Course at Lapin Yliopisto 2005, Session set 2

1. Day 3 –
(technical, ICT) Innovation
• What are (technological) innovations?
• Where are innovations coming from?
• Technology adap- and adoptation as
organisational innovations
– the voluntary and
– the forced approach for implementation
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 71
LaY/ YTK

2. What are (technological)
innovations?
• Innovations are different to inventions
• Differentiating element is, that the invention is
confined to the locality of it is origin, and
• thus does become widespread either within in
a single organisation, or across a whole
industry
“Innovation is [..] a social transformation in
a community”(Denning, 2005, 15)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 72
LaY/ YTK

3. What are (technological)
innovations? II
process of innovation consists of five steps:
1. searching for opportunity meaning the search for
unexpected, or incongruencies in a process
2. analysis in the form of generation of business plan
3. listening while presenting the suggestion to others in the
market
4. focus as being the development of a concise summary of
the idea, and thereby refuse to extend the to early to
customer or clients needs
5. leadership as being the implementation of the innovation in
the market and selling it as “best of breed”
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 73
LaY/ YTK

4. Where are innovations
coming from? I
• organisational innovations can be
distinguished into two categories
– administrative innovation- focus on how to run the
organisation more efficient, and thus originating in
the hierarchy of the organisation and than being
fed down and
– technical innovation- as being improved ways of
performing activities that are suggested for
general implementation, and therefore originating
more at the operational level
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 76
LaY/ YTK

5. An innovation model based on
the level of impact
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 79
LaY/ YTK

6. ICT as organisational innovation II
• Organisational change is happening
irrespective of the fact whether the adoption
of new procedures, or
• the implementation of new software, serves
only the ICT department, or the whole
organisation
• Implementation of ICT induced innovations
rests on the cooperation of the entire
organisation to implement it successfully
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 81
LaY/ YTK

7. Scope and breadth of Type III
Innovations
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 83
LaY/ YTK

8. technology adap- and
adoptation I
• Technology acceptance model (TAM) is
– less general in the assumptions and parameters
observed, and
– suggested to be more suitable for explaining
adoption of ICT
• implementation of ICT is result of the
combination of the
– “[..] perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use, and
– users’ attitudes, intentions, and actual computer
adoption behaviour” (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw,
1989)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 85
LaY/ YTK

9. technology adap- and
adoptation II
• Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA) posits
that
– the adaptation ICT is dependent on expectation of
an individual that the utilisation is in accordance
with personae’s attitude and
– subjective norms.
• Thereby the utilisation of an application is
considered as being a behaviour that is in
principle intended from the software point of
view. (initially moral or ethical neutral)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 86
LaY/ YTK

10. ICT innovation implementation
in org. settings II
• Adoption= split into three main sets of activities
– “primary adoption”= managerial decision to adopt an
innovation after a search for optimisation options
– “secondary adoption”= two level process that considers
motives of the management and employees.
• Management consideration for adoption along TRA parameters
• Employees= “when and how they adopt it – through what
experiences, with what obstacles encountered, and how these
events influence organizational assimilation and outcomes“
– actions taken by managem. in order facilitate the adoption of
the innovation might also incl. means that render the
utilisation of ICT necessary
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 95
LaY/ YTK

11. ICT innovation implementation
in org. settings III
• Engrainment = divided into two sub-
constructs:
– breadth of use refers to number of
adopters within a firm [..],
– while depth of use is [..] describing how
extensively the innovation is used and
– its level of impact within the firm”
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 96
LaY/ YTK

12. Innovation and
impact on ”life” I
• in order to impact on ”life” innovations
– in the first instance have to be allowed for
the particular level of society
– this means, that the existence of an
innovation per se does not change
anything
– only if the innovation is set into context of
one’s life, changes are going to happen
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 89
LaY/ YTK

13. Innovation and
impact on ”life” III
• Applying this notion to the Arctic areas,
one is tempted to argue, that
– Something that is great for other areas is
not necessarily of value as well there,
because of
• Lack of suitability,
• Different needs,
• Missing knowledge, and related transfer
options of the innovation
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 91
LaY/ YTK

14. Innovation and
impact on ”life” IV
• ICT per se are not affecting society
• that, as shown in many models, only after
crossing a certain threshold societal impact
can be measured
• just as much as ICT implemented in
organisations do not change anything, it is
ICT+X≈ change, whereby X=
– process changes/ modifications,
– Learning about the characteristics of ICT and how
to use those
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 92
LaY/ YTK

15. The Rogers Innovation adoption
curve
Source:http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~renglish/370/notes/chapt11/, 01/28/2006
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 93
LaY/ YTK

16. Day 4 –
Knowledge Integration
• The term ”knowledge” – meaning and
ingredients
• Constructionistic character of knowledge
– Academic disciplines
– The relevance of domain knowledge claims
• Origins of KI
• KI and its content
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 97
LaY/ YTK

17. On the dual character of
Knowledge
”.. explicit Knowledge ..can be articulated in
formal language including grammatical
statements, mathematical expressions,
specifications, across individuals formally and
easily.[…] Tacit knowledge.. is personal
knowledge embedded in individual
experience and involves intangible factors
such as personal belief, perspective, and the
value system” (Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995, viii)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 99
LaY/ YTK

18. Elaborating on Dualities
• ”Knowledge is something that is possessed. It is
something about but not in the tangible world. And it
is static, in that possessing it does not require that it
be always in use.”
• ”Knowing” refers to the epistemic work that is done
as part of action or practice. By knowing.. [not meant]
necessary to action, but ..something .. part of action”
(Cook/ Brown 1999, 387)
• “Knowledge is about possession;it is a term of
predication” “Knowing is about relation:it is about
interaction between the knower(s) and the world”
(ibid.)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 100
LaY/ YTK

19. „Reality“ and „knowledge“ II
• For “idealist” the world is empty in terms of objects
which are external to human beings, until they are
experienced for the first time. On gaining
individually the experience of the existence of the
object, and describing it, individual “knowledge” has
been created.
• For “objectivists” the object is always existent; it is
only that an individual is taking notice of it.
Knowledge relates to the existence of an object
with a description of it, and this description is
then, in some definitions, knowledge.
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 103
LaY/ YTK

20. „Reality“ and „knowledge“ III
The objectivist/ idealist divide is result of the
problem
“[..] that the world does not classify itself, that it must be
actively ordered and organized and the particular
encountered in it actively grouped together”.
(Barnes, 1995, p. 96)
• in respect to world many different forms and ways of
ordering are existent, and
• all of these are true to the world.
• the choice which ordering is dominant is result of an
interactionist agreement among members of a given
society
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 104
LaY/ YTK

21. „Reality“ and „knowledge“ V
• The answer is no, if one takes an epistemological
point of view.
• Insofar as knowledge is just one interpretation
of„reality“, western knowledge has been deciphered
in the 60‘s as being as much a „story“ as „oral
culture“ myth.
• Having said this, western knowledge, potentially
more then indigenous knowledge, is biased and
geared to find
• better reality describing sets of knowledge, under the
assumption that all knowledge is always only an
approximation to (natural) reality (cp. Hesse, 1980, p.
188+190-3)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 106
LaY/ YTK

22. A necessary excurse –
systems theory and KI
• complexity is the degree of integration and
implications of a given decision field’
– Is a property of a system’s environment - external
• contingency is a state of a system that offers it
different courses of action. Contingency is a property
that is immanent to complex, internally differentiated
systems.
– Is a property that is immanent to a system - internal
• Sense is understood as a category that is an
expression of collective shared normative (symbolic)
orders, and includes “values, objectives, and
strategies” and how to achieve these
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 107
LaY/ YTK

23. Academia and Knowledge –
a bizarre effect III
• Intradisciplinarity- it takes place if two researchers
from the same discipline work together, but have
different areas of specialisation
• Interdisciplinarity- researchers from different
disciplines in the same broader field of sciences
cooperate. While they share basic insights and
methods of reflection, their knowledge sets are
dedicated and specialised. Most likely they are
sharing paradigms.
• Multidisciplinarity - cooperation of different academic
disciplines that are working jointly, each in its domain,
on a shared problem. Different paradigms might be
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 such a research setting
involved in 111
LaY/ YTK

24. Knowledge Integration II
• „It [KI] examines the processes under which a
successful exchange of Information and Knowledge
is happening“ (Hislop, 2003)
• “synthesis of individual specialised Knowledge into
situation-specific systemic knowledge” (Alavi/
Timawa, 2001)
• “the compilation of systemic networked meta-
knowledge which forms a bridge between previously
isolated areas of knowledge and experience. It relies
on the ability to define problems independently of
disciplines and to solve them on an interdisciplinary
basis“ (Ganz/ Hermann, 1999)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 116
LaY/ YTK

25. Knowledge Integration V
(Steinheider, 1999)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 119
LaY/ YTK

26. Social Identity Theory
Group-membership
-assimilation to prototype
- social attraction hypothesis
- Leadership based on Prototypicality
Leadership allows
- change in def. Of Prototype
- define new Norms
- pressure on Deviant members
Results:
-Leaders are not selected based on capabilities
- overall in the Orga. Management is a rep.of a dominant Type
- overall Org. are becoming prone to be abusive to others
(Hogg/Terry 2000)
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 121
LaY/ YTK

27. sources of self-efficacy
enactive mastery
vicarious experiences
verbal persuasion
lead to Knowledge =
-representation of rules
physiological and affective states
-and strategies for effective actions
is part of
embodies
cognitive Models=
influences for the production “of skilled action
and as interpersonal standards [for Individuals]
for making corrective Adjustments affect
Interaction
”common Ground”
-line of actions
- sharing aim “Epistemic style”
- expressing sanctions Learning and cognitive style
- face saving Conceptions of Interdisciplinarity
Oliver Krone © 2005/6 123
LaY/ YTK