2009). How can innovation be applicable to the Aesthetic Knowledge? Ewenstein & Whyte (2007) did develop the conception of aesthetic knowledge by analyzing a comprehensive ethnographic research of the architectural practices. Aesthetic know-how is linked with the human senses and is referring to how individuals understand the looks, feels, smells, tastes and sounds of various things. The two authors suggested that aesthetic know-how is applicable to a various working contexts, comprising of the medical doctors, whereby the diagnosis of any condition is somehow on the basis of the visual inspections of a patient, engineer who needs to draw and comprehend a technical drawing, and in any retail outlet whereby the staff has to apply aesthetic know-how while trying to judge how to make presentations of any product, service and self of theirs to the customers. Ewenstein & Whyte also distinguished between aesthetic know-how and aesthetic reflexivity, but were arguing that both are practical and not separable and have a close inter-relationship. The aesthetic know-how is referring to the understanding of the looks, feeling touch, tastes and/or smelling of thing(s), aesthetic reflexivity means an individual’s capability in questioning, challenging, developing and refining such knowledge. They also argued that there exist symbolic and experimental, or practice-based aspects to the aesthetic know-how and aesthetic reflectivity. Symbolic aesthetic knowledge is referring to the know-how of any sign and symbol, while experimental aesthetic know-how is relating to any feeling and embodied experience. In context of aesthetic reflexivity, the symbolic component of it is referring to an individual’s capability of reflecting applying aesthetic know-how, while the experimental aspects of aesthetic reflexivity is referring to the processes of reflection that emerge from the practices (Hislop 2009). How can innovation be applicable to the Knowledge Management Systems and Mobile Work? Corso et al (2006) argued that one crucial existing change in all organizations is that most of the employees required mobile work, often working away from office grounds that they are having. Basically, whenever a worker is really remote from one another, and works away from their workplace, both gain access to administratively based knowledge assets and sharing knowledge with one another is a challenge. Consequently, they basically have an argument that in any organization whereby employees are mobile, there are specific knowledge management difficulties. While investigating these aspects, Corso et al carried out a research of mobile employees in Italy. This research was about both comprehending the form of employees who were most naturally mobile, and the specific knowledge management difficulties encountered by each type of mobile employee. Corso et al’s carried out a compound phase researching project which lasted for more than three years. The data reported here was relating to the second phase only of their research, carried out in the year 2003. This phase of this study was involving chiefly carrying out a telephone research (1500 organizations got put into consideration and 899 responded). Also, the organizations which were discovered to be employing mobile employees (410) were requested to complete a further research, with 83 of those requested to do so. Their survey unearthed that three specific kinds of employee were possibly to be mobile employees. First, in 47% of the organizations studied, mobile employees were sales staff, second, in 35% of the organizations researched they were service and maintenance specialists, and in 18% of the firms which were surveyed four major methodologies to manage knowledge were recognized and that the criterion to managing of knowledge that organizations adopted varied dependently on the form of mobile employees they did employ. For a firm whose mobile employees are technicians the ‘processes of standardization’ style to managing knowledge was implemented. This method is applicable to working which is considerably standardized and routine. In context to this method of managing knowledge, employees use standardized operation manuals which guide on the suitable-practical manner of getting solutions to the problems. Any of these manuals operates as a control device since the technicians are supposed to be closely following their direction and aren’t expected to make any ad-hoc deviation. But, alterations to manuals could similarly be on the basis of any recommendation given by a technician. Though, whenever such alterations have an approval and changes of manuals implemented, all technicians are supposed to be following the altered procedures (Hislop 2009). Finally, for a firm whose mobile employees are managers and professionals, the ‘performance control’ style to management of knowledge is implemented. This method is applicable wherever working is variable and unpredictable, and wherever there exist hindrances to the utility of any standardized manual and report. In similar circumstance, much major knowledge is tacit, which is in the people. In similar circumstances the stressing is upon facilitation of any inter-personal process of knowledge dissemination, instead of via any attempt of codifying knowledge (Hislop 2009). What are the effects of Trust and Task Interdependence on Knowledge dissemination in teams? The cultural differences in the employees of an organization can have effects and be altered by external influences (Hatch, 2006). Staples & Webster (2008) reported their results of a research which was focusing on the connection between trust, knowledge dissemination in any team, and the efficiency of the teams. While investigating the connection between these aspects they had assumptions that first, trust and dissemination of knowledge can have a positive relationship, and whenever there was no trust, magnitude of knowledge dissemination in any team would possibly be limited. Second, in regard to the connection between knowledge dissemination and the efficiency of the teams, they also made an assumption that they related positively, with any team whereby the levels of knowledge dissemination were lower such that they were less likely to be effective. The two researchers drew several conclusions from their research. First, trust is playing an essential role in persuading the degrees of knowledge dissemination in any team, with lower magnitudes of trust possibly to hinder the dissemination of knowledge. Second, in relationships to task inter-dependence, the essence of trust on the knowledge disseminating processes escalates whenever degrees of task inter-dependence aren’t high. Therefore, whenever task interdependence in the teams is lower, for knowledge dissemination to happen it might be essential to develop the level of trust. Third, as from the hypothesis, degrees of knowledge dissemination possess positive effects on the efficiency of many teams. In regard to how being virtual regulates the trust-knowledge dissemination relationships, the unavailability of the evidence supporting this hypothesis puts forward that trust is essential in the knowledge dissemination processes in all sorts of teams, regardless of whether the members of the teams are virtual or co-located (Hislop 2009). How is Knowledge Repositories essential in Call Centers? Gray and Durcikova (2005-06) carried out a research to find out which factors affected the kind of knowledge source that were being used by the call center employees. Explicitly, they wanted to find out the degree to which these employees were using the repositories of the codified understanding, and what was influencing their decision making. These researchers had assumptions that there exist three types of sources of know-how that technical support employees in any call center used. They can use the available technical manuals. Also asking their coworkers, and, using any available knowledge repository. In would be influenced by how their learning was oriented, the kind of working demands they encounter, and their extent of risk aversion. The matters regarding risk aversions aren’t investigated here (Hislop 2009). Regarding the learning orientation, those with the least learning orientation had most probability of using knowledge repositories. They reported that employees don’t apply any knowledge repository in learning and acquisition of new know-how, but in a more rational, task-oriented manner in providing sources of know-how and information that aid in giving particular customer difficulties. Therefore, employees weren’t much interested to learn and develop their knowledge, per say, but focused mostly on giving solutions to the customer problems. They also found that there was a negative correlation between any work-related time pressure and the finding information from any electronic repository by arguing that this it was as a result of employees feeling that sourcing knowledge in any electronic repository consumed much time in comparison to any work-related time pressure they face while providing clients with solutions (Hislop 2009). Conclusion Through the innovation processes in the sharing of tacit knowledge in different organizations, people would be gotten into moving from actions/knowledge, to talking about and reflection upon actions/knowledge (Rix &Lièvre 2008). Sole & Edmondson (2012) cleared doubts that the situated knowledge has a significant context which is specified, that it attained by individuals with time, by working at specific sites and having formal and informal communications with others who are also working there. Ewenstein & Whyte suggested that aesthetic knowledge is applicable to a various working contexts. Such scenarios include: diagnosis of any condition is somehow on the basis of the visual inspections of a patient, engineers drawing and comprehension of technical drawings, judging how to make presentations of any product, service and self of theirs to the customers. ‘Performance control’ style to management of knowledge is applicable wherever working is variable and unpredictable, and wherever there exist hindrances to the utility of any standardized manual and report (Corso et al 2006). Trust is playing an essential in persuading the degrees of knowledge dissemination in any team, with lower magnitudes of trust possibly to hinder the dissemination of knowledge. Also whenever task interdependence in the teams is lower, for knowledge dissemination to happen it might be essential to develop the level of trust (Staples & Webster 2008). Gray and Durcikova (2005-06) found that there was a negative correlation between any work-related time pressure and the finding information from any electronic repository by arguing that this it was as a result of employees feeling that sourcing knowledge in any electronic repository consumed much time in comparison to any work-related time pressure they face while providing clients with solutions. The organization theory is applicable to various disciplines and could be of help in broadening one’s perceptions (Hatch 2006). Reference List Corso, M., Martini, A., Pellegrini, L., Massa, S. and Testa, S, 2006, “Managing dispersed workers: the new challenge in Knowledge Management”. Technovation, 26, 583-594. Ewenstein, B., and Whyte, J 2007, ”Beyond words: aesthetic knowledge and knowing in design”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 689-708. Frankelius, P 2009, “Questioning two myths in innovation literature”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 40–51. Gray, P., and Durcikova, A 2005-2006, “The Role of Knowledge Repositories in Technical Support Environments: Speed Versus Learning in User Performance,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Winter, 22(3). Rix, G., and Lièvre, P 2008, Towards a codification of practical knowledge. Blaise Pascal University, Blaise Pascal University press Sole, B., & Edmondson, A 2002, Situated Knowledge and Learning in Dispersed Teams. John Wiley & Sons, Inc Staples,D., and Webster, J 2008, “Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams.” Information system journal, Volume 18, Issue 6, pages 617–640, Read More