Relation analysis of knowledge management, research, and innovation in university research groups

Knowledge is a competitive advantage for companies. Knowledge Management helps to keep this competitiveness. Universities face with challenges in research, innovation and international competitiveness. The purpose of this paper includes studying Knowledge Management Models, and Innovation Models apply to Research Groups of Universities, through an analysis of relation in inter-organizational level. Some researchers and leaders of research groups participated in a survey about knowledge management and innovation. Here we show the relationship between knowledge management, innovation and research, including processes and operations performed by universities around these. We organize the results in three dimensions: Knowledge Management perception, the relationship between Knowledge Management and Innovation, and Strategic Knowledge organization. Too, we identify a generality of good practices, challenges, and limitations on Research Groups for Knowledge Management

Research Assessment Exercise : Report 2023 : International evaluation of research at the University of Vaasa

The University of Vaasa is a business-oriented and multidisciplinary science university established in 1968. The university’s strategy focuses on three areas of research: management and change, finance and economic decision-making, and energy and sustainable development. It highlights multidisciplinary research with strong disciplinary knowledge integrated through research platforms to support solving important global challenges. The core mission is to advance new knowledge and to “Energise Business and Society.” The University of Vaasa has a core faculty of 584 and 5,203 students with 190 international students and 296 PhD students. International accreditations, unique research infrastructure, and partnerships with global businesses and organisations make the University of Vaasa a trusted and valued partner within both regional and international innovation ecosystems. The Universities Act (Section 87. Evaluation (Amendment 1302/2013)) stipulates that universities must evaluate their research activities. In line with the strategy of the University of Vaasa, the university evaluates its research activities every five years in order to strengthen the quality of the research internationally, to advance academic and societal impacts of the research, and to further develop the research activities and environment. The previous research evaluations were carried out in 2010 and in 2015. This third research evaluation covered research activities from 2015 to 2020. Diversity, meaningfulness, and focus on future were important features of the research assessment exercise (RAE). The RAE was carried out as a multilevel and multidimensional evaluation targeting research environment, research cooperation and funding, publications, and scientific activities including societal impact. In addition to research groups and the university as a whole, it focused on schools and platforms. The evaluation material and the expert panels’ interviews thus covered three different levels of the university organisation. A Steering Committee consisting of members of the Research Council of the University of Vaasa (2021–2023) was nominated to support and guide the research evaluation. The RAE Univaasa 2022 followed practices of responsible evaluation. Engagement of the research units and researchers was an important aspect of the evaluation process. The evaluation team designed, organised, and implemented the different phases of the RAE in collaboration with the heads of the schools, platforms, and research group leaders. All evaluated units got basic summaries of their research output and bibliometric reports before preparing their self-evaluation reports. The material and the bibliometric reports aimed to provide the units tools for self-reflection and further development of their research. In addition to the CWTS analysis prepared by Leiden University, SciVal analyses on Scopus publications were performed for each unit by the Tritonia Academic Library. Bibliometric analyses also included results from AI-analysis of the themes of open access publications (OSUVA, 2018-2021). The external evaluation was performed by five panels of independent scientific experts. Four of the panels were discipline-specific (based on the school’s disciplines). These school-based panels were asked to provide written comments by comparing each research group’s research to the international and national level of research in the respective field. Based on the research group level evaluations, each school-based panel was asked to offer an overall assessment of the school’s research activities and quality of research. A separate team of the panellists were responsible for the assessment of the three research platforms. The University Panel, consisting of the panel chair and the chairs of the school-based panels, was asked to provide an integrating evaluation of the quality of research activities and environment at the University of Vaasa and to offer recommendations for how the university should develop its research. The results of the assessment and the expert panels’ reports and recommendations will have an effect on the strategic development of research within the university from 2023 onwards. Evaluation indicated that several research groups are currently at a high international level. The areas represented at the University of Vaasa are ones where excellent researchers have many possibilities. The societal impact of research and the industrial cooperation with regional businesses and also the wider interaction with the society work very well at the University of Vaasa. The flexibility of the cooperation seems to be far greater than in many other universities. Many of the projects contribute clearly to the research and the education of the university and provide useful information for the companies the research groups partner with. However, building international research capacity will remain challenging. This is partly a product of the size of the University and the research groups, most of which are relatively small and rely on a small number of high performing professors. The international experts gave several recommendations on how to improve the quality of research at the University of Vaasa. Externally funded projects that support the university’s aim to become an international research university should be encouraged. The experts suggested that the strategy is augmented with more concrete goals on the research focus, quality, and volume. The implementation plan should specify at some level what would be the areas, or modes of operation, in which the university wants to excel, and how this excellence is going to be measured. Recruitment should be prioritised based on the strategy of the university and the availability of excellent people. The university also should consider using international Professors of Practice and inviting more international Visiting Professorships. Moreover, increased possibilities for faculty and PhD students to engage in international activities could boost production of top-level research. The panels also assessed the role of the evaluated units and the internal cooperation within the university. The research groups vary a lot in their size, but also in their cohesion. The panellists saw that in terms of organisation, some groups were tight clusters, while other groups did not seem to have a clear structure. They considered that it would be very useful if each researcher would have an intellectual home base at the university. The panellists perceived the relationship between research groups and platforms to be unclear. The model was considered complicated relative to the size of the schools and the university. The panellists suggested reviewing the role and form of the platforms. In particular, the panellists suggested that in relation to the service of schools and their research groups, the platforms should have a supporting role, instead of trying to form research identities of their own. However, the panellists also considered that there is no definite need to have all the platforms operate in the same way

Supporting local innovation for rural development: Analysis and review of five innovation support funds

In continents and countries such as Africa and India, huge agricultural areas are "de-facto" organic. More formalised - and knowledge intense - methods of organic agriculture has proved potential help farmers achieve better development returns from farming organic. While not commonly referred to (formally certified) as "organic", this huge agricultural sector mainly depend on farmer-knowledge intensive and local innovation systems very much of the same kind that served development of organic agriculture in the west, before agricultural universities and subsequently governments took interest in participating in developing "organic" agriculture. The aim of this study is to follow up on a World Bank workshop on innovation systems at the community level. Most of the knowledge and innovation referred to in the report relates to agriculture. By resolution, this workshop recommended that a ‘review of existing innovation support funds and outline of a global mechanism to foster community level innovations’ should be undertaken. The study is also, in part, a response to a recent report from the World Bank’s Indigenous Knowledge for Development Program, which calls for the establishment of an “innovation fund to promote successful IK practices” (Gorjestani, N., in WB 2004; 45-53). Th is desk study reviews fi ve innovation support funds (ISFs) or funding concepts: the Indian ‘National Innovation Fund’ (NIF) and its associated web of institutions; the GTZ-funded ‘Small-Scale Project Fund’ (SSPF); the NGO concept ‘Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and NRM’ (PROLINNOVA); the FAO’s project, ‘Promoting Farmer Innovation-Farmer Field Schools’ (PFI-FFS); and the ‘Local Agricultural Research Committee’ (CIAL) in Latin America. Local innovations are broadly perceived as constituting a major under-utilized potential for development and rural poverty reduction, and ISFs as contributing to realize this potential. Local innovators continue to experiment and generated knowledge within a broad spectrum of areas, including improved mechanical tools for agriculture, natural resource management, medicinal and agricultural practices, and innovative ways of organizing and doing business. Th e signifi cance of local innovators as a source of knowledge and well-adapted solutions is high among the poorer sections of rural society, many of whom cannot aff ord, nor have access to, relevant advisory services. Th ere is growing recognition that a whole range of diff erent actors and organizations are required to stimulate widespread local technological development. New products and processes are brought into local economic and social use through networks of organizations, which are often referred to in the abstract as the innovation system. Th e key challenge is not perceived in terms of devising new technologies, e.g. doing diff erent things, but in bringing about changes in how the innovation system works, e.g. doing things diff diffff erently (Phila 2005). DIIS REPORT 2007:4 6 Our comparative analysis of the fi ve reviews listed above draws twelve preliminary conclusions: (i) NIF is globally the largest and most advanced ISF. However, although the other four ISFs are more limited in scope and focus, they can all contribute valuable experiences, complementary to those of NIF. In our assessment, the eff ectiveness of investing in innovation support could be enhanced if existing complementary experiences were exchanged and acted on in a systematic manner. (ii) ISFs understand innovation as a matter of both processes and products, the latter varying from hard mechanical implements to soft institutional innovations. ISFs support both innovators and their links with public institutions and private entrepreneurs, and groups of rural producers, as platforms for innovations and as their links with innovators. It is our assessment that all ISFs could benefi t from a more balanced mix of the two areas of innovation support. (iii) ISFs’ understandings of who the innovators are varies. NIF celebrates the qualities of individual, small-scale entrepreneurs with a proven record of being innovative, while the remaining ISFs place their eff orts in facilitating poor rural producers and users of innovations to learn to become ‘researchers’ in their own right. It is our assessment that supporting both types of innovator is likely to increase the development outcomes of ISFs. (iv) A general lesson learned by all ISFs is that innovations have to be understood in their context. ISFs currently diff erentiate between innovations on the basis of the types of issues they are concerned with (e.g. soil and water conservation, biological pest management, etc.). It is our assessment that it would be useful if the ISFs could instead distinguish between innovations in relation to (i) the relevance of formal property rights; (ii) public/private goods; and (iii) market/non-market value. (v) When using a ‘learning selection’ analytical framework for rural innovations for development, the focus shifts away from simply understanding innovators as inventors and rural producers as the users of innovations towards a focus on how innovations are continuously improved upon through interaction between the various actors. In our assessment, the facilitation of cycles of ‘ learning selection’ involving innovators, entrepreneurs and innovative adopters is a potential area of activity for ISFs that could contribute to scaling out use and the commercialization of rural innovations. DIIS REPORT 2007:4 7 (vi) Understanding capacity development as ‘the ability of an organization to produce appropriate outputs (e.g. services and products) helps clarify the aim of capacity development eff orts in these ISFs. ISF-supported eff orts are centered on the one hand on building eff ective mechanisms for identifying, documenting, vetting and promoting innovations, and on the other hand on ensuring organizational and fi nancial sustainability. (vii) Th e ISF funds reviewed here have a decentralized management structure linked together by a central management unit or committee. Th e Indian NIF has the most formalized and well-established governance structure, including a national Governing Board that coordinates activities among the web of independent organizations, each with diff erent functions and foci. Coordination of activities is less visible in the case of CIAL and PFI-FFS, as most management decisions in these organizations are taken at the farmer-group level and at the district-level networks of these groups. Th e PROLINNOVA concept provides a refreshing mix of centralized and decentralized decision-making management. (viii) None of these ISFs have a comprehensive system for monitoring outcomes and assessing the impact of support activities. Since none of the M&E systems diff erentiates between diff erent social categories, one potential development impact of ISF activities has not been documented. ISF documents are also unclear in their understandings of the social and economic mechanisms through which support for local innovations result in improved levels of well-being for poor people. (ix) Th e review reveals a diverse picture of Innovation Scouting, from none or implied (PROLINNOVA,) via criteria-based (SSPF), the village walks and student scouts of the NIF, reliance on grassroots “champions” and/or use of extension workers (FFS), to the structured group innovation process encoded in the CIALs. Th e use by NIF of students who return to their villages during their vacations to scout for innovations seems to be a successful approach that may be replicable in other areas where university students come from rural areas. Th e availability of comprehensive standardized forms and criteria that the students can easily apply has contributed to the success of this approach. An unintended side eff ect has been changes in student’s own attitudes to rural development. (x) Most of the funds reviewed made few if any attempts to support any genuine commercialization of local innovations. Th e exception is NIF, which we found to be more advanced in this sense. NIF includes both formal and informal sector DIIS REPORT 2007:4 8 commercialization. While primarily focusing on innovations of a public-good nature with a view to informal commercialization or information-sharing, NIF has developed a proven capacity to work with innovations of a rival good or excludable nature, in other words, those with the potential for commercialization based on standard or sui-generis IPRs. Th e other funds focus mostly (CIAL) or almost exclusively (FFS) on non-excludable and non-rival goods. In the latter cases, most or all the innovations they support are likely to be of a public-good nature. (xi) Th ree complementary forms of innovation vetting are practiced by the IFSs, each with their merits. One of the funds reviewed rely on two separate innovation “review” committees, one “scientifi c”, and one by peers among innovators (NIF), while another used joint experiments involving both external facilitators and researchers (CIAL). Vetting by potential users (e.g. rural producers) is widely practiced in PFI-FFS. (xii) Th e approach to learning varies within the ISFs, from the highly complex and elaborate learning programmed for at all levels, through a wide array of instruments and forums (NIF), to a far more specifi c and scoped adult or joint learning model (CIAL, FFS), to the rather more amorphous “collective learning” envisioned by the PROLINNOVA concept. A global innovation facility (GIF) could play a role in compiling existing documentation of experience, initiating cross-country studies, and assisting in ensuring that these experiences are made available and exchanged in a systematic manner among the existing ISFs. Th e mission of such a GIF could be to enhance the effectiveness of existing ISFs and the global expansion of activities by facilitating institutional learning, the exchange of experience between existing ISFs and the provision of technical assistance

Opening the black box: How staff training and development may affect the innovation of enterprises

We describe a research on the interplay that appears to exist in companies between Human Resource Management and innovation. This complex, multicomponent, non-linear and dynamic interplay is often viewed as a "black box". To help open the black box, we outline both a theoretical framework and preliminary empirical data. We view innovation as an organization-level property, favored by the organization's self-perception as a knowledge engine. Therefore, we devised a protocol to study the companies' strategies for training and development and their innovation profile. The protocol consisted in a questionnaire with 100 closed questions, suitable for companies which rely mostly on an inner training and development service. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of Italian firms from the Food & beverages and Fashion markets. The results show that certain facets of training and development are indeed correlated to innovation. Finally, we discuss the results

El capital social como enfoque teórico en Dirección Estratégica

[EN] The objective of this research paper is to investigate, from a theoretical point of view, the strategic relevance of social capital. In recent years, academic literature in this field has witnessed remarkable growth, recognizing social capital as a key element for companies, due to its contribution to the creation of competitive advantages. However, it might be said that its development is still emerging, given the number of discrepancies among researchers regarding its definition, measurement, and its positive or negative impact on other variables. For this reason, a set of empirical studies that show the social capital effect on diverse types of organizational results have been reviewed, taking as a reference the definition and dimensions proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998). Additionally, different theoretical links between social capital and four related Strategic Management approaches are presented, such as the Intellectual Capital-Based View, the Knowledge-Based View, the Resource-Based View and the Dynamic Resource-Based View. A main conclusion drawn from this review is that social capital, being a knowledge-based resource, enables access to both internal and external resources and thus a firm’s competitive advantage and, consequently, its value creation can be generated from the combination of both areas. Going in depth and clarifying this strategic linkage are thus a challenge to address in future studies.[ES] El principal objetivo de este trabajo es mostrar la relevancia estratégica del capital social organizacional desde un punto de vista teórico. En los últimos años, la literatura académica relacionada con este concepto ha experimentado un notable crecimiento, reconociendo que el capital social es un elemento fundamental para que las empresas generen ventajas competitivas. Sin embargo, se podría afirmar que su desarrollo es todavía incipiente al existir multitud de discrepaciancias entre los investigadores acerca de su conceptuación, la medición de sus dimensiones o los efectos positivos o negativos que podría tener sobre otras variables. Por este motivo, tomando como referencia la definición y dimensiones propuestas por Nahapiet y Ghoshal (1998), se ha realizado una revisión de las investigaciones que, de manera empírica, han estudiado las relaciones entre el capital social y distintos tipos de resultados organizacionales. Igualmente, se exponen diferentes nexos teóricos encontrados entre el capital social y los principales enfoques en Dirección Estratégica como son Enfoque Basado en el Capital Intelectual, el Enfoque Basado en el Conocimiento, el Enfoque Basado en los Recursos y el Enfoque Basado en las Capacidades dinámicas. Se concluye que el capital social, como recurso basado en el conocimiento, podría permitir el acceso a otros recursos internos o externos, y que la creación de valor y la generación de ventajas competitivas de una empresa puede provenir de la combinación de ambos ámbitos. Así, futuros estudios deben encaminarse hacia la profundización y clarificación de este nexo estratégico

Operations management in high value manufacturing

This paper explores the issue of high value manufacturing from an operations management perspective and discusses the critical role that the operations management community must play in moving manufacturing organisations to 'higher value ground'. An exploratory study was carried out in two phases. In Phase 1 existing literature was examined following a systematic review process. This was followed by a stakeholder analysis that included manufacturing companies, government agencies and consultancies and case studies of three organisations that had recently repositioned their businesses. Phase 2 comprised of a focus group based industry consultation exercise. The aim of the second phase was to validate and refine the findings from the initial phase and to generate the key ideas that would inform a future research agenda. This paper provides the foundation for further research by identifying those operational issues that are affecting industry as it seeks to move to higher value ground

Design thinking and innovation: synthesising concepts of knowledge co-creation in spaces of professional development

This paper explores how design thinking connects to concepts of knowledge creation and innovation. A case study of a knowledge sharing network in the social services sector is used to illustrate how design thinking supports Ba, the spaces for knowledge creation. Further exploration of the four enabling conditions for Ba resulted in delineation of two distinct types: relational and structural. Relational enablers support three groups of enabling conditions: interaction, shared values and communication. It is proposed that design thinking aligns well with relational enabling conditions for Ba to create the ideal spaces for knowledge creation. The group of structural enablers can assist or obstruct change and relate to the culture and management approaches of an organization, which may or may not be assisted by design thinking. However, to ensure that design thinking is not undermined, and innovation is achieved, the presence of an appropriate structural enabler is critical for success

Evaluation of the economic impact of the iNet

An evaluation of the economic impacts of the iNets (innovation networks) commissioned to assist in the delivery of the East Midlands Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS)

A decision support methodology to enhance the competitiveness of the Turkish automotive industry

This is the post-print (final draft post-refereeing) version of the article. Copyright @ 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Three levels of competitiveness affect the success of business enterprises in a globally competitive environment: the competitiveness of the company, the competitiveness of the industry in which the company operates and the competitiveness of the country where the business is located. This study analyses the competitiveness of the automotive industry in association with the national competitiveness perspective using a methodology based on Bayesian Causal Networks. First, we structure the competitiveness problem of the automotive industry through a synthesis of expert knowledge in the light of the World Economic Forum’s competitiveness indicators. Second, we model the relationships among the variables identified in the problem structuring stage and analyse these relationships using a Bayesian Causal Network. Third, we develop policy suggestions under various scenarios to enhance the national competitive advantages of the automotive industry. We present an analysis of the Turkish automotive industry as a case study. It is possible to generalise the policy suggestions developed for the case of Turkish automotive industry to the automotive industries in other developing countries where country and industry competitiveness levels are similar to those of Turkey