Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Author: Ivan F Rodriguez. Doctoral Learner. University of PhoenixDate: June 9, 2013
  • APA 6th Edition is used on this presentation for properly formatting of in-text citation and the references.
  • The definition of productivity enhancer is an entity (private or public) focused to improve the return on investment (the ratio between inputs and outputs) of human structures (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Recent developments reinforce the observation that economic growth is unequally distributed and highlight the shift of balance of economic activity. According to Davis & Richard (2011), “Strategies and goals focused on driving innovation in human life will continue be the heart of the modern economy” (p.18).
  • To measure the impact of scientific publications it is possible either to use the citations received by an article or to assess its quality on the basis of the level of citations relative to the record of the journal in which the article is published (West, 2012). Here, the focus is on publications and citations received. The normalized impact is the ratio between the average number of citations received by the documents published by a specific unit (country, institution and author) and the world average of citations of the same time period, document type and subject area. The normalization of citation values is item-oriented, i.e. carried out at the level of the individual article. If an article belongs to several subject areas, a mean value of the areas is calculated. The values show the relationship of the unit’s average impact to the world average, which is 1, i.e. a score of 0.8 means the unit is cited 20% below average and 1.3 means the unit is cited 30% above average. Although article citation has the advantage of focusing directly on the impact of the articles examined, citation takes time, particularly in some disciplines. The more time allowed to measure the impact, the less timely the indicator becomes (OECD, 2012).
  • Diversity is a key driver of innovation and is a critical component of being successful on a global scale (West, 2012). Senior executives are recognizing that a diverse set of experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds is crucial to innovation and the development of new ideas. Diversity is crucial to encouraging different perspectives and ideas that foster innovation (Simonen & McCann, 2008).
  • The OISPs will be chosen based on multiple factors including: (1) network size and knowledge area span, (2) established process, (3) methodology, (4) experience base, and (5) cost. A benchmark preliminary analysis allowed the identification of two potential business partners (InnoCentive and Yet2.com). Each seems to meet the desired criteria; however, each company’s approach to Open Innovation Services (OISP) is distinctly different. InnoCentivefocuses on posting individual challenges to an established web-based network of ~200,000 solvers; viable solutions are sought and granted a financial award if found. Based on a specific technological need, Yet2.com acts as a “technology scout” providing a broad external network of experts as potential collaborators for Rodpol®. A relationship can be established with these contacts to develop technologies and maintained as an established network of future collaborators.
  • According to Rassenfosse and Potterie (2009), open innovation philosophy is that “innovation comes from where you least expect it.” (p. 782) This means that someone from an unrelated field may have a novel approach to solving the problem, which is unbiased and unconventional but very applicable. One of the major mechanisms for the transfer and diffusion of knowledge is the mobility of people. The geographic mobility of high-skilled labor causes a relocation of human capital that essentially contains embodied knowledge combined with personal experiences (Döring & Schnellenbach, 2006). Moreover,multinational firms also play a specific role in transmitting institutionalized knowledge in the form of the experience and work practices of internationally transferred employees.
  • The engagement model is a synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative literature review performed on this research. The model reflects the flow that Rodpol® will follow to maintain an effective flow of projects that affects positively a community innovation capacity and consequently, its competitiveness level.
  • Most researchers focus upon hierarchy as the basic structure for organizing complex social activity. Cooperation among members is achieved through vertically imposed bureaucratic processes (Grant, 1996; Weber, 1947). Rules and programs to coordinate behavior between interdependent subtasks are used (March & Simon, 1958).
  • Organizational membership plays a critical role in articulating and amplifying knowledge. Nonaka (1994) proposes four modes of knowledge transfer—socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI)—in a dynamic spiral of interactions between knowledge type (termed epistemological, e.g., tacit, explicit) and organizational reach (termed ontological, e.g., individual, inter-organizational).
  • Berle and Means’ (1932) seminal contribution brought to light the potential drawbacks associated with the separation of ownership and control. For example, in large corporations, shareholders delegate decision rights to a manager, who has the ability to manage resources to his own advantage. To alleviate possible conflicts of interest between share-holders and managers, incentive plans that align their interests are commonly used in practice.
  • Nurturing a corporate culture that allows freedom to experiment and tolerates failures is essential to motivate innovation among employees of large corporations. Farson and Keyes (2002) and Sutton (2002) provide several examples of innovative corporations, such as IBM and 3M, that adopt such a culture.
  • Conflict management is crucial to maintaining a cohesive team atmosphere. Being able to exercise and implement the strategies of conflict management are key in developing unity in a team.
  • According to OECD (2012) new indicators on trademarks point to large numbers of incremental and marketing innovations and suggest that countries perform both technological and non-R&D-based innovation. Countries with a large manufacturing sector have a greater propensity to patent than to trademark. Countries with a large services sector tend to engage more in trademark protection. Countries in the process of catching-up have a lower propensity to innovate or to seek protection for their innovations (via patents or trademarks) than OECD countries.
  • According to Audretsch& Feldman (2011), intensity of collaboration in research has grown exponentially in the last decade, “new players are emerging in the research landscape” (p. 29).
  • Conflict management is crucial to maintaining a cohesive team atmosphere. Being able to exercise and implement the strategies of conflict management are key in developing unity in a team.
  • The definition of virtual teams is a group or collaboration of students working toward a common goal or assignment (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). According to Lipnack & Stamps (2000), “Virtual teams can use computer-mediated communication technologies to work interdependently across space, time and organization boundaries” (p.18).
  • There are many reasons why businesses set up virtual teams. The most popular reasons are to fulfill a need, accomplish a goal or to solve a problem. Formation of virtual teams are popular among retailers who try to predict the future needs of their customers (Bergiel 2008). According to Jungalwalla (2000), “Forward thinking companies have readily embraced the underlying principles of virtual teaming, enabling such organizations to become agile and compete more robustly in the global market place” (p.15).
  • Advantages of virtual teams include: the convenience of never having to leave your home, office, library, etc. Accessibility is available from anywhere. Companies are constantly striving to become lean. Saving time and money is an optimal advantage of incorporating virtual teams for projects. Companies that do not use may lose ground to their competitors that do (DeRosa 2011).Because all information received from virtual teams are documented it is easy to recognize talent as well as the weakest link or links (Berry, 2011).
  • Time zone differences can cause delays in operation and function. Cultural differences may cause disparity among teammates due to sexism and customs. Because all communication is through technology, tone and mannerisms may not be conveyed, allowing for miscommunication to frequently occur. Virtual teams operate individually to produce as a whole and if a team member is inefficient and not pulling their weight, the team will suffer. The inability to indicate tone and mannerisms cause team members to use “soft skills” (communication skill development) in order to effectively communicate to other team members electronically (DeRosa 2011).
  • Summary: Virtual teams can be extremely effective. According to Berry (2011), “Virtual teams that are designed, managed and implemented effectively can harness talent and knowledge from anywhere in the world to solve problems and complete work tasks on a 24/7 schedule” (p.135). Virtual teams can yield success and an example of a successful outcome is the high scores received on Team A’s Team Charter. There were four teammates, each providing contributory information and each with specific roles and the score received was 5 out of 5. Individually, I have never received that high of a score for this class and the results from my first team project in secondary education achieved the highest success possible. The conclusion is virtual teams yield success.
  • Conflict is inevitable it occurs in every aspect of our lives and effectively managing it requires mediation and communication (Jetly 2003). According to Ma, Lee,and Yu, “Mediation is a common way to conflict resolution” (p.243). Ma, Lee,and Yu show conflict is always conceived as a direct result of a disagreement and recognizing disagreement styles are key in exercising effective conflict management.
  • Different types of conflict that need to be addressed in different ways. According to Ellis and Abbott (2012), “There is always a temptation to let conflict run and ignore it where possible. However, as a manager there are a number of reasons to take a proactive stance in the management of conflict” (p.138).Recognizing what type of conflict a group is facing is essential in overcoming it. Substantive, emotional, and dysfunctional conflicts are all counter-productive to team goals and should be resolved quickly and swiftly if they do occur.
  • Exercising different models of conflict is essential in overcoming them. Having the ability to recognize and assess potential conflicts before they escalate is a key aspect of overcoming them. Maintaining the mind-set that there is multiple solutions to a goal is key in building collaboration to overcome conflict. Recognizing conflict before it escalates, embracing the possibility of multiple outcomes, and building collaboration are all key in the development of exercising effective conflict management.
  • In exercising conflict resolution it is important to recognize the types of conflict that are being confronted. Placing a emphasis on the strategy of encouragement, reflection, restatement, or validation all depend on the type of conflict being examined. All four steps are essential in contributing to the final goal of resolution and being able to decipher the appropriate one to emphasize is key in being able to solve all types of conflicts.
  • Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

    1. 1. Rodpol®: Open Innovation andTechnology ScoutingIvan F RodriguezORG711 21st Century Organizational BehaviorJune 9, 2013
    2. 2. About this Presentation• Objective: Apply learned theory to design a new organization in the 21st Century.• Methodology: This presentation was developed using two sources, (1) Organization TheoryTaxonomy (week two assignment of this course), and (2) Peer-reviewed research. Each strategicdecision is supported in theoretical foundations, and structures described in the Organization TheoryTaxonomy Assignment. The presentation includes the following.o Overview of the hypothetical enterprise developed.o Organizational structure.o Roles and responsibilities.o Metrics and performance measurement.o Incentives and reward programs.o Leadership strategy.o Detailed speaker notes.o Proper APA in-text citations on the slides and in the speaker notes.o An APA reference slide.2Ivan F Rodriguez | ORG711 University of Phoenix
    3. 3. Rodpol®: Center ofExcellence forCollaborative InnovationThe New Approach Of Innovation!
    4. 4. Rodpol® Overview• VisionTo become the recognized world leader productivityenhancer (n.) that creates core competencies inunderdeveloped countries and minimize poverty.• MissionTo optimize human’s life quality in a sustainable mannerusing internet based external crowd-sourcing platforms toidentify sources of poverty and connect the collectiveknowledge of individuals to innovate products andprocesses.4 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    5. 5. Rodpol® Overview (cont.)• Rodpol® Business Model JustificationThe production of scientific knowledge is shifting from individualsto groups, from single to multiple institutions, and from a nationalto an international scope (West, 2012). Researchers areincreasingly networked across national and organizationalborders.Rodpol® business model assumes that greater scientificspecialization and cross-border collaboration can result inincreased innovation. Because they draw on a larger pool ofexpertise, international research collaborations can be expectedto have a bigger impact in terms of citations of scientificpublications.Differences across countries suggest a positive relationshipbetween measures of research openness and scientific impact,the latter proxied by the average normalized citation index.5 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    6. 6. Rodpol® Overview (cont.)• Rodpol® Business Model ExecutionThe objective of Rodpol®’ business model is to connectexpert contributors from multiple locations with a commonvision, minimize poverty though innovation, technologydevelopment, and technology deployment.In so doing, a three step approach has been defined: (1)Using advanced quantitative and qualitativemethods, assess the competitiveness level of anunderdeveloped economy, (2) Apply the Rodpol®Engagement Model to allocate resources to implementqualified projects/innovations, and (3) Monitorcompetitiveness and human development index tomeasure projects’ effectiveness.6 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    7. 7. Rodpol® Overview (cont.)• Rodpol® Business Model Execution (cont.)Rodpol® business model requires to expand routes foropen communication and create additional opportunitiesfor experts involvement, consequently, the concept ofOpen Innovation Service Provider (OISP) platforms hasbeen incorporated as a tool within Rodpol®’ problemsolving strategy.The goal of utilizing open innovation techniques, such ascrowd-sourcing, takes advantage of the power of groups ofpeople/experts outside one’s organization to help solveproblems or bring in new and novel ideas (West, 2012).The goal is not to replace valued internal expertise, but toadd to the problem-solving capabilities of the globalspecialized cohort.7 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    8. 8. Rodpol® Organizational Structure• Organizational StructureAccording to Rassenfosse and Potterie (2009), operating in the informationera implies a shift in ―traditional strategies and philosophies for anyorganization’s research and technology development efforts.‖ (p. 783)Rodpol® organizational structure is designed to remained flat and flexible asmuch as possible. It includes three layers:1.Agency Leaders2.Program Management3. Resource ManagementRodpol® network of experts is designed to encompass as much of the world’sexpertise as possible. It is acknowledged harnessing the power, andexpertise of underdeveloped communities challenges long-standing culturalbarriers such as the not invented here philosophy, and opening the problemsolving space to diverse and talented individuals outside of the selectedcountry (see Appendix A).8 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    9. 9. Rodpol® Engagement Model9 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711Create IAADevelop GamePlanApproveIAAAuthorizeStartPost(challenge.gov,etc)ReviewFundingOrderResourceManagementProgramManagementAgencyLeadersDevelopPlanEstablishScopeTimeProjectExecutionFigure 1. Rodpol® Engagement Model (Executing the Business Model)Figure 1. This flow diagram describes the interactions between the three core functions within Rodpol®. It indicates theactions, sequence, and interdependency between the areas to evaluate a project and define if it will be executed(implemented or not). IAA stands for Initial Analysis Approval.
    10. 10. Rodpol® Organizational SupportiveTheory• Global Organizational Theory: Knowledge Base TheoryRodpol® organization structured is supported by this globaltheory. Knowledge management research needs a consistentand cohesive theory supported by empirical evidence toprovide sound and stable foundations for the field (Edwards etal., 2003).Knowledge management is an increasing concern in thedesign of organizations. Knowledge generation, transfer, andsharing are becoming increasingly important for scholarsattempting to explain dynamic flows of knowledge that enableworkflow processes (and hence organizationalperformance, e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi,1995; Mason, 2007).10 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    11. 11. Rodpol® Organizational SupportiveTheory (cont.)• Global Organizational Theory: Knowledge Base TheoryRodpol® organization structured is based on the knowledgebase theory and attempts to devise mechanisms for integratingindividuals’ specialized knowledge. Grant (1996) proposes fourmechanisms to coordinate the integration of knowledge withinan enterprise: (a) possessing rules and directives to enable theconversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge; (b)sequencing of workflow processes that minimizecommunication but ensure the input of expertise at differenttimes; (c) creating routines to support complex patterns ofinteractions between individuals in the absence of rules,directives, or even significant verbal communication; and (d)establishing group problem-solving and decision-makingroutines (see Appendix B).11 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    12. 12. Rodpol® Roles and Responsibilities• Resource ManagerResponsible for defining the amount, allocating budget toprojects, and controlling it (e.g., do not exceed theallocated resources).• Program ManagerResponsible for defining the scope of the project,assigning priorities, and executing the project throughoutestablished phases.• Agency LeaderResponsible for evaluating the Initial Analysis Approval(IAA), assessing project viability, and approving theproject execution.12 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    13. 13. Rodpol® Core Metrics and PerformanceMeasurement• Knowledge based organizationsKnowledge flows enable workflows, and workflows driveperformance, theory suggests the organization of knowledge—particularly tacit knowledge—is critical for competitive advantage(Nonaka, 1994).The knowledge-based organizational performance model takes intoconsideration the practical aspects of knowledge transfer amongtemporal members. It has implications on future methods oftransferring knowledge in temporal organizations (Mason, 2007).The extension of transactive memory theory to include knowledgeaccess to another member who is not present in the current teamcan help improve how organizations manage and train theirknowledge resources (see Appendix B).13 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    14. 14. Rodpol® Core Metrics and PerformanceMeasurement (cont.)• Resource ManagerBudget Accuracy (BA) measured by the ratio betweenExpend Amount (EA) and Defined Budget (DB)[BA=EA/DB]• Program ManagerOn Time Delivery (OTD) measured by the ratio betweenActions Closed on Time (AC) and Total Actions Opened (TA)[OTD=AC/TA]• Agency LeaderProject Effectiveness (PE) measured by the ratio betweenActual Patents Registered (AP) and Planned Patents (PP)[PE=AP/PP]14 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    15. 15. Rodpol® Incentives and RewardPrograms• Rodpol® Incentive programIn the context of executive compensation, the optimal contractthat motivates innovation can be implemented via acombination of (1) stock options with long vesting periods, (2)option re-pricing, (3) golden parachutes, and (4) managerialentrenchment (Mason, 2007).Stock options with long vesting periods combined with optionre-pricing and golden parachutes bring on tolerance for earlyfailure and reward for long-term success, so that compensationdepends not only on total performance but also on the path ofperformance as described above. Managerial entrenchmentgives the manager job security, since an entrenched managermay keep his job even if it is ex-post efficient for theshareholders of the firm to fire him (Mason , 2007).15 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    16. 16. Rodpol® Incentives and RewardPrograms (cont.)• Rodpol® Incentive programThe bulk of the compensation of the general partner is in theform of carried interest, which is effectively a call option on theprojects being financed. This provides incentives for thegeneral partner to keep projects alive beyond the point underwhich it would be efficient to terminate them.Francis, Hasan, and Sharma (2009) show that goldenparachutes as well as long-term incentives in the form ofvested and unvested options have a positive and significanteffect on patents and citations to patents.Rodpol® will rely extensively on explicit long-term contracts toovercome the commitment problem and induce exploration.Knowing that they will not lose their jobs, researchers arewiling to explore new research directions that are likely to failbut may lead to breakthroughs (Sutton, 2009).16 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    17. 17. Appendix ARodpol® The 21st Century InnovationApproach
    18. 18. Rodpol® The 21st Century InnovationApproach18 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711Figure 2. Scientific articles and co-authorship in 1998Figure 2. The size of the bubble reflects the number of scientific publications. The thickness of the link reflects theintensity of collaboration, i.e. co-authorships (OECD, 2010).
    19. 19. Rodpol® The 21st Century InnovationApproach19 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711Figure 3. Scientific articles and co-authorship in 2009Figure 3. The size of the bubble reflects the number of scientific publications. The thickness of the link reflects theintensity of collaboration, i.e. co-authorships (OECD, 2010).
    20. 20. Appendix BRodpol® Virtual Teams Approach
    21. 21. Effectiveness of Virtual Teams• Definition of Virtual TeamsVirtual Teams (n.) are a group or collaboration of onlinestudents working toward a common goal orassignment.• Overcoming the EnvironmentAccording to Lipnack & Stamps (2000), ―Virtual teamscan use computer-mediated communicationtechnologies to work interdependently acrossspace, time and organization boundaries‖ (p.18).21 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    22. 22. Effectiveness of Virtual Teams (cont.)• Purpose of Virtual Teams:1. Teams are created to fulfill a need.2. Collaboration of team members is key in respondingto customer needs.3. Using virtual teams creates fair competition in andoutside the classroom.22 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    23. 23. Effectiveness of Virtual Teams (cont.)• Advantages of Virtual Teams in Business:1. Promotes a Cost-Effective Strategy• Saves travel time & costs (DeRosa, 2011).• Increases employment of foreign-basedsubcontractors.• Allows maximization of companies’ investments.• Improves time consumption in the development ofproducts.• Conveniently accessible from anywhere.23 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    24. 24. Effectiveness of Virtual Teams (cont.)• Advantages of Virtual Teams in Business (cont.):2. Performance measurement & Sharing of information• Varied Opinions• Diversified backgrounds• Geographic influences• Easy to trace talent & document participation3. Disadvantages of Virtual Teams• Multiple Time zone differences• Cultural differences & Language barriers• A weak link can contribute to team conflict.• Exclusion of tone and mannerisms.24 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    25. 25. Effectiveness of Virtual Teams (cont.)• Conclusion:• Are virtual teams effective?Virtual team’s advantages vastly outweigh their disadvantages and beenproven effective in all geographic regions worldwide (Berry , 2011). Withthe constant increases in the development technology virtual teams arethe future of learning.• Can virtual teams yield success?Virtual teams have been clinically proven to yield success and arecurrently being adopted in classrooms worldwide. Their advantages ofbeing cost-effective and performance based contribute greatly to theirworldwide success.25 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    26. 26. Conflict ManagementDefinition of Conflict• Conflict (n.) - is when a disagreement occurs betweenvalues, perspectives, or opinions that are contradictoryand a agreement cannot be reached among cohorts(Jetly 2003).Disagreement Models• Displaying avoidance or withdrawal.• Exercising accommodation or smoothing over.• Exerting a authoritative command.• Engaging in collaboration or problem solving (Berry2011).26 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    27. 27. Conflict Management (cont.)According to Ellis and Abbott (2012),“There are a number of reasons to take a proactive stance in themanagement of conflict” (p.138).Recognizing Types of Conflict• Substantive ConflictDisagreement overgoals, resources, rewards, policies, procedures andassignments.• Emotional ConflictResults from feelings of anger, distrust, dislike, fear, andresentment.• Dysfunctional ConflictDestructive actions that hurt task performance.27 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    28. 28. Conflict Management (cont.)Outcomes of Conflict• Win-WinThe conflict is resolved to benefit the entire team.• Win-LoseOne party achieves its desires and the other team members do not.• CompromiseOccurs when each team member in the conflict gives up something of valueto the other.• CollaborationInvolves working through conflict differences and solving problems so theentire team wins (Berry, 2011; Ma, Lee, & Yu, 2008).28 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    29. 29. Conflict Management (cont.)Conflict Resolution• EncourageEmbracing the other team member to share his or her issues as fully as possible. Clarify the realissues, rather than making assumptions. Ask questions that allow team members to gain from theinformation, and let the other team member know the team trying to understand them.• RestateReiterate what was stated, so the team is able to see what has been understood so far - it may be thatthe other team member will then realize that additional information is needed.• ReflectThink about other team members feelings - be as clear as possible.• ValidateCorroborate the concerns of the other team member, even if a solution is elusive at this time.Expressing appreciation can be a very powerful message if it is conveyed with integrity and respect.***Disclaimer: In addressing conflict management to UPOX standards any and all strategies should be exercised to foster a solution. In the event a solution cannotoccur UPOX personnel should be contacted to appropriately to discuss possible solutions to the problem and how to handle it.29 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    30. 30. ReferencesAudretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (2011). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation.Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group and OrganizationManagement, 27(0), 14-49.Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932), The modern corporation and private property. New York: MacmillanPressBell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group and OrganizationManagement, 27(0), 14-49.Bergie, B.J., Bergiel, E.B., & Balsmeier, P.W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of theiradvantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99-110.doi:10.1108/01409170810846821Berry, G. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams. Journal Of BusinessCommunication, 48(2), 186-206. doi:10.1177/002194361039727030 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    31. 31. References (cont.)DeRosa, D., & Lepsinger, R. (2011, July). Five ways to create successful virtual teams509128. Baseline. Retrieved fromhttp://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA262760468&v=2.1&u=uphoenix&it=r&p=GPS&sw=wDavis, J.R., & Richard, E.E. (2011). Advancing innovation through collaboration: Implementation ofthe NASA space life science strategy. International Astronautical Federation, 1(11), 16-32.Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649978main_IAC-11E612x9614AdvInnov.pdfEdwards, J., Handzic, H., Carlsson, S., & Nissen. M. (2003). Knowledge management research andpractice: Visions and directions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1(1): 49-60.Ellis, P., & Abbott, J. (2012). Strategies for managing conflict within the team. British Journal ofCardiac Nursing, 7(3), 138-140.Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002). Whoever makes the most mistakes wins: The paradox of innovation.New York, NY: The Free Press.Francis, B., Hasan, I., & Sharma, Z. (2009). Do incentives create innovation? Evidence from CEOcompensation contracts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2(1), 2-20.31 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    32. 32. References (cont.)Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic ManagementJournal, 17, 109-122.Jetly, R. (2003). Conflict management strategies in ASEAN: Perspectives for SAARC. Pacific Review, 16(1), 53-76. Retrieved fromhttp://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=99fd285d-cebe-4f6b-bdc2-f34e4e80524d%40sessionmgr15&vid=7&hid=10.Jungalwalla, R. (2000). Transforming groups into teams. Executive Excellence, 17(2), 8-23.Lipnack, J.S., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries withtechnology . New York, NY: John Wiley.Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Yu, K. (2008). Ten years of conflict management studies: Themes, concepts andrelationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3), 234-248. doi:10.1108/10444060810875796March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Mason, R. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management and strategy. A complexitytheory approach. Management Decision, 45(1), 10-28.32 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    33. 33. References (cont.)Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science5(1), 14-37.OECD (2012), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Paris: OECD Publications.Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2012-enRassenfosse, G., & Potterie, B.P. (2009). A policy insight into the R&D–patent relationship. ResPolicy, 38, 779–792.Simonen, J., McCann, P. (2008). Firm innovation− The influence of R&D cooperation and thegeography of human capital inputs, Journal of Urban Economics, 64 1): 146-154.Sutton, R. (2002). Weird ideas that work: 11 1/2 practices for promoting, managing, and sustainingInnovation. New York, NY):The Free Press.University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). Having problems with your learning team? [Video file].Retrieved from University of Phoenix website:https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821214428871.html33 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711
    34. 34. References (cont.)University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). How’s it going with your learning team? [Video file]. Retrievedfrom University of Phoenix website:https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821210625870.htmlUniversity of Phoenix (2012, August 1). New to University of Phoenix learning teams? [Video file].Retrieved from University of Phoenix website:https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821151528869.htmlWeber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity andinnovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–386.34 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711