Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms

[EN] The main aim of this study is to establish the effect of the Exploitation and Exploration; and the influence of these learning flows on the Innovative Outcome (IO). The Innovative Outcome refers to new products, services, processes (or improvements) that the organization has obtained as a result of an innovative process. For this purpose, a relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted, and can explains and predicts the cyclical dynamization of learning flows on innovative outcome in knowledge intensive firms. The quantitative test for this model use the data from entrepreneurial firms biotechnology sector. The statistical analysis applies a method based on variance using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Research results confirm the hypotheses, that is, they show a positive dynamic effect between the Exploration and the Innovative as outcomes. In the same vein, they results confirm the presence of the cyclic movement of innovative outcome with the Exploitation.In addition, this research is part of the Project ECO2015-71380-R funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the State Research Agency. Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).Vargas-Mendoza, NY.; Lloria, MB.; Salazar Afanador, A.; Vergara Domínguez, L. (2018). Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 14(4):1053-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0496-5S10531069144Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test. Technovation, 28, 315–326.Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28, 450–463.Aragón-Mendoza, J., Pardo del Val, M., & Roig, S. (2016). The influence of institutions development in venture creation decision: a cognitive view. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4941–4946.Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions international. Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.Belda, J., Vergara L., Salazar, A., & Safont G. (2018). Estimating the Laplacian matrix of Gaussian mixtures for signal processing on graphs, accepted for publication in Signal Processing.Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.Bontis, N., (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.Bontis, N. (1999). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows of knowledge: an empirical examination of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and business performance. 1999. Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, McMaster University.Bontis, N., Keow, W., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and the nature of business in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100Bontis, N., Hullan, J., & Crossan, M. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 438–469.Brachos, D., Kostopulos, K., Sodersquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., & Yeh, I. J. (2007). The effects of joint rewards system in new product development. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 276–297.Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) (pp. 294–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cho, N., Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on knowledge sharing by knowledge type. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(2), 1–15.Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalansee & R. D. Willing (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization II. New York: Elsevier.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity – a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Cooper, R. G. (2000). New product performance: what distinguishes the star products. Austrian Journal of Management, 25, 17–45.Crossan, M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.Crossan, M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.Damanpour, F., & Shanthi, G. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of products and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 21–65.Decarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stock and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.Demartini, C. (2015). Relationships between social and intellectual capital: empirical Evidence from IC statements. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(2), 99–111.Dupuy, F. (2004). Sharing knowledge: they why and how of organizational change. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. I. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2013). Deciphering antecedents of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 575–584.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1285–1292.Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. International Journal of Management Science, 25, 15–28.Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. New York: Oxford University.Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of knowledge management in the west and Japan. In: P. Lorange, B. Chacravrarthy, J. Ross, and J. Van de ven (Eds.) Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use the partial least squares path modeling. In: R. Sinkovics and N. Pervez (Eds.) 277–319.Hsu, I. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge-case studies on nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 326–338.Hsu, I. (2008). Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving organizational performance though human capital: a preliminary test. Expert Systems with Application, 35, 316–1326.Huang, Q., Davison, R., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal Management, 25(3), 451–471.Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement – determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.Iebra, I. L., Zegarra, P. S., & Zegarra, A. S. (2011). Learning for sharing: an empirical analysis of organizational learning and knowledge sharin. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 509–518.Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.Jenkin, T. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning model: information sources, foraging processes and tools. Administrative Sciences, 3, 96–109.Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, N. N., Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other Multivariable’s methods, PWS KENT.Klomp, L., & Van Leeuwen, G. (2001). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 343–364.Lansisalmi, H., Kivimaki, M., Aalto, P., & Ruoranen, R. (2006). Innovation in healthcare: a systematic review of recent research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(1), 66–72.Laperrière, A., & Spence, M. (2015). Enacting international opportunities: the role of organizational learning in knowledge-intensive business services. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 212–241.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.Lloria, M. B., & Moreno-Luzón, M. D. (2014). Organizational learning: proposal of an integrative scale and research instrument. Journal of Business Research, 67, 692–697.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.Matikainen, M., Terho, H., Parvinen, P., & Juppo, A. (2016). The role and impact of firm’s strategic orientations on launch performance: significance of relationship orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 625–639.Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23, 115–132.Moreno-Luzón, M. D., & Lloria, B. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and integration as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.Moskaliuk, J., Bokhorst, F., & Cress, U. (2016). Learning from others' experiences: how patterns foster interpersonal transfer of knowledge-in-use. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 69–75.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 1147–1164.Pew, H., Plowman, D., & Hancock, P. (2008). The involving research on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 585–608.Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 621–643.Ramadani, V., Hyrije, A. A., Léo-Paul, D., Gadaf, R., & Sadudin, I. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 13, 299–325.Ren, S., Shu, R., Bao, Y., & Chen, X. (2016). Linking network ties to entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and exploitation: the role of affective and cognitive trust. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 465–485.Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 (M3) beta, Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de .Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). A competence perspective on strategic learning and knowledge management. En Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (eds.) Strategic learning and knowledge management. John Wiley and Sons.Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 133–147.Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7–28.Tansky, J., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (2010). Linking entrepreneurship and human resources in globalization. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 217–223.Teece, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 159–205.vande Vrande, V., de Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2014). Dynamizing intellectual capital through enablers and learning flows. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(1), 2–20.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2017). Performance and intellectual capital: how enablers drive value creation in organisations. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 114–124.Vargas, N., Lloria, M. B., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2016). Main drivers of human capital, learning and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 961–978.Vergara, L., Salazar, A., Belda, J., Safont, G., Moral, S., & Iglesias, S. (2017). Signal processing on graphs for improving automatic credit card fraud detection. Proceeding of 2017 I.E. 51st international Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST 2017), https://doi.org/10.1109/CCST.2017.8167820 , 23–26 Oct, 2017, Madrid, Spain.Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: focus o the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154.Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. European International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 674–688.Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47–74). Cambridge: Academic Press.Wold, H. (1985). Factors influencing the outcome of economic sanctions. In Sixto Ríos Honorary. Trabajos de Estadística and de Investigación Operativa, 36(3), 325–337

The impact of ISO 9001 quality management on organizational learning and innovation: Proposal for a conceptual framework

The integration of the learning perspective and knowledge management has led us in this research to develop a framework for analyzing the influence of a management system of quality on organizational learning and innovation within certified companies. By conceptualizing a framework of analysis including contextual and methodological elements, we theoretically develop how a management system of quality such as ISO 9001 can produce different types of learning and knowledge and how the advantage of quality can become more sustainable

Energizing collaborative industry‑academia learning: a present case and future visions

In Industry-Academia Collaborations (IAC) both academic, scientific research results and industrial practitioner findings and experiences are produced. Both types of knowledge should be gathered, codified, and disseminated efficiently and effectively. This paper investigates a recent (2014-2017) large-scale IAC R&D&I program case (Need for Speed, N4S) from a learning perspective. It was one of the programs in the Finnish SHOK (Strategic Centres of Science, Technology, and Innovation) system. The theoretical bases are in innovation management, knowledge management, and higher education (university) pedagogy. In the future, IAC projects should be more and more commonplace since major innovations are hardly ever done in isolation, not even by the largest companies. Both intra-organizational and inter-organizational learning networks are increasingly critical success factors. Collaborative learning capabilities will thus be required more often from all the participating parties. Efficient and effective knowledge creation and sharing are underpinning future core competencies. In this paper, we present and evaluate a collaboratively created and publicly shared digital knowledge repository called "Treasure Chest" produced during our case program. The starting point was a jointly created Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), which defined the main research themes and listed motivating research questions to begin with-i.e., intended learning outcomes (ILO). During the 4-year program, our collaborative industry-academia (I-A) learning process produced a range of theoretical and empirical results, which were iteratively collected and packaged into the Treasure Chest repository. Outstandingly, it contained, in addition to traditional research documents, narratives of the industrial learning experiences and more than 100 actionable knowledge items. In conclusion, our vision of the future is that such transparently shared, ambitious, and versatile outcome goals with a continuous integrative collection of the results are keys to effective networked I-A collaboration and learning. In that way, the N4S largely avoided the general problem of often conflicting motives between industrial firms seeking answers and applied solutions to their immediate practical problems and academic researchers aiming at more generalizable knowledge creation and high-quality scientific publications.Peer reviewe

Investigating the impact of networking capability on firm innovation performance:using the resource-action-performance framework

The author's final peer reviewed version can be found by following the URI link. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Purpose The experience of successful firms has proven that one of the most important ways to promote co-learning and create successful networked innovations is the proper application of inter-organizational knowledge mechanisms. This study aims to use a resource-action-performance framework to open the black box on the relationship between networking capability and innovation performance. The research population embraces companies in the Iranian automotive industry. Design/methodology/approach Due to the latent nature of the variables studied, the required data are collected through a web-based cross-sectional survey. First, the content validity of the measurement tool is evaluated by experts. Then, a pre-test is conducted to assess the reliability of the measurement tool. All data are gathered by the Iranian Vehicle Manufacturers Association (IVMA) and Iranian Auto Parts Manufacturers Association (IAPMA) samples. The power analysis method and G*Power software are used to determine the sample size. Moreover, SmartPLS 3 and IBM SPSS 25 software are used for data analysis of the conceptual model and relating hypotheses. Findings The results of this study indicated that the relationships between networking capability, inter-organizational knowledge mechanisms and inter-organizational learning result in a self-reinforcing loop, with a marked impact on firm innovation performance. Originality/value Since there is little understanding of the interdependencies of networking capability, inter-organizational knowledge mechanisms, co-learning and their effect on firm innovation performance, most previous research studies have focused on only one or two of the above-mentioned variables. Thus, their cumulative effect has not examined yet. Looking at inter-organizational relationships from a network perspective and knowledge-based view (KBV), and to consider the simultaneous effect of knowledge mechanisms and learning as intermediary actions alongside, to consider the performance effect of the capability-building process, are the main advantages of this research

Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity

This article contributes to our understanding of organizational ambidexterity by introducing conflict as its microfoundation. Existing research distinguishes between three approaches to how organizations can be ambidextrous, that is, engage in both exploitation and exploration. They may sequentially shift the strategic focus of the organization over time, they may establish structural arrangements enabling the simultaneous pursuit of being both exploitative and explorative, or they may provide a supportive organizational context for ambidextrous behavior. However, we know little about how exactly ambidexterity is accomplished and managed. We argue that ambidexterity is a dynamic and conflict-laden phenomenon, and we locate conflict at the level of individuals, units, and organizations. We develop the argument that conflicts in social interaction serve as the microfoundation to organizing ambidexterity, but that their function and type vary across the different approaches toward ambidexterity. The perspective developed in this article opens up promising research avenues to examine how organizations purposefully manage ambidexterity

The impact of information technology resources on SMEs' innovation performance

This work aims to develop a research framework to examine the impact of information technology resources on the innovation performance of Saudi small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs innovation capability influences growth and technological progress (Bruque & Moyano, 2007). However, many developing countries exhibit moderate or even low innovation performance. For instance, Saudi Arabia is ranked 54th by the Global Innovation Index (GII 2011). Innovation systems studies focus on the alignment between the interactions of innovation actors with their constantly changing environment toward better innovation performance (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). The dynamic capabilities of organisations have been highlighted as a crucial characteristic that helps to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997). The indirect impact IT resources on innovation performance represents an attractive research area (Benitez-Amado et al., 2010). Therefore, we argue that a closer look at Saudi SMEs information technology resources and their impact on the firm dynamic capabilities and innovation performance would make a significant contribution to existing knowledge. Areas such as the organisation strategies of developing countries, innovation management, dynamic capabilities, open innovation and strategic information systems are few examples of areas that might benefit from this work

Intellectual Capital Architectures and Bilateral Learning: A Framework For Human Resource Management

Both researchers and managers are increasingly interested in how firms can pursue bilateral learning; that is, simultaneously exploring new knowledge domains while exploiting current ones (cf., March, 1991). To address this issue, this paper introduces a framework of intellectual capital architectures that combine unique configurations of human, social, and organizational capital. These architectures support bilateral learning by helping to create supplementary alignment between human and social capital as well as complementary alignment between people-embodied knowledge (human and social capital) and organization-embodied knowledge (organizational capital). In order to establish the context for bilateral learning, the framework also identifies unique sets of HR practices that may influence the combinations of human, social, and organizational capital

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

Stakeholder engagement as a facilitator of organizational learning

This paper examines the relationship between stakeholder engagement and competence building. Following the dual perspective of the firm, which indicated that managers deal with both transactions and competences concurrently, we argue that stakeholder interactions also concern both transaction cost reduction and value creation. Based on a review of the extant literature, we incorporated a micro-macro connection between organizational learning and competence building. Further to this, we developed a conceptual framework by linking stakeholder engagement and organizational learning. This framework demonstrates that stakeholder relations may have significant effects on organizational learning and thus stakeholder engagement can play the role of facilitator in building firm competences

The Matter of Entrepreneurial Learning: A Literature Review

This paper is a comprehensive review of the entrepreneurial learning literature and its engagement with the material aspects of entrepreneurship, as part of the “material turn” in the social sciences. Drawing on actor-network theory, we construct a classificatory scheme and an evaluative matrix to find that this field is dominated by an anthropocentric bias and cognitivist approaches which largely ignore issues of materiality in entrepreneurship. However we also identify some heterogeneous network-based conceptualisations of entrepreneurial learning which could provide the foundations for more materially aware approaches. We conclude by calling for a material turn in entrepreneurial learning and outline some possible avenues for it