ABSTRACT:
Knowledge Management and
Innovation have a co-dependent relationship which when understood can lead to
the enhancement of organisational sustainability, effectiveness and competitive
advantage. Organisational memory is the critical premise on which both
knowledge management and innovation rely. However, this premise can both be
enabling and constraining in making advances in knowledge management and in its
innovation thereof.
The purpose of this article
is to explore the extent to which organisational memory enables and constrains
innovation in knowledge management. This article uses a real life case study to
illustrate the manner in which organisational memory can both be constructive
and destructive in making advances in innovating knowledge management. The
interplay between innovation and knowledge management is covered but the focus
resides in exploring the impact of organisational memory on this
interplay.
Keywords: Knowledge management, Innovation,
Organisational memory, Enabler, Constrainer.
1. Introduction
The most important single source of competitive advantage is the ability
to continually rethink.
Arie de Geus (cited in
Russell-Walling, 2007:116)
According to Daft and Weick (1984), approaches taken to organisational studies
make assumptions that are specific about the nature, design and function of
organisations. This chapter is underpinned by the assumptions that
organisations in the home industry in
In order to compete
effectively, Porter (2008) identifies the need to be able to manage and
strategize around five forces; the threat of new entrants, the threat of
substitute products or services, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining
power of suppliers and rivalry among existing competitors. It is fair to say
that one cannot manage what they do not know. Suffice to propose then that in
order for organisations to compete effectively, they must be in a position of
always knowing what they need to know- a position achievable through knowledge
management. In lieu of the fact that the currency of knowledge is sensitivity
and adaptability to change, it is not surprising that what organisations need
to know constantly changes and these changes call for adaptation in the ways of
knowing- what is hereon after referred to as innovation in knowledge
management. Building a strategy around Porter’s forces requires an intimate
knowledge of the forces as relevant to the industry. Intimate knowledge is
based on building on basic knowledge. This basic knowledge must have been
stored as part of the organisation’s memory if is to become intimate knowledge.
The existence of organisational memory is therefore shown to be fundamental in
building knowledge and in managing that knowledge. Adaptations in this memory
result in innovation in knowledge management. However, once a phenomenon is
embedded in memory we must be cognisant of the effect it can have in either
enabling us to manage knowledge better or hinder us in adapting our ways of
managing knowledge. This adaptation is innovation and requires flexible use of
what is stored in our memory.
Innovation is the substance
that provides an organisation its lifeblood and a means to sustainable
competitive advantage (Reavis, 2009). Reavis (2009) proposes that for innovation to lend its
strategic role to management, there is a need for what
is called innovation to be new, superior to existing products, feasible
economically and with pervasive appeal. Innovation therefore offers more than
something new; it enables businesses to continually satisfy the infinite wants
of consumers. The South African home industry exemplifies what it means to be
innovative in the products and services it offers. Despite this, the same
cannot be said to be characteristic of how knowledge in the industry is
managed. To a larger extent, experiences perceived as being negative tend to be
barriers to change in any sphere of the home industry business once they are
embedded in the organisation’s memory. In other words, ‘good’ experiences
encourage innovation while ‘bad’ experiences hinder it. This is a phenomenon
that this article seeks to explore by considering a case study.
When asked what the core
business of one of
In tying the perspectives of this article
introduced here this paper has three main objectives. In the first instance the
paper seeks to give a clear background embedded in existing literature on the
links between the key concepts of organisational memory, knowledge management
and innovation in knowledge management. The second objective is to illustrate
these linkages through the presentation of a case study. The third objective is
to draw propositions on how what works can be sustained and how challenges can
be overcome. The overarching objective, encompassing the three main objectives,
is to provide a justifiable cause for the presentation of the contents of this
paper as relevant to the theories and practice of innovation in knowledge
management.
2. Background
The processes of managing
knowledge and managing innovation are interlinked (Ohme,
2002). This article proposes that the interlinking
thread is that of organisational memory (
It is necessary to explore
the concept of
According to Walsh and Ungson (1991),
KM is broadly defined as
being an organised
process that facilitates knowledge acquisition, ordering,
sustenance, application, sharing and renewal for the purposes of increasing
adaptability, increasing the value of products already in existence and
creating new products (Davenport et al., 1998). In support of this definition,
Willard (2004) adds that KM is about developing knowledge and incorporating it
in the organisational capital for as far as it is possible. Critics of KM
neither refute its existence nor importance, rather their dissention lies in
the lack of clarity in the field with regard to what proposed systems can
achieve, particularly the confusion between capturing, organising and
disseminating information and then calling it knowledge (Gerami,
2010). KM ensures that useful information becomes a sustainable resource that
the organisation utilises in attaining its goals. Converting information to
knowledge is a matter of innovation.
iKM
has been defined for the purposes of this article as being the strategies
employed by organisations to improve the way they learn and in turn convert
information to knowledge so that information becomes a resource for the
organisation. iKM achieves
this by fostering an environment that favours organisational learning which in
turn leads to the creation of learning organisations. Although easily confused,
organisational learning is not necessarily synonymous with learning
organisations. Organisational learning is a process that emerges from the
abilities of individual organisational members to perceive and communicate
their motivations and interactions with one another (Kunz, 2004). A learning
organisation on the other hand is an institution that is able to assimilate the
learning of its members and carry on that knowledge despite the members. Senge (1994) described learning organisations as those in
which individuals attain personal mastery and develop mental models, teams have
a shared vision and learn together and the organisation adopts systems
thinking. The relationship can be seen to be emanating from the important role
of individual members and their learning process which depends on their memory.
It is hereby put forward
that
At the heart of the
discussion of
3. Case Study On Koljander
This article presents forms
in which
This case study looks at
the retention structure of OM in an organisation, the processes by which
knowledge can be acquired, stored and retrieved from the retention structure
and the precise ways in which the use of
3.1. About Koljander
Koljander is a co-operative business that was
set up in 1980 to provide unique home industry goods in baking, cooking and
hand crafted goods with the objective of offering proudly South African
products. In addition to the products offered, Koljander
provides services in catering and delivery of ordered products.
The business has
successfully operated evidenced by their winning of numerous awards.
Koljander was started by 20 women united by
their creativity, financial needs and lack of specific business skills.
Starting out in a humble pet shop, Koljander now
boasts beautiful premises along the popular
Here are some of the
responses to a pre-interview questionnaire addressed to the managers of Koljander:
1. If you could describe your business in 5 words what would
they be?
Innovative;
co-operative; people-based; unique; colourful
2. If you could describe the industry in which your business
operates in 5 words what would they be?
Co-operative;
entrepreneurial; home-baking; handcrafts; service
3. If you could describe your approach to ensuring your
business survives in the industry in 5 words what would they be?
Quality
focus; renewal; uniqueness; price-sensitivity; service-orientation
4. What does innovation mean to you in the context of your
business?
Innovation
lies at the core of this type of business.
A home industry is in fact an entrepreneurial collective and the level
of innovation puts it apart from the generic type of businesses which are
supplied by mass production from factories.
Our products originate from the innovative thinking of individual
people.
5. What does managing innovation mean to you in the context of
your business?
Managing
innovation means that the management core of the business must always be
appreciative for new ideas and strengthen innovative thinking amongst its
members.
6. What does leading innovation mean to you in the context of
your business?
Leading
innovation means stimulating, motivating and supporting members to be
resourceful and brave in experimenting with new ideas.
7. What challenges are you facing in managing innovation?
Members
get caught up in their large production cycle and lose perspective of the
importance of innovation and renewal of products. This leads to stagnation in many product
lines. They also do not think enough
about the changing nature of the market and just go on producing ‘the same’
year in and year out. Innovation
necessitates ‘disruption’ of their well-organised production routine.
8. What opportunities do you envisage may enable you overcome
your challenges in managing innovation?
In
my opinion, managing innovation is more about inspiring and stimulating new
ideas in the business and making members aware of the importance of
renewal. From management side, we have
to keep the shop looking ‘fresh’ so that customers are always surprised with
new ideas. It also means an awareness of
what is going on in the macro environment and responding to ‘issues of the day’
within the context of the business.
9. What challenges are you facing in leading innovation?
Members
become machine-like operations at home, working with staff who they train to
assist them in their production. It is
troublesome to have to ‘re-train’ staff in changing
products or adding new product lines.
This leads to stagnation in the shop.
The introduction of new members is regarded as threatening to their own
income and they often do not have the vision to see that the shop needs the new
ideas and new products – and by building the business it is also in their own
interest.
10. What opportunities do you envisage may enable you overcome
your challenges in leading innovation?
Opportunities to lead innovation lies primarily
with the leaders in the business to motivate members in thinking about the
‘bigger picture’. This will only happen if they
develop a sense of pride in the business, and if the importance of renewal and
regeneration of the business is understood and supported by all.
Opportunities
to lead innovation are often difficult because members feel threatened when
they are challenged by the introduction of new products which can be in
competition with their established product lines.
What is intriguing in the
responses given is the continuous mention of the importance of innovating how
members think about the business and about the products they supply to the
business. This can be interpreted to mean the importance of innovating how
members know what they know and so a reference to iKM.
It is apparent from the questionnaire responses that the home-based industry
inherits its innovative description from the innovativeness of industry players
in how they think about price, focus service and ideas. At the core of these
thoughts are effective management and leadership capable of stimulating,
motivating and supporting new patterns of thought. It is these very patterns
that form the
In this kind of business,
people want to secure their monopoly in their product lines, and if this is
allowed without certain qualifications, stagnation results. More importantly, valuable potential among
the other members is not given an opportunity to be discovered. To unleash this hidden potential, the
‘security’ and monopoly must from time to time be questioned. This poses many challenges, because one takes
away the ‘safety’ or exclusivity of a product line and the reaction is normally
negative. Good persuasive skills of the
leaders are needed to convince members of the ‘greater good’ – which these
measures will in the long term bear fruit for the business, and everyone
involved.
3.2.
By retaining members for as
long as possible and encouraging the sharing of ideas, a lot of information
pertinent to innovation has been retained in the Koljander’s
organisational memory. Leadership has had an important role to play here
because member retention is directly related to member satisfaction - something
over which management has a degree of influence. By ensuring that members feel
valued in the business and share in its success, Koljander
has earned the loyalty of many of its members.
Embedded in the experience
of members in trying out new products is the memory of failure. Such is the
case with Koljander’s experience in trying to include
a coffee shop on its premises. The effort proved to be a time consuming and
resource draining exercise that was not profitable. In response, the business
closed the shop and looks on the experience as a mistake that should not be
repeated. This is a constraint to iKM because it
appears the members now operate with a fear of failure rather than embracing
the lessons of the past and reassessing the concept to determine whether
changes in time would now make the coffee shop a money spinner. This fear is
reproduced among members further strengthening the constraining effect of how
members remember.
It’s
not the shop who embarks on a new product, it’s its members. It’s you know
shareholders. They are all part of the shop. And members come and go so you get
new members with new products. We want new members with new products.
‘I
think innovation lies really at the core of this kind of business...it’s not
factory made products. It comes from people’s ideas and people have to go and
search for ideas, and they have to take existing ideas and give an
individualistic and innovative new twist.’
The ‘open-door’ policy
exhibited by Koljander in not being rigid on who can
join the cooperative has been fundamental in ensuring that
Tied to the challenge of
having new members is the need for retraining of members and the staff working
with them. Rather than view retraining as an opportunity to extend the
knowledge base and improve OM, some members may view it as hindering the
further success of an already retained part of
Innovation
is actually sharing with people. It is sharing with people to build [them] up
and to extend [the shop]. To extend and to build up and just to be there for
everybody- that’s innovation, as far as I’m concerned.
You’ve
got to not only think of your own product but you’ve got to think of all the
products in the shop.
In the preceding quotes,
information exchange among members is viewed as being a way of innovating.
Ideas and opinions are exchanged and expanded resulting in activities that have
been influenced by multiple sources. This has a profound effect of actively
creating
3.3.
Unlike its competitors, Koljander has not specialised in any one area of the home
industry business. This is because the organisation remembers that the reason
it is so successful is its ability to tailor their product offering to meet
unique customer needs- an ability unachievable in a highly specialist
organisation.
Continuous innovation in Koljander is essential and for that reason, it is an
organisational objective to create a culture supportive of innovation.
Organisational culture is one of the retention facilities of
We
have a little house...we call it a ‘house of comments’. And we’ve got our
comment forms next to that and we ask for comments. Good or bad or new ideas or
whatever. And the staff
is also trained to listen if somebody asks for a product we don’t
have at that stage to pass it on to us. You get some of your best ideas
sometimes from customers needing something that you haven’t thought of.
Feedback on the
organisation’s knowledge is something that Koljander
values. Members present their new products, new products are tested,
suggestions are made for improvement on new products by management, new products
are presented to the clients on a test basis, feedback from clients is
incorporated in product improvement and finally the product is launched as a
unique product from Koljander to market. Products
that are launched but do not perform as well as desired are reviewed and
innovations in the product and marketing of the product are employed to give
the product a boost. In the event that the product remains unsuccessful, it is
pulled out of the product line and room is created for something new. Existing
products that begin to reach stagnation are given the same treatment. This is
the embodiment of iKM in practice.
With Koljander
not being specialised in a narrow range of products, the business has found it
necessary to engage in portfolio management. What this has implied for Koljander is that all its products are classified in broad
portfolios which each fall under a designated manager. This has kept managers
close enough to the products to monitor their success and recommend directions
for innovation without any product lines being neglected by Koljander
as a whole. So while this is important for the development of
3.4.
Being a co-operative
business, much of the success that Koljander has
enjoyed can be attributed to collaborative efforts among its members. Consequently,
the retention of members for as long as is possible and encouraging the sharing
of ideas is essential for
Co-operatives tend to lapse
into a routine and repetitiveness. This has a powerful effect on building strong
3.5.
Koljander is governed by a statute outlining
its mode of operation and the core values of the co-operative. This is an
enabler of iKM in as far as it encourages continuous
innovation. However, it can be a constraint as there is a tendency of members
to ‘go by the book’ and in so doing not allow for any innovative practices. The
co-operative is interested in ensuring that the activities of members and
management are aligned with the external objectives. While this makes success
and failure measurable, it creates rigidity where the objectives are unchanging
and do not reflect change occurring in the external environment.
3.6. Lessons From Koljander For iKM Solutions And Recommendations
In keeping up with what is
main stream, it is important to remain aware of trends in the market by keeping
abreast of the activities of competitors and non-competitors alike. The best
innovative ideas tend to emanate from unlikely sources and therefore ‘keeping
their eyes peeled’ comes as part of the survival description for management and
members in Koljander. Nonetheless, organisations must
not follow trends without due consideration. Granted that KM requires an
openness and awareness to the environment and socio-cultural trends, being able
to remember what the competitive edge of a business is and how trends align or
not with the competitive structure of the business. True iKM
lies in being able to keep the business current without compromising the
competitive edge that got the business success in the first instance.
The culture of the
organisation is a useful resource that can be of a more permanent nature in
retaining
A balance needs to be
maintained between exploiting and exploring iKM.
Whereas exploiting iKM is reaping the maximum benefit
out of current knowledge, exploring iKM is seeking
avenues for improvement. The flexibility of
The experiences of
organisations may be similar when they are in the same industry. What exists in
one organisation’s memory that establishes those experiences as a competitive
advantage depends on how the KM process manifests itself in the organisation
and how iKM takes shape. An individualistic and
innovative twist to knowledge is necessary to produce positive
There is a need for the
components of
Prior to 2005, the
legislative definition of co-operative in
4. Future Research
Directions
Future focus on the topic
of organisational memory departs from emphasis on the organisation towards
being able to identify the major features of employee experience that are
relevant for developing the appropriate OM (Alvarado et al., 2005). More likely
than not, this will contribute to the development of frameworks capable of
informing the ‘how tos’ of iKM
through
Caution must be taking in
applying the information outcomes of the case study because, as is the
prevalent trade with studies of knowledge management and organisational memory,
reliance is heavily on the case’s self-reporting. Consequently the results of
this article may be more relevant to contexts similar to that presented.
5. Conclusion
In quoting Weick (1979), “If an organisation is to learn anything,
then the distribution of its memory, the accuracy of that memory and the
conditions under which that memory is treated as a constraint become crucial
characteristics of organising.” How we remember is arguably more important than
what we remember. Documenting experiences and consequent lessons from the
experiences in either written or artefact form can be a deterrent in innovation
where rigidity in the classification of experiences as being ‘good’ or ‘bad’
exists. As discussed earlier, using organisational experiences to draw on
external perspectives is critical in determining whether
I
think the only real challenge is time. But I think the most important thing is
to enjoy your work, .you have to enjoy what you are doing you know, as
challenging as it can be.
iKM
is a long term project of continuity. It requires those seeking it to be
involved not only in the iKM processes but also to
have a personal involvement in the organisation and with what it stands for. It
is apparent that the need for continuity calls for the development of a society
and the implications of this on
Of
course, organizations will continue to ‘make histories’, or else others will
make their histories for them, recalling their past through mnemonic practices,
naming buildings after prominent organization members, choosing names to give
an aura of age, regularly recording the year of their establishment in annual
reports and entries in trade directories, commissioning monumental corporate
histories by conservative academics to commemorate their centenaries. (Delahaye et al., 2009).
Delahaye et al. (2009) could not have put it
any better. It is imperative that we know what we know based on how we remember
and not solely on how others apart from us do. We must be responsible for our
knowledge, how we manage it and so how we can innovate our ways of knowing.
This paper has been
developed from the consideration of the consequences of
6. References
Alvarado,
M. A., Ban˜ares-Alca´Ntara, R., &
Anderson, J. R. (1980),
Cognitive Psychology and its Implications, Freeman And Company, San Francisco.
Argyris, C., & Schon,
D. A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley,
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984), Toward a Model of Organizations as
Interpretation Systems,
Delahaye, A., Charles Booth, Peter Clark,
Stephen Procter, & Rowlinson, M. (2009), The Genre of Corporate History, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 22, 27-48.
Evans, L. (2005), The New Wider World Coursemate for
Edexcel A GCSE Geography, Nelson Thornes,
Gerami, M. (2010), Knowledge Management. International Journal of Computer
Science and Information Security, 7(2), 234-238.
Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar,
K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006), The
Relationship of Learning and Memory with Organizational Performance: The
Moderating Role of Turbulence, Journal of The
Hein, C. (2005),
Reconciling Work and Family Responsibilities: Practical Ideas from Global
Experience, International Labour Organisation,
Konrath, S. (2004), Co-Opetition
Helps Create Intersections of Ideas. Accessed March, 2010:
http://www.innovationtools.com/articles/articledetails.asp?a=167
Kristiansen, S., Kimeme, J., Mwambo, A., &
Wahid, F. (2005), Information Flows and Adaptation in Tanzanian Cottage
Industries, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17, 365-388.
Kunz, J. (2004),
Organisational Learning: Lost And Found?!,
International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 416-430.
Ohme, E. T. (2002), Guide for Managing
Innovation- Part 1: Diagnosis. Centre for Innovation and Business Development,
Porter, M. E. (2008), The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy, Harvard
Business Review, 86(1), 78-93.
Reavis, D. (2009), Innovation Definition -
The Four Requirements for Innovation. Accessed
March, 2010: http://ezinearticles.com/?innovation-definition---the-four-requirements-for-innovation&id=2687046
Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. (2010), Social Remembering
and Organizational Memory, Organization Studies, 31(1), 69-87.
Russell-Walling, E. (2007),
50 Management Ideas You Really Need To Know, Quercus,
Samal, K. C. (2008), Informal Sector:
Concept, Dynamics, Linkages and Migration, Concept,
Scalzo, N. J. (2006), Memory Loss? Corporate
Knowledge and Radical Change, Journal of Business Strategy, 27(4), 60-69.
Senge, P. M. (1994), The
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for
Building a Learning Organization, Crown Business,
Starbuck, W., & Hedberg, B. (1977), Saving an Organization from a
Stagnating Environment, In H. Thorelli (Ed.),
Strategy + Structure = Performance, 249-258,
Tsang, E. W. K., &
Zahra, S. A. (2008), Organizational Unlearning, Human Relations, 61(10),
1435-1462.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991), Organizational Memory, The
Weick, K. E. (1979), The
Social Psychology Of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Willard, N. (2004),
Knowledge Management a Synopsis In Five Frames, Arlis Conference.
About the Author:
Natasha Katuta Mwila is
a PhD candidate in the Department of Management of The Faculty of Business and
Economics,
Natasha Katuta Mwila,