Preparing
for Conversations with Debra M. Amidon
A Synthesis of
Articles on 'Architecting Success in the Knowledge Economy'
Editor's
Note: As
always in the case of our longest articles, we provide anchors
to allow our online readers to go directly to sub-topics. Read
this article in total, or touch the anchors below.
Synthesis by Jerry
Ash, AOK chief executive
This paper has been
written to prepare AOK members for engagement in conversations
with Debra M. Amidon during her appearance as guest host of the
AOK Knowledge Architecture/Structure Community of Practice (CoP)
Discussion Group (DG). It may also be used as an anchor for research
and learning about the depth and breadth of knowledge architecture
among organizations driven by innovation.
Use
of all copyright material in this white paper
is with the permission of Debra M. Amidon and remains protected.
 Introduction of Debra M.
Amidon
We are pleased to
have Debra M. Amidon, founder of Entovation International and
author of several books on knowledge and innovation, including
The Ken Awakening, as Guest Moderator
of the Knowledge Architecture/ Structure Discussion Group (DG)
for three weeks, beginning February 12, 2001.
Debra, who has five
publications to her credit, has been a leading knowledge professional
for a quarter of a century and is now described as "an architect
of the 21st Century." She is chairman and CEO of Entovation
International, Ltd., a global innovation research and consulting
network linking 5,000 professionals in 80 countries. In the last
year alone, her presentations have been heard throughout the
US, Canada, France, England, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland,
Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Chili, Spain, Austria, South Africa, Malaysia,
Singapore, Venezuela and China.
Her books have been
translated and published in French, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese
and German and her articles and papers are available in many
languages over the World Wide Web. For a complete biographical
sketch: http://www.entovation.com/amidon/biographical.htm.
Back
to top
Overview
This paper and the
"Conversations with Debra M. Amidon" focus on the architecture
of the knowledge enterprise.
AOK's CoPs were
recently reorganized and consolidated into three special interest
areas including the Knowledge Architecture/Structure CoP. While
knowledge management and knowledge work were left to the other
two CoPs, respectively, the KA/Structure CoP was charged with
the responsibility of embracing the full scope of knowledge architecture
- the infrastructures of a knowledge-driven organization.
No key words could
better describe the scope of content hoped for in the KA CoP
than those of Debra M. Amidon, who describes innovation management
architecture as being composed of:
- Knowledge Economics
- Knowledge Structures
- Knowledge Workers
- Knowledge Processes
and
- Knowledge Processing
Technology.
After considerable
discussion and thought, it was decided that the best use of Debra's
time over her three week's as guest moderator would be to divide
the weeks into three sub-topics:
- Week One: Rationale
for a Knowledge Value Proposition.
- Week Two: Elements
of a Management Architecture.
- Week Three: Implementing
Knowledge Strategy.
Back
to top
Rationale for a Knowledge
Value Proposition
Editor's note: This section is a synthesis
of two articles which are available at Debra M. Amidon's website:
http://www.entovation.com/whatsnew/innovation-capital.htm
http://www.entovation.com/whatsnew/atlas1.htm
At the dawn of the
new millennium individuals and organizations from every function,
sector and corner of the globe are envisioning a new economic
world order - one based upon intellectual, not financial capital.
Of course, knowledge has always been an essential element in
the advancement of civilization, but today's emerging economy
proposes that knowledge be managed explicitly.
There is no such
thing as a non-knowledge worker, nor is there such a thing as
a non-knowledge-intensive industry. The knowledge of all individuals
is important. Knowledge is what makes companies unique - even
within the same industry. And, we have more to gain by building
upon the competencies of one another as nations. The focus on
knowledge strategy is nothing less than a platform for world
peace.
The innovation of
which we speak and must manage is not a function of the flow
of technology, or even the flow of materials into viable products
and services. Rather, it is the learning process - the pace and
effectiveness with which knowledge is exchanged - and how swiftly
ideas (old and new) are applied.
In a monograph recently
issued by the Society of Management Accountants of Canada - "Collaborative
Innovation and the Knowledge Economy," five assumptions
were made:
- Knowledge is the
primary driver of innovation - not technology.
- The value of human
potential can and should be linked to economic results.
- It is a systems
dynamic - not a cause-effect value chain - that is operating.
- A prosperous future
is based increasingly on interdependence, interaction and collaboration.
- It is the flow
of knowledge that must be visualized, monitored and incentivized.
The new knowledge
value proposition reveals the comparative advantages of a knowledge-innovation
strategy versus classical business planning. Integration of knowledge
as an interdependent variable into conventional business methodologies
creates a dynamic no less dramatic as the shifting from a flat
earth view of the world to a global view. Initially, the world
was seen as two-dimensional - similar to how many business managers
perceive their business environment today. Design a market matrix,
create a balance sheet and manage the process in a simple methodical
linear mode. Build the better mouse trap and the market will
beat a path to your door.
In contrast, a three-dimensional
global view capitalizes upon the dynamics of the multiple compounding
effects of what we might describe as a kaleidoscope economy.
The challenge is not to make existing businesses bigger; it is
to create new businesses. It is not to evolve existing technologies
as much as it is to envision products and services, which meet
the unarticulated needs of customers or an unserved market and
to do so ahead of the competition. Today, the market operates
with a systems dynamic we do not yet understand.
We are just beginning
to discover how to value knowledge in our organizations and the
fact that knowledge has no value until it is put to use. Leaders
in technological innovation and knowledge management are beginning
to converge in their concepts and in their practices. University
research initiatives are beginning to proliferate. Nations are
launching initiatives for 21st century positioning, and societal
organizations, such as The World Bank, UN, EU and OECD, have
placed knowledge and learning at center stage for future sustainable
economic development. It is only the beginning.
Much progress has
been made in our quest for harnessing intellectual capital. Over
the last decade, we have learned that there is a difference between
tacit and explicit knowledge; and there are ways to make our
insights visible and even convert them to structural and/or financial
capital. We also know that those companies able to explicitly
manage their innovation infrastructure - within which ideas are
created and commercialized - are considered market leaders.
Today's companies
measure success based upon cost, quality and time. However, as
the marketplace becomes hyper-competitive, the performance metrics
become more complex and intangible, the organization becomes
more networked, people become more empowered and energized, processes
become boundary-less and the enterprise will become increasingly
reliant upon technology. And as enterprises become more reliant
on technology and its attendant complexity, they will become
more dependent upon the knowledge and behavior of employees as
well as other stakeholders - both inside and external to the
firm. Simultaneously, performance metrics will become more hidden,
intangible - related to what leading management philosophers
have defined as intellectual capital.
Therefore, the traditional
value proposition of cost, quality and time - although still
very important - is just not enough. Modern value propositions
must balance these complex, interdependent factors: performance,
behavior and technology.
A focus on one aspect
will have an automatic effect on the other elements. Only a balance
among the three in an innovation process enables an enterprise
to be centered and capable of managing forward toward sustained
prosperity.
Innovation must
be in the head, heart and hands of every participant in the system.
It does not mean that everyone is an expert technician and expert
marketer at the same time. What it does mean is that everyone
has knowledge of the entire innovation system and his/her particular
role in that process. It does mean that there is some common
language and shared purpose, and that the boundaries fade between
functions, sectors, industries and cultures of the world. It
means that there is a basic trust, mutual respect and collegial
competencies. And, that a thirst for learning pervades the culture.
In that context,
the notion of "knowledge architecture" is important
to the development of such an environment.
Back
to top
Elements of Management Architecture
Editor's note: Text of this section is
taken from Debra M. Amidon's The Ken Awakening, Innovation
Strategy for the Knowledge Economy, Chapter 6, "An Innovation
Management Architecture."
Conventionally,
the logic of strategy has been predominantly that of economics:
demand, market competition, capital investment, production. It
has been mostly analytical.
The three elements
especially important: the logic of invisible asset accumulation
and utilization; the logic of dynamic, unbalanced growth; and
the logic of human psychology - both within the firm and in dealings
with customers and competitors.
The holistic
approach, integrating both types is indispensable."
Hiroyuki
Itami
"An architecture
for management, you say?"
"Yes, that's
what we need. The findings of the Roundtable indicate that technology
is not the problem; the management of the technology is. Even
the most progressive research in the business schools do not
begin to address the types of managerial issues we are confronting
daily. Each one seems to have a piece of the puzzle; but no one
understands the total management system."
"So you think
you can apply technical theory to the concepts of management?"
There is chuckling among the eleven senior engineering managers
who are confronted with this opportunity.
"What makes
you think there is any similarity in design?"
"I'm not sure.
That's precisely what we need to learn. I would like to apply
the same industrial research rigor we apply to the development
of technical architectures and technical standards to the process
of management. Do you believe it is possible?"
"Possible,
not probable."
So went the 1986
discussion as I presented the case for a Management Systems Research
(MSR) focus to the Sponsored Research Board of a major computer
company. In the months that ensued, we explored all previous
taxonomies for business management from corporate, consulting
and academic sources all over the world.
What evolved was
an Enterprise Management System Architecture (which has since
been relabeled Innovation Architecture) which can be summarized
as five interrelated dimensions of the organization:
- performance
- structure
- people
- process and
- technology.
This cross-disciplinary
approach is one way to integrate the economic, behavioral and
technological aspects of the firm.
As David Ulrich,
University of Michigan professor, states: "It isn't important
what management architecture you use. What's important is that
you do use one!."
For fifty years,
the divisionalization tactics of Alfred Sloan have served companies
well. When a large-scale company the size of a General Motors
gets too large, the natural managerial response is to break it
up into manageable parts. The concepts of Strategic Business
Units (SBUs) are still the management style today. What is
really needed, however is the perspective of a Strategic Business
Network (SBN) which represents more of a dynamic innovation
system in which participants are both contributors and learners
simultaneously.
Some progressive
managers have realized that there is strength in interdependence
(i.e., the value of the whole in addition to the operations
of individual parts). In fact, the 'whole' has expanded to include
suppliers, alliances, partners, customers and even competitors.
As organizations develop a deeper commitment to cross-functional
teaming, 'realtime' learning, communities of practice, symbiotic
partnering relationships with customers and other stakeholders,
the value of human networking will be obvious.
Primary Challenge: How should an organization
be structured to take advantage of the intellectual wealth of
the organization in ways that balance the needs for optimal individual
development and sustained performance of the enterprise as a
whole?
When people originally
referred to knowledge workers, they were describing the skills
necessary for high technology industries. People soon realized
that all industries - and, indeed, professions - are high technology
oriented. If they aren't now, they soon will be. Even the newsletter
from my dentist described how he was in the "knowledge business."
A true knowledge-intensive
organization is comprised of self-motivating, empowered workers
who know that their knowledge is important to the performance
of their organizations. Rather than determining status based
upon hierarchical position, these flexible, mobile employees
have a confidence and skill level which may jeopardize traditional
definitions of company loyalty. They understand that their knowledge
and expertise can be applied along multiple dimensions. In fact,
their motivation to contribute to the enterprise may be based
upon how the knowledge and skill base is utilized, recognized
and rewarded.
Primary Challenge: How does an organization
motivate and capitalize upon the attributes of knowledge workers
in ways which contribute to the overall performance of the enterprise?
Perhaps the greatest
contribution of the quality community to business management
has been the focus on process. Human resource professionals had
advocated the importance of process for years; but the quality
professionals defined the diversity of business processes necessary
for an idea to become a product.
The nature of the
process-to-date has been linear/service delivery models. The
systems dynamic constructs of the future are complex and multi-directional.
Not only does the ability to listen (and hear) become important,
the ability to learn and share those learnings becomes paramount
in an organization which leverages intellectual capital.
The intricacies
of interaction are multiplied when viewing the Strategic Business
Network (SBN) and magnifies when viewing the economic nations
of the world. In the postwar era of cooperation, it is more essential
that nations realize the potential value of regional collaboration.
Again, the Holonomy precepts of being one and a part of something
larger is a fundamental concept of prosperity in the new millennium.
Primary Challenge: How is the innovation
process (i.e., idea creation and prosperous application)
made explicit and measured effectively at all economic levels
of society?
There has been a
significant shift - predicted only a few years ago - from information
processing to knowledge processing, which includes the concepts
of learning tools, intelligent electronic coaching, decision-making
systems and more. Consumers are beginning to demand more of the
information technology itself. Artificial intelligence tools,
which only two decades ago were shunned, have been embraced as
integral to the successful knowledge-intensive business.
The business case
scenario is as follows:
As the marketplace
becomes hyper-competitive . . .
As the performance metrics become more complex and intangible
. . .
As the organization becomes more networked . . .
As people become more empowered and energized . . .
As processes become boundaryless . . .
Enterprises will become more reliant upon the technology.
Many transformation
strategies have failed to include the power of the technology
infrastructure as integral to the process. Clearly, technology
is now playing a significant role in the internal collaborative
knowledge-sharing environment in addition to facilitating the
positioning of organizations on the worldwide web. Information
technology managers have become knowledge managers without a
full understanding of the knowledge required for business strategy
and learning.
Primary Challenge: How do we define the distinctions
between information processing and knowledge processing in a
way that takes advantage of technical advancements and optimized
intellectual interaction?
Back
to top
Implementing Knowledge
Strategy
Editor's note: Material for this section
was drawn from http://www.entovation.com/whatsnew/atlas1.htm
The migration from
business planning to innovation strategy is inevitable and challenging
because it is related to changing the dominant mindsets. As John
Maynard Keynes indicated "The difficulty lies, not in the
new ideas, but in escaping the old ones. . . !"
Migration implies
a sense of journey over time and space, as well as challenge
and change. Just as in geographic mapping, the whole organization
must be engaged in the process of developing of an "Atlas
of Innovation," including the same concepts of mapping,
scaling and compass that are the components of the globe.
Based upon several
years of management systems research and application of core
concepts in a variety of academic, industrial and government
settings, the following 10 dimensions of management strategy
have emerged as an excellent way to calibrate an organization's
capacity to innovate:
- Collaborative Process
- Performance Metrics
- Education/Training
- Learning Network
- Competitive Positioning
- Products/Services
- Strategic Alliances
- Market Image
- Knowledge Leadership
- Computers/Communication
Each of these domains
are often managed in isolation - often with their own language,
priorities and practices. For instance, there is often little
respect found between the finance, human resource and information
technology organizations. These functions and business units
often compete for limited resources through the budgeting process
without a coherent sense of purpose and vision. The results lead
to fragmentation, unnecessary duplication, conflict, and underutilized
competencies.
Behind each of these
ten dimensions are many questions that relate to a given company
or industry. If you use a rating scale, say 1-10 on how well
the enterprise is doing, inevitably there will be significant
differences of opinion. The importance is not in answering a
yes or no or even a particular rating. The rationale behind
the answer is of most value. From the resultant dialogue,
innovative strategies will emerge. This way, executives can tap
into the tacit knowledge of employees - thus widening the knowledge
base from which business decisions will be made.
What is needed is
a dialogue among the principals of the organizations - across
functions, business units and managerial levels. An administrative
tool is needed to stimulate the strategy formulation process
with a focus on the managerial aspects of the firm - not only
the financial or technological elements. Remember that all three
must be in balance for optimal leverage.
There are ways to
change the dimensions of the dialogue from the traditional financial,
linear models. Exploring the ten dimensions of innovation provides
useful insight. Another view is illustrated with the matrix below.
Although it may appear as two-dimensional, it can be discussed
across functions, business units and geographies. This approach
can be mapped into the ten dimensions. As strategies are identified,
they can be developed with multiple time frames in mind, such
as short-, medium- and long-range. The participants in the process
can come from differing managerial levels and or generations.
| |
Within
the organization |
Between
organizations |
On
a global scale |
| Technology |
Intranet |
Internet |
Global-net |
| Behavior |
Cross-functional
Integration |
Cross-Sector
Interaction |
Regional/Int'l
Collaboration |
| Performance |
Practices |
Policies |
Standards |
Regardless of the
method, developing a clear picture of the knowledge landscape
is the essential first step in implementing a knowledge strategy.
Back
to top
Conclusion
Just as with the
Egyptians, Persians, Minoans, Greeks, Abassynians, and Europeans
of times past, the future belongs to those who have the willingness
to venture into the unknown. Using their intuition, imagination,
sense of adventure, and tools, ancient leaders innovated to explore
the environment beyond the limits. Today's leaders need to do
the same.
Moving beyond traditional
business planning practices will not be easy; the rewards will
be great. Today we measure what we can measure, rather than measuring
what is important. Now we underestimate the true potential of
information technology, knowledge processing and worldwide communications.
Today we have little sense of how to measure the true value of
social capital, which is far more a function of interaction,
interdependence and collaboration. To do so - and understand
the relationship among the three - requires multi-dimensional
visioning and courageous leadership.
Back
to top
|
