Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

Rodpol®: Open Innovation and

Technology Scouting

Ivan F Rodriguez

ORG711 21st Century Organizational Behavior

June 9, 2013

Ivan F Rodriguez | ORG711 2

About this Presentation

• Objective: Apply learned theory to design a new organization in the 21st Century.

• Methodology: This presentation was developed using two sources, (1) Organization Theory

Taxonomy (week two assignment of this course), and (2) Peer-reviewed research. Each strategic

decision is supported in theoretical foundations, and structures described in the Organization

Theory Taxonomy Assignment. The presentation includes the following.

o Overview of the hypothetical enterprise developed.

o Organizational structure.

o Roles and responsibilities.

o Metrics and performance measurement.

o Incentives and reward programs.

o Leadership strategy.

o Detailed speaker notes.

o Proper APA in-text citations on the slides and in the speaker notes.

o An APA reference slide.

University of Phoenix

Rodpol®: Center of Excellence for Collaborative

InnovationThe New Approach Of

Innovation!

4

Rodpol® Overview

• Vision

To become the recognized world leader productivity enhancer (n.) that creates core competencies in underdeveloped countries and minimize poverty.

• Mission

To optimize human’s life quality in a sustainable manner using internet based external crowd-sourcing platforms to identify sources of poverty and connect the collective knowledge of individuals to innovate products and processes.

University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711

5

Rodpol® Overview (cont.)

• Rodpol® Business Model Justification

The production of scientific knowledge is shifting from individuals to groups, from single to multiple institutions, and from a national to an international scope (West, 2012). Researchers are increasingly networked across national and organizational borders.

Rodpol® business model assumes that greater scientific specialization and cross-border collaboration can result in increased innovation. Because they draw on a larger pool of expertise, international research collaborations can be expected to have a bigger impact in terms of citations of scientific publications.

Differences across countries suggest a positive relationship between measures of research openness and scientific impact, the latter proxied by the average normalized citation index.


6


• Rodpol® Business Model Execution

The objective of Rodpol®’ business model is to connect expert contributors from multiple locations with a common vision, minimize poverty though innovation, technology development, and technology deployment.

In so doing, a three step approach has been defined: (1) Using advanced quantitative and qualitative methods, assess the competitiveness level of an underdeveloped economy, (2) Apply the Rodpol® Engagement Model to allocate resources to implement qualified projects/innovations, and (3) Monitor competitiveness and human development index to measure projects’ effectiveness.


7


• Rodpol® Business Model Execution (cont.)

Rodpol® business model requires to expand routes for open communication and create additional opportunities for experts involvement, consequently, the concept of Open Innovation Service Provider (OISP) platforms has been incorporated as a tool within Rodpol®’ problem solving strategy.

The goal of utilizing open innovation techniques, such as crowd-sourcing, takes advantage of the power of groups of people/experts outside one’s organization to help solve problems or bring in new and novel ideas (West, 2012). The goal is not to replace valued internal expertise, but to add to the problem-solving capabilities of the global specialized cohort.


8

Rodpol® Organizational Structure

• Organizational Structure

According to Rassenfosse and Potterie (2009), operating in the information era implies a shift in “traditional strategies and philosophies for any organization’s research and technology development efforts.” (p. 783)

Rodpol® organizational structure is designed to remained flat and flexible as much as possible. It includes three layers:

1.Agency Leaders

2.Program Management

3. Resource Management

Rodpol® network of experts is designed to encompass as much of the world’s expertise as possible. It is acknowledged harnessing the power, and expertise of underdeveloped communities challenges long-standing cultural barriers such as the not invented here philosophy, and opening the problem solving space to diverse and talented individuals outside of the selected country (see Appendix A).


9

Rodpol® Engagement Model


Create IAA

Develop Game Plan

Approve IAA

Authorize Start

Post(challenge.go

v, etc)

Review

Funding Order

Resou

rce

Man

ag

em

en

t

Pro

gra

m

Man

ag

em

en

t

Ag

en

cy

Lead

ers

Develo

p P

lan E

stablis

h

Sco

pe

Time

Project Execution

Figure 1. Rodpol® Engagement Model (Executing the Business Model)

Figure 1. This flow diagram describes the interactions between the three core functions within Rodpol®. It indicates the actions, sequence, and interdependency between the areas to evaluate a project and define if it will be executed (implemented or not). IAA stands for Initial Analysis Approval.

10

Rodpol® Organizational Supportive Theory

• Global Organizational Theory: Knowledge Base Theory

Rodpol® organization structured is supported by this global theory. Knowledge management research needs a consistent and cohesive theory supported by empirical evidence to provide sound and stable foundations for the field (Edwards et al., 2003).

Knowledge management is an increasing concern in the design of organizations. Knowledge generation, transfer, and sharing are becoming increasingly important for scholars attempting to explain dynamic flows of knowledge that enable workflow processes (and hence organizational performance, e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi,1995; Mason, 2007).


11

Rodpol® Organizational Supportive Theory (cont.)

• Global Organizational Theory: Knowledge Base Theory

Rodpol® organization structured is based on the knowledge base theory and attempts to devise mechanisms for integrating individuals’ specialized knowledge. Grant (1996) proposes four mechanisms to coordinate the integration of knowledge within an enterprise: (a) possessing rules and directives to enable the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge; (b) sequencing of workflow processes that minimize communication but ensure the input of expertise at different times; (c) creating routines to support complex patterns of interactions between individuals in the absence of rules, directives, or even significant verbal communication; and (d) establishing group problem-solving and decision-making routines (see Appendix B).


12

Rodpol® Roles and Responsibilities

• Resource Manager

Responsible for defining the amount, allocating budget to projects, and controlling it (e.g., do not exceed the allocated resources).

• Program Manager

Responsible for defining the scope of the project, assigning priorities, and executing the project throughout established phases.

• Agency Leader

Responsible for evaluating the Initial Analysis Approval (IAA), assessing project viability, and approving the

project execution.


13

Rodpol® Core Metrics and Performance Measurement

• Knowledge based organizations

Knowledge flows enable workflows, and workflows drive performance, theory suggests the organization of knowledge—particularly tacit knowledge—is critical for competitive advantage (Nonaka, 1994).

The knowledge-based organizational performance model takes into consideration the practical aspects of knowledge transfer among temporal members. It has implications on future methods of transferring knowledge in temporal organizations (Mason, 2007).

The extension of transactive memory theory to include knowledge access to another member who is not present in the current team can help improve how organizations manage and train their knowledge resources (see Appendix B).


14

Rodpol® Core Metrics and Performance Measurement (cont.)

• Resource Manager

Budget Accuracy (BA) measured by the ratio between Expend Amount (EA) and Defined Budget (DB) [BA=EA/DB]

• Program Manager

On Time Delivery (OTD) measured by the ratio between Actions Closed on Time (AC) and Total Actions Opened (TA) [OTD=AC/TA]

• Agency Leader

Project Effectiveness (PE) measured by the ratio between Actual Patents Registered (AP) and Planned Patents (PP) [PE=AP/PP]


15

Rodpol® Incentives and Reward Programs

• Rodpol® Incentive program

In the context of executive compensation, the optimal contract that motivates innovation can be implemented via a combination of (1) stock options with long vesting periods, (2) option re-pricing, (3) golden parachutes, and (4) managerial entrenchment (Mason, 2007).

Stock options with long vesting periods combined with option re-pricing and golden parachutes bring on tolerance for early failure and reward for long-term success, so that compensation depends not only on total performance but also on the path of performance as described above. Managerial entrenchment gives the manager job security, since an entrenched manager may keep his job even if it is ex-post efficient for the shareholders of the firm to fire him (Mason , 2007).


16

Rodpol® Incentives and Reward Programs (cont.)

• Rodpol® Incentive program

The bulk of the compensation of the general partner is in the form of carried interest, which is effectively a call option on the projects being financed. This provides incentives for the general partner to keep projects alive beyond the point under which it would be efficient to terminate them. Francis, Hasan, and Sharma (2009) show that golden parachutes as well as long-term incentives in the form of vested and unvested options have a positive and significant effect on patents and citations to patents.

Rodpol® will rely extensively on explicit long-term contracts to overcome the commitment problem and induce exploration. Knowing that they will not lose their jobs, researchers are wiling to explore new research directions that are likely to fail but may lead to breakthroughs (Sutton, 2009).


Appendix ARodpol® The 21st Century

Innovation Approach

18

Rodpol® The 21st Century Innovation Approach


Figure 2. Scientific articles and co-authorship in 1998

Figure 2. The size of the bubble reflects the number of scientific publications. The thickness of the link reflects the intensity of collaboration, i.e. co-authorships (OECD, 2010).

19

Rodpol® The 21st Century Innovation Approach


Figure 3. Scientific articles and co-authorship in 2009

Figure 3. The size of the bubble reflects the number of scientific publications. The thickness of the link reflects the intensity of collaboration, i.e. co-authorships (OECD, 2010).

Appendix BRodpol® Virtual Teams

Approach

21

Effectiveness of Virtual Teams

• Definition of Virtual Teams

Virtual Teams (n.) are a group or collaboration of online students working toward a common goal or assignment.

• Overcoming the Environment

According to Lipnack & Stamps (2000), “Virtual teams can use computer-mediated communication technologies to work interdependently across space, time and organization boundaries” (p.18).


22

Effectiveness of Virtual Teams (cont.)

• Purpose of Virtual Teams:

1. Teams are created to fulfill a need.

2. Collaboration of team members is key in responding to customer needs.

3. Using virtual teams creates fair competition in and outside the classroom.


23


• Advantages of Virtual Teams in Business:

1. Promotes a Cost-Effective Strategy• Saves travel time & costs (DeRosa, 2011).• Increases employment of foreign-based

subcontractors.• Allows maximization of companies’ investments.• Improves time consumption in the development

of products.• Conveniently accessible from anywhere.


24


• Advantages of Virtual Teams in Business (cont.):

2. Performance measurement & Sharing of information• Varied Opinions

• Diversified backgrounds

• Geographic influences

• Easy to trace talent & document participation

3. Disadvantages of Virtual Teams• Multiple Time zone differences

• Cultural differences & Language barriers

• A weak link can contribute to team conflict.

• Exclusion of tone and mannerisms.


25


• Conclusion:

• Are virtual teams effective?

Virtual team’s advantages vastly outweigh their disadvantages and been proven effective in all geographic regions worldwide (Berry , 2011). With the constant increases in the development technology virtual teams are the future of learning.

• Can virtual teams yield success?

Virtual teams have been clinically proven to yield success and are currently being adopted in classrooms worldwide. Their advantages of being cost-effective and performance based contribute greatly to their worldwide success.


26

Conflict Management

Definition of Conflict• Conflict (n.) - is when a disagreement occurs

between values, perspectives, or opinions that are contradictory and a agreement cannot be reached among cohorts (Jetly 2003).

Disagreement Models• Displaying avoidance or withdrawal.• Exercising accommodation or smoothing over.• Exerting a authoritative command.• Engaging in collaboration or problem solving

(Berry 2011).


27

Conflict Management (cont.)

According to Ellis and Abbott (2012), “There are a number of reasons to take a proactive stance in

the management of conflict” (p.138).

Recognizing Types of Conflict

• Substantive ConflictDisagreement over goals, resources, rewards, policies, procedures and assignments.

• Emotional ConflictResults from feelings of anger, distrust, dislike, fear, and resentment.

• Dysfunctional ConflictDestructive actions that hurt task performance.


28


Outcomes of Conflict• Win-Win

The conflict is resolved to benefit the entire team.

• Win-LoseOne party achieves its desires and the other team members do not.

• Compromise

Occurs when each team member in the conflict gives up something of value to the other.

• Collaboration

Involves working through conflict differences and solving problems so the entire team wins (Berry, 2011; Ma, Lee, & Yu, 2008).


29


Conflict Resolution

• Encourage

Embracing the other team member to share his or her issues as fully as possible. Clarify the real issues, rather than making assumptions. Ask questions that allow team members to gain from the information, and let the other team member know the team trying to understand them.

• Restate

Reiterate what was stated, so the team is able to see what has been understood so far - it may be that the other team member will then realize that additional information is needed.

• Reflect Think about other team members feelings - be as clear as possible.

• Validate

Corroborate the concerns of the other team member, even if a solution is elusive at this time. Expressing appreciation can be a very powerful message if it is conveyed with integrity and respect.

***Disclaimer: In addressing conflict management to UPOX standards any and all strategies should be exercised to foster a solution. In the event a solution cannot occur UPOX personnel should be contacted to appropriately to discuss possible solutions to the problem and how to handle it.


30

References

Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (2011). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.

Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group and Organization Management, 27(0), 14-49.

Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932), The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan Press

Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group and Organization Management, 27(0), 14-49.

Bergie, B.J., Bergiel, E.B., & Balsmeier, P.W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99-110. doi:10.1108/01409170810846821

Berry, G. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams. Journal Of Business Communication, 48(2), 186-206. doi:10.1177/0021943610397270


31

References (cont.)

DeRosa, D., & Lepsinger, R. (2011, July). Five ways to create successful virtual teams 509128. Baseline. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA262760468&v=2.1&u=uphoenix&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w

Davis, J.R., & Richard, E.E. (2011). Advancing innovation through collaboration: Implementation of the NASA space life science strategy. International Astronautical Federation, 1(11), 16-32. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649978main_IAC-11E612x9614AdvInnov.pdf

Edwards, J., Handzic, H., Carlsson, S., & Nissen. M. (2003). Knowledge management research and practice: Visions and directions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1(1): 49-60.

Ellis, P., & Abbott, J. (2012). Strategies for managing conflict within the team. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 7(3), 138-140.

Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002). Whoever makes the most mistakes wins: The paradox of innovation. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Francis, B., Hasan, I., & Sharma, Z. (2009). Do incentives create innovation? Evidence from CEO compensation contracts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2(1), 2-20.


32

References (cont.)

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.

Jetly, R. (2003). Conflict management strategies in ASEAN: Perspectives for SAARC. Pacific Review , 16(1), 53-76. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=99fd285d-cebe-4f6b-bdc2-f34e4e80524d%40sessionmgr15&vid=7&hid=10.

Jungalwalla, R. (2000). Transforming groups into teams. Executive Excellence, 17(2), 8-23.

Lipnack, J.S., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology . New York, NY: John Wiley.

Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Yu, K. (2008). Ten years of conflict management studies: Themes, concepts and relationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3), 234-248. doi: 10.1108/10444060810875796

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mason, R. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management and strategy. A complexity theory approach. Management Decision, 45(1), 10-28.


33

References (cont.)

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1), 14-37.

OECD (2012), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Paris: OECD Publications. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2012-en

Rassenfosse, G., & Potterie, B.P. (2009). A policy insight into the R&D–patent relationship. Res Policy, 38, 779–792.

Simonen, J., McCann, P. (2008). Firm innovation− The influence of R&D cooperation and the geography of human capital inputs, Journal of Urban Economics, 64 1): 146-154.

Sutton, R. (2002). Weird ideas that work: 11 1/2 practices for promoting, managing, and sustaining Innovation. New York, NY):The Free Press.

University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). Having problems with your learning team? [Video file]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix website: https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821214428871.html


34

References (cont.)

University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). How’s it going with your learning team? [Video file]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix website: https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821210625870.html

University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). New to University of Phoenix learning teams? [Video file]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix website: https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821151528869.html

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–386.


Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

Technology

Transcript of Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation