• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Relationship between Knowledge Management and Innovation Activity in organizations. Ph D Thesis JC Ramos
 

Relationship between Knowledge Management and Innovation Activity in organizations. Ph D Thesis JC Ramos

on

  • 10,283 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
10,283
Views on SlideShare
10,261
Embed Views
22

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
323
Comments
0

3 Embeds 22

http://www.slideshare.net 20
http://www.lmodules.com 1
http://www.genioux.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Relationship between Knowledge Management and Innovation Activity in organizations. Ph D Thesis JC Ramos Relationship between Knowledge Management and Innovation Activity in organizations. Ph D Thesis JC Ramos Presentation Transcript

    • Relatinoship model between Knowledge Management and Innovation Activity in organizations The Second International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management University Paris-Sud. May 27, 2009 Professors: Jose Maria Viedma and Jose Albors. icbs.viedma@telefonica.net Author:Jose Carlos Ramos. jcramos@avanzalis.com 1
    • aim Demonstrate the positive relationship between Knowledge Management maturity and Innovation Activity in organizations. Aware senior management about the critical role of Knowledge Management and Innovation, through a scientific justification Introduce new competitive approaches based on knowledge to overcome the actual paradigm shift Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 2
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 3
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 4
    • research and academic profile Education Masters Engineer of Telecommunication. Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain) MBA Executive. Estema Business School MsC Knowledge Management . Knowledge Associates, The University of Hull (UK) IT in Organization PhD program. Business Administration Departament, PUV Publications related to the Thesis work Paper: “New learning network paradigms”. International Journal of Information Management. 2008 CiNET Congress presentation, Gotheborg, 2007 Paper in publication process: “Management Innovation: Lessons from the OS Community” Paper in development process: “Actional Intelligence: attitude and value alignment” Cowritter in several books on KM and Innovation. IBM (residencies on USA laboratories) Teaching experience (MBA’s, specific masters) Ford University. Depending on PUV Postgrade Training Center, PUV Summer University, Campus TI. PUV Inede Business School Estema Business School Adeit. VU Lecturing in congresses and address several Final Projects Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 5
    • professional profile Avanzalis Knowledge Associates (Spain) Director Partner Senior consultant on business strategy and IC IBM Laboratories (Texas, USA) Member of the strategic collaborative solutions workgroup Member of the SMB Management Council Aitana Business Solutions. IBM Business Partner (Spain) Services National Manager Global Manufacturers’ Services (old IBM Plant) Project Manager Freelance Engineer of Telecommunication Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 6
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 7
    • hypotesis formulation More maturity on Better Knowledge systematization Management on Innovation Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 8
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 9
    • doctoral work structure 1. Objectives. Motivation 2. State of the art 3. Work hypothesis. KM&I Model suggested Review or demonstration 4. Method. Fieldwork of hypothesis 5. Analysis. Fieldwork outcomes 6. Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 10
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 11
    • state of the art: topics State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationship Innovation concepts Management State of the art is presented using conceptual maps [Novak, 1990], a knowledge management tool. All maps done using CMap Tools [Institute for Human and Machine Cognition www.ihmc.com] Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 12
    • SoA. key concepts State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationshi Innovation concepts Management p Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 13
    • SoA. key concepts Argyris, C. “Double loop learning in organisations”, Harvard Business review, no.77502. 1977 State of the art Argyris, C. Actionable knowledge: intent versus actuality. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science; 32, 4; ABI/ INFORM Global. 1996 Ausubel, D. P., J. D. Novak, and H. Hanesian. Educational Psychology: A Cog-nitive View, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, relationshi Foundational Knowledge Rinehart and Winston. 1978 concepts Management p Innovation Barton, DL. Wellsprings of knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. 1995 Bessant, J, Hoffman, K., Parejo, M. Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation: a literature review, International Journal of Innovation Manag. London. 1997 Bontis, M. “Capital Intellectual: an exploraty study that develops measures and models”. Management Decision, pp. 67-76. 1998 Burns,T. y Stalker, GM. The management of innovation. Oxford University Press. 1961 Chesbrough, H. “Why companies should have open business models”. MIT Sloan Management Review Vol 48, n2 . 2007. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science quaterly, 35, 128- 152. 1990 Davenport, T. y Prusak, L. “Working Knowledge”. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. 1998 Drucker, P. “La Productividad del Trabajador del Conocimiento: máximo Desafío”. Harvard Deusto Business Review, núm. 98, p. 4-16. 2000 Drucker, P.F. From capitalism to knowledge society. Wobum MA: Buterworth. 1998 Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. “The intellectual capital”. Management 2000, Barcelona. 1999 EIS. European Innovation Scoreboard. European Commission.2005 y 2007 Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. : “The Balanced Scorecard”. Management 2000. Bar-celona. 1997 Kirton, C. quot;Adaptation- Innovationnquot;. Long Range Planning, Elsevier. 1984 Nonaka. “The knowledge-creating company”. Harvard Business Review, pp. 96-104. 1991 Polany, M., The tacit dimension, Ed. Routledge, Londres. 1967 Schumpeter JA; Scherer FM. Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives. MIT Press. 1984 Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organi-zation. New York, Doubleday/ Currency. 1990 Von Hippel, E., Herstatt, C. Developing new products concepts via the lead user method, Journal of Product innovation management, vol. 9, iss 3, Sept. 1992 Yin, R. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. SAGE 2003 Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Zahra, S. A.; George, G. quot;Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualiza-tion, and extensionquot;. Academy Ramos 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos of 14 Management Review, Vol. 27, Nº 2, p. 185-203. 2002
    • SoA. KM State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationshi Innovation concepts Management p Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 15
    • SoA. KM State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationshi Innovation concepts Management p Alavi, M. Leidner, D. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly. 2001 Alegre Vidal, J. La Gestión del Conocimiento como motor de la innovación. Universitat Jaume I de Castellón. 2004 BSI (British Standards Institution), various authors. Knowledge Management: a guide to good practice. BSI. 2001 Camisón, C.; Palacios, D.; Devece, C. quot;Un nuevo modelo para la medición del capital intelectual: el modelo Novaquot;, Ponencia presentada en X Congreso Nacional de ACEDE, Oviedo. 2000 Comisión Europea. EUROSTAT, Community Innovation Survey, Brussels. 1994 Coombs R. 'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in Innovation. Elsevier ScienceResearch Policy 27. 1998 KnowNet. The KnowNet Consortium. Esprit research project EP28928. 2000 Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52. Mentzas Gregoris. A strategic management framework for leveraging knowledge assets. International Journal of Innovation and Learning (IJIL), Vol. 1, No. 2, 2004 Ponzi L. The Evolution & Intellectual Development of Knowledge Management. Leo-nard J. Ponzi. Long Island University. 2003 Sveiby, K. “Organizatonial The new wealth: managing and measuring intan-gible assets”. Berret-Koelher Publishers, San Francisco. 1998 Teece, D; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. “Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-agement”. Strategic Management Journal, No.18, p.509-533. 1997 Viedma JM. Strategic benchmarking of IC (SBIC). An IC strategic management meth-odology and strategic information system. E-Know Net. 2001 Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 16
    • SoA. Innovation State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationshi Innovation concepts Management p Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 17
    • SoA. Innovation State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationshi Innovation concepts Management p Boisot, Max H. “Is your firm a creative destroyer? Competitive learning and knowledge flows in the technological strategies of firms, Research Policy, Vol. 24, 1995, pp. 489-506 Drucker, P.F. La innovación y el empresario innovador, Edhasa. 1986 Henderson, R y Clark, K.B. “Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms”. Administrative Sci-ence Quaterly, vol 35, nº 1. 1990 Adams R., Bessant J. y Phelps, R. Innovation management measurement: A review. In-ternational Journal of Management Reviews. Volume 8. Issue 1 pp. 21-47. 2006 Arundel A. The Knowledge Economy, Innovation Diffusion, and the CIS. Proceedings of the 21st CEIES Seminar, Innovation Statistics – More than R&D Indicators, Athens, April 10-11, 2003, Eurostat, General Statistics, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2003. Arundel, A. Hollanders, H. EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards. MERIT. March, 2005 Luecke, R. Katz, R. Managing Creativity and Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. 2003 Utterback, J.M. Dinámica de la innovación tecnológica, Fund. Cotec, Madrid. 2001 Quinn, J., B. Technological Innovation, Entrepeneurship and strategies, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 19- 30. 1977 Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 18
    • SoA. KM & Innovation relationship State of the art Foundational Knowledge relationshi Innovation concepts Management p Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 19
    • a review of seminal contributions •  Next two slides show a detailed list of most important works in management discipline along the history •  It represents a radar diagram organized by 5 main pillars about management: –  Strategy –  Operations, production, processes and systems –  Market, marketing and sales –  People, skills, human capital –  IT and communications •  The green bubbles show where KM and Innovation are present, and the size of the bubble gives an idea of the impact it had Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 20
    • Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 21
    • Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 22
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 23
    • KM&I model Individual Individual Individual actionning and and CKO CKO control Absorb/ INDIVIDUAL Tacit and applied Create Tacit Intern alize Actioni Actioning ng, and Validate applicat measure ion Review/ Improve COLLECTIVE Tacit and Explicit Explicit collective Share/ and CKO Social network, Storage organization, shared Colaborate system Shared repository Externalize, socialize Paris, May 2009 And transfer Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 24
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 25
    • methodological framework Plan the research strategy Case study design 1.Research questions 2.Suggestion or thesis 3.Analysis unit 4.Link data and thesis 5.Criterion for finding interpretations Theory development Fieldwork Questionnaire arrangement and guides for research Protocol. Relate research questions with analysis issues in case studies Specific evidences found Collected data storage Report generation Multiple source triangulation for verification Analysis and external validation Report generation Final review by the own analyzed organizations (sources) Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 26
    • KM variables Absorb/ Tacit and applied Create Tacit Intern alize Actioni Actioning ng, and Validate applicat measure ion Review/ Improve Tacit and Explicit Explicit Share/ Storage Colaborate Variable Indicator Id Externalize, socialize And transfer Range There
 are
 systems
 and
 tools
 for
 capturing
 knowledge
 when
 it
 happens
 (A>er
 Ac0on
 Reviews,
 brainstorming
repositories…)
 KinCapt
 0,
1
 Incorporate:
 There
are
collabora0ve
policies
and
external
collabora0on
is
also
promoted:

 capturing,
genera0ng,
 1.
Educa0on
 absorbing
 2.
Consul0ng
 KinAbs
 1,
2,
3
 3.
and
compe0tors
monitoring
 Valida0on:
iden0fiing
 Business
key
knowledge
areas
are
iden0fied
 the
relevant
issues
 Valid
 0,
1
 There
 are
 repositories
 organized
 using
 a
 taxonomy
 and
 there
 are
 also
 procedures
 to
 explicit
 knowledge
in
a
homogeneous
way
along
the
company:

 Storage:
explici0ng
 0.
No
 StorExplic
 0,
1,
2
 and
codifiing
in
 1.
Basic
 repositories
 2.
Advanced
 It
 exists
 and
 is
 recognized
 the
 Chief
 Knowledge
 Officer
 (CKO)
 role,
 accountable
 for
 KB
 and
 repositories
 CKO
 0,
1
 Needed
knowledge
(intern

and
extern)
for
workers
ac0vity
is
accessible
and
easy
to
use

 KAccess
 0,
1
 Sharing:
broadcas0ng
 There
are

competences
to
promote
open
communica0on,
collabora0on
and
knowledge
sharing
in
 HRColComp
 0,
1
 and
collabora0ng
 the
HR
development
systems
 There
 are
 Communi0es
 of
 Prac0ce,
 Purpose,
 internal
 and
 mixed
 (with
 external
 members)
 Social
 Networks
 CoPSNA
 0,
1
 Useful
 knowledge
 is
 applied
 to
 produce
 and
 perform.
 The
 6
 step
 KM
 process
 is
 adopted
 in
 the
 organiza0on
in
a
more
or
less
formal
way
 Kact
 0,
1
 Ac0oning:
applying,
 using
and
measuring
 There
are
specific
Key
Performance
Indicators
for
KM
 KPI
 0,
1
 the
impact
of
doing
it
 When
 recrui0ng
 and
 in
 HR
 development
 policies
 the
 corpora0ve
 values
 are
 matched
 with
 the
 individual
is
assessed.
An
open
aZtude
towards
long
life
learning
is
requested
 HRActVal
 0,
1
 Con0nuous
maintenance,
improvement
and
review
of
KM
system
is
done:
 Mantain:
review,
 0.
No
 improve
and
 1.
Basic
 KMImp
 0,
1,
2
 Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation evolu0onante
 20090513ka03 2.
It
allows
sugges0ons
and
improvements
made
by
users
 Jose Carlos Ramos 27
    • innovation activity variables* Variable Id Range Organiza0on
has
done
innova0on
ac0vi0es
before
 InOn
 0,
1
 Organiza0on
abandoned
its
innova0on
ac0vi0es
 InAB
 0,
1
 Organiza0on
introduced
a
new
or
significantly
improved
product
to
the
market

 Inpdt
 0,
1
 How
did
product
innova0on
happen?:
 1
=
leaded
by
the
organiza0on
or
the
group
where
it
operates

 2
=
coopera0ng
with
other
firms
 InpdtW
 1,
2,
3
 3
=
mainly
by
other
firms
or
ins0tu0ons
 Organiza0on
introduced
a
new
or
significantly
improved
process
to
the
market

 Inpcs
 0,
1
 How
did
process
innova0on
happen?:
 1
=
leaded
by
the
organiza0on
or
the
group
where
it
operates

 2
=
coopera0ng
with
other
firms
 InpcsW
 1,
2,
3
 3
=
mainly
by
other
firms
or
ins0tu0ons
 It
develops
internal
R+D
 RrdIn
 0,
1
 Kind
of
R+D:
 1
=
con0nuous
 RdEng
 1,
2
 2
=
episodic

 Main
market
of
the
company:
 1
=
local

 2
=
local/regional

 SigMar
 1,
2,
3,
4
 3
=
na0onal

 4
=
interna0onal

 Organiza0on
introduced
new
or
significantly
improved
products
which
where
new
to
its
market

 InMar
 0,
1
 Organiza0on
had
done
collabora0ve
ac0vi0es
for
innova0on
 Co
 0,
1
 *EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards. Arundel, A. Hollanders, H. MERIT. 2005 Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 28
    • outcomes. KM maturity HRColComp StorExplic HRActVal KAccess CoPSNA KinCapt Organization KM level KMImp KinAbs Valid Kact CKO KPI PHARMACEUTICAL
DISTRIBUTOR
 0
 0
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 Accidental AERONAUTICAL
BROKER
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 Pasive INFORMATIC
SOLUTIONS
PROVIDER
 1
 2
 1
 2
 1
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 1
 Active ACADEMIC
INSTITUTION
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 Accidental ELECTRONIC
DEVICES
MANUFACTURER
 1
 3
 1
 2
 1
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 1
 Active PRINTING
SOLUTIONS
FOR
CHERAMIC
 1
 3
 1
 2
 1
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 1
 Active STRATEGIC
BUSINESS
CONSULTANCY
 1
 3
 1
 2
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 2
 Intentional INDUSTRIAL
BAKERY
 0
 1
 0
 1
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 Accidental EXCLUSIVE
FURNITURE
MANUFACTURER
 1
 3
 1
 1
 1
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 1
 Active WELDING
AND
STAMPING
PROVIDER
FOR
 1
 2
 1
 1
 1
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 1
 Active AUTOMOTIVE
 Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 29
    • outcomes. innovation activity InpcsW InpdtW SigMar Organization Innovation type RdEng InMar RrdIn Inpcs Inpdt InOn InAB Co PHARMACEUTICAL
DISTRIBUTOR
 0
 0
 0
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 3
 0
 0
 Adopter AERONAUTICAL
BROKER
 1
 0
 0
 0
 1
 1
 1
 2
 4
 1
 1
 Episodic INFORMATIC
SOLUTIONS
PROVIDER
 1
 0
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 1
 3
 1
 1
 Strategic ACADEMIC
INSTITUTION
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 3
 0
 0
 3
 0
 0
 No Innovator ELECTRONIC
DEVICES
MANUFACTURER
 1
 1
 1
 2
 1
 2
 1
 1
 3
 1
 1
 Episodic PRINTING
SOLUTIONS
FOR
CHERAMIC

 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 1
 1
 4
 1
 1
 Episodic STRATEGIC
BUSINESS
CONSULTANCY
 1
 0
 1
 2
 1
 2
 1
 1
 3
 1
 1
 Strategic INDUSTRIAL
BAKERY
 1
 0
 1
 1
 0
 0
 0
 0
 2
 1
 1
 Technology modifier EXCLUSIVE
FURNITURE
MANUFACTURER
 1
 0
 1
 2
 1
 1
 1
 1
 4
 1
 1
 Strategic WELDING
AND
STAMPING
PROVIDER
FOR
 0
 0
 0
 0
 1
 2
 1
 1
 4
 1
 1
 Episodic AUTOMOTIVE
 Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 30
    • outcomes. relationship Iformatic Exclusive solutions furniture Buiness strategic INNOVATION provider manufacturer consultancy STRATEGIC Aeronautical Broker Printing solutions for cheramic EPISODIC Electronic device manufacturer MODIFIER Welding and stamping provider for automotive ADOPTer Industrial bakery Academic institution Pharmaceutical distributor Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 31
    • content 1.  PhD student profile 2.  Hypothesis formulation 3.  Doctoral work structure 4.  State of the art 5.  A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation 6.  Empirical work Methodological framework Variables Case study analysis and outcomes 7.  Conclusions Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 32
    • conclusions and future works Knowledge Management •  Today is a key element for competitiveness. It was seen as a fashion and very linked to ICT's •  Its management is complex and still remain great efforts to be done for measuring its impact in business •  The holistic approach (strategy, productivity, competitiveness, systems and people) is the most complete one •  As smaller a company is, more strategic KM becomes •  As larger a company is, more systematic KM becomes •  The 5 step KM process gives special relevance to actioning knowledge •  The knowledge worker should: –  be more thoughtful, invest more time to investigate and study; train himself on new environments, systems and technologies to discern and apply the useful knowledge; be more open to collaborate, to share and work on open standards –  Organize and work in new ways, it means innovate in management (e.g., the success of the Internet communities) Innovation •  Many of the competitive advantages achieved with innovation have not been preserved  it shows a lack of systematization, a poor awareness on collaboration and, barriers to seek, absorb, share and enrich knowledge KM and Innovation •  They are a competitive advantage not only for knowledge-intensive activities (KIA), but also for traditional business Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 33
    • final conclusion There is a positive relationship between the Knowledge Management maturity and Innovation Activity in organizations Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 34
    • Further information: Jose Carlos Ramos www.avanzalis.com www.josecarlosramos.com Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 35