Examining the critical interplay of knowledge acquisition and integration capabilities in service innovation-based competitive advantage in project oriented service firms

While past knowledge-based approaches to service innovation have emphasized the role of knowledge integration in the delivery of customer-focused solutions, these approaches do not adequately address the complexities inherent in knowledge acquisition and integration in project-oriented firms. Adopting a dynamic capability framework and building on knowledge-based approaches to innovation, the current study examines how the interplay of learning capabilities and knowledge integration capability impacts service innovation and sustained competitive advantage. This two-stage multi-sample study finds that entrepreneurial project-oriented service firms in their quest for competitive advantage through greater innovation invest in knowledge acquisition and integration capabilities. Implications for theory and practice are discussed and directions for future research provided.

Dynamics of industry architecture and firm’s capability development : role of knowledge integration within product innovation

Aligned with the decline of Marshalian view of industry as constituting homogeneous set of firms, the new perspective is emerging by concentrating more on dynamics of sectors as the building block of industrial changes. Based on new assumptions, much of the action in terms of strategy, technology, and knowledge development does not happen either among firms within a stable industry, or through the growth or decline of certain sectors compared to others. Instead, the action happens in terms of the definition, redefinition, drawing, and redrawing of the very nature of these sectors. Technology does not progress and develop within a sector; rather it shapes (and is shaped by) the encompassing architecture of multiple sectors.

Place making for knowledge generation and innovation: Planning and branding Brisbane’s knowledge community precincts

Knowledge generation and innovation have been a priority for global city administrators particularly during the last couple of decades. This is mainly due to the growing consensus in identifying knowledge-based urban development as a panacea to the burgeoning economic problems. Place making has become a critical element for success in knowledge-based urban development as planning and branding places is claimed to be an effective marketing tool for attracting investment and talent. This paper aims to investigate the role of planning and branding in place making by assessing the effectiveness of planning and branding strategies in the development of knowledge and innovation milieus. The methodology of the study comprises reviewing the literature thoroughly, developing an analysis framework, and utilizing this framework in analyzing Brisbane’s knowledge community precincts—namely Boggo Road Knowledge Precinct, Kelvin Grove Urban Knowledge Village, and Sippy Downs Knowledge Town. The analysis findings generate invaluable insights in Brisbane’s journey in place making for knowledge and innovation milieus and communities. The results suggest as much as good planning, branding strategies and practice, the requirements of external and internal conditions also need to be met for successful place making in knowledge community precincts.

Research Monograph: The role of community and lifestyle in the making of a knowledge city

Our brief is to investigate the role of community and lifestyle in the making of a globally successful knowledge city region. Our approach is essentially pragmatic. We start by broadly examining knowledge-based urban development from a number of different perspectives. The first view is historical. In this context knowledge work and knowledge workers are seen as vital parts of a new emergent mode of production reliant on the continual production of abstract knowledge. We briefly develop this perspective to encompass the work of Richard Florida who has, notedly, claimed: “Wherever talent goes, innovation, creativity, and economic growth are sure to follow.” Our next perspective examines concepts of knowledge and modes of its production to discover knowledge is not an unchanging object but a human activity that changes in form and content through history. The suggestion emerges that not only is the production of contemporary ‘knowledge’ organised in a specific (and new) manner but also the output of this networked production is a particular type of knowledge (i.e. techné). The third perspective locates knowledge production and its workers in the contemporary urban context. As such, it co-ordinates the knowledge city in the increasingly global structure of cities and develops a typology of different groups of knowledge workers in their preferred urban environment(s). We see emerging here a distinctive geography of knowledge production. It is an urban phenomenon. There is, in short, something about the nature of cities that knowledge workers find particularly attractive. In the next, essentially anthropological, perspective we start to explore the needs and desires of the individual knowledge worker. Beyond the needs basic to any modern human household an attempt is made to deduce, from a base understanding of knowledge work as mental labour, the compensatory cultural needs of the knowledge worker when not at work - and the expression of these needs in the urban fabric. Our final perspective consists of two case studies. In a review of the experiences of Austin, Texas and Singapore’s one-north precinct we collect empirical data on, respectively, a knowledge city that has sustained itself for over 50 years and an urban precinct newly launched into the global market for knowledge work and knowledge workers. Interwoven The Role of Community and Lifestyle in the Making of a Knowledge City Urban Research Program 8 through all perspectives, in the form of apposite citation, is that of ‘expert opinion’ gathered in a rudimentary poll of academic and industry sources. This opinion appears in text boxes while details of the survey can be found in Appendix A. In the conclusion of the report we interpret the wide range of evidence gathered above in a policy frame. It is our hope this report will leave the reader with a clearer picture of the decisive organisational, infrastructural, aesthetic and social dimensions of a knowledge precinct.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

Enhancing research and development: designing collaborative environments for innovation

Work environments have previously been studied to identify the strategies, structures and processes which increase the likelihood of creativity, innovation and collaboration for productive workplaces. A number of perspectives have emerged which identify social and cognitive factors known to contribute to or to restrict innovation and collaboration. Recently more attention has been given to designing physical environments to encourage processes relevant to innovation such as creativity (McCoy & Evans, 2002) knowledge sharing (Hemlin, Allwood & Martin, 2008) and collaboration (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). Some attention has been given specifically to research and development environments (Boutellier et al, 2008) but little integration of this research has occurred. In the context of the construction of new purpose-built premises which will bring together under one roof separate public sector agencies engaged in research and development in agriculture, natural resource systems and the environment, this paper examines the extant literature and develops initial propositions for research relevant to the transition, collaboration and performance of research and development in new organizational environments where traditional boundaries have been redrawn.

Developing within-company information and communication technologies (ICT) innovation diffusion networks : a study of three Australian major contractors

The innovation diffusion and knowledge management literature strongly supports the importance of communities of practice (COP) for enabling knowledge about how to use and adopt innovation initiatives. One of the most powerful tools for innovation diffusion is word-of-mouth wisdom from committed individuals who mentor and support each other. Close proximity for face-to-face interaction is highly effective, however, many organisations are geographically dispersed with projects being virtual linked sub-organisations using ICT to communicate. ICT has also introduced a useful facilitating technology for developing knowledge networks. This paper presents findings from a research program concentrating on ICT innovation diffusion in the Australian construction industry. One way in which ICT diffusion is taking place was found to be through within-company communities of practice. We undertook in-depth unstructured interviews with three of the major 10 to 15 contractors in Australia to discuss their ICT diffusion strategies. We discovered that in all three cases,within company networked communities of practice was a central strategy. Further, effective diffusion of ICT groupware tools can be critical in developing COP where they are geographically dispersed.

Developing knowledge precincts in regional towns: opportunities and challenges

While extensive literature exists on knowledge-based urban development (KBUD) focusing on large metropolitan cities, there is a paucity of literature looking into similar developments in small regional towns. The major aim of the paper is to examine the nature and potential for building knowledge precincts in regional towns. Through a review of extant literature on knowledge precincts, five key value elements and principles for development are identified. These principles are then tested and applied to a case study of the small town of Cooroy in Noosa, Australia. The Cooroy Lower Mill Site and its surroundings are the designated location for what may be called a community-based creative knowledge precinct. The opportunities and challenges for setting up a creative knowledge precinct in Cooroy were examined. The study showed that there is a potential to develop Cooroy with the provision of cultural and learning facilities, partnerships with government, business and educational institutions, and networking with other creative and knowledge precincts in the region. However, there are also specific challenges relating to the development of a knowledge precinct within the regional town and these relate to critical mass, competition and governance.

The Innovation Management Program (IMP) : a holistic approach to managing change in knowledge based firms

Innovation Management (IM) in most knowledge based firms is used on an adhoc basis where senior managers use this term to leverage competitive edge without understanding its true meaning and how its robust application in organisation impacts organisational performance. There have been attempts in the manufacturing industry to harness the innovative potential of the business and apprehend its use as a point of difference to improve financial and non financial outcomes. However further work is required to innovatively extrapolate the lessons learnt to introduce incremental and/or radical innovation to knowledge based firms. An international structural engineering firm has been proactive in exploring and implementing this idea and has forged an alliance with the Queensland University of Technology to start the Innovation Management Program (IMP). The aim was to develop a permanent and sustainable program with which innovation can be woven through the fabric of the organisation. There was an intention to reinforce the firms’ vision and reinvigorate ideas and create new options that help in its realisation. This paper outlines the need for innovation in knowledge based firms and how this consulting engineering firm reacted to this exigency. The development of the Innovation Management Program, its different themes (and associated projects) and how they integrate to form a holistic model is also discussed. The model is designed around the need of providing professional qualification improvement opportunities for staff, setting-up organised, structured & easily accessible knowledge repositories to capture tacit and explicit knowledge and implement efficient project management strategies with a view to enhance client satisfaction. A Delphi type workshop is used to confirm the themes and projects. Some of the individual projects and their expected outcomes are also discussed. A questionnaire and interviews were used to collect data to select appropriate candidates responsible for leading these projects. Following an in-depth analysis of preliminary research results, some recommendations on the selection process will also be presented.

Up the junction? Exploiting knowledge-based development through supply chain and SME cluster interactions

Maximisation of Knowledge-Based Development (KBD) benefits requires effective dissemination and utilisation mechanisms to accompany the initial knowledge creation process. This work highlights the potential for interactions between Supply Chains (SCs) and Small and Medium sized Enterprise Clusters (SMECs), (including via ‘junction’ firms which are members of both networks), to facilitate such effective dissemination and utilisation of knowledge. In both these network types there are firms that readily utilise their relationships and ties for ongoing business success through innovation. The following chapter highlights the potential for such beneficial interactions between SCs and SMECs in key elements of KBD, particularly knowledge management, innovation and technology transfer. Because there has been little focus on the interactions between SCs and SMECs, particularly when firms simultaneously belong to both, this chapter examines the conduits through which information and knowledge can be transferred and utilised. It shows that each network type has its own distinct advantages in the types of information searched for and transferred amongst network member firms. Comparing and contrasting these advantages shows opportunities for both networks to leverage the knowledge sharing strengths of each other, through these ‘junctions’ to address their own weaknesses, allowing implications to be drawn concerning new ways of utilising relationships for mutual network gains.

The knowledge exchange intermediary as service provider : a discussion and an Australian case

The critical impact of innovation on national and the global economies has been discussed at length in the literature. Economic development requires the diffusion of innovations into markets. It has long been recognised that economic growth and development depends upon a constant stream of innovations. Governments have been keenly aware of the need to ensure this flow does not dry to a trickle and have introduced many and varied industry policies and interventions to assist in seeding, supporting and diffusing innovations. In Australia, as in many countries, Government support for the transfer of knowledge especially from publicly funded research has resulted in the creation of knowledge exchange intermediaries. These intermediaries are themselves service organisations, seeking innovative service offerings for their markets. The choice for most intermediaries is generally a dichotomous one, between market-pull and technology-push knowledge exchange programmes. In this article, we undertake a case analysis of one such innovative intermediary and its flagship programme. We then compare this case with other successful intermediaries in Europe. We put forward a research proposition that the design of intermediary programmes must match the service type they offer. That is, market-pull programmes require market-pull design, in close collaboration with industry, whereas technology programmes can be problem-solving innovations where demand is latent. The discussion reflects the need for an evolution in knowledge transfer policies and programmes beyond the first generation ushered in with the US Bayh-Dole Act (1980) and Stevenson-Wydler Act (1984). The data analysed is a case study comparison of market-pull and technology-push programmes, focusing on primary and secondary socio-economic benefits (using both Australian and international comparisons).

Complexity and learning behaviors in product innovation

Successful product innovation and the ability of companies to continuously improve their innovation processes are rapidly becoming essential requirements for competitive advantage and long-term growth in both manufacturing and service industries. It is now recognized that companies must develop innovation capabilities across all stages of the product development, manufacture, and distribution cycle. These Continuous Product Innovation (CPI) capabilities are closely associated with a company’s knowledge management systems and processes. Companies must develop mechanisms to continuously improve these capabilities over time. Using results of an international survey on CPI practices, sets of companies are identified by similarities in specific contingencies related to their complexity of product, process, technological, and customer interface. Differences between the learning behaviors found present in the company groups and in the levers used to develop and support these behaviors are identified and discussed. This paper also discusses appropriate mechanisms for firms with similar complexities, and some approaches they can use to improve their organizational learning and product innovation.