Relationship between Social Networks and Innovation in Organizations - Coursework Example

Relationship between social networks and innovation in organizations Social networks are virtual communities that exist on the internet. These communities come together to socialize and in the process get to learn new ideas and exchange these ideas among their peers. The rate at which ideas are generated and dispersed is extremely fast. Fast enough to bring about noticeable change, in whatever medium they are applied more so if correctly implemented. The vast majorities of individuals who spew these ideas are either professionals or academics in the fields of sciences and arts. Through their training and backgrounds these professionals have the wherewithal to impact on innovations in organizations. This they can do through association and contribution to the various discussions that are held on the various social networks (Armistead 1999, pp. 152). These networks afford them a platform like no other. On these platforms they are not constraint with organizational policies or regulations. Additionally, they are members of these networks voluntarily. Because of these loose ties, they are able give edge cutting technological contributions to products or services in development in various organizations. Indeed, as a strategy to stay a step ahead of competition some firms in the wireless industry have literally taken their research and development to these social networks on the Internet (Barney 1991, pp. 113). This they have done by opening up their development platforms. The catch phrase “Open Source” has been the in thing for quite sometime now. For example, Google in collaboration with other industry players have in development the Android smart phone. To make the phone as smart as it looks, Google simply opened up the development of its operating system. With this single strategic move, there is already talk of the Android smart phone rewriting the rules of the industry (http://www.accenture.com “Android Smartphone” Retrieved on 20th May 2010). Innovation is enhancement of an idea or object technologically .Simply put, it is making an object or idea superior to what is presently in existence. In the information and technology world, change is intrinsic. Ideas become obsolete no sooner than they are stumbled on. The pace of change is ruthless even for the most innovative mind. Organizations boasting the most talented human resource are still greatly challenged with the pace of change in the industry. The daunting task which invariably is to find ways of sustaining innovation in this knowledge based service industry is partly answered by the social networks. It is the integral loose relationship between social networks and organizations that drive and sustain innovations in those organizations (Huseman & Goodman 1999, pp. 31). Ho w does this happen? Human capital is the most critical resource any knowledge based service organization has. A well educated and trained human capital is expensive to acquire and sustain (Klaila 2000, pp. 139). Moreover, professionals especially the young ones no longer work at one firm for a period of more than three years. Human capital turnover is destabilizing for most firms. So, how do medium sized organizations stay innovatively afloat in their respective fields? Social networks come to their rescue. Unlike physical organizations, these networks have no rigid rules. There is no code of regulation to adhere to. No organizational culture to sustain. No deadline to beat. No boss to harangue you. The best thing about them is, you are your own boss! You decide to come in if you so wish. If you don’t, you owe no one an explanation. No memo lands in your mail seeking explanations. In such circumstances, people are most innovative. They are able to make contributions without fear of reprisals. They are able to better focus on the problem without the anxieties of or inferences to deadlines or budgets (Sveiby 2001, pp. 352). Social Networks can loosely be considered to be knowledge management specialization units. This is because they bring together specialists who have common interests. For example, it is common to find IT professionals on a social network forum that may be going by the name, techbiz. A social network like any other knowledge management specialization has three theoretical entities, as theorized by Sveiby 2001, pp. 347: the information technology phenomenon, the organizational level and the individual level. These theoretical entities are relationships that not only drive but also sustain innovation in organizations. Social networks have grown and developed in tandem with IT. Information technology has provided the infrastructure on which these networks have been built. The growths of these networks have happened in phases. At the onset of this development, IT focused on production deliverables in knowledge management specialization. The concern then was what production objectives could be set and which targets could be met. As IT continued to sustain these social networks, the attention gradually shifted to the customer (Newell et al 2009, pp. 44). Information was sought on consumers’ likes, dislikes, lifestyles, preferences in order to be able to address their specific needs and wants. The gathered intel was centrally warehoused and shared through distributed systems. The challenge faced with these networks was learning how to harness this information and create value out of it. At the third stage of development IT delved into business integration and interaction. This marked the emergence of interactive web sites, electronic business, electronic commerce, and real time on-line transactions. At this point, business was characterized by IT. In equal measure IT was the essence of the daily context of life. Value was created and information used as leverage to gain economic power and competitive advantage. The growth in the IT industry was supported by technological improvements in the IT hardware and software. I.T’s role and importance as a specialized industry in knowledge management is steadily raised to higher levels of purpose and delivery (Sveiby 2001, pp. 353-54). Because of the critical part played by knowledge, IT has become the spirit of commerce, not retarding as a mode of production. This is made possible by increased specialization in practical knowledge. Social networks have delved into business integration and interaction. This is evidenced by the emergence of interactive web sites, electronic business, electronic commerce, and real time on-line transactions. Commerce is characterized by IT. In equal measure IT is the essence of the daily context of life. Value is created and information used as leverage to gain economic power and competitive advantage. Social networks have come of age in influencing innovations in organization. The reach of knowledge and skill is hugely extended upon capture and expounded on these networks so that it was accessible, comprehensible and easy to use. Tools for capturing and disseminating knowledge are as widely available as possible, providing rare opportunities for countries to gain from this technological advancement (Segal 1985, pp. 149). Nonetheless, transfer of knowledge is innately complex, as knowledgeable person (s) may not be aware of their skill or how important it is, nor have the capacity and the eagerness to share it with others. Even when they are keen to share, the inclination to acknowledge the insight of others is often not palpable. Hence knowledge is “clammy” and is predisposed to reside in individual’s brains. Accessibility of social networks specifically the collaborative platforms is critical in catalyzing innovation in organization. Social networks may, if fully resourced and optimally exploited present a broad knowledge base that is centrally accessed, interactive, and beneficial to end-users (Porter 1985, pp. 176-79). Tools that support knowledge distribution on social networks in suitable and user friendly ways, specifically in organization-wide distributive systems must be developed and their use encouraged for innovations. The available tools aptly assist in diffusion of knowledge, but present little or no help in knowledge use. Tools that support knowledge creation on these networks are poorly designed and developed. However, shared workspaces provide better potential, by making possible participation, across time and distance, in project design or knowledge based growth, so that specialists in innovation can make contributions to research and development. Traditional networks tend to be more user-friendly, for example, face to face meetings, telephone conversations and e mail communication (Rumizen 1998, pp. 78). In such settings, innovations are easily realized. To be more innovative in organizations, there are bottlenecks that must be scrutinized in presenting social networks for knowledge diffusion platforms (Quintas 2002, pp. 7-8). One, responsiveness to organizational innovative requirements: incessant efforts must be exerted to guarantee that social networks meet the diverse and fast changing necessities of organizations. Two, content organization: classification and cataloguing are crucial on large social networks database systems to enhance searching and retrieval processes. Three, content quality needs: guidelines for integrating new content into the system must be set and met to guarantee operational relevance and high value. Four, ability to manage narrative: narrative embodies knowledge, until technology is accustomed to narrative, it will be of no much help in knowledge transfer. Five, integration with existing system: knowledge diffusion systems such as social networks focus on embedding knowledge sharing as flawlessly as doable. To achieve this feat it is critical to integrate knowledge related technology with pre-existing technology alternatives (Rumizen 1998, pp. 79-81). Scalability: solutions that work efficiently on small platforms are likely not to be effective on bigger platforms. Hardware-software compatibility is critical to guarantee that selections are made that are attuned with the hardware configuration and computing power accessible to the end-users. Synchronization of technology with the aptitude of user organization is significant in order to make the most out of the potential of the tools, specifically where the technical know how of user organizations vary broadly. Knowledge diffusion programs that aim at the synchronized enhancement of the whole social network system, both technical tools and human skills, are prone to be successful than programs that aim on one or the other (Lambooy 2000, pp. 157). The growth in the knowledge industry was supported by technological improvements in the IT hardware and software. Social networks role and significance as a specialized industry in knowledge management has steadily risen to higher levels of purpose and delivery (Sveiby 2001, pp. 355). Because of the critical part played by knowledge, social networks have become the spirit of commerce, not retarding as a mode of production. This has been made possible by increased specialization in practical knowledge. Besides the significance of the standards of specialization, social networks demonstrate the increasing significance of proper official recognition of knowledge holders as we recognize it in the professions. There are network engineers, system administrators, software developers, programmers, consultants and academicians of all types who apply for admission to their professional social networks. These networks point to a connection linking the structural know how of an organization and the know how held on to by a person (the quintessence of knowledge) (Lave & Wenger 1991, pp. 132). The fundamental nature of knowledge is both an entity and a method. The character of a knowledge intensive entity, acquires the structure of a social network. A method, like an entity may possibly be the concrete foundation of commercial value, or it may well be the means to leveraging commercial value of another type of knowledge. Entities of commercial value possibly will include patents, trademarks, inventions, designs etc. There is also a sustaining method of knowledge that can be influenced in order to bring about other levels of commercial leverage. This for example may take the shape of management knowledge or administrative knowledge that sustains the efforts of technological research and development. All of these concepts are part of the theoretical model of Sullivan 2000, pp 35. Sveiby 2001, pp 342 has extensively studied both the functional rise and ontological spotting of social networks in the organization. By using the term ontology here, I suggest that social networks are the hub or kernel core (spirit of the object or character) that personifies the organization. This is factual also for the nature of society and the dynamics of the economy (Roos, et al 1997, pp. 543). The question of the more prevalent power of social networks as one trait of proof of the knowledge age in which we live is illustrated in an extensive way by Huseman and Goodman 1999, pp. 33. Starting with proof of what is ensuing in the business world in the way that technological determinants profile life; we see that we are subject to social network practices in the way that we get remunerated in our professions, in the way that we pay our bills and in the way that we do our shopping. These life activities centered on banking procedures are driven by technologies that have emerged from the early 1970s. The emergence of the following technologies has influenced those areas of life: electronic fund transfer (EFT) technologies; automated teller machines (ATMs); and, point-of-sale (POS) transactions in retail stores (Huseman & Goodman 1999, pp. 35–6). Outside such impacts of social networks to personal life related with earning a living and personal trading, there are number of organizational areas of business life that are attributed to being impacted by social networks. These impacts are additional confirmation of the knowledge age in which we all live. They name the following: billing, sales, workflow policy, customer service, inventory systems and human resource management. These are alterations and influences that definitively have an effect on nature and functioning of the economy as well (Huseman & Goodman 1999, pp. 36–8). A further major pointer to the increasing influence of social networks is the structural function currently attributed to the internet not only as a leading type of communication but also as a medium of international trade. The inference of this trade is far reaching and to a large extend dependant on the knowledge economy. As a medium of information flow, the internet itself is made up of knowledge-exhaustive hardware and software that make possible an economic flow of knowledge on a massive scale. The statistics in connection to the role and power of the internet on a day by day basis are of mammoth value to our understanding of what it can accomplish. Sheen’s 2004, pp. 8–9 research gives a glimpse on the commanding economic power of the internet before reflecting on particular problems as regards the nature and dynamics of the knowledge economy on social networks (Sheen 2004, pp. 8). He shows that ‘in 2001, an estimated 3.088 million workers in the United States of America were expressly sustained by the internet economy. This statistic takes account of an original 600,000 person swell in the first half of the year 2000 yet the technology stock collapse was imminent. In 2000, the US internet economy revenues were approximated to be in the range of $830 billion. This signified a boost of 58 percent over 1999 and a 156 percent swell over 1998. At this time, the economic power of the internet as medium for commerce was still expanding at the end of the 2000 period and was credited with $323 billion in revenue’ (Sheen 2004, pp. 14) Business conducted on the internet has been growing by double digit percentages. This trade is greatly influenced by these networks as they form the basis for all kinds of interactions that directly influence trade which is indirectly influenced by innovations in organizations. The greater the number of innovations, the more the billions raked in revenues by these organizations. Besides the power that the internet has on output in innovative technologies and the organization of work, we are also recognize the influence of the internet to present accesses to travel, shopping, leisure and world news bulletin. There is scarcely a facet of life not affected by the power of the internet and there is little uncertainty that this potent knowledge tool of the knowledge age is now with us, not only to stay but to also form the practical veracities of life (Wenger et al 2002, pp. 349). Bibliography Armistead, C. 1999, ‘Knowledge management and process performance’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 143–54.Baets, WJR 1998, Organization learning and knowledge technologies in a dynamic environment, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MA. Barney, J. 1991, ‘Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–120. Huseman, RC & Goodman, JP 1999, Leading with knowledge: the nature of competition in the 21st century, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. Klaila, D. 2000, ‘Knowledge as a transformation agent’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 138–44. Lambooy, J 2000, Learning and agglomeration economies: adapting to differentiating economic structures, Edward Elgar, United Kingdon. Lave, J & Wenger, E 1991, Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McKenzie, J & van Winkelen, C 2004, Understanding the knowledgeable organization: nurturing knowledge competence, Thompson, London. Newell, S, Robertson, M, Scarborough, H & Swan, J 2009, Managing knowledge work and innovation, 2nd edn, Palgrave, Hampshire, New York. Porter, M 1985, Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance, Free Press, New York Press. Quintas, P 2002, ‘Managing knowledge: an essential reader’, in S Little, P Quintas & T Ray (eds), Managing knowledge in a new century, Sage, London, pp. 1–14. Roos, J, Roos, G, Dragonetti, NC & Edvinsson, L 1997, Intellectual capital: navigating the new business landscape, Macmillan Business, London. Rumizen, MC 1998, ‘Report on the second comparative study of knowledge creation conference’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 77–81. Segal Quince Wicksteed 1985, The Cambridge phenomenon: the growth of high technology industry in a university town, Cambridge, Cambridge. Sheen, P 2004, Managing intellectual property and licensing: a study on cooperative research centres, PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Pp. 5-15 Sullivan, P 2000, Value driven intellectual capital: how to convert intangible corporate assets into market value, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. Sveiby, KE 2001, ‘A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide strategy formulation’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 344–58. Wenger, E, McDermott, R & Snyder, W 2002, Cultivating communities of practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. World Trade Organization 2000, International trade statistics 2000, p. 25, WTO Publications, Geneva, viewed 24 April 2001, . Read More