Transferring knowledge, managing innovation: Does Knowledge Management matter in Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services?
PhD research proposal
Proposed by Mirta Amalia
For the programme of Doctor of Philosophy in Business and Management
To be undertaken in Manchester Institute of Innovation Research Innovation Management and Policy Division
Manchester Business School University of Manchester
Proposed supervisor Professor Ian Miles
January 2010
Manchester, 29 January 2010 Professor Julie Froud Postgraduate Research Director Manchester Business School Dear Professor Froud,
Re: Applying for PhD in Business & Management at MIoIR, Manchester Business School
My name is Mirta Amalia and I am hereby applying for the PhD programme at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. To the best of my knowledge, within the MBS postgraduate research structure, this proposed study falls in the area of ‘Technology and Entrepreneurship Management and Policy’. In particular, it fits strongly within one of the MBS priorities, i.e. Innovation Research, and therefore the study is best conducted in Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR). This proposed PhD research builds on and extends my successful Masters dissertation conducted in the University of Manchester at IDPM‐SED. The dissertation was supervised by a MIoIR‐MBS scholar, which reflects its interdisciplinary quality. In this PhD I aspire to draw on and intersect with three prominent areas of research: Knowledge Management, Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services (KIBS) and innovation studies. I wish to examine the link between knowledge transfer activities, innovation, and KIBS processes by taking some selected KIBS sectors in Indonesia as a set of case studies. I am attaching a fully‐fledged research proposal which I have discussed with Professor Ian Miles, an MBS expert in this research area, who also has agreed to be my supervisor shall my application be successful. To provide you with some academic background, I finished my MSc degree (with “Distinction”) in Management and Information Systems at Institute of Development Policy and Management (IDPM), School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester. My Masters study (2008‐2009) has allowed me to develop formal knowledge of the key concepts underpinning many of the major fields in management and information systems. This includes information and knowledge management, international management, organisational development, e‐business concepts and strategy as well as innovation management. My dissertation, supervised by Dr. Yanuar Nugroho, elaborates the ways in which a multinational company subsidiary – NSN (Nokia Siemens Networks) – in Indonesia devises and implements its knowledge management (KM) strategies. The research employs qualitative methods involving in‐depth interview, observation and the use of
secondary data. During the course of the research, I was able to deepen my knowledge in innovation processes and management, particularly in relations to KM. I also have started building my publication track record, by writing academic papers. I have presented a paper on the importance of “Knowledge Management to facilitate Innovations in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)” in the TIIMI conference organised in London in December 2009 and the paper was honoured with the “Distinguished Paper” award. Another paper, derived from my MSc dissertation and focusing on the problem of strategy and implementation of Knowledge Management, co‐authored with my dissertation supervisor, is in the review stage to be published in the MBS Working Paper Series. In addition to my academic background, I have a considerable working experience of four years in a multinational service firm. Prior to my Masters study (2004‐2008) I worked with NSN subsidiary in Indonesia, a KIBS firm which operates in the telecommunication sector. My tasks and responsibilities included, but were not limited to, product development and implementation; consultancy relating to customers' business processes, business development; demo presentation promoting new products and features; liaising with other project members from Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Singapore, Thailand, Australia and Indonesia; and organisation and conduct of training or knowledge transfer programmes for new project members as well as customers. I am certain that, in addition to my Masters study, my previous working experience has enabled me to gain better insights in understanding innovation and knowledge management processes in KIBS firms as my base knowledge to build this research. I would welcome an opportunity for an interview to discuss my application further. I also would like to inform you that in conjunction with this PhD application, I am applying for the MBS PhD Doctoral Studentship. As requested, and for your consideration, I am also attaching my academic vitae and a completed application form, including list of publications. Thank you for your time and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Yours sincerely,
Mirta Amalia Jl. Lapangan Roos II no. 30 RT 013 / RW 005 Bukit Duri – Tebet Jakarta 12840, Indonesia Tel. +628161831042 Email [email protected]
Transferring knowledge, managing innovation: Does Knowledge Management matter in Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services?
A PhD research proposal
by Mirta Amalia Proposed supervisor: Professor Ian Miles
1. Overview of the research
1.1. Introduction This proposed PhD research builds on and extends my successful Masters dissertation examining the ways in which a multinational company subsidiary – NSN (Nokia Siemens Networks) – in Indonesia devises and implements its knowledge management (KM) strategies (Amalia, 2009). The study was conducted in the University of Manchester at IDPM‐SED, and the dissertation was supervised by a MIoIR‐MBS scholar – which reflects its interdisciplinary quality. This study deliberately draws on and intersects with three prominent areas of research: Knowledge Management, Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services (KIBS) and innovation studies. It examines the link between knowledge transfer activities, innovation, and KIBS processes. It takes five selected KIBS sectors1 in Indonesia as a set of case studies. Its main questions concern:
• To what extent, in what ways, and for what purposes has KM been implemented in KIBS?
• How is knowledge managed in KIBS, and how is this facilitated by KM tools and techniques?
• Do KIBS innovate in applying KM and if so, in what ways, and under what dynamics?
• What are the implications, potentials and challenges facing such KM implementation in KIBS?
• To what extent, in what ways, and for what purposes has KM implementation in client organisations been facilitated by KIBS?
One conceptual departure point would be analyses of the linkages between innovation in services and service innovation, within which the examination of the role of knowledge management in the context of KIBS is based. Service organisations may innovate, but this does not necessarily involve new service development – it can be back‐office innovation, for instance (though this often does mean change in service delivery or quality).
1 These sectors, provisionally, are: (1) telecommunication, (2) accounting, (3) R&D on engineering; (4) software consultancy; (5) business and management consultancy
1
1.2. Rationale for the choice of MBS and MIoIR Within the MBS postgraduate research structure, this proposed study falls readily into a doctorate in Business and Management, in the area of ‘Technology and Entrepreneurship Management and Policy’. In particular, it fits strongly within one of the MBS priorities, i.e. Innovation Research, and therefore the study is best conducted in the Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR). MIoIR has a particular interest in innovation in services. Given the research topic and focus, MIoIR is particularly relevant, not only as it has prominent scholars in innovation, but much more importantly as it hosts leading scholars in this area of investigation (i.e. services innovation), i.e. Professors Jeremy Howells, Ian Miles, and Marcela Miozzo. Professor Miles is also responsible for the emergence of the term KIBS, and has contributed a good deal to the evolution of KIBS research subsequently, and has agreed to be the main supervisor shall this application succeed. This combination makes MIoIR (and MBS) the obvious choice of location for the study to be carried out. 2. Positioning of the Research
The research looks at the intersection of the three existing bodies of literature and maps an existing gap that this research intends to address and thereby contribute to scholarly knowledge. 2.1. Innovation and Services Innovation is usually understood to be distinct from invention. While invention is the first occurrence of an idea for a new product or process, innovation is the first attempt to carry it through into practice (Schumpeter, 1934). Obviously the two are clearly linked and difficult to distinguish one from the other (Fagerberg, 2005), and indeed, much of the innovation literature concerns the diffusion of innovations. This literature is now very extensive, and covers a wide area of topics: the process of innovation, the economic factors determining the development and diffusion of innovations (Kay, 1993; Rogers, 1995), patterns of innovation and diffusion (Frambach, 1993; Rogers, 1995; Wejnert, 2002), the relationships between organisational structure and technological capacity (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Kanter, 1988), and so on. No single discipline is capable of dealing with all aspects of innovation, so much of this literature is highly cross‐disciplinary. Innovation is defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 1995:12). Rogers further introduces the term innovation‐decision process as
2
the process through which an individual (or other decision‐making unit) passes from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision (p.168),
as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Innovation‐decision process
Source: Rogers (1995:170) Innovations are needed by organisations in order to be able to compete, including services organisations. There have been numerous studies about the organisation and management of innovation in manufacturing sectors, but comparatively little about the same topic in services sector (Miles, 2000; Tidd et al., 2001; Tidd & Hull, 2003). Services are organisations which are:
typically involved in changing the state of people, artefacts, or of information and knowledge, rather than (primarily) producing material artefacts themselves (Miles, 2005a:40).
They are usually interactive (client‐intensive) whereby high levels of contact occur between service supplier and client in the service activity (Miles, 2005b). Innovation occurs as result of such interactivity, in which it often means that services’ products are customised to the client’s specific needs (Clayton, 2003). Innovations in services cover many dimensions, such as service products and delivery, business and revenue models as well as organisational structures and processes (Hauknes, 1999; Metcalfe & Miles, 2000; Miles, 2001; Gallouj, 2002). Many service innovations are enabled by market changes as well as by developments in ne Information Technology. These innovation attempts are targeted to improve quality of service production and products; to improve cost efficiency; as well as to develop new service concepts (Kuusisto and Meyer, 2003). In general service innovation can be categorised into non‐technological (‘soft’) and technological. ‘Soft’ innovations include new financial instruments and new sales concepts (Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003), whereas technological innovations include the adoption of Personal Computers (PCs) to support the back office tasks (Miles, 2005b). The two are very frequently combined.
3
Most services scholars agree that the services sectors, as well as service activity‐based relationships, are essential to the knowledge economy2 (Miles, 2005b; Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003). Hauknes (1999) argues, however, that there has been limited research on service innovations, let alone services role as agents of change in the economy. Gallouj (2002) offers one possible explanation for this, i.e. that innovation in services tends to be incremental which is mostly based on “informal activities” within the service firms themselves as well as between service suppliers and clients. More importantly, due to its incremental and informal characteristics, such developments are often difficult to capture (Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003). This may also apply to Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services as the context of this proposed research. The research to contribute to the conceptual frameworks here by addressing the issues pointed out by Gallouj (2002) and Kuusisto & Meyer 003).
KIBS are more likely to produce specialised products tailored to their client’s eeds.
portance and supplied primarily to business. Box 1 shows some major KIBS sectors.
(2 2.2. Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services Knowledge‐Intensive Business Service (KIBS) are “services that provide knowledge‐intensive inputs to the business processes of other organisations” (Miles, 2005a:40). They are firms who help other firms sort out their problems which require external source of knowledge. They may simply play a role in providing information about their clients’ internal and external environments, or in identifying the nature of their clients’ problems. Furthermore, they may provide advice, propose ways of solving those problems, or even goes further to implement a solution. As Hipp (2003) argues,n Miles et al. (1995), as well as Kuusisto and Meyer (2003) and many subsequent authors, characterise KIBS as firms that: (1) heavily rely upon specialised professional knowledge; (2) primary sources of information and knowledge; (3) intermediate inputs to their clients’ production process by using their knowledge; and (4) they are of competitive im
2 Knowledge economy – also referred to as knowledge‐driven economy or knowledge‐based economy – is defined as
“one in which the generation and the exploitation of knowledge has come to play the predominant part in the creation of wealth. It is not simply about pushing back the frontiers of knowledge; it is also about the more effective use and exploitation of all types of knowledge in all manner of activity” (Department of Trade and Industry, 1998:1)
4
Major KIBS sector
1. Computer and related activities a. Hardware consultancy b. Software consultancy and supply c. Data processing d. Database activities e. Maintenance and repair of office, accounting and computing
machinery f. Other computer related activities
2. Research and experimental development a. Research and experimental development on natural sciences and
engineering b. Research and experimental development on social sciences and
humanities 3. Other business activities
a. Legal activities b. Accounting, book‐keeping and auditing services, tax consultancy c. Market research and public opinion polling d. Business and management consultancy activities e. Management activities of holding companies f. Architectural and engineering activities and related technical
consultancy g. Technical testing and analysis h. Advertising i. Labour recruitment and provision of personnel j. Miscellaneous business activities k. Photographic activities l. Other business activities
Box 1: Major KIBS sector Source: Miles (2005a:40)
KIBS firms play many important roles in innovation systems (Miles, 1999a, 2005b; Hauknes, 1999; Leiponen, 2001; Gadrey and Gallouj, 2002; Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003). They are the agents of innovation across the industries, and can be seen as bridging institutions in innovation systems (Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003). Many KIBS affect the innovation systems in their clients’ firms and / or sectors (Miles, 2005b). They help distribute the knowledge and learning capacity of innovation systems as a whole (Hauknes, 1999; Miles, 2001). Some KIBS firms are transnational, and thus can distribute their knowledge throughout the globe; yet many are small companies who are locally‐based firms transferring locally‐specific knowledge (Miles, 2005b). Undoubtedly KIBS has become an emerging sector for innovation research, and potentially becomes a rich source for empirical data on which conceptualisation in innovation in service can benefit. 2.3. Knowledge Management Knowledge is an essential asset for organisations (Dixon, 1994; Pentland, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 2000). As suggested by Rogers (1995), the innovation‐decision
5
process begins with knowledge of an innovation’s existence,3 and gaining an understanding of what it does and how it functions. Therefore, managing knowledge has become vital for the success of any organisations (Radding, 1998; Kluge et al., 2004), particularly those who seek to continuously innovate (Rogers, 1995; Quintas, 2002). The term knowledge management (KM) itself refers to
the process of critically managing knowledge to meet existing needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities (Quintas et al., 1997:387).
Knowledge can be classified and characterised in various ways. One of the prominent classifications is the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1975; Nonaka, 1994). Explicit knowledge (for some ‘codified knowledge’) refers to the type of knowledge that is articulated into words and numbers (Becerra‐Fernandez et al., 2004) and transmittable in systemic language (Nonaka, 1994). In contrast, tacit knowledge regards to the knowledge that people possess which has a personal quality and is difficult to codify (Hislop, 2005). Tacit knowledge is “deeply rooted in action, commitment and involvement in a specific context” (Nonaka 1994:16). Polanyi (1975) finds that tacit knowledge forms the background to interpret explicit knowledge. Explicit and tacit knowledge can be converted from and to each other. Nonaka (1994) signifies four modes of this conversion, which nicely intertwine with each KM process. These are: (1) socialisation, a conversion process of tacit knowledge between individuals; (2) combination, which combines explicit knowledge possessed by individuals; (3) externalisation, the articulation of tacit into explicit knowledge through the use of metaphor (i.e. understanding and experiencing something); and (4) internalisation, which represents the traditional notion of “learning” through converting explicit into tacit knowledge. This is depicted in Figure 2
Figure 2: Four modes of knowledge conversion
Source: Nonaka (1994:19)
3 The initial innovative idea, and its development into a useful product, is usually termed “invention”.
6
Knowledge conversion in firms, particularly in service companies, becomes increasingly, yet rapidly, more important as it often is the core of the service business. The obvious challenge here is not only to deal with such conversion, but more importantly to manage the knowledge essential to the firms’ success in general. In order to properly manage organisational knowledge, KM strategy needs to be formulated. Hansen et al. (1999) study the use of IT‐based knowledge management systems in the US knowledge‐intensive services. They conclude that there are two main successful uses of strategies: (1) codification, which aims to enable rapid and frequent reuse of information resources developed by the employees; and (2) personalisation, which targets to facilitate communication among service workers, so as to locate and consult the appropriate expertise. Drawing from that study, Choi and Lee (2002) categorise KM strategy into system strategy – emphasising the capability to create, store, distribute and apply the organisation’s explicit knowledge – and human strategy – which stresses knowledge sharing via interpersonal interaction by utilising dialogue through social networks such as teamwork. These two categories of KM strategies are then explored further contributing three views (Choi & Lee, 2002): (1) focus view which suggests organisations to pursue one strategy predominantly, while using another to support it; (2) balanced view that recommends organisations to employ both system and human strategies with a right balance; and (3) dynamic view which proposes organisations to align their strategies with the characteristics of knowledge they possess. KM strategy must incorporate a KM process. Many studies identify the processes of KM in different ways (Radding, 1998; Heisig, 2001; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Becerra‐Fernandez et al., 2004); however, there are four processes that are of importance to KM: knowledge (1) creation, (2) storage, (3) distribution, and (4) application. This research adopts Heisig’s (2001) KM process framework – illustrated in Figure 3 – because its cyclical process illustrates organisations are able to build their knowledge bases cumulatively, which enables organisations to innovate (Quintas, 2002).
Figure 3: KM processes
Source: modified from Heisig (2001:28)
7
The first KM process is knowledge creation: this refers to how organisations develop new content or replace the existing content (Pentland, 1995; Alavi & Leidner, 2001). This is followed by knowledge storage, to prevent losing track of the acquired knowledge. Knowledge is then distributed to provision the right knowledge to the right person at the right time (Mertins et al., 2001). This third process mainly relates to the effective transfer of knowledge between individuals, so they can understand the knowledge well enough to act on it (Jensen & Meckling, 1996). Finally, knowledge is applied for decision‐making and performing tasks, so as to contribute to the organisational performance (Becerra‐Fernandez et al., 2004). 2.4. Mapping the gap, proposing a conceptual framework of investigation: The Role of KM in managing Innovations in KIBS The previous three sections have elaborated the three concepts of innovation, KIBS and KM which are the basic frameworks for this PhD research. As illustrated in Figure 4, it is based in the intersection of those three concepts.
Figure 4: The intersections of the three concepts
As previously explained in Section 2.1, innovations in services may occur as a result of the interaction between service provider – particularly KIBS – and its clients (Miles, 2005b). Miles (2005b) argues that the more specialised services and the more frequent interaction between service firms and clients would require greater exchange of knowledge between the two organisations. In KIBS, Kuusisto and Meyer (2003) add that the fundamental aspect of such interaction is bilateral learning process between KIBS firms and their clients, also called a co‐production of knowledge. Such learning process enables the clients to gain new knowledge in understanding their problems, as well as in implementing the solutions provided by KIBS (Miles, 2005b). However, as Kuusisto and Meyer (2003) as well as Gallouj (2002) point out, innovations in service – specifically in KIBS – are often difficult to capture because
8
they tend to be incremental and mostly based on “informal activities”. Moreover, Miles (2005b) also argues that the learning processes are often hindered by the fact that many of the innovations are usually one‐off solutions for particular problems As a result, many organisations find problems in “capturing” and applying relevant knowledge or, more specifically, in learning effectively. These organisations are usually able to adopt “off the shelf” technologies, such as Personal Computers (PC). But they often find it more difficult to develop customised or innovative solutions, or to further develop those created on an ad hoc basis. One reason for this is the relative lack of organisation of services innovation, much of which is implemented on the job. Miles (2005b) further suggests that limited coordination of learning experiences is likely to occur in service firms, as innovations are often not reproduced in subsequent projects, and there are limited flows of knowledge within the service firms. To address the aforementioned issues particularly in the context of KIBS firms, the management of knowledge to support the organisation’s learning process thus becomes critical (Miles, 2007; Evanschitzky et al., 2006). The concept and practices of KM are therefore deemed to be essential for KIBS firms. KIBS organisations could benefit from the KM practices within their daily operational activities. These include formulating KM strategies which integrate all relevant KM processes as well as the firms’ innovation process. This proposition is derived from the perceived increase in importance of knowledge in service firms, as well as a driving force in broader changes in the nature of contemporary knowledge economies (Davenport & Prusak, 2000), and particularly in KIBS which operate within it. The investigation on the role of KM in innovation at the firm level is to focus on the various forms of knowledge conversion (Nonaka, 1994) and how this facilitates innovation. Despite this obvious importance, this review finds that there are still fairly few research studies which look at KM in KIBS firms.4 The focus of this proposed research is not on all of the relationships between knowledge and innovation. The focus, rather, is drawn from these two perspectives: (1) KM in itself as an innovation in KIBS firms; and (2) KM and innovations in KIBS, which explore the role of KM in facilitating innovation within KIBS firms. This PhD study combines the two perspectives by putting forward the question of: how far KIBS firms have elaborated KM tools and practices in managing their innovations. By examining the types of KM strategies in KIBS (e.g. human vs. system strategy (Choi & Lee, 2002); codification vs. personalisation (Hansen et al., 1999); focus or balanced or dynamic view (Choi & Lee, 2002)), it will look at the way KM facilitates different kinds of innovations, and vice versa, in KIBS.
4 There are a few studies that look at KM in consultancies, but these are typically very restricted studies (eg Criscuolo et al. (2007), there are also some US surveys of consultant uptake of KM (among others, see Chauvel and Despres, 2002).
9
2.5. Research Contribution This research aims to contribute to the theory and practices of services, in particular KIBS, and innovation as well as knowledge management. Such contributions can be elaborated into three levels:
1. at the practical level, it is expected that this study will provide evidences of KM role in managing innovations in the context of KIBS in Indonesia. It also contributes as guidance to the KIBS business practice on how to adopt KM in order to facilitate innovation within the firm.
2. at the theoretical level, this study aims to enrich the literatures of KM as innovation in KIBS (i.e. how KM is implemented in KIBS), and KM and innovation in KIBS (i.e. how KM has facilitate innovation in KIBS, as well as how innovation is facilitated by KM)
3. at the policy level, this research enables the mapping of important policy implications – within a company, an industry or sector, and perhaps a country –which relates to services and innovation, particularly in the context of KIBS in Indonesia.
3. Research Design and Methodology
3.1. Objective, Questions, and Hypotheses That KIBS play more significant roles in today’s knowledge economy seems to be obvious. However, to what extent knowledge is managed and innovation is facilitated in KIBS remains to be unexplored territory. Therefore, we need to look more deeply into the extent to which KM actually impacts and is impacted by innovations within KIBS. For this purpose the research aspires to seek for answers to the following research questions:
a. To what extent, in what ways, and for what purposes have KM been implemented in KIBS? How do KIBS firms manage knowledge and innovations? What do they expect from the use of KM in the organisation and in their network?
b. What are the processes by which KM are adopted and used by KIBS firms? What factors affect such adoption; how KM strategies are devised in KIBS; what drives and hinders KM uptake; is there a sequence in the strategy and implementation of different KM technologies and applications in KIBS?
c. How do KIBS innovate by applying KM and why? How does KM affect and is affected by innovation in KIBS? How are KM technologies deployed strategically in the operations (and in an effort to further the aims) of KIBS firms? How do innovation strategies and practices in KIBS impact KM implementation and vice versa? How can implementation of KM be understood and conceptualised from the perspective of innovation in services; what strategic areas of KM implementation can be mapped?
10
d. What are the implications, potentials and challenges ahead for such KM implementation in KIBS? What has changed with KIBS firms adopting KM at the firm level, at the industry sector level, and for knowledge economy? What are the implications for business policy and business strategy?
e. To what extent, in what ways, and for what purposes have KM been implemented in clients through KIBS? How do KIBS firms play a role in the adoption and implementation of KM among their clients, and how does their activity shape KM strategies here?
Without attempting to speculate far too prematurely, the research anticipates several conjectures in responding to the above research questions as hypothesised below.
a. First, given the dynamic nature of the knowledge economy and the role of KIBS (Miles, 2005b; Hauknes, 1999; Gadrey and Gallouj, 2002) and how service firms implement KM (Hansen et al., 1999), it should not be too difficult to suggest that there is a positive link between the implementation of KM and the growing role KIBS in knowledge economy.
b. Second, as service firms, KIBS are expected to perceive and implement KM as innovation in services in a fashion that is different to innovation in other types of companies (Hansen et al., 1999; Miles, 2005b). Consequently, it is also anticipated that the trajectory of adoption and management of KM will be somewhat specific, with drivers, barriers and motivations particular to this type of company; this may yield different perspectives for theories in innovation in services (Hauknes, 1999; Miles, 2005b).
c. Third, given the scale and speed with which KM is being adopted and implemented in service organisations, the study anticipates identifying relations between the impact of KM use at the organisation level as well as at the sector/industry level. These relations can be observed in terms of both intended and unintended consequences of the adoption of KM in KIBS firms.
d. Furthermore, it is expected that, following Miles’ notion of service innovation (or innovation in services (Miles, 2005b)) KM use would link positively with the reinforcement and transformation of KIBS in knowledge economy, again, both at the organisational as well as at the sector/industry level.
3.2. Approach Taking into account that the nature of this study is mainly exploratory, either a quantitative or qualitative method could be inadequate on its own. Quantitative study may suffice to map and analyse statistics, figures and trends as well as pointing out benefits, usefulness and problems and difficulties in the implementation of KM as innovation in services in KIBS (assuming a large scale of survey is carried out). However, it cannot directly explain why certain strategies, approaches or policies of KM use and implementation in KIBS work or fail. Qualitative research, on the other hand, may provide detailed views and perspectives of the works KIBS and how KIBS manage innovations, but it is very
11
difficult to reach generalisations and derive broader characteristics of today’s KIBS activities. Therefore this study combines quantitative and qualitative approaches (Gilbert, 1992), which involves a complex research design, usually with stages of research that may iterate (Danermark et al., 2002), such as this research. By combining the methods, the study expects to reach a more comprehensive, nuanced understanding of the nature of the implementation of KM in KIBS, the experience and the ways the organisations adopt and use and manage technology to meet their strategic needs. Through a combination of methods, this research is in a position to elucidate these processes as this approach prevents it from missing complementary pictures provided by either method. However, this research realises that by deploying such an approach, the generalisation of KIBS elsewhere and beyond can be no more than suggestive. 3.3. Data collection strategy and instrument Quantitative data will largely be gathered through existing database and datasets on KIBS – particularly in the sector relevant to this study. As a case this research, provisionally, takes five KIBS sectors in Indonesia, i.e. (1) telecommunication, (2) accounting, (3) R&D on engineering; (4) software consultancy; (5) business and management consultancy. Datasets publicly available in official Indonesian statistics bureau as well as database of industry associations will be the main resource and will be analysed quantitatively. Indonesia is chosen as it is an emerging economy, and might pose issues specific to latecomer development, which can enrich the existing theories. Therefore it is expected that showcasing Indonesian KIBS could shed light on the working of service firms in similar parts of the world. Qualitative data will largely be gathered through in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews and direct observation with the KIBS under study. Additionally, this research relies on the strength of case study, which can take an example activity and use multiple data sources to explore it, to achieve a rich description of phenomenon (as argued by Stake, 1995) in order to represent it from the participants’ perspective. In this case, the study expects to be able to generate a rich and nuanced explanation of the role of KM in facilitating innovation in KIBS, because case study can aspire to ‘tell‐it‐like‐it‐is’ from the participants’ point of view (Stark and Torrance, 2005). It is apparent, therefore, that case study is particular, descriptive, inductive and heuristic as it seeks to illuminate the readers’ understanding of an issue (Stake, 1995; Stark and Torrance, 2005). 3.4. Proposed analysis The quantitative data would be analysed using simple statistical method, to provide a wider picture of the structural characteristics of the KIBS under study, KM implementation as well as innovations undertaken in the sector (among others,
12
quantitative analysis would be able to uncover trend, pattern, and some influencing factors). To complement the analysis, the qualitative investigation derived from interview, observation, and case study would offer deeper understanding of the case, at large to reveal innovation processes in the firms and to gain insights to KM strategies and implementation and how it impacts and is impacted by innovations in KIBS. 3.5. Expected Results On the one hand, it is expected that the study would offer understanding on the extent to which KM has been implemented in and by KIBS, and on what has shaped this process. Furthermore, it anticipates in providing additional insights in the ways knowledge is managed in KIBS and how these processes are facilitated by KM. On the other, by understanding how and the reason why KIBS innovate by applying KM the study looks forward to mapping some implications, future potentials and challenges ahead such implementation in KIBS. 3.6. Research Plan It is envisaged that the research duration will be four years, in general depicted in the management chart below.
Academic activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Theoretical – conceptual framework Methodological development Revision of proposal for data collection design
Data collection instruments and test Data collection (fieldwork): interview Data collection (fieldwork): survey Analysis Writing up Conference and publication
In detail: • The first year aims to (1) expand the horizon of theories, philosophies and
methodologies; (2) refining concepts, methods and approaches of the PhD research; as well as (3) identify contacts (i.e. KIBS firms) for data collection. The output of this first year is a revised PhD proposal and a successful defence of the 1st year report.
• The second year is intended for data collection. The first three months are intended to construct and to test the data collection instruments, as well as to contact the targeted KIBS firms/organisations. The following three months are designated for interviewing the research participants (approximately 15 interviewees) to grasp and have better understanding of the context. The next two months is planned to launch the survey. The remaining months are used
13
to resume the interviewing process for approximately another 15 interviewees.
• The third year aims to start analysing the data. Writing‐up of this PhD report also begins during this period, within which it includes outlining the thesis as well as mapping the discussion points. Possible conferences and academic outputs are also explored here.
• The final year targets to finalise the thesis write‐up. This period also aims to prepare some publications and to contribute to relevant conferences, and to include the PhD thesis presentation and defence. It is also planned to have finished the thesis revision (if any is required) by the end of this period.
4. Concluding Remarks This proposed PhD research aims to bring empirical, theoretical and practical insights in the field of innovation in services, by taking the case of knowledge management in KIBS. This proposal has sought to outline major elements fundamental to the success of the study, and to explicate the significance of this study. Manchester, 15 January 2010
14
References Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E. (2001) ’Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual
Foundations and Research Issues’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 107‐136.
Amalia, M. (2009) ‘Knowledge Management: A Case of a Multinational Company Subsidiary in Indonesia’, MSc Dissertation, Institute Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
Becerra‐Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A. & Sabherwal, R. (2004) Knowledge Management: Challenges, Solutions, and Technologies, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Bierly, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (1996) ʹGeneric Knowledge Strategies in the US Pharmaceutical Industryʹ, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, pp. 123‐135.
Bohn, R. (1994) ʹMeasuring and Managing Technological Knowledgeʹ, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 61‐73.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. (1961) The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London.
Chauvel, D. & Despres, C. (2002) ‘A review of survey research in knowledge management: 1997‐2001’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 207 ‐ 223
Choi, B. & Lee, H. (2002) ʹKnowledge Management Strategy and its Link to Knowledge Creation Processʹ, Expert Systems with Application, vol. 23, pp. 173‐187.
Clayton, T. (2003) ‘Service Innovation: Aiming to Win’, in Service Innovation: Organisational Responses to Technological Opportunities & Market Imperatives, J. Tidd & F.M. Hull (Eds.), Imperial College Press, London, pp. 113‐134.
Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data, Sage, Thousands Oaks, London, New Delhi.
Criscuolo, P., Salter, A. & Sheehan, T. (2007) ‘Making knowledge visible: Using expert yellow pages to map capabilities in professional services firms’, Research Policy, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1603‐1619.
Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L. & Karlsson, J.C. (2002) Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences, Routledge, London.
Davenport, T.H., Long, D. & Beers, M.C. (1998) ʹSuccessful Knowledge Management Projectsʹ, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 43‐57.
Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2000) Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Department of Trade and Industry (1998) Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
Dixon, N.M. (1994) The Organisational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively, McGraw‐Hill, London.
Evanschitzky, H., Ahlert, D., Blaich, G. & Kenning, P. (2006) ‘Knowledge management in knowledge‐intensive service networks: A strategic management approach’, Management Decision, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 265‐283.
Fagerberg, J. (2005) Innovation: A Guide to the Literature, in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, J. Fagerberg, R.R. Nelson, D.C. Mowery (Eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1‐27.
Frambach, R.T. (1993) ‘An Integrated Model of Organisational Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 22‐41.
Gadrey, J. & Gallouj, F. (2002) Productivity, Innovation and Knowledge in Services, Elgar, Cheltenham.
Gallouj, F. (2002) Innovation in the Service Economy –The New Wealth of Nations, Edgar Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Gilbert, N. (1992) Researching social life, SAGE, London.
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. & Tierney, T. (1999) ʹWhatʹs Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?ʹ, Harvard Business Review, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 106‐116.
Hauknes, J. (1999) ‘Services in Innovation – Innovation in Services’, report for the OECD Business and Industry Policy Forum, Paris, France.
15
Heisig, P. (2001) ʹBusiness Process Oriented Knowledge Managementʹ, in Knowledge Management: Best Practices in Europe, K. Mertins, P. Heisig & J. Vorbeck (eds.), Springer, Berlin, pp. 13‐36.
Hipp, C. (2003) ‘Effects of Innovation in Standardised, Customised and Bespoke Services: Evidence from Germany’, in Service Innovation: Organisational Responses to Technological Opportunities & Market Imperatives, J. Tidd & F.M. Hull (Eds.), Imperial College Press, London, pp. 175‐210.
Hislop, D. (2005) Knowledge Management in Organisations: A Critical Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jensen, M.C. & Meckling, W.H. (1996) ʹSpecific and General Knowledge, and Organisational Structureʹ, in Knowledge Management and Organisational Design, P.S. Myers (ed.), Butterworth‐Heinemann, Newton, MA, pp. 17‐38.
Kanter, R. (1988) ‘When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organisations’, Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 10, pp. 169‐211.
Kay, J. (1993) Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business Strategies Add Value, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kluge, J., Stein, W. & Licht, T. (2001) The McKinsey & Company global Survey on Knowledge Management: Knowledge Unplugged, Palgrave, New York.
Kuusisto, J. & Meyer, M. (2003) ‘Insights into Services and Innovation in the Knowledge Intensive Economy’, Technology Review – National Technology Agency, no. 134, Helsinki.
Lee, J. & Kim, Y. (2001) ʹA Stage Model of Organisational Knowledge Management: A Latent Content Analysisʹ, Expert Systems with Application, vol. 20, pp. 299‐311.
Leiponen, A. (2001) Knowledge Services in the Innovation System, Working Paper B185, Etla, Helsinki.
Mertins, K., Heisig, P. & Vorbeck, J. (2001) ʹIntroductionʹ, in Knowledge Management: Best Practices in Europe, K. Mertins, P. Heisig & J. Vorbeck (eds.), Springer, Berlin, pp. 1‐10.
Metcalfe, S. & Miles, I. (2000) Innovation Systems in the Service Economy: Measurement and Case Study Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishing, Massachusetts, USA.
Miles, I., Kastrinos, N., Flanagan, K., Bilderbeek, R., den Hertog, P., Huntink, W. & Bouman, M. (1995) ‘Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services: Users, Carriers and Sources of Innovation’, a report to DG13 SPRINT‐EIMS, PREST, University of Manchester, UK.
Miles, I. (1999a) ‘Services in National Innovation Systems: from Traditional Services to Knowledge Intensive Business Services’, in Transformation Towards a Learning Economy: the Challenge to the Finnish Innovation System, G. Schienstock & O. Kuusi (Eds.), SITRA (Finnish National Fund for R&D), Helsinki.
Miles, I. (1999b) ‘Services and Foresight’, Service Industries Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1‐27.
Miles, I. (2000) ‘Environmental Services: Sustaining Knowledge’, in Knowledge and Innovation in the New Service Economy, B. Andersen, J. Howells, R. Hull, I. Miles & J. Roberts (Eds.), Elgar, Aldershot.
Miles, I. (2001) ‘Knowledge‐Intensive Business Services and the New Economy’, CRIC and PREST, University of Manchester, at seminar presentation at Evolutionary Economics Unit, Max‐Planck‐Institute for Research into Economic Systems, Jena, Germany.
Miles, I. (2005a) ‘Knowledge Intensive Business Services: Prospects and Policies’, Foresight, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 39‐63.
Miles, I. (2005b) ‘Innovation in Services’, in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery & R.R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford University Press Inc., New York, pp. 433‐458.
Miles, I. (2007) ‘Knowledge‐Intensive Services and Innovation’, in The Handbook of Service Industries, J.R. Bryson & P. Daniels (Eds.), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 277‐294.
Morgan, D.L. & Kreuger, R.A. (1993) ‘When to use focus groups and why’, in Successful Focus Groups, D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Sage, London, pp. 3‐19.
Nonaka, I. (1994) ʹA Dynamic Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creationʹ, Organisation Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14‐37.
Olsen, W. (2003) ‘Triangulation, Time, and the Social Objects of Econometrics’, In Applied Economics and the Critical Realist Critique, P. Downward (Ed.), Routledge, London, Chp. 9.
16
17
Pentland, B.T. (1995) ʹInformation Systems and Organisational Learning: The Social Epistemology of Organisational Knowledge Systemsʹ, Accounting, Management & Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1‐21.
Polanyi, M. (1975) ʹPersonal Knowledgeʹ, in Meaning, M. Polanyi & H. Porsch (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 22‐45.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. & Jones, G. (1997) ʹKnowledge Management: A Strategic Agendaʹ, Long Range Planning, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 385‐391.
Quintas, P. (2002) ʹManaging Knowledge in a New Centuryʹ, in Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader, S. Little, P. Quintas & T. Ray (eds.), Sage Publications, London, pp. 1‐14.
Radding, A (1998) Knowledge Management: Succeeding in the Information‐based Global Economy, Computer Technology Research Corp., Charleston, USA.
Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations Fifth Edition, Free Press, New York.
Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Singh, H. & Zollo, M. (1998) ʹThe Impact of Knowledge Codification, Experience Trajectories and Integration Strategies on the Performance of Corporate Acquisitionsʹ, The Wharton School Working Paper No. 98‐24.
Stake, R.E. (1995) The art of case study research: Perspectives on practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stark, S. & Torrance, H. (2005) ‘Case Study’, in Research Methods in the Social Sciences, B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Sage, London, pp. 33‐40.
Swan, J., Nevell, S. & Robertson, M. (2000) ʹLimits of IT‐driven Knowledge Management for Interactive Innovation Process: Towards a Community‐based Approachʹ, Proceedings of 33rd HICSS.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. & Pavitt, K. (2001) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change 2nd Edition, John Wiley, Chichester.
Tidd, J. & Hull, F.M. (2003) ‘Managing Service Innovation: Variations of Best Practice’, in Service Innovation: Organisational Responses to Technological Opportunities & Market Imperatives, J. Tidd & F.M. Hull (Eds.), Imperial College Press, London, pp. 3‐34.
Wejnert, B. (2002) ‘Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 28, pp. 297‐326.
Zack, M.H. (1999) ʹDeveloping a Knowledge Strategyʹ, California Management Review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 125‐145.