Enabling Innovation: Innovative Capability - German and International Views

Enabling Innovation Sabina Jeschke · Ingrid Isenhardt · Frank Hees · Sven Trantow Editors Enabling Innovation Innova...

Author: Sabina Jeschke | Ingrid Isenhardt | Frank Hees | Sven Trantow

116 downloads 1575 Views 6MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Enabling Innovation

Sabina Jeschke · Ingrid Isenhardt · Frank Hees · Sven Trantow Editors

Enabling Innovation Innovative Capability - German and International Views

123

Editors Prof. Dr. Sabina Jeschke RWTH Aachen University IMA/ZLW & IfU Dennewartstraße 27 52068 Aachen Germany [email protected]

Dr. Ingrid Isenhardt RWTH Aachen University IMA/ZLW & IfU Dennewartstraße 27 52068 Aachen Germany [email protected]

Dr. Frank Hees RWTH Aachen University IMA/ZLW & IfU Dennewartstraße 27 52068 Aachen Germany [email protected]

Sven Trantow RWTH Aachen University IMA/ZLW & IfU Dennewartstraße 27 52068 Aachen Germany [email protected]

The book has been printed with friendly assistance of the RWTH Aachen University.

The project on which this publication is based received funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01XZ11001) and the European Social Fund. Responsibility for the contents of this publication lies with the authors. ISBN 978-3-642-24502-2 e-ISBN 978-3-642-24503-9 DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9 Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2011939586 c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover design: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface)>>V V)>>Vorwort

Preface

The capability to produce innovations on a continual basis is a crucial condition for sustainable socio-economic development and sustainable economic growth. In this process, there has been a fundamental shift in the understanding of innovation in scientific, economic and political terms. The traditional focus on products and technology was expanded in favor of a holistic understanding by adding the social and organizational aspects of innovations. People and their working conditions are of crucial importance in this view and become the key enablers and therewith also the central drivers of innovations. The question as to how the innovative capability of individuals, networks and companies can be increased is thus not just a question of technological developments – it is equally important to ask how to design personnel, organizational and skill development that is conducive to innovation. What constitutes an innovative company? Which skills do people need to initiate and manage innovative processes? How can human potentials be used as factors of innovation and be regarded as organizational assets? The expanded focus on the role of people and their everyday working lives leads to new insights being gained into the nature of, and preconditions for, innovations that reach far beyond product- and technologyoriented views. The book which follows emphasizes the fundamental significance of, and analyses the opportunities for, personnel, organizational and skill development to strengthen innovative capability. To provide a wide interdisciplinary, international and practice-related perspective, the “International Monitoring” project funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) has combined key findings of the German research and development program on “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” with contributions from international experts from the academic, business and political worlds. The result is a collection of essays which explains and presents this still new topic of study from a transdisciplinary and also international perspective. The findings show that the effective linkage of research, business and politics is coming to exercise ever more leverage in strengthening innovative capability. Ilona Kopp Project Management Agency DLR Development of Work and Services

Contents)>>VII VII)>>Vorwort

Contents

Innovative Capability – an Introduction to this Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sven Trantow, Frank Hees, Sabina Jeschke Part 1 – Management of Uncertainty – Key to Innovation Management of Uncertainty – A Blind Spot in the Promotion of Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Fritz Böhle Commentary Management of Uncertainty – A Contradiction in Itself? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Petra Dassen-Housen Beyond Planning and Control. Alternative Approaches to the Management of Industrial Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Harald Wolf Commentary The Role of Psychological Contract in Supporting Innovation Activity . . . . . 47 Elise Ramstad New Forms of Project Organization and Project Management – Dynamic and Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Sibylle Peters Commentary Managing in Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Harold Jarche

VIII)>>Contents

Innovation and Learning – For a Future of Lifelong Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Johannes Sauer Commentary Innovation, Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Stephen Downes Uncertainty in Institutional Change. Individual Resources as Potential . . . . 85 Martin Elbe Commentary Finding Common Ground for Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Michael Brannick Part 2 – Developing Skills, Work Systems, Work Processes – an Innovative Challenge What’s Going On Out There? – Designing Work Systems for Learning in Real Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Ernst Hartmann and Francesco Garibaldo Commentary Learning in Real Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen Job Learning in the Hands of New Actors – Challenges for the Innovative Capability of Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Yvonne Salazar and Sibylle Peters Commentary Computer-based, Individual Learning at Work: Developments and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Anna Maria Köck and Klaus Tochtermann

Contents)>>IX

Integrating Innovation, Work, and Learning in Higher Education – The Case of Work Based Learning Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Barbara Light and Ernst Hartmann Commentary Challenges and Perspectives concerning the Integration of Vocational Learning into Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Rita Meyer New Forms of Work Organization and the High Road to Innovation: European Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Peter Totterdill Commentary Innovations Require Conducive Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Peter Brödner A Human-Centered Design for Work Places: Opportunities and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Francesco Garibaldo Commentary Employee Participation as a Source of Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Rainer Greca Part 3 – Innovative Capability and Change of Work Social Innovation – Social Challenges and Future Research Fields . . . . . . . 203 Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz Commentary The Long Road from Awareness to Systematic Research and Funding of Social Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Josef Hochgerner)>>

X)>>Contents

Innovation and the Subjective Conditions for Innovative Capability . . . . . 233 Matthias Trier Commentary Workplace Innovation and New Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Frank Pot and Ton de Korte Innovative Capability and Productivity: What has Demographic Change to do with it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Tarja Tikkanen Commentary Do Demographic Changes also Affect Our Views of Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Edith Perlebach Encouraging Innovations in Research and Practice: The Labor Process and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Frank Emspak Commentary Economic Democracy as a Driver of Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Ulrich Busch Fostering Innovative Capability in Germany – The Role of Interdisciplinary Research Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Claudia Jooß, Florian Welter, Anja Richert and Sabina Jeschke Commentary Foster Innovative Capabilities by Strengthening European Dimensions of Research Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Werner Wobbe

Contents)>>XI

Part 4 – Intellectual Capital – Human Potential as Factor of Innovation Knowledge 2010 – Intellectual Capital as Driver of Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Peter Pawlowsky Commentary Some Key Quizzics for the Future Intellectual Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Leif Edvinsson Measuring Intellectual Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Sabine Bischoff, Gergana Vladova and Sabina Jeschke Commentary What Cannot Be Measured Can Nevertheless Be Managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Günter Koch Corporate Innovative Capability between the Forces of Typical Dilemmas – Conceptual Challenges for Knowledge and Intellectual Capital Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Hans-Georg Schnauffer Commentary On the Way to a Renewed IC-Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Ahmed Bounfour Learning by Playing: Potential of Serious Games to Increase Intellectual Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Bodo von der Heiden, Verena Bock, Anja Richert and Sabina Jeschke Commentary Serious Rigor for Serious Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 Sebastiaan Meijer and Wim Veen

XII)>>Contents

Future Center – An Unconventional Approach to Promote Intellectual Capital Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Günther M. Szogs Commentary Facilitating the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 Hank Kune Part 5 – Findings from the German R&D Program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” Innovative Capability – Learning Capability – Transfer Capability. Promoting Innovation systematically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Max Haarich, Sylvia Sparschuh, Claudio Zettel, Sven Trantow, Frank Hees Occupational Safety and Health as an Innovation Driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Ingo Leisten, Ursula Bach and Frank Hees Innovative Capability as a Management Requirement – Which Organizational Strategies Can Promote Innovation Processes? . . . 451 Heike Jacobsen, Arno Georg and Milena Jostmeier IT-based Interactive Research – on the Use of Social Software in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 Uta Renken, Angelika C. Bullinger Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

Innovative Capability – an Introduction to this Volume)>>1 1)>>Vorwort

Innovative Capability – an Introduction to this Volume Sven Trantow, Frank Hees, Sabina Jeschke

Abstract The capability to innovate in an on-going manner is emerging as a decisive key factor in today’s complex and dynamic world of business and work – the ability to stay competitive is becoming identical with the ability to innovate. As an introduction to the collection of essays, this contribution discusses both the origins as well as the characteristics of innovation and provides an underlying definition of innovative capability. Building on this, key challenges for business operations are outlined, which must be overcome, if innovative capability is to be enhanced on a sustainable basis. )>>

1â•‡ Innovative Capability and the Genesis of Innovation “The only constant is change”. After 2,500 years Heracles’ insight seems to be more relevant than it ever was. The economic world of today is enticing, with its high, perhaps even excessive, levels of dynamic and complexity. The huge economic growth in threshold countries, uncontrolled technological progress and unprecedented global networking are all leading to serious fluctuations in entire market areas and national economies, to a shorter planning time and an economic framework which is growing ever more complex. Just how such confusion arising from complexity can result in human powerlessness was forcefully demonstrated by the global financial crisis (cf. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission 2011, xv-xvii). The free fall and comet-like resurgence of the global automotive industry is striking evidence for how incredibly dynamic, volatile and unpredictable markets and corporate environments have become (cf. Wissmann 2011). How then can decision-makers in economics, politics and science deal with these conditions? How can we retain our capacity to act effectively without ourselves becoming the puppets of a system whose internal dynamic has long since outgrown our capacity of rational cognition (cf. Henning 1992, 41 et seq.)? In this turbulent environment, innovation is the new old magic formula to survive, act and compete efficiently in the long run (cf. Schumpeter 1964). By now the term comprises much more than just new products or technological developments. Innovation rather suggests “being the new, state-of-the-art navigation map that offers orientation on the uncertain journey into a fragile future” (Nowotny S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_1, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

2)>>

Sven Trantow, Frank Hees, Sabina Jeschke

2008, 9). Therein lays the hope of a self-confidential and responsible handling of a future that cannot be planned and is constantly changing. Innovation thus rises to become the actual essence of economic success. On a practical business level, this fundamental elevation of its significance leads to a kind of innovation pressure (cf.Â€Riedel and Schraps 2010, 97 et seq.) – anyone who is not innovative enough will fall by the wayside! But what constitutes an innovative company? Or, to be more precise: what is it that enables a company to continuously induce innovations? One thing is sure: they do not arise out of nothing. Product and service innovations, for example, are frequently based on existing products or services (incremental innovations): Microsoft Windows 8 is a successor to Windows 7, and the German E-Postbrief is a hybrid letter which combines the security of a conventional letter with the speed of a digital e-mail. What comes next is the result of what has gone before – is that really all there is to it? Could Windows 8 exist without the host of excellent software developers who work for Microsoft? Would the E-Postbrief stand a chance of success if the Deutsche Post AG did not already have recourse to an extensive infrastructure for logistics and postal services? So, beside technology human and organizational influences play a decisive role in the genesis of innovations. This connection still becomes clearer in the case of radical innovations. The World Wide Web would definitely not have been invented at CERN if the serious problems they were having with chaotic information flows (cf. Berners-Lee 1989) had not coincided with the structured brilliance of Tim Berners-Lee. The most far-reaching innovation of the 20th century arose from the intertwining threads of these special intra-organizational circumstances and problems at CERN, the exceptional talentsÂ�of Tim Berners-Lee and the technological development of hypertextÂ€– limiting the genesis of this fundamental innovation down to one of these dimensions would effectively be an error of reductionism, and obscure the actual nature of how innovations come about. They are neither merely the results of processes of technological development or improvement nor are they simply the realization of creative ideas. But by taking a holistic view of innovations and considering the many facets of their origin and kind we can see them as emergences of the entire socio-technological system which induces them. So when we ask what enables companies to induce innovations, we are actually enquiring about the complex interaction between human, organization and technology (cf. Henning et al. 2009, 33 et seq.). Every innovation is always the result of a complex interweaving of these three dimensions and the interdependent processes which emerge from them. The idea that it is possible to monitor these processes precisely in a company or even control them at all is a widespread misconception. And it is the same modern misconception which attempts to persuade us that innovations can be planned and controlled (cf. Nowotny 2008, 108; Scherzberg 2006, 261 et seq.), that they could be initiated, implemented and controlled, but only with the right kind of management. Of course, management – of whatever kindÂ€– can be a part of the innovative process. But innovations are not created on the drawing board, nor by working through check lists or phase models. Innovations emerge from the complex thinking, acting and interacting of people going about

Innovative Capability – an Introduction to this Volume)>>3

their everyday work under certain framework conditions. In the context of the modern industrial nations‘ transition to knowledge- and service-based societies and the associated “paradigm shift in the innovation system” (Bullinger 2006, 14; translated by author) it is particularly important that the traditional technology- and product-oriented perspective on innovation develops into a holistic view which acknowledges the key role of people and their working conditions in the concept of innovation (cf. Schmauder 2007; Howaldt 2009). A holistic understanding of innovation, therefore, takes into account more than simply the management of the processes of product or technological development. It does not even begin with the generation of ideas, but poses the far more fundamental question of what conditions need to be created for a system to continuously – not just intermittently – induce innovations. These are the conditions which constitute innovative capability, which can relate to individuals, companies, networks and teams and to whole societies1 as a multidimensional construct with many levels (cf. Hansen et al. 2010, 55 et seq.). Against the background of today’s complex dynamic world of business and work, it has risen to become one of the most important success factors in safeguarding the competitiveness of companies and entire national economies (cf. Dreher et al. 2006, 1): The ability to succeed in the market-place in the long run is more and more based on the ability to innovate. Summing up one can record that: • Organizations need to induce innovations, to remain long-term competitive in a turbulent market environment. • Seen in the context of a holistic understanding, innovations are emergences from socio-technological systems, and as such cannot completely be planned, steered or controlled. • The innovative capability of companies comprises the complex interrelationships between the human, organizational and technological requirements to continuously induce innovations.

2â•‡ Not Everything is Innovation In order to identify the conditions required to produce innovations on a continual basis and thus be able to refine our concept of innovative capability, we first need to specify the fundamental characteristics of innovations. Therefore the question is: what exactly is actually to be induced? What is an innovation?

)>> Thus, for example, international benchmarking systems such as the German Innovation Indicator (http://www.innovationsindikator.de) or the Innovation Union Scoreboard (http://www. proinno-europe.eu/metrics) continually compare the innovative capabilities of various countries. It should be noted that these tests depend to a very large extent on the selection of the indicators and therefore on the operationalization of innovative capability.

1

4)>>


Remarkable though it may seem, the term innovation has the particular quality of describing a generally recognized key success factor in today´s economic and working environment, without ultimately clarifying what it refers to. Innovation has long been one of a large stock of management buzz words, stylized into a kind of savior-figure (cf. Paech 2003, 16) with the power to generate growth, create jobs, tackle crises and promote prosperity in society. The ubiquity of the word and its inflationary use (cf. Krüger 2006, 165) are leading to an overexpansion of its meaning. As the term is watered down it is still unclear whether the term innovation is merely loaded with optimism or whether it really possesses the desired power to change something: “It only seems appropriate that, in times of economic challenge, global competition, and an overabundance of similar products and services, leaders would turn to innovation as the new corporate mantra. Unfortunately, the concept of innovation has been so widely used and misused that many people are now confused as to what it really is.” (Dundon 2002, 5) The first thing we need is a criterion by which to differentiate between innovation and non-innovation. It has been clear since Schumpeter that new ideas, products or technological discoveries alone do not constitute innovation. For him, innovation had to have the power to effect a far-reaching change with regard to economic development – for example, the transition from the mail coach to the railway. Market application and the commercial success that comes with it are therefore frequently used as essential criteria (cf. Witt 2010, 202). However, as we depart from a producÂ�t- and technology-centered perspective and establish a holistic concept of innovation, these criteria are also far from definite. Social innovations, for example, (cf. Howaldt and Jacobsen 2010) in other words fundamental changes to our patterns of behavior, are not designed to be put on the market at all, and any financial profit can only be estimated very roughly, if at all. Organizational innovations, such as the introduction of safety at work regulations or the establishment of environmental standards, often focus more on increasing social or environmental sustainability than on economic success – although that can also turn out to be very appreciable (cf. Sanidas 2005; Ramstad 2009). It makes sense, then, to look beyond purely economic factors in our assessment of the consequences of innovations. Bullinger and Schlick therefore define innovation as “problem solution which uses a new approach to produce a profit. [...] It comprises the entire process from the idea via development and production through to market launch or realization” (Bullinger and Schlick 2002, 16; translated by author). The criterion of economic success can thus be replaced by the more general idea of profit, and the launch of a product on the market by the realization of a new approach or a new idea. Here, though, both the profit and the realization must incorporate an additional time dimension. A purely short term profit or the implementation of an idea on only a temporary basis would not have the power to cause an economic, social, or environmental change which is necessary to be considered as an innovation – a new business model which is introduced but cannot establish


itself on the market is no more an innovation than a quality management system which only raises the quality of a product in the first two weeks. The time component emphasizes the central characteristic of the uncertainty and unpredictability of innovations – whether something is an innovation or not can never be determined a priori, but only in retrospect. If we extend the notion of profit beyond the economic dimension, and include social and environmental aspects, and then add the criteria of the power to effect change, we can describe a holistic concept of innovation as follows: • Innovation is the realization of new ideas that contribute to sustainable2 changes. • The innovative capability of companies comprises the complex interrelationships between the human, organizational and technological requirements to continuously induce and realize new ideas that contribute to sustainable changes.

3)>> Dilemmas of the Modern Working Environment In 2007 the German ministry of education and research initiated a research and development program entitled “Working – Learning – Developing skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment“ („Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt“, or A-L-K for short) (cf. BMBF 2007). In a transdisciplinary approach to research, the program, which currently comprises more than 100 joint projects, enables companies and employees to identify and successfully implement conditions, which foster innovations. The program is based on the sustainability-oriented concept of innovation which includes, besides the economic success, the social progress as a criterion for innovation (cf. BMFB 2007, 7). This recognition of the one-sidedness of purely economic criteria for assessment – and therefore criteria which are usually strictly based on figures – is gaining wider acceptance in the contexts of academic and economic policy. The idea that economic and social benefits are considered as well, in other words the basic principle of the social market economy (cf. Müller-Armack 1976, 245), gets more and more important.3 On the other hand, these attempts at a more integrative approach are confronted with the harsh realities of a financial capitalistic world economy. In the day-to-day competition of global business neither social nor environmental benefit will ultimately decide a company’s future – the only critical factor is economic success. In this context it is inevitable that stakeholders in the world of business focus )>> Sustainability is meant here in the context of the three-column model, which adds a social and an economic column to the original environment-related concept (cf. Enquete-Kommission 1993, 23; Brand and Jochum 2000, 75). 3 )>> Correspondingly the European growth strategy is founded upon the notion of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (cf. European Commission 2010). 2

6)>>


primarily on the economic profits. Additionally, the dynamics and complexity of today’s global markets reduce the time given for planning to such an extent that it is not always possible to focus on a long term action strategy. On the one hand, economic pressure forces companies and their employees to realize profits as swiftly as possible. On the other hand, economic and environmental conditions are changing so rapidly that it is no longer possible rationally to assess the longerterm side effects, long-distance effects and repercussions of any given activity. The upshot of this fundamental uncertainty is that economic activity is focused on maximizing short-term and usually monetary profits. As part of the German A-L-K program, the “International Monitoring”4 research and development project (IMO) has identified this area of tension between sustainability and short-term profit maximization as the meta-dilemma of the modern working environment, and therefore as a paradigmatic challenge for activity conducive to innovation. Squaring the circle of economic activity rests on the impossibility of reconciling the doctrine of the homo oeconomicus with attempts to achieve sustainability. The underlying economic maxim of rapidly realizing the greatest possible profit is pressing economic actors to behave in a unilaterally monetarist and reckless way which is incompatible with a far-sighted, responsible and long-term successful management (cf. Thielemann 2009, 113 et seq.). One may ask, whether the neoliberal subordination of social responsibility5 in the long run primarily leads to its dissolution. The reasons why economic actors often focus on the short-term maximization of profit despite the widespread efforts to achieve sustainability can be described with reference to four dimensions of economic pressure: • • • •

cost pressure, pressure to succeed, time pressure and flexibilization pressure.

The IMO project has contrasted these dimensions with four basic conditions for socially and economically sustainable organizations that are highly capable to innovate (cf. Hansen et al. 2010, 57). The result is four interdependent dilemmas which can be seen as elementary problems inherent in economic activity in general and in reinforcing innovative capability in particular (cf. figure 3.1)6: )>> The IMO project is being run by the institute cluster IMA/ZLW & IfU of the RWTH Aachen University. The overall aim of the joint project is to establish ongoing International Monitoring (IMO) and the action areas associated with it, on the topic of innovative capability, to support development of the content of the BMBF R&D program “Working – Learning – Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” (ALK), as well as contributing to increasing the sustainable competitiveness of Germany and Europe in the global context. 5 )>> “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman 1970). 6 )>> Beyond that, the dilemmas also provide a framework of reference which helps the IMO project to structure inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge on the topic of innovative capability and give it a common context (cf. Trantow et al. 2010, 314). 4


• Responsible use of human resources vs. cost pressure describes the requirements of a comprehensive, anticipatory and responsible management of personal knowledge potentials, skills and competences under the simultaneous economic pressure to cut costs. • Long-term strategies to increase innovative capability vs. pressure to succeed describes the increasing pressure on companies to make fundamental changes to structures and processes in order to strengthen their innovative capability whilst being required to quickly achieve objectively measurable success. • Time for learning processes vs. time pressure describes the individual, organizational and social necessity for learning and development processes under conditions of increasing time constraints on work. • Need for stability vs. flexibilization pressure describes the demand of individuals, organizations, networks and societies for safety of current and planning of future processes under the increasing socio-economic pressure of permanent transition and the associated handling of uncertainty and change.

Figure 3.1: Dilemmas of economic acting in the modern working environment

8)>>


These dilemmas therefore illustrate the principle challenges economic actors in today´s working environment need to manage. Their main characteristic feature is that they cannot be resolved or eliminated. The four dimensions of economic pressure are constitutive components of every market economy – including the social market economy. They are characteristic of healthy and productive competition and as such are the engine which drives economic performance and dynamism. The real challenge is to find appropriate strategies for economic actions to make it possible to deal efficiently with the dilemmas – in other words to manage them – and thus to increase the innovative and competitive capability of companies in a sustainable way.7

4â•‡ Structure of the Book This book originated from the research and development project “International Monitoring”. The contributions from German and international experts outline the topic of innovative capability from a practice-oriented angle, and offer a glimpse behind the scenes of innovations. The central issue is not the description of features of successful innovation processes or how innovations can be efficiently controlled and managed, but under which conditions they can emerge in the first place. In what way can individuals, organizations, networks and societies be enabled to continuously induce innovations? Experts from thirteen different countries wrote 25 articles in total and 20 commentaries that give us an international and transdisciplinary insight from multiple perspectives into areas of theoretical research and practical activity concerned with innovative capability. With an emphasis on operational practice and the derivation of political recommendations these pieces will be of equal interest to people involved in academic research, economics or politics who want to discover more about the prerequisites for innovations, and the conditions conducive to their emergence. The texts in this collection are sorted by topics into four main chapters8 which consider innovative capability from a variety of perspectives. In conclusion, they are supplemented in a fifth chapter, outlining some of the key outcomes of the German research and development program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”.

)>> The IMO project has identified eleven basic corporate strategies for overcoming the dilemmas (cf. Trantow et al. 2011) 8 )>> The titles of these main chapters correspond to the IMO project‘s four fields of action, in which German academic and economic experts developed the fundamental thematic principles behind innovative capability, created an up-to-date knowledge base and looked at trends for the future. There are 19 reports from the experts in all, and they can be found online at: http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/en/downloads/project_research.html. 7


4.1â•‡ Management of Uncertainty – Key to Innovation Uncertainty is a central and a constitutive feature of innovation. With reference to the dilemma need for stability vs. flexibilization pressure, it is clear that a way of dealing with uncertainty has to be found which makes it possible to act with confidence whilst allowing plenty of scope for managing the unpredictable. However, the traditional, production-based desire to control and eliminate uncertainty implies a risk of jeopardizing innovations instead of promoting them. In his introductory piece, Fritz Böhle therefore argues for a new, productive way of dealing with uncertainty which aims to cope with uncertainty rather than eliminate it. Harald Wolf builds up on this systematic analysis with a discussion on alternative management approaches aiming at maintaining the necessary balancing act between risk management based on security and a tolerance of uncertainty based on confidence and self-organization. Based on the fact that work processes becoming increasingly project-oriented, Sibylle Peters demonstrates how even the traditional forms of project management need to be supplemented with new, social approaches which are oriented towards the participants, in order to deal effectively with uncertainty and in a way which is conducive to innovations. The need to strengthen actor- and actionorientation to deal with uncertainty implies is a new way of looking at education and learning. Johannes Sauer argues for the expansion of the narrow, institution-bound concept of education into a comprehensive understanding of continued and lifelong learning which focuses especially on learning processes which are integrated in the workplace, and are informal and skills-based. Martin Elbe tackles the issue of how individuals can deal with the uncertain situation that normal employments provide security but now are an outdated model on today’s more flexible job markets. 4.2â•‡)>>Developing Skills, Work Systems, Work Processes – an Innovative Challenge The second chapter delves more deeply into the question of designing work and learning to be conducive to innovation. The dilemma time for learning processes vs. time pressure here implies that the increasing need for continuing further development on an individual and organizational level can only be met with if learning and working is fully integrated. In their introductory article, Ernst Hartmann and Francesco Garibaldo outline a conceptual framework for learning-oriented work systems. Against the background of what is already known about the features of jobs comprising intensive learning, they focus on the question of how these actually exist in everyday business and how they can be set up. The increasing link-up of working and learning processes is turning informal, unguided learning into a key driving force behind innovative capability. Sibylle Peters and Yvonne Salazar investigate the new group of protagonists who, independent of any traditional or professional staff development, are taking on more and more key roles in work-integrated learning activities. The opportunities for recognition and accreditation of these kinds of learning activities, and approaches for strengthening cooperation between universities and companies, are dealt with in the contribution by Barbara Light

10)>>


and Ernst Hartmann. The two contributions which conclude the chapter extend the focus beyond the integration of work and learning. Peter Totterdill shows that innovative capability in a knowledge-based economy is dependent on forms of organization of work which go beyond the traditional measures of economy of scale and guarantee simultaneous increases in productivity and quality of work (“high road” approaches). The chapter concludes with a contribution from Francesco Garibaldo, who analyses the challenges of establishing business conditions conducive to innovation against the background of the restructuring processes currently taking place in industry. 4.3â•‡ Innovative Capability and Change of Work The massive upheavals in the modern working environment and the transition from an industrial society to a knowledge- and service-based one imply a paradigmatic change in our concept of innovation – people and work processes are rising to become key driving forces behind, and even the actual objects of innovations. Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz analyze this paradigm shift and offer insights into the particular characteristics and potentials of social innovations. Starting with the theory that creative people are the source of all innovations, Matthias Trier examines the personal living conditions which can increase the individual’s innovative capability. Current processes of change in the modern working environment are being clearly defined by demographic change. This is the context for Tarja Tikkanen’s discussion of the key challenges and especially the opportunities of an ageing workforce. The article by Frank Emspak departs from the realm of the individual and looks at the interrelationship between work and innovation as he discusses the socio-economic conditions needed to establish a system of continuous innovation. Claudia Jooß et al. create a link to research, and reveal how social innovative capability can be reinforced through interdisciplinary research networks. 4.4â•‡)>>Intellectual Capital – Human Potential as Innovative and Competitive Advantage The increasing importance to innovative capability and competitiveness contributed by people, their knowledge and skills is reflected in the notion of intellectual capital. Human potential is even by management no longer seen as a cost factor but as a key company asset. However, the dilemma responsible use of human resources vs. cost pressure points to the fact that this new sense of value in corporate practice is still at odds with the pressure to reduce expenditure. Peter Pawlowsky opens the chapter with a comprehensive look at current developments in the area of intangible assets and intellectual capital. One important aspect here is how we evaluate intangible assets, which are as necessary in business as they are controversial. Sabine Bischoff and Gergana Valdova outline approaches to measure intellectual capital and use the open invitation concept to demonstrate the connections to innovative capability. Looking at typical conflicts of interest and dilemmas of practical company management, Hans-Georg Schnauffer reveals effective approaches to deal with knowledge


and intellectual capital. Bodo von der Heiden et al. discuss the potential of serious games as playful learning and knowledge tools in companies. On a societal level and based on the lack of sustainable forms of dialogue and communication Günter Szogs examines the concept of the future center and related approaches to the transdisciplinary initiation of processes of innovation. 4.5â•‡)>>Findings from the German R&D Program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” (A-L-K) is a German R&D program initiated by the German ministry of education and research, which currently comprises four thematic funding priorities and more than 100 joint projects which help companies and employees to create and organize working conditions conducive to innovation. The main areas of focus are: 1.)>> 2.)>> 3.)>> 4.)>>

Occupational safety and health Innovation strategies beyond traditional management Balance between flexibility and stability Capacity for innovation in the demographic change9

Provisional results from the first three funding priorities are already available, and they are outlined in this chapter. First, Max Haarich et al. introduce the nature of the A-L-K program’s content and structure. Ingo Leisten, Ursula Bach and Frank Hees show that measures for a occupational safety and health form an important and multi-dimensional feature of innovative capability in a modern working environment. Heike Jacobsen, Arno Georg and Milena Jostmeier outline some new organizational strategies for innovation which differ from traditional management in being non-linear, crossing organizational boundaries and through subjectification. Taking the funding priority ‘Balance between flexibility and stability’ on focus, Uta Renken and Angelika Bullinger report on the use of social software to create effective networks of knowledge and participants in research. The contributions in this anthology make it clear that a continuous generation of innovations cannot be ordered top-down, but depends on certain framework conditions that enable people to think, act and interact in an innovative way. They give answers to the question where there are possibilities to fine-tune and strengthen individual, organizational and social innovative capability, under which circumstances people develop new ideas and implement them in a sustainable way and what enterprises can do under today’s working circumstances and economic environment to support them. The following articles and comments reflect the current state of insights on the topical area of innovative capability and derive basic )>> “Capacity for innovation in the demographic change” is the most recent funding priority, and was only begun in July 2010. The first results are expected at the end of 2011.

9

12)>>


recommendations on how science, economy and politics can contribute to a sustainable strengthening of innovative capability and competitiveness.

Bibliography Berners-Lee T (1989) Information Management: A Proposal. CERN, http://www.w3.org/ History/1989/proposal.html. Accessed April 2011 BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2007) Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm. http://www.bmbf.de/pub/innovationsfaehigkeit_aÂ�rbeitswelt. pdf. Accessed April 2011 Brand KW (2009) Der deutsche Diskurs zu nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Final report from a DFG (German Research Foundation) project on the topic of „Sustainable Development/ Nachhaltige Entwicklung – Zur sozialen Konstruktion globaler Handlungskonzepte im Umweltdiskurs“, http://www.sozialforschung.org/wordpress/wpcontent/ uploads/2009/09/kw_brand_deutscher_nachh_diskurs.pdf. Accessed April 2011 Bullinger HJ (2006) Vorwort. In: Bullinger HJ (ed) Fokus Innovation. Kräfte bündeln, Prozesse beschleunigen. Hanser, München: 5-8 Bullinger HJ, Schlick GH (2002) Wissenspool Innovation. Kompendium für Zukunftsgestalter. Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch, Frankfurt am Main Dreher C, Eggers T, Kinkel S, Spomenka M (2006) Gesamtwirtschaftlicher Innovationswettbewerb und betriebliche Innovationsfähigkeit. In: Bullinger HJ (ed) Fokus Innovation. Kräfte bündeln, Prozesse beschleunigen. Hanser, München: 128 Dundon E (2002) The Seeds of Innovation: Cultivating the Synergy that Fosters New Ideas. Amacom, New York Enquete-Kommission (German government sub-committee inquiry) (1993) Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt. Intermediate report. Bundesanzeiger Verlagsgesellschaft, Bonn European Commission (2010) Europe 2020: A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. http://europa.eu/press_room/pdf/complet_en_barroso___007_-_ europe_2020_-_en_version.pdf. Accessed April 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report. Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States. Public Affairs, New York Friedman M (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times, September 13, 1970 Hansen A, Trantow S, Hees F (2010) Enabling Innovation: Innovationsfähigkeit von Organisationen vor dem Hintergrund zentraler Dilemmata der modernen Arbeitswelt. In: Arbeit – Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung, Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik, vol 19, 1: 53-67 Henning K (1992) Zukunftsgestaltung in einer Welt wachsender Turbulenzen. In: Henning K, Harendt B (ed) Methodik und Praxis der Komplexitätsbewältigung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin: 41-62 Henning K, Hees F, Leisten I (2009) Unternehmenskybernetik 2020: Betriebswirtschaftliche und technische Aspekte von Geschäftsprozessen. In: Henning K, Michulitz C (ed): Unternehmenskybernetik 2020. Betriebswirtschaftliche und technische Aspekte von Geschäftsprozessen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin: 25-37


Howaldt J (2009) Vom Wandel des Innovationsverständnisses von der Industrie- zur Wissensgesellschaft. Expertise on behalf of the project „International Monitoring“, IMA/ ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/Â� fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Howaldt.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Howaldt J, Jacobsen H (2010) (ed) Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postÂ� industriellen Innovationsparadigma. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden Krüger F (2006) Innovation Journalism in Tech Magazines: Factors of Influence on Innovation Communication in Special Interest and Specialist Media. In: Innovations Journalism, vol 3: 163-173 Müller-Armack A (1976) Wirtschaftsordnung und Wirtschaftspolitik: Studien und Konzepte zur sozialen Marktwirtschaft und zur Europäischen Integration. Haupt, Bern Nowotny, H (2008) Insatiable Curiosity: Innovation in a Fragile Future. MIT Press, Cambridge Paech N (2003) Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit: Lösung oder Teil des Problems? In: Politische Ökologie, vol 84: 16-18 Ramstad, Elise (2009) Expanding Innovation System and Policy – an Organisational Perspective. In: Policy Studies, vol 30, 5: 533-553 Riedel C, Schraps S (2010) Wie Unternehmen innovativer werden. In: Gundlach C, Glanz A, Gutsche J (ed): Die frühe Innovationsphase: Methoden und Strategien für die Vorentwicklung. Symposion, Düsseldorf Sanidas E (2005) Organizational innovations and economic growth: organosis and growth of firms, sectors and countries. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Scherzberg A (2006) Kluges entscheiden: disziplinäre Grundlagen und interdisziplinäre Verknüpfungen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Schmauder M (2007) Innovation: Arbeitsforschung – Ingenieurwissenschaftliche Sichtweise. In: Ludwig J, Moldaschl M, Schmauder M, Schmierl K (ed): Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland. Hampp Verlag, München und Mering: 21-22 Schumpeter JA (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. English translation of Schumpeter (1926), Harvard University Press, Cambridge Thielemann U (2009) System Error: Warum der freie Markt zur Unfreiheit führt. Westend, Munich Trantow S, Schuster K, Hees F, Jeschke S (2010) Spannungsfelder der Innovationsfähigkeit. Internationales Monitoring im BMBF-Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm A-L-K. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed): Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz, Aachen: 310-332 Trantow S, Hansen A, Richert A, Jeschke S (2011): Emergence of Innovation. Eleven Strategies to Increase Innovative Capability. In: Huizingh K.R.E., Conn S, Torkkeli M, BitranÂ€I (ed): Proceedings of the XXII ISPIM Conference. Sustainability in Innovation, June 12-15, 2011, Hamburg (in preparation) Wissmann M (2011) Automobilindustrie: Realistischer Optimismus. In: Die Erwartungen der Wirtschaft für 2011, Wirtschaftsdienst vol 91, 1: 7-9, http://www.springerlink.com/ content/75u2667380665q28/fulltext.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Witt P (2010) Innovationen aus betriebswirtschaftlicher Sicht. In: Bertram U (ed): Innovation – Wie geht das? : Eine Veranstaltung der [ID]factory, Zentrum für Kunsttransfer, TU Dortmund, Institut für Kunst und Materielle Kultur. BOD: 201215

ï»¿)>>15)>>Vorwort 15

Part 1 Management of Uncertainty – Key to Innovation

Management of Uncertainty – A Blind Spot in the Promotion of Innovations Fritz Böhle

Abstract In industrial societies the idea has arisen that it is possible to eliminate uncertainty. Science, organization, technology and, linked to this, planning and control are all orientated in this direction – in particular in industrial production. Attempts at planning and control are also increasingly found within the scope of innovation management. However, in the case of innovations, uncertainty is not strictly a shortcoming but an important potential. The endeavor to eliminate uncertainty holds the risk of jeopardizing rather than promoting innovation. A new approach to uncertainty is required in order to promote innovation. It is necessary to recognize uncertainty and at the same time maintain the ability to act. To this end the better term seems to be the overcoming of uncertainty instead of elimination or powerlessness. In various academic disciplines there are approaches which relate to this such as the concept of an experience-led, subjectivity-based action or new approaches in project management. However to date they have barely been systematically addressed or linked in the prospect of a new way of dealing with uncertainty. In the article the necessity of a new approach to uncertainty is justified and the prospect of overcoming uncertainty as a basis for further articles on this topic is outlined.

1â•‡)>>Innovations Require a New Approach to Uncertainty The management of innovations has to date been geared towards planning and controlling innovation processes as much as possible. However, this runs the risk of hindering rather than promoting innovations. This article argues for the thesis that innovations require a productive approach to uncertainty. The concept of coping with uncertainty – as opposed to removing it through planning and control – is presented and substantiated. This approach does not replace planning, but complements it in the sense of not only, but also. In industrial societies, however, uncertainty has up till now been primarily regarded as a deficiency and a threat. A new approach to uncertainty therefore requires profound cultural change and fundamental re-orientation. This applies not only to practical applications, but also to the academic community in particular. Academic research must address phenomena and problems that occur in practice, which until now have lain largely outside the realm of academic thought. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_2, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

18)>>

Fritz Böhle

2â•‡)>>Coping with Uncertainty rather than Removing it In the chapters that follow, the predominant approach to uncertainty in industrial societies is first briefly described (2.1). Uncertainty is then presented as a structural feature of innovations (2.2), and a new perspective defined for managing innovations by coping with uncertainty (2.3). 2.1)>> Industrial Societies’ Program for Removing Uncertainty Uncertainty is a fundamental experience in human existence. In traditional societies, it results primarily from dependence on nature, and these societies attempt to evade the threats posed by uncertainty by adapting to nature, as well as through religious practices, sacrifices and magic. In modern industrial societies, on the other hand, the idea has grown up that “in principle, all things can be controlled by means of calculation” (Weber 1968, 593; translated by author). Science and an increasingly scientific approach to practical action and, on this basis, planning and the establishment of a planning framework have made it possible to overcome uncertainty (cf. Parsons 1980, 145; Beck et al. 2004, 27). Particularly in the field of industrial production, it seemed possible to completely remove uncertainty, or at least clearly differentiate that which could be planned from that which could not. The latter includes in particular the market, scientific discoveries, technical inventions and social change. These do not easily lend themselves to the goal of removing uncertainty, but are nonetheless central features and forces within industrial societies. On the one hand, they are seen as either a threat or a means to liberate human potential, which is the (only) way to enable social progress. However different these views of uncertainty may be, they nonetheless have one thing in common: uncertainty is regarded as a more or less fate-governed by-product of human and social development which can only be avoided by renouncing change and transformation. From this point of view, human beings remain – even in modern societies – largely powerless in the face of that which cannot be calculated and planned. At the same time, however, these approaches are also based on the assumption that social development overall is subject to an innate developmental logic that can be identified and predicted. The metaphor of the invisible hand in the regulation of the market and theories and forecasts of continuous, linear economic growth, technical progress etc. are an example of this. On the other hand, these approaches also try to treat (and recommend treating) the unplannable in a plan-oriented, rational way and to analyze and calculate e.g. developments on the market accordingly. The removal of uncertainty is complemented by transforming uncertainty into risks. The difference between uncertainties and risks is that, although the latter cannot be completely planned and controlled, it nonetheless seems possible to estimate and calculate the probability of them occurring and the concrete form they are likely to take. Accordingly, it also appears possible to plan the handling of risks (cf. Lupton 1999, 7). Furthermore, new organizational techniques are being used which attempt to plan and enable planning of processes on the market and technical and social change.

Management of Uncertainty – AÂ€BlindÂ€SpotÂ€inÂ€theÂ€Promotion of Innovations)>>19

In the development of industrial societies, the handling of innovations is particularly characterized by the approach to uncertainty described. In the early days of industrialization up till the start of the 20th Century, innovations were predominantly regarded as resulting from the “creative personality” (Schumpeter 1934; translated by author) and general scientific progress. Innovations were assigned to particular occupational groups within and outside the company organization. Company organization and management focused primarily on realizing the results of innovations and were therefore less geared towards innovation and more towards reproduction. On the other hand, in the development following the 2nd World War, primarily large companies increasingly tried to control innovation processes in a targeted manner, and innovation management was developed into a specific management discipline in research and teaching (cf. Hausschild 2004). Innovation management processes are based on classic management tasks i.e. planning, evaluation, control and monitoring (cf. Gärtner 2007, 120 et seq.). In the face of increased competition and the acceleration of innovation, management of innovations has become a new challenge, not just for large companies, but also primarily for small and medium-sized businesses (cf. e.g. Mikael and Weiss 1990; Bullinger 2006). Whether the prevailing methods of innovation management are suitable for this is questionable. 2.2â•‡ The Return of Uncertainty – Uncertainty as a Structural Feature of Innovations Without doubt, industrial societies have achieved considerable success in overcoming uncertainties, and continue to do so. There is much evidence that Germany is particularly strong in this area, particularly in the fields of economics and technology. However, this strength is now threatening to become a key weakness. For despite the incontestable successes, it is increasingly becoming apparent that uncertainties cannot be completely removed or transformed into risks, but keep emerging in new forms – precisely as a result of scientific progress, complex organizations and technical systems. Uncertainties continue to exist and appear in new forms (even) in the very areas where overcoming uncertainties is relatively successfulÂ€– such as technical production plants (cf. Böhle et al. 2004). In the face of these developments, current social theories, such as the theory of reflexive modernization, diagnose a “return of uncertainty” (Beck and Bonß 2001, 53; translated by author). This is reinforced particularly by the acceleration of innovation and the resulting shift from stability to increased dynamism and flexibility – ranging from changes in company organization and technology to the shaping of individual lives. The removal of uncertainty aims to increase the scope and opportunity for action. This is the case for machines and production plants in industrial mass production, for example. If their performance can be calculated and planned, they can be used in a targeted way for series production of large quantities of unvarying products. For innovations, however, the opposite is the case. The more uncertainties are removed, the greater the probability that the innovation will be limited in

20)>>

Fritz Böhle

scope, and an innovation will be replaced by a mere further development or slight modification of something known and existing. For innovations, uncertainty is a structural feature and source of potential, and without it innovation is not possible. In the available research on this subject, several reasons are given for this: • The goal of innovations is to replace or complement that which is currently known with that which is currently unknown and therefore uncertain. Innovations are therefore fundamentally characterized by the openness of the result (e.g. Rammert 2008, 294; Erdmann 1993; Wegner 1995, 88; Lazonick 2005). Due to the large number of material, social and cultural influencing factors and interdependencies, it is not possible to precisely comprehend and assess whether an innovation is successful (e.g. Wegner 1995, 189; Mistri 2008, 299 et seq.). The success of innovations can often only be defined subsequently, as it is not possible to identify in advance what problems may be solved by the innovation and what effects may occur (e.g. Siebel et al. 2001, 530 et seq.; Pavitt 2005, 100 et seq.). • Innovation processes are not sequential linear, but iterative. A step is made in different directions depending on success or failure. As innovation processes must deviate from what is known, neither hindrances and obstacles nor success factors can be predicted in advance (e.g. Pavitt 2005, 106 et seq.). Milestones and interim evaluations (cf. Cooper 2002) are scarcely possible either, as no dependable criteria exist for assessing the success of an innovation reliably during the innovation process (cf. Ibert 2005, 600 et seq.). • Neither standard models nor best practice models are possible for innovation processes. Innovation processes all take different forms depending on the object, technical organizational and personnel framework, problems, obstacles etc. and must therefore be designed on a customized basis taking these influencing factors into account (cf. Pavitt 2005, 95 et seq.; Nippa 2007; Coopey etÂ€al. 1998, 279 et seq.). • Pre-imposed requirements, rules and checks hinder creativity (cf. Amabile and Gryskiewicz 1989; Schuler et al. 2007; Kanter 2006). However, creative freedom for particular occupational groups, departments, new businesses etc. also restricts innovation. The technical, product-oriented understanding of innovation is increasingly being replaced by an understanding based on comprehensive information that also includes organizational and social innovations (cf. Lazonick 2005; Howaldt 2009). This means that innovations are being seen less as the specific task of particular persons and occupational groups and more as part of the work of every employee in the company and even outside the company (customers, suppliers etc.) (cf. Moldaschl 2007). The employees’ knowledge and experience of the operational processes is therefore a key resource for innovations (cf. Kocyba 2000, 50 et seq.; Ortmann 2009, 208 et seq.). To promote innovation, it is therefore necessary to acknowledge uncertainty as an aspect of innovations. It should not be seen as a deficiency that needs to be


removed, but as potential to be harnessed. However, this does not mean that innovation today should (again) be left up to creative personalities or based on reliance on general scientific progress. To promote innovation, management of innovations is essential. However, a different approach to uncertainty is required, one which does not aim to remove it altogether, but rather to cope with it, i.e. to deliberately design innovations with uncertainties. 2.3)>> Coping with Uncertainty – A New Perspective The fact that it is not possible to remove uncertainty completely in the field of economics is not a new discovery. This was established at the end of the 1950s in research on decision-making in businesses. The concept of “bounded rationality” became very prominent in this field (Simon 1957). This theory assumes that in practice, the information required for a rational decision, i.e. information regarding influencing factors, possible alternatives and consequences of decisions, is not normally fully available. Similarly to the concept of risk, uncertainty is acknowledged, but ways are sought to plan and establish a planning framework nonetheless.1 There are also research strategies that acknowledge uncertainty, but which infer from this that deliberate control and structuring of company organization is therefore not possible (any more). Consequences of uncertainty are therefore loss of control, anarchy and/ or uncontrollable self-management according to a set of private rules.2 An example of this is the Garbage Can Model (cf. Cohen et al. 1972). While acknowledging uncertainty, these research strategies nonetheless retain the assumption that processes within businesses can only be deliberately controlled and structured when uncertainties have been removed as far as possible. Other more recent research strategies deduce that, since removing uncertainty is impossible, decisions and planning need to be politicized. In these theories, the interests of those directly and indirectly affected by decisions and plans take the place of the trusted knowledge of experts (cf. Beck and Holzer 2007).3 These approaches focus primarily on assessing the consequences of decisions (cf. Stadelbacher 2010, 25). The diagnosis of politicization instead of orientation towards trusted knowledge is on the one hand comparatively radical, but on the other hand, this approach also remains rooted in the concept of planning as a basis for deliberate and goal-oriented action. In relation to these research strategies, the concept of coping with uncertainty is not based solely on acknowledging the limitations of removing uncertainty. Rather, it is significant to realize and acknowledge that deliberate and goal-oriented action )>> For more details on this and similarly oriented research strategies, cf. Neumer (2009, 12 et seq.). 2 )>> For more details on these research strategies for handling uncertainty, cf. Neumer (2009, 31 et seq.). 3 )>> For more details on this in relation to decision-making in organisations, see the articles by Robert T. Gephart, John Van Maanen and Thomas Oberlechner Organisation and Risk in late modernity, the article by Kent D. Miller Organizational Risk after Modernism in the special edition of the journal Organization Studies, 30/ 2-3, 157-180, 2009, and Stadelbacher (2010). 1

22)>>

Fritz Böhle

is also possible without planning and rational decision-making.4 This approach to uncertainty lies between the strategy of removal on the one hand and powerlessness on the other. Research strategies exist for this too. They have been developed in various academic disciplines to address different problems. Currently, however, they are (still) barely connected to each other and are not being utilized or further developed for a different approach to uncertainty with regard to innovations – either in research or in practice. Nonetheless, they show that a new productive approach to uncertainty in the handling of innovations is definitely not just wishful thinking or a utopian ideal. In research into representing human action using information technology, the concept of plan-oriented, rational action was replaced by the concept of situated action (cf. Suchman 1987). According to this theory, humans do not act on the basis of decide first then act – particularly when resolving technical problems – but in a process- and situation-related manner based on a practical approach to concrete requirements and conditions for action. Research on artificial intelligence focused originally on the model of deliberate, rational information processing and action control. In the face of the difficulties and failures of programming human action in this way, a new orientation towards concepts of embodied intelligence or embodied mind was developed (cf. Mainzer 2003; Lenzen 2002). In the field of robotics, the focus has shifted away from anticipating as fully as possible the action situations that can occur in practice. Technical design now concentrates instead on situation-based interaction with the environment and processing this. Organizational theory explored the question of how organizations that are particularly exposed to uncontrollable environmental influences (emergency medicine, fire brigade, aircraft carriers etc.) provide reliable services (cf. Weick and Sutcliffe 2003). In this case, attentiveness is singled out as a particular form of managerial practice. The focus among other things is on anticipating the unexpected through particular sensitivity and a feel for situations. Rather than viewing unpredictability only as a danger for the organization, it is seen in a positive light – as an opportunity to improve performance. Learning from mistakes also plays a key role.5 Within the framework of knowledge management, the tacit knowledge acquired through practical action was identified as an important knowledge resource in businesses (cf. Nonaka and Takeuchi 1997). The term tacit knowledge goes back to Polanyi’s philosophy of science and refers primarily to physical corporeal knowledge that is essential for practical action, but almost impossible to describe in words (cf. Polanyi 1985). Research into work in the service industry shows that handling uncertainty is a key requirement in this sector, much more so than in industrial production and administration. When looking at the question of how to cope with this uncertainty )>> On the discussion regarding modification of fundamental additions to and expansion of the prevailing concepts for rational decision-making and action, see also in particular the articles in Böhle and Weihrich (2009). 5 )>> For more details, see also Neumer (2009, 50 et seq.) and Stadelbacher (2010, 27 et seq.). 4


in practice, parallels are drawn with artistic activity. This approach stresses that a key element of artistic activity is the ability to be unreservedly open to the new, along with a situation- and process-oriented procedure (cf. Brater et al. 1989). Investigations into how work changes with technological advances in industrial production and administration show that human work is in no way limited to just residual functions, but rather that it is becoming important to iron out imponderabilities in technical and organizational processes in order to prevent malfunctions (cf. Böhle et al. 2004). Specific experience-based knowledge and work practices are required, rather than the prevailing concept of a scientifically managed, plan-based, rational approach to work. More in-depth investigations in this field have developed the concept of an experience-led, subjectivity-based approach to work. These demonstrate that sensory, physical experiences, subjective sensations and experiences, associative thinking, an interactive, dialogue-based approach to objects and a personal, emotional relationship with them are key vocational skills (cf. Böhle 2009; Böhle 2008; Pfeiffer 2007). Linked to this, investigations into cooperation draw a distinction between the formally organized, plan-led cooperation in committees and meetings on the one hand and the informal, experience-led cooperation that takes place in routine work processes on the other (cf. Böhle and Bolte 2002; Bolte and Porschen 2006). Possibilities for exchanging tacit knowledge are also demonstrated in this context (cf. Porschen 2008). The following articles on the subject of managing uncertainty present further research strategies and perspectives geared to individual skills and forms of learning and to forms of organizational structuring for a new approach to uncertainty. The research strategies outlined above and the complementary articles that follow show that coping with uncertainty requires procedures and organizational forms – particularly in the field of economic activity – to which modern societies have until now paid little attention and which have for the most part even been discriminated against. Situated action, the search for and definition of goals (only) during and through practical activities, sensory perception based on feelings and sensations, tacit knowledge etc. are all too easily regarded as unprofessional and as a sign of human weakness. This has been the case until now not only in practice, but above all in the academic community, and this approach is particularly promoted by the tendency towards academically focused training and practical use of scientific findings and procedures. A new productive approach to uncertainty requires a revision of ideas and reorientation not only in practice, but also primarily in the academic community. The research trends presented above and in the articles that follow are important approaches to a new orientation of this kind, but are still predominantly on the fringes of the various disciplines within which they originated, and targeted promotion is necessary in order to develop them further and anchor them in the academic canon. This is the only way that scientific research can succeed in promoting innovations using phenomena and problem situations in practice which to date have been largely outside the realm of academic thought and which have been disregarded up till now, mainly due to the predominance of the scientific approach to work.

24)>>

Fritz Böhle

3)>>Summary In modern, industrial societies, unlike traditional societies, the idea has arisen that it is possible to transform uncertainty into certainty and thus eliminate it. Science, organization, technology and, linked to this, planning and control are all oriented in this direction. This is particularly the case in industrial production. Planning and control (innovation management) are also increasingly geared to innovation. There is much evidence to suggest that one of Germany’s particular strengths is based on such an approach to uncertainty. However, this strength is now threatening to become a key weakness. Despite considerable successes in overcoming uncertainty, it has become clear that uncertainties can never be completely removed, but keep emerging in new forms – precisely as a result of scientific progress, complex organizations and technical systems. This is particularly the case for innovations. Where innovation is concerned, uncertainty is not a deficiency, but rather a structural feature. The Â�striving to remove uncertainty therefore carries with it the risk of hindering or even completely impeding innovations rather than promoting them. A new approach to uncertainty is required in order to promote innovation. Uncertainty needs to be acknowledged and used productively. This approach to uncertainty lies between the strategy of removal on the one hand and powerlessness on the other. An appropriate concept for this is coping with uncertainty, according to which the striving to overcome uncertainty should not be replaced, but should rather be complemented. This approach is a complementary one in the sense of not only, but also. In various academic disciplines, research strategies for a reorientation vis-àvis the approach to uncertainty have recently been developed. These are based on expanding the concept of rational, plan-based action that has prevailed up till now and focus on situated action, tacit knowledge, sensory, physical perception, subjective feelings and associative thought as key elements of professional activity (in the articles that follow on the subject of managing uncertainty, these approaches and research trends are further elucidated with regard to learning, individual skills and organizational structuring). Against this backdrop, the demand for a new approach to uncertainty in innovation processes is not just a utopian ideal or wishful thinking. Up till now, however, the various research strategies and trends in the new approach to uncertainty have not (yet) been systematically linked to each other or utilized and further developed for systematic promotion of innovation processes. They are largely (still) on the fringes of the various disciplines within which they originated. To develop them further and anchor them requires targeted promotion, since a revision of ideas is required not just in practice, but also in the academic community in particular.


4)>> Future Research Requirements Research to promote innovations has so far been mainly oriented to management of innovations with regard to planning, control and monitoring. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has set up new initiatives to expand and complement innovation management with its research and development program “Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt” (Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment) focusing on “promoting innovation above and beyond traditional management”. An approach to managing uncertainty in the context of innovations that extends beyond the prevailing strategies for planning and removing uncertainty is not yet a priority, but is nonetheless being explored by three research associations.6 Linked to this is an urgent need for research in the following areas: • Identifying and systematizing the concrete forms that uncertainties take in innovation processes based on a broad understanding of innovation. A system is to be developed to enable distinction in innovation processes between uncertainty as a structural feature offering potential and uncertainty as an obstacle and limitation that can be overcome. • Analysis and development of procedures that enable acceptance and productive use of uncertainties (coping with uncertainties) in innovation processes. To do this, existing research strategies for expanding the plan-oriented, rational action model are to be utilized and related to the handling of innovation processes, linked together and further developed. • Investigations must be undertaken to define the particular characteristics of innovation work, which exhibits special features in contrast to production, administration and service-industry work. This requires both theoretical conceptual basic research and empirical analyses of different forms of innovation work. • Identification of the individual resources (physical, mental strength, skills etc.) required to cope with uncertainty, possible new handicaps to coping with uncertainty and possibilities for preventing it (for more details, see also the article by Martin Elbe).

)>> In the KES-MI research association (Artistic, Experience-led, Playful – Management of the informal to promote innovative work, www.kes-mi.de), the MICC research association (Music – Innovation – Corporate culture, www.micc-projekt.org) and the THINK research association (Theatrical Interventions in Innovation and Cooperation Management, www.forschungsprojekt-think.de). Also oriented towards a new approach to uncertainty are the KUN-DIN research association Service as Art – Pathways for innovative and professional work in the service industry (www.dienstleistungskunst.de) focusing on Professionalising services and the HELD research association (Innovation dramaturgy according to the hero principle, www.udk-berlin. de/sites/innovation-heldenprinzip/content/index_ger.html; www.heldenprinzip.de/html/extra. html) focusing on “Balance of flexibility and stability in a changing work environment”.

6

26)>>

Fritz Böhle

• Development of a form of learning suitable for coping with uncertainty. In particular, the role of self-managed informal learning in the work process and its targeted support and promotion is to be investigated (for more details, see also the article by Johannes Sauer). • Identification and development of forms of work and company organization that allow and promote coping with uncertainty. This also includes principles of leadership and performance assessment. To be investigated in particular is the way in which organizational forms that relate to coping with uncertainty are compatible with organizational forms oriented to overcoming uncertainties and establishing a planning framework, and what new tensions arise from this (for more details cf. Wolf and Peters in this volume). • Identification and further development of technical concepts geared to coping with uncertainty rather than eliminating it. This is linked to concepts of the embodied mind and robotics within the framework of developing artificial intelligence. The technical concepts suitable for supporting employees in coping with uncertainties are also to be investigated. These are linked to the concept of technology as a tool and action-oriented structuring of human-technology interaction. To deal with these issues requires not only theoretical conceptual research, but also empirical investigations and experimental design projects. In particular, innovation processes in companies are to be investigated to determine in what way practically developed approaches to a productive use of uncertainties already exist in this domain. A particular focus of investigation is to determine what potential exists in SMBs that can be harnessed and further developed.

5 )>>Prospects for Germany According to international experts, a specific culture of planning developed in Germany in the past, above all in large companies. In an international comparison, this can certainly be seen as one of Germany’s strengths. However, this strength can only be further harnessed and developed in future through openness to acknowledging the limitations of planning and by providing and systematically promoting opportunities for coping with uncertainties. If this succeeds, Germany in particular could develop a highly productive new innovation culture by combining planning (removal of uncertainty) with productive use of uncertainties (coping with uncertainty) in innovation processes. The comparatively highly developed culture of planning means that research and practice can focus on coping with uncertainties. This also leads to new ways of boosting the innovation potential of SMBs in particular. Small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) play an important role in economic development in Germany. In the past, SMBs had particularly high potential for innovation, which leads to the assumption that future development in Germany depends largely on whether it can succeed in maintaining and expanding


this potential. In the face of accelerating innovation everywhere and international competition, SMBs are also under increasing pressure, however, to systematically organize and structure their innovation processes more intensively than before. It makes sense to do this using plan-oriented innovation-management and projectmanagement methods developed to date. An example of this is the introduction of the stage-gate model (cf. Wühr et al. 2010; Pfeiffer et al. 2010). Unilateral concentration on such methods of innovation management and project management, however, runs the risk of impeding rather than promoting the innovation potential of SMBs. There is much evidence to suggest that the innovation potential of SMBs in the past lay in the very fact that they unconsciously and almost naturally allowed and coped with uncertainties in innovation processes (cf. Böhle and Kalkert 2010). The concept of coping with uncertainty opens up a new way to utilize SMBs’ existing approaches to coping with uncertainties, and to systematically support and develop these further.

Bibliography Amabile TM, Gryskiewicz N (1989) The Creative Environment Scales: The Work Environment Inventory. In: Creativity Research Journal, vol 2: 231-254 Beck U, Bonß W (2001) Die Modernisierung der Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. Beck U, Bonß W, Lau C (2004) Entgrenzung erzwingt Entscheidung. Was ist neu an der Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung? In: Beck U, Lau C (ed) Entgrenzung und Entscheidung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. Beck U, Holzer B (2007) Organizations in World Risk Society. In: Pearson CM, RouxDufort C, Clair JA (ed) International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management. Sage, Los Angeles: 3-24 Böhle F (2009) Weder rationale Reflexion noch präreflexive Praktik. Erfahrungsgeleitetsubjektivierendes Handeln. In: Böhle F, Weihrich M (ed) Handeln unter Unsicherheit. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Böhle F (2008) Erfolgreiche Bewältigung des Unplanbaren durch “anderes” Handeln. In: Pawlowsky P, Mistele P (ed) Hochleistungsmanagement. Leistungspotenziale in Organisationen gezielt fördern. Gabler, Wiesbaden Böhle F, Bolte A (2002) Die Entdeckung des Informellen. Der schwierige Umgang mit Kooperation im Arbeitsalltag. Campus, Frankfurt a. M./ New York Böhle F, Kalkert P (2010) Unbestimmtheit und Offenheit als Potenzial für Innovationen. In: Gatermann I, Fleck M (ed) Innovationsfähigkeit sichert Zukunft. Beiträge zum 2.Â€Zukunftsforum Innovationsfähigkeit des BMBF. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin Böhle F, Weihrich M (2009) Handeln unter Unsicherheit. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Böhle F, Pfeiffer S, Sevsay-Tegethoff N (2004) Die Bewältigung des Unplanbaren. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Bolte A, Porschen S (2006) Die Organisation des Informellen. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Brater M, Büchele U, Fucke E, Hertz G (1989) Künstlerisch handeln. Die Förderung beruflicher Handlungsfähigkeit durch künstlerische Prozesse. Verlag Freies Geistesleben, Stuttgart

28)>>

Fritz Böhle

Bullinger HJ (2006) Verdammt zur Innovation. In: RKI-Magazin, vol 57: 12–14 Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A Garbage-Can-Model of Organizational Choice. In: Administrative Science Quaterly, issue 17: 1-25 Cooper RG (2002) Winning at New Products. 2nd Edition. Perseus Books, Reading/ Massachusetts Coopey J, Keegan O, Emler N (1998) Managers’ Innovations and the Structuration of Organizations. In: Journal of Management Studies, vol 35, 3: 263–284 Erdmann G (1993) Elemente einer evolutorischen Innovationstheorie. Mohr, Tübingen Gärtner C (2007) Innovationsmanagement als soziale Praxis. Hampp, München/ Mering Gärtner C, Lederle S (2007) Innovation am lunatic fringe: Ist der Rand die Heimat der Innovation? In: Bergknapp A, Gärtner C, Lederle S (ed) Sozioökonomische Organisationsforschung. Hampp, München/ Mering Hauschildt J (2004) Innovationsmanagement. Vahlen, München Howaldt J (2009) Zum Wandel des Innovationsverständnisses. Von der Industrie- zur Wissens- und Dienstsleistungsgesellschaft. Expertise on behalf of the project „International Monitoring“ – Research group “Innovative Capability and Change of Work”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/ Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Howaldt.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Ibert O (2005) Wie lassen sich Innovationen planen? In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, issue 9/ 10: 599-608 Kanter R (2006) Innovation. The classic traps. In: Harvard Business Review, vol 84, 11: 72-83 Kocyba H (2000) Jenseits von Taylor und Schumpeter: Innovation und Arbeit in der „Wissensgesellschaft“. In: Institut für Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung (ISF) (ed) Jahrbuch sozialwissenschaftliche Technikberichterstattung. Berlin: 2558 Lazonik W (2005) The Innovative Firm. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Lenzen M (2002) Natürliche und künstliche Intelligenz. Campus, Frankfurt a.M./ New York Lupton D (1999) Risk. Routledge, London/ New York Mainzer K (2003) Künstliche Intelligenz. Grundlagen intelligenter Systeme. WissenschaftÂ� liche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt Michel R, Weiss A (1990) Die permanente Innovation. Anleitung für die UnternehmensÂ� praxis. Campus, Frankfurt a.M./ New York Mistri M (2008) Innovative processes and procedural rationality. Innovation as outcomes of a sequence of strategic actions. In: Human Systems Management, vol 27: 295-304 Moldaschl M (2007) Innovationsarbeit. In: Ludwig J, Moldaschl M, Schmauder M, Schmirl K (ed) Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland. Hampp, München/ Mering Neumer J (2009) Neue Forschungsansätze im Umgang mit Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in Arbeit und Organisation. Zwischen Beherrschung und Ohnmacht. Expertise on behalf of the project “International Monitoring“, Research Group „Management of Uncertainty“, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.iÂ� nternationalmonitoring. com/fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Neumer.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Nippa M (2007) Zur Komplexität der Innovationsorganisation. In: Engel K, Nippa M (ed) Innovationsmanagement: Von der Idee zum erfolgreichen Produkt. Physica, Heidelberg


Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1997) Die Organisation des Wissens. Wie japanische Unternehmen eine brachliegende Ressource nutzbar machen. Campus, Frankfurt a. M./ New York Ortmann G (2009) Management in der Hypermoderne. Kontingenz und Entscheidung. VSVerlag, Wiesbaden Parsons T (1980) Health on certainty and the Action structure. In: Fiddle S (ed) Uncertanty, behavioural at social dimensions. Praeger, New York Pavitt K (2005) Innovation Process. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Pfeiffer S (2007) Montage und Erfahrung. Warum ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme menschliches Arbeitsvermögen brauchen. Hampp, München/ Mering Pfeiffer S, Schütt P, Wühr D (2010) Standardization of Production and Development Processes – Blessing or Curse? In: Grubbström R, Hinterhuber H (ed) Sixteenth International Working Seminar on Production Economics. Pre-Prints, vol 2: 411-422 Polanyi M (1985) Implizites Wissen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Porschen S (2008) Austausch impliziten Erfahrungswissens. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Rammert W (2008) Technik und Innovation. In: Maurer A (ed) Handbuch der WirtschaftsÂ� soziologie. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden Schuler H, Görlich Y (2007) Kreativität. Hogrefe, Göttingen Schumpeter JA (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Siebel W, Ibert O, Mayer HN (2001) Staatliche Organisation von Innovation: Die Planung des Unplanbaren unter widrigen Umständen durch einen unbegabten Akteur. In: Leviathan, vol 29, 4: 526-543 Simon H (1957) Models of Man. Social and Rational. Wiley, New York Stadelbacher S (2010) Aktuelle Ansätze zum „Management der Ungewissheit“. Eine Auswertung des internationalen Diskurses zum Thema “Organisations and Risk“ auf der Grundlage der Dokumention der Zeitschrift Organisation Studies. Expertise on behalf of the project „International Monitoring“ – Research group coping with uncertainty, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/ fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Stadelbacher.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actionsÂ€: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York Wegner G (1995) Innovation, Komplexität und Erfolg. Zu einer ökonomischen Handlungstheorie des Neuen. In: Seifert EK, Priddat BP (ed) Neuorientierung in der ökonomischen Theorie. Metropolis, Marburg Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2003) Das Unerwartete managen. Wie Unternehmen aus Extremsituationen lernen. Klett-Cotta Verlag, Stuttgart Wühr D, Pfeiffer S, Schütt P (2010) Innovation trotz Standardisierung?! Aktive Mitgestaltung von Innovation als zentrale Aufgabe für Interessenvertretung. In: Computer und Arbeit. Vernetztes Wissen für Betriebs- und Personalräte, issue 5/ 2010: 5-9

Commentary on the Main Article “Management of Uncertainty – A Blind Spot in the Promotion of Innovations”

Management of Uncertainty – A Contradiction in Itself? Petra Dassen-Housen

It is an honor for me to prepare a brief commentary on the article by Fritz Böhle. In his article Böhle outlines the necessity of a productive handling of uncertainty. Innovations require a new handling of uncertainty, for the uncertain can trace new paths and thereby represent an innovative strength. In addition to planning and control concepts it is essential to develop and implement new concepts for managing uncertainty, a ‘both-and’ strategy. Böhle ascertains that this new dealing of uncertainty requires far-reaching cultural change and fundamental reorientations. The necessity of finding an effective way to deal with uncertainty could perhaps even signify a new paradigm shift. Planning and control are no longer the ultimate tools but have to be supplemented by creativity and flexibility. This is readily announced, but how do we achieve such a reorientation? Böhle positions this reorientation in the field and in science. I would like to supplement this with education and training: dealing with uncertainty also requires pedagogical approaches. It is essential to give children and young people a certain degree of freedom to discover and create things themselves. In training the experience-subjectivised action mentioned by Böhle can take up a main role. Students thereby acquire important competencies in dealing with uncertainty. Dealing with uncertainty is a continuous process. I agree with Böhle that uncertainty is a component of human existence and in a way also the excitement of life; if everything could be planned and controlled, where would be the surprise, the joy, the hope and the disappointment? The danger of managing uncertainty, however, lies in the fact that we are seeking tools to restrict the uncertainty. For is it not the purpose of many management strategies to assess and mitigate risks? In principle this endeavor is absolutely necessary from the perspective of business, but it should be considered that there will always be something unforeseeable and that flexibility and creativity will be important features of a successful management strategy. The question should be asked as to why we devote so much attention to the management of uncertainty? Don’t we still want to plan and control what actually cannot be planned or controlled? Management of uncertainty – a contradiction in itself? S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_3, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

32)>>

Petra Dassen-Housen

From a philosophical point of view the contradiction does perhaps exist. Yet we are people that are virtually incapable of enduring insecurity and will always continue to seek mechanisms that give us a feeling of security. If uncertainty exists, fairness is of particular significance for people (cf. Bos 2000). The experience of a fair process can suppress feelings of insecurity. Yet there still remains a human endeavor of containing insecurity. Dealing with uncertainty needs to be learnt on a personal, business and social level. On the personal level it is essential to develop new learning concepts in which dealing with uncertainty is a central element; learning will be an integral component of life and work (cf. Dassen-Housen 2000). On the business level it is essential to develop organizational concepts which promote flexibility and creativity and encourage employees to utilize the freedom given. Above all such structures must be dynamic and break new ground above and beyond hierarchies and old customs. The lifelong learning of employees also means a continuous development of working and organizational structures, certainly with regard to technological advancement. On the social level it is essential to constantly reflect on the area of conflict between responsibility and powerlessness. A further comment on Böhle’s article relates to empiricism. Which methods of innovation management are predominant and with how much success are they applied under which conditions? On the basis of empiricism it could definitely emerge that there are successful cases where innovations and risk management go together. For example in the pharmaceutical industry, where there is very fundamental research that is structured with milestones, intermediary evaluations and constant monitoring of risks. Seen from this perspective it could even be questionable whether it is essential to overcome uncertainty instead of eliminating it. Eliminating a risk is perhaps the ultimate method of overcoming something and therefore certainly, when possible, an acceptable strategy. Elimination should, however, not lead to avoiding uncertainty. This would be fatal to curiosity, creativity and the sense of the truly fundamentally new, and therefore to the crucial prerequisites for the successful promotion of innovation. In conclusion I would like to give some comments on the topic of prospects for Germany: as we know, innovations are mainly promoted if they occur beyond the limits of the individual company or institute. Concepts such as open innovation or innovation in the entire supply chain (i.e. with suppliers and customers) are interesting examples. The question is how successful innovation management can be organized in this chain. The idea is to develop joint approaches. For Germany, with its world-leading institutes and companies, there is consequently a great opportunity to increase the innovation potential provided that the country is in a position of organizing innovation management across companies. Innovation and uncertainty – they are linked to each other. And this link can overcome the alleged contradiction. We need innovations, innovations need uncertainty. Uncertainty is a component of life, strategies must be prepared at different levels to learn to tolerate this uncertainty and utilize it to our benefit. A perpetuum mobile!

Management of Uncertainty – A Contradiction inÂ€Itself?)>>33

Bibliography Bos K van den (2000) Omgaan met onzekerheid, Het belang van rechtvaardigheid in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie 2000-13, 5 Bowden J, Marton F (1998) The University of Learning, Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London Brödel R (ed) (1998) Lebenslanges Lernen – Lebensbegleitende Bildung. Luchterhand Verlag, Neuwied Dassen-Housen P (2000) Responding to the global political-economical challenge: the learning society exemplified by the working environment. Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz, Aachen Dohmen G (1996) Das lebenslange Lernen, Leitlinien einer modernen Bildungspolitik. Bonn Keuning D, Eppink D (1982) Management en Organisatie, Theorie en Toepassing. Stenfert Kroese, B.V. Leiden/ Antwerpen Weinerth AB (1987) Lehrbuch der Organisationspsychologie, Menschliches Verhalten in Organisationen. 2. extended edition, Psychologie Verlags Union, München/ Weinheim

Beyond Planning and Control. Alternative Approaches to the Management of Industrial Research and Development Harald Wolf

Abstract This paper explores the way in which the management of research and development fluctuates between alternative approaches: a risk management approach and one based on tolerance of uncertainty. The dominant risk management approach is based on external planning of new elements and directly controlling their generation, while tolerance of uncertainty is based on trust and self-organization of the employees working directly within the innovation process. On the basis of empirical findings, it is shown that particular development trends in current innovation practice – such as the increasing capital market orientation of many companies – encourage risk management concepts, but that there are still opportunities for alternative approaches, provided they are linked to the existing vitality of innovation-friendly cooperation cultures and the self-regulation skills of the innovation employees. These findings also demonstrate the – often overlooked – high relevance of social security as a condition for innovation, but also the fact that it is under threat.

1)>>Introduction The issues relating to innovation, as has been rightly observed, reflect the central problems and challenges of contemporary societies (cf. Hage 2000, 68). In these societies, the claim and promise of limitless capacity for modernization and increased performance is juxtaposed with the simultaneous dominance of an approach to thought and action in categories based on rational planning and control, resulting in a mixture that is fraught with tension. Not least, option-limiting (power) structures and the pluralistic, potentially opposing interests of the different social players involved come into play. To secure and increase the innovative capability and generate innovations on this basis becomes on the one hand the unquestionable crux – and on the other a complex undertaking that is constantly under threat and highly subject to social conditions. The relationship between innovation and the innovative capability is equivalent to that between labor and labor power. The abstract power must also be realized in the act, the existing individual and social skills and resources – in terms of perS. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_4, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

36)>>

Harald Wolf

sonnel and/ or the knowledge potential that they embody, objectivized knowledge etc. – must be reflected in innovations, i.e. new products and services and/ or a marketable and profitable “innovate” (Sombart). As with labor power in general, this also poses a transformation problem which constantly has to be resolved, and in other areas too, it is highly uncertain whether and to what extent this transformation will succeed. In other areas too, since the work contract that companies conclude with their innovation workers remains open and un(der)defined in two respects – not just with regard to the actual process of effort expenditure but above all in terms of its intended result: product innovation. Due to its goal, therefore, industrial research and development (R&D) opens up a particularly broad range of uncertainties. It acts on this assumption – in terms of opportunities for renewing and improving the product or service range – and tries to generate targeted (technical, design) certainties that at the same time need to be marketable and profitable. Dealing with this constant problem of sustaining and transforming the innovative capability into innovation falls to the innovation management (cf. e.g. Hauschildt and Salomo 2007). This article outlines some aspects, current development trends and problems of industrial research and development management and related research perspectives from the point of view of handling and embracing uncertainty.

2)>> Management of Research and Development – between Risk Management and Tolerance of Uncertainty It is well known that operational players who work within the framework of innovation processes and make decisions do so in the face of huge uncertainties. The image of the innovation process as a gamble, a game of chance, where you have to wager high stakes in the hope of the best possible results, but can only influence those results to a limited extent, has been and still is used by many innovation managers again and again to refer to the limitations of their profession (cf. Shapin 2008, 142).1 Since Schumpeter’s attempt to define innovation more precisely as a central engine of capitalism by referring to the feature of major uncertainties – as well as the exigencies of speed and the inertia to be overcome – innovation research has stressed this aspect both theoretically and empirically as a constituent of the problems (cf. Fagerberg 2005). Alternative approaches to innovation management can easily be distinguished by the way they handle these constitutive uncertainties as the core of the innovation process. The management concepts can place emphasis on planning and control in the traditional way – based on mistrust of the problem-solving skills of those involved in the innovation process itself – in order to reduce uncertainty from )>> “Research and development is a gamble,” was also stated by an R&D manager in an interview that we recently conducted as part of our “Innovation and co-determination” research project (see also 2.3).

1

Beyond Planning and Control)>>

37

Â�outside in a targeted manner. From the point of view of control and maintaining power (be it by the company owner or the management in charge), such risk management concepts are indeed completely self-evident, even if they also endanger the innovation objective at the same time (2.1). On the other hand, while alternative concepts that are based on trust, on providing leeway for as many innovation players as possible and on the self-regulation of these players may possibly entail losses of power and control from the perspective of owners and managers, they are nonetheless the most likely to be able to harness existing innovation potential – according to an assumption that can be drawn from innovation research (2.2). Some insights into current innovation practice in industrial companies make it clear that variants of both concept alternatives, in combination as well as in conflict, still continue to shape the realities of industrial R&D today (2.3). 2.1)>> Risk Management – Planning of the New and Controlling Its Creation It is possible to try to plan the new and to control its creation. This is one of the key innovations and features of the modern age. A future that is in principle uncertain can – seemingly – then be transformed into an undertaking which, though still risky, is supposedly calculable in the present. This is the modern trend for risk management (cf. Power 2007). Visions of control and fictions of security, which define and control the rationalization program of the modern age in all possible areas (cf. Böhle in this volume), have for a long time shaped attempts to organize and mobilize academic and technical knowledge across a broad spectrum, particularly for the purposes of product innovation in industrial R&D. This is the access that Alfred N. Whitehead had in mind when he spoke of “inventing the method for invention” as one of the cores of the second industrial revolution at the turn of the 20th Century. Since then, many organizations and diverse organizational forms of planned and controlled R&D have emerged in industrial companies. It is certainly acknowledgedÂ�in principle that a particular feature of these organizational forms, according to Luhmann, is their focus on goal programs, as opposed to the deterministic if…then logic of conditional programming, which is less important in this regard (cf. Luhmann 2000). Rather than the repetition of that which is already known and mastered, which is otherwise the basic mode of operation of most organizations, in this case it is discontinuity and the finding of that which is not currently known that must be programmed as desirable. The ways to achieve this must be redefined on a case by case basis. The project form lends itself to this, and indeed the core of the organization of industrial R&D today, insofar as the structuring of concrete innovation work is concerned, consists of project organization and project management (cf. Kalkowski and Mickler 2009; Peters in this volume). As a “classic standard perspective on project management with features which still apply to this day” (Nausner 2006, 43; translated by author), an organizational concept which focuses on traditional planning and control objectives has therefore, however, also prevailed for innovation processes. Central elements are the stage-gate process (as phase planning of innovation projects), a work breakdown structure (as project structure planning), scheduling and operations planning, and

38)>>

Harald Wolf

systematized target/ actual comparisons (cf. Hauschildt and Salomo 2007). The emphasis is on planning of processes externally and according to a mechanistic basic orientation. “From the point of view of organizational theory, the standard perspective can be assigned to the theory canon of administrative management in which organization, management and corporate governance are deployed on the basis of rules and precision (scientific management)” (Nausner 2006, 44; translated by author). This appears to be a continuation of the Weber, Taylor, Fayol... series of theories with other instruments. Sobering research results regarding the application of project management systems in R&D processes (such as the fact that project plans often cannot be adhered to, many procedures seem to have functions that are merely there to legitimize them, new and complicated planning tools are seldom used in practice, excessively precise plans turn out to be unusable, most project managers only use trivial instruments and methods etc.) evidently do not much perturb the protagonists of such a risk management approach based on projectification. “The reaction of most proponents of the standard perspective is rather perplexing: ever more numerous and complex methods and instruments are being incorporated into the project management canon from a wide range of disciplines” (ibid., 44; translated by author). 2.2)>> Tolerance of Uncertainty – Alternative Approaches in Innovation Practice, Organization Theory and Innovation Research In the face of this planning and control logic that still dominates today, it may be surprising to discover that the real story of industrial R&D organization, R&D management and innovation practice in the 20th Century is full of examples where alternative principles are applied and indeed upheld (cf. Shapin 2008, chap. 5 and 6). One of the most influential figureheads of private commercial corporate-driven R&D in the USA, C. E. Kenneth Mees (1882-1960), founder and head of the Eastman Kodak Research Laboratory for many years, propagated organizational concepts up till the 1950s (including in textbooks) which were blatantly based on the assumption that research work and most development work is largely unplannable (!), and which were referred to as “laissez-faire laboratory non-organization” (ibid., 140). Mees’s simple guideline, which was tolerant of uncertainty, was as follows: “In actual [research and development] practice, the individual can be assigned a problem or problems on which he is expected to report regularly and is allowed to spend the remainder of his time on work of his own choosing as long as it is in the field of the laboratory’s interests” (ibid., 136 et seq.). Trust was placed in the professional self-discipline of the scientists and engineers working in the field of innovation by innovation managers, who were scientists and engineers themselves (and they had little choice but to trust them, as innovation work was regarded as practically impossible to control).


39

The systematic introduction and spread of R&D cost controlling, teamwork structures and project management systems came about in the second half of the previous century (cf. Noble 1977). These organizational forms certainly fundamentally superseded and modified the old structures and ultimately helped to ensure the predominance of rational planning and control logic, including in the field of innovation management. However, in this area in particular, we should not be too quick to equate blueprint and concept with organizational realities and working practices. Unfortunately, despite some instructive studies (cf. Hage 2000 and below), we still know too little about these realities and practices. The fact that R&D requires a sensitive and tolerant approach both to uncertainties and to those who work on the actual handling of those uncertainties (and the creation of new uncertainties) in the innovation process is a lesson that does not need to be taught from outside, but rather one which in many cases is still learnt by experience – the prevailing doctrine notwithstanding (see 2.3). Empirical innovation research confirms, at least indirectly, that this cannot be otherwise. When looking at the results of innovation research as a whole, there can be no doubt that organizational centralization, as a rough indicator for central, direct planning and control concepts, “has a very robust negative correlation with innovation rates” (Hage 2000, 71; translated by author). Two groups of positive key factors for innovation success stand out: organic organizational structures and an innovation- and risk-friendly organizational strategy. Organic structures imply primarily a low degree of differentiation (e.g. small number of departments, relative autonomy of sub-units), minimal hierarchical and bureaucratic coordination (minimal standardization of rules and processes, parameter checks by budget and personnel management) and orientation towards quality (ibid., 84; Burns and Stalker 1994). The discussion of innovation issues in organizational theory revolves around many other aspects of these conditions that promote organizational structures favorable to innovation and the innovative capability (cf. Böhle in this volume and Neumer 2009). The second key factor consists of risky, complex strategies for integrating diversity and new elements (e.g. strategic orientation towards integration of different areas of business and occupying product or service niches, allocating sufficient funds and recruiting highly-qualified, diversified personnel, and the ability to adapt and correct errors in the context of an innovationfriendly, supportive corporate culture). Hage (2000) adds a third factor, which is actually the most significant – the complexity of activities and cooperation. The key to this probably lies ultimately in the approach to uncertainties. The diversity (heterogeneous company departments with a heterogeneous range of tasks or controls, high proportions of persons with extensive professional experience from other fields) and the depth and breadth of the existing knowledge base depend on the complexity of the activities and cooperation structures. Added to this is the significance of cooperation between different company departments (the frequency and intensity of interactions, joint production or service activities, the presence of an interactive, communication-friendly corporate culture) (ibid., 83). Complexity when viewed in this way also means more uncertainty. The findings show that corresponding

40)>>

Harald Wolf

openings and tolerance of uncertainty are required in order to achieve innovation success. Ultimately, contemporary approaches such as open innovation, distributed innovation or user innovation can to all intents and purposes also be construed in this way (cf. West and Bogers 2010; Hippel 2005). These research strategies – and their counterparts in management practice – can be understood as an exploratory movement towards these openings, as the opposite of the exclusion of uncertainty in Chandler’s closed management system, as a more tolerant view of – particularly external – uncertainty in order to use it internally. 2.3)>> Development Trends in Contemporary Innovation Practice At this point, merely by way of example, I would like to look at some transformation trends to which industrial R&D processes are currently exposed. On the one hand, these show the considerable power of influence that the planning and control perspective still holds. On the other, however, the potential of alternative approaches and methods, which are lying dormant or making their presence felt in practice, is also becoming clear. In this context, unless otherwise stated, I refer to the findings of a research project that I carried out with Hans Joachim Sperling, Jürgen Kädtler and Volker Wittke at the Soziologisches Forschungsinstitut (Social Research Institute) (SOFI) in Göttingen.2 (1) Capital market orientation versus innovation? The risk management approach to innovation management evidently continues to find enough support and backing from relevant power and interest groups in industry and businesses, as all more recent findings show. Although, as previously mentioned, organic structures are regarded as suitable and efficient for innovation processes, at least according to the innovation research findings, organic logic constantly comes into confrontation with competing logics in businesses, i.e. economic constraints of market cultivation and profit-making and requirements resulting from incorporation in a corporate bureaucracy. The balance between these logics appears to be increasingly disrupted today. It has evidently shifted in favor of the tendency to base innovation decisions on financial-market-driven pseudo-exact performance indicators and analyst ratings, and in favor of specialist and innovation expertise. Contemporary shorthand for groups like these is increased capital market orientation. In the current discourse, this set of problems crops up under the headings financialization, financial market capitalism and shareholder value. This begs the question of whether the trends associated with this are not increasingly undermin)>> This is the project entitled “Innovation and co-determination: regulation requirements, orientations of interest and the development of rules for handling innovation” conducted from 20072009 and funded by the Hans Böckler Foundation. In this project, 4 intensive case studies and 8 short case studies were carried out in industrial companies. We conducted a total of around 120 interviews in the 12 companies, including 76 employee interviews with natural scientists, engineers, technicians and laboratory technicians in R&D departments. The research report is currently still in progress (June 2010).

2


41

ing the social conditions and needs of innovation (work) (cf. Deutschmann 2005; Hirsch-Kreinsen 2008). There is in fact evidence for this. Economic and organizational determining factors are increasingly perceived as restricting professional performance and the innovation process into which this feeds. Greater economization in the organization of companies and businesses and increased dependence of R&D projects on market analyses and expected returns are cited. Market parameters (e.g. product time to market) are regarded as easy to plan or fixed by the management. On the other hand, under the pressure of economization, the time and resource requirements of innovation work with its diverse imponderabilities and planning uncertainties are treated as just as calculable and reliable to plan as other values. This is carried over to the performance of specialist tasks – with a strong tendency not to tolerate too much uncertainty if possible and if in doubt, to decide against too much innovation. With economization, continuous organizational restructuring (particularly in multinational companies) and recent (IT-assisted) planning and control measures in R&D, however, the very uncertainties which these measures were intended to expel from the processes are growing. The main problem evidently often centers on whether it is possible to guarantee the reliability of processes at all under such conditions, and how to still (or once again) harness the experience-based knowledge of older innovation personnel required for this (cf. Grewer et al. 2007). However, there are also counterforces. In the cases we investigated, the influence of R&D in the company is (still) strong enough – and by no means trumped by that of controlling, for example – to secure the necessary freedom. “No matter how sophisticated your controlling instruments are, you cannot extract innovations by force.” This statement from a company is not the only one of this kind. Despite increased pressure for legitimization and success, it appears that the conditions for enabling unconventional and unpredicted innovation processes, for changing direction, the productive waits for new projects, are still for the most part very much alive and well. Innovation and innovation work are certainly not easily or irrevocably hindered or damaged by a dominant shareholder value orientation. New uncertainty-tolerant balances between market, organization and innovation (work) logics are possible. They are, however, admittedly subject to many conditions and reliant on suitable interest-based arrangements and negotiation processes by the operational players. (2) Cooperation cultures and social security as innovation conditions In the current sociological debate regarding highly qualified employees (which include innovation workers), the spectrum of theses and interpretations ranges from stressing the close company loyalty that this professional group still exhibits (cf. Kotthoff and Wagner 2008) to the thesis that they are increasingly turning their back on old company loyalties and moving in the direction of “intrapreneurs” (e.g. Heisig and Ludwig 2004) or stronger “wage-earner orientation” (Boes and Trinks 2006; translated by author). In this general discussion about highly qualified individuals, however, too little attention is paid to the significance of the way in which innovation processes are specifically shaped by work and cooperation and

42)>>

Harald Wolf

the particular professional and practical orientations. The Communities of practice discussion (cf. Brown and Duguid 1991; Braun-Thürmann 2005) and the “Theory of the Innovative Firm” (Lazonick 2005) attempt to focus on this dimension of the specific cooperation cultures of innovation operatives while also, and in some cases especially, exploring its relevance to the ability to embrace uncertainty and achieve innovation success. Added to the development and long-term preservation of these cultures, however, is the general need for security in the work and employment environment. Globalization and financial market orientation are triggering serious changes in industry, and experiences are characterized by continuous organizational restructuring, job cuts and changes of ownership. For this reason in particular, according to a key finding, innovation workers are placing more value on the works councils and co-determination as guarantees of a secure, regulated work and employment environment. This only appears surprising if you see security and freedom plus modernization as opposites. Social security – primarily in the sense of job security and job stability – is becoming virtually a pre-condition in innovation processes for sensible handling of a high degree of uncertainty. This is only possible in the longer term by stabilizing long series of goals and making the necessary collective scope for action and learning permanent. The finding confirms an older insight from the sociology of social politics (cf. Vorbruba 2009) in an unexpected way and also merits particular attention for socio-political reasons. Only on the basis of suitably secure, long-term employment relationships can the cooperation cultures referred to previously develop. (3) Highly expert at self-regulation – still... Based on the cooperation cultures in R&D and – in the best cases – supported by arrangements for relative social security, companies have become highly expert at self-regulation. This ensures, as it were, the embracing of uncertainty from below. The rules of the game when it comes to cooperation and innovation in businesses are the object of continuous reflection and communication by the innovation workers themselves. This permanent reflection about the meaning and appropriateness of the applicable rules is, in a way, already inherent in a type of work that constantly compels the questioning of its own premises and often, at least on a small scale such as the project organization, forces re-justification. It extends beyond the constant need for self-regulation within this framework, however, and moves towards critical reflection and a need for co-determination of rules. Yet economization trends threaten not only cooperation cultures and social security, but also the conditions for preservation and the further development of self-regulation expertise and innovative capability. Ongoing organizational restructuring and the acceleration of innovation processes make the utilization of knowledge and highly experienced specialist know-how, which can be called upon as a matter of course when necessary, ever more difficult. The erosion of rapidly available experience-based knowledge and informal structures that provide cushioning is cited (cf. Hack and Hack 2005, 219 et seq. and 292 et seq.; Grewer et al. 2007). The highly expert self-regulation learnt and practiced in mature cooperation


43

cultures, which is essential for day-to-day productive embracing of uncertainty, appears today to be increasingly weakened and endangered.

3)>>Summary Both historically and in the present, the management of research and development fluctuates between risk management and tolerance of uncertainty. Risk management approaches are based on external planning of the new and directly controlling its generation. The notion of tolerance of uncertainty and embracing uncertainty, on the other hand, is expressed in alternative approaches within innovation practice, organization theory and innovation research. Development trends in current innovation practice such as the increasing capital market orientation of many companies and the vitality that still exists in innovation-friendly cooperation cultures indicate that social security and expertise in self-regulation are highly relevant as conditions for innovation, but also the fact that these are under threat.

4)>> Future Research Requirements Mainstream innovation research today is highly focused on the innovation outcome (innovation success, competitiveness) and general development trends. However, innovation and innovation management in direct innovation practice – and above all concrete work on innovations – must themselves be researched with much more precision in future. This must take into account real problem situations in different industries, and in addition to the industrial sector, must focus above all on the increasingly important service innovation sector. This also means that actual innovation work (jobs, cooperation, informal rules, communities of practice, innovation and project ecologies) should be increasingly researched. More than before – and in line with more recent management discourses such as Open Innovation – research should be carried out beyond and across operational and organizational boundaries, because innovation processes extend across company boundaries and the key factors for innovation success are not found only inside individual organizations. Ultimately, future research needs to ask how the standard perspective of the risk management approach to innovation which still prevails and is deeply rooted in the established organizational structures and concepts can be shaken up and perhaps even surmounted. As stated, the standard perspective is also rooted in power interests. “What are favorable power constellations and interest coalitions for overcoming this standard perspective (in terms of the role of different stakeholders and e.g. also co-determination institutions)?” would be a highly sensible question for research (oriented in this direction: Sperling and Wolf 2010).

44)>>

Harald Wolf

5)>> Prospects – Activate Innovative Capability through Increased Trust and Self-Regulation rather than even more Risk Management Though uncertainties are a constituent part of innovation, it is for this very reason by no means a process without rules. It is still regulated by planning and control – and not always, as the research shows, in a positive way. When it comes to tolerance of uncertainty and the concept of embracing uncertainty, much more self-regulation expertise in the innovation processes themselves is desirable, both officially and as a counterbalance. A prerequisite for this is more trust and more scope for action for the innovation operatives themselves in the research laboratories and development offices. “Democratizing innovation”, the slogan referred to by Hippel (2005), means empowerment of the users. Why not the producers too? The risks – possible loss of power by the planners and controllers – need to be seen alongside the opportunities for higher innovation rates and successes, which are well documented in the findings of innovation research, and I believe these opportunities should in all cases be given greater weight.

Bibliography Boes A, Trinks K (2006) Theoretisch bin ich frei! Interessenhandeln und Mitbestimmung in der IT-Industrie. edition sigma, Berlin Braun-Thürmann H (2005) Soziologie der Innovation. Transcript, Bielefeld Brown JS, Duguid P (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. In: Organization Science 2 (1): 40-57 Burns T, Stalker GM (1994) The Management of Innovation. Vol 3, OUP, Oxford/ New York Deutschmann C (2005) Finanzmarkt-Kapitalismus und Wachstumskrise. In: Windolf P (ed) Finanzmarkt-Kapitalismus – Analysen zum Wandel von Produktionsregimen. KfZSS, special edition 45: 58-84 Fagerberg J (2005) Innovation: A Guide to the Literature. In: Fagerberg J et al (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. OUP, Oxford/ New York: 1-26 Grewer HG, Matthäi I, Reindl J (2007) Der innovative Ältere. Warum die Entwickleruhr länger als sieben Jahre tickt. Rainer Hampp, München/ Mering Hack L, Hack I (2005) Wissen, Macht und Organisation. Internationalisierung industrieller Forschung und Entwicklung – ein Fallvergleich. edition sigma, Berlin Hage J (2000) Die Innovation von Organisationen und die Organisation von Innovationen. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, vol 11, 1: 6786 Hauschildt J, Salomo S (2007) Innovationsmanagement. 4. Edition. Vahlen, München Heisig U, Ludwig T (2004) Regulierte Selbstorganisation. Arbeitssituationen und Arbeitsorientierungen von Wissensarbeitern in einem High-Tech Unternehmen. IAW Forschungsbericht 6/ July 2004 Hippel v E (2005) Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge/ Mass


45

Hirsch-Kreinsen H (2008) Technologische Innovationen und Bedingungen des FinanzÂ� marktes. Beitrag zur Tagung „Theoretische Ansätze der Wirtschaftssoziologie“. Berlin, February 18 – 19, 2008 Kalkowski P, Mickler O (2009) Antinomien des Projektmanagements. Eine Arbeitsform zwischen Direktive und Freiraum. edition sigma, Berlin Kotthoff H, Wagner A (2008) Die Leistungsträger. Führungskräfte im Wandel der Firmenkultur – eine Follow-up-Studie. edition sigma, Berlin Lazonick W (2005) The Innovative Firm. In: Fagerberg J et al. (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. OUP, Oxford/ New York: 29-55 Luhmann N (2000) Organisation und Entscheidung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen/ Wiesbaden Moldaschl M (2006) Innovationsfähigkeit, Zukunftsfähigkeit, Dynamic Capabilities. Moderne Fähigkeitsmystik und eine Alternative. In: Schreyögg G, Conrad P (ed) Management von Kompetenz (Managementforschung 16). Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden: 1-36 Nausner P (2006) Projektmanagement. Die Entwicklung und Produktion des Neuen in Form von Projekten. WUV, Wien Neumer J (2009) Neue Forschungsansätze im Umgang mit Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in Arbeit und Organisation. Expertise on behalf of the project “International Monitoring” – Research Group “Management of Uncertainty”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/Downloads/ Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Neumer.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Noble DF (1977) America by Design. Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. Alfred A. Knopf, New York Power M (2007) Organized Uncertainty. Designing a World of Risk Management. OUP, Oxford/ New York Shapin S (2008) The Scientific Life. A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Sperling HJ, Wolf H (2010) Zwischen Sicherung und Gestaltung – Varianten mitbestimmter Innovation in der Industrie. In: WSI-Mitteilungen vol 63, 2: 79-86 Vobruba G (2009) Die Gesellschaft der Leute. Kritik und Gestaltung der sozialen Verhältnisse. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden West J, Bogers M (2010) Contrasting Innovation Creation and Commercialization within Open, User and Cumulative Innovation. Paper to be presented at the Academy of Management, Montréal, August 9-10, 2010, http://www.joelwest.org/Papers/Â�WestBogers2010. pdf. Accessed June 2010

Commentary on the Main Article “Beyond Planning and Control. Alternative Approaches to the Management of Industrial Research and Development”

The Role of Psychological Contract in Supporting Innovation Activity Elise Ramstad

The article by Dr. Wolf discusses of the changing role of planning and control and risk taking as sources for innovation in the increasing capital orientation of many companies. Based on the earlier research they both are needed in the innovation process; there is a need for uncertainty and risk taking as sources for new ideas and innovation, while planning and control are required for handling and embracing uncertainty and making the innovation realized. In the zone of innovation there is a continuous search for balance of planning and control and chaos (figure 1). At the one extreme, planning and control and the low diversity of knowledge does not encourage learning and innovation. Overembeddedness of similar knowledge reduces the flow of novel information because redundant ties to the same type of knowledge mean that there are fewer links to partners who can potentially contributeÂ�

LOW

predicted outcomes

Chaos

Zone of Innovation

Planning and Control

HIGH HIGH

similarity - diversity

LOW

Figure 1: The zone of innovation related to the similarity and diversity of properties and predicted outcomes. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_5, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

48)>>

Elise Ramstad

to innovative ideas. At the other extreme, when the knowledge bases are totally different, interaction and the creation of shared knowledge become impossible. The danger is that the system ends up in chaos, where the prediction of outcomes is difficult to assess. There is a need of balanced composition between the diversity of knowledge or cognitive distance (cf. Noteboom 2000). So, the diversity and complementary of the participants’ knowledge is an important aspect of learning opportunities, collective problem-solving and the potential for innovation up to a certain point. This challenges the management of innovation process. The challenge in the modern work organization, is to get the whole organization strive towards innovation. According to Dr. Wolf the rules of innovation creation has changed as part of the economization which threaten not only cooperation cultures and social security, but also the conditions for development activity and innovative capability. The author suggests that there is a need for alternative approaches and methods such as more trust and continuous reflection and communication of the innovation activity of the participants. At the moment, there has been similar discussion also in Finland and in many other developed countries, under the concept of psychological contract. Today, increasing body of academics agree that the psychological contract can impact on employee and organizational innovation behavior and activity, and in turn performance of the company. The origins of the psychological contract go back to thousands years, but it has emerged more recently as part of the globalization of business organizations. The psychological contract refers to the mutual expectation an employee has of the organization and the expectations management has of the employee. At its core the psychological contract is about mutual, typically unspoken expectations; things that the employee can expect from the employer, and the organization can expect from the employees and the team members. Each employee has expectations about things, such as salary or pay rate, working hours, good working environment, benefits and privileges. Similarly, the organization has expectations that the employee will be loyal, will do his or her best and will be productive. Earlier, the employee contracts were something that was taken for granted. However, at the moment individual employees and organizations are under enormous pressures to change their expectations of people and in turn their psychological contracts. According to Schein (1980), as the needs and the external forces change, so do expectations making the psychological contract must be constantly renegotiated. At the moment, the psychological contact are under pressure of the dramatic changes in the global economy, including the liberalization of markets, changing consumer expectations and the development of low-cost and high-quality technology and services in Asia. Organizations are pushed to create innovations, reduce costs, increase markets and serve customer needs ever better, by creating dramatic changes in work practices, management and employee behavior. In this climate of change, work organizations must now continuously renegotiate the terms of the agreements to fit changing circumstances (Altman and Post 1996). The traditional psychological contract may no longer be valid, and employees and employers are alike to reconsider their expectations and obligations.

The Role of Psychological Contract in Supporting Innovation Activity)>>49

At the moment, much interest is now being shown to the of discussion of new type of psychological contract in increasing number of human resource and innovation management literature, and the form it can take in practice in different organizations. The globalization and the competitions of innovations have created new type of expectations. As business organization are working in more turbulent surroundings, company units are transferred to cheaper countries, and there is constant competition on new improvements and innovations. For employers it has become more vital to have innovative and loyal workers, while for the employees the most important things are the social security (job security and job stability) and the development of skills. It is argued, that in order to get employees more innovative and foster innovation, it is important to clarify and acknowledge these new types of expectations of both sides, in order to reach high-level business outputs and collective relationship. However, the psychological contract is not restricted between employees and the management, but it is between each individual partner and all the other partners of innovation activity of the company. Also the internal relationships across colleagues and the external networks by individual employees and teams are of important by providing continuous learning opportunities and access to new knowledge. This means contacts to the customers, suppliers and external experts such as universities, polytechnics and consultancies are important sources for new ideas and innovations. The psychological contract can be used as a powerful vehicle to drive innovative behavior of employees and business performance. In order to enhance innovation, organization actively seeks to drive innovative behavior of their employees. Innovative managers listen and respond to people’s ideas and concerns and give reward for individual employees according to their contribution. The employees may have also different types of contracts based on the recruitment, own interests and discussions. It might not always be financial rewards, but meaningful careers and secure jobs. It is suggested, that in collaboration, where the parties involved know and acknowledge their joint and own interests and they also possess information and skills that supplement each other, can create new solutions for both work organization and individual participants and this way lead to better competitiveness of organization. In Figure 2 the multiple objectives (joint and own) are being visualized. The participants all share a common objective (e.g. innovation), whereas their approaches, activities, values and knowledge how to create innovations can vary. The actors collaborate with each other in order to compromise and to find new solutions by reflecting. In addition, the participants can have also their own interests and motives that are needed to take into account. Other targets can refer e.g. to the wellbeing at work, security of work contract, development of skills, better products and services etc.

50)>>

Elise Ramstad

Innovation, performance, wellbeing

Joint Targets

Actors and collaboration

Other targets of participants

Employee

Employer

Expert, user, producer

Target of A

Target of B

Target of C

Figure 2: Multisubjective orientation to the innovation activity.

This type of combination of knowledge may enable understanding the target of innovation activities in a new way and also (re)formulating work organizations themselves. Knorr-Cetina (1982) has called projects with multiple motives and goals as a transepistemic arena where different interests may collide. The different types of knowledge of actors can both compete and collaborate with each other at the same time. Particularly the issues dealt in the organizational development and human resource management can be very sensitive, as they are closely linked to the issues of the employer’s right of direction. For example, there can be several different points of view on how to improve the productivity of the work organization, which can be at the same time contradictory e.g. new ways of organizing work, reduction of personnel and investing in new techniques. Furthermore, the duration – decisions made in short or long term – can have effects on the development strategy and solutions. (cf. Ramstad 2008) However, the contradictions should not be considered as a negative factor, but as a source of conflict learning and qualitatively improved knowledge. The challenge is to create the best potential for joint problemsolving and learning with a help of different point of views.

Bibliography Altman BW, Post JE (1996) Beyond the social contract: An analysis of executives; views at 25 large companies. In: D. T. Hall (ed) The Career is Dead- Long Live the Career: AÂ€Relational Approach to Careers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco: 46-71 Hargadon AB (2003) How Breakthroughs Happen. The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA Knorr-Cetina K (1982) Relativism – What Now? Social Studies of Science, vol 12: 133-136 Noteboom B (2000) Learning and Innovation in Organisations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

The Role of Psychological Contract in Supporting Innovation Activity)>>51

Ramstad E (2008) Innovation Generating Model – Simultaneous Development of Work Organization and Knowledge Infrastructure. Helsinki University of Technology. Report 65 by the Finnish Workplace Development Programme Tekes, Helsinki Schein EH (1980) Organisational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

New Forms of Project Organization and Project Management – Dynamic and Open Sibylle Peters

Abstract The increasing structuring of work and organizational processes by forming project involves new challenges to the handling of knowledge work and expands the scope to generate innovations. The classic project management alone is less and less able to manage complex, uncertain, knowledge-based processes. Through alternative approaches social, actor-oriented topics of management will be addressed.

1)>>Introduction The increase of knowledge-based and -oriented work contents changes the work and organization processes in a sustainable manner, respectively the development of new knowledge-intensive activities has a transformational effect on existing segments within the labor market and stimulates new developments in working processes which are subsequently reflected in modified organizational structures. The basis of these effects is the ever-increasing tendency towards structuring and implementing work processes, and therefore value creation processes, in the form of projects. This means that work and organization are directly linked by new forms of project organization – that is to say, work and organization are projectified. Work processes and organizational structures are currently increasingly becoming the focus of attention as their capability to generate innovations is recognized. In the micro-fields of operative work processes and decentralized organizational structures the innovative capability opportunities will become the object of innovationoriented analysis and management processes. The level of interest in both work process innovations and organizational structures is so high because the social system of the organization has to follow a set of strategic rules, however these rules increasingly fall short as the activities relating to the strategic planning and preliminary decision-making processes become ever more complex and knowledge-intensive. As planning processes gain in complexity, their central concern is to identify and develop opportunities to improve the controllability of procedures that help maintain the controllability and manageability of the planning process. However, in cases where there is a degree of uncertainty in planning and management, attempts are made to bring these under control through use of more effective models. Project organization in this context occurs as a strictly organized form S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_6, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

54)>>

Sibylle Peters

for facilitating innovations, but does however have a tendency to involve blind spots when it comes to promoting innovation. This directs attention towards the visualization of the blind spots generated by the project forms (cf. Böhle and Wolf in this volume). The subjects and focus of analysis and design in this contribution are consequently project work, project organization and project management. These are of equal interest both as work and organizational forms because, in their projectified form, they relate to the hierarchy and procedural aspects of organizational structures, the dynamic of leadership and the process of administration. This affects links between the structural and activity level because the activity level is gaining in importance as the level of operational administration, due to the increase in knowledge-dependent activities, and is able to get a handle on addressing the problem of blind spots. The dynamic character of projects is increasingly establishing stakeholder-led design options alongside the objective orientation of work and organizational structures. Consequently, professional activities relating to the coordination of work and the design of the organization are gaining in importance alongside the formal management aspects of projects. Correspondingly, new ways and forms need to be found that can generate the increasing amounts of knowledge of the stakeholders working on the project required for innovation.

2)>> New Challenges in Project Organization 2.1)>> Relationships between Project Organization and Knowledge Work A phenomena of the modern age, the various forms of project and project organization are encountered in ever more fields of human activity relating to production, service provision and administration processes (cf. Nausner 2006). As a result, the concept of technical rationalization and control of work and organizational processes is dissolved, however the openings this creates are still too seldom used in operational micro-processes as topics for research and development. New patterns of work organization will be generated within these forms to expand the scope for knowledge-intensive activities or to break-up/ reorganize Tayloristic work systems, for example. At the operational level of project organization a completely new field – project management – has emerged resulting in hybrid forms of merged work and organization.1 Project management is a symbiosis of organizational principles with a system comprised of method sets. The underlying aim is to use a specific management system to enable innovation processes beyond the possibilities of traditional and )>> Project organization is defined as a work and organization form that establishes the structural framework of projects. (This is not to be understood as being synonymous with group work.) By contrast, project management encompasses the process of controlling the progress of pÂ�rojects (cf. Bea and Göbel 2002; Becker 2004; Bergmann and Garrecht, 2008; Bea et al. 2008; Kerzner 2003).

1

New Forms of Project Organization and Project Management – Dynamic and Open)>>55

functional organizational and procedural processes. To achieve this, the project team must ensure that tasks are processed efficiently and steer conflicts into controlled channels, that is to say make way to generate new ideas (cf. Bröckling 2006; Madaus 2000; Bea et al. 2008). Project developments and traditional management strategies are getting increasingly close to the limit of their effectiveness. New constructs of models are constantly being developed to meet the challenge of better controlling structures and processes, which demands modifications to the tools used for work and organizational development. The reorientation of human resources development tools is still in its infancy (cf. Meifert 2010). This is demonstrated from the perspective of more recent approaches to project management in the fact that the specified conditions within an organization no longer provide sufficient basis for the management of knowledge-intensive activities (cf. Wilkesmann, 2010, 481 et seq.). Project organization is coming close to the limits of effectiveness and innovation expectations because knowledge-intensive activities and specified structures are now demonstrating elements of incompatibility. This appears to be particularly serious in the case of division of labor, which symbolizes repeated routine activities and has the effect of continuously reinforcing this behavior through coordination/ configuration. Because the innovative capability is a predominant aim within a project organization, attention is now increasingly being focused on the leeway that all stakeholders within the organization have to circumvent the imponderable aspects of the organizational and procedural structures. These stakeholders assume different roles as members of various projects. Their work at interfaces and in areas of doubt reinforces uncertainty and represents a challenge for innovation and individual career development in connection with human resources development. The various membership roles of these stakeholders do not necessarily correspond to the logic of the organization, in other words they are not represented within the organization (cf. Lang and Rattay 2005). Those involved in projects and project management are constantly on the lookout for innovation opportunities offered by new work and organization forms and by modified rules of management and leadership systems. Project management and innovation expectations are closely attached within these systems. 2.2)>> State of Research into Project Management Within the fields of project organization and project management, the practice of defining fixed rules and guidelines aims to specify a stable orientation framework for management to present to the workforce. This has the effect of excluding other professional options for action that do not fall within traditional management practice, since the planning and control elements of traditional project management are geared towards the expected results of efficiency and effectiveness. Knowledgeoriented activities on the other hand follow different models for the generation of options for action, resulting in the need to open up opportunities for interdisciplinary approaches to managing and facilitating innovation that go beyond the scope of traditional management. Policies requiring an orientation towards rationalization refer to boundaries which makes approaches such as “mastery of uncertainty

56)>>

Sibylle Peters

vs. powerlessness in the face of uncertainty” possible (Neumer 2009; translated by author; cf. Böhle in this volume). The inclusion of a stakeholder level alongside the structural level offers alternatives to this. 2.2.1)>> Traditional Project Management and Alternative Approaches Traditional project management concentrates on the control of technical processes, taking into account social aspects that consider motivation additionally. Both project organization and project management are embedded in project regulations with specific goal and time dimensions and a demarcation of other activities creating innovations. They are characterized by the allocation of finances and resources in predictable, controllable, manageable project processes (cf. Bröckling 2007, 248 et seq.; Nausner 2006). In this respect, projects are bound to the authority and decision-making structures of the organization and standardization in project structures ensures their integration into organizational procedures (cf. Bergmann and Garrecht 2008; Madauss 2000). It is significant that these additional organization forms originally were used to identify new elements for innovative, temporary activities aside organizational routine. In this respect, various differentiated models of project management2 have emerged, however the distribution of work and membership within these models remains rooted in the structure of the organization. Creativity plays a role in temporary organization forms and is something that needs to be directed along the appropriate organization channels as ever more temporary organization and work forms get put through their paces. It is expected that, within the scope of the development and acceptance of project work in different organizations, it will be possible to continuously create new instances of novelties and innovations through the differentiation of organization and management forms. Particularly in the Anglo-American sphere, alternative approaches to traditional project management result in a response within technical control factors due to the particular way that management models are created when the technical and social dimensions are considered. They give particular weight to the development and accentuation of individual aspects in the mode of predictability and differentiation of IT processes (cf. e.g. Söderlund 2002). In this sense, management systems are developed by rational means, with modifications to these principles being unintentional and with all process management activities applying from the perspective of carrying out operations. Projects are handled according to a causal structure in this sense. In the context of this type of approach to project management, formal training paths and programs have been developed with the aim of developing and passing on the necessary skills and expertise (cf. Madauss 2000; Kuster et al. 2006; Peters and Steckel 2010).

)>> Cf. matrix management, staff management and multi-project management

2


2.2.2)>> Alternative Approaches to Project Management Research As a result of the fact that innovations are no longer only expected in strategic projects as a result of increasing effectiveness and efficiency, the consideration of uncertainty within strategic planning activities is drawing a certain degree of attention. Consequently, it is no longer a case of just systematically eradicating nonpredictable organizational and management problems, but rather a desire to develop new approaches. Clearly, this does not happen without deviating from established practice, since the idea is to purposefully produce surprises; in other words a certain amount of irritation is permitted (cf. Luhmann 1999). An effort must be made to use a decision-theoretic approach to consciously examine the limits of predictability as a central theme of organizational and management problems. So it is that alternative approaches arise from the fundamental idea that while procedural and hierarchical structures follow the elementary criteria of the organizational structures, projects do to a certain degree develop their own interrelationships and select their own modes of working, with this effect becoming more pronounced as the structure of the work relating to division of knowledge becomes more open. This means that in terms of decision-making and planning processes, alternative approaches all seek to find new ways to incorporate social systems, in order to create a more dynamic link between the technical and social dimensions. The aim here is to make use of planning and control elements to transcend the functional and operational characteristics of traditional project management and to, for example, make openness to change and the outlining of visionary ideas into prerequisites for the design of new solutions. Communication and other soft factors are becoming an inherent part of the various work phases. This is a particular aim of change management in combination with project management, which seeks to detect any discontinuities in the current project process phases. Four alternative approaches to project management research are currently the subject of increased discussion. These are discussed in more detail below. Systemic-evolutionary project management is pursuing the goal of integrating social systems (reality constructs) through application of various theoretical constructions that call for equal attentiveness to be given alongside technical systems. The inherent dynamism that exists within the projects is consciously integrated into the management processes as a self-referential model. In this form, project management is reliant on different co-operations and interrelationships resulting from the ordering of activities in procedural structures. This model points out that the complexity underlying the structuring of predictability and mastery including the associated rules is inadequate in providing a means to understanding the situation as a whole, and therefore that no planning activity is ever able to consider more than just parts of the system. The evolutionary element aims to emphasize the unpredictability with intentional patterns in determinate goals and schedules. The key principles are dealing with open-ended goals and practicing variety engineering, that is to say that a range of management options should be maintained. In this project form it is seen as inevitable that projects and project management will be much more complex than would be assumed by traditional

58)>>

Sibylle Peters

forms of project management. This is a central theme of the four worlds of project management.3 Virtuous (configured) project management has also been paraphrased as the concept of Project Management 2nd Order (PM-2)4. This idea has its basis in the way that increasing complexity and working with an impermanent environment have an influence on project management. Therefore, the aim here is to arrange the four worlds of the structure and process models into a configured system. The basic concept of PM-2 comprises two elements, the first is the control aspect of traditional project management (PM-1) and the second from the extension of PM-1 that aims to understand management activities more dynamically. Traditional project management (PM-1) only allows a medium degree of complexity to be dealt with. This new approach looks to extend the manageable level of complexity with the help of systemic-evolutionary principles resulting from a more open understanding of how the requirements of division of labor are specified within the hierarchical structure of the project. In this respect, the work processes require reflexive information and communication in addition to monitoring in order to dynamically influence the project development and the project staff (cf. Saynisch 2008, 233 et seq.). The PM-2 model can be seen as a design manual in that it can be understood as a universal reference model and appears to be applicable as a way of handling complexity in projects of all types. The specifics of this approach at the project organization level lie in the configuration, that is to say the creation of optimized relationships between structured and chaos-theory-based design, in order to facilitate an optimized relationship between systemization and innovation in systemic operations and in the design of structures and processes. To understand agile project management it must be realized that a flexible, dynamic management structure must also be applied even when complex software systems are used. The principles of the virtual approach also apply here in connection with low management intensity and cooperative project work. Given the changeable determining conditions, it is considered particularly important that experts from different teams interact and cooperate within a defined set of mutually agreed targets. There is more to individuals and interaction than processes, tools and instruments, that is to say the quality of their collaboration contains an inherent value. These approaches already bring professional stakeholders into the picture alongside traditional management; however they are not yet recognized as such. Extensive regulation in the application of processes and instruments are considered to be inappropriate within the scope of these approaches, however they do demand that processes be adapted to the predominant target dynamic. The focus is not on configuration as a key principle, but rather with the preservation of dynamics and the effect that the dynamics have, in order to achieve a properly functioning result with less emphasis on detailed documentation (cf. Koch 2010, 69 et seq.; Kastl and Schmid 2009, 213 et seq.). )>> World 1: Traditional mode of acting and plan/actual comparison. World 2: Complexity and its interdependencies. World 3: Organization of motivation, communication of visions, expectation structures in the context of human resources policy measures. World 4: Principle of cyclic processes, linked steps (cf. Saynisch 2008). 4 )>> Considered in the program “Neue Wege im Projektmanagement” (Saynisch 2005 and 2008) 3


Experience-based project management and agile operations are complementary to each other. The concept diverges from modern perceptions of rationality and concentrates particularly on how modes of human activity are decisive factors in addressing complexity in projects. Particular focus is given here to the assumption that human activities do not consist entirely of the implementation of advance decisions, but rather are mainly concerned with exploring the options for action in the situation at hand, that is those that arise in the practical execution of the activity. A conscious effort is made to ensure that the lack of a predictable structure of activities does not inevitably lead to a loss of (managerial) ability to act, with this ability instead being supplemented and modified by the activities of the project members through self-organization on an as well as basis. Open-ended, situational project management provides opportunities to deal with eventualities by viewing the hierarchical structure and its allocation of functional roles in a more dynamic fashion (cf. Habler and Bürgermeister 2010). In summary, it can be said that the alternative approaches address the unfettering of planning and management processes, particularly in the sense of using social factors to manage the limits of predictability, through integration of the configuration dimension as a specific aspect of the division of labor. The management is carried out proactively by the various stakeholders against the background of their individual profiles and areas of expertise, and only becomes possible when all stakeholders interact in the context of modified hierarchical and procedural structures. In testing and implementing stakeholder-dependent decision-making and solutions to problems, reflection is being enabled. Of concern is the authorization of decision-making on the basis of self-organization and the negotiation and development of options for action by stakeholders with professional backgrounds that are not based on traditional managerial negotiation. Knowledge in and beyond projects can only possibly begin to be utilized if existing convictions based on both individual and organizational knowledge are used as a basis to support interactive, reflexive exchange between the two levels. This in turn can serve as a prerequisite for learning options and new human resources policy decisions. It is only through these measures that new options for organizational development beyond individual projects will be realized and become drivers for innovation. 2.3)>> The Personal Dimension as a Stakeholder Level Interactive and reflexive forms of working hold a key position within alternative management forms and therefore the stakeholders and their professional (efficient) activities need to be looked at alongside the dominance of organizational structures. With the increase in knowledge-intensive activities, a new level of attention is being paid to making the knowledge held by stakeholders a subject for discussion, as these stakeholders are no longer simply generating the form of their work tasks from experience (self-organization). They must adopt new knowledge from the professional perspective, they are dependent on extra-organizational collaborations and networks, and they assume project leadership functions alongside stakeholders from traditional professional management. This means that they are guided by

60)>>

Sibylle Peters

other professional strategies than those of traditional management. Consequently, stakeholder arenas and constellations are gaining influence on the micro-political level of the structure and dynamics of procedural processes. Taking this level as a starting point, the leeway afforded to managers and other professional experts must be investigated, since they deal with effects on projects and organizations on a consequence-oriented basis. It is significant whether or not these approaches to and analyses of project organization and project management give any indication of the extent to which these new specialized, temporary organization forms are successful in integrating new stakeholder groups and activating sources of innovation. Within their capacity as professional agents, managers and experts are interested in new connections and collaborations within project forms that equally involve new ways of shaping autonomy, trust and network flexibility within the process organization and bring about change in organizational development and work processes.5 For as long as professional management, with its strategic management and control functions, is viewed as the dominant professional mode of action and this strategic orientation is applied only to management processes within projects, challenging the theoretical specialist and decision-making requirements of the established modes of working is impossible, even if social dimensions are incorporated. With the focus at the micro-level, the view turns towards the inside of the organization that is at the interactions between stakeholders and their organizational contexts. This inwards refocusing within the organization is necessary in the context of the outer project management layer in order to also make stakeholders visible as temporary employees in respect of human resources development and their integration into the organization. The consequence of this is the need to unravel the stakeholder level through use of both evolutionary and professional policy concepts within organizational management processes (cf. Beckenbach and Daskalakis 2010, 259 et seq.; Krajewski 2004; Salazar and Peters in this volume). 2.4)>> Examples of Gaining Visibility of New Stakeholders in the Project Organization: Knowledge Promoters Knowledge-intensive activities are practiced by various stakeholders at the periphery of an organization, often beyond the reaches of any functional hierarchical structure, and as such are barely recognized as being part of the procedural structures by managers using traditional management strategies. These stakeholders possess knowledge in the form of their experiences both as individuals and in the context of their dealings with organizational convictions. They operate in scattered contexts beyond the scope of their allocated tasks. These knowledge resources merit being uncovered. One way of doing this is through knowledge promotion. This term encompasses system-specific and functionally linked operations that serve to identify both disruptions and potential within the work process. These can then be )>> Professional management is built on the basis of traditional management strategies, whereas the professionalism of stakeholder groups in knowledge-intensive activities embraces idealtypical elements of professional insight (cf. Langer and Manzeschke 2009, 5 et seq.).

5


addressed or utilized with the goal of promoting and accelerating knowledge flows (cf. Schnauffer et al. 2006, 80; Peters and Dengler 2010, 563 et seq.). Stakeholders with access to knowledge networks within the organization are referred to as knowledge promoters, but may also be understood as being pilots, because they represent an opportunity to systematically integrate subsets of personal and organizational knowledge into the organization’s added value and innovation processes (cf. Peters et al. 2010, 43 et seq.). This technique of knowledge promotion shows that complex activities beyond the reach of hierarchical structures are compounded forms of complexity and require the development of skills through the targeted application of practical knowledge. This must be addressed in human resources policy. Stakeholders with Multi-Project Management Functions Multi-project management is the embodiment of how complexity increases through project parallelism due to the need to both handle the individual projects and at the same time manage the entire undertaking. This appears to be a substantial challenge for companies, as in practice it is often the case that project leaders with differing areas of specialization are entrusted with more than half a dozen projects. They have both responsibility and the freedom to act autonomously in diverse areas; however they predominantly focus on matters of routine. In such cases the limits of manageability due to the level of complexity are evident. It is not uncommon to see projects prematurely cancelled due to the complexity becoming impenetrable, for example, when control over individual process phases is transferred. In order to maintain the dynamics of the project, a professional strategy is needed that goes beyond control and that, equally, is also able to offer scope for design at both the structural and activity-related levels. The dynamics are a decisive factor in control. As stakeholders in various projects, the project managers have to perform a balancing act of overall responsibility and are exposed to dynamics that dictate an obligation to act within time constraints. Detailed information gathering, configuration issues, etc. are dragged down the priority scale by the institutional dynamics. With the increase in developments towards multi-project management comes a corresponding rise in the number of practical examples that make evident that ensuring their own ability to act is the key challenge for the stakeholders. This is because they work more and more often at links between project organization and the organization, in other words in areas where traditional project management has reached the limit of its ability to remain in control.

3)>>Summary Project and networking structures have an increasingly strong presence in comparison to traditional organization structures. Terms such as project community and project economy are indicators of these developments, yet forms such as project organization are still only just beginning to be integrated into strategic corporate management practice. As a consequence of the transitory nature of project struc-

62)>>

Sibylle Peters

tures, project organization exerts very little pressure for change on the organization and as such the innovative capability is not consciously addressed. Complexity and dynamics only become topics for consideration when looking at alternative approaches, where actions and interactions in the form of self-organization are given a central place alongside the technical and organizational elements of management, yet remain independent of the allocation of roles within the hierarchy. This puts change processes and the limits of manageability squarely in the focus of design exercises at the research, theoretical and practical levels. The social and personal dimension is given a lower priority in all of the approaches outlined, even in cases where, for example, from the systemic perspective all coordinating dimensions are assigned their own relative importance. The continuation of each of the individual aspects is controlled without being modified by division of labor. Compiling and codifying these aspects therefore serves the purpose of establishing a basis that permits security while accepting uncertainty as an integral part of project work. The organization itself however remains unaffected, with the interdisciplinary and international division of tasks staying within the project organization without being reflected in the organization. Nonetheless, even these codified forms fail to reference the dovetailing of the structural with the operational activity level, in other words determination of goals and purpose always relates to the structural levels that are, depending on the stakeholders, auditable. A fundamental problem is that learning processes in project structures are under-supported and given too little attention. The interaction of structures and activity levels can create leeway for learning and therefore the innovative capability. In this respect, questions of memberships are an important focus, if stakeholders are working in parallel in multiple project forms. Their contractual situation follows the temporary patterns of a project-oriented professional life in accordance with the principle of decomposition and re-composition of specific project activities and expertise using the same repeating rules (cf. Peters and Steckel 2010). This includes the fact that their expertise is already so specialized that they are increasingly employed temporarily on projects without having membership in the company. This increases their career risk because these changing memberships go hand-in-hand with a corresponding weakening of social inclusion because the stakeholders, in their capacity as personnel, are repeatedly confronted with social exclusion processes. Nevertheless, it is the task of research and development to track career options within project structures (project careers) so that these temporary occupations do not to lead to loss of career orientation because they offer a precarious form of employment. This demands intervention in the form of personnel policy.

4)>> Research Requirements from the Perspective of Innovate Capability The focus on the integration of structural and activity levels in terms of research and development policy has until now been inadequately, not least because of the domi-


nance of professional management strategies. Managerial decision-making increasingly requires design scenarios that have both an interdisciplinary and diplomatic basis, that place the focus on negotiation with respect to the implementation of technical determinants. This allows uncertainty to become the subject of discussion in decision-making processes. A need arises for research that addresses the links between the structural and activity levels in issues such as: • How can new scenarios be developed at the structural and activity levels that permit stakeholder-oriented and institutional focus to coexist with respect to the promotion of variety? • What is the significance of forms of collaboration that, for example, strengthen trust and autonomy and are therefore able to complement power, hierarchy and professional management for the purpose of promoting the innovative capability? • What is the significance of trust and openness, including the forms of contractual situation and commitment at the stakeholder level, for knowledge exchange in highly complex structures? • Can traditional human resources development operate within project structures?

5)>> Ideas and Visions for Germany as Centre of Knowledge Project organization is becoming the dominant work form within the knowledge community. The challenge for research and development policy is to address this phenomenon and identify ways of connecting research into the innovation that is needed. The project form contains potential for a new integration of the members in the organizations – these members are the basis for creativity, and therefore the innovative capability, and can take a future-oriented approach to the management of uncertainty. Regulations for stakeholders in knowledge-intensive fields of activity follow different aspects of design to, say, self-organization through practical knowledge, with innovation-promoting activities centering on aspects such as networking and interests in meaningful developments derived from diplomatic sets of rules.

Bibliography Bea FX, Göbel E (2002) Organisation. UTB, Stuttgart Bea FX, Scheurer S, Hesselmann S (2008) Projektmanagement. UTB, Stuttgart Beckenbach F, Daskalakis M (2010) Invention und Innovation als kreative Problemlösungsprozesse. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N (ed) Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Metropolis, Marburg Becker J (2004) Prozessmanagement – Ein Leitfaden zur prozessorientierten OrganisationsÂ� gestaltung. Springer, Berlin

64)>>

Sibylle Peters

Böhle F, Weihrich M (ed) (2009) Handeln unter Unsicherheit. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden Böhle F, Voß GG, Wachtler G (2010) Handbuch Arbeitssoziologie. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden Bröckling U (2007) Das unternehmerische Selbst. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt Habler T, Bürgermeister M (2010) Erfahrungsgeleitetes Projektmanagement bei produktionsnahen Dienstleistungen. In: Heidling E, Böhle F, Habler T (ed) Produktion und DienstÂ� leistung, München/ Mering Hagen S (2009) Projektmanagement in der Öffentlichen Verwaltung. Wiesbaden Hardwig Th (2007) Interessen und Konflikte als Ansatzpunkte des Organisationslernens. München/ Mehring Hölzle K (2009) Die Projektleiterlaufbahn. Wiesbaden Kastl T, Schmid A (2009) Projektmanagement unter dem Blickwinkel von Komplexitätsund Netzwerktheorie. In: Mayer TL, Wald A, Gleich R, Wagner R (ed) Advanced ProÂ� ject Management. Lit, Berlin Koch D (2007) Neue Ansätze und Entwicklungen im Projektmanagement. Diplomarbeit an der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Augsburg Kurtz T, Pfadenhauer M (2009) Soziologie der Kompetenz. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden Kuster J, Huber E, Lippmann R, Schmid A, Schneider E, Witschi U, Wüst R (2006) Handbuch Projektmanagement. Springer, Berlin Krajewski M (2004) Projektemacher. Kadmos, Berlin Lang K, Rattay G (2005) Leben in Projekten. Linde, Wien Langer A, Manzeschke A (2009) Professionelles Management in der Medizin und SoÂ�zialen Arbeit. In: Schaeffer T, Pfadenhauer M (ed) Profession, Habitus und Wandel. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M. Luhmann N (1999) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt Madauss BJ (2000) Handbuch Projekt Management. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart Meifert M (2010) Personalmanagement. Springer, Berlin Moldaschl M, Stehr N (2010) Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Metropolis, Wiesbaden Nausner P (2006) Projektmanagement. UTB, Basel Neumer J (2009) Neue Forschungsansätze im Umgang mit Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in Arbeit und Organisation. Arbeitspapier, Aachen Pawlowsky R, Mistele P (2008) Hochleistungsmanagement. Gabler, Wiesbaden Peters S, Dengler S (2010) Wissenspromotion als Element von Wissensarbeit. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N (ed) Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Metropolis, Wiesbaden Peters S, Spengler T, Spiliopoulou M (2010) Wissensmanagement kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen in Zeiten demographischen Wandels. In: Kathan D, Letmathe P (ed) Wertschöpfungsmanagement im Mittelstand. Gabler, Wiesbaden Peters S, Steckel M (2010) Führungsnachwuchs in Projektwelten. In: Ladwig D, Kunze, Hartmann M (ed) Exit matters- Auf dem Weg in die Projektgesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: 97- 114 Saynisch M (2009) Management im Zeitalter hoher Komplexität und radikalen Veränderungen: Das Projektmanagement 2. Ordnung. In: Mayer TL, Wald A, Gleich R, Wagner R (ed) Advanced Project Management. Lit, Berlin Schnauffer HG, Stieler-Lorenz B, Peters S (ed) Wissen vernetzen. Berlin/ New York Söderlund J (2002) On the Development of Project Management Research: Schools of Thought and Critique. In: International Project management journal, vol 8, 1: 20-31 Wilkesmann U (2010) Die Organisation von Wissensarbeit. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N (ed) Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Metropolis, Wiesbaden Wittig A (2010) Professionalisierung von Projektleitern. Magisterarbeit an der Otto-vGuerickÂ�e Universität, FGSE, Magdeburg

Commentary on the Main Article “New Forms of Project Organization and Project Management – Dynamic and Open”

Managing in Complexity Harold Jarche)>>

In New Forms of Project Organization and Project Management – Dynamic and Open a key theme discussed is the lack of flexibility of traditional project management methods in dealing with complexity. With increasing requirements for complex and creative work we need new models to get things done. Many of our practices are still premised on work being simple or complicated. Simple systems are easily knowable, whereas complicated systems, while not simple, are still knowable through analysis. These can be easily managed. However, complex systems are not fully knowable though they can be partially understood through interaction with them. This is antithetical to many of the control protocols of traditional project management. In the developed world, simple work is constantly getting automated (e.g. automatic bank tellers) while complicated work is outsourced to the cheapest labor market (e.g. off-shore call centers). If companies want to remain competitive in the global market, they need to focus on complex and creative work. Much of complex work is in exception-handling and when exceptions are the rule, rigid rules must become the exception. We have to understand complex adaptive systems and develop work structures that let us focus our efforts on learning as we work in order to continuously develop next practices. In a knowledge-intensive and creative workplace the role of leadership becomes supportive and inspirational rather than directive. Artificial boundaries that limit collaboration and communication only serve to drag projects (and companies) down and create opportunities for more agile competitors. While agile methods for project management are discussed in New Forms of Project Organization and Project Management, an overall agile mindset is also required. This can be fostered in a culture of perpetual Beta. Perpetual Beta means we never get to the final release of our work and that our learning will never stop. Agile organizations realize they will never reach some future point where everything stabilizes and they don’t need to learn or do anything new. In additional to a mindset of agility, workers need a skillset of autonomy. However, we are trained early in life to look to authority for direction in learning and work. The idea that there is a right answer or an expert with the right answer S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_7, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

66)>>

Harold Jarche)>>

begins in our schools. Too often, the message from the workplace continues to be that good employees wait for their supervisor to tell them what to do. This is counter-productive in dealing with complexity and working in perpetual Beta. It destroys creativity. When we move away from a design it first, then build it mindset, we can then engage everyone in critical and systems thinking. Workers in agile workplaces must be passionate, adaptive, innovative, and collaborative. Autonomy is the beginning. Fostering autonomy and agility means that we talk about work differently. For example, dropping the notion of being paid for time is one way to start this change. An hourly wage implies that people are interchangeable, but no two minds are the same. Being paid for time fosters neither autonomy nor agility. There are many other human resource practices should be questioned and dropped, such as job competencies. The new networked workplace requires collaboration and cooperation. Complex problems cannot be solved alone. Tacit knowledge flows in networks through social learning. Learner autonomy is a foundation for effective social learning. It is the lubricant for an agile organization. Agility becomes a necessity as we deal with increasing complexity. In order to develop the necessary emergent practices to deal with complexity we therefore need to cultivate the diversity and autonomy of each worker. We also must foster richer and deeper connections which can be built through meaningful conversations. This is social learning in the workplace. Even in project management, learning is the work. One example of encouraging social learning is the government of British Columbia, Canada1 which developed an interactive intranet in order to foster collaboration and communication. The success of a social intranet ultimately has less to do with technology than with planning, governing and managing change. Walsh [B.C.’s Manager of Creative Strategies] had these lessons to share. Ditch perfectionism [perpetual Beta] Communicate! Communicate! Communicate! [social learning] Trust your team [Autonomy] Not your government’s voice As traditional core activities get automated or outsourced, almost all high value work will be done at the outer edge of organizations. At the fuzzy edge of the organization life is complex and even chaotic. On this periphery, where things are less homogenous, there is more diversity and more opportunities for innovation. Individuals, project teams and organizations have to move operations to the edge to continue learning and developing. In agile organizations, a greater percentage of workers will be on the edge. The core will be managed by very few internal staff. )>> http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/42471.aspx

1

Managing in Complexity)>>67

What does this mean for project management? No matter what model one prefers, it will have to be more open, networked and cooperative. Change and complexity are becoming the norm in our work. We already see this with increasing numbers of freelancers and contractors. Any work where complexity is not the norm will be of diminishing value. Embracing complexity and chaos is where the future of work lies.

Innovation and Learning – For a Future of Lifelong Learning Johannes Sauer

Abstract Innovation and continuous learning are two sides of one coin. Enabling innovation against this background means forming learning cultures which manifest above all through self-directed learning at work and a social environment which promotes learning. Precisely the process of transformation of the new German federal states has made clear the central role played by the learning culture in mastering changes and acquiring new skills. Consciously shaping a learning culture is still in its initial stages in this overall process, as the common belief prevails that an increase in learning needs can be met by providing further training. This alone, however, is not enough. The formation of working patterns and social environments which promote learning are key tasks for the future and without these the transition to a knowledgebased society will not be accomplished.

1)>> Towards a Knowledge Society Germany is in the process of globalization in the transition from an industrial to a knowledge society. Without going into detail here on the concept of a knowledge society, the narrow context surrounding innovation and learning is common to all attempts to define it. This becomes particularly clear with Willke, who provides the definition: “Allusion can be made to a knowledge society or to a knowledge-based society if, on the one hand, the structures and processes of the physical and symbolic reproduction of a society are permeated by operations that depend on knowledge in such a way that the processing of information, symbolic analysis and experts’ systems take precedence over other factors of reproduction. A crucial additional prerequisite of the knowledge society is that knowledge and expertise are subject to a process of continuous revision with innovations thereby turning into an everyday component of knowledge-based work” (Willke 1998, 355; translated by author). The transition from industrial to knowledge society is driven by the development phenomenon. It is not stability and statics, but change and innovation that characterize the systems driven by international competition. It is, however, an indisputable S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_8, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

70)>>

Johannes Sauer

and incontrovertible fact that development and innovation are inseparably linked to learning. Learning drives development and development drives learning. This learning, however, follows an activity and development pattern, but does not follow any perceptions of a necessary canon of education and training facilities (cf. Staudt and Kriegesmann 2000). The current situation in respect of continuing education policy can only be understood from an appreciation of the education policy of the 1960s and 1970s. In terms of education policy, this was the dawn of a new period for the education system at every level: expansion of schools and universities, scientification of vocational dual training and extension of compensatory further education. From this perspective, the German Advisory Council for Education in 1970 defined the need for organized continuing education according to a preliminary stage in education and the extension of further education as the fourth pillar of education, a demand that even now continues to be formulated over and over again in terms of policy (cf. e.g. the coalition agreement of 2005). This view and understanding of continuing education is also still an established opinion among education policy-makers, many university lecturers and practitioners which, of course, makes reforms and innovations in the field of continuing education difficult. Forty years later, therefore, we need to look back and then develop new perspectives. First of all, secular changes over the last 40 years need to be pointed out here: 1) )>>In spite of all possible criticism concerning the details: This policy has been a magnificent achievement that has virtually turned the pyramid of education in Germany on its head. Around 5% of graduates with the Abitur (school graduation permitting university entry), 15% graduating from Realschule (secondary school with general certificates of education) and 80% leaving Hauptschule (secondary school education to British equivalent of Year 9) were recorded in the 1960s. Today almost 40% of school graduates have access to university or a degree course, 25% leave with Realschule qualifications, 10% leave with Hauptschule qualifications and approx. 20% leave with no vocational or general certificate of education in any one year group. These developments have lasting effects on continuing education and lifelong learning, which could not be anticipated in 1970, the year that the structure plan appeared for the German education system. 2) )>>Economic activity has changed radically in the last 40 years: globalization, differentiation and tertiarization are some of the terms that describe these processes of change. In addition, there have been technical revolutions such as the global development of information and communication technologies, without which the verifiable acceleration in the processes of innovation would not be possible. 3) )>>Innovation is unthinkable without lifelong learning; innovation and lifelong learning are two sides of the same coin. The significance of lifelong learning is growing. Admittedly, a distinction should be made between lifelong learning and continuing education. The development that has been empirically discernible for years is that as lifelong learning becomes more important, continuing

Innovation and Learning – ForÂ€aÂ€FutureÂ€ofÂ€LifelongÂ€Learning)>>71

education recedes and that this is not reversible despite all the policy interests of the profession. The ideas of the German Advisory Council for Education that lifelong learning equals continuing education, and of continuing education as resumption of organized learning after a preliminary stage of education must be regarded as too narrow and no longer adequate for knowledge society (cf. Staudt and Kriegesmann 2000; Staudt 1997). Thus Baethge writes: “From the perspective of lifelong or life-enhancing learning, an institutional definition of continuing education represents a narrowing of the learning term, which excludes the vital on-the-job learning environments, learning environments in people’s social contexts and in the media” (Baethge et al. 2007; translated by author). 4) )>>The quicker the social, economic, technological and social changes take place, the more important learning in a process of activities at work and in the social environment becomes. Given the increasing differentiation, individualization and specialization in every area of life, it is therefore becoming necessary to organize infrastructures for self-organized learning in relation to work. This has been a strange task to date for the traditional continuing education institutions. 5) )>>Globalization, differentiation and the acceleration of innovation will continue. Enabling innovation is a major challenge here for Germany as a high wage country. This means that the transition to a knowledge society requires new lifelong learning strategies. High Tech presupposes High Competence. “If you were a police officer and flashed passing cars, you would catch the vehicle of economy, which moves rapidly under the pressure of competition, at 100km/ hr. The vehicle of education, which should actually be preparing our young people for the future, is only, however, travelling at 10km/ hr. With such a degree of desynchronization, no economy can be successful” (Toffler, qtd. Bergmann 2006, 13; translated by author). )>> Development towards new in-house learning cultures is fully underway here and is vital for Germany. New forms of in-house and external skills development strategies are being cultivated. Examples of this are the hotlines for inhouse tasks and problems, e.g. in the EDP sector, the growth of self-help strategies as well as problem-solving strategies, CIP and error prevention strategies or also Internet chat rooms. 6) )>>Increasing ambiguity and uncertainty )>> It only seems to be a paradox, that ambiguity and uncertainty increase with social development in almost every area of life. Reference is made to justify this to the following individual factors: • Individualization (institutions lose their power to provide guidance for action, crisis in the institution) • Acceleration (acting under time pressure, multitasking) • Creating dynamic structures/ project-shaped structures/ fluctuation (technical, organizational and staffing processes; disintegration of structures?) • Complexity (only (?) reduction no longer applies) • Pluralization of knowledge (science does not create certainty) • Networked systems (impossibility and limits of compartmentalization) • Globalization of the market (crisis in current control systems)

72)>>

Johannes Sauer

Dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity in practical contexts both of individuals as well as organizations and enterprises requires continuous lifelong learning, which cannot – particularly as regards coping with ambiguity – be covered in structural terms by continuing education.

2)>> Teaching from the Process of Transformation of the New German Länder (Federal States) The process of transformation from plan to market and the reorganization of the social system in the new German Länder since the beginning of the 1990s were the greatest imaginable process of innovation for society as a whole in the new states. This process was continually assisted by research from 2003 onwards. It resulted in important findings for the constantly flowing processes of innovation. Reference should be made here, when looking at the theme set, to some important results because they are of great significance for the future: 1) )>>The capacity limits of the continuing education concepts, as formulated by the German Advisory Council for Education and as they have clearly become a verbal benchmark – even if not a reality of continuing education policy over 3 decades. Continuing education according to an academic paradigm and even as a fourth pillar of the education system is neither adequate nor necessary in every case. Also, it is not sensible and efficient for coping with learning challenges in processes of social change. 2) )>>Changing the system in East Germany must be understood as a process of cultural change with a continuing development of values, attitudes, experience but also knowledge. This process cannot be handled in the form of a curriculum: “you cannot teach someone how to live” (Elston 1996; translated by author) or as the current saying goes: “nobody can be taught. You can only teach yourself” (Werner 2007; translated by author). 3))>> A distinction should be made between lifelong learning and its organization and continuing education and its organization. The effective organization of different forms of learning is a task for the future. The concept of the learning culture is forward-looking. 4) )>> One difference between qualifications and skills, namely the ability to deal with complex, unfamiliar new developments is becoming increasingly imperative. The European debate is also being imported to Germany – even if only slowly. 5) )>>Subjects who are learning as an organizational task are not only individuals, but also groups and organizations. This is justified by the fact that the sum of qualifications and skills having any effect in an organization is disproportionate to the sum of the individual qualifications and skills contributed by the organization’s members. 6) )>>The relative significance of continuing education as an instrument of employment policy needs further discussion and re-organization. The political effect of


demands such as continuing education instead of redundancy, unemployment is contingent upon qualifications, qualifications or continuing education speeding ahead as a substitute for work needs to be scrutinized. Continuing education and lifelong learning must make sense. 7) )>> There should be further discussion on the organization of a learning culture as an organizational task concerning education and labor market policy, and this discussion should be settled in the end. This also means the transition from linear teaching and learning structures to an organization of learning cultures, specified at QUEM by the fields On-the-job learning, Learning in a social environment, Learning in continuing education institutions and Learning in a network/ informal learning (cf. Erpenbeck and Sauer 2000). 8) )>>A key subject area in businesses is on-the-job learning. The job’s conduciveness to learning is the key organizational task. Businesses and staff development departments, however, are not fully prepared for this. 9) )>>Local authorities as well as businesses will in future be providing a necessary infrastructure for learning. Research work on the subject area of Learning in a social environment has made clear the major significance of learning through activities of gainful employment. Learning in self-help, community activity and social commitment areas, including learning in the recreational sector are active components of a culture of lifelong learning.

3)>> The Lifelong Learning Paradigm The lifelong learning paradigm emanates from the self-organization of lifelong learning of individuals, groups and organizations. The structures need to be organized in such a way that self-organization is possible. Organizing lifelong learning then means, among other things: • Organizing structures at work that are conducive to learning • Organizing structures that are conducive to learning in a social environment • Organizing traditional continuing education particularly where there are skills gaps • Extending opportunities for using IC technologies for lifelong learning • Developing tools for evaluating skills • Developing public and private reporting mechanisms for skills development • Re-organizing academic training on the subject of lifelong learning The need for new learning cultures can be opened up here in all sorts of ways. Justifications for this lie in widely differing social fields, some of which are highlighted in the outline below.

74)>>

Johannes Sauer

3.1)>> Informal Learning – Different Learning Patterns In the debate on continuing education over the last 15 years or so, triggered by Canadian analyses and the European discussion, the difference between formal, non-formal and informal learning has been discussed. The implication emerged that informal learning is more or less accidental, casual and unsystematic (cf. Dohmen 2001). This argument in favor of a rehabilitation of traditional continuing education can be counteracted. Different learning patterns are involved. If andragogic or technically systematic viewpoints are the focus in conventional continuing education, problem-solving is the major structural feature in activity-based and task-centered learning. Both patterns are of significance as they are in a complementary relationship. Admittedly, problem-solving is the focus for adults (cf. Dohmen 2000). A reassessment of lifelong learning is therefore required. 3.2)>> Empirical – Statistical Interpretations of Error The relationship between educational status and attitudes to continuing education is, according to a variety of analyses, frequently designated as: the higher the educational status, the higher the participation in continuing education. New promotional tools are therefore required to lead the educationally disadvantaged to take part in continuing education. Numerous promotional tools were given a head start, whether they are referred to simply as educational leave, the widest variety of continuing education premiums or even trade union demands for in-house continuing education. These tools all show only little success. In an analysis in 2002, Baethge and Baethge-Kinsky highlighted “Work – a second opportunity” (in relation to work experience and lifelong learning) in reference to the causalities that lie behind the empirical findings: those trained continue to educate themselves in different ways through institutional educational events. A good high level of training makes it possible to enter working life. Entering working life in this way is characterized by the learning intensity of the position acquired. This makes a high degree of informal learning possible. This again also creates the desire for systematized training, which is why a higher level of participation in continuing education can be detected (cf. Baethge and Baethge-Kinski 2004). Without the causal intermediate stages, however, continuing education does not make any sense, which is why the tools for promoting continuing education, such as educational leave, for example, fail. The criterion of work being conducive to learning is therefore of major significance and key to the innovative capability and the transition to a knowledge society. Another politically very important example for empirical interpretations of error is the continuing education reporting system of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. It is suggested here that an increase in Germany’s power of innovation is tied to the increasing numbers of participants and teaching hours. There is no academically funded research that supports this finding and represents a link between the power of innovation and continuing education. A


restructuring for learning culture reporting is needed here, to include every aspect of lifelong learning. 3.3)>> Innovation and Lifelong Learning – Innovation and Continuing Education Innovation research differentiates between incremental and instant innovations. Incremental innovations emerge through continuous development of what already exists by generating new skills and new knowledge at and through work. Traditional continuing education is only involved in these processes in exceptional cases and learning is focused here on the process of working. Instant innovations develop in a widely differing manner and here learning in a social environment, for example in the recreational sector, is also of major significance. It is one of the many preconceptions being cultivated that instant innovations are established through traditional continuing education. Glancing at the implementation of IC technologies shows that traditional continuing education was only sensible at an intermediate stage. 3.4)>> Learning on-the-job Current management strategies make learning on-the-job useful for business management reasons. Reference is made to the following as examples: • • • •

CIP: continual improvement processes as a challenge to the workforce Problem-solving strategies in company procedures Systematic analysis of errors with the workforce Generating innovations (for example, Neuererwesen in the GDR)

The organization of learning on the job is of major significance for incremental innovations. 3.5)>> The Preference for Learning on-the-job It can be assumed that the increase in workplace conduciveness to learning also goes hand in hand with making jobs a priority, even if there has been little analysis of this from an empirical point of view. The more attractive the jobs are, the greater their conduciveness to learning is. This still cannot be offset to the same extent by continuing education. Conduciveness to on-the-job learning is also meaningful for continuing education. If you wish to increase the attractiveness of jobs, you have to increase the conduciveness of the work to learning. The result of this is a major field of activity for the social partners. However, it is also true that if you want to promote continuing education, you must increase work’s conduciveness to learning, because continuing education has to make sense.

76)>>

Johannes Sauer

3.6)>> Conduciveness to Learning of Structures not an End in Itself A general political demand for structures that are conducive to learning makes little sense, particularly at company level, since it may contravene business management or socio-political terms and conditions. Why should the discounter’s cashier job be designed to be conducive to learning, particularly when it can be anticipated that these activities may be reduced by technical innovations? Conduciveness to learning needs to make sense and be useful both for the individual as well as for the organization. Considerable clarification is required here. 3.7)>> Work Conducive to Learning Must Add Up Work conducive to learning is only forward-looking if it brings recognition on the one hand for the employees, increases businesses’ innovative capability and adds up in terms of business management. This also applies, however, to continuing education. The relationship of learning on the job and traditional continuing education is still unclear on this. Both complementary as well as contradictory relationships persist. 3.8)>> Use of Skills as an Unutilized Resource Using employees’ skills is an insufficiently developed rationalization reserve on the one hand, for instance in endeavoring to improve machine running times, while on the other hand not using existing skills is in this respect an obstacle to innovation, when the motivation for lifelong learning depends in a variety of ways on the given use of skills because it is meaningful for lifelong learning. 3.9)>> Use of Skills and Demographic Change In view of the expected demographic change, new questions are being asked such as how can the skills of those no longer in gainful employment also be better used to keep these groups of the population mobile and, on the other hand, to make the existing qualifications and skills, some of which are at a very high level, more easily accessible for posterity. 3.10â•‡ The Dilemma of Dull Work Jobs that are virtually just routine are not conducive to learning, but also demand hardly any qualifications or skills. They therefore seem to suit educationally disadvantaged people that therefore remain unqualified. Since just routine jobs are at best subject to the risk of reduction due to mechanization, there is a cycle of underprivilege that is constantly replicating itself. Coping with the shortfall in dull jobs (cf. von Rosenstiel 2001), however, implies a capacity for learning that again relies on activities conducive to learning. Approximately 15% of any one year group leave the education system without any qualifications. This represents a serious problem since this group’s employabil-


ity and opportunities on the labor market are continuing to ebb at the same time as ever greater strengths are required on the labor market as a result of demographic change. A large proportion of these young people failed in the education system. Riester, the former German Employment Minister, put this in a nutshell when he said: “Lifelong learning gains in significance as formal training fades into the background. The proportion of patch-work curriculum vitaes is on the rise. We need to contain this development. This even applies in the current discussion about employment opportunities in the lower-paid sectors. We need to accept that even workforces that do not possess any ‘suitable’ formal qualifications can become skilled employees” (Riester 1997, 138; translated by author). As a result, there is a need here to develop strategies that find approval for learning on the job as well as in terms of educational policy and open up new opportunities for these young people by organizing work that is conducive to learning. The same is also true when you look at other groups of people. Patchwork CVs are on the rise generally. The more significant on-the-job learning – learning as part of the work process – becomes, the more serious is the loss of skills that emerges due to gaps, for various reasons, in the CV. Considerable clarification is required here.

4)>> Research and Transfer Requirements Research work on innovation and change over recent decades has brought significant perception gains in its wake. These perceptions have not so far been accepted to the extent needed in the organization of social practice, or of practice on the job market or in education policy. In this respect, there is in the first instance a serious need to move on to accepting and using new perceptions in terms of policy. Here, transfer research is a sui generis task, which needs to be mindful of the complex factors involved in learning cultures, the ambiguity of change and the interdependence of policy between the professional bodies if it does not wish to fail.

5)>>Summary In order to protect and extend Germany’s innovative capability and competitiveness, the extension and organization of learning cultures are of major significance within the process of transforming the industrial society into a knowledge society. This is different from and goes way beyond the extension of continuing education. Many new tasks await us, which are also changing, and must change the education and labor markets as well as social policy.

Johannes Sauer

Knowledge

rn ing of Le a

Experiences

inter-organizational

organizational

els

Skills

Le v

Values/Norms

Learning Contents/Competence Aspects

78)>>

inter-individual

individual

Learning Organization external On-Thefurther Job training education, market-like organization

Learning in the Process of Working

autodidactic learning

Figure 5.1: QUEM-Memorandum 1996, 461

Bibliography Baethge M, Solga H, Wieck M (2007) Berufsbildung im Umbruch: Signale eines überfälligen Aufbruchs. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin Baethge M, Baethge-Kinsky V (2004) Der ungleiche Kampf um das lebenslange Lernen. edition QUEM, vol 16, Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Bergmann B (2006): Kompetent für die Wissensgesellschaft. edition QUEM, vol 22, Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Dohmen G (2000) Warum Lernnetzwerke. 20 Thesen zur Bedeutung regionaler Lernnetzwerke für die Verwirklichung eines lebenslangen Lernens aller. http://www.Â�lernenderegionenÂ�.info/dlr/download/RedeDohmen.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Dohmen G (2001) Das informelle Lernen – Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher vernachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen aller. BMBF, http://www.bmbf.de/pub/das_informelle_lernen.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Elson K (1996) Man kann nicht die Menschen lehren, wie man wächst. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) QUEM-Bulletin, 7, 1996 Erpenbeck J, Sauer J (2000) Das Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm Lernkultur Kompeztenzentwicklung. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Kompetenzentwicklung. Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Internationaler Kongress (1997) Kompetenz für Europa Wandel durch Lernen – Lernen im Wandel. In: QUEM report, vol 60, Berlin


QUEM (1996) Von der beruflichen Weiterbildung zur Kompetenzentwicklung – QUEM Memorandum. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Kompetenzentwicklung ’95. Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin QUEM (1997) Kompetenzentwicklung `96. Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Riester W (1999) Dokumentation des Internationalen Zukunftsforums 1999. In: ArbeitsÂ� gemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Kompetenz für Europa Wandel durch Lernen – Lernen im Wandel. QUEM report, vol 60, Berlin von Rosenstiel L (2001) Wenn Weiterbildung zum Innovationshemmnis wird. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Kompetenzentwicklung 2001. Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin: 203–246 Staudt E (1997) Zurück in den Alltag – Kompetenzentwicklung und Bildungspolitik jenseits des Taylorismus. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Lernen für den Wandel – Wandel im Lernen. QUEM report, vol 50, Berlin: 19-40 Staudt E, Kriegesmann B (2000) Weiterbildung: Ein Mythos zerbricht. Der Widerspruch zwischen überzogenen Erwartungen und Misserfolgen der Weiterbildung. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Kompetenzentwicklung `99. Aspekte einer neuen Lernkultur. Argumente, Erfahrungen, Konsequenzen. Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin: 17-59 Toffler A (2006) Interview. In: DIE Welt May 22, 2006; qtd Bergmann B: Kompetent für die Wissensgesellschaft. edition QUEM vol 22. Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ Berlin Werner G (2007) Niemand kann gelernt werden. Man kann nur selber lernen. Personal motto in LearnTec Newsletter 1, 2007 Willke H (1998) Systemisches Wissensmanagement. UTB, Stuttgart

Commentary on the Main Article “Innovation and Learning – For a Future of Lifelong Learning”

Innovation, Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning Stephen Downes

Johannes Sauer asserts that innovation is unthinkable without lifelong learning and that innovation and lifelong learning are two sides of the same coin. But viewing lifelong learning as nothing more than continuing education, he argues, would be incorrect. The idea “that lifelong learning equals continuing education and continuingÂ�education as resumption of organized learning after a preliminary stage of education must be regarded as too narrow” (Sauer, in this volume). In this he is certainly correct. He offers his own evidence showing the rise of informal learning, use of informal learning, rather than formal training, in Germany. The “new in-house learning cultures is fully underway here and is vital for Germany,” he writes. In my own work I have observed similar trends; the creation of MuniMall, for example, a resource site for the municipal sector in Alberta, Canada, tapped into the propensity of town managers and elected officials to learn informally through a network of communications with each other. (cf. Stefanick and Lesage Jr. 2005) And specialists in workplace learning such as Harold Jarche and Jay Cross have documented the rise, and pervasiveness, of informal learning (cf. Cross et al. 2010). The limits of informal learning, writes Sauer, were shown in the integration process that followed German reunification. In such conditions of complexity and ambiguity, he writes, “Continuing education according to an academic paradigm and even a fourth pillar of the education system is neither adequate nor necessary in every case or sensible and efficient for coping with learning challenges in processes of social change.” Or in other words, “you cannot teach someone how to live” (Elston 1996, qtd. Sauer) and “nobody can be taught. You can only teach yourself” (Werner 2007, qtd. Sauer). It must be understood that such considerations do not entail the elimination of what we would call teaching activity. The verb to teach is a success term, much like the verb to heal. It suggests that a series of activities with a successful outcome has taken place. Yet we would not describe the activities of the doctor by saying the doctor heals. This is only something that can be done by the patient. Rather, the doctor undertakes a series of activities which tend to lead to healing: diagnosis, S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_9, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

82)>>

Stephen Downes

prescription, operation, therapy, and the like. In a similar manner, those who teach informally (which may include one’s own colleagues) conduct various activities that lead to learners being able to teach themselves: they describe, model, demonstrate, cajole, encourage, explain, show, and the like. The teaching task remains, but is reconceptualized, while the formal structure of the continuing education course is eliminated (cf. Downes 2010). Those who learn informally, argues Sauer, work in very different ways than through traditional educational events. In particular, they self-organize – that is, each manages his or her educational activity in concert with a network of colleagues or friends. This has an implication in the way informal learning is supported. “The structures need to be organized in such a way that self-organization is possible,” he writes. Organizing structures conducive to learning, and learning in a social environment, need to be in place. This typically involves the extension of use of information and communications technologies to support such selforganization. New reporting mechanisms for skills development need to be put into place. And training providers themselves need to be reorganized and retrained in this paradigm. Traditional structures and tools are of little use in an informal learning environment, and may even impede progress. Instead of removing a learner from the work environment for training, for example, “the criterion of work being conducive to learning is therefore of major significance and key to the capacity for innovation and the transition to a knowledge society,” argues Sauer. This echoes what is understood in constructionist and social constructivist theories of learning. One acquires the knowledge, values and world-view defined in a discipline by immersing oneself in the activities of that discipline. This is totally contrary to the practice of removing oneself from the workplace to take part in formal classes. As Sauer writes, “[while] it is suggested that an increase in Germany’s power of innovation is tied to the increasing numbers of participants and teaching hours, there is no academically funded research that supports this finding”. The support for workplace learning is an essential element in recruitment and retention. The danger of workplace learning, however, is the phenomenon of workplace stasis, the result created when learning is applicable only to one’s current position. Hence, the organization of work conducive to learning must be forward looking. Sauer writes, “Conduciveness to learning needs to make sense and be useful both for the individual as well as for the organization (but) work conducive to learning is only forward-looking if it brings recognition on the one hand for the employees, increases businesses’ capacity for innovation and adds up in terms of business management.” Yet this is not a phenomenon limited to informal learning. Any system, of learning must support a learner’s aspirations as well as his or her current position. This is especially the case for those who are unemployed or under-employed. “We need to accept that even workforces that do not possess any suitable formal qualifications can become skilled employees” (Riester 1997 qtd. Sauer in this volume). Such considerations entail a conceptualization of informal and workplace learning that is not limited to the workplace. In other words, the requirement for the

Innovation, Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning)>>83

provision of informal learning is that participation in the learning community is not limited to those active in a discipline, but also open to those with aspirations to join the discipline. Such a model entails the opening of actual workplaces to observation and participation by those not currently employed. Such a mechanism would enable learners to learn through interaction with the community, and would also place them in a position where their progress and attainment world be visible to, and recognized by, those already active in the community.

Bibliography Cross et al. (2010) Working Smarter in Terra Nova Circa 2015. Elearn Magazine, September 28, 2010, http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=138-1. Accessed May 2011 Downes S (2010) The Role of the Educator. Huffington Post, December 5, 2010, http://www. huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/the-role-of-the-educator_b_790937.html. Accessed May 2011 Stefanick, LeSage Jr (2005) Limitations to developing virtual communities in the public sector: A local government case study. Canadian Public Administration. Vol 48, 2, June 2005: 231-250, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2005.tb02189.x/ abstract. Accessed May 2011

Uncertainty in Institutional Change. Individual Resources as Potential1 Martin Elbe

Abstract The paper is an examination of how a reduction of market-driven insecurity in working life can be evolved to managing uncertainty in a manner conducive to innovation so that the innovative capability is increased on a sustained basis. A change in paradigms is required for this. The experience of insecurity in the modern working environment and the intensification of this effect on the part of companies is equivalent for employees to the institutionalization of the employment biography (employography). For the individual, the salutogenic orientation towards employography represents an ambiguous possibility of the active organization of one’s own life chances and general living conditions, but in terms of society as a whole, a change in paradigms is needed to accept the uncertainty as a basis for innovative organization of the future.

1)>> Employography – Areas of Insecurity in Institutional Change The ambivalence with which the modern world confronts the individual was a constant theme in 20th-century sociological research. This topic has been the subject of even greater attention since the description of the risk society by Beck (1985). Wider opportunities for action as part of increasing individualization and the undermining of institutional ties are attended by new insecurities and risks. Thus for Beck as well as for Bonß (1995) and the subsequent project of reflexive modernization, a modernization of the modern world (cf. Beck and Bonß 2001), insecurities and risks that co-determine our action in the modern world are no longer simply anthropological constants, but the major challenge and imposition in the modern world. Dealing with amorphous insecurities one hand and the calculable risk on the other, however, is still subject to a manageability principle: the individual is rather able to consider these imponderabilities as challenges and managing them as a success or even as a pleasure. In the opposite case risks and uncertainties emerge )>> The considerations below are based on the author’s expert opinion and discussions within the scope of “Management of Uncertainty – Key to Innovation” within the “International Monitoring” project.

1

S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_10, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

86)>>

Martin Elbe

as threats to be avoided or minimized. In both instances, the attempt is made to counter confidence in behavior that has been lost due to institutional change with an ability to cope in the form of strategies of success or prevention. This applies just as much to the whole of society as it does to individual action on a daily basis. Institutional change has been emerging since the 1980s, particularly in the working environment. With the increasing (and continually accelerating) erosion of traditional working relationships, which had been intensifying until then, the individual’s career needed to become an institution and the need arose to perceive one’s own biography as uncertain and therefore needing to be organized and managed. Companies promote this through internal and external marketization. The growth of time-limited employment contracts, in part-time working and temporary work in companies are examples of external marketization: the permanent working relationship is no longer the focus, but the market-oriented coverage of requirements with the greatest possible flexibility. Marketization, however, also arises within the company: even with existing permanent traditional working relationships these were and are an increasingly rare subject of institutionalized (vertical and horizontal) career planning, but are committed to an internal labor market in which the individual has to assume full responsibility for their own professional development – and therefore also the risk of possible failure. The buzzword employability was coined for this purpose in the management doctrine: the assurance of a traditional working relationship with a high probability of a permanent, if necessary lifelong position has been replaced by the constant demand for further qualifications, for which individuals themselves are responsible and which will maintain or even increase their employability – both within the company or on the external labor market.2 With this institutional change (from traditional employee to independent market participant), the behavior of the person concerned also changes: no longer the constant occupation in one (or just a few) companies has the effect of reducing insecurity, but the orientation towards a successful employment biography, highly independent of individual employers. The institutionalized career, interpreting these developments at the time, came to the notice of sociology from the middle of the 1980s. Kohli (2003) confirmed this after 20 years of research on the subject of “the career as an institution – such the thesis – had become a new foil for individual lifestyle and so remained open to action and interpretation; indeed it even established such openness to action and interpretation as a social requirement for the purpose of creating a work history of lifestyle” (Kohli 2003, 526; translated by author). For the working environment, this means re-interpreting the employer-oriented employability for an employeeoriented employography. Only someone who is able to interpret their own employment biography as institution providing guidance for action will be able to reduce areas of insecurity in the working environment on a sustained basis. Even if the employography were to become the functional equivalent of the traditional work)>> The (less trendily biased) term of lifelong learning is used today for this purpose across the various disciplines and this requirement also affects those working in the lower paid sectors (cf. Sauer in this volume).

2

Uncertainty in Institutional Change. Individual Resources as Potential)>>87

ing relationship, however, the orientation remains bound to the management of risk in working life and the resulting reduction of uncertainties. The following is an examination of how this reduction in market-driven insecurity in working life (which as an institution is at best indifferent to innovation) can be evolved to managing uncertainty in a manner conducive to innovation so that the innovative capability is increased on a sustained basis. A change in paradigms is required for this.3

2)>> Micro Perspective: Individual Resources as Potential 2.1)>> Institutional Change and Lifestyle in the Working Environment The experience of insecurity recorded in the modern working environment and the intensification of this effect on the part of companies due to institutional change towards an internal and external marketization in working relationships is equivalent for employees to the institutionalization of the employment biography, designated here by employography. So how will this be effective in a typical career? The concept of reducing insecurity is indeed constantly acting correctly and therefore promoting a career (of whatever nature) through orientation on the employography, which can then, in retrospect, be regarded as successful. It is successful when the individual considers the work history in retrospect to be a coherent narrative with his own responsibility for the progress. The end of the work history is therefore an indispensable part of the institutionalization of the career in the working environment, since it is only possible to evaluate an end goal from a retired person’s perspective. The fundamental meaning is therefore constructed from the individual ex post-perspective and this may be one reason why Kohli (2003) detects the insistence on an age limit, even when the legal basis for this is clearly changing. This also applies to heavily liberalized labor markets, e.g. as in the USA. The ex-post-evaluation then becomes anchored and the employography has an identifiable goal. In a typical work life, this construction of meaning as an institution will become effective if implemented in the individual’s lifestyle (cf. Kohli 2003). Ultimately, this means orientation on a daily basis towards the aim of the employography, therefore an ex ante pursuit of targets, a day by day establishment of the institution (cf. Weihrich and Voß 2002). Since everyday operational problems within the company are now also being settled under this institution, external marketization effects are being transferred back into the company. The individual’s behavior in relation to the company is ultimately placed under the thesis of the employography and the erosion of the traditional working relationship institution thus results in the erosion of other institutions of the company (e.g. management, cooperation, system )>> Cf. Böhle in this volume on the general considerations, on which the change in paradigms toward a management of uncertainty is based.

3

88)>>

Martin Elbe

of incentives) as unintended consequences, since these can now be questioned from the viewpoint of the employography.4 Figure 2.1 summarizes this correlation of the ex post and ex ante effect of the individual construction of meaning for the subjective management of uncertainty. CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING/ SUBJECTIVE COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY IN THE CONTEXT OF WORK

At the Moment • “Day by Day” (Life) • Institutions in Issues of Corporate Action ex ante (Target Tracking)

In Retrospect • Professional Vita • Career as Success Criterion (Success Attribution) ex ante (Target Assessment)

Figure 2.1: Micro perspective of the management of uncertainty

Employography as a new institution for reducing insecurity represents a new challenge for the action an individual takes in relation to the company: it requires micro political action day by day to an extent hitherto unknown. 2.2 )>> Change in Paradigms: from Insecurity to Uncertainty An area of conflict has been developing in companies due to increasing marketization: since the membership rules (as a superordinate institution) no longer provide any permanent security, all other organizational rules claiming to be valid no longer appear to be a permanent and therefore available option. To be effective as an institution, they would need to be emotionally anchored among employees, but employees now have to adapt – sensibly – to the requirements of the market and not to those of companies and, therefore, ultimately become emotionally anchored in the employography therewith gaining confidence in their activities. The same is true in discussion with Esser (2000, 11; translated by author): “Institutions – whether standards, roles or social scenarios – are always associated with directional models of reasonable behavior in typical situations and are cognitively prevalent and selfevident to those involved and are also emotionally anchored in them.” Employees, therefore, have to appear to be interested in a permanent membership of the organization and accordingly to be guided in their action towards the other organizational rules, in particular institutions, but in effect direct their action to a long-term management of their employography. It is ultimately this day-today play-acting that requires micro political action and at the same time leaves )>> To what extent institutions providing guidance on this from the perspective of internal Â�stakeholders differ from the institutions postulated and also accepted as valid by companies is elaborated in detail by Elbe (2007).

4


the employer unsure as to whether or not the employee feels permanently bound to the organization and acts according to the rules as an individual. The organizations are well aware of this and it has been discussed intensively in recent years in the Principal Agent Theory and for the purposes of the principal. In this, however, it has been ignored that the problem described here is a necessary result of marketization within organizations, which redefines the employer as principal and the employee as agent. For the employee, however, if he has bound himself emotionally to the institution of the employography it is no longer about merely reducing insecurity (he has already gone much further). For him, it is about gaining new options for action. The general insecurity becomes a resource, a relevant uncertainty, which justifies his micro political position: “The power of an individual or group, in short of a social stakeholder, is as much a function of the extent of the area of uncertainty, which he is able to control by his attitude towards his rivals” (Crozier and Friedberg 1979, 43; translated by author). Of major significance here is the relevance of the area of uncertainty in relation to the particular field of action – only through this does the medium of uncertainty become a resource for individual stakeholders. Insecurity and risk are no longer the opposite of opportunity and options for action, but in relevant areas of uncertainty become specific resources that come close to perceiving uncertainty to be a general, perhaps even central resource in the modern world. A change in paradigms, however, is required for this: away from the notion of the need to dominate insecurity and risk, towards an acceptance of uncertainty as a metaresource. The orientation towards employography already points in this direction, but remains bound to the specific area of uncertainty in the rules of membership and to the reference to the traditional working relationship.5 2.3)>> Uncertainty as a Metaresource Antonovsky (1997) deals with the change needed in paradigms with his concept of salutogenesis. He examines how health, happiness and well-being (Latin: salus) come into being and can be sustained. Although his approach is primarily a concept of the sociology of health, it contains a generally comprehensive course of action. Antonovsky does not perceive health to be the opposite of illness, but sees it as the points of a continuum by definition, in which the individual constantly positions himself and in the context of which he continually needs to reassess his health and happiness. Both irksome factors (stressors) as well as antagonistic factors (general potential) have an impact on this. The generalized potential can be seen as a resource that produces options for action under uncertainty: income, education, skills, social support, self-esteem, preventive patterns of behavior, fundamental cultural (and religious) convictions, etc. The resources help in managing amenities, which are perceived as stressors, by recognizing that they can be traced, )>> The growing significance of the project organization (as an independent institution within the company) with its specific challenges and its potential for managing uncertainty (cf. Peters in this volume) identifies conceptual options in relation to the internal marketization.

5

90)>>

Martin Elbe

explained and generally negotiated. New options for action arise for the individual from this perspective, since a sense of being able to cope and being in control begin to emerge. Stressors (risks, uncertainties) are then seen as meaningfully linked to life experience and a general sense of coherence (SOC) materializes. “The SOC (sense of coherence) is a general orientation showing to what extent there is a permeating, enduring and yet dynamic sense of confidence that 1.)>> the stimuli that arise in the course of living from the internal and external environment are structured, predictable and explicable […]; 2.)>> the resources are available for meeting the demands created by these stimuli; 3.)>> these demands are challenges that are worth the effort and commitment” (Antonovsky 1997, 36; translated by author). The sense of coherence is therefore marked by the three factors of knowability, manageability and significance. These do not detail a specific style of coping as a conventional attitude to managing, rather the sense of coherence represents a general attitude towards life that helps the individual pursue strategies for coping with uncertainty and thereby making use of available resources. Resources are, for example, knowledge or social support, which both help the individual employee as well as the organizational environment to perceive behavioral problems as manageable and uncertainty as a challenge and opportunity for development. This also concerns exposure to tangible risks and current or past crises. Tolerating, working through and even defining these as an opportunity is, from the psychological viewpoint, a function of resilience, mental capacity for resistance to stressors felt to be threatening (cf. Antonovsky 1997). The change in perspective already discussed also forms the basis of this. Nor is the crisis to be managed, it is to be used and organized, but this is only possible with a high sense of coherence, with the capacity to seize uncertainty as an opportunity.

3)>> Summary: Micro and Macro Perspectives This has been strongly argued in the achievements to date from the viewpoint of the individual stakeholder, who has to act under the given conditions of institutional change and increasing insecurity. He can operate successfully in the working environment if he defines his own biography as an institution, with the concept of an employography providing orientation for action and creating meaning (significance). Insecurity then turns into uncertainty, which he is able to see as understandable and manageable based on his own resources and actively use as a resource of power and action towards other stakeholders. For him, this means occupying relevant areas of uncertainty and using them on a daily basis, therefore organizing them in the way he actively conducts his life.


Social change, however, is not limited solely to an institution – even if it is particularly important from the micro perspective – but confronts the individual in every area of life. This comprehensive change renders necessary the transfer to a social level, to a macro perspective. The working environment is embedded in economic change. The tertiary economic sector, the service sector, characterizes our economy to an ever greater extent, thereby producing new scope for work and occupations, but which in many cases provide only marginal stability. Technological change is taking place at every level: mobility technologies, energy production and supply, biotechnology and increasing virtualization in particular characterize our lives way beyond the daily workload. Globalization and demographic change are not merely phenomena of the modernization of the modern world; they are themselves consequences of the modern world. And also crises are making the results of the processes of change visible, as can be observed in the current financial and economic crisis resulting from the theory and practice of “unfettered capitalism”. The world regards the individual in his everyday life as marked by increasing insecurities and tainted with risk. He has to cope with this in the way he conducts his life and thereby contributes irreversibly to the processes of change. This can be seen in Figure 3.1: MICRO- AND MACROPERSPECTIVE

Microperspective

• Individualization • Orientation towards Issues of Action • Biography as an Institution • Increasing Risks and Opportunities • Resilience and Salutogenesis

Macroperspective • Change of Institutions • Globalization • Virtualization • Services • Theory and Practice of “The Unleashed Capitalism”

Figure 3.1: Interlacing of micro and macro perspectives

As micro and macro perspectives become interlaced, the question again arises about the options for action and dealing with insecurity and risk. The social manipulation of uncertainty and risk depends on interpretation. Thus the statement that one of the major challenges of globalization is “Managing People During the War on Terror” (Robbins and Judge 2007, 16) can on the one hand only be understood from the

92)>>

Martin Elbe

specifically American experience of 9/11 and on the other hand, as expressing the attempt to dominate risk and insecurity. For the individual, the salutogenic orientation towards employography represents an ambiguous possibility of the active organization of one’s own life chances and general living conditions, but in terms of society as a whole, a change in paradigms is needed to accept the uncertainty as a basis for innovative organization of the future.

4)>> Future Research Requirements As the discussion in the field of action “Managing Uncertainty – Prospects for Promoting Innovation” and the articles in this volume have shown on this subject, the model for dominating insecurity indebted to the causal explanation in terms of a risk assessment and the associated risk management is no longer sufficient to promote innovative capability in the working environment. The binding force of institutions declines with the employography, which could provide a secure framework for dealing with innovation. Against this background, the question as to which new perspectives providing guidance for action are able to promote processes of innovation at the individual level become more significant. Alongside the individual aims and purposes that define action here (and therefore require teleological explanation), the ability to tolerate and utilize uncertainty emerges instead of a restrictive risk assessment. Further research is needed into this. Particular attention should be paid to the following questions: • How can individual and organizational development targets (in terms of innovation potential) be adapted in such a way that they provide mutual support? • How can organizational routines and the need for secure processes be linked to individual action with degrees of freedom to enable processes of innovation? • What individual resources are required to be able to deal with uncertainty (e.g. individual prospects of success and work) so that processes of innovation are promoted? Approaches that can provide support can be found, for example, in research into sociological and psychological health (particularly for salutogenesis or tolerance of uncertainty). Measuring instruments are available in these areas, such as SOC questionnaires produced by Antonovsky (1997) or questionnaires on tolerance of uncertainty by Dalbert (2002), which are both well documented and have been used in many instances. There is still a need to develop analytical and diagnostic procedures based on the instruments available meeting the specific questions of an organization of labor, which is open to uncertainty and conducive to innovation and which can be used as a basis for processes of change in managing uncertainty and therefore go beyond recognizing development trends as patterns (cf. Gross 2002).


This also implies, however, that the research required in this field of work cannot be limited to basic research, but that close links to practice partners are needed to produce research results that can be transferred and innovation therefore actively promoted.

5)>> New Game – New Chances? Uncertainty as an Innovation Resource Visions of promoting innovation for Germany as a business location should be sought for the purposes of research into employment in relation to the management of uncertainty in the promotion of systems of interaction open to uncertainty and therefore conducive to innovation in the company’s daily operation. Here, the individual’s opportunities for action and development, which do not merely increase the propensity for innovation in the company, but are also conducive to the individual employography, must be recognizable. Operating models will continue to be needed and there are internal and external organizational institutions and rules that are valid and are expected to be observed, though the question arises for all the institutions and rule as to the scope for interpretation. To what extent are the rules allowed to be interpreted? And if actions (possibly repeated) were successful: do the rules then change? This can be specified as the basis of innovative action per se: the change in existing implicitness – and this does not always have to be earmarked by major and obvious innovation stimuliÂ€– is the basis of coping with uncertainty that is conducive to innovation and therefore of a sustainable increase in the innovative capability. In many cases the small changes significantly increase opportunities for action and thereby make comprehensible, manageable and significant areas of uncertainty out of uncertainty; these are then the subject of the daily negotiation of the power of interpretation. This is the actual nucleus of the flexibility that is conducive to innovation, which is the basis on which future challenges are managed and organized, especially for Germany with its highly institutionalized labor relations that have been described repeatedly (and sometimes bemoaned). Ultimately, it is therefore dealing with the everyday fields of action in a manner conducive to innovation as these characterize the management of uncertainty. Central to this is the fact that the core of the particular institution that governs an area of uncertainty as a field of action should not be suddenly harmed and that the meaning of the institution is therefore sustained until a functional equivalent emerges in its place. It is just as problematic for research as for the management of uncertainty to discern the relevant and non-relevant areas of uncertainty underlying the players’ game. Wittgenstein (1997) comes forward with a practical proposal for locating these areas of uncertainty in his Philosophical Investigations. Without using the term institution, he describes specific modes of behavior that are defined by a practical context of meaning and rules in contrast to other specific modes of behavior

94)>>

Martin Elbe

as language games. In order to be able to take part in a language game such as this (therefore to be able to act in relation to an institution), some awareness of the language game is required, in principle therefore an a priori knowledge as a type of cognitive scheme illustrating the meaning and rules of the language game. Only by taking part in the language game the individual is able to find out whether he has understood the game and therefore whether he is able to act in relation to the institution. Here, in relation to the institution does not exactly have to mean conforming to the institutions either, but also incorporates innovative exposure to the rules corresponding to the meaning of the language game (Wittgenstein refers to this as Witz as meant by wit in English). Elbe (2007) demonstrates this with an empirical example: using the language games of a female member of the marketing staff in a software company, it can be demonstrated how these differ from the company’s postulated institutions and are used to re-organize the daily work and the power structure based on occupying the relevant areas of uncertainty. The process of innovation itself is then no longer regarded as a game of chance – which we try (sometimes in vain) to control6 – but as a language game generating management potential: if it is successful, as an opportunity for a leading process or product, but if innovation is not implemented at least as proof of the ability to play the innovation game. A concept of innovation emerges here, which corresponds to that postulated above and which, according to Crozier and Friedberg (1979), largely conforms to the concept of play in areas of uncertainty. Figure 5.1 shows the concept of innovation in language games: KNOWLEDGE AND THE INNOVATION OF LANGUAGE GAMES

Language and Language Games as social apriori

Cognitive schemes as ideal knowledge

Participation in Language Games

Reproduction of Language Games, innovation caused by breach of rules

Figure 5.1: Concept of innovation in a language game (Elbe 2002)

)>> Cf. Wolf’s article on this and on power structures relevant to innovation in industrial research and development in this volume

6


Alongside the general promotion of language games that are open to uncertainty, language games are now to be found for the purposes of managing uncertainty with either a particular propensity to innovation or a particular relevance to problemsolving. Any language games that demand play acting on a daily basis (as has been described in this article for the employography) are particularly relevant for problem-solving. Here the institutions accepted as, or assumed to be effective no longer conform to the actual activity bases expressed in language games. The need for change and potential for innovation appear here. The increasing innovative capability begins with the discovery of language games. Wittgenstein alludes to this (1997, 476): “It’s not about explaining a language game using our experiences, but about discovering a language game” (translated by author). And to do so, you need to recognize its wit.

Bibliography Antonovsky A (1997) Salutogenese. Zur Entmystifizierung der Gesundheit. Dgvt-Verlag, Tübingen Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. Beck U, Bonß W (2001) Die Modernisierung der Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. Bonß W (1995) Vom Risiko. Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in der Moderne. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg Crozier M, Friedberg E (1979) Die Zwänge kollektiven Handelns. Über Macht und Organisation. Beltz Athenäum, Königstein Dalbert C (2002) Die Ungewissheitstoleranzskala (UGTS). In: Bähler E, Schumacher J, Strauß B (ed) Diagnostische Verfahren in der Psychotherapie. Hogrefe, Göttingen Elbe M (2007) Verstehen und Beraten betrieblicher Handlungsproblematik. In: Ludwig J, Moldaschl M, Schmauder M, Schmierl K (ed) Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland. Hampp, München/ Mering Elbe M (2002) Wissen und Methode. Grundlagen der verstehenden Organisationswissenschaft. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Opladen Esser H (2000) Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Vol 5., Campus, Frankfurt a. M. Gross P (2002) Kontingenzmanagement. Über das Management der Ungewissheit. In: Series „mzsg forum“, St. Gallen No 9 Kohli M (2003) Der institutionalisierte Lebenslauf: ein Blick zurück und nach vorn. In: Allmendinger J (ed) Entstaatlichung und soziale Sicherheit. Verhandlungen des 31. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Leipzig 2002. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Opladen Robbins S, Judge T (2007) Organizational Behavior. 12th edition, Prentice Hall India Pvt. Ltd, Upper Saddle River Weihrich M, Voß G (2002) (ed): tag für tag. Alltag als Problem – Lebensführung als Lösung? Neue Beiträge zur Soziologie alltäglicher Lebensführung 2. Hampp, München/ Mering Wittgenstein L (1997) Philosophische Untersuchungen. In: Werkausgabe Vol 1 Tractatus logico-philosophicus 11. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.

Commentary on the Main Article “Uncertainty in Institutional Change – Individual Resources as Potential“

Finding Common Ground for Innovation Michael Brannick

Elbe begins by describing the concept of employography, which he sees as a person’s personal work biography. The motivation for such a concept appears to be in response to the changing psychological contract between employer and employee (cf. Morrison and Robinson 1997). Employment is no longer understood to be certain or long-term, and in response, the individual looks to him or herself as a source of meaning for behavioral choices. In my opinion, Elbe is correct that people consider their work histories as important aspects of the self and refer to them when making choices about what to do. The psychological contract between employer and employee always has an element of tension in it because as humans we are inherently conflicted about where we fit in groups of other people. Do you want to get along or do you want to get ahead? Individuals and societies differ in where they stand with respect to individualism vs. collectivism (cf. Hofstede 1983). Although such a tension is not new, in recent years the changing nature of the long term career expectations of employees and employers (that is, the psychological contract) has become more salient, and this change has caused stress. How people respond to change is, in my view, key to the question of how to encourage and manage innovation. Elbe argues persuasively that the employer and employee are both trying to realize goals of their own. When employment was understood to be a long-term arrangement, then it was in the employee’s best interest to take care of the employer. But now, the argument goes, the employee needs only to worry about his own short term interest because employers come and go. In support of such a position, there is recent research to suggest that perceived breaches in the psychological contract result in loss of affective commitment by the individual to the organization, and then to subsequent reductions in behaviors promoting innovation at work (cf. Ng et al. 2010). On the other hand, it seems to me that although it is reasonable that the employer and the employee are each working to realize his own goals, often times their goals may be shared. If so, then it is key to managing employees to point out to them (or perhaps persuade them) that the employee‘s goals will best be reached by pursuing the employer’s goals. Generally speaking, people choose based on what they S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_11, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

98)>>

Michael Brannick

think the consequences of their actions will be. Whether a person chooses to do something innovative depends upon what they think will happen if they do. People tend to consider both the good and the bad, and may not be terribly deliberative or conscious of all the consequences for that matter (cf. Janis and Mann 1977). Academics often discuss their work situations with other academics. It so happens that in some universities that the infrastructure for supporting research is not very well developed. I have asked many people why they think that is so. One theory is that the people who occupy the position of Provost (the senior academic position) are looking to become the President of a university, and realize that their chances for doing so are not terribly good in any one school. They could spend years building the infrastructure at home, which would result in long term prosperity for that school, but they would have little to show for it in the short term, should opportunities to become President present themselves at other schools. Or they can develop initiatives that get a lot of attention, so they can point to some achievement quickly. It seems that they always choose the visible, short term initiative (and generally go on to become President somewhere else). This is just a theory, of course, and it could be entirely wrong. However, the story points out first that the Provosts in question are all tenured and have extremely secure jobs as faculty, so that job security at that institution is not a major issue. Second, they produce new programs because they think that they will be rewarded in their careers by doing so. One might argue that such initiatives are instances of change rather than innovation, or one might argue that there are many important innovations to be made, and time and energy for only a few, so it is really a question of priorities and outcomes (rewards, payoffs, and to whom they accrue) that are at question. In his discussion of reaction to change, Elbe mentions tolerance for uncertainty as an individual resource or asset. He also mentions social support and other resources that individuals can tap in order to cope with stress. I think these are excellent ideas worthy of further development. I would like to mention two additional ideas that I think are relevant to the stress of innovation. The first idea has to do with regulatory focus (cf. Crowe and Higgins 1997). The idea is that people tend to attain their goals either by approaching the desired state, or by avoiding an undesired state, and that individuals differ in their general or chronic strategy, or focus on the situation. A promotion focus involves seeking accomplishment, or advancement, whereas a prevention focus involves avoiding the loss of safety and security. People with a promotion focus are more likely to take risks and to continue to pursue a goal after an initial failure. People with a prevention focus tend to play it safe and repeat doing whatever has worked before. I suggest that a promotion focus would be advantageous to have in employees of a company that wants innovation. It may also be possible to support a promotion focus so that employees are more likely to support change. The second idea has to do with the costs and benefits to the individual for behaving in innovative ways. I suggested earlier that people decide whether to innovate depending on what they think will happen if they do. There is social risk in doing things differently. One is risking ridicule and even ostracism by acting differently. If the idea is poorly perceived by management, there may be financial

Finding Common Ground for Innovation)>>99

loss to the individual (e.g. loss of promotion, poorer performance review) due to proposing innovation. Therefore, one thing to consider in change management is the culture at work. Management may want to create a culture in which ideas may be fully entertained, even if they seem crazy at first glance. Some techniques of group problem solving explicitly forbid group members from criticizing any idea, no matter how outlandish, during the initial, idea generation phase of solving a problem (e.g. brainstorming, cf. Heslin 2009; Osborn 1957). The criticism is moved to a later phase of the deliberation. Elbe’s research agenda seems reasonable to me. His question about the individual and organizational targets supporting one another seems to me to address my question about common or overlapping goals between the individual and the organization. I am optimistic that business will be able to generate workable models to engage employees sufficiently that they will perceive sufficient mutual benefit to work hard for the benefit of the organization. His questions about creating situations that allow individuals to innovate is tantamount to developing systems in which experimentation is encouraged and the inevitable resulting failure from time to time is allowed. The difficulty is that failure is unpleasant or worse. How much innovation is too much? Ng et al. (2010) reported scales both for breach of psychological contract and for employee perceptions of innovation. Both may be suitable for subsequent research on the effects of psychological contracts on innovation. The scale developed by the authors for innovative behavior is suitable for surveying a wide variety of jobs. It asks respondent to comment on the extent to which job incumbents “generate, spread, and implement innovative ideas at work“. Such a survey might be useful for generating predictions about which organizations are most capable of innovation and comparing innovation in organizations by objective means with employees’ self-reports. A related survey approach that might be useful is ask employees the degree to which they believe that their organization is capable of, or ready for, innovation. Such measures could also be useful as outcomes in intervention studies designed to increase innovation in organizations, where such measures might show whether there were changes in the behaviors or beliefs of employees that lead to subsequent innovations. Elbe ends with the suggestion that language games may provide a means of supporting innovation. As I mentioned earlier, the culture or norms in an organization provide a powerful influence on individual behavior. If language games help to develop a culture that allows the playful development of new ideas rather than ridicule for thinking something different, then I think that is a great idea.

Bibliography Crowe E, Higgins T (1997) Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69: 117-132

100)>>

Michael Brannick

Hofstede G (1983) National cultures in four dimensions: A research based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13: 46-74 Heslin PA (2009) Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82: 129-145 Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making: A psychological analyis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Free Press, New York Morrison EW, Robinson SL (1997) When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22: 226-256 Ng TW, Feldman DC, Lam SS (2010) Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 744-751 Osborn AE (1957) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem Â�solving. C. Scribner’s Sons, New York

Part 2 Developing Skills, Work Systems, Work Processes – an Innovative Challenge

What’s Going On Out There? – Designing Work Systems for Learning in Real Life

Ernst Hartmann and Francesco Garibaldo

Abstract This paper is about designing work systems for learning in real life, fostering informal learning in the workplace. It is argued that, on the one hand, much is known about the characteristics of learning-intensive workplaces. On the other hand, much less is known about the genesis of these learning-intensive workplace in the ‘real world’, i.e. in practical management and development of organizations and operations, outside of publicly funded projects. As a conceptual framework, work processes of first and second order are introduced. First-order work processes bring about the products and services the organization is dealing with. Second-order work processes reflect first-order work processes; here, individual and – eventually – organizational learning take place. Three short case studies are presented to illustrate the genesis of learning-intensive work processes in different settings (manufacturing, IT support, hospital). For future research, a closer look into local theories of work process design is called for, including an analysis off the various players in practical work process design and their respective professional methodologies.

1)>>Introduction Absorptive capacity (cf. Cohen and Levinthal 1990) is one of the most crucial aspects of an organization’s innovative capability. Cohen and Levinthal describe absorptive capacity as the “ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends” (op. cit., 128). Absorptive capacity in this original meaning refers to the organization’s general ability to use external information and opportunities (e.g. new technologies) for its own innovative purposes. To be able not only to recognize these opportunities, but also to effectively implement technological or organizational innovations, learning ability needs to be present regarding all kinds of personnel affected by these innovations. These learning abilities can be described as competencies, or dispositions towards self-organization (cf. Erpenbeck and Heyse 2007). Competencies are usually developed in real (working) life rather than in formalized learning environments (e.g. schools or other educational institutions). Here, learning-intensive work processes enter the stage, as production processes for competencies. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_12, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

104)>>


Conversely, individual competencies include the ability to critically reflect existing work processes and work systems, a prerequisite for bottom-up innovation processes, driven by input from individual workers or groups of workers, as e.g. in Continuous Improvement Processes (CIP). Besides these innovation-related effects, there are more highly relevant reasons for exploring, promoting, and designing work systems for learning. Among the most prominent are: • The individual perspective: Humanization of work. Opportunities to develop knowledge, skills, and competencies – or even more general, personality – are considered to be a core aspect of human-centered work design (cf. Baitsch and Frei 1980; Ulich et al. 1980). • The organizational perspective: Intellectual capital. Knowledge and competencies of organization members are part of the intellectual capital of the organization (cf. Pawlowsky et al. 2001; cf. Pawlowsky in this volume). • The political perspective: Informal learning pathways as a complement to traditional forms of education. (cf. Bjørnåvold and Colardyn 2004). These virtues of learning-within-work have motivated substantial and extensive research. As a consequence of these endeavors, the characteristics of work conditions suitable for stimulating learning are very well known. In the tradition of the Dresden School of work psychology, Bärbel Bergmann and her research team (2006) developed questionnaires to identify work design characteristics (like opportunities for participation, degrees of freedom, social climate, transparency of tasks etc.), and provided empirical evidence regarding the relations between these work characteristics and competency development in different competency domains (like knowledge and skills, social competency, etc.). This is just one example for a vast amount of theoretical and empirical work in this domain. Thus, it is very well understood how learning-intensive work looks like. Less known, however, is how it is brought about. Open questions in this regard include: • How does work design actually take place in the wild, i.e. in work organizations (enterprises, non-profit-organizations, administrations etc.), and outside of (publicly funded) research projects focusing on work design? • Is the issue of learning-friendliness in any way addressed in these work design processes, explicitly or implicitly? • How do different stakeholders and professional groups interact in these work design processes (e. g. management, labor representatives, technological planners, industrial engineers, ITC experts)? • How are the design processes in general, and the interactions of the aforementioned actors in detail, shaped by environmental variables like economic sector, company size, organizational culture, etc.? • Are there gateways for intervention in these processes, and, if yes, where?

What’s Going On Out There? – DesigningÂ€WorkÂ€Systems for Learning in Real Life)>>105

To further approach these questions, this paper focuses on the genesis of learningintensive work, rather than its structure. In the following chapter, a conceptual framework for the genesis of learningintensive work will be proposed. After that, three design cases will be presented to illustrate this design for learning-within-work in practice. These three cases will be discussed regarding their theoretical and methodological implications. Finally, open question for research and future lines of design and intervention are put forward, including some words on the seemingly non-scientific issue of transferring results from R&D projects in this domain to other organizations not involved in the original R&D projects.

2)>> The Genesis of Learning-Oriented Work Systems 2.1)>> A Conceptual Framework How are working conditions brought about, in general, and specifically with respect to the learning value of these working conditions? A general framework for the genesis and development of work systems and work processes was proposed by Hartmann (cf. 2005). This model distinguishes between first order and second order work processes. First order work processes are designed to bring about the products or services which are the purpose of the work process in question, they are the immediate work processes. Second order work processes are reflective processes regarding the first order processes. In these second order processes first order processes are monitored, assessed, criticized, questioned, and, eventually, changed. These changes might be gradual, barely perceptible for the persons involved in the work process, or more radical and fundamental. The second order processes are conceived to be a natural aspect of work processes: They occur whether or not they are explicitly called for or shaped as e.g. organizational development processes. In the introduction chapter, these second order processes were discussed as prerequisites of bottom-up innovation processes. Within these work processes, technologies (tools and media) are used, which are in turn products of other work processes (work process 2 in Figure 2.1). These technologies might themselves be more or less supportive to learning (cf. Brandt et al. 2003). Also, the development process of these technologies might be more or less tuned towards producing learning-friendly technology. Finally, the technology implementation process in the technology-using organization is another arena for designing work systems and processes for learning. The following example will illustrate work design in the context of organizational development and technology implementation processes.

106)>>

Work process 2, first order: generates tools for work process 1

Ernst Hartmann and Francesco Garibaldo Work process 1, first order: Technology implementation process

Work process 1, second order: Organisational development process

Work process 2, second order: Technology development

Figure 2.1: Work processes (Hartmann 2005)

2.2)>> An Old Example: The Tractor Assembly System Project This design case refers to a new assembly system for agricultural tractors (cf. Hartmann 1995). In this company, group work was being introduced as a new organizational paradigm. The old, conveyor-belt-type tractor assembly system – besides being technologically outdated – was obviously inappropriately designed for group-oriented work structures. A design team was set up to implement a new assembly system. Members of this team were technological experts, industrial engineers, manufacturing managers, assembly workers, and works council1 members. Two organizational development consultants acted as facilitators for this group. The design group employed techniques of co-operative problem solving, which had been specifically developed to support participative design processes (cf. Sell and Fuchs-Frohnhofen 1993). Within this problem solving process they performed a value analysis with respect to five design scenarios. Table 2.1 shows an extract from a list of criteria used for this analysis.

)>> In German industry, the works council is the elected representative body for all employees of a company.

1


1.1 Control of

Weight of

Weight of

Degree

criterion

sub-

of fulfill- points

(WC; 0...10)

criterion

ment

(DF x WS

(WS; 0...1)

(DF; 0..10)

x WC)

0,125

1

0,79

1.13 Throughput time (-)

0,125

1

0,79

1.15 Complexity of material flow (-)

0,125

1

0,79

2.11 Flexibility of technology (+)

0,5

1

1,30

2.12 Flexibility of organization (+)

0,5

1

1,30

6,3

assembly system

2.1 Flexibility /

1.11 Decoupling from cycle of conveyor

Value

system (+)

2,6

Options for future changes 3.1 Information

2,1

3.11 General information (+)

0,5

1

1,05

flow

3.12 Part and product changes (+)

0,5

1

1,05

3.2 Completeness 3,7

3.21 Integration of indirect tasks (+)

0,33

1

1,22

of tasks

3.22 Hierarchical completeness (+)

0,33

1

1,22

3.23 Sequential completeness (+)

0,33

1

1,22

3.31 Dependencies between groups (-)

3.3 Time

4,7

0,33

1

1,55

autonomy of

3.32 Decoupling of group from conveyor 0,33

1

1,55

groups

cycle (+) 0,33

1

1,55

3.41 Physical stress (-)

0,33

1

0,86

3.42 Environmental stress (-)

0,33

1

0,86

3.43 Mental stress (-)

0,33

1

0,86

4.11 Proportion of value-enhancing

0,2

1

2,00

3.33 Time for ad-hoc group discussions (+) 3.4 Stress / Strain 2,6

4.1 Economic

10,0

costs and

operations (+)

benefits

4.12 Implementation costs (-)

0,2

1

2,00

4.13 Operation costs (-)

0,2

1

2,00

Sum of value points

62,4

Table 2.1: Criteria used in the assembly system design process (extract; ‘+’: Dimensions to be maximized, ‘-‘: Dimensions to be minimized)

Besides obvious economic criteria, human-oriented and group-work-oriented criteria were also considered, e.g.: Hierarchical and sequential completeness of assembly tasks (human-oriented), time autonomy of groups (group-work-oriented). All these criteria are closely related to the learning-friendliness of work (cf. Bergmann et al. 2004). Figure 2.2 (lower part) shows the design of the new assembly system, which is the implementation of the scenario with the highest scores in the value analysis. Instead of conveyor belts and hanging conveyors, automatically propelled pallets (size: 24 square meters) are used as basic conveyor system. The assembly workers stand on these pallets when assembling, rather than having to walk along with

108)>>


the conveyor, as in the old assembly hall (Figure 2.2, upper part). Hydraulic supports allow for a free vertical positioning of the tractor-to-be. The integration of assembly and sub-assembly tasks within assembly groups allows for complete task structures and a relatively low overall level of coupling between group work cycle and assembly system cycle. Every group has special rooms for recreation and group meetings. Purchased Sheet Metal Parts

Receiving Pur. Parts

Storage Purchased Parts POUD

Bldg. 10

2nd Coating Finished Sheet Metal

Transmission Del.

Tank Battery

Main Frame Del. for Painting

YFSubassy.

Engine Subassy.

Hitch Subassy.

Front Axle Subassembly Start Training Line

Pick up

OS

POUD

POUD

Hitch

Complete Operator Station Exhaust

Finished Hood & Cowls

Wheels & Testing

Warehouse

Bldg. 11

Figure 2.2: New design of the assembly system (pallets shown as yellow squares; POUD: Point of use delivery; Assy.: Assembly; Bldg: Building; YF: Yellow Frame, hood support; OS: Operator station; Del.: Delivery)

Figure 2.3: A workplace in the new assembly system (operator station assembly)


2.3)>> A Current Example: Process Design in Global IT Support The second design case refers to IT support processes in a globally acting enterprise (cf. Förster et al. 2009). In this organization, global teams provide IT-related support to other members of the organization. The members of these teams are situated in Europe, North and South America, and Asia. In an intensive one-week meeting of all team members, including also managerial staff, work processes within the global teams were discussed and re-designed. The meeting was designed and facilitated by external experts. Figure 2.4 shows – in an extremely simplified, schematic way – one version of a support process, as it was simulated in a role-playing workshop session within the meeting. The customer – an IT user within the organization – experiences a problem in using his or her software system. The user will then contact a help desk. The help desk – or call center – agent might be able to analyze the problem and provide immediate help. In more complicated cases, the help desk agent will have to forward the problem to an expert with specialized knowledge regarding the specific software system at hand. In most cases, this expert (B-level support) will be able to solve the problem. Sometimes, however, the problem is even more demanding, or might even need some system re-design to be tackled. In this case, the B-level expert will contact a C-level support provider; this person would usually be someone also engaged in (re-) designing the software system. The C-level expert will either be able to provide a solution within the system as it is, or will trigger a redesign process for the software system. Customer User

Supplier Call agent delegation

Customer Call agent

Supplier Incident support (B level) delegation

e-mail to customer

Customer Incident support (B level)

Supplier Incident support (C level)

Figure 2.4: IT support process, first variation (simplified)

In the support process as shown in Figure 2.4, the customer contacts the help desk agent, who is not able to solve the problem. He passes the issue on to B-level, who

110)>>


has to forward to C-level. The C-level expert finally solves the problem and informs the customer accordingly. While this process was effective in serving the customer, the participants in the meeting identified problematic aspects of this procedure. Specifically, neither the B-level expert nor the help desk agent were informed about the solution. This meant no obvious disadvantage regarding the specific problem to be solved, but it prevented learning opportunities for these two persons. Furthermore, it was likely to prevent learning or self-optimization within the process as a whole. As a result, the participants proposed an alternative solution, as depicted in Figure 2.5. Here, the communication between all partners is organized as closed loops (cf. Medina-Mora et al. 1992). Here, the solution is cascaded back to the B-level expert and the help desk agent. All the three work cycles are closed: The person asking for a solution (customer) is given the solution by the person he was asking for it (supplier), and eventually forwards the solution to his or her own (internal) customer. In this way, all partners have the opportunity to learn from the problem and its solution. Over time, the help desk agent and – to a lesser extent – the B-level expert will improve their knowledge, and will in more and more instances be able to solve their customers’ problems themselves, without cascading the problem down the line. Thus, customer service will be improved in terms of shorter problem solving throughput times. With regard to the model presented in Figure 2.1, this example mainly dealt with organizational development, but technology design and implementation were also addressed, because all these processes are supported by specific software tools. Customer User

Supplier Call agent delegation

Customer Call agent

Supplier Incident support (B level) delegation

Customer Incident support (B level)

Supplier Incident support (C level)

Figure 2.5: IT support process, second variation (simplified)

2.4)>> Third Case: Hospital The third design case refers to the integration of functions and skills within a hospital in the period 2000-2001: this problem arises from the fact that this hospital was created as a result of a merger between many different hospitals. In so doing,


they found it really hard to function as an integrated unit both in the cultural and the functional dimensions. The process of change was based on the search conference methodology (cf. Garibaldo in Rasmussen, forthcoming). The basic idea here was to build a setting, allowing and empowering people – all the people working in the hospital: the physicians and the other hospital workers – to work together to produce many different and shared concepts of the way to change their hospital procedures and organization. The setting was designed in such a way to focus on the genesis of the concepts instead of the contents produced. The genesis process should have some very specific features: III.)>> The concepts are a collective achievement. It means that they come from an interaction; they should be shared from all the participants. III:)>>They are not a blueprint of an organizational structure or of new procedures; they are generative concepts, that is, concepts capable of generating a shortterm course of action. III:)>> The actual solutions will come later; starting from this acquired shared knowledge. The focus on the genesis of the shared knowledge can be assured only through a distinction between two different moments in starting a practical action by a group of people: the evaluation or diagnostic process, and the deliberative process. In the diagnostic process (roughly one year) the main problem was to build trust that the employees’ evaluation will be taken into consideration as the actual starting point of the process of change. What managers, in this phase, were deeply impressed by were: a.)>> The passionate participation of rank-and-file people to the diagnosis; the emotions at play were alternatively: aggressiveness against the dire situation of the hospital (a highly hierarchical structure with a lack of vision and of mission, and a difficult relationship with their patients), flow of creative thinking in identifying the weak points of the situation (both internally and in the relationship of the hospital with the territory), and the fear that their desire to achieve a positive change will be disappointed. b.)>> The harsh criticism, of all the participants, on the actual situation: a weak integration with the other health organizations in the territory, and of the different operational units within the hospital. The diagnostic moment is cognitive and socialized through dialogue; it makes possible for the participants to acquire a broader, holistic and more profound understanding of the situation. The managers were brave and smart enough to understand the positive momentum under the harsh criticism and to bet on it. This phase should be autonomous from the deliberative phase, if deliberation should be based on the effective participation of all the people involved in the process. Indeed, at the root of this attitude lies the Socratic idea of knowledge: the root of each deliberation and evaluation process lies in the individual who can

112)>>


be helped towards reflection by means of the creation of a socialized knowledge process, the Socratic Dialogue. Each deliberation needs a reduction of the complexity of the specific situation, without losing it- along with the breadth and the depth acquired. Attaining this goal, in a participative process of change, cannot depend only on some enlightened managers and consultants. It should be the goal for each individual; they should have the possibility to go through the complexity and the emotional implication of their situation, in that specific problematic situation, and, eventually, to grasp a chance to change. At that point the deliberative process can start with more chances to achieve a positive and shared outcome. In other words: “The knowledge acquired is a personal as well as collective asset of the people who take part. This knowledge generation happens in at least in two ways: directly as a collective memory, and indirectly, through the written report, the assembly discussion and the communication with the organizers of the specific action research project: These organizers are at the same time the representatives of research as well as the body commissioning the research. The organizers are the owner of that knowledge in two ways: directly through the questions submitted to the group, and indirectly in a similar way as the participants. In this way, the organizers and the people taking part in the action research are developing the sense of community needed to overcome the distinctions of those who own the knowledge, and those who are to act on what they are experiencing” (Garibaldo in Rasmussen). In this case the direction of change was to develop a department based organizational chart of the hospital and in a brand new way to afford the problem of the integration with the territory. The process was positive and the proposals were effectively implemented. This is the theory, but out in the wild there are many difficult problems to manage in order to achieve, as in this case, positive results. The main problem is trust. To achieve enough trust to support the process of change depends both on the managerial attitude and on the willingness of all actors to participate. The success stories seem very dependent on exceptional circumstances. A very strict setting reduces the openness to fortune of the process, but this it is not enough; so the main question out in the wild is: is it possible to shift from artisanship to a discipline?

3)>>Summary The previous case studies highlighted aspects of the genesis of learning-intensive work processes. Different theoretical concepts were used for describing work structures to be brought about:


• • • • • •

Completeness of tasks (cf. Hacker 2005) Closed action/ workflow loops (cf. Medina-Mora et al. 1992) Different concepts for describing design processes Problem solving methodology (cf. Sell and Schimweg 2002) Simulation/ design workshop Search conference methodology including a diagnostic moment (cognitive, socialized through dialogue), and a project-based moment (deliberative), thus focusing on generative concepts and social knowledge acquisition • The Socratic Dialogue as a socialized knowledge process These theoretical concepts and methodologies merely reflect the scientific and professional background of the authors. Many other conceptual and methodological approaches might be used, and have in fact been used. Regarding the complexity and variety of organizational, regional, cultural, professional environments of work settings, it is highly improbable that a defined, monolithic set of theories and methodologies will be useful in all situations. But it is highly desirable to know which types of theories and methods might fit into which setting. Theories and methods, in this context, do not only refer to scientific knowledge and procedures, but equally to practical and professional knowledge and practices. These issues will be further detailed in the following paragraphs.

4)>> Open Questions and Future Lines of Research The cases presented above illustrate design processes leading to more learningintensive work processes. All of these cases were situated outside of research contexts oriented towards investigations in work design or organizational development. They were motivated and funded by the respective organizations themselves. But still, in all the cases, the design processes were deliberately shaped to bring about effects in terms of work design and organizational development; external consultants were engaged to support the design processes towards these objectives. This is highly non-representative for work design processes going on in industrial, non-profit and administrative organizations. Research is urgently needed on these processes in the wild. The research would primarily be retrospective in nature in the first phases; later, theory-based design and intervention projects might follow. The research questions put forward in the first section of this paper are still mainly open, as are the following issues: • Is there a hidden typology of work design processes identifying typical kinds of processes for certain industrial sectors, company size classes, company age classes, countries/ regions, and other specifying variables? • How can this typology be described? Which set of theoretical and methodological concepts corresponds to which types of work design processes?

114)>>


• Are there any consistent relations between these types of design processes and effects regarding the learning intensity of the work systems and processes brought about by these design processes? • Is it possible to identify gateways of intervention for these types of processes, in order to increase the focus on learning intensity? • What is the role of professional orientation, methodologies, and attitudes of the various actors within these processes? Are these kinds of orientation, attitude and methodology accessible for intervention, e.g. in terms of education and professional development?

5)>> What needs to be done? Further research and development in this area should focus on the following issues, all regarding the overall perspective of tuning work design processes towards adequate learning intensities of the work systems and processes (to be) brought about: • Reconstruct real life, in-the-wild work design processes, which are operative without intervention through external consulting or scientific investigation. For this type of research, Grounded Theory approaches would be especially appropriate, aimed at a reconstruction of effective local theories and limiting the influence of theoretical predispositions on the side of the researchers. • Analyze professional methodologies and rules of practice, as used by professionals engaged in work design in different fields. Examples of these methodologies would be MTM2 in industrial engineering, regarding design of manufacturing work processes, and ITIL3 in IT service management, regarding design of IT service and support work processes. • Analyze the relationships between these real life work design processes, methodologies and rules of practice on the one hand and, on the other hand, the learning intensity of the work systems and processes designed. • Identify gateways of intervention and develop and disseminate tools for intervention, e.g. new or modified work design methodologies, new formats of education for professionals in this field in different sectors, new IT-supported tools for these professionals. A specific aspect of these lines of R&D is the seemingly non-scientific issue of transfer, regarding the transfer of results and experiences from R&D projects in the domain of work design to other organizations and settings beyond those involved in )>> Methods Time Measurement, a work analysis and design methodology historically based on work by Frank Bunker Gilbreth in the early 20th century and continually developed since; widely employed in industry, especially in the automotive sector. https://www.dmtm.com 3 )>> IT Infrastructure Library, a de-facto standard for IT service and support processes, originally based on an initiative of the UK Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA). http://www.itil-officialsite.com 2


the original R&D projects. Presently, these transfer issues are not very well understood and not very systematically monitored. In terms of system theory, an effective transfer of results, experiences, and methods would require a model of the receptor system, i.e. the organizations intended to take up these results and experiences (cf. Nickolaus and Gräsel 2006). For the issues discussed here, a sound understanding of the actual work design processes taking place in these organizations would be a core aspect of this model. Thus, the lines of R&D as discussed above would, on the one hand, provide an improved basis for practical transfer and dissemination in the field of work design, and on the other hand contribute to a better scientific understanding of transfer processes. This better and new understanding can lead to a shift of the process of organizational design from artisanship to a discipline.

Bibliography Baitsch C, Frei F (1980) Qualifizierung in der Arbeitstätigkeit. Eine theoretische und empirische Annäherung. Schriften zur Arbeitspsychologie, vol 30, Huber, Bern Bergmann B (2004): Arbeiten und Lernen. Waxmann, Münster Bjørnåvold J, Colardyn D (2004) Validation of Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning: Policies and Practices in EU member states. In: European Journal of Education 1: 69-89 Brandt D, Cernetic J, Hartmann EA, Kochhar R, Mayer F, Nemec B, Scherer E, Smith D, Stapleton L (2003) Technology fostering individual and organisational development – an international perspective. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung (ed) Kompetenzentwicklung. Waxmann, Münster Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-152 Erpenbeck J, Heyse V (2007) Die Kompetenzbiographie: Wege der Kompetenzentwicklung. Waxmann, Münster Förster J, Hartmann EA., Schmicker S, Martin HS, Bebber KA (2009) Unterstützung und Förderung von global agierenden Teams am Beispiel eines weltweit operierenden Konzerns. In: Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft e. V. (ed) Arbeit, Beschäftigungsfähigkeit und Produktivität im 21. Jahrhundert. Jahresdokumentation. GfA-Press, Dortmund: 165-168 Garibaldo F (2007) Democratising Change. In: AI & Society, vol 21, 4 Garibaldo F (2010) Search conference. In: Rasmussen LB (ed) INTERACTIVEÂ€METHODS – Facilitation of change in organization, communities and networks. Polyteknisk Forlag, Dänemark (in press) Hacker W (2005) Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische Regulation von Wissens-, Denk- und körperlicher Arbeit. Huber, Bern Hartmann EA (1995) Specifying requirements for human-oriented technology in tractor manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the Waseda International Symposium on HumanOriented Manufacturing Systems (HOMS). October 27, 1995. Waseda-University, Tokio Hartmann EA (2005) Arbeitssysteme und Arbeitsprozesse. Vdf, Zürich Medina-Mora R, Winograd T, Flores R, Flores F (1992) The Action Workflow approach to workflow management technology, ACM, Proceedings of the Conference On ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, NovemberÂ€1992, Toronto

116)>>


Nickolaus R, Gräsel C (2006) Innovation und Transfer: Expertisen zur Transferforschung. Schneider, Hohengehren Pawlowsky P, Reinhardt R, Bornemann M, Schneider U (2001) Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management: Perspectives on Measuring Knowledge. In: Dierkes M, Berthoin Antal A, Child J, Nonaka I (ed) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford/ New York: 794-820 Rasmussen LB, Garibaldo F (2010) Application of interactive methods. In: Rasmussen LB (ed) INTERACTIVE METHODS – Facilitation of change in organization, communities and networks. Polyteknisk Forlag, Dänemark (in press) Sell R, Schimweg R (2002) Probleme lösen: In komplexen Zusammenhängen denken. Springer, Berlin Ulich E, Frei F, Baitsch C (1980) Zum Begriff der persönlichkeitsförderlichen Arbeitsgestaltung. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 36: 210-214

Commentary on the Main Article: “What’s Going On Out There? – Designing Work Systems for Learning in Real Life”

Learning in Real Life Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen

1)>>Introduction The topic Designing Work Systems for Learning in Real Life is essential for European countries including the Danish industry and service sector. A multitude of social research and development projects on this issue have been conducted in Denmark since 1970’s. The topic, however, is still relevant to focus on, partly due to the rising complexity of organizational structures and partly because several obstacles to learning in real work systems still seem to play an obstructive role.

2)>> Obstacles to and conditions for trust building The paper by Hartmann and Garibaldo puts forward many highly relevant concepts as well as three illustrative case studies. Especially their deliberations on how to create enough trust in order to enhance gateways of intervention for learning intensive work systems deserve some supportive reflections. Hartmann and Garibaldo correctly state that trust building depends on “the managerial attitude and on the willingness of all actors to participate”. But one could then continue to ask how an appropriate managerial attitude should be developed as well as which factors have an impact on the willingness to participate? The three case-studies presented in the paper show that positive changes towards more learning-intensive work systems can sometimes be shaped without radical changes of the organization. But there are also plenty of studies showing that serious obstacles can prevent the development of such systems. The main obstacles to the successful use of participatory proactive approaches are lack of time and incentives, rigid hierarchies, the piece-rate payment system, the resignation of employees, and the role conflict between middle-managers and workers. Poor access to interactive methods such as design games, search conferences, future creating workshops, interactive scenario analysis, causal mapping, interÂ�active planning, and S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_13, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

118)>>

Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen

lack of experience to use these methods in a participatory way prevent the genesis of learning intensive work systems too (cf. Rasmussen 2011; Rasmussen 2005). The challenge is to transform parts of tacit and explicit knowledge into an integrated knowledge system, which can be more easily shared, used and accumulated (cf. Rasmussen 2008; Nonaka 2005). Such an unrestricted flow of knowledge can be enhanced by various devices as follows: • The creation of learning spaces or work space laboratories where managers and employees can perform proactive-creative workshops using for instance search conferences and scenario workshops, design games, interactive planning, participatory SWOT or future creating workshops (cf. Rasmussen 2008; Broberg 2007). • The creation of opportunities for networking or peer exchange between companies and knowledge institutions as a means of combining novel and already practiced ideas and knowledge (cf. Rasmussen 2005) • The development of repository systems to update, share and accumulate knowledge created anywhere in the organization (cf. Rasmussen 2004). • Education and training of managers and employees to use the new opportunities and methods as a means to create new forms of work organization (cf. Rasmussen 2008; Kristiansen 2007). However, such devices are useless when the conventional top-down command-andcontrol paradigm continues to keep the creative abilities in the organization in an iron-cage, as Max Weber termed the restrictive version of bureaucracy (cf. Weber 1930). Hence, an interactive leadership paradigm must accompany the implementation of proactive devices and methods (cf. Andersen and Andersen 2007). Three different forms of leadership roles should be encouraged, as shown in Figure 1: Generative leadership

Knowledge creation

Facilitating leadership

Knowledge sharing

Facilitating leadership

Transformational learning

Knowledge accumulation

Knowledge practice

Adaptive leadership

Figure 1: Relationships between interactive leadership, knowledge flow and learning

Learning in Real Life)>>119

Generative leadership is focusing on the creation of structures and interaction patterns that stimulate creativity and innovation, for instance learning spaces, communication networks, repository systems and/ or resources to use proactive methods (cf. Surie and Hazy 2007). Adaptive leadership is a participatory and collective form of leadership that draws upon the combined knowledge of various members. It is non-positional, informal and oriented to make appropriate changes of actions or norms when necessary. Adaptive leadership can occur anywhere in the organization, for instance when unexpected challenges require fast responses. In order to ensure the dynamics between those two forms of leadership, a third form of leadership is necessary, namely facilitating leadership. As shown in figure 1, facilitating leadership contains two main functions. One is to guide the interaction between the generative and adaptive levels. The other main function is to ensure that the novel ideas and experiences made anywhere in the organization are communicated and used to change attitudes and behavior.

3)>> Interactive Methods and Gateways of Intervention Hartmann and Garibaldo formulate an open question of whether “it is possible to identify ‘gateways of intervention’ for these types processes, in order to increase the focus on learning intensity”? A number of interactive methods are available as already mentioned (cf. Rasmussen 2011). Each of them can be used to initiate organizational and individual learning through participatory approaches, but only when they are combined with trust building between all the actors of the organization. Proactive application of these methods helps to enhance the integration and collaboration between people with various mind sets and experiences. Participatory learning approaches can no longer meaningfully be considered as approaches to only help shop-floor workers achieve better working conditions. This social attitude has to be considered as a part of a much more comprehensive rationale, including more effective employees and less power controversies. Such an integrative rationale can be developed and implemented by using interactive methods in participatory approaches, because they can promote the creative and innovative competences of all the actors in the organization as well as a continuous trust building. Though the practical outcomes of interactive approaches have varied considerably during the last decades (cf. Eikeland 2007; Summers and Hyman 2005; Eijnatten 1993), two scientifically documented evidences are still in favor of promoting them. The first evidence is that navigation in a complex and dynamic world does not only depend on the price level of the products or services, or the company’s market share, networks and technology. It depends on the organizational capabilities to elicit, harness and improve the human resources resident in employees and managers, too. Only when these resources get energized and activated, the organization becomes an innovative and effective player in a complex and dynamic environment. The second evidence is that if people don’t participate in and ‘own’ the novel idea or solution, the implementation will be only half-hearted at best and most likely fail (cf. Rasmussen 2011; Rasmussen 2004; Schön 1983).

120)>>

Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen

Bibliography Andersen V, and Andersen AS (2007) Learning environment at work: Dilemmas facing professional employees. In: Human Resource Development Review, vol 6, 2: 185-207 Broberg O (2007) Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical evidence and implications for the ergonomists’. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, vol 17: 353-366 Eikeland O (2007) Why should mainstream social researchers be interested in action research? In: International Journal of Action Research, vol 3, 1/2: 38-64 Eijnatten FM v (1993) The paradigm that changed the Work Place. The Swedish Center for Working Life. Van Gorcum, Assen, NL Nonaka I, Takeushi H (1995) The knowledge creating Company. Oxford University press, US Kristiansen M (2007) Relational and Existential Challenges of Practicing Dialogical Action Research – Working with Social Concrete Blocks in Organizations. In: International Journal of Action Research, vol 3, 1+2: 15-37 Rasmussen LB (2011) Facilitating Change – Using interactive methods in organizations, communities and networks. Polyteknisk Forlag, DK (in print) Rasmussen LB (2008) Models for Sustainable Development – A Danish-Chinese Approach to regional development of education, work and technology based on a multi-dimensional understanding of sustainability. In: Szell G, Bösling CH, Szell U (ed) Education, labour & science: Perspectives for the 21st Century. Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt a.M.: 197-232 Rasmussen LB (2005) The narrative aspect of scenario building – How story telling may give people a memory of the future. AI & Society, vol 19, 1: 229-249 Rasmussen LB (2004) Sustainable entrepreneurship and quality of work. In Garibaldo F, Telljohann V (ed) Globalisation, Company Strategies and Quality of Working Life in Europe. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M.: 251-278 Schön DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York Summers J, Hyman J (2005) Employee participation and company performance. A review of literature. York publishing Design, Ltd, UK Surie G, Hazy JK (2007) Generative leadership: Nurturing Innovation in complex systems. In: Heckscher C, Adler PS (ed) (2007) The firm as a Collaborative Firm. Oxford University Press, UK: 349-366 Weber M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Parsons, Transl. Routledge, London

Job Learning in the Hands of New Actors – Challenges for the Innovative Capability of Companies Yvonne Salazar and Sibylle Peters

Abstract The current developments in the knowledge economic accelerate new paths for innovations in businesses. Their speed requires an increasing knowledge intensity of work content and changing work forms. These work processes increasingly incorporate a type of learning which is frequently informal, uncontrolled and without professional (pedagogical) supervision. New stakeholder groups, far removed from the traditional professions of human resource development, increasingly gain influence and shape these processes. Two operational case studies refer to these new developments and are presented in their role and significance for job learning. In the article an analysis of the amalgamation process of working and learning and the tasks and roles of the stakeholder groups acting for this is advocated. The objective is the competence development of selected stakeholder groups in these work processes and thereby the increase of operational innovative capability.

1)>>Introduction In today’s globalised economy, companies are subjected to a high level of pressure to change and must be capable of reacting quickly to market dynamics. At the same time, knowledge-based products and processes are to an ever greater extent playing a leading role. More and more functions in the company are based on complex specialist knowledge, which rapidly becomes obsolete due to continuous innovation. As a result, work processes increasingly incorporate a type of learning which is frequently informal, uncontrolled and without professional pedagogical supervision. It may be assumed that a sophisticated analysis of the fusion of work and learning, and of the known and potential actors in this process, could provide an important incentive for the integrative, proactive organization of work and learning. It is hereby assumed that the growth of knowledge-based and knowledge-oriented work content results in modified working and organizational processes, which permit a direct and versatile influence to be exerted on learning and facilitate effective learning processes. It is important to pay greater analytical attention to these new, differentiated knowledge-intensive work processes and sub-processes, so as to locate sources of learning ability. In the past, too much attention has been given to work S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_14, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

122)>>

Yvonne Salazar and Sibylle Peters

processes and structures as the supposed objective sources. The intention here, by contrast, is to look more closely at the formal and informal actors who have a direct influence on the development of learning abilities in the work process, including those who represent a source for others, because of the effect they have on their learning ability or because of the learning expectations they raise. Researches into the promotion of learning have hitherto been oriented toward the traditional guidance professions such as trainers, instructors and personnel developers. They searched for solutions within the system of reference in which these actors performed their professional activities; in other words, qualitative improvements to learning processes were developed and implemented with a pedagogical orientation. However, the promotion of learning and the organization of learning environments is no longer monopolized by these guidance professions. Learning-related tasks are being shifted to operational actors who were not previously concerned with the development of learning abilities. These actors are not purposely involved in the learning process and have no explicit assignment in this field. Moreover, learning is not visibly rooted in their jobs, but rather results from the new tasks generated by modified processes and structures. They must therefore be regarded as new groups of actors; in other words, professionally speaking, they are lay persons in matters of learning. An enquiry into the level of learning promotion and learning support demanded of these groups of actors and into the activities performed in this context is called for. They are ascribed an influence on process developments for learning promotion in various operational arenas, though it is commonly assumed that the course of these developments is implicit and uncontrolled. There is a growing demand on their expertise in the areas of knowledge transfer and employee development as well as in the promotion and organization of learning. The question is to what extent do their professional activities allow them to take on these new demands? The goal is to understand and define the interlocking of work and learning from the perspective of these new actors, to increase their ability to cope with these new demands, and in this way to boost the potential for innovation of the company’s processes and structures.

2)>> The Promotion of Learning as a New Professional Activity in the Hands of Operational Actors 2.1)>> The Link between Learning Ability and Innovative Capability With its new research and development program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”1, which addresses the issue of competency performance, the BMBF has broken new ground )>> The Federal Government will make about 22.5 million euros available for the program by 2011. Further funding will be contributed from the European Social Fund.

1

Job Learning in the Hands of New Actors)>>

123

in the promotion of innovative capability in the modern working world. In this program, “the interweaving of work and learning will be regarded as an integral whole and understood as a crucial key to innovative capability” (BMBF 2007, 2; translated by author); in other words, the relationship between innovation and learning is being recognized at a research policy level. The creed that without learning, innovation is impossible is generally accepted, because innovation processes are first and foremost learning processes (cf. Moldaschl and Stehr 2010). “Innovative capability presupposes a capacity for permanent learning” and “innovation management also implies the organization of learning environments” (Weissenberger-Eibl 2010, 23; translated by author). Learning ability is therefore a decisive factor for innovative capability. 2.2)>> Current State of Research In the concluded research and development program “Learning culture and competence development,”2 the results of the program section LiPA, which promoted workplaces conducive to learning and the implementation of learning arrangements, are now available. In one of the key research priorities of LiPA, design projects emphasized the operational design of learning and competence development processes, which highlighted the importance of learning3 in the work process (cf. Bergmann et al. 2004; Frieling et al. 2001; cf. Wessels 2009). The principal finding is the possibility of successfully designing expanded competence development by creating transparency regarding one’s own activities at the workplace and thereby focusing on elements which are conducive to learning. In another priority area of this program, design projects followed new forms of personnel and organizational development in the operational work of best-practice companies. They utilized planned organizational changes to implement a type of strategic personnel development which served the enhancement of competence in the work process. The results of the program, in both of the above-mentioned research directions, demonstrate that resources for promoting competence development may be found in the work process. It was proved, in this context, that the promotion of learning in the workplace can be implemented by pedagogical intervention. There has been no research on the genesis of working conditions conducive to learning, which would reveal the way in which the promotion of learning evolves in work structures and may be influenced. This would be a new research field. Research topics taking this approach would have to start with the origination of learning promotion with operational actors and groups of actors. In their professional activities, these actors must deal with changes to work processes, work contents and work structures, so that the continual expansion of the scope of their tasks 2

)>> The program section “Learning in the work process” (LiPA) of the research and development program “Learning culture and competence development” was funded by the BMBF and the European Social Fund. It supported projects which aimed at practical, methodical and theoretical solutions for the promotion of competence development at work. 3 )>> In the LiPA incentive program, a distinction was made between formal, informal and nonformal leaning and learning promotion.

124)>>


and routines is a constant requirement. This new research field, referred to here as the internal “path development” of learning promotion, could represent a genuine addition to the research priorities described above. This research perspective must be broadened by an orientation to the professional activities of selected groups of actors in those work processes affected by change. These groups of actors, including senior management, internal consultants and other specialists, plan, structure, design and guide the work processes. As part of their professional activity, they formally and – what is probably even more common – informally initiate the promotion of learning in the workplace and thereby influence the learning ability and innovative capability of work. Due to the fact that the cooperation of these actors with representatives of personnel development has not yet been examined systematically (cf. Wessels 2009, 30), potential for learning is being lost or overlooked. Wessels mentions organizational, cultural and professional boundaries between groups of actors, as a result of which significant knowledge deficits tend to be consolidated rather than innovatively solved. In consequence, the research results of LiPA are of limited use, because the integration of learning in work processes was always implemented pedagogically in that program. This directs our attention with even greater intensity to the professional activities of the new actors. 2.3)>> Groups of Actors and Professional Activities To increase the competence development of professional groups is a universal requirement of organizations with knowledge intensive work structures (cf. Moldaschl 2010, 203 et seq.; Wilkesmann 2010, 481 et seq.). As a consequence of the necessity for continual organizational change, the modification, development and reorganization of processes is restricted by professional action4 which merely takes recourse to the established channels of recognized practical and theoretical knowledge and the corresponding behavioral patterns. Given the growth of knowledge intensive activities, a focus on the knowledge of professional actors which concentrates on their routine-oriented actions and their boundary-conscious actions no longer seems adequate. In situations of professional activity, increasing relevance is accorded to independent contributions by groups of actors who engage in experimentation and the transgression of boundaries at the interface between professional knowledge and knowledge as the certainty of institutional action. They thereby create new opportunities for learning. These processes go beyond the plans and routines of the original professional activities of the respective groups of actors. An understanding of these processes will demand a description of and reflection on the knowledge they presuppose. After all, professional action also involves a type of knowledge which involves certainties about operational processes, without )>> In the context of a profession, professional action merges various activities into a principal activity with a monopoly on competence (license and mandate) based on functionally distributed social tasks. The processes of such developments are referred as professionalism (Kurtz and Pfadenhauer 2010).

4


125

necessarily agreeing with the professional knowledge of the groups of actors. It is important to recognize and understand breaks of routine, certainties and uncertainties, imponderables, and improvisation as an element of professional action. This would permit the development of production concepts within professionalism, which would be oriented to a description of the activities of the actors. These would facilitate the description of work contents, opportunities for participation, cooperation requirements, solution approaches as well as pointers for the perception of boundaries, routines and behavioral patterns. Activity descriptions reveal the actors’ decisions, which can then be analyzed in terms of their utility for learning. The negotiability of the form and quality of the activity is thereby rendered transparent (cf. Pfadenhauer 2010, 149 et seq.), while its connectivity and cooperative behavior is clarified. The identification of obstacles and approaches to the successful expansion of professional action enables us to find new ways of accessing learning ability and thus to unlock new potential for innovative capability (cf. Simon 2010). 2.4)>> New Actors for Operational Learning – Case Studies from Practice New actors or constellations of actors might include senior management, colleagues or operational specialists. They are not educational specialists, trainers or personnel developers, but rather experts on a specific topic or a specific work process. A shown above, as far as the issue of learning is concerned they are “new actors”. Moreover, departments (cf. Schmidt 2008) which are commonly known to have no connection with pedagogical issues are playing an increasingly important role in the field of competence development today. As a result, their actions in the intersection between learning and work go largely unrecognized. But as an employee of the industrial engineering department, for example, by designing, planning, and implementing operational processes, you have a direct influence on the interaction between people, machines and computer systems and thus on the connection between work and learning in work systems and work processes. Other groups of actors who have a similar influence may be encountered, for example, in marketing and sales departments. These actors transfer impulses for learning and innovation from the requirements and expectations of their (potential) customers to individual organizational departments, initiate new product processes, and organize product training for the sales staff working in the office or in the field. Purchasing departments also influence learning by procuring training and consultation services, although such actions are not a conscious component of their professional activity and the effects of such actions are not communicated or systematically analyzed. In the following sections we shall be looking at groups from two key company departments, production and IT, as an example of the new actors who exert a significant influence on learning in the workplace. 2.4.1)>> Shift Foreman as “Competence Developer” In the production department, drastic changes to the job profiles of individual groups of actors (e.g. management, maintenance personnel, machine operators) are possi-

126)>>


ble, most often caused by the introduction of Integrated Production Systems (IPS), Lean Manufacturing, Continuous Improvement Processes (CIP) or Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). The alteration of production methods and the introduction of new production principles necessarily entail continuous learning in the work process. Learning is, so to speak, embedded as a performance factor into some areas of knowledge intensive work. These requirements are clearly visible at EJOT, the European market leader in fastening technology. Based on the example of this company, it will be shown that the challenges of the global market and the extensive changes associated with it can only be successfully met with highly motivated and qualified personnel. The company therefore places a high value on having an effective, partnership-based human resources strategy5. To allow it to strategically direct and systematically develop the employees’ skills, EJOT has been introducing a competence management system since 2009. In a pilot workshop,6 which had the goal of defining target profiles for the job families in the fastening technology division, the shift supervisors consulted named readiness to learn as the most important skill required of their employees, the machine fitters. They also described the greater demands placed on learning intensity and learning capacity. Where previously an employee could be trained within half a year, nowadays these learning processes are frequently stretched over several years. The competence development required for machine fitters can no longer be provided by shift supervisors alongside their main work. In view of the demands made by this new task, together with growing workloads and time pressure, they are faced with a new challenge. Promotion of learning has therefore been incorporated in the shift supervisor’s competence profile as a new target skill. In conclusion, the example of EJOT demonstrates the necessity of ascertaining whether the management is promoting, obstructing or neglecting learning ability in the work process, and how their professional action can be reinforced on this basis. Is this group aware of its role and its influence on transformative processes in the context of learning? To what extent is it necessary to consider here, as part of a new understanding of management and leadership, the significance of possible connections and barriers with reference to learning and work? 2.4.2 IT Employees and Their Influence on Learning and Work Processes IT shapes today’s knowledge society. The more organizations equip their learning and working environment with IT-supported work processes and IT tools, the more the function of this system changes from the classic data management and distribution system to a networked knowledge and communication system. Whereas a few )>> The company EJOT Holding GmbH & Co. KG has over 2,100 employees worldwide, and according to a country-wide, cross-sector company comparison by Top Job, it belongs to the 100 best employers among German SMEs. 6 )>> In order to develop a standardized procedure for determining competence profiles in EJOT, Festo Didactic conducted a pilot workshop for the fastening technology division in 2010, in which target profiles were defined for the shift supervisors and machine fitters. 5


127

years ago the classic CRM and ERP systems (e.g. SAP, Navision, and Oracle) still undertook resource management tasks such as the recording and distribution of purchasing, controlling and product data; today they have taken on parts of the organizational knowledge management, knowledge analysis and knowledge utilization. Kai Reinhardt, an expert for digital information management, predicts that new forms of analysis and communication such as semantic networks, microblogging, recommendation engines, and social profiling will change the learning and communication behavior of entire organizations in the medium term. One-dimensional communication and unambiguous role assignments between knowledge carriers and knowledge receivers will be dissolved in favor of networked communication. The user is being steadily transformed from a passive consumer into an active prosumer. Axel Föry from Cisco Systems, for instance, believes that learning communities will emerge on the Internet, which will to some extent assume the role of universities. In this respect, IT systems are transformed into independent knowledge and learning systems, which provide communications and information about the company, while they link up with individual persons (cf. Priddat 2010, 431 et seq.). The systems described above are maintained, designed and developed by IT employees. As a result of this role and their professional activities, these employees control the possibilities and limitations on the utilization of knowledge and the design of knowledge processes and knowledge transfer. Even the selection of a technical solution for the storage, management and distribution of data (e.g. Microsoft SharePoint or intra- and extranet) already forms the basis for the development of an organizational knowledge infrastructure in the form of communication, knowledge and learning potential. The traditional profession of IT employees is computer scientist. Due to their technical training, their key competencies lie in technical administration, system selection and the implementation of information systems. In view of their implicit role as knowledge architects, these employees therefore lack certain key competencies and the technical grounding to design nonlinear knowledge management systems and to effectively shape the organization’s learning behavior and communications. However, the transformation of technological developments into organizational learning and transfer processes will be one of the main tasks of future organizational development. This means that not only technological developments in the IT department, but also the knowledge of IT employees about knowledge itself have an impact on learning and learning behavior in companies. As a consequence, new demands are being placed on the professional activity of IT employees. This is clearly shown by the example of Festo, one of the world’s leading suppliers of pneumatic and electrical automation technology7. Prompted by the new market conditions created by globalization, they set up a worldwide production and )>> In over 50 years, this globally oriented, independent family business, based in Esslingen am Neckar, has become the performance leader in its sector, thanks to innovation and problemsolving skills in the field of pneumatics and a commitment to providing practice-oriented training and further training. The Festo Group employs approx. 13,500 people in 250 locations worldwide and generated revenues of around 1.3 billion euros in the business year 2009.

7

128)>>


logistics network. A team leader of the business unit Information and Collaboration describes, for example, the profound changes which resulted and the realignment of the information and communication systems and processes. He explains how the professional activity of the IT employees in the business unit Information and Collaboration went through a radical change and shifted increasingly into forms of activity that incorporate and include knowledge transfer and training. The focus at present is on the provision of services which accompany and support the generation of knowledge networks and the introduction of new software. The spectrum of tasks involved in generating knowledge networks can be classified under three headings. It includes presiding over face-to-face meetings, provision of technical support and training for employees to perform online meetings, and the provision of a collaboration platform. The technical maintenance and supervision of IT tools is now only one aspect of the job. The introduction of the new communication tools means a shift to a new era of cooperation at Festo. The successful implementation of the collaboration platform means that knowledge can be extracted from “knowledge silos” and distributed company-wide, and thereby brings about a paradigm shift and cultural change. With this aim in view, a broad campaign provided employees with the necessary information, addressed their fears, and highlighted the opportunities. To train the Festo employees to handle the new IT tools, training documents were issued and both face-to-face and web-based training sessions were held. For the creation and methodical-didactic design of the documents, external know-how was called in when necessary. The IT employees of the business unit Information and Collaboration see their role as experts for information and communication processes and the associated business processes of their internal customers. This change in their responsibilities entailed an alteration of the qualifications and skills they required. Today, this department is no longer staffed exclusively by computer scientists, but also to a growing extent information systems specialists, business managers and engineers. The change processes described above and the expanded professional activities of the actors present a good picture of where future research might usefully be applied. There is potential for research and development in this area, which could be of great value for the stimulation of learning and innovative capability.

3)>> Summary and Research Requirements from the Perspective of Innovative Capability 3.1)>>Summary In view of the phenomena and developments described above, it is sufficiently clear that learning in work processes makes a far-reaching and sustainable contribution to the processes of organizational transformation. Consequently scientific and strategic learning and work can no longer be assigned to individual disciplinary contexts and processed mono-causally. Learning and work should rather be understood as


129

two organizational perspectives on one and the same event; they should be integrated and related to each other. The professional activity of the participating actors must therefore be extended to include learning promotion as well as knowledge transfer and knowledge evaluation. For this purpose, the professional activities performed in this context will first have to be recognized, made visible, evaluated and transferred to suitably adapted reputation structures. It is equally important to examine the professional activities of personnel developers and trainers under changing requirements. The learning demanded by fast and complex changes in business and work processes can hardly be extracted and outsourced to central training departments or academies and processed there. The knowledge and stimulus to learning generated by these processes can only be provided efficiently in the original situation itself; in other words, it must be promoted and organized in close proximity to the processes. It is probably not possible for seminar-based training measures to convey the rapidly changing and diversifying information that has to be learnt. As a result, in addition to their familiar professional activities, learning specialists must assume an enabling and support role, in which they empower other operational actors to integrate the promotion of learning in their own professional action. For these new requirements they need new competence tools and strategies, which efficiently support the above-mentioned groups of actors (e.g. Peters and Dengler 2010, 563 et seq.). 3.2)>> Research Requirements In view of the phenomena described above, we would argue that greater analytic attention should be paid to new actors and to the growing portion of knowledge intensive work processes and subprocesses. Only then it is possible to understand the integration of learning and to describe processes like innovative capability, which has a valid claim to become a future research field, referred to here as path development. A research field of this type can probably only be envisaged as an interdisciplinary study, which incorporates competence management, personnel development, sociology of knowledge and knowledge management, sociology of work and industrial science. These interdisciplinary interfaces provide a space for research questions regarding the professional activities of various groups of actors who are increasingly dependent on interaction and communication to cope with the knowledge intensive requirement and sub-requirements they are faced with. This is currently the experience of management staff among others. It is necessary to analyze the institutional certainties of professional action, which has been described as the extraction of knowledge from (professional) knowledge silos. In others words, groups of actors possess this knowledge within their technical departments, but it is not linked to the knowledge of institutional certainties (cf. Schnauffer et al. 2006). The search for formal and informal actors with actual or possible influence on learning and work requires the analysis of structured and unstructured information, with the goal of according greater attention to micropolitical actors in the work process. It may be supposed that more actors and groups of actors than has been

130)>>


previously recognized, within a cohort and in the interaction between cohorts, are involved with the connection and possible quality of work and learning. These interfaces offer opportunities to generate new answers for the integration of learning and work. The following questions are important in this respect: • What constellations of actors have systematic or non-systematic influence on process developments and learning and what is the relationship between their professional knowledge and the actual expert knowledge demanded by the situation? Which groups can structurally expand their professional action and thus contribute to innovative capability? • How do groups of actors represent their own activities and the routines, breaks of routine, and crossing of boundaries involved in these activities, and how can these be identified and utilized as micropolitical scenarios for professional action; that is, as partial sources of learning promotion in professional action? • Apart from activity descriptions, how is it possible to identify demands for cooperation and opportunities for participation which go beyond the perceived routines of professional action, and in which crystallizations of professional knowledge can be harnessed for the promotion of learning and innovation? • What effects have different approaches to problem solution on breaks of routine and at the boundaries of professional action? Meaning that professional actors undertake the risk of amateurish activity as part of their professional activity, in order to promote learning and innovative capability in the interest of whom and with what expectations?

4)>> Ideas and Visions for the Business Location Germany Germany has a long tradition of learning in the workplace, as evidenced by the institutionalization of dual vocational training. Learning and the promotion of employees’ qualifications is recognized by German companies as an important value and as a factor of competitive success. A broad majority of companies understand the benefits and are willing to invest in the further development of employees. In many cases, however, the companies and employees have not yet relinquished the traditional idea that learning and further training is the job of the human resources department. A new mode of thought must be introduced here, which sees learning and the promotion of learning as a cross-sectional task in the company, as a natural, integral part of the professional action of other groups of actors such as management, IT staff and others. To enable these actors to integrate the new tasks pro-actively in their professional activities, it is necessary to develop new tools which facilitate systematic activation and supervision of learning processes as well as the promotion and organization of learning in the workplace. It is important to anchor learning and the promotion of learning, for example, as a preparatory course in the foundational level of various branches of study or as part of manage-


131

rial training. The promotion and organization of learning would become a metacompetence. On this basis, forms of learning in the work process could become an important factor for the innovative capability of companies. German business can only remain competitive on the international market, if the position of Germany in the global knowledge society is consistently promoted and reinforced.

Bibliography BMBF (2007) Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. BMBF-Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm, http://www. bmbf.de/pub/innovationsfaehigkeit_arbeitswelt.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Moldaschl M, Stehr N (2010) Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Metropolis, Marburg Moldaschl M (2010) Betriebliche Wissensökonomie – Verfahren, Funktionen, Verirrungen. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N: a.a.O. North K, Reinhardt K (2005) Kompetenzmanagement in der Praxis. Gabler, Wiesbaden Peters S, Dengler S (2010) Wissenspromotion als Element von Wissensarbeit. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N: a.a.O. Pfadenhauer M (2010) Kompetenz als Qualität sozialen Handelns. In: Kurtz T und Pfadenhauer M (ed.) Soziologie der Kompetenz. Gabler, Wiesbaden Priddat BP (2010) Wissen/ Nichtwissen. Neue Episteme der Arbeitswelt. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N: a.a.O. Schmidt C (2008) Das Dilemma der Personaler? Spannungen als Perspektive einer veränderten Unternehmensführung. Master Thesis, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg Schnauffer HG, Stieler-Lorenz B, Peters S (2006) Wissen vernetzen. Springer, Berlin/ New York Sevsay-Tegethoff N (2007) Bildung und anderes Wissen. Zur „neueren“ Thematisierung von Erfahrungswissen in der beruflichen Bildung. Gabler, Wiesbaden Simon D, Knie A, Hornbostel S (2010) Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik. VERLAG, Wiesbaden Weissenberger-Eibl M (2010) Innovation und Lernen. Talk of the F.PAK Kolloquium in Munich, http://www.applied-knowing.org/de/fpak/?news=168. Accessed May 2011 Wessels J (2009) Nationale und internationale Wissensbestände zum Lernen im Prozess der Arbeit (LiPA). Expertise on behalf of the project “International Monitoring”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/ Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Wessels.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Wilkesmann U (2010) Die Organisation von Wissensarbeit. In: Moldaschl M, Stehr N: a.a.O.

Commentary on the Main Article “Job Learning in the Hands of New Actors – Challenges for the Innovative Capability of Companies”

Computer-based, Individual Learning at Work: Developments and Trends Anna Maria Köck and Klaus Tochtermann

In today’s collaborative and knowledge-intensive work environment, conscious handling of knowledge as a resource represents a decisive success factor for the competitiveness of organizations. Knowledge today is one of the key resources for innovations and innovation processes in companies (cf. Tochtermann et al. 2007, 5). In this context, efficient learning and acquisition of new, context-relevant knowledge is becoming more and more important. The fact that organizations – and individual employees in particular – need to manage ever greater and increasingly dynamic quantities of information needs to be taken into account in this regard. This challenge requires intelligent solutions which address the problem that knowledge workers typically spend 33% of their working hours searching for information and supporting colleagues who are searching for information (cf. Cross and Parker 2004; Griesser et al. 2009, 44). In their main article, Yvonne Salazar and Sibylle Peters highlight the transformation of technical developments into organizational learning processes and transfer processes as one of the key tasks of future organizational development. The authors state two key points that may facilitate this transformation: 1.)>> The creation of transparency vis-à-vis the respective employee’s work activities in order to focus on elements that promote learning and thus allow competence development. 2.)>> The provision of tools that activate and support learning processes in the workplace. In combination with the transformation of technical developments, these two aspects form the starting point for the discussions that follow. A possible solution to these challenges in the field of knowledge work is offered by the new discipline of work-integrated, computer-assisted learning (cf. Christl et al. 2008, 606) which forms a key element of the research and development activities at the Know-Center and the Knowledge Management Institute at Graz S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_15, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

134)>>

Anna Maria Köck and Klaus Tochtermann

University of Technology. Work-integrated, computer-assisted learning combines e-learning and knowledge management. E-learning is linked to the technological support of conscious learning situations and learning processes, whereas knowledge management uses cutting-edge information technology in order to support knowledge and work processes in which unconscious learning situations are embedded (cf. Lindstaedt 2002, 269). Both e-learning and aspects of knowledge management try to support knowledge transfer or work-integrated learning with the help of information and communication technologies. So why is this approach significant? The answer lies in studies that deal with the way in which the knowledge acquired is applied to the work context. Robinson (2003, 35) has determined that less than 30% of the learning content from formal training programs can be transferred to the workplace in the form of increased work performance. This percentage is independent of the type and quality of the courses and depends primarily on a lack of connection to the requirements of the working environment. 85% of what employees know about their work activities, on the other hand, comes from informal learning processes (cf. Raybould 2002). Salazar and Peters also argue in the main article that “the learning demanded by fast and complex changes in business and work processes can hardly be extracted and outsourced to central training departments or academies”. Braun and Schmidt (cf. 2006, 283) stress furthermore that making available and storing context-relevant information is more productive and more effective in promoting creativity. This requires a change of role for systems that support learning within a work context. Consequently, a discussion about learning and knowledge transfer should focus less on the question of “How much (more) does the learner know following formal training?” and place more emphasis on the question of “To what extent can the learner apply the newly acquired skills to the context of his or her work?” (Lindstaedt et al. 2008, 44). The paradigm of work-integrated learning allows task-oriented, cooperative learning under time pressure. The emphasis is not on learning a subject in exhaustive depth, but on the relevant actual task to be performed in the work process in question (cf. Lindstaedt 2002, 270). The integrated EU project APOSDLE1 (http://www.aposdle.tugraz.at/) is a research project aimed at supporting the productivity of knowledge workers through informal learning activities in the context of their respective work processes and environments. Unlike more traditional (e-) learning approaches, the APOSDLE system supports three roles of knowledge workers: Learner, Expert and Worker. This support is provided within the work environment so there is no need to change to other learning environments or systems. The APOSDLE system is based on the organization’s existing resources such as personal knowledge sources (colleagues, communities) and knowledge artifacts (e.g. reports, project results etc.), even if these knowledge artifacts were not originally intended for learning purposes. From the point of view of the learner, work-integrated learning happens spontaneously and without deliberate intent. It occurs as a by-product of the activities in the work)>> APOSDLE is an acronym for Advanced Process- Oriented Self- Directed Learning Environment.

1

Computer-based, Individual Learning at Work: Developments and Trends)>>135

place, since knowledge workers are automatically provided with learning material appropriate to their current work context and level of knowledge (cf. Kooken et al. 2007, 159; Lindstaedt and Mayer 2006, 629 et seq.; Lindstaedt et al. 2009, 640). The formalisms of the APOSDLE system are based on the Competence-based Knowledge Space Theory (cf. Korossy 1997) and offer the following benefits: (i) learning goals can be identified through a learning requirements analysis (comparison of the required knowledge with the current level of knowledge and the skills of the person in question), (ii) the work tasks of the knowledge worker allow inferences to be drawn about the learning history, and (iii) relationships between learning goals (preceding and subsequent goals) can be assessed (cf. Lindstaedt et al. 2008, 237et seq.). With regard to the (legitimate) questions of data protection, general conditions have been established in the course of development activities which take into account the OECD Data Protection Directive with its fundamental principles of Notice, Purpose, Consent, Security, Disclosure, Access and Accountability (cf. Zinnen et al. 2008, 341). With the work-integrated learning approach, the pan-organizational training perspective is shifted to a learning perspective that focuses on the individual knowledge worker (cf. Lindstaedt et al. 2008, 44). Currently available only in prototype form, APOSDLE uses semantic technologies that allow a system to adapt to a new knowledge domain without making changes to the software and without prior creation of appropriate learning content. APOSDLE provides access to contextsensitive knowledge in order to draw the knowledge worker’s attention to learning situations, content and relevant colleagues (cf. Lindstaedt and Mayer, 630). The groups of actors referred to by Salazar and Peters who, as learning experts advance the promotion of learning, are not allowed for, however, in the APOSDLE approach which is based on a self-managed system with learning processes tailored to individual requirements. This prompts the question of the extent to which professional pedagogic supervision is required, the extent to which persons with enabler and support functions are needed, and the extent to which knowledge workers are willing and able to take responsibility for their own learning activities (“most adults prefer to have some responsibility for their own learning” Hiemstra 1994 qtd. Aposdle Consortium 2006, 2). In connection with Web 2.0, mobile learning applications and social software (internal use by companies as learning and collaboration tools in the form of blogs, microblogging tools or wikis) are also introducing a new type of learning culture. This requires active support by the company management, however, and needs to be explicitly anchored in the corporate culture. Internal and external influences in the work environment (e.g. error culture, collaboration culture, legal restrictions) must also be incorporated into a deliberate system of organization and management (cf. Griesser et al. 2009). On the technological level, semantic technologies, which describe content in a way that computers can understand (cf. Tochtermann 2009), offer highly promising opportunities to increase the quality and relevance of the available data, documents and other resources and to identify similarities and interrelationships.

136)>>

Anna Maria Köck and Klaus Tochtermann

Research work in this area includes automatically recognizing the actual context of a knowledge worker, supplying the relevant learning documents in accordance with the individual’s skills and minimizing the work needed for (currently semiautomatic) modeling of the domain-specific models. Research activities in the field of automatic ontology learning or automatic process recognition could offer possible solutions in this area (cf. Christl et al. 2008). These semantic approaches may help to liberate the “knowledge from (professional) knowledge silos” referred to by Salazar and Peters, and thus achieve decisive improvements for more effective learning processes.

Bibliography Aposdle Consortium (2006) Workplace Learning Study. Deliverable D.2.1, http://www. aposdle.tugraz.at/content/download/374/1871/file/APOSDLE-Workplace_Learning_ Study.pdf. Accessed July 2010 Braun S, Schmidt A (2006) Kontextbewusste Lernunterstützung für das Lernen bei Bedarf: In: Heinecke AM, Paul H (ed) Mensch & Computer – 6. Fachuebergreifende Konferenz – M&C. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich: 283-292 Christl C, Willfort R, Lindstaedt S (2008) Innovativer Wissenstransfer am Arbeitsplatz – Einsatz von APOSDLE in Kleinen und Mittleren Unternehmen (KMU). In: Bentele M, Gronau N et al. (ed) Erhöhen Sie Ihren BQ! Kongressband zur KnowTech 2008. CMPWEKA Verlag, Poing: 605-612 Cross RL, Parker A (2004) The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Griesser A, Thurner-Scheuerer C, Tochtermann K (2009) Von Web 2.0 zu Enterprise 2.0. Strategien für das erfolgreiche Unternehmen der Zukunft. In: HR Performance, Issue 8, 2009, 42-45 Hiemstra R (1994) Self-directed learning. In: Husen T, Postlethwaite TN (ed) The International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edition. Pergamon Press, Oxford Kooken J, Ley T, de Hoog R (2007) How Do People Learn at the Workplace? Investigating Four Workplace Learning Assumptions. In: Duval E, Klamma R, Wolpers M (ed) Creating New Learning Experiences on a Global Scale. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4753, Springer, Heidelberg: 158-171 Korossy K (1997) Extending the theory of knowledge spaces: A competence-performance approach. In: Zeitschrift für Psychologie, vol 205, 1997: 53-82 Lindstaedt SN (2002) Ad-Hoc-Integration von Arbeits- und Lernprozessen. In: Proceedings der Fachtagung der Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Frauen, Berlin, November 21.-22., 2002, 55. Series 2002. BBJ-Verlag, Berlin: 269-272 Lindstaedt SN, Aehnelt M, de Hoog R (2009) Supporting the Learning Dimension of Knowledge Work. In: Cress U, Dimitrova V, Specht M (ed) Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines. 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2009, Springer, Heidelberg: 639-644 Lindstaedt SN, Ley T, Scheir P, Ulbrich A (2008) Applying Scruffy Methods to Enable Work-integrated Learning. In: Upgrade: The European Journal of the Informatics Professional, vol 9, 3, June 2008: 44-50

Computer-based, Individual Learning at Work: Developments and Trends)>>137

Lindstaedt SN, Scheir P, Lokaiczyk R, Kump B, Beham G, Pammer V (2008a) Knowledge Services for Work-integrated Learning. Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL). Maastricht September 16-19, 2008: 234-244 Lindstaedt SN, Mayer H (2006) A Storyboard of the APOSDLE Vision. In: Nejdl W, Tochtermann K (ed) Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4227. Springer, Heidelberg: 628–633 Raybould B (2002) Performance Support Engineering Part One: Key Concepts. Ariel PSE Technology, 2000; cited from Dickover NT.(2002) The Job is the Learning Environment: Performance-Centered Learning to Support Knowledge Worker Performance. In: Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, vol 14, 3 Robinson DG (2003) Skill and Performance: They are not equal. In: Apartment Professional Magazine, May/ June 2003: 35-37 Tochtermann K (2009) Das Future Internet. In: ispa news, 4/ 2009: 13-15 Tochtermann K, Dösinger G, Willfort R (2007) Innovation und Kreativität in der Wissensgesellschaft. In: Willfort R, Tochtermann K, Neubauer A (ed) Creativity@Work für Wissensarbeit. Kreative Höchstleistungen am Wissensarbeitsplatz auf Basis neuester ErÂ�kenntnisse der Gehirnforschung. Shaker Verlag, Aachen: 515 Zinnen A, Hambach S, Faatz A, Lindstaedt S, Beham G, Godehard E, Goertz M, Lokaiczyk R (2008) Datenschutzfragen bei der Etablierung einer Arbeitsprozess-integrierten e-Learning-Lösung. In: Seehusen S, Lucke U, Fischer S (ed) DeLFI 2008. Die 6.Â€e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. Bonn: GesellÂ� schaft für Informatik: 341-352

Integrating Innovation, Work, and Learning in Higher Education – The Case of Work Based Learning Frameworks Barbara Light and Ernst Hartmann

Abstract This paper discusses the use of Work Based Learning (WBL) as a specific workembedded learning environment comparing it to other learning domains and typologies used in both Germany and the UK. Knowledge creation in the work place is re-evaluated and current approaches to university/ industry cooperation are placed under scrutiny – it is argued here that universities need to engage more equitably with the world of work. The paper then highlights the uses and the importance of Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) in lifelong learning contexts, focuses on brief case studies, before considering future challenges and what needs to be done to implement WBL frameworks.

1)>>Introduction Education – or more comprehensively, learning – as well as Research and Development are core prerequisites for innovation. To become effective in practice, learning and R&D activities need to be intricately intertwined with real-life work settings, to promote and make use of innovation processes in these real-life settings. Work Based Learning and related learning environments are proposed as paradigmatic instruments to establish and reinforce these links between learning, R&D, and innovation, with a special emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises (SME).

2)>> Work Based Learning – Concepts and Experiences 2.1)>> Work Based Learning in Relation to other Learning Environments In this paper, Work Based Learning (WBL) will be discussed as a specific learning environment, combining real-world problem solving, professional practices or organizational development with learning in a higher education context. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_16, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

140)>>

Barbara Light and Ernst Hartmann

This concept is related to other types of settings, also designed to bridge the gap between learning and real-world problem solving. Figure 2.1 below shows a typology of learning environments, located in a twodimensional space. One of these dimensions is the learning – problem solving continuum, the other refers to three institutional/ functional contexts of learning. The first of these contexts is an educational institution, the third is a domain of practice in industry or other areas of practical activity. The second context is research and development (R&D). Besides public or private research centers, R&D takes place in higher education institutions as well as in industrial corporations. But in these educational and industrial organizations, R&D is usually functionally (and often also organizationally) divided from, on the one hand, learning, and, on the other hand, ordinary productive or administrative work. This is why the three contexts are called institutional/ functional. In the lower part of Figure 2.1, two learning environments are depicted which are not designed to integrate learning and practical problem solving. One of these is course-based or school-based programs in higher or vocational education. The other is on-site, but off-job educational and training formats in domains of practice. More relevant for the topic of this paper are the other learning environments. A characteristic element for the German vocational education and training (VET) system is the Dual System. In initial VET – usually for young people after leaving school – the Dual System offers a combination of school-based education and practice-based apprenticeship. There might be a short-cycled change between the two environments, e.g. three or four days in the company and one or two days in school every week, or longer periods of practical apprenticeship integrated with longer blocks of school courses. Comparable VET systems are now being introduced, or have already been in operation, in other European contexts – including the UK where the relatively new Modern Apprenticeship scheme for the post-16 sector and the Graduate Apprenticeship scheme enable young people to study/ work and gain National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) or the new Diplomas which will gradually supersede NVQs. In order to incentivize 16-18 year-olds to study, the previous Labor Government offered students a weekly financial payment based on means-testing of parental income, although this allowance has now been cut by the Conservatives. The notion of work based or work place learning is intrinsic to VET systems, but the learning derived from these experiences is not always acknowledged and validated through the award of credits thereby tending to isolate and potentially devalue learning mediated through the work place. The example of WBL in higher education (as practiced by Middlesex University, London and detailed later in this chapter) where the work domain is fully recognized as a generator of valid knowledge and learning, marks a significant shift in the discourse of learning environments away from functional/ institutional divisions to a more equitable and innovative integration of work and learning.

Integrating Innovation, Work, and Learning in Higher Education

Closeness to real-life problem solving

HE

problem-based learning

R&D internship

141

VET

Both

work-based learning

work-based part course-based part

Dual System

course-based programmes (VET/HE)

Education

off-the-job on-site E&T

R&D

Industry/ Practice

Figure 2.1: Typology of learning environments (HE: Higher Education; VET: Vocational Education and Training; R&D: Research and Development)

The concept of Problem Based Learning (PBL) refers to the integration of real-world projects in higher education programs. An international hot-spot of PBL is Aalborg University (AAU) in Denmark, founded in 1974 as an institution dedicated to educational reform, using PBL from the start. In 2007, the UNESCO Chair for Problem-Based Learning (UCPBL) was established at AAU to create a global society for researchers and academic staff working with PBL (cf. Kolmos et al. 2004). In PBL, real-world problems, often identified by cooperating industrial companies, are the core elements of learning. Within the academic programs, half of the credit points are gained by PBL. Barge (2009, 2) defines core concepts of PBL within the Aalborg model as follows: • “[...] A problem can be theoretical, practical, social, technical, symbolic-cultural and/ or scientific and grows out of students’ wondering within different disciplines and professional environments. The problem is the starting point directing the students’ learning process and situates the learning in a context. A chosen problem has to be exemplary. […] • [...] A project is a complex effort that necessitates an analysis of the target (problem analysis) and that must be planned and managed, because of desired changes that are to be carried out in people’s surroundings, organization, knowledge, and attitude to life; it involves a new, not previously solved task or problem; it requires resources across traditional organizations and knowledge; it must be completed at a point in time determined in advance. [...]

142)>>


• Exemplarity is a principle of selecting relevant specific learning outcomes and content/ scientific knowledge that is exemplary to overall learning outcomes. That is, a problem needs to refer back to a particular practical, scientific and/ or technical domain. The problem should stand as one specific example or manifestation of more general learning outcomes related to knowledge and/ or modes of inquiry. • [...] A team is a group, sharing and working closely together on the same goal in solving the problems. The binding cooperation of members on successful completion of the project is an essential component of the overall approach to learning.” Although, in this definition, the concept of a problem is rather widely defined to include PBL applications in a broad range of scientific and practical domains, the engineering programs at AAU are usually based on real-world engineering problems (cf. Kjærsdam and Enemark 1994). The core feature of PBL is its foundation in R&D. It transcends the institutional and functional barriers between learning, research, and practice. This very nature of PBL puts it also in a key position for fostering innovation within universityindustry partnerships. PBL or PBL-oriented programs have, besides Denmark, been implemented in, for example, Canada (McMaster University), the Netherlands (Maastricht University), Malaysia (Universitiy Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia), and the United States (University of Delaware). A PBL-related example also comes from Germany in the specialization track “Integrated Product Engineering” (IPE1) within the mechanical engineering study program at Otto von Guericke University, Magdeburg. Also here, practical problems from industrial companies, non-profit organizations or public administrations are at the core of projects performed by interdisciplinary teams2 of students. Within one semester, these teams develop practically applicable products responding to the problems defined by the external partner organizations. Another also very R&D-centered learning environment could be called R&D internships. In this setting, recently graduated alumni of higher education institutions are playing a key role within an R&D relationship between their (former) university and a company, often a small or medium sized company (SME). During this project, the alumni may be employed by the company or the higher education institution. In the United Kingdom, the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships program is a good example of this approach. Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, and its predecessor, the Teaching Company Scheme, have been in operation for the past thirty-five years, since the Teaching Company Scheme (TCS) was established in 1975 by the )>> In German: Integrierte Produktentwicklung. http://lmi.uni-magdeburg.de:8080/cms/ index.php?article_id=164&clang=0. 2 )>> Involved disciplines include e.g. mechanical engineering, economics, industrial design, computer science, psychology. 1

Integrating Innovation, Work, and Learning in Higher Education)>>

143

Science and Engineering Research Council. There are more than one thousand partnerships supported every year. Today, the KTP program is managed by the Technology Strategy Board, an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB), established by the British Government in 2007 and sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). More than 350 case studies from KTP projects are available online3. An example from Germany is the program “Forschungsassistenz” (Research Assistance) at Beuth Hochschule für Technik – University of Applied Sciences in Berlin4. This program is funded by the Berlin Senate Department for Economics, Labor, and Women’s Issues. In contrast to KTP, which is a nation-wide program, Forschungsassistenz is geared towards companies, especially SMEs, in Berlin. Finally, Work Based Learning (WBL) – the focus of this paper – is distinguished from all concepts discussed so far by being much more profoundly situated in working life. Whilst all concepts discussed so far originated in educational programs, or in the context of knowledge transfer from higher education institutions to domains of practice, the origin of Work Based Learning is in the workplace itself; as Brennan and Little (1996, 5) put it: “[...] the learning derived from the workplace is at the heart of the individual’s overall program of study and thus provides the starting point for its design, planning and implementation.” Another crucial aspect is the interplay between learner, employer, and higher education institution in defining the learning process: “[...] the aspect that distinguishes work based learning from other processes of learning is the part that negotiation between individual, employer and higher education institution plays. Negotiation between these three stakeholders in identifying achievable learning outcomes which are meaningful and challenging to the individual, are relevant to the employer and have academic credibility; establishing, through negotiation, appropriate methods of and criteria for assessment acceptable to all parties; establishing and maintaining, through negotiation, a supportive learning environment (based primarily in the workplace)” (ibid., 5). Regarding this core nature of WBL, it also becomes evident that WBL is mainly designed for mature learners with significant work experience. In contrast, the other learning environments discussed above are often used for traditional students, or young people recently graduated from (higher) education. WBL has a long history in the UK. Brennan and Little, in their above mentioned study funded by the UK Department for Education and Employment in 1996, could already draw on a substantial basis of experience regarding WBL arrangements in higher education (HE). In Germany, WBL is more closely related to vocational education and training (VET). Also, there is no such central role of negotiation between individual learner, )>> http://casestudies.ktponline.org.uk/casestudies. )>> http://www.beuth-hochschule.de/forschungsassistenz.

3 4

144)>>


employer, and educational institution as in the higher education WBL programs in the UK. Rather, the learning arrangement is set in a co-determination process involving employers’ and labor representatives, moderated by the German Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB). An example of WBL-related VET programs in Germany is the IT Further Education System (cf. Loroff and Stamm-Riemer, 2006). A core element of this system is the methodology for work-flow-embedded qualification (in German Arbeitsprozessorientierte Weiterbildung – APO). Learning is guided by WorkProcess-Oriented Curricula – these are generalized reference processes serving as a template to be filled with company specific content and procedures (cf. Rogalla and Prehn 2004). The learner is accompanied by a coach in reflecting learning processes. The coach also gives support for personal development. In addition, the learner is accompanied by technical experts to support technical problem solving processes (cf. Loroff and Mattauch, 2005). 2.2)>> Creation of knowledge in Work Based Learning settings Work based learning epitomizes knowledge creation that is rooted in “the world of action, practice, and work” (Barnett 2000, 27). In its widest sense, WBL is both project- based and problem- based (and can include R&D in this interpretation) and it is always wholly connected to knowledge produced within a work context generally with the aim of implementing some kind of organizational change. This type of demand and market-led knowledge has been categorized as mode 2 (cf. Gibbons et al 1994), marking the apparent paradigm shift of knowledge epistemology from Enlightenment mode 1 science that valued knowledge and intellectual rigor to knowledge production – personally expressed through competence, skills and abilities and systemically and formally bounded, managed, and exploited as organizational procedural or propositional knowledge and as knowledge capital (cf. Tsoukas 2005). Knowledge transfer schemes and traditional higher education programs presuppose a polarity where the university is the site of theoretical knowledge and the work place is a recipient, to which employees transfer and apply acquired knowledge using practical skills and competences to fulfill specific tasks and functions. This division negates the recognition that work is already an independent focus of existing implicit high-level learning and knowledge but organizations may lack the requisite skills and systems required to explicitly codify, validate, or build on this knowledge. There is a potential opportunity here for universities to collaborate with organizations and provide expert systems of codification that are highly relevant to the needs of both employees and organizational development. However, so long as universities persist in failing to acknowledge the work place as an independent and valid site of knowledge creation and in offering programs that are largely unconnected to real-world demand, then the polarity between universities and organizations will continue, exacerbated by a lack of commonality in language describing needs (cf. Connor 2005). Work based learning approaches can begin to bridge this divide by offering innovative programs that focus high level critical thinking on work in order to


145

facilitate specific outcomes of significance to the learner, their work and to the university (cf. Garnett 2005) – thus establishing a tri-partite partnership which in reality is usually weighted towards the university as senior knowledge partner. Notwithstanding this imbalance, one of the key benefits of reflective and critical analysis of tasks and learning enables the learner to reach beneath the surface of actions to understand and explicate the substantive knowledge and value bases that underpin the functional mechanisms of work processes from personal, professional and organizational perspectives. Boud and Garrick (cf. 1999) summarize the purposes of learning based at work as being of contributive benefit to the organization for personal development and for social investment – but debates continue as to whether this learning constitutes valid knowledge. The notion of organizational benefit is supported by King (cf. 2007, 28) who posits in a report into employer engagement with higher education that WBL programs offered by universities should “be demand-led, delivered at a time and quantity that employers want (i.e. small chunks, not courses) with learning outcomes linked to business performance outcomes”. King also contends that higher educated managers are more likely to embrace change and that high-level skills are a “vital component to maintain a global trading position” (ibid., 13). The focus here on skills and outcomes/ performance fore-grounds competence as the principle means of measuring business success and competitiveness, excluding any role that high-level learning and knowledge might play. Whilst this approach to higher education learning promotes some permeability and transparency between employers and universities, there is also an inherent one-sidedness implying that employees need to be trained by an institution and that intrinsic pre-existing personal or organizational knowledge is either irrelevant or has little value. The recent and significant shift in the UK towards employment-based and industry-specific learning corroborates the mode 2 emphasis on utility, borne out by the previous Government’s skills agenda focused on promoting and funding schemes that encouraged universities to develop programs in conjunction with employers such as the Employer Engagement scheme. In this, the UK is not alone – across Europe this approach is being implemented through the lifelong learning paradigm, to the potential detriment of knowledge valid per se. Returning to the notion of an intrinsic imbalance in power between universities and work organizations, Boud and Solomon (cf. 2001) have queried existing boundaries of disciplinary and work based knowledge challenging conceptions of universities’ roles, and proposing the alteration of power structures and of ownership of learning and knowledge, thereby opening the way to enable universities and organizations to become collaborators in knowledge generation. Currently, the majority of work based programs are predicated on systems that validate or accredit learning emanating from the work place, requiring learners to demonstrate on the university’s terms with its fixed language, criteria and systems that they have attained high-level learning comparable to university-defined knowledge and/ or competences. A fundamental question needs to be asked here: why does this situation persist if knowledge creation increasingly occurs in work domains and could be validated there?

146)>>


Knowledge needs to be viewed in a more holistic and universal way where it is shared rather than owned – although this premise immediately raises issues of commercial interests which might prefer to enclose knowledge that is relevant to their own needs. In this rather idealistic weltanschauung, knowledge can be created and grown in collaborative partnerships between industry and learning institutions, but this requires a paradigm shift that enables universities to engage with work and markets in new dynamic ways, acknowledging that they are not the sole arbiters or owners of knowledge. Even where there are examples of the university engaging more equitably with social partners, these often focus more on validation of knowledge rather than on collaborative knowledge creation, thus reinforcing hegemony. Whilst the French system acknowledges the work place as a site of learning and some universities have forged close relationships with work organizations through the dual tutor system, developing joint programs that meet the needs of those candidates who attain partial accreditation (or knowledge validation) of their experience, there is still a requirement that the university not only provides courses to fill the gaps, but also that the student must physically attend these. In the case of Middlesex University which has pioneered work based learning since the mid-90s, the programs are highly flexible and innovative, coming much closer to a recognition of the work place as a site of independent and existing valid knowledge creation. However, the university still retains a position as judge and arbiter of learning as experienced and knowledgeable practitioners are obliged to present evidence of their knowledge in an academically acceptable format that meets an established set of level criteria. 2.3)>> Combining University-Industry Co-Operations in R&D and Lifelong Learning (LLL) In section 2.1, learning environments like Problem Based Learning (PBL), R&D internships and Work Based Learning (WBL) were introduced as complex frameworks for activities at the boundaries between education, research and development (R&D), and practice. In section 2.2, the collaborative creation of knowledge in WBL frameworks was investigated in more detail. With regard to the overall topic of this volume – Enabling Innovation – it may be asked which role WBL might play in supporting innovation in industry, especially in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Figure 2.2 shows EUROSTAT data from the 5th Community Innovation Survey in 20065, referring to enterprises with innovation activities. These innovation activities may include product, process, or organizational innovations. The data show percentages of enterprises cooperating with any type of external partners in these innovation processes, and with universities in particular. It becomes apparent that in most European countries less than half of the innovating enterprises cooperate with external partners, although some individual coun)>> More recent data not available.

5


147

tries score much higher. More specifically, the cooperation rate with universities is considerably lower, below 20 percent for most, below 10 percent for some countries. Notable exceptions are Finland and Slovenia with proportions as high as more than 30 or 20 percent, respectively. For Germany, there are no data, unfortunately, for cooperation with universities. It can, however, be observed that the total cooperation rate – regarding all types of partners – in Germany (about 17 percent) is less than half as high as the cooperation rate with universities alone in Finland (about 36 percent). Thus it seems that there is much room for improvement regarding university-industry cooperation in R&D and innovation, and the example of countries like Finland shows that a much higher level of this cooperation – as compared to most other countries – is possible. It also seems to be no coincidence that Finland repeatedly gained top scores in international comparisons of innovation systems, like e.g. the European Innovation Scoreboard6. 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

EU 27 Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Croatia Turkey Norway Universities or other higher education institutions

All types of co-operation

Figure 2.2: Cooperation with external partners (all types) of enterprises with innovation activities and universities, 2004-2006 (EUROSTAT, Community Innovation Survey 5, 2006) )>> http://www.proinno-europe.eu/page/european-innovation-scoreboard-2009.

6

148)>>


Figure 2.3 shows data regarding the cooperation with universities and other higher education institutions, also for enterprises with innovation activities. In this figure, data are shown separately for enterprises of different sizes, as measured in numbers of employees. 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Ireland Greece Spain Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Croatia Turkey Norway 10-49 emp.

50-249 emp.

250+ emp.

Figure 2.3: Cooperation with universities of enterprises with innovation activities, 2004-2006 (EUROSTAT, Community Innovation Survey 5, 2006)

80%


149

As can be seen here, cooperation ratios with universities can be 50 percent and higher for large enterprises (more than 250 employees). For the two subsets of smaller enterprises (10-49 and 50-249 employees, respectively), percentages are considerably lower, below 10 percent for the smallest enterprises, and below 20Â€percent for the medium size in most countries. Again, Finland and Slovenia provide remarkable exceptions to this rule. Regarding all these data, it has to be kept in mind that they all refer to enterprises already involved in innovation activities. These enterprises might be able to improve those innovation processes through cooperation with universities. Besides this, there are lots of enterprises – generally speaking, more than half of all enterprises in Europe (ranging from 37 percent in Germany to 84 percent in Latvia, with more than 50 percent in most countries7) – not involved in innovation activities of any kind. For these companies, low-threshold opportunities to cooperate with universities could be a crucial prerequisite to become engaged in innovation. The core argument of this paper is that WBL – and related concepts like PBL and R&D internships – have the potential to stimulate those innovation processes, for both types of enterprises, those already involved in innovation, and those which are not (yet). In 2007, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) published a study on higher education’s role in regional development and innovation (cf. OECD, 2007). In this study, three types of university-industry relations are distinguished: “Relations between multinational enterprises and world-class universities. Multinational enterprises externalize part of their research and development activities and are looking for laboratories, scientists and students. Relations between higher education institutions and small high technology firms (spin-offs and knowledge-intensive business services). Relations developing in a regional context between firms, often SMEs, and the local higher education institutions. Here firms are looking for short term, problemsolving capabilities. These services are often promoted by means of regional clusters around higher education institutions” (OECD 2007, 119). The third type of university-industry relations is the most crucial in the context of this study. The authors argue that – despite R&D results being available on national and global levels – regional proximity still plays an important role in innovation processes based on industry-university cooperation. In recent years, the location-centered concept of clusters has developed into a core element of innovation policies in many countries. According to Porter: “Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field. Clusters encompass an array of linked industries and other entities important to competition. They include, for example, suppliers of specialized inputs, such as components, machinery, and ser)>> Based on data of the 5th Community Innovation Survey in 2006, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/portal/page/portal/science_technology_innovation/data/database.

7

150)>>


vices, and providers of specialized infrastructure. Clusters also often extend downstream to channels and customers and laterally to manufacturers of complementary products and to companies in industries related by skills, technologies, or common inputs. Finally, many clusters include governmental and other institutions – such as universities, standard-setting agencies, think-tanks, vocational training providers, and trade associations – that provide specialized training, education, information, research, and technical support.” (Porter 1998, 78) In the OECD study, regional development policies based on this cluster approach, including close industry-university cooperation, are described for fourteen countries in Europe, America, Asia, and Australia. All these policies aim at establishing universities as key players in Regional Innovation Systems. The New University for Regional Innovation (NURI) program in Korea is an example of one of these policies. It was funded by the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development from 2004 to 2008 to enhance regional innovation and to ensure development outside the Seoul metropolitan area. 109 participating higher education institutions implemented more than 130 programs aligned to the characteristics of the regional economy. Another cluster-based approach is The Finnish Centre of Expertise Programme sponsored by the Ministry of Interior. These centers are focused on key industries in different sectors including culture, media and digital content where there is a degree of regional specialization in the private sector and research competence in universities and polytechnics. In 2003-2006, 18 different regional centers were set up across Finland. After a re-organization in early 2007, there are now 13 nationally co-ordinated clusters that comprise four to seven regional centers of expertise. The French Poles of Competitiveness Programme (Pôles de CompÃ©titivitÃ©) is an industry-led initiative. Within the poles businesses, research and testing centers, basic and further training organizations combine their efforts to achieve a critical economic, scientific and technological mass in regions. In 2005, 67 poles were designated on the basis of national competition, 6 of which were worldwide poles, 9 with high international visibility and 52 regional or national poles. In Japan, the METI Industrial Cluster Programme (2001-2005) was launched by the Ministry of Technology and Industry (METI) to foster the existing indigenous capabilities of 19 major regions. The program aimed to support exchanges and cooperation between higher education institutions, industry, and the government with the key elements of development of technologies for local application and training for entrepreneurs. The 500 civil servants of the regional METI offices cooperated with 5800 SMEs and researchers from more than 220 universities. The program entered its second phase in 2006-2010. In cluster environments like these, work based learning and R&D frameworks serve as channels of cooperation, especially, but not exclusively suited for SMEs. In the OECD study, many specific examples of those frameworks are discussed, including the PBL, WBL and R&D internship concepts presented in section 2.1.


151

2.4 WBL and Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) As discussed in the previous section, WBL can play a key role in Regional Innovation Systems. To be a suitable instrument for industry, and especially SMEs, WBL needs to cope with a core dilemma relevant for all learning environments designed for gainfully occupied learners: the time needed for learning versus the time pressure in work processes due to high workload.8 In other words, any learning environment suitable for industrial contexts must be highly time efficient. WBL serves this purpose in an obvious way: the core idea of WBL is to use work-based problem solving, project implementation or organizational/ professional development for learning thus, making double use of time spent as shown in Figure 2.4.

Time needed for work Time needed for learning

WBL: Make double use of real-life problem solving APL: Prevent double learning

Figure 2.4: Time effi ciency effects of Work Based Learning (WBL) and Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL)

The reasoning so far relates to future learning, learning that takes place after the learner has entered the WBL program. But, as WBL learners usually have substantial work experience already, the scope of WBL can easily be extended to past – or prior – learning. This is where Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) comes into consideration. APL means to recognize and validate outcomes of prior learning – i.e. knowledge, qualifications or competencies gained through prior learning and experience – and accredit these learning outcomes through assigning credit points which may provide building blocks of higher education programs. Additionally, APL can be highly time efficient as it prevents double learning (see Figure 2.4).

8

Cf. the core dilemmas identified for the International Monitoring to the Program „Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment“ http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/Files/20080605_IMO_engl.pdf and Trantow in this volume.

152)>>


The importance of APL processes was underlined by the European Ministers responsible for Higher Education in their 2003 and 2009 conferences in Berlin and Leuven, respectively: “Ministers underline the important contribution of higher education in making lifelong learning a reality. They are taking steps to align their national policies to realize this goal and urge Higher Education Institutions and all concerned to enhance the possibilities for lifelong learning at higher education level including the recognition of prior learning. They emphasize that such action must be an integral part of higher education activity” (European Ministers for Higher Education, 2003, 6). “Successful policies for lifelong learning will include basic principles and procedures for recognition of prior learning on the basis of learning outcomes regardless of whether the knowledge, skills and competences were acquired through formal, non-formal, or informal learning paths” (European Ministers for Higher Education 2009, 3). These statements have also been fully supported by the European University Association who committed themselves to Accreditation of Prior Learning in their Charter on Lifelong Learning (EUA 2008). In the statement of the European Ministers for Higher Education, formal, nonformal and informal learning are referred to. A well-known definition of these concepts was provided in the European Commission’s “Memorandum on Lifelong Learning” in 20019: • Formal learning takes place in education and training institutions, leading to recognized diplomas and qualifications. • Non-formal learning takes place alongside the mainstream systems of education and training and does not typically lead to formalized certificates. Non-formal learning may be provided in the workplace and through the activities of civil society organizations and groups (such as in youth organizations, trades unions and political parties). It can also be provided through organizations or services that have been set up to complement formal systems (such as arts, music and sports classes or private tutoring to prepare for examinations). • Informal learning is a natural accompaniment to everyday life. Unlike formal and non-formal learning, informal learning is not necessarily intentional learning, and so may well not be recognized even by individuals themselves as contributing to their knowledge and skills. With respect to this typology of learning, APL procedures can be distinguished as approaches focusing on non-certified informal learning – Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) – and methods suitable for formal learning leading to certificates – Accreditation of Prior Certified Learning (APCL; Figure 2.5). In )>> http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/MemorandumEng.pdf.

9


153

the case of non-formal learning, which may or may not involve certificates, either approach might apply. Usually, outcomes of non-formal learning are addressed by APEL procedures (cf. Werquin 2008). Furthermore, APL methods can be divided into individualized and standardized procedures. Standardized procedures do not focus on individuals, but rather on certificates. The learning outcomes as certified by a specific certificate – e.g. a generally acknowledged VET certificate – may be given credit with respect to some other formal education program – e.g. a Bachelor program. Within the limits of this accreditation, each holder of this specific prior certificate will be awarded a specified amount of credit points for the future or ongoing program, without any individual examination. Thus, the accreditation decision is made only once, and then applied to every individual holding the respective certificate. This standardized approach can also be used to accredit, for example, in-house company training. APEL

Non - Formal

Certificate

Learning

Recognised Certificate

Formal Learning

Standardised APL

Informal (Experiential) Learning

Individualised APL

APL

APCL

Figure 2.5: Pathways for the Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL)

In individual procedures, prior learning outcomes achieved by one specific individual are assessed with respect to learning outcomes required in a specific program this individual is applying for. This approach is specifically suitable for outcomes of non-formal and informal, experiential learning (APEL). Additionally, outcomes of formal learning (certificates) may also be addressed in individual procedures, if

154)>>


these certificates have not (yet) been included in standardized accreditation processes. APL procedures are often integral parts of WBL programs. In Germany, the development and implementation of APL has been boosted since 2005 by the initiative ANKOM10, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (cf. Hartmann et al. 2009). 2.5)>> The WBL Landscape in the UK There is a complexity of provision under the WBL umbrella in the UK, although accurate figures for institutional participation are not available and the direct engagement of the Higher Education (HE) sector with industry is not so extensive when compared with some other European countries as corroborated in Figure 2.3 and 2.4 above. Provision can range from work experience taster or independent study modules on undergraduate programs, the inclusion of WBL elements in graduate apprenticeships and foundation degrees to accredited in-company, Continuing Professional Development and cohort or individually negotiated programs. Brennan (cf. 2005) provides a useful classification of work based learning programs in HE which include the use of key concepts of partnership, flexibility, relevance and accreditation (cf. Reeve and Gallagher 2002) as follows: • employability focused on preparing people (usually at undergraduate level) for work within the lifelong learning agenda • skills development focused on developing specific skills and competencies usually in relation to external sector standards • knowledge recognition, creation and development focused on workforce or organizational development where pathways and outcomes can be negotiated The Leitch Report11 (2006) commissioned for the Labor Government found that the UK ranked 12th out of 18 comparative members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for skills. It recommended that by 2020, more than 40% of adults should be qualified to degree level, and that the provision of vocational education and training should be demand-led, adaptable and responsive with more direct involvement of employers. This led to significant increased funds for up-skilling young people and adults within the vocational sector, and also in the HE sector through Strategic Development Funds with particular focus on employer engagement. However, with the current recession and recent change in Government it is uncertain that such funding will continue.

)>> ANKOM: Anrechnung beruflich erworbener Kompetenzen auf Hochschulstudiengänge (Accreditation of Competencies from Vocational Education and Training for Higher Education Programmes). http://HIS/ANKOM:DE . 11)>> Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills. 10


155

2.6)>> The WBL Landscape in Germany In Germany, WBL is far less developed and widespread as compared to the UK. Among the few programs in existence, the two following examples represent advanced practice. The Bachelor program “Business Administration in SMEs” at Oldenburg University has learning projects related to or situated in students’ professional environments at its core. Elaborated standardized and individualized APCL/ APEL procedures are also available (Hartmann et al. 2009).12 Another example is the program “Process Technology” (Prozesstechnik) at Aachen University of Applied Sciences (FH Aachen), which is offered in close cooperation with a regional VET institution (Rhein-Erft Akademie).13 2.7)>> Cases: Generating Innovation in WBL and Related Settings This section focuses in its first part on two brief case studies of learners14 taking WBL programs at Middlesex University, London, where learner-centeredness and reflective practice is key to achieving significant and innovative outcomes for all the stakeholders in the learning partnership – the learner, the organization and the university. As has been highlighted above, the WBL project in the program will always be about change – whether this is problematized or forward looking –and recommending solutions and actions forms a crucial part of the project. Personal and professional benefits will therefore accrue to the individual learner and the organization (often the learning sponsor) will benefit from tangible recommendations and the implementation of required change. Case study 1: The participant worked in graphic design and wanted to develop expertise in providing accessible information for visually or hearing impaired clients. The choice of the Middlesex program enabled the participant to study at a distance within a tight time-frame; focus on making existing personal knowledge and experience visible and explicit; and the employer was able to work with the employee to ensure that the project was relevant to organizational needs. The participant benefited by acquiring confidence, enhanced professionalism and new skills and competences to better understand and resolve issues. The organization benefitted from a more skilled employee able to new implement ideas and sound proposals to increase accessibility to the organization’s services. Case study 2: This case study refers to a postgraduate leadership and management program for a major bank validated by Middlesex University with some organizational input into the program design. Key advantages to the WBL program over an MBA were the more practical focus on the work context, compatibility with work schedules, and the specificity of directly meeting organizational development needs. The participant benefited from personal prestige and development, with the )>> http://www.bba.uni-oldenburg.de. )>> http://www.fh-aachen.de/prozesstechnik.html?&L=1%2525252Fdownload. 14 )>> Extracts from Work Based Learning Impact Study, 2010, report prepared by Costley, C. and Abukari, A. for the Higher Education Academy: www.heacademy.ac.uk. 12 13

156)>>


added benefit of a deeper understanding of professional work role, performance and how this impacted on others. As the employer had instigated this corporate program in order to grow internal talent, the benefits were demonstrated through improved performance of the participant in applying enhanced cognitive skills when dealing with day to day issues. For Germany, a few examples are collected from two programs mentioned before: Within the PBL-style Integrated Product Engineering program at Magdeburg University, a whole series of development projects focused on sports and leisure equipment, like bicycles, sledges, boats and other water sports equipment. These might be variants of existing products, or completely new types of devices. Other projects were more tuned towards industry or even agriculture, as e.g. an almond cracking machine to be used in developing countries. In the Forschungsassistenz project of the R&D internship type at Beuth Hochschule Berlin, one project improved sensors and actuators for bionic hands, to be used e.g. as prostheses. In another project, a complex planning strategy for reconstructing historic buildings was developed, and applied to an old village church. 2.8)>> Emerging Trends in WBL The plethora of work based learning initiatives signifies that it is difficult to clearly identify emerging trends, or to quantify provision within databases. Whilst WBL is increasingly acknowledged as a legitimate higher education activity able to achieve national policy targets (cf. Nixon et al. 2006), conceptualizations and practices can vary from recognizing high-level learning processes in the work place to work-related training. The paradigm of learning is often now understood in terms of value-based skills discourse that aims to develop employees fit for purpose in the new, dominant lifelong or experiential learning and knowledge economy ontology. In the UK, WBL is an ever-expanding field with a multiplicity of types of provision and providers and at levels ranging from the school curriculum with new Diplomas for 16-18 year-olds to professional doctorates. WBL is used by higher education institutions as part of blended learning programs integrating work-related projects to ensure some relevance to industry, or as full programs in the case of Middlesex University; it is used extensively in vocational and training qualifications from school to graduate levels to learn or increase skills and competences; it is increasingly relevant in continuing professional development provided both by professional bodies and education institutions; and the work place itself is beginning to be viewed as a site of legitimate and accreditable learning.


157

3)>>Summary Work Based Learning and related paradigms learning environments tuned towards real-life problem solving have been presented and discussed as instruments to foster innovation, especially, but not exclusively, in small and medium sized enterprises (SME). Practices and experiences from a broad range of European and non-European countries have been presented. Combined with APL-methodologies, WBL has a genuine potential to increase time efficiency, thus mitigating the dilemma between time needed for learning and increasing time pressure in work processes.

4)>> Future R&D Issues Future research and development into WBL and related learning environments should address as high-priority issues: Methodologies to measure competence development on an organizational – rather than individual – level, as instruments to track effects of WBL on organizational competence and innovation. Research to discern the relationships between characteristics of WBL arrangements (e.g. types of partners involved, scientific/ academic disciplines addressed, design of curricula, design of learning support, R&D focus of programs) and innovation effects (e.g. product, process, social innovation effects) in different kinds of organizations (e.g. SMEs, regional clusters, supply chains). Investigation into favorable and inhibiting conditions for WBL arrangements, regarding on an intermediate level (regional) network relations between industry, Higher Education and R&D institutions, and innovation policies on a higher level.

5)>> What needs to be done? From a UK perspective, several key issues present challenges to universities wishing to implement work based learning, highlighting the need to15: • Establish a shared understanding of high-level work based learning in theory and practices • Expand provision with the strategic involvement of employees and organizations to ensure relevance, building long term and equitable relationships )>> Summarized from WBL – Illuminating the Higher Education Landscape Nixon et al (2006): aÂ€report for the Higher Education Academy.

15

158)>>


• Encourage relevant pedagogic practices that meet the needs of all stakeholders • Provide cost-effective work-based learning solutions as these can be resource intensive • Develop strategies that cross the cultural bridge between learning and work making the case for the relevance of WBL to universities, learners and organizations • Support WBL initiatives through national policies and funding. Regarding the last item, this has occurred in the UK to some extent, but it remains to be seen how much support will be available with the new Government. In Germany, project-type support by the Länder and the Federal Government has, in the past, rather addressed “Dual Programs” (Duale Studiengänge), combining a Dual System apprenticeship with an academic Bachelor program. While having their own merits, Dual Programs are not specifically suited for lifelong learning, and are not specifically tuned for the impacts on innovation as discussed here. APL has received some political attention in Germany, as demonstrated by the Federal Initiative ANKOM mentioned before, and also some Länder programs, e.g. in Brandenburg.16 Currently, Lower Saxony runs an “Open University” (Offene Hochschule) program, which does not (yet) explicitly incorporate WBL, but might be a suitable platform for this purpose. Länder and Federal Government together are planning substantial funding for LLL programs in Higher Education. This could provide opportunities to boost WBL approaches in German HE institutions. Beyond these specific HE-centered funding schemes, it should be borne in mind that WBL has lots of connecting points to other strands of funding. As discussed above, WBL nicely fits into cluster policy approaches, and should be more explicitly and extensively used as an element of cluster policies. Furthermore, WBL programs might very well accompany technologically oriented public R&D funding programs, as an instrument especially suited for SMEs, and as an efficient way of funding R&D and educational innovation in combination.

Bibliography Barge S (2009) Standards for Certification – The Aalborg Model for Problem and ProÂ� ject Based Learning. Draft 2 prepared for: Universität Aalborg, Dr. Finn Kjaersdam (Rector), Dr. Hanne-Kathrine Krogstrup (Pro-rector), http://www.pbl.aau.dk/fileadmin/ files/Draft_2 _Standards_260110.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Barnett R. (2000) Realising the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Open University Press, Milton Keynes Boud D, Garrick J (1999) Understanding Learning at Work. Routledge, London )>> http://www.lasa-brandenburg.de/Initiative-Durchlaessigkeit-Berufsbildung.947.0.html

16


159

Boud D, Solomon N (2001) Work Based Learning. A New Higher Education? SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham Brennan L (2005) Integrating Work Based Learning into Higher Education. University Vocational Awards Council, http://www.uvac.ac.uk Brennan J, Little B. (1996) A Review of Work Based Learning in Higher Education. Department for Education and Employment, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/ documents/employer_engagement/A_review_of_work_based_learning_in_higher_ educationÂ�.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Commission of the European Communities (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brüssel, http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/MemorandumEng.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Connor H (2005) Work Based Learning – A Consultation. Council for Industry and Higher Education, http://www.cihe-uk.com/docs/PUBS/0502WBL.pdf. Accessed September 2010 European Ministers for Higher Education (2003) Realising the European Higher Education Area. CommuniquÃ© of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on September 19, 2003, http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1. pdf. Accessed September 2010 European Ministers for Higher Education (2009) The Bologna Process 2020: The European higher Education Area in the new decade. CommuniquÃ© of the Conference of European Ministers for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, April 28.-29., 2009, Leuven, http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/ leuven_louvain-laneuve_communiqu%C3%A9_april_2009. pdf. Accessed September 2010 European University Association (EUA) (2008) European Universities’ Charter on Lifelong Learning. EUA-Veröffentlichung, Brüssel, http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/Â� hogeronderwijs/bologna/actionlines/documents/EUA_LLL_Charter.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Gallagher J, Reeve F (2002) Work Based Learning: the implications for higher education and for supporting informal learning in the workplace. Open University Press, Milton Keynes Garnett J (2005) University WBL and the Knowledge Driven Project. In: Rounce K, Workman B (ed) WBL in Healthcare. Kingsham, Chichester Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartsman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The New Production of Knowledege: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London Hartmann EA, Knust M, Loroff C, Stamm-Riemer I (2009) Towards Permeability between Vocational and Academic Education – Experiences and Analyses from Current Initiatives in Germany, European Journal of Education. Vol 44, 3: 351â•‚368 King M (2007) Workforce Development: How Much Engagement do Employers Have with Higher Education? Council for Industry and Higher Education, http://www.cihe-uk.com Kjærsdam F, Enemark S (1994) The Aalborg Experiment – Project Innovation in University Education. Aalborg University Press, Aalborg Kolmos A, Fink F, Krogh L (2004) The Aalborg PBL Model. Progress, Diversity and Challenges. Aalborg University Press, Aalborg Leitch S (2006) Prosperity for all in the global economy –world class skills. London: www. official-documents.gov.uk

160)>>


Loroff C, Mattauch W (2005) Arbeitsprozessorientierte Weiterbildung – systematisches Lernen und Kompetenzentwicklung im Prozess der Arbeit. In: Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft e.Â€V. (ed) Personalmanagement und Arbeitsgestaltung. 51. Kongress der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft. GfA-Press, Dortmund Loroff C, Stamm-Riemer I (2006) The Relevance of Work Based Learning on the Federal Initiative on Recognition of Prior Learning Outcomes on Higher Education Programmes. In: DEWBLAM (ed) Conference on European Work Based Learning Approaches in Higher Education. Abstracts of Contributions. Florenz 2006 Nielsen SH (2005) Exploitation, exploration and innovation in Problem-based learning. CIMEC05, Third SME/CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Engineering Education, San Luis Obispo, CA Nixon I (2008) Work Based Learning Impact Study. Higher Education Academy, http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk Nixon I, Smith K, Stafford R, Camm S (2006) Work Based Learning – Illuminating the Higher Education Landscape. Higher Education Academy, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk OECD (2007) Higher Education and Regions – Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged. OECD-Publishing Porter ME (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. In: Harvard Business Review, November-December 1998: 77-90 Rogalla I, Prehn M (2004) Arbeitsprozessorientierte Weiterbildung: Prozess-Systematik als Basis für Informationsaneignung, Wissenserwerb und Kompetenzentwicklung. In: Budin G, Ohly HP (ed) Wissensorganisation in kooperativen Lern- und Arbeitsumgebungen. ERGON, Würzburg Tsouks H. (2005) Complex Knowledge. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford Werquin P (2008) Recognition of non-formal and informal learning in OECD countries: A very good idea in jeopardy? In: Lifelong Learning in Europe, vol 3, 2008: 142-149

Commentary on the Main Article “Integrating Innovation, Work and Learning into Higher Education – the Example of Learning in the Workplace”

Challenges and Perspectives concerning the Integration of Vocational Learning into Higher Education Rita Meyer

The article by Barbara Light and Ernst Hartmann on linking work and learning as both an institutional and a didactic principle addresses various issues relating to the generation of innovation that currently play a role in the (vocational) education policy discussion in Germany. To begin with, the opening up of higher education institutions to vocational training is an explosive topic in Germany. Academic continuing education at German universities is on the increase, initiated by education policy requirements, and formal access for employed people to higher education institutions has also been extensively incorporated into the legal framework. Linking the content and organization of work processes and learning processes does not necessarily sit easily with this, however, because there are still hardly any courses geared to the specific requirements of students with work experience. The central education policy requirement of the Bologna Process – increased vocational and skill orientation in higher education courses – has not yet been fully met in Germany. In order to achieve this greater emphasis on vocational orientation, higher education institutions as places that offer basic courses of study would on the one hand have to open up to the operational practices of the workplace environment and on the other offer content that helps to develop the vocational skills of employed workers – including those who have no first degree and/ or have not gained a German university entrance entitlement with the Abitur (secondary school final examination). As shown by the example of Great Britain, this could be achieved with Bachelor’s or Master’s courses that run alongside work, based on academically well-founded and theory-led reflection on experiences gained in practice in the workplace. This would provide a sensible way to link work and learning at both individual and institutional level, as the article by Light and Hartmann demonstrates, which could in turn contribute to the generation of innovations. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_17, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

162)>>

Rita Meyer

To meet the requirements and expectations of new “customers” with work experience and a range of different experiential backgrounds, higher education institutions are faced with considerable challenges in terms of content, methodology and organization. Learning in parallel with work at higher education institutions requires changes to structural framework conditions and new didactic strategies, which are being discussed and dealt with academically in Germany (cf. Bardachzi 2010). The work process orientation, and the associated increase in practical orientation, contrasts with the way in which German universities traditionally see themselves, however, and is not necessarily easily accepted at German higher education institutions. In Germany, vocational learning traditionally forms part of initial vocational training. Places of learning – schools, companies and cross-company training centers – cooperate in this regard in a way that allows one-off linking of work and learning and therefore also of theory and practice. In vocational training, experiential knowledge gained through practical activity in the workplace is linked to specialized theoretical knowledge. Higher education institutions – i.e. universities and universities of applied sciences – are institutions that lie beyond vocational training. Although, in factual terms, they also prepare students for subsequent employment, in the classification scheme of the German education system, they are explicitly not assigned to the vocational training category. They are places primarily concerned with running research and generating and communicating knowledge, but this knowledge in the form of learning is not to be directly subject to economic exploitation. Under certain circumstances, this can result in conflicts of interest between the institutions and the stakeholders, since qualifying under the aspect of promoting innovative capability necessarily involves the technical and economic exploitation of the results and successes achieved through the learning process. Not least under pressure from European education policy, which demands greater orientation towards the job market and employment and increasing permeability of education systems, new training pathways and new cooperations between places of learning are forming in Germany, leading to the interlacing of work and learning. The formerly separate systems are moving ever closer together in the light of this development. With the introduction of the Bachelor’s degree courses, higher education institutions are now also to provide vocationally oriented training. On the other hand, some occupations requiring a high level of vocational training – such as mechatronics or IT professions – are classed as fully equivalent to the Bachelor’s level in the classification system of the Deutsche Qualifikationsrahmen (DQR) (German Qualifications Framework), without the graduate ever having crossed the threshold of a higher education institution. As far as workplace vocational training is concerned, concepts for processoriented teaching and learning have been developed since the 1990s as part of pilot projects. The approach that has been most consistently implemented is work process-oriented skill development in the concept of work process-oriented learning (work process-oriented IT further training), which was introduced in the course of developing the IT further training system (cf. Meyer 2006).

Challenges and Perspectives concerning theÂ€Integration of Vocational Learning)>>

163

Thanks to new learning concepts for work process-oriented learning, such as those practiced in IT further training for example, vocational training has already achieved something that is proving didactically difficult in German higher education institutions due to institutional requirements: the interlacing of planning, organization, implementation, control and reflection in accordance with the didactic principle of self-contained activity. Learners work on a problem over a long time period and receive pedagogical support. In order to develop comprehensive vocational skills, cooperation between different places of learning is essential. The article by Light and Hartmann refers to the fact that work processes and learning processes can only be effectively linked when companies, higher education institutions and regional educational organizations cooperate in three-way training structures. The various stakeholders can profit equally from the structures at places of learning, which are organized in the form of networks, and can bring their specific interests to bear. Not least, these types of cooperations between places of learning also contribute at a social level, by helping to combat the shortage of skilled workers, maintain the flexibility of the job market and employment system and safeguard national industry – since human resources are also a competitive factor. In this sense, innovations are not just generated in terms of technical and economic aspects, but are also fostered within the very structure of the education system.

Bibliography Bardachzi C (2010) Zwischen Hochschule und Weiterbildungsmarkt. Programmbegleitung berufsbegleitender Studiengänge. Münster Meyer R (2006) Theorieentwicklung und Praxisgestaltung in der beruflichen Bildung – Berufsbildungsforschung am Beispiel des IT-Weiterbildungssystems. Bielefeld

New Forms of Work Organization and the High Road to Innovation: European Experiences Peter Totterdill

Abstract Europe’s attempts to create a successful knowledge economy in an increasingly volatile world demands management and work organization practices that break with the past. Employee involvement through partnership, participative teamworking, continuous improvement and high involvement innovation are seen by a growing number of employers as core planks of competitive strategy. A growing body of evidence shows that participative working has a high impact on performance especially when adopted systemically throughout the organization; equally there is evidence that the majority of European organizations lag well behind in the systemic adoption of proven methods. The sustainability of European competitiveness and public services depends on continued progress in this direction, though the gap between leading practice and common practice is widening. Some EU countries, including Germany, have taken the challenge of workplace innovation seriously for decades; the majority have failed to do so.

1)>>Introduction The author is a founding member of UKWON (www.ukwon.net), established in 1998 as a consortium of social partners, business support organizations and universities. UKWON has two principal objectives: (i) to explore the future of work and organizations; (ii) to address the substantial gap between leading-edge practice and common practice in the organization of work within enterprises. Its aim is to address a key European dilemma: how to change the organization of work in ways which improve performance and productivity on the one hand, and enhance quality of working life for all employees on the other? This question is central to the issue of innovation, and to the interest of Enabling Innovation in building innovative capability from the perspective of labor, learning and competence. The paper addresses these issues by outlining a high road approach to the way in which work is organized, one capable of achieving sustainable competitiveness through innovation based employee engagement in ways which can lead to more fulfilling and healthier work.


166)>>

Peter Totterdill

2)>> Work Organization: an Underused Resource for Achieving Shared Goals? It is sometimes argued that the design of work organization is principally an internal issue for enterprises, one in which external bodies have very little legitimate interest. Yet it is becoming clear that work organization is tightly knit within the wider economic and social fabric. On the one hand, the organization of has a direct impact on the achievement of wider social and economic goals including competitiveness, better jobs, employment growth and social inclusion. Policy makers, social partners and others have an interest in promoting types of workplace organization which enable all employees to use their talent and creative potential to the full. For business this creates indispensable conditions for innovation and enhanced productivity though workforce commitment, motivation, retention and innovation. For employees there is ample research evidence that such conditions enhance selfesteem, health and satisfaction at work. From this perspective quality of working life becomes simultaneously a competitive advantage and a social good, addressing Europe’s concerns with, for example, the retention of older employees in the workforce, the reduction of long-term sickness, and lifelong learning. Moreover the potential for achieving such win-win outcomes is not just apple pie wishful thinking. While a generalized statistical relationship between performance and participative work cultures remains elusive, there is a wealth of qualitative research and case study material to demonstrate the conditions under which convergence can take place (e.g. cf. Totterdill and Hague 2004). At the same time the way in which work is organized does not come solely from within the resources of the company. Rather it draws extensively on the opportunities for knowledge creation, learning and dialogue created by social capital. This includes research by public bodies, business services provided by intermediate organizations, formal or informal networking, education and training provision and the system of industrial relations. Public policy makers, social partners, universities, regions and other stakeholders have key roles in creating an environment abundant in opportunities for organizational learning and innovation. The way in which work is organized is therefore a matter of legitimate public and policy concern: as policymakers, social partners, employee representatives, employers or citizens there are solid grounds for taking sides in favor of achieving sustainable competitiveness through a high quality of working life.

3)>> The Future of Work and Organizations The past is an increasingly unreliable guide to the future. Changes in technology, markets, regulation, global politics, the environment, demographics, markets and the expectations of employees place adaptability and innovation at a premium – in business and public policy alike.

New Forms of Work Organization and the High Road to Innovation)>>

167

In this increasingly fierce global environment it has long been clear that low road strategies of cost leadership, speed and standardization cannot build sustainable competitive advantage. Rather Europe needs to compete by utilizing its innovative potential to the full. Increasing cultural diversity can be a source of creativity. Companies (including public sector institutions) need to reinvent their products and services on an almost continuous basis and in ways that can’t easily be imitated by their competitors. The rate at which companies translate the creativity, experience and tacit knowledge of employees at all levels (and that of other stakeholders such as customers and suppliers) into a shared resource for innovation becomes a major determinant of competitive success. This high road alternative is often referred to as the knowledge economy, the paradigm which has underpinned the EU’s Lisbon Strategy. Yet a successful transition to a knowledge economy should not be taken for granted. Past approaches to management, work organization, education, training and labor market policy cannot deliver the transformation of European businesses and public services needed for sustainable competitiveness and social cohesion. This poses challenges from the workplace to the wider sphere of European employment policy. For example: 3.1)>> The Workplace The knowledge economy is characterized by approaches to management and work organization that represent a distinctive break with the past, and which require new competencies from workers at all levels. Employee involvement through partnership, participative teamworking, continuous improvement and high involvement innovation seen by a growing number of European companies as a core plank of competitive strategy, though there is evidence that the majority lag behind in the adoption of proven methods. The sustainability of European competitiveness may well depend on continued progress in this direction, though there has been a dearth of evidence on workplace trends during the last decade. 3.2)>> Education and Training Changes in job design and work organization also have profound implications for vocational training and education. While technical skills are increasingly time limited, generic competencies such as communication, teamworking, problem solving and creativity are at a premium in the knowledge workplace as is the ability to learn itself. This poses challenges for the development of competence standards and indeed for our definition of labor market needs. 3.3)>> The Global War for Talent A knowledge economy depends not just on home-grown talent, but on its ability to attract and retain individuals in what for many has already become a global labor market. It would be surprising if during the next decade China and India did not

168)>>

Peter Totterdill

increase their attractiveness to experts and entrepreneurs as places to live and work, as the USA has done for some considerable time. The need for businesses to compete in the global war for talent will gain increasing prominence enhancing the significance of quality of working life. 3.4)>> Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) ICTs transform the nature of jobs and of workplaces themselves, creating vast potential for the wider distribution of knowledge and decision-making (and also for its opposite). The use of ICTs has become commonplace in even the smallest businesses, imposing new skill requirements on employees working in a wide range of functional areas. Critically businesses are realizing that knowledge of ICTs is required not just by the specialist workers who use such technologies directly, but by managers and associated employees who need to understand their potential in ensuring efficient business processes. The growth of home-based working made possible by ICTs can offer flexibility and other benefits to individuals seeking to balance work and family life, and to companies wishing to retain skilled employees. However it also requires enhanced levels of ICT competence and self-management capability as well as posing stress risks – as recognized in the European Framework Agreement on Telework negotiated by the social partners. ICTs support the drive for greater numerical and functional flexibility in the use of labor, with ambiguous consequences for employees. Existing information technologies are already capable of automating a significant proportion of service functions with significant implications for employment in many sectors, and technology-led restructuring will affect large numbers of skilled workers in the next few years. Services are responsible for a major share of the EU’s productivity gap with the US so the potential for job loss is considerable, though the automation of routine backroom functions offers companies the high road alternative of refocusing attention on customer service rather than the low road of cost reduction through job losses. Either way, the growth of ICTs means that many workers will face significant changes in the medium term future. 3.5)>> Working Life Restructuring, takeovers and mergers, downsizing and the geographical mobility of enterprises have significantly undermined expectations of job security, as well as undermining trust and loyalty to individual employers. Workers are now well advised to be proactive in ensuring their own employability through active participation in lifelong learning (both inside and outside the workplace) and in building a wide range of work experience. Jobs which offer opportunities to build career capital through learning, high levels of discretion, diversity of experience and personal network building are increasingly prized – and this is clearly related to the design of work organization.


169

Evidence of increasing polarization within the labor market poses considerable challenges. Over recent years job growth has been apparent both in knowledgebased occupations and in relatively unskilled employment. However the flattening of organizational hierarchies and increasing ability to automate skilled jobs makes individual progression within organizations and sectors increasingly difficult – the so-called hour glass economy. 3.6)>>Demography The demographic structure is changing. The proportion of older people has never been greater and life expectancy is longer than ever before. At the same time a birth rate which has declined over several decades means that skilled young workers are becoming a scarce resource in many parts of Europe. Two small illustrations: today the ratio of workers to pensioners in Sweden is three to one; by 2020 it will be two to one. In Scotland by roughly that time the number of people over 65 will be greater than the number under 15. The focus on rationalization and downsizing has worsened the situation for risk groups such as older workers, often regarded as unable to learn the use of new technologies sufficiently quickly, or to adopt new business philosophies, methods or practices. This is despite increasing evidence that lifelong learning can enhance and prolong the productive contribution of older employees. To neglect older workers’ potential for learning and development represents a wasted resource. Shortfalls in pension provision also make current retirement ages unsustainable. Older workers need incentives to remain in work beyond the average retirement age, including improving quality of working life, enhancing access to opportunities for learning and development, and recognizing that the nature of their role and contribution needs to change with greater maturity. Moreover, even though younger workers are becoming a relatively scarce commodity, there is evidence that many are becoming less engaged with work. Younger workers may have less tolerance of boring, repetitive or badly designed work than their predecessors, and quality of working life will be an important factor in their recruitment, engagement and retention. 3.7)>>Migration The long term effects of migration remain unclear. Skilled workers migrating within Europe, or entering Europe from elsewhere certainly relieve specific skills. Recent and continuing enlargement of the EU increases the diversity of knowledge, experience and skills on which a sustainable economy and society can be built. However migration also increases the range and depth of the challenges – of integration, coordination and innovation – that European workplaces must meet.

170)>>

Peter Totterdill

4)>> Adapting to an Uncertain World As the preceding discussion suggests, companies are facing unprecedented challenges including a level of volatility in the global business environment which requires constant vigilance, versatility and innovation. Old styles of managing and organizing work can’t deliver such adaptability. Yet despite the claims of consultants and bookstall gurus, there are no blueprints or easy paths to sustainable organizational innovation. Indeed most change initiatives fail, arguably because they are focused too much on the quick fix. Sustainable change is messy and uncertain, involving the painstaking engagement of all stakeholders in a process of gradual learning, dialogue, experimentation, and trial and error. Yet there are some extraordinary stories of transformation emerging from European workplaces. High road change is based on long-term innovation rather than the low road of short-term cost cutting measures, and seeks win-win outcomes for management, employees and other stakeholders. The remainder of this paper focuses on the journey to the high road.

5)>> Towards the High Road Organization What evidence is there of the high road in European workplaces? UKWON and its European partners studied new forms of work organization in 120 organizations across the EU (cf. Totterdill and Hague 2004). Drawing on evidence from this study, as well as on our direct experience of change in several organizations, two interdependent arenas of organizational innovation can be identified: workplace partnership and the day-to-day organization of work. These arenas are discussed in sections 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. In this context arena implies a design space in which dialogue, experimentation and learning can take place, without a prescriptive blueprint to determine the outcome. Critically the task is not to try to catch up with best practice but to develop a strategy firmly orientated towards the creation of innovative and self-sustaining processes of development. External knowledge, ideas and experience may inform learning and experimentation within individual enterprises, but it is unlikely that there will be indiscriminate adoption of external solutions without some form of adaptation and shaping by local stakeholders. Work organization is a reflexive process – not an end state. 5.1)>> Workplace Partnership as Organizational Development Partnership between management, trade unions and employees is increasingly recognized as a means of building effective employment relations. To some extent it is embedded in European regulation (for example the European Works Council and Information and Consultation Directives) as well as in the national legislation of


171

some countries. Partnership arrangements vary widely within Europe, but are often based on formal agreements between management, trade unions and workforces and on the creation of structures (such as works councils) within which trust-based dialogue on strategic challenges and opportunities for the enterprise can be established. Prompted in part by EU consultation regulations, there is evidence in many enterprises of constructive dialogue between management and employee representatives around major restructuring (such as acquisitions, mergers and takeovers) in which negative consequences for employees are ameliorated and/ or where principles of gain sharing are introduced. The benefit for management is that they gain access to the tacit knowledge and experience of front line employees so that outcomes can better reflect what works. Dialogue can also transcend traditional employment relations concerns to become a motor for workplace innovation in ways which lead to benefits for company performance and for employees. Partnership-based dialogue may deal with a wide range of issues, for example: • • • • • • • • • •

steering and informing organizational change; reviewing performance at all levels of the organization; initiating contact with other stakeholders; devising alternative reward structures; reviewing working practices and working time; considering technological options; introducing teamwork; implementing family friendly policies; assessing and reviewing the role of management; anticipating potential legislative impact.

Employee and trade union representatives can negotiate measures which, for example, improve quality of life through changes in job design to eliminate monotonous work. Such negotiations can also enhance employee engagement through the development of empowered teams (see below) or continuous improvement mechanisms, both of which can lead to improvements in quality of working life as well as competitiveness. Partnership bodies can also become guardians of the quality and sustainability of such workplace innovations, resisting tendencies towards innovation decay. Thus representative or indirect workforce participation can create an environment for the stimulation of direct employee involvement in day-to-day work. 5.2)>> Empowered Job Design and Participative Teamworking Partnership from the high road perspective moves beyond representative structures and participation mechanisms to make a direct impact on the task environment. Building a workplace in which employees can develop and deploy their competencies and creative potential begins with job design. According to standards of job design developed in The Netherlands (the WEBA instrument) for example, employ-

172)>>

Peter Totterdill

ees at all levels should be able to assume responsibility for day-to-day decisions about work through co-operation or communication with others. Systematic opportunities should exist for problem solving through horizontal contact with peers. The ability of the employee to adapt the execution of work to changing demands, circumstances and opportunities is an essential prerequisite for occupational learning and reduces stress. The job should contain demonstrable opportunities for analysis, problem solving and innovation, in which the working environment is a place of learning. A high frequency of horizontal and vertical contact is required to support problem solving, learning and innovation, taking the form of ad hoc co-operation, formal and casual discussions, and possibly social contacts outside the work sphere. ‘Distributed intelligence’ throughout the organization is also required to support problem solving, ensuring that knowledge and expertise are widely shared or readily accessible by individuals throughout the organization. However, effective job design must develop within the wider organizational context. The key concept here is teamworking, one of the defining characteristics of new forms of work organization with deep roots in European thinking about management and organization. However ‘teamwork’ is used to describe such a diverse range of workplace situations that arguably the term has become meaningless. While teamworking may refer to a general sense of community, or a limited enlargement of jobs to enhance organizational flexibility, in a high-road sense teamworking will involve a radical re-appraisal of jobs, systems and procedures, throughout the whole organization. Mueller and Purcell (1992) attempt to clarify the contemporary conception of teamworking: • • • • • • •

the team works on a common task; its work is spatially concentrated and it has a recognizable territory; the allocation of tasks is largely organized by the team; the team encourages and organizes the acquisition of multiple skills; it has decision-making power over time and appropriate means; there is team spokesman/ leader; the team has some influence on who will join it.

What distinguishes a team in the sense used here from a collection of workers who merely work in the same department is the degree of autonomy enjoyed in relation to formal line management structures. However it is also necessary to consider the quality of dialogue and innovation which takes place inside the team. If teams are to be more than decentralized units for the production of a given product or service, all team members must have the potential for a high level of reflexivity unconstrained by internal demarcations and privileges. Teams in which the specific knowledge and expertise of each team member are valued and make a tangible contribution to product and workplace innovation meet important criteria for convergence between enhanced productivity and enhanced quality of working life.


173

5.3)>> Participative Teamwork as a Building Block of Partnership Teamworking cannot be seen as a discrete set of practices within an organization. Rather it is closely interwoven with the partnership practices discussed above. This is illustrated in Figure 5.1 which demonstrates the relational pathway between teamworking, the enterprise and partner organizations:

PARTNERSHIP • Knowledge capture & distribution • Developmental learning • Markets & business strategy • Workplace innovation • Liaison with strategic partners • Product/service innovation

hR

oa

d

EXTENDED TEAMWORKING

Hig

• Scheduling • Maintenance

he

• Supplier control

st

• Customer contact

To w

CLASSIC TEAMWORKING

ard

• Continuous improvement

• Multi-skilling • Task rotation

Figure 5.1: From teamworking to partnership

Team-based approaches can be designed according to both low road and high road rationales. Teamwork can mean little more than multi-skilling and job enlargement on the floor of a factory, office or clinic. At this basic low road level, functional flexibility achieved through job rotation can achieve tangible gains for the employer, though in many such cases job enlargement can result in greater pressure and stress rather than job enrichment.

174)>>

Peter Totterdill

Case Study: Innovation at Ericsson Radio Systems AB, Gävle, Sweden In anticipation of the third generation of mobile telephony (3G), Ericsson built a new factory for the production of the new transmission equipment in Gävle, 150 kilometres north of Stockholm. At the same time, the company was aware of the need for a stress prevention programme. Accordingly Ericsson managers have decided to experiment with new ideas in the production process that combine goals of efficient assembly of the new products with a human resource policy that emphasises high staff motivation, stress avoidance, competence development in line with employee needs, and a proper work-life balance. The new factory was designed around cellular working in which individuals at work stations are responsible for all operations including customer ordering, assembly of processor boards and testing. In particular, a new culture and new competencies enable closer relations between production, product design and test development. The means to manage change has been ‘The Good Workplace’ programme, which aims to recruit and motivate staff with trade union support. Managers of the new plant stress the need for delegation, participation and individual competence development. Particular individuals have been specially trained as ‘Inspirers’ to enthuse other employees on the aims of the project. The work environment has been designed in close liaison with the company Medical Officer not just to allow for functionally efficient production, but also to allow staff to relax at certain times with a view to stress prevention and the encouragement of a creative spirit. This has involved recovery rooms including an ergonomically designed ‘Green Room’ to which individuals are free to withdraw for contemplation, reflection and creative thinking, either individually or brainstorming in small groups.

Certainly the extent to which teams enjoy control over the work environment is critical. Thus high road teamworking achieves flexibility by enabling employees to take overall responsibility for the production of the product or service. Within the team this will involve significant latitude for autonomous scheduling and planning, as well as opportunities for reflection and continuous improvement. Ericsson Radio Systems AB demonstrates the importance of trust in achieving high road convergence between performance and healthy working: As Figure 5.1 shows, the high road may also lead to extended teamworking including external problem solving and innovation through direct involvement with customers, suppliers and other parts of the supply chain, rupturing the organizational boundaries of classic workgroups (cf. Hague et al. 2003). Inter-organizational teamworking between customers and suppliers is likely to increase with the emergence of complex product networks facilitated by ICTs and involving frequent horizontal collaboration between employees at all levels. Case Study: Product design at ABB Cewe ABB Cewe, a Swedish manufacturer of electrical switchgear, took clear action to close the gap between design and production functions by relocating development engineers onto the shop floor. A distance of 30 metres along the corridor, it was argued, was sufficient to prevent adequate flows of information and knowledge between the two areas of activity. Direct involvement of production employees in the development process has reduced lead times, reduced production difficulties and enriched jobs.


175

Internally, the boundaries of teams may become more fluid – in contrast to the definitions cited earlier – as organizational structures evolve responsively around client or product needs rather than reflecting traditional demarcations. Characterized by dialogue and trust, extended teamworking offers a positive trajectory for quality of working life, offering scope for personal development through self-direction, building wider relationships and participation in both operational and strategic innovation. Figure 5.1 shows that teamworking blends with partnership through the medium of productive reflection, knowledge creation and innovation. The Tayloristic separation of day-to-day operations from development functions has long been understood to extend the trial and error cycle in the introduction of new products and services, inhibiting flows of information between operational and developmental functions and preventing the tacit knowledge of operational employees from being utilized within the innovation process. Building on, but moving beyond continuous improvement, high road models seek to integrate production and innovation. This has been called High Involvement Innovation in which the systematic involvement of employees at all levels in the continual reinvention of products and services is integral to the way we do things around here. Critically there is a clear link between overall corporate strategy and its deployment down to the various problem-solving teams. High Involvement Innovation is also part of individual behavior: people define innovation as a core part of their job and not an add-on. Individuals seek out opportunities for learning and personal development through active experimentation and by setting their own learning objectives), while the organization captures and shares the learning of individuals and groups. Employees are often involved in several different activities from work-group teams to cross-functional and even inter-organizational teams. The whole ethos is one of change: constantly searching for ways to improve things and not leaving things as they are unless there is a good reason. 5.4)>> Integrating Partnership and Teamworking through Dialogue We have presented partnership and teamworking as the principal, mutually reinforcing dimensions of the high road organization. On the one hand partnership creates the context and the safeguards for the empowerment and engagement of front line employees. Research and experience abound with failed attempts to empower frontline staff in the absence of a partnership culture. Empowerment threatens traditional ways of managing, from the top of the organization to the frontline supervisor. It is as though the organization develops antibodies to protect its established order against infection from new practices. Managers accustomed to playing a policing role feel threatened by empowerment, and can consciously or unconsciously subvert change. In short, partial change is a recipe for innovation decay. Change needs to be reflected throughout the system. Empowerment at operational level needs to be monitored and protected by a partnership structure characterized by strong nodes of communication with the frontline and the authority to enforce its values throughout the line management structure.

176)>>

Peter Totterdill

At the same time, partnership itself thrives when it is supported by an engaged and empowered workforce. Academic critics of partnership point to studies which show a divide between employee or trade union representatives on partnership forums and workers at the frontline, citing this as evidence of tokenism or incorporation. Indeed the position of representatives, and the nature of representative participation itself, can be fraught with ambiguity, especially in companies where the organization of work does not provide opportunities for productive reflection and dialogue. However team-based working practices can generate the reflection and insight capable of informing partnership dialogue at the strategic level of the organization. Issues and opportunities that cannot be addressed by teams themselves or by horizontal collaboration between teams may reveal the need for systemic action at corporate level. Partnership structures can provide the means of gathering and assimilating such intelligence, instigating strategic dialogue around solutions that achieve positive outcomes for the company through employee involvement and creativity. The glue that binds representative partnership at the corporate level of the enterprise with direct participation at the frontline lies in knowledge sharing. Boards, senior managers and sometimes partnership forums may enjoy a sophisticated level of knowledge and insight into the threats and opportunities that face the company, enabling them to make informed strategic choices. However these choices often have profound implications for day-to-day working practices, even though the strategic decision makers’ knowledge of what works on the ground is likely to be limited. The tendency from the corporate level is often to see the organization as a black box which is meant to deliver the required outputs in response to directives from the top. Delivery failures are seen as dysfunctional – rather than as a potential cause of reflection on the nature of the directive itself. Frontline employees, in contrast, tend to know that management instructions need to be interpreted and adapted in order to make them work in a practical way. This process of interpretation and adaptation is grounded in the tacit knowledge that employees gain through experience, often learnt through extensive trial and error and the sharing of ideas with peers. Even in the most strictly regulated and Tayloristic work settings, the use of tacit knowledge is rarely absent as a means of improving practice or solving unexpected problems. Participative teamworking is a way of recognizing and celebrating tacit knowledge as the ingredient that keeps most organizations going. However the practice of teamworking in this sense must incorporate spaces in daily working life that enable workers at all levels to stand back from the task in hand to in order to question established methods. Dialogue must constitute a core value of organizational culture: the aim should be to prize the force of the better argument over the force of hierarchical position. Partnership and participative teamworking should therefore be seen as a double helix, one in which tacit knowledge and strategic knowledge combine as a means of enhancing the workability of corporate decisions and of aligning team activity and reflection with wider business goals. On this basis the high road company can be represented as a virtuous circle (Figure 5.2):


177

Business strategy

Partnership forum Strategic knowledge • Opportunities • Threats • Alliances

Information Dialogue Gainsharing

“High Involvement Innovation”

Tacit knowledge • “What works” • Learning • Improvement

Participative teamwork

Figure 5.2: The high road organization

6)>>Conclusions Our research evidence confirms that convergence between sustainable competitiveness and healthy working is possible, but also makes clear that there is no one route to the high road, and that the journey is inevitably complex and messy. Can the approach outlined in the previous section lead to convergence? No model can guarantee positive outcomes for all stakeholders: such results depend on the quality, continuity and integration of dialogue at all levels. The above approach provides a framework in which high quality dialogue can be achieved, quality in this sense embracing the inclusion of all stakeholders and the provision of spaces in day-to-day working life for productive reflection. The commitment, capacity and competence of managers, unions and employee representatives are also crucial determinants of outcome. Likewise learning from successful cases is valuable as an inspiration for change but can never provide a blueprint for different organizations with diverse histories and contexts. Germany has a distinct advantage in comparison with many parts of Europe in that it enjoys some four decades’ experience of action-oriented research into work-

178)>>

Peter Totterdill

place innovation, beginning with the “Humanisierung des Arbeitslebens” (HdA) program in 1974 and now represented by initiatives such as “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”, managed by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Cumulative outcomes from these programs have doubtless influenced the perception and orientation of managers and social partners in ways which are both tangible and intangible However the translation of research knowledge into actionable knowledge remains problematic in Germany as elsewhere, though for example the Gesellschaft für Innovative Beschäftigungsförderung mbH (G.I.B.) in North-Rhine Westphalia offers a very interesting case study of networked knowledge distribution and support for workplace innovation. Modernizing work organization is central to the concerns of Enabling Innovation but poses far reaching challenges for individuals and institutions alike: For the individual – seeking opportunities for acquiring and developing the technical and non-technical skills associated with new forms of work organization. For employers and employees – accepting that change is inevitable, messy and uncertain, and that it requires considerable learning and experimentation. However it also offers real scope for ‘win-win’ outcomes. For trades unions and employers organizations – broadening their roles as proactive, knowledge-rich sources of animation and support for the modernization of work organization. For intermediate bodies – such as universities, regional development agencies and business support organizations – creating capacity and expertise in the field of work organization and playing a proactive role in distributing knowledge, establishing new resources and building networks.

Bibliography Boud D, Cressey P, Docherty P (2005) Productive Reflection at Work. Routledge, London Docherty P, Forslin J, Rami Shani AR (2002) Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Emerging perspectives and practice. Routledge, London Hague J, den Hertog F, Huzzard T, Totterdill P (2003) Better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick: conditions for the convergence of competitiveness and the quality of working life in Europe. Innoflex Research Paper. The Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham. http//:www.ukwon.net Mueller F, Purcell J (1992) The Drive for Higher Productivity. In: Personnel Management (1992): 28-33 Totterdill P, Hague J (2004) Workplace Innovation as Regional Development. In: Fricke W, Totterdill P (ed) Action Research in Workplace Innovation and Regional Development. John Benjamins, Amsterdam

Commentary on the Main Article “New Forms of Work Organization and the High Road to Innovation: European experiences”

Innovations Require Conducive Institutions Peter Brödner

These days, work organization is usually regarded as a private matter for the individual company. In actual fact, productivity and innovative capability, as key corporate performance indicators, can be heavily influenced by work organization. Thus designing how work is organized appears to be a determinant element and expression of success in corporate activity. It is to Peter Totterdill’s great credit demonstrating in his article that work organization also has a societal dimension that goes well beyond its corporate function in at least two respects. Companies always depend on the structure of the social institutions in which they are embedded. On the one hand, for example, the options you have for shaping your work organization depend heavily on the institutional arrangement that prevails in each case as a necessary general condition for adding value, particularly on industrial relations, on the education system, and on infrastructure and taxation conditions. Depending on how this system of institutions is constructed, forms of work organization can be implemented that will tend to promote or restrict productivity and innovative capability. On the other hand, social welfare is reliant on the productive capability of value creation processes, on the diversity of outcomes from creative productive forces and, ultimately, on the income they generate. This applies particularly to evolving, knowledge-based societies that are, to a certain extent, characterized by productively processing knowledge, constantly innovating and dealing with related uncertainties. For this reason they are particularly reliant on conditions in the work organization that are conducive to developing people’s work capacity as the embodiment of individual experience, skills and abilities in the work organization. As a result, a highly developed society such as Germany’s ought not to be indifferent to how it arranges its general institutional foundations for work organization and value creation, and how it appropriates their products. These links and the resulting importance of a high road work organization development strategy, as Peter Totterdill rightly outlined in detail, may be empirically underpinned in two ways: firstly, by the abject failure of the EU’s Lisbon S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_19, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

180)>>

Peter Brödner

Strategy and, secondly, by the long-term, continuing success of the Northern countries who, compared for example with the Anglo-Saxon economies or, particularly, with Germany, have adopted a development system that is heavily based on the high road. With its 2000 Lisbon Strategy, the EU set itself the ambitious goal of making Europe, within 10 years, into the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion and care for the environment” (European Commission DOC/00/7 2000). The results actually achieved in pursuance of this strategy, however, failed across-the-board. Not only does Europe, on a global scale, enjoy a relatively poor economic dynamic with little growth, weak productivity improvements, lagging innovative capability, high unemployment and increasingly unequal income distribution, the quality of work and the health of the workforce are also declining rapidly, the more so as threats to psycho-mental health spread like an epidemic, particularly amongst well-qualified knowledge workers. In Germany (with approx. 20% of economic output the EU’s most important country) in particular, the economic situation has deteriorated dramatically during this period. Since 2000, German economic growth has been just half the average of the other old EU countries. In the EU, Germany has the least growth in salaries, along with the greatest salary discrimination against women, and has the thirdworst pension level (as measured against final income). In this context, systematic wage dumping (in 2008 there were over 7 m low wage earners (three-quarters qualified), of which 5 m were mini-jobs and 0.8 m temporary workers) has weakened earnings and led to chronically under-developed domestic demand, illustrated, for example, by the drop in the labor income share from 72.2% in 2000 to 70.7% in 2003 and 64.6% in 2007 and by long-term stagnation and even a recent fall in retail sales (IAQ Report 2009-04; FR 09/05/2008; NachDenkSeiten 09/05/2008).1 The poverty rate in Germany rose from 12% in 2000 to 18% in 2006 (poor being anyone with less than 60% of the median monthly net income, e.g. in 2005 less than €781 for a single household; in 2003 this threshold was €938). Poverty is increasingly extending upwards to also threaten qualified members of the rapidly shrinking middle class, from which over 4 million people had fallen into poverty by 2006 (German Institute for Economic Research, weekly report 24/ 2010). As a result of wage dumping, the rationalization pressure to modernize the value creation process is abating and productivity growth is weakening. A slack in innovation dynamic has also been evident for some years, even in knowledgeintensive sectors. Between 1991 and 2003, Germany’s ranking in terms of R&D as a share of GDP fell from 3rd to 9th, while the share of public funding receded and the R&D workforce was reduced by 7% (see the 2007 Innovation Report by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research). The country also continues to fall back in the innovation capability ranking issued annually by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW). With information technology (a )>> The data given here and below intentionally relate to the period prior to the outbreak of the great crisis, thus effectively to normal economic conditions.

1

Innovations Require Conducive Institutions)>>181

key technology for the knowledge infrastructure) having a relatively low share of value creation, Germany lags behind France, Italy and England and well behind the Nordic countries. Moreover, with 4.5% of GDP (2005) compared with the OECD average of 5.4%, Germany spends far too little on public education; it has the lowest tertiary education graduation rate in the EU, with 22% of a yearly group, and provides the slimmest opportunities for lower class children to graduate from high school. Almost every fourth person in any yearly intake (23%) is functionally illiterate and unsuitable for the labor market (see 2008 OECD Education Report; Pisa 2001). The overall extent of Germany’s retarded socio-economic development only really becomes even more apparent when contrasted with the prosperity of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway (not included here) and Sweden). For example, over the period 1997-2007 GDP per capita rose from 21,600 to 31,700 global purchasing power units (GPU) in Denmark, from 17,200 to 29,500 GPU in Finland and from 19,500 to 31,500 GPU in Sweden, while only rising from 20,000 to 28,000 GPU in Germany (EU Economic and Financial Affairs Indicators). Similarly, private household consumption for the period 2000-2006 rose by 15.9% in Denmark, 21.2% in Finland and 11.7% in Sweden, while more or less stagnating with 1.9% in Germany (Eurostat). In the period 1995-2006, productivity rose by 15% in Denmark (or 1.3% p. a. on average), 29% (2.3% p. a.) in Finland and 31.8% (2.4% p. a.) in Sweden, compared with just 20.9% (1.7% p. a.) in Germany (see OECD Productivity Data Base). In terms of innovative capability the DIW’s indicator, made up of numerous components, only features Germany amongst the middle-ranking European countries, while Sweden heads the list, followed closely by the USA, Switzerland, Finland and Denmark (still way ahead of Japan). Sweden and Finland, in particular, have over the last two decades made enormous efforts to disseminate corporate high road strategies. Country

Income

Average

Long-term

Education

R&D

UnemploymentSpending Spending

Tax & Social

Inequality

Net Pensions for

Contributions

Ratio of top to bottom income fifth

middle incomes

(> 1 year)

as % of

as % of

in GPU (D=100)

as % of all

GDP

GDP

GDP

2005

2007

unemployed

2002

2005

2006

as % of

2004 Germany

4,1

100

51,8

4,8

2,5

35,7

Denmark

3,5

164

22,6

8,5

2,4

49.0

Finland

3,6

121

23,4

6,4

3,5

43,5

Sweden

3,3

125

18,9

7,7

3,9

50,1

Table 1: Overview of social development and welfare: Germany compared to Scandinavia

182)>>

Peter Brödner

Other comparative data on social development and welfare is collated in the table below, providing further evidence in many areas of the Nordic countries’ superior performance (www.jjahnke.net). Overall, the comparison shows that much higher affluence and socio-economic prosperity can also be achieved under the same conditions of global competition. There are real alternatives to Germany’s developmentinhibiting, redistributive, unproductive, innovation-unfriendly policy for poverty. The comparison also reveals key success factors. In fundamental contrast to the mantras of neoliberal-inspired policy, engaging in the global development dynamic and the productive handling of the inevitable structural change require resourcebased corporate strategies that are primarily aimed at developing work capacity rather than at reducing costs. Their success rests, however, on a suitably proactive macro policy which enables and promotes an intensive innovation dynamic for growth and productivity alongside greater employment and less poverty. In this alternative model of social development, extremely competitive corporate high road strategies and politically structured institutional arrangements combine to develop the work capacity, while the latter broadly provide resources such as education and research, and health and employment services, as professionally and efficiently generated public assets that companies are then able to exploit through integrated, cooperative, self-managed (group) work structures of great efficiency for long-term competitive advantages. Their highly productive and at the same time versatile value creation can then also generate the revenues that are, in turn, able to cope with the costly but efficient production of public assets. This development dynamic is driven and enabled by a politically structured institutional arrangement for restructuring companies more or less completely as well as by activating resources through participative forms of work organization while at the same time extending the production of public assets of great efficiency, professionalism and performance (e.g. in terms of childcare, education and lifelong learning, research and development, health services and support for the unemployed). This shows that corporate strategies with corresponding macro policies such as those that currently dominate in Germany, which focus mainly on reducing wages and on underdeveloping or even wasting the living work capacity, undermine the development of productive forces and innovation dynamics upon which, however, welfare and prosperity in knowledge-based societies crucially depend. To break the political and institutional fetters in order to develop work capacity as the basis for productivity and innovation is, therefore, a core problem for German society. Thus, amongst the numerous reasons for this regressive social development, the widespread neglect of issues in work organization design, the development of work capacity and their institutional fundamentals plays a prominent role. In their neoliberal blindness, political actors have failed to take these interrelationships into account and have left the design of work organization to individual companies with their predominantly short-term profit interests. Which means they are, ultimately, putting the country’s future prospects at risk.

A Human-Centered Design for Work Places: Opportunities and Constraints Francesco Garibaldo

Abstract Innovative capability does not emerge ex nihilo, but depends to a special degree on an innovation friendly and creativity-promoting organizational environment. The industrial restructuring process of the recent past has rather hindered than fostered the establishment of this kind of environment. The essay analyses and deconstructs the industrial restructuring process before and after the last global crisis, highlighting a new concept of innovation based on the deconstruction of what happened. Based upon this analysis the article describes a suitable organization to implement that concept of innovation in normative terms. Concluding remarks will summarize recommendations for the future.

1)>>Introduction It may seem naive, if not odd, to write about human-centered work places in the midst of a hyper-competitive industrial and economic landscape. The reason is, according to the hypothesis of this essay, innovation capabilities depend upon the building of a suitable environment for innovation and creativity at the company level. Suitable in this context refers to the degree of an organizational environment’s ability to support average workers ingenuity and creativity. The goal is not to select an elite, but to mobilize the capabilities of the organization as a whole. A subordinate hypothesis is that the emphasis on competitiveness as the overarching goal of a company is not conducive to that kind of creativity. As a matter of fact, the industrial restructuring process over the last 20 years was molded by the paramount goal of conquering foreign markets (a neo-mercantilist approach) and as a consequence – this is the main thesis of this contribution – selecting a specific kind of innovation that is less and less ready for the necessities of the future.

2)>> The Industrial Restructuring Process According to the industrialists’ common sense, the most functional configuration of an industrial process is based on three pillars. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_20, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

184)>>

Francesco Garibaldo

Two of them are: • An onion shaped firm, whose most famous representation is the flexible factory by Atkinson (1988) • A supply chain organized in layers: each supplier position depending on the intrinsic value of the goods/ services delivered. The single firm/ organization has been progressively organized as an onion, made up of many layers. In the inner layers there are workers with a stable position, in the outer layers workers with a decreasing stability regarding to their job position. In the firms/ organizations with a more formal structure and a more clear-cut division of labor, people in the inner layers enjoy better working conditions. From a systemic perspective, firms/ organizations are mainly structured in value chains, organized as integrated or quasi-integrated systems of production originating from or built around original equipment manufacturing (OEM) in the industrial sector, or the equivalent role in the other economic sectors. These chains can be built according to two different criteria: the former aiming at a more efficient division of labor, the latter at saving costs, namely wage costs. As a matter of fact there are many mixed situations. This configuration can deliver the maximum flexibility at minimum cost, and can be customized for each specific industrial sector and each different firm’s needs. The process is at the same time leading to a high level of concentration, and to a low level of centralization. The concentration process was not centralized in the classical way for a highly integrated company (cf. Harrison 1994). On the contrary, productive networks or filières which are based on the outsourcing of upstream production activities, and made up of many SMEs (small and medium enterprises), have been set up by OEM firms. Each chain is segmented into tiers, each one having a different value-added capacity depending on the productive power; for instance in all industries, the producers of modules or complex parts are stronger than other companies. The overwhelming majority of these networks/ chains are organized both in tiers and poles; the poles are the key players of each tier (cf. Garibaldo and Bardi 2005). At the bottom of these pyramids, there are the companies supplying just a certain amount of simple manufacturing/ processing activity or simple services; they are struggling to survive. The third pillar is delocalization. It was conceived at the beginning to shift as many costs as possible to the lower levels of the value chain. Now the processes can be finely tuned so that, also because of the information and communication technologies, it is possible to analyze each part/ function (not only the manufacturing parts of it) of an economic process and to decide if, when, for how long and where to allocate it, in order to save both processing and capital costs. This military apparatus was built to conquer foreign markets and to compete with the new industrial states such as China and India. The vast majority of the people working in these firms organizations are considered replaceable in quantitative terms. In this system there is no human-centeredness at all, except for the few people in the inner layers of firms/ organizations. Companies consider their employees as

A Human-Centered Design for Work Places: Opportunities and Constraints)>>185

soldiers enlisted in a war and therefore have an obligation to be loyal and perform at their best. Germany is a perfect case in point. According to some authors (cf. Danninger and Joutz 2007, 3 et seq.)1, the German export boom has, since the nineties, been based on large productivity gains without providing a spin-off on employees’ general conditions (wages, social provisions and working conditions); on the contrary there has been wage moderation and a reduction of social provisions with the shrinking of the domestic market. This situation has been compounded by the off-shoring of production to lowercost countries, including within the EU-27 area, to implement a very aggressive export strategy. As a matter of fact, the employers’ strategy to overcome the limit of the traditional, relatively high wages situation of post-war Germany changed dramatically in the nineties. There was a huge shift from the automation strategy of the seventies and the eighties to the off-shoring of the upstream activities mainly to Eastern Europe and partly, as is the case for northern Italy, to the old EU-15. There has been a huge simultaneous shift of investments to Eastern Europe on such a scale that Sinn (2006, 6) can say “German firms are currently engaged in an ‘investment strike’, to use the Marxian term.” 2 The rationale of this strategy is that high-tech investments can grant Germany a gap ahead of the new competitors such as India and China, making the mediumhigh sector of these mass markets available for its exports, with a never-ending catch up attempt from India and China. These markets have such a dimension that, even if only the richest parts become available, it is enough to guarantee an adequate return on investment, as has happened with Volkswagen in China. This strategy implies a domestically segmented labor market. Each segment can be based on highly skilled technicians and also highly skilled workers to support the high-tech trend, or based on very flexible workers, that is having a precarious occupational status along with high work performance and low wages. The actual positioning of each segment depends on its position in the value chain. The birth of these transnational production chains of firms, organized in networks or filières, represents an unprecedented socialization of knowledge and production activities. A Flawed Model Irrespective of the Crisis This model can be critically assessed with or without taking into consideration the economic crisis that started at the end of 2007. The flaw in the model is a con)>> They analyze four hypotheses: (i) improved cost competitiveness through moderate collective wage agreements since the mid 1990s; (ii) ties to fast growing trading partners as a result of a desirable product mix or long-standing trade relationships;(iii) increased export demand for capital goods as a response to a global rise in investment activity, and (iv) regionalized production patterns through off-shoring of production to lower cost countries, partly a result of European economic integration. The authors stress the importance of the second and the fourth factor. 2 )>> This shift has been so huge that, according to Sinn, the depth of the German industry in terms of share of own value-added in manufacturing output went down from 36% to 33%. 1

186)>>

Francesco Garibaldo

sequence of the changing nature of international competition. What is innovation about? Is it Schumpeter’s idea that innovating consists of putting new, reliable products or services onto the market? Schumpeter’s concept doesn’t seem to be the right answer; a new innovation concept is needed. Of course, if macro-economic as well as social aspects are taken into consideration, it becomes necessary to pose a series of questions. Regarding social aspects: 1))>> Innovate what? The products, the processes, or both? Today an efficient process and high level of technical quality is a prerequisite. 2))>> Innovate to achieve what? To generically satisfy a client/ consumer irrespective of the nature and the quality of the demand? Or vice versa, to establish the hierarchies of the objectives? In many fields, governments are setting new green criteria that aim also to support new consumers’ trends. 3))>> Why innovate? As a condition to be competitive in general? Or more selectively for a specific configuration of competitiveness? The problem is to find where the edge is today. 4))>> Who is responsible for the unexpected social consequences (side effects) of how the innovative processes are managed? How should risks be managed? It means that innovation must take into account not only technological cleverness, but also social, cultural and philosophical dimensions, and how to design complex governance systems. From this perspective, the problem is the overall quality of the products/ services. It means we have to ask ourselves what, why, for whom and how we should innovate. On the macro-economic side, the automobile sector is a good case in point. All international agencies agree on the fact that there is an excess in productive capacity installed in the sectors both at the European and at the international level. The actual competitive model is based on the ability to conquer new international markets in developing countries such as India and China by adding new local production facilities. This model has contributed to a vicious circle of over-supply that will not be overcome by increasingly developing these new markets. The overall effect has been and still is to add more over-capacity in many industries at a global level with new financial risks and, in the long run, new deflationary pulses. In fact, the case is that there will be overproduction in Europe and USA and not in the BRIC countries. Neither innovation oriented to maintain a competitive edge in the premium sector through sophisticated technological improvement nor the green cars initiative alone will guarantee the employment and income levels of Europe. Electric cars, for instance, have a work content that is 1 to 20 compared with a traditional car. Instead a potential field for a different kind of innovation can be devised. Cars, for instance, can be considered as by-products while mobility is considered as the actual product. That is a realistic historical perspective, indeed. As a matter of fact cars replaced cable cars because of their effectiveness in delivering better mobility in terms of flexibility and speed; that it is no longer the case.


From this perspective, mobility can be delivered by a different kind of car – for instance electric cars – because of pollution, but also by mobility platforms based not only on cars or the traditional forms of public transport, but also on newly articulated and integrated systems for metropolitan areas (cf. AA.VV. 2002). Europe is a case of world importance for its structure based on high-density cities and metropolitan areas, and a population that is increasingly sensitive to the issues of mobility and pollution.

3)>> A New Kind of Innovation Focusing the driver of innovation on the capacity to establish a new kind of demand leads to a new concept of innovation. It is based on a public and private domestic demand, both individual and collective, thus converging with the conclusion on the social side. The nature of this demand coming from metropolitan areas is not idiosyncratically European but global; therefore it can lead to a new global supply of products. Furthermore, it exemplifies another important innovation possibility deriving from the collaboration between different economic sectors, for example between the automobile and urban planning sectors or between government systems and governance systems on a meso-territorial scale. Indeed, the concept of a mobility platform implies a task to be done not only for mobility, but also for the architecture of the urban areas and on a synergy specifically designed between the two action strands. Besides, innovation is not necessarily high-tech; from the open innovation perspective, innovation is the original combination of existing technologies in some cases. This example illustrates the possibility of a different kind of innovation: 1))>> Based on societal needs and demands; 2))>> Socially responsible as regards risks; 3))>> Based on forms of international division of labor, agreed upon through international multilateral agreements; 4))>> Technologically conservative, that is oriented to utilize all combinations of technology beyond the Frascati Manual’s distinction of high and low technologies (cf. PILOT 2002); 5))>> Based on an open cooperation between different actors, crosscutting sectors and technological domains, namely the divide between industrial production and services. This kind of innovation requires a huge diffusion of innovation capabilities all along the value chain, not only as a requisite for OEM. It is a shift from a technocratic to a democratic innovation concept.

188)>>

Francesco Garibaldo

4)>> The Crisis In business newspapers, there is a divide regarding the analysis of the crisis; one of the two positions, championed by Martin Wolf, supports the idea that a key factor is the unbalance in international commerce. The argument is that a world divided into some countries having a very aggressive neo-mercantilist approach and others buying this oversupply of goods and services died with the crisis and any attempt to simply revive it will lead to further problems.3 The position of this essay is in favor of Wolf’s approach. Coming back to Germany, as a case in point of the neo-mercantilist countries, the idea that the high-export model generates and delivers more wealth to the exporting country because of the substitution of low or unskilled jobs with medium or high-skilled jobs looks more and more like wishful thinking. According to Sinn (2006, 14), “[t]hus total German employment calculated in full-time equivalents fell by 1.36 million people during the past ten years.” There is not a purely marketdriven way to spread innovation capabilities across the labor force as a whole. Besides, the neo-mercantilist approach has made Germany more exposed to the effects of the crisis; it is not by chance that Germany registered the highest peak of production downturn among the EU-15 countries. This is the reason why the shift to societal needs and demands as the driver of growth in a newly cooperative international division of labor, along with a broad social responsibility in preventing ecological and social risks, is needed. It should be remembered that, after the Great Depression, Keynes considered the unbalance in trade the major risk for the future and that, in the original proposal, both the creditor and the debtor nations must be considered responsible for it and for restoring equilibrium. This is because the beggar thy neighbor policy leads to export devaluation and unemployment in other countries; this should have been part of a broad scheme of international cooperation. Therefore a new kind of innovation as the driver of a new social and macroeconomic framework is required in Germany and in Europe to support a sustainable recovery. Thus the recovery for Germany and Europe should be based on a new investment on people’s ingenuity and capabilities, and on a societal environment supporting it.

5)>> A Suitable Environment for Innovation and Creativity Market alone will not lead our societies to implement all the changes needed to achieve this new concept of innovation. What should be done and by whom, then, to achieve this goal? An answer to this question requires a closer look on the concept of creativity. Creativity in this perspective is not the romantic idea of an exceptional )>> McKinsey’s last report, Welcome to the volatile world, is in favor of maintaining export as the core of Germany’s recovery, but a rebalancing on the internal demand side is considered necessary. This is also the position of Münchau, vice director of the Financial Times.

3


individual or the rationalistic idea that it only arises from managing concepts and theories in a proper way. In this essay, the aim is not only to consider the great advantages of creativity – that is the development/ creation of a novel product that attains some level of social recognition also because of its suitability – but also what has been called little creativity, that is “activities that people engage in every day: modifying a recipe when you don’t have all of the ingredients called for; avoiding a traffic jam by finding a new way through side streets” (Sawyer 2006, 27). It encompasses the traditional definition of creativity and what can be defined as ingenuity. What we need today is this kind of attitude as a skill of average working people; this is the only way to make a proper use of the unprecedented socialization of all working activities, from industrial firms to the former free professions built over the last thirty years. How can people achieve this? It is not a mere question of education. The point is to let people, to the best of their abilities, develop and utilize their capabilities and ingenuity, i.e. let them be creative. The current practice in designing and managing organizations is not up to scratch because of its bias on a financial and short-term concept of economic efficiency. There are, therefore, organizational conditions and macro-social conditions to be achieved. The macro-social conditions, in a nutshell, depend upon the big shift posit before; it means taking the idea of becoming the first knowledge-based society seriously. This objective is unrealistic if our societies are based on increasing inequalities, as the Gini’s index indicates, which causes some minorities to become modern-day helots. The focus of this essay is restricted to the organizational design.

6)>> A Human Centered Design Organizations should be requisite (cf. Jaques 1970), that is suitable for the devised new task, and conducive (cf. Garibaldo and Rebecchi 2004, 50), that is letting creativity flow. This is an impossible mission, or lip service to an ideal without any practical application, if human beings’ needs are not taken into consideration. This can be done by utilizing what we know from sociology, psychology, anthropology and communication. Creativity is now considered a complex phenomenon that requires a multidimensional and multilevel analysis. More generally, it can be said that even if it isn’t possible to explain the single creative act, it is legitimate to formulate hypotheses on the environment that can encourage it and to consider creativity as the outcome of joint cooperative activities of complex network of people (cf. Sawyer 2006, 119). 6.1)>>Trust One key factor is trust. Trust, as observed by many, derives from a solid environment and, in turn, allows for the emergence of the idea that is the premise for crea-

190)>>

Francesco Garibaldo

tivity. From another angle, according to Winnicot (1971), trust allows for the manifestation of the True Self which possesses creative potential. The lack of confidence, the obscurity of the decisions, their trickling down from above, all stimulate the defenses of the complacent False Self, defenses that can lead to behavior characterized by obedience and diligence, but certainly does not engender a spirit of adventure, i.e. creativeness. Indeed, in the latter situation, the environment is recognized as something that requires passive adaptation. Such an environment hampers the creative potential, above all because it eliminates or flattens out the mental disposition that underpins it, but also because what is new is unconsciously considered a transgression from the established hierarchical order, a transgression that generates guilt and thus, as a defense, inhibition of the intellectual function that presides over the creative processes. It could also be said that in this environment, the creative act is considered to be too strong a risk. Accordingly, instead of passive adaptation, an active attitude, that is the bilateral process of a person’s adaptation to changes coming from outside of their own prism of experiences and from the environment to their cultural inheritance, willingness and needs, is required. How can this be achieved? 6.2)>> A Requisite Organization What rights are indispensible for the worker in order for organizations to function properly while mitigating human destructiveness? Jaques’ answer (1970, 25) was: “The problem, then, is to overcome the unconscious anxieties that hinder the proper working of the social institutions of the intermediate zone. It is necessary that at least four rights be firmly established for that ninety per cent of the working population: the right to work to the maximum of one’s capacities; the right to appeal against the judgment of one’s superiors; the right to take part in the drafting of policies; and the right to a fair wage.” If we thus seek the requisite organization, as Jaques dubbed it, we need to start from the so-called normal personality, in the psychoanalytical sense, to foster/ reinforce the characteristics of such a personality (1970, 26 et seq.): “In the first place, the normal person aspires not only to work, but also to work at a level of responsibility that fully tests his capacities. Man is an animal dedicated to the solution of problems and must make continuing use of his mental and physical apparatus. Second, the normal person is independent of different and important standpoints. He tries to set himself the objectives he works for or at least to participate in their formulation, if he works in groups. The desire for independence is displayed in the ‘refusal to subject oneself to the final evaluation of any single individual’. Third, the normal individual has a strong sense of equity and social justice.”


With exceptions, the requisite organization for satisfying these requirements is very far away from the actual organizations created in the last thirty years. The main critical issue is how people adapt themselves to change. The requisite organization can also be thought of as conducive, with conduciveness referring to the structural capacity of an organization to allow its members to share a “mental space”, as termed by Garibaldo and Rebecchi (2004, 50). 6.3)>> A Suitable Organization In organizational studies, the main features of a suitable environment for creativity are described. Summing up the approach of Zollo and Winter (1999) to dynamic capability, as well the theories by Argyris and Schön (1996) and Bolman and Deal (1997), a common idea emerges that innovative organizations are based on: “The ability to call upon good quality data and to make inferences. It seems to include the views and experiences of participants rather than seek to impose a view upon the situation. Theories should be made explicitly and tested; positions should be reasoned and open to exploration by others.” In other words, organizations supporting innovation: “Can be seen as dialogical and more likely to be found in settings and organizations that look to shared leadership. They look to: Emphasize common goals and mutual influence. II.)>> Encourage open communication and publicly test assumptions and beliefs.” And also: II.)>> “Combine advocacy with inquiry” (Argyris and Schön 1996; Bolman and Deal 1997, 147 et seq.). The specifics of the system thus become increasingly clear and well defined. A set of conditions about the organization should be implemented that, in brief, are contained in the definition of highly conducive organizations (cf. Spitzley et al. 2007). To sum up, anthropology, cognitive psychology and psychoanalysis together lead us to the conclusion that, to make it possible for people to be creative, proactive and flexible, organizations must be open to a very strong participation, not only on the action strategy but also on the governing variable. Moreover, in order for creativity to blossom, an organizational environment based on trust, equity, social justice, delegation of power and autonomy and accepted individual responsibility on one’s achievement is needed. This environment is what average workers need, and if implemented, it leads to a flexible organization. 6.4)>> Creativity as the Outcome of Joint Cooperative Activities of a Complex Network of People Groups are more cooperative than individuals (cf. Sawyer 2006, 120 et seq.); but specific conditions are needed to allow it to happen. Dynamic psychology and

192)>>

Francesco Garibaldo

psychoÂ� analysis combined with sociology are helpful in identifying these preÂ� requisites. Social analysis alone, such as of team experiences and the nature of group dynamics inside teams is not enough to assess the reasons for the success or failure of cooperation. It is necessary to turn to a psychological perspective, such as that of Bion (1961). First of all, this perspective highlights the nature of the interaction: “The sociological and the psychological perspectives [of groups] are very different. (…) [T]he psychological perspective is more oriented towards the description of what happens in the group at the mental level. It not only takes account of the actions that take place in it, but also of all the mental parts that are activated by being in the group, whether they are of a rational or emotional kind” (Rebecchi 1995). From this viewpoint the whole matter looks quite different: “When the group work is started up, inevitably we have the onset of a series of resistance that hamper the work itself; these resistances have been catalogued and described in various ways; some are well known (for example, dependence, pairing up, attack and fleeing) and instances occur in all the work groups [...]. In short, it may be said that when defenses are triggered in a group, the collective activity is compromised; the group functions as a work group only when the defenses are absent” (Rebecchi 1995). Vice-versa, when a group is able to accomplish the task, it is possible, and only for the time being, to define the group as a work group, that is a rational and functional co-operation among people in order to reach a common goal. What conditions are critical to allow a gathering together of people to become a work group? Among many others criteria, two primary issues could be mentioned: 1))>> The scope of a possible transformation of the context by the group; it is very disappointing for people to be charged with a task impossible to reach because of environmental features outside of the scope of action of the group; 2))>> A narrow concept of the work group: “From my point of view, actually, the group’s work is essentially heterogeneous as it combines different experiences on a more complex knowledge. It isn’t, on the contrary, a combination of forces to accomplish the same mental activity (...) Clearly, work in groups questions Taylorism, as we have known it (...) The group work (...) concretely questions Taylorism because it not only establishes that the duties, broken down by Taylorism, must be reassembled (the so-called reparative aspect), but that in order to realize creative and complex jobs it is necessary, from the onset, to utilize the group work modalities.” (Rebecchi 1995) Cooperation, such as in teams, is a meta – level of organizational development. In other words, cooperation is a state of functioning, that is the capacity of an organization to allow and to support a call to life of shared mental spaces, as a very modern


form of co-operation. It implies that, from a practical point of view, what should be inquired to assess an organization and what should be developed to improve it is not the very existence of permanent structures, for instance teams, but its structural conductivity (cf. Spitzley et al. 2007), that is its openness to that state of functioning. It could also be demonstrated, on the ground of empirical evidence, that there is an inverse relation between the degree of organizational embedment of team-working and its effectiveness (cf. Lotz and Kristensen 2009). It doesn’t mean that the organizational structure is irrelevant but that it must be a requisite organization, requisite for our purpose. There is not one best way, the real conductive organization, there are, indeed, a set of binding criteria defining a space of the possible variety of such an organization. This space is not only shaped and bound by the conductivity criterion, but also by broader criteria referring both to the different societal levels (analytically) and to many different societal goals (practically). In other words it is useless to counter the process of change (how to change) with the design (what, why, for whom) of it (cf. Oehlke et al. 2007, 9).

7)>>Conclusions The concept of learning has become a managerial mantra and the core of a theory on organizational renewal called a learning organization. In this theoretical and operative framework, as Casey (2003) highlighted, there is an inversion and the organization becomes the subject and the actual subject, the worker, an abstract function as a human resource. The binding criteria are the fruit of the general knowledge, available on the international scale as the result of scientific and technological research, but also of the good practices that the practical experience of the individuals and social actors creates. This scientific/ practical knowledge is what flows downwards. But it does not have the characteristics of closed and normative knowledge - even regarding technical-operative aspects. It is, however, a point of agglomeration of re-interpretative processes, metabolizing so to speak, that re-open an innovative process on a local scale leaving people to have a say, such as in participative schemes of change. Summing up, the binding criteria are (as regards individuals): trust, equity, social justice, delegation of power and autonomy, accepted individual responsibility on one’s achievement. As regards cooperation, they are: a significant utilization of multifarious forms of team-working within and between organizations based on a realistic assessment of what each specific team can do with the mix of competences and knowledge available, and with space for decisions allowed to it. Teams should be designed as ad hoc and transient forms of organization, and people should be able to participate at different teams at the same time. Such an achievement can be the outcome of participatory design scheme (cf. Rasmussen in print).

194)>>

Francesco Garibaldo

Bibliography AA.VV. (2002) Alternative Propulsions and the Car Sector: Possible options, economic constraints and development potential. A congress organized by IPL, CERIS and CNEL in Turin on October 25, 2002; namely the papers by Cervellati P (University of Venice – Impacts and implications for the cities), Garibaldo F (IPL – The means of transport and the flexible systems for mobility) Larrue P (INSTEAD, France – The role of the public decision-maker from the case of the State of California) Argyris C, Schön D (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. FT Press, London Atkinson J (1988) Recent changes in the internal labour market structure in the UK. In: Buitelaar W (ed) Technology and Work. Aldershot, Avebury Bellofiore R, Halevi J (2010) A Minsky moment? The subprime crisis and the new capiÂ� talism. In: Gnos C, Rochon LP (ed) Credit, Money and Macroeconomic Policy. A PostKeynesian Approach. Elgar (forthcoming), Cheltenham Bion W (1961) Experiences in Groups and Other Papers. Tavistock Publications, London Danninger S, Joutz F (2007) What Explains Germany’s Rebounding Export Market Share. IMF Working Paper no 24 Ekstedt E (2004) The New Division of Labour. http://www.euij-tc.org/pub/research_ papers/20041126_Workshop/Workshop-2004-11-26-Ekstedt.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Finger M, Brand SB (1999) The concept of the “learning organization” applied to the transformation of the public sector. In: Easterby-Smith M, Araujo L, Burgoyne J (ed) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. Sage, London Garibaldo F et al. (2007) A Reference Model for Excellence in Innovation Management. In: Spitzley A, Rogowski T, Garibaldo F (ed) Open Innovation for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. Ways to Develop Excellence – Fraunhofer-Institute. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart Garibaldo F (1996) Workplace innovation: the making of a human-centred industrial culture. In: Gill KS (ed) Human machine symbiosis: the foundation of a human-centred system design. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg/ New York Garibaldo F, Bardi A (2005) Company Strategies and Organisational Evolution in the Automotive Sector: A Worldwide Perspective. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M. Garibaldo F, Jacobson D (2005) The role of company and social networks in low-tech industries. http://www.pilot-project.org/conference/conference.html. Accessed September 2010 Garibaldo F, Marchisio O, Telljohann V (2008) The automotive industry. In: Garibaldo F, Morvannou P, Tholen J (ed) Is China a Risk or an Opportunity for Europe? Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M.: 27-51 Garibaldo F, Rebecchi E (2004) Some reflections on the epistemological fundaments of an Italian action-research experience. In: AI & Soc, 18. Springer, London: 44-67 Garibaldo F (2010) Search conference. In: Rasmussen LB (ed) 2010, op.cit. Harrison B (1994) Lean and Mean. The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility. Basic Books, New York Jaques E (1970) Work, Creativity, and Social Justice. Heinemann Educational Books, London Kaloudis A, Sandven T, Smith K (2005) Structural change, growth and innovation: the roles of medium and low-tech industries 1980-2000. http://www.pilot-project.org/conference/ conference.html. Accessed September 2001


Kerka S (1995) The learning organization: myths and realities. Eric Clearinghouse Laestadius S, Pedersen TE, Sandven T (2005) Towards a new understanding of innovativeness – and of innovation based indicators. http://www.pilot-project.org/conference/ conference.html. Accessed September 2010 Le Boterf G (2002) DÃ©velopper la compÃ©tence des professionnels, Edition d’organisation, Paris Lotz M, Kristensen PH (2009) Taking Teams Seriously in the Co-creation of Economic Agency: Towards an Organizational Sociology of Teams. http://project.hkkk.fi/Â�translearn/ Publications/090301Teampaper_ML_PHK_MR.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Minsky HP (2008) John Maynard Keynes. McGraw – Hill, New York Minsky HP (2008) Stabilizing an unstable economy. McGraw – Hill, New York Meghnagi S (2005) Il sapere professionale. Feltrinelli, Milan Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, Oxford Oehlke P et al. (2007) Why take the “high road” of innovation? Work oriented strategies in Europe. WORK-IN-NET’s background paper, Project management Organization of BMBF at DLR, Bonn PILOT (2002) Policy and Innovation in Low Tech, Knowledge Formation, Employment & Growth Contributions of the ‘Old Economy’ Industries in Europe. Research Project, funded by the European Commission (Contract No HPSE-CT-2002-00112), Key Action “Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base” in the 5th Framework Program Pohlmann M, Gebhardt C, Etzkowitz H (2005) The development of innovation systems and the art of innovation management, Strategy, control and the culture of innovation. In: Technology Analysis & Strategica Management, vol 17, 1, March 1-7, 2005 Rasmussen LB (2010) Interactive Methods - Facilitation of change in organization, communities and networks. Denmark, Polyteknisk Forlag (in print) Rasmussen LB, Garibaldo F (2010) Application of interactive method. In: Rasmussen LB (ed) 2010, op.cit. Rasmussen LB (2003) Action Research Toolkit II: The Scenario Workshop. In: Gill KS, Jain A, (ed) Navigating Innovations – Indo-European Cross-Cultural Experiences. Vol 1, India Research Express, India: 241-258 Rebecchi E (1995) Difficulties and Potentialities Of Group Work. The Work Group. In: AI & Society, 8, 3. Sawyer RK (2006) Explaining Creativity. The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. Random House, London Sinn HW (2006) The Pathological Export Boom And The Bazaar Effect. How To Solve The German Puzzle. CES/IFO working paper, no 1708. http://www.cesifoâ•‚group.de/pls/ guestci/download/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%202006/CESifo%20Working%20 Papers%20April%202006/cesifo1_wp1708.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Winnicot DW (1974) Gioco e Realtà. Armando, Roma Zollo M, Winter S (1999) From Organizational Routines to Dynamic Capabilities – WP 99-07 – The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Commentary on the Main Article “A Human-Centered Design for Work Places: Opportunities and Constraints”

Employee Participation as a Source of Innovation Rainer Greca

The German economy has emerged from the global financial crisis more quickly and stronger than pessimistic forecasts predicted. The cause of this was (1) domestic labor market policy instruments (e.g. short-time working); (2) the sales of export-orientated companies in countries that were barely affected by the crisis (e.g. China). A standardized concept of capitalistic application of human resources behind this development cannot be identified since conflicting trends characterize the developments in the labor market whose structures have become more complex: whilst neo-Tayloristic rationalization still exists in a section of the production of goods and services, in other sectors a great variety of group working models are being further developed (cf. Felger et al. 2003). The number of employees is rising, however precarious modes of working are increasing (cf. Bosch et al. 2008). Rapidly changing production methods during continuous product modification require high entry qualifications and the continuous further qualification of personnel. The introduction of intelligent control programs in production sites, however, leads to a downgrading and demotivation of qualified skilled workers and creates new error margins and problem areas as unintentional side effects (cf. Lutz et al. 1989). In addition it must be stated that an approach that exclusively focuses on national labor markets overlooks the “novel, cross-location socio-geographical organization of production and labor” (Beck 1999, 76; translated by author). This also develops in different ways: company relocations to low-wage countries, in which personnel qualification plays a minor role (cf. Horstmeier 2009), is seen alongside the industrial upgrading in countries such as Mexico or China, in which highly developed production operations and supplier clusters are being established (cf. Hürtgen et al. 2009). The balkanization of the international labor market (cf. Castel 2000) indicates a complex situation of core work areas and peripheral segments which is replicated in individual regions (cf. Castells 2004). Six zones and various segments and fragments of work can be distinguished which can no longer be assigned to any specific national context: (1) protected long-term and well-paid work; (2) flexible but relatively well-paid work (cf. Seifer and Brehmer 2008); (3) precarious employment, characterized by low income and vague labor regulations; (4) employment in the low-wage sector without formal regulations; (5) forced labor S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_21, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

198)>>

Rainer Greca

in persistent povertyÂ�; (6) old and new forms of slavery. In all zones segments are shaped and reinforced by gender or ethnic origin; fragments are formed as a result of different skill levels or age groups. Purely quantitatively no positive displacements can be found between these zones, sectors and fragments (cf. Greca 2010). The new capitalism not only causes an erosion of the “iron cage of bondage” (Weber 2001a; translated by author) but also a loss of the creative power of national policy which makes it necessary to take a cosmopolitical view (cf. Beck 2008). It is therefore impossible to cork the “culture of the new capitalism” (Sennett 2007) in a bottle with national labels (cf. Kurz 2005). Work that is innovative in terms of process and products must rely on working subjects being given the authority to act and the collective intelligence of groups. In his analysis of industrial manufacturing methods Max Weber had already rejected a deterministic perspective of the work on a short leash (Weber 2001b; translated by author). The Munich school of the sociology of work (cf. Beck et al. 1980) established after half a century of experience with the machine model of economic organization, that the reduction of subjects to performing functions in work processes is neither analytically sufficient for academic acquisition nor does it lead to satisfactory results for companies. The brain model of interconnected, creative and innovative labor organizations (cf. Morgan 2007) in contrast emphasizes the synaptic cooperation of thinking cells which develop and successfully implement ideas. Garibaldo extends this argument in that he describes a connection between objective requirements of companies in global competition and the motivation of individuals and collectives. The difficulty still exists of changing working subjects into innovative, creative and trusting stakeholders – although as a result of the experiences of the past crisis years they find it difficult to forget how easily they can be replaced – is not new and points to fundamental problems in the implementation of this concept. In the state socialist countries, for example, the working collective was given a central position in achieving the utopia of the development of productive force. Empirical studies with this organization of industrial work has not shown, however, any measurable connection between productivity and collective awareness (cf. Greca 1990). In the Western industrial countries, group work and greater participation of employees in decision-making and improvement processes was ideologized with the MIT study on the “second revolution in the automotive industry” (Womack et al. 1994; translated by author) as an important instrument of industrial production. The success of this concept is disputed. After three decades of experience it still remains questionable whether employee participation in decision-making and coordination processes 1))>> satisfies the social and economic interests of all the parties involved in the same way 2))>> is meaningful in all commercial industries, companies of different sizes and fields of business activity 3))>> and whether social participation forms and internal company participation are in a balanced relationship

Employee Participation as a Source of Innovation)>>199

Further studies should, in the investigation of the success of participation, differentiate according to (1) formal (e.g. based on legal provisions or company agreements), (2) informal (partial or long-term), (3) direct (e.g. work groups help to determine the production objectives), (4) indirect (e.g. elected group speakers agree to the work of their groups) or (5) symbolic participation (e.g. representatives of a union represent the interests of various employee groups on the supervisory board).

Bibliography Beck U, Brater M, Daheim H (1980) Soziologie der Arbeit und Berufe. Rowohlt TB-V., Reinbek bei Hamburg Beck U (1999) Schöne neue Arbeitswelt, Vision: Weltbürgerschaft. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. Beck U (2008) Die Neuvermessung der Ungleichheit unter den Menschen. Soziologische Aufklärung im 21.Jahrhundert. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. Bosch G, Kalina Th, Weinkopf C (2008) Niedriglohnbeschäftigte auf der Verliererseite. In: WSI Mitteilungen 8, 2008 Castel R (2000) Die Metamorphosen der sozialen Frage. Eine Chronik der Lohnarbeit. UKV Universitätsverlag, Constance Castells M (2004) Der Aufstieg der Netzwerkgesellschaft. Das Informationszeitalter I. UTB, Opladen Felger S, Kruse W, Paul-Kohlhoff A, Senft S (2003) Partizipative Arbeitsorganisation. Beteiligung jenseits von Naivität. Ergebnisse aus dem PartArt Projekt. LitVerlag, Münster Greca R (2010) Managing the supply chain – corporate social responsibility or corruption and exploitation. In: Garibaldo F, Tellhjohann V (ed) The Ambivalent Character of Participation. New Tendencies in Worker Participation in Europe. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M: 549-566 Greca R (1990) Die Grenzen rationalen Handelns in sozialen Organisationen. Sozialhistorische und empirische Untersuchungen. Saur, Munich Horstmeier G (2009) Prekäre Beschäftigungsverhältnisse. Systematische Darstellung sämtlicher Beschäftigungsformen. De Gruyter, Berlin Hürtgen St, Lüthje B, Schumm W, Sproll M (2009) Von Silicon Valley nach Shenzhen. Globale Produktion und Arbeit in der IT-Industrie. VSA Verlag, Hamburg Kurz R (2005) Das Weltkapital. Globalisierung und innere Schranken des modernen warenproduzierenden Systems. Klaus Bittermann, Berlin Morgan G (2007) Bilder der Organisation. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart Sennett P (2006) The Culture of the New Capitalism. Yale University Press, New Haven, London Weber M (2001a) Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. In: Weber M, Collected Works. Digital library, Berlin: 204 Weber M (2001b) Zur Psychophysik industrieller Arbeit. In: Weber M, Collected Works. Digital library, Berlin: 204 Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1992) Die zweite Revolution in der Autoindustrie. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M./ New York

Part 3 Innovative Capability and Change of Work

Social Innovation – Social Challenges and Future Research Fields Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

Abstract The article at hand discusses social innovations as an increasingly significant subject of discourse within civil society. Based on a growing awareness of the limited problem-solving potential of technological innovations, established control and problem-solving routines, the authors point out the necessity of social innovations. They argue that social innovations will become increasingly important, particularly with regard to the preservation and expansion of innovative capability in companies and societies. Their central thesis is that a paradigm shift is taking place in the innovation system as we transition from an industrial to a knowledge and service society, as a result of which the relationship between technological and social innovations is changing in favor of the latter. At the same time the article criticizes the fact that the debate on national and regional innovation systems deals mainly with the structural, political and institutional requirements for innovative capability at a national and regional level, while social innovation as an independent innovation type is considered only in passing. In order to remedy this situation, the authors first examine the question of what makes an innovation a social innovation, focusing among other things on the connection between social innovation and social change and the diffusion of social innovations. In the next step, they discuss trends and future research areas of social innovation, and analyze how social innovations can contribute to dealing with global dilemmas.

1 )>>Introduction Ever since the publication of the much-cited Meadow’s report to the Club of Rome on the state of humanity (cf. Meadows 1972), and perhaps before that, there has been much discussion of the limits to growth in a system of finite resources and the substantial role that technological advancement has to play within this. Taking a position that was explicitly non-hostile towards technology (cf. 139 et seq.), Meadows was even then able to suggest that technological activities had not solved the major problems of the world, but rather exhibited a tendency to make them worse. He contended that even very useful technologies tend to be associated with unpredictable, secondary effects on society and that there could be no technological solution S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_22, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

204)>>

Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

at all for many of the most significant problems of the modern world, which would instead necessitate comprehensive social change and non-technological measures (cf. ibid., 140). Against this backdrop, and also in response to the predominant focus of innovation policy on engineering and technology, social innovations have become an increasingly important topic of dialogue amongst civil society organizations and have attracted more funding since the turn of the millennium. Faced with the problem issues of our time, many of which have worsened or changed completely in nature, combined with a drastically accelerated pattern of economic, societal and cultural change, there is a very obvious growth in awareness of the limited potential for solving the problems through technological innovation and established management and problem-solving routines. As a consequence of this and in view of the multitude of overlapping, prominent crises occurring, the need for strategies “for ‘recovery through innovation’” (cf. The Young Foundation 2009) built on a much broader basis is increasingly being recognized and articulated. As a result of these developments, social innovations are moving more and more from the periphery to the center of the arena of awareness (cf. ibid.). The further that society, the economy, culture, the natural environment, and our working and living environments are penetrated by technical innovations and the more they are “reshaped at such a high pace as is currently the case” (cf. ZSI 2008, 28; translated by author) the more that social innovations will gain in significance and enter the public consciousness1. Social innovations will continue to gain in importance with respect to solving problems that go beyond those associated just with the depth and accelerated pace of this change and the widespread inability to act. In future, these will be afforded “a similar degree of importance […] as that which has previously only been enjoyed by technical innovations that can be commercially exploited” (ibid., 30; translated by author). Social innovations will grow in significance, particularly with regard to the preservation and expansion of innovative capability in companies and organizations. The term innovative capability is multifaceted and has numerous points of reference. When this term is used, it is generally to refer to those (mostly technological) innovations that have a greater degree of success in terms of social and institutional requirements. As such, the debate surrounding national and regional innovation systems is mainly concerned with structural, political and institutional requirements for innovative capability at national and regional level. By contrast, social innovation as a distinct type of innovation is only given marginal attention in this context. Until the 1990s, international debate on the topic of social innovation was almost exclusively confined to literature relating to the management and corporate arenas. “In this literature, emphasis is put on the role )>> An example of this trend is the publication of a series of articles by the business magazine brand eins on the topic of social innovations. The 19 issues that have featured this topic to date have dealt with subjects as diverse as basic income, stakeholder society, integration, foundations, schools and universities, work, tax reform, welfare state, barter economies, financial services and urban planning.

1

Social Innovation – Social Challenges and Future Research Fields)>>205

of improvements in social capital which can subsequently lead to better-working (more effective or efficient) organizations in the economy and thereby generate positive effects in terms of social innovation across the sector” (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1973 et seq.). In Germany, the field of employment research was one of the earliest to adopt the idea of an all-encompassing approach to understanding innovation, building on a background of many years of experience illustrated by research programs such as “Humanisierung der Arbeit” (Humanization of Work), “Arbeit und Technik” (Work and Technology) and “Innovative Arbeitsgestaltung” und “Zukunft der Arbeit” (Innovative Work Design – the Future of Work). Particularly because of the way that it analyses the complex relationships between social and technological innovation processes within organizations, employment research has provided important stimuli within its sector to encourage a comprehensive understanding of innovation. In doing so, it has drawn a great deal of attention to the social and human side of innovation and has underlined the major importance of human endeavor to making innovation happen. Despite the radical upheaval to the world of work and the problems that this has brought with it, even in the knowledge and service society, labor remains the most important resource for gaining mastery over innovation processes and is a central theme in the exploration of social innovations. With this in mind, the main focus of the research funding program “Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt“ (Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment) is on management and employment related aspects of innovative capability. Particular importance is attached here to the concepts of organization/ qualification/ technique/ health2. Taken as a whole, these developments can be seen as an expression of a fundamental paradigm shift in the innovation system. Our main thesis then is that a paradigm shift is taking place in the innovation system as we transition from the industrial to the knowledge and service society, the result of which is a changing relationship between technological and social innovations. Whereas innovation previously has been characterized and driven by science and engineering and aimed primarily at the creation of new products and techniques, in future the growing pace of change will be accompanied by a growth in the importance of social innovations (cf. Howaldt et al. 2008). This notwithstanding, until now social science-based research into innovation has largely failed to discuss or analyze this as a phenomenon in its own right, instead remaining heavily focused on social requirements, consequences and processes in relation to technological innovations (cf. Rammert 2010). Social innovation occurs less as a specifically defined specialist term with its own clearly delimited field of interest, but rather much more as a type of descriptive metaphor in the context of the phenomena of social and technological change. )>> Within the framework of the IMO (International Monitoring) project, the field of action Innovative Capability and Change of Work is concerned with the relationships between work and innovative capability (cf. http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/en/expertstudy-group/field_of_action_3.html, accessed May 2011).

2

206)>>


Pitched against a backdrop of national and international debate on the subject, this paper will give an overview of the concepts, range of topics, and dimensions of the study of social innovations. Firstly it is recognized that, despite the significant uptake in interest, the terminology, concepts and content of the topic have remained extremely loosely defined3. The term social innovation encompasses a vast array of different issues, subject areas, problem dimensions and expectations of solutions without providing sufficient clarity about either their social and economic significance, the conditions that make them possible and that create them, or their origins and the means by which they spread. It is not yet been possible to draw a suitably clear line between social innovation and concepts such as social change and other forms of innovation. The theoretically established concept of social innovation outlined here is the prerequisite to the development of an integrative theory of socio-technical innovation in which social innovation is more than just a starting point for, side effect of or outcome of technological innovation. It is only when consideration is given to the autonomous aspects and specifics of social innovation that the possibility arises of making social and technological innovation processes comprehensible in terms of their systemic relationships and mutual interdependency. Taking this background as the basis, future research fields and research topics will be described and an outline given of the possible contribution of social innovation to the preservation and expansion of the innovative capability of modern society and to solving major social problems.

2 )>>A New Innovation Paradigm It is possible to find many examples that point towards a fundamental shift in the innovation paradigm in the light of the societal change from an industrial to a knowledge and service society and the far-reaching changes to economic and social structures of modern society that this entails. One major feature of these changes is the opening up of the innovation process with respect to society (cf. FORA 2010, 15 et seq.). The stakeholders in the innovation process now extend beyond other companies, higher education institutions and research organizations. Citizens and customers are no longer merely suppliers of requirement information (as was traditionally the case in innovation management), but instead make their own contributions to the process of developing new products for the solution of problems. Terms and concepts such as open innovation (cf. Chesbrough 2003; Reichwald and Piller 2005), customer integration (cf. Jacobsen 2005; Dunkel and Rieder 2007) and networks (cf. Kühlmann and Haas 2009; Howaldt et al. 2001) reflect individual aspects )>> On August 11th, 2008 The Guardian ran an allusively titled article in reference to this ambivalence in international social discourse: “Social innovation is the new global obsession. It might be a nebulous idea but it has huge potential.” “The language around social innovation easily slides into smoke and mirrors” (Roberts 2008).

3


of this trend. As such, it is now possible to uncover clear parallels to the fundamental changes that have taken place in the production system – particularly in the field of production of services – which have been the subject of similar discussion for a number of years now (cf. Jacobsen 2005), as well as to experience a new dynamic thanks to the technological possibilities opened up by the Internet (cf. Hanekop and Wittke 2008). At the same time, innovation – starting with developments in the economic system – is becoming a general societal phenomenon and increasingly affecting and penetrating every aspect of life (cf. Rosa 2005). Technology both facilitates and accelerates a permanent cycle of development, implementation and distribution of sometimes entirely new products, services and ways of doing things, with the result that there is an increasing trend of expansion and replacement across all established practices and routines relating to interaction, transaction, distribution and communication sub-systems. This affects the social practices and the forms and dimensions of the social network under market conditions equally seriously and visibly as it does those in the production and service sector, in research and development, in education and academia, in the world of employment and in everyday life. The social innovations that arise in this context, for example the enormously successful open-source movement, go way beyond the potential of technical innovations in their significance and reach. In this case, the innovation lies in the fact that users organize themselves and collaborate to define problems, communicate, offer solutions, test, optimize, market and document. “Many of today’s most successful computer applications, including Apache, Linux, and Firefox are open source projects that are managed by self-organizing communities of volunteer programmers” (Piller and Ihl 2009, 29). The significance of this novel approach extends far beyond the new software and other products and services that are developed. Rather, the central issue here is essentially the systematic, targeted, economically successful disintegration of the traditional manufacturer-user and amateurprofessional dichotomies – or in other words “the amazing rise of the do-it-yourself economy” (Roth 2005) – and therefore a comprehensive social innovation in the true sense of the word. The formation of a new innovation paradigm is therefore accompanied by a corresponding change in the object of innovation. The innovation paradigm for the industrial society is centered on technical novelties in the sense of product and process innovations that are becoming “styled as the (almost) sole ray of hope for societal development” (Gillwald 2000; translated by author). Non-technical and “social innovations, however, are topics that are rarely explored and are almost unknown phenomena, despite the fact they occur everywhere and all the time in social systems” (ibid; translated by author). This in no way insulates them from enormously high expectations when it comes to solving problems, in the sense that problems such as mass unemployment, erosion of social security systems and intensification of ecological risks cannot be tackled without implementing social innovations. In the face of climate change, raw materials shortages and the extensive, on-going financial and economic crisis, society is being confronted with some profound changes. Against such a backdrop, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is

208)>>


a lack of understanding as to how these changes progress and how they can be shaped4. It is also clear that it is social innovations, in the sense of changing behavior due to comprehensive transformations in mainstream culture and the social practices of commerce and consumption, that will determine “the kind of world that the next generation of inhabitants of free societies will live in” (Dahrendorf 2009; translated by author). Moreover, there is also a convincing body of evidence as to the growing importance of social innovation with regard to organizational and managementrelated research. Given the growing significance of innovation to society and the economy and the quickening pace of innovation, both research and practice are beginning to focus more sharply on the issue of adequate innovation management (cf. Lazonick 2005; Stock-Homburg and Zacharias 2009). According to Hermann Simon, “Innovation [... is] one of the foundations on which the market leadership of the hidden champions5 rests” (Simon 2008, 221; translated by author). He contends that at the start of the 21st century, these companies entered a phase of mass innovation and that innovative capability is becoming more and more a core requirement for the preservation and expansion of competitiveness (cf. ibid.). The discussion amongst researchers looking at the field of management centers on the conscious organization of the innovation process in the sense of “making innovation a part of everyday routine” (Blättel-Mink 2006, 81; translated by author) with a view to replacing or complementing the role of the entrepreneur. This development can also be interpreted as an expression of a paradigm shift in the innovation system. As such, new sectors and branches of the economy have increasing influence over the shape of society and the economy and are able to change the modes of production and innovation. For example, new production and innovation structures in the IT industry have evolved on a global scale around the core principle of “partner management as a strategic corporate function” (Boes and Trinks 2007, 86; translated by author). These new leading industries provide an opportunity to study major issues relating to both modern innovation management by companies and the innovation policies of developed economies (cf. ibid. 2007). Concepts of open innovation play a particularly important role in this transformation process (cf. Reichwald and Piller 2006; Rode-Schubert 2006, 215). Indeed, these concepts must be interpreted as being part of comprehensive processes of change. In particular, the discussion surrounding Entreprise 2.0 provides insights into the social dimensions of this process and its importance for shaping and managing organizations (cf. Hamel 2009). )>> In her habilitation thesis Models of Change: Einführung und Verbreitung sozialer Innovationen und gesellschaftlicher Veränderungen in transdisziplinärer Perspektive (Models of Change: Adoption and Dissemination of Social Innovations and Societal Changes from a Transdisciplinary Perspective), Kora Kristof (2010; work in progress) examines the possibilities for influencing the direction of change. 5 )>> H. Simon defines a ‚hidden champion‘ as a medium-sized company that holds between 70 and 90Â€percent of the world market share and that generally dominates its own markets worldwide. They choose to operate unobtrusively and to follow their own (successful) paths, rather than to align themselves with giant corporations. 4


What is more astonishing is that social innovations as a phenomenon in their own right have, until now, barely registered in the worlds of research funding and research practice (cf. Zapf 1989, Gillwald 2000). “Innovation-related thinking is asymmetrical. The emphasis is on technical innovation” (Rammert 1997, 3; translated by author). The sociologist Ogburn is among the few authors who make an explicit distinction between technical and social innovation. “The use of the term invention does not apply merely to technical inventions in our context, but instead comprises social inventions such as the League of Nations; it is also used to denote innovations in other cultural areas, such as the invention of a religious ritual or an alphabet. In the following we understand invention as referring to the combination or modification of previously existing and known and/ or intangible cultural elements to create a new element” (Ogburn1969, 56; translated by author). But even Ogburn proceeds on the assumption of the primacy of technical inventions. For him, technical advancement is a driver of social development. He connects this with the thesis of a “cultural lag” (Ogburn 1957), namely the way that a culture tends to hold back from technical developments, which in turn creates a pressure to catch up in the intangible aspects of life. “His reports on trends for the US government that started appearing on a regular basis starting in 1936 […] laid out the conceptual and institutional foundation for assessing the effects of technology and evaluating it” (Rammert 2008, 11; translated by author). However, it was only in the 1980s that German federal research in the social sciences was able to develop a lasting interest in exploring innovation theory thanks to its research into the consequences and origins of technology (cf. Häußling 2007, 381). An initial conclusion can be drawn that in the fields of techno-sociology and technical research, and within the paradigm of a socio-technical system that prevails there, the phenomena of social change are consistently addressed in connection with technological innovation, but not from the perspective of an independent type of innovation that can be demarcated from technical innovation. This restricted view of innovation as a term becomes particularly problematic when the concepts of innovation developed by the study of techno-sociology and technical research are universalized into a comprehensive theory of innovation. This is inadequate in light of the declining viability of the technology-oriented paradigm as shaped by the industrial society. Whilst the changes to and intensification of social and economic problems identified through recent public discourse are increasingly prompting a call for extensive social innovation, the topic continues to remain a largely under-explored area in both the social sciences and government innovation policies. “The field of social innovation remains relatively undeveloped” (Mulgan et al. 2007, 3).

3 )>>What Makes an Innovation into a Social Innovation? The substantive distinction between a technical innovation and a social one is the immaterial, intangible structure of the latter. The innovation does not occur in the

210)>>


medium of technical artifacts, but rather at the level of social practice. A social innovation is new combination6 and/ or new configuration of social practices in certain areas of activity or social contexts prompted by certain actors or constellations of actors in an intentional, targeted manner with the goal of better satisfying or answering needs and problems than is possible on the basis of established practices. An innovation is therefore social to the extent that it, conveyed by the market or non-/ without profit community, is socially accepted and diffused widely throughout society or in certain societal sub-areas, transformed according to circumstances and ultimately made routine or institutionalized as new social practice. As with every other innovation, new does not necessarily mean good or, in an extensive and normative sense, socially desirable. Depending on the actors’ practical rationale, the social attributions of social innovations are also generally uncertain. In this sense, social innovation (borrowing from Crozier and Friedberg) can be “interpreted as a process of collective creation in which the members of a certain collective unit learn, invent and lay out new rules for the social games of collaboration and of conflict or, in short, a new social practice, and in this process they acquire the necessary cognitive, rational and organizational skills” (Crozier and Friedberg 1993, 19; translated by author)7. Social innovations, understood as innovations relating to social practices, are (examined in terms of their substantive aspect) an elementary part of sociology, and therefore – in contrast to technical innovations – can be not only analyzed, but also engendered and (co-)shaped; they are oriented towards social practice and require reflection on the social relationship structure. As new forms of coexistence, cooperation, commerce, supply, utilization and consumption they are not only necessary, but also can contribute proactively with regard to anticipated developments, such as demographic developments or the effects of climate change, “to modify, or even transform, existing ways of life should it become necessary so to do” (Giddens 2009, 163). 3.1)>> The Value Aspect of Social Innovation In assessing their overview on the use of the concept of social innovation in different fields of research, Moulaert et al. come to the conclusion: “In all above approaches, the definitions of social innovation are both analytical and normative. […] We especially stress three dimensions, preferably occurring in interaction with each other: satisfaction of human needs that are not currently satisfied, either because ‘not yet’ or because ‘no longer’ perceived as important by either the market or the state […]; chances in social relations, especially with regard to governance, that enable the above satisfaction, but also increase the level of participation of all but especially deprived groups in society; increasing the socio-political capability and access to )>> The term relates to the Schumpeterian definition of innovation as a new combination of production factors. 7 )>> This process of the development of a new social practice is, as always, focused on the interests of the specific actors, and hence is also about power and the distribution of social opportunities (cf. Dörre and Röttger 2003).. 6


resources needed to enhance rights to satisfaction of human needs and participation (empowerment dimension)” (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1976). This dual determination in scientific conceptions of social innovation being equally analytical and normative prompts us to investigate the value aspect of social innovation. For many authors, the value aspect of a social innovation is one of its central characteristics. Borrowing from Zapf (1989), social innovations are components of social change that are “explicitly oriented towards socially esteemed goals” (Gillwald 2000, 7; translated by author). They should accordingly be regarded as an appropriate way to confront social challenges (cf. ibid, 8). Mulgan et al. (2007, 9) define “social innovations as the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services and models) to meet social needs.” A distinction is made between “social needs” and “merely personal needs or demands”. At the same time, the authors assert that social innovations are becoming more necessary in precisely those areas where commercial and existing public sector organizations have failed. Most of the social innovations identified by the authors from this point of view distinguish themselves by virtue of their orientation towards social goals and needs and the fact that they have also succeeded in establishing themselves commercially. By contrast, Kesselring and Leitner emphasize that the success of social innovations “by definition” should not be judged on the basis of economic success criteria (2008, 21). Unlike technical innovations, they are based much more on values and are not oriented primarily towards economic utility (ibid., 22). Similarly to Gillwald, they explain that: “Only when an idea for resolving a social problem (in the sense of regulating social affairs) is practiced and recognized can one speak of social innovation” (ibid., 25; translated by author). In this understanding, social is not defined by being substantively differentiated from technical innovation in the analytical sense (“as relates to the relationships of the actors and their behavioral practices”). Instead the term social is really used in the normative sense of a concept aimed at the common good. However, we believe that attempting to provide a clear-cut definition of social innovation normatively is problematic. After all, even technical innovations can contribute to solving social needs and meeting social challenges. The history of the twentieth century and the development of a society based on mass consumption in industrialized nations offers countless examples of this. Satisfying individual and social needs via the consumption of industrially manufactured products (and thus the end product of technical innovations) with all of its repercussions and side effects can be described as a central characteristic of developed industrialized nations in the twentieth century (cf. König 2008)8. The commonly found normative link between social innovation and socially esteemed values overlooks the fact that different purposes and interests can indeed be pursued with a social innovation depending on the related utility and prevailing rationale and accordingly that, depending on the interests of the parties and )>> Clearly, a central thesis of our work is that this social form of production and consumption has reached its limits.

8

212)>>


the social attribution, these by no means have to be regarded as good per se in the sense of being socially desirable in order to be called social innovation – “there is no inherent goodness in social innovation” (Lindhult 2008, 44) – so, just as with technical innovations, their utility or effects can also be ambivalent depending on the point of view. Expanded assessment criteria are also needed for evaluating social innovations and a social discussion process must be initiated, enabling an exchange of different perspectives and rationales.9 3.2)>> Social Innovation and Social Change Unlike the notion of reform, social innovation is not limited to governmental action and engagement in the overarching social regulatory and institutional structure. “In this sense, reforms can be seen as components of social innovations or namely those components that proceed from the political administrative system” (Gillwald 2000, 7; translated by author). Social innovations in turn are a component of the processes of social change and societal modernization (cf. ibid. 2000, 6); according to Ogburn (1937) they are the most important general cause of social change. Social innovations, like technical innovations, are therefore (possible) prerequisites or components of social change, but are not identical to it. Social change is that which, from a socio-technological perspective preceded by technical innovations, accompanies or follows them. In contrast, the actual strategic objective, subject matter and business segment of social innovation are shaping the sub-processes and elements of social change on the micro, meso and macro levels. In their diffusion, they may use technical artifacts or existing technologies (such as the Internet) without losing their character as social innovations. It should be noted that social innovations also are also “accompanied by side effects in addition to targeted, intentional, planned and foreseeable effects and that unintentional, unplanned and unforeseeable repercussions are possible” (Gillwald 2000, 21; translated by author). The widely practiced conceptual and/ or functional connection between social change and social innovation is not only associated with an overly high demand on the latter (cf. Kesselring and Leitner 2008). Above all, the relationship with social change should not be seen as the sole defining predicate of social innovation, but rather is true for innovation as such. If however social innovations cannot be sufficiently separated in terms of substance and functionality from aspects of social change, innovations in general or specific innovations, then they cannot not be compatible with use as an analytical concept or as the subject of empirical research.10 The material difference between social change and social innovation rests in the latter being associated with “planned and coordinated actions” (Greenhalgh et al. 2004, 1). While (unintentional) social change is described as “the process of change )>> In the BMBF program on innovative capability this means, for example, that innovation should be measured by the contribution it makes to social progress and economic success (cf. BMBF 2005). 10 )>> For more on the diversity of a society’s innovations and the necessity of a correlated, comprehensive innovation concept, see also Rammert 2010. 9


in the social structure of a society in its underlying institutions, cultural patterns, corresponding social actions and conscious awareness” (Zapf 2003, 427; translated by author), social innovations are the result of intentional and goal-oriented action to establish new social practices in certain arenas (cf. Kesselring and Leitner 2008; Hochgerner 2009); or, to put it differently, of “collective actions in pursuit of a goal” to “rearrange how things are accomplished” or permanently establish a “new default practice” by “user acceptance” (Gerber 2006, 12 et seq.; translated by author). The “systemization of trend-setting innovations” (ibid., 5; translated by author) as well as “path-enhancing social changes” (ibid., 13; translated by author) is, however, an extremely difficult process with many requirements (cf. ibid., 5). 3.3)>> The Diffusion of Social Innovation With regard to their invention, development and spread, social innovations are clearly distinct from technical innovations. Due to their specific process and product dimensions (cf. Moulaert et al. 2005, 1972), social innovations generally arise outside the realms of corporate and academic research departments. They “admittedly do not come primarily from science; transdisciplinary concepts from science, research and innovation […] can however play a large supporting role” (ZSI 2008, 28; translated by author). Accordingly, it is not just market use and market-induced incentives that are relevant for social innovations. Their genesis and diffusion really occurs primarily through the medium of “living experiences” and change-oriented “capacity-building” (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1972). It applies in every case that an invention can only be considered an innovation when it has achieved a notable and comprehensible level of dissemination. Technical innovations are described as such by virtue of their market success. For social inventions, it can be said that these only become social innovations “when introduced into a new setting” (Conger 2003), when they are widely accepted and used and so become practically effective as a “major adoption of an innovation in a social system” (Gerber 2006, 13; translated by author). The decisive criterion for a social invention becoming a social innovation is its institutionalization or its transformation into a social reality through planned and coordinated actions (active dissemination) or the implementation and dissemination of a new social fact or social state of affairs (cf. Durkheim 1984) through unplanned diffusion (Greenhalgh et al. 2004)11. Every innovation is transformed in a context-specific manner over the course of a diffusion process that, in the case of both technical and social innovations, typically undergoes multiple distinct phases12, from agenda setting to matching, redefining, clarifying and routinizing (cf. Rogers 2003). )>> “Diffusion, in which the spread of innovation is unplanned and active dissemination in which the spread is planned, formal, etc.“(Greenhalgh et al. 2004, 15). 12 )>> “Borrowing loosely from Kondratiev‘s long waves”, Franz (2010, 338 et seq.) makes a distinction between the following “four phases in the lifecycle of a social innovation: the initial or inventive phase; the expansion or diffusion phase; the consolidation phase; and the erosion or dissolution phase.” 11

214)>>


In the case of social innovation, social groups and/ or actors take on more of the role that is played by the market in the case of technical innovations. “The ‘social acceptance’ of an innovation leads to its spread, institutionalization and ultimately to the loss of its character of being something new.” “Diffusion, acceptance and adaptation of social innovations by definition do not occur in exclusively individual environments, but always in socially formed living environments” or figurations (Hochgerner 2009; translated by author). The institutionalization of social innovations “ cannot be [achieved] by a societal agent acting alone” (Gerber 2006, 12; translated by author), but rather requires them to be diffused or disseminated, which in turn is rooted in the evaluation and acceptance of the effects of the new social practice by target groups and those affected. In this regard, social innovations are much more context-dependent and more specific in their actual form than technological innovations. As they can be neither patented nor copyrighted, they must be considerably more attuned to the specific social context or field and gain social acceptance within these (cf. Hoffmann-Riem 2008, 604). The chances of a social innovation diffusing are usually greatest where established institutions are not active or are only marginally active, or fall short with regard to solving a certain problem, including problems in the areas of domestic upkeep, environmental friendly behavior, sustainable consumption, active aging, and socially responsible business practice. Just as with technical innovations, in this sense they, as Kesselring and Leitner (2008) claim, cannot be initially evaluated by criteria for economic success. By virtue of a social invention being embedded in a specific social context, other assessment criteria come into play that often decide whether it becomes a social innovation. These vary naturally with society’s tangential functional systems, subject areas and fields of reference (cf. Hoffmann-Riem 2008, 592 and 596 et seq.). Social inventions (in contrast to technological) can have different yet usually closely linked paths of diffusion and/ or dissemination. They can assume their form and be disseminated via the market (for example, new services, business models, supply and utilization concepts), technological infrastructure (web-based social networking), social networks and social movements (gender mainstreaming), via governmental guidelines and funding, via intermediary and self-organized institutions such as foundations, in inter- and intra-organizational processes, via the affect of charismatic individuals or social entrepreneurs (cf. Mumford 2002; Illouz 2008; Dees 2007), through “living experiences” and a diverse array of forms of communication and cooperation and through change-oriented capacity-building (Moulaert et al. 2005, 1972). In the process of diffusion, social innovations generally come into competition and conflict with prior practice and routine to the extent of their “creative destruction” (Schumpeter 1964; translated by author). The decisive factor for successful diffusion of social ideas and inventions, namely the process through which they spread through existing communication paths in a social system, is ultimately their compatibility with the practical rationale in certain fields of activity and their utility in terms of their (future) adopters. Network relationships play a decisive role with regard to the process of diffusion of both technical, material innovations and institutional and social innovations (cf. Okruch 1999; Valente 1994).


In terms of market introduction and penetration, diffusion is gaining in significance in relation to the transformation from an industrial society to a knowledge and service society and the associated rise in the market relevance of new service products, as well as to the increasing degree of interconnection between social and technological innovations seen with the development of Web 2.0. Even if from the point of view of diffusion the concern is not (exclusively) with market-induced incentives, it must be considered that the affiliated new forms of cooperation and communication may well be on an unswerving path to “being integrated into the process of marketing”, for example through the sale of successfully implemented platforms and their subsequent operation by commercially oriented companies (cf.Â€Hoffmann-Riem 2008, 592; translated by author) or through processes of “interactive value creation” (Reichwald and Piller 2006; translated by author).

4)>> Trends and Future Research Areas – the Contribution of Social Innovations to Dealing with Global Dilemmas A broader concept of innovation that goes beyond the promotion of science and technology in the narrower sense has now established itself in the rhetoric and announcements of the actors involved in innovation policy and in the governmental promotion of innovation. In addition to technological innovation, this concept also embraces social, organizational and other forms of innovation. There are more and more approaches involving “innovation policies for a knowledge society” (Welsch 2005, 314 et seq.; translated by author), which primarily rest on initiating and supporting learning processes as well as supporting the processes of exchange that are related to knowledge and promoting human resources. There are echoes of context management concepts in the programmatic emphasis on creating framework conditions that promote innovation and increase capacity for innovation13. However, the directional motivation for action in innovation policies in Western industrialized countries from the end of the Second World War to today has, regardless of the differences in the respective policy or welfare state models practiced (cf.Â€Münch 2007), essentially remained in an innovation and growth paradigm focused on promotion of the economy and technology. Seen in the context of the findings presented in this thesis, the concentration of research funding for advanced technology can be described as problematic because this sort of focus fails to satisfactorily address both the complexity of innovation processes and the growing importance of social innovation, and thus obscures major potential for innovation. “Innovation policies that are exclusively confined to R&D funding and overlook the relevance of practical experiences and the processes of establishing technological links between widely differing sectors contradict their stated aims” (HirschKreinsen 2008; translated by author). )>>Cf. Fichter (2003) for a management theory and system concepts perspective.

13

216)>>


There are many indicators that social innovations will become more important in future as a new innovation paradigm is established. It can therefore be assumed that social innovations will be accorded central importance in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy in light of growing social challenges. “In order for innovation to be a critical tool to address challenges covering many societal dimensions, a broader definition of innovation needs to be adopted. It is now widely agreed that this definition should include social innovation” (INNOGRIPS 2010). The evaluation of the Lisbon strategy also makes it clear that the existing strategy needs to be expanded. Acknowledging that the great challenges facing modern society, such as rising unemployment and demographic and climate change are inherently social in nature, the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) for the European Commission stated in its memorandum entitled “Social innovation as part of the Europe 2020 strategy” that “[…] social innovation can offer one way forward to cope with the societal challenges and the crisis the EU Member States are facing” (BEPA 2009, 2). The increased inclusion of social innovation in these research contexts creates an important condition for effectively confronting the dilemmas at the heart of globalization. With its emphasis on human labor and the reference to the technological and social requirements for preserving and expanding companies’ innovative capabilities, employment related research contributes not only to minimizing the tension between human resources and financial pressures, but also to dissolving the conflict between business and the individual. In the medium term, the exploration and development of new innovation management concepts that aim to open up the innovation process to society will be able to contribute to reducing the tension between customer orientation and innovation. In this respect, intentionally combining the “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” program with the German government’s high tech strategy will prove to be fruitful. This also applies in a thematic sense in that advanced topics and concepts from the high tech sector have been intentionally adopted (networks, open innovation...). However, this is also applicable to incorporating projects that are expressly concerned with researching current development trends in high tech fields and are consequently looking at new modes of production and innovation and their impact on human labor and new management challenges. In particular, a look at new leading industries brings with it important findings about core development trends and the resulting challenges for the preservation and expansion of innovative capability. At the same time, these findings also afford new perspectives on more typical traditional industries that are repositioning themselves in response to changing demands. Nonetheless, the program’s efforts alone are not enough to promote innovative capability in the German economy and society and to further advance research into innovative capability. The main challenge lies in transferring the program’s findings and the broad understanding of innovation (as well as the associated research concept) that this is based on, to other high-tech strategy programs. Particularly those questions relating to the social prerequisites for successful innovation processes, including the significance of employment as a crucially important driver of


innovation, need to be integrated into other programs and undertakings, which are often one-sided and technology-oriented. For instance, the study Zukunft und Zukunftsfähigkeit der deutschen InforÂ� maÂ�Â�tions- und Kommunikationsbranche (Future and Future Ability of German Information and Communications Industries) points out the close connection between social and technological innovation. The first recommendation for the future of information and communications technologies in Germany relates to funding to overcome the digital divides in society. “This expert survey clearly confirms that neither availability of broadband Internet access technology, economic barriers, nor a technology-averse society is standing in the way of overcoming the ‘digital divide’ in Germany. The positive drivers and levers to support greater diffusion of Internet usage in Germany can be found first and foremost in the area of education” (Münchner Kreis et al. 2008, 12; translated by author). A chapter has also been dedicated to the importance of social innovation, particularly as regards the use of Web 2.0. This focus on social innovation is leading to a widening of perspectives to encompass society as well as the economy. There is more to this shift in focus towards social innovation than just taking new or alternative phenomena into account. Given that innovation is increasingly taking place at the level of social practices and not in the medium of technical artifacts, there is a need for fundamental conceptual realignment in innovation research (cf. Rammert 2010; MacCallum et al. 2009). Social innovation relates “to living together in communities and society” and specifically means “new forms of participation and social integration, of social justice and reconciliation of interests, of individuality and solidarity” (Rammert 2010, 43; translated by author). The challenges arising in conjunction with globalization and the related dilemmas of action and regulation that accompany them require first and foremost the initiation and organization of fundamental transformation processes in core sectors of society and the implementation and dissemination of the comprehensive social innovations that are aligned with them. In light of the increasingly obvious degree of dysfunction in the processes of differentiation in society and the dilemmas this brings with it, social innovations are revealing their unique power particularly at the interfaces between different social (sub-) rationales. “In this context, social innovations can be seen as intentional interventions to solve problems, which in turn lead to a transferal of social orientations, as evidenced by how companies are combining economic and social objectives in the way they do business” (Kesselring and Leitner 2008, 7; translated by author). In this respect they play a necessary and pivotal role in dispelling the potentially pinnacling tension that tends to arise between competing points of reference14 such as human resources and cost pressure, cooperation and competition, and sustainability and maximizing profits. At the heart of this is bringing about transitions, or in other )>> Rammert (2010) points out that the “restricted focus on technical and economic innovations (…) does not do justice to the variety of innovation in society and the diversity found in the respective reference systems.” “A concept of innovation is required (...) that incorporates other societal references in addition to the economic reference” (ibid., 21 et seq.).

14

218)>>


words utilizing “reflexive and strategic action that breaks rules and deviates from standard-track developments in order to create something new and to implement this with authority through use of networks” (Rammert 2010, 39; translated by author. As the discussion surrounding the European Union’s Europe 2020 strategy shows, in terms of the debate on innovation policy the fact that this cannot be accomplished if innovation perspectives and strategy remain solely focused on technology and the economy is now ever more widely recognized and thematized. On this basis, in future there will be further intensification of the increasing number of strategic alliances seen today between actors from the worlds of policy and administration, commerce, science and civil society aimed at shaping and implementing social innovations. It will only be possible to continue initiating, shaping and implementing radical social innovations by embracing crossfunctional cooperation. “Radical innovations are created as the result of a threeway interconnection at global and regional level between economics, the state, and civil society, which will determine the future of organization” (Stark 2007 qtd. Bluszcz 2008, 30; translated by author). As such, there will be increasing emphasis on clearly-defined projects that take an intersectoral approach to addressing the engagement of companies in their local and regional environments with a view to furthering the common good in terms of the key challenges facing society. These projects will take into account both internal and external stakeholder relationships and the mechanisms of action. In this respect, the approaches taken by the field of social economy and social entrepreneurship, whose main scope of activity is facilitating social innovation, should be seen as exemplary and as such systematically evaluated, encouraged and funded. Looking ahead however, the real potential of social innovation lies in commercial companies and non-profit institutions/ actors working together to mobilize the organizational capacity of society with a view to addressing both problematic and desirable developments, as well as developing and pooling the skills and expertise that this demands. This goes beyond the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which focuses less on social innovation and the expertise of economic players in shaping societal developments and much more on realizing those effects that are most complementary from the economic perspective. CSR is a concept that integrates, on a voluntary basis, social and ecological issues into the activities of the corporation and the relationships between the stakeholders (customers, suppliers, employees, etc.). It is an investment for the future and is ultimately expected to increase earning power (European Commission 2001). In terms of the social innovation potential associated with it, CSR is currently still a largely a blank and weakly structured page for Germany. The debate is led predominantly by programmatic, ideological, normative and/ or voluntary issues, and accordingly the degree to which the associated potential for innovation has been tapped remains as yet unsatisfactory. By contrast, approaches that focus specifically on building and extending strategic alliances to foster sustainable development and social innovation appear to be much more promising in terms of bringing about social innovations. A good example of this type of approach is METALOG, developed by the Organizational Development Laboratory at the University of Duisburg-Essen in close collabora-


tion with businesses, politicians, administrators and civil society organizations. This approach views “the strategic collaboration of multisectoral actors as an essential prerequisite for establishing fundamentally new ways of solving problems” in the sense of facilitating radical social innovations (Lange et al. 2010, 20; translated by author). Already introduced in four regions, the four variants of this approach are “provoking areas of friction that will act as a crucial catalyst for promoting social inventions to social innovations.” (ibid; translated by author) In the sense that it represents a reconfiguration of social arrangements in problem areas and fields of activity (see chapter 3), the use of new, integrated tools for communication and coordination in the construction of multisectoral networks of this type and the expansion of these to become new and relevant actors within local and regional governance is in itself a fundamental social innovation. One example of a new initiative in this arena is a regional network successfully launched in 2009 with the participation of relevant actors from business, civil society, science, politics and administration to develop a regional strategy for adapting to the consequences of climate change (cf. www.dynaklim.de). This network positions itself as a platform for collaboration and dialogue and as a think tank, knowledge repository and expert partner for the region, with the goals of establishing adaptation to climate change as a new field of action that permeates throughout society and of identifying and reducing risks, while at the same time recognizing and making the most of opportunities. With the aid of a 2020 roadmap, the region expects to receive the support it needs to proactively anticipate and respond to the challenges of climate change. Approaches such as these generate, and are in themselves, the “most needed social innovations of the 21st century” (http://www.sozialmarie.org/ index.php?id=76, accessed June 2010) in terms of addressing the key challenges facing society.

Bibliography BEPA (2009) Social innovation as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. Executive Summary. Brüssel Blättel-Mink B (2006) Kompendium der Innovationsforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Bluszcz O (2008) Kooperation und Innovation. Zivilgesellschaftliche und organisationstheoretische Grundlagen. University of Duisburg-Essen, http://www.orglab.org/fileadmin/ orglab/sidebar/Kooperation_und_Innovation.pdf Accessed May 2011 BMBF (2005) BMBF-Förderprogramm Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. http://www.bmbf.de/pub/innovationsfaehigkeit_arbeitswelt.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Boes A, Trinks K (2007) Internationale Innovationspartnerschaften in der IT-Branche. In: Ludwig J, Moldaschl M, Schmauder M, Schmierl K (ed) Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland, vol 9. In: Moldaschl M (ed) Arbeit, Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit. Hampp, München/ Mering: 85-94 Chesbrough HW (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

220)>>


Conger S (2003) A List of Social Inventions. http://www.innovation.cc/books/conger-Â�booktable.html. Accessed December 2009 Crozier M, Friedberg E (1993) Die Zwänge kollektiven Handelns – Über Macht und Organisation. Hain, Frankfurt a.M. Dahrendorf R (2009) Nach der Krise: Zurück zur protestantischen Ethik? Sechs Anmerkungen. In: Merkur. Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken. Issue 720/63: 373-381 Dees JG (2007) Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously. In: Transaction Social Science and Modern Society. Issue 3/44: 24-31 Dörre K, Röttger B (2003) Das neue Marktregime. VSA Verlag, Hamburg Dunkel W, Rieder K (2007) Innovationspartnerschaften in neuen Unternehmen-KundenBeziehungen. In: Ludwig J, Moldaschl M, Schmauder M, Schmierl K (ed) Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland, vol 9. In: Moldaschl M (ed) Arbeit, Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit. Hampp, München/ Mering: 113-118 Durkheim E (1984) Die Regeln der soziologischen Methode. Edited by RenÃ© König. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. DynAKlim, http://www.dynaklim.de. Accessed May 2011 Europäische Kommission (2001) Grünbuch – Europäische Rahmenbedingungen für die soÂ�ziaÂ� Â�le Verantwortung von Unternehmen. Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/de/com/2001/com2001_0366de01.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Fichter K (2003) Kontextsteuerung. Potenziale eines gesellschaftstheoretischen Steuerungskonzepts für das Innovationsmanagement. Borderstep working paper 1/2003. Berlin. FORA (2010) New Nature of Innovation. Report to the OECD. Kopenhagen, http://www. newnatureofinnovation.org/introduction.html. Accessed March 2010 Franz HW (2010) Qualitäts-Management als soziale Innovation. In: Howaldt J, Jacobsen H (ed) Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 335-354 Gerber P (2006) Der lange Weg der sozialen Innovation – Wie Stiftungen zum sozialen Wandel im Feld der Bildungs- und Sozialpolitik beitragen können. Eine Fallstudie zur Innovationskraft der Freudenberg Stiftung, http://www.freudenbergstiftung.de/fÂ�ileadmin/ user_upload/Der_lange_Weg_der_sozialen_Innovation_14_02_06.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Giddens A (2009) The Politics of Climate Change. John Wiley and Sons, Cambridge/ Malden Gillwald K (2000) Konzepte sozialer Innovation. WZB paper: Querschnittsgruppe Arbeit und Ökologie. Berlin, http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2000/p00-519.pdf. Accessed January 2010 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O (2004) Diffusion of innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. In: The Milbank Quarterly, Issue 4/82: 1-37, http://www.milbank.org/quarterly/8204feat.html. Accessed November 2009 Hamel G (2009) Moon Shots for Management. In: Harvard Business Review, Issue 2/78: 91-98 Hanekop H, Wittke V (2008) Die neue Rolle der Anwender in internetbasierten Innovationsprozessen. In: Arbeits- und Industriesoziologische Studien, Issue 1/1: 7-28 Häußling R (2007) Sozialwissenschaftliche Innovationsforschung: Zum aktuellen Umgang der Gesellschaft mit dem Neuen. In: Soziologische Revue, Issue 4/30: 369-382 Hirsch-Kreinsen H (2008) Die Hightech-Obsession blendet viel Innovationspotenzial aus. In VDI-news on 24.10.2008, http://www.vdiâ•‚nachrichten.com/vdi_nachrichten/aÂ�ktuelle_


ausgabe/akt_ausg_detail.asp?source=volltext&cat=1&id=40852&doPrint=1,%20 1&doPrint=1. Accessed September 2010 Hochgerner J (2009) Soziale Innovationen finden, erfinden und realisieren. Powerpoint-Präsentation zur XV. Tagung für angewandte Soziologie ‚Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien und Methoden im Beruf’, Forum 8: Soziale Innovationen – Potenziale der Sozialwissenschaften bei der Neukonfiguration sozialer Arrangements. University of Hamburg, June 5-6, 2009 Hoffmann-Riem W (2008) Soziale Innovationen. Eine Herausforderung auch für die Rechtswissenschaft. In: Der Staat, Issue 4/47: 588-605 Howaldt J, Kopp R, Flocken P (2001) Kooperationsverbünde und regionale Modernisierung – Theorie und Praxis der Netzwerkarbeit. Gabler, Wiesbaden Howaldt J, Kopp R, Schwarz M (2008) Innovationen (forschend) gestalten – Zur neuen Rolle der Sozialwissenschaften. In: WSI-Mitteilungen, Issue 2/2008: 63-69 Illouz E (2008) Die Errettung der modernen Seele. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. International Monitoring (IMO), http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/de/ expertenarbeitskreis/aktionsfeld_3.html Accessed May 2011 INNOGRIPS (2010) Social innovation. Mobilising resources and people. Agenda des‚ Innovation Policy Workshop #6’. BW Premier Park Hotel, Brüssel, 25-26 March 2010 Jacobsen H (2005) Produktion und Konsumtion von Dienstleistungen: Konsumenten zwischen Innovation und Rationalisierung. In: Jacobsen H, Voswinkel S (ed) Der Kunde in der Dienstleistungsbeziehung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 15-36 Kesselring A, Leitner M (2008) Soziale Innovationen in Unternehmen. Prepared on behalf of Unruhe Stiftung. Wien, http://www.zsi.at/attach/Soziale_Innovation_in_Unternehmen_ ENDBERICHT.pdf. Accessed January 2010 König W (2008) Kleine Geschichte der Konsumgesellschaft. Konsum als Lebensform der Moderne. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart Kristof K (2010, work in progress) Models of Change: Einführung und Verbreitung sozialer Innovationen und gesellschaftlicher Veränderungen in transdisziplinärer Prespektive. Vdf Hochschulverlag, Zürich Kühlmann T, Haas HD (2009) Internationales Risikomanagement. Auslandserfolg durch grenzüberschreitende Netzwerke. Oldenbourg Verlag, München Lange F, Stark W, Stöckmann K (2010) Der METALOG als Allianz für Sozial-Innovationen und Social Entrepreneurship. In: Lemken T, Helfert M, Kuhndt M, Lange F, Merten T (ed) Strategische Allianzen für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Innovationen in Unternehmen durch Kooperationen mit NPOs, http://www.strategische-allianzen.net/downloads/StratAll_Abschlusspublikation-2010.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Lazonick W (2005) The innovative Firm. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson R (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford/ New York: 29-55 Lindhult E (2008) Are Partnerships Innovative? In: Svensson L, Nilsson B (ed) Partnership – As a Strategy for Social Innovation and Sustainable Change. SatÃ©runs Academic Press, Stockholm MacCallum D, Moulaert F, Hillier J, Vicari S (2009) Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot Meadows D (1972) Die Grenzen des Wachstums. Bericht des Club of Rome zur Lage der Menschheit. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart Moulaert F Martinelli F, Swyngedouw E, Gonzalez S (2005) Towards Alternative Model(s) of Local Innovation. In: Urban Studies, Issue 11/42: 1669-1990

222)>>


Münch R (2007) Oligarchie vs. Wettbewerb. Die zwei Welten der Wissenschaft diesseits und jenseits des Atlantiks. In: Profile. Internationale Zeitschrift für Veränderung, Lernen, Dialog. Issue 3/2007: 71-77 Münchner Kreis; Deutsche Telekom AG; TNS Infratest; EICT (ed) (2008) Zukunft & Zukunftsfähigkeit der deutschen Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie. http:// www.eict.de/fileadmin/main/download/pdf/releases/Zukunftsfaehigkeit_der_dt_IKT. pdf. Accessed March 2010 Mulgan G, Ali R, Halkett R, Sanders B (2007) In and out of sync. The challenge of growing social innovations. Research report, http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/ In_and_ Out_of_Sync_Final.pdf. Accessed January 2010 Mumford MD (2002) Social Innovation: Ten Cases from Benjamin Franklin. In: Creativity Research Journal. Issue 2/ 14: 253-266 Ogburn WF (1937) Foreword. In: The Subcommittee on Technology to the National Resources Committee (ed) Technological Trends and National Policy, Including the Social Implications of New Inventions. June 1937. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Ogburn WF (1957) Cultural Lag as Theory. In: Sociology and Social Research, Issue 1/ 41: 167-174 Ogburn WF (1969) Erneute Betrachtung des Problems der sozialen Evolution. In: Maus H, Fürstenberg F (ed) Soziologische Texte, vol 56: William F. Ogburn. Kultur und sozialer Wandel. Selected Writings. Published and introduced by Otis Dudley Duncan. Luchterhand, Neuwied/ Berlin: 50-67 Okruch S (1999) Innovation und Diffusion von Normen: Grundlagen und Elemente einer evolutorischen Theorie des Institutionenwandels. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin Piller F, Ihl C (2009) Open Innovation with Customers. Foundations, Competences and International Trends. RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring. com/fileadmin/Downloads/Trendstudien/Piller-Ihl_Open_Innovation_with_Customers. pdf. Accessed May 2011 Rammert W (1997) Innovation im Netz. Neue Zeiten für technische Innovationen: heterogen verteilt und interaktiv vernetzt. In: Soziale Welt, Issue 4/48: 397-416 Rammert W (2008) Technik und Innovation (TUTS-WP-1-2008). In: Technical University of Berlin. Techniksoziologie. (ed) Technical University Technical Studies Working papers, http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/files/2008/330/tuts_wp_1_2008.pdf. Accessed April 2010 Rammert W (2010) Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft. In: Howaldt J, Jacobsen H (ed) Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 21-52 Reichwald R, Piller FT (2005) Open Innovation. Kunden als Partner im Innovationsprozess. Arbeitsbericht des Lehrstuhls für Allgemeine und Industrielle Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Technical University of München, http://www.impulse.de/downloads/open_ iÂ�nnovation.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Reichwald R, Piller FT (2006) Interaktive Wertschöpfung. Open Innovation, Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung. Gabler, Wiesbaden Roberts Y (2008) New ways of doing. Social innovation is a new global obsession. It might be a nebulous idea but it has huge potential. The Guardian, 08/2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/welfare.health. Accessed September 2010 Rode-Schubert C (2006) Innovationsstrategien des Informationszeitalters. In: Blättel-Mink B (ed) Kompendium der Innovationsforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 203-218


Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. (5. edition, first edition in 1962). Free Press, New York Rosa H (2005) Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. Roth D (2005) The amazing rise of the do-it-yourself economy. In: Fortune (Europe), Issue 9/ 2005: 24-35 Schumpeter JA (1964) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin (6. Edition) Simon H (2008) Hidden Champions des 21. Jahrhunderts. Die Erfolgsstrategien unbekannter Weltmarktführer. Campus, Frankfurt a.M. SozialMarie – Prize for social innovation, http://www.sozialmarie.org/index.php?id=76. Accessed May 2011 Stark W (2007) Innovativ durch Verantwortung? Innovationspotenziale durch Konzepte gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. In: Hafner S, Hartel J, Bluszcz O, Stark W (ed) Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung in Organisationen. Hampp, Augsburg: 237-246 Stock-Homburg R, Zacharias N (2009) Das richtige Maß für Innovationen. In: Harvard Business Manager, Issue 7/ 31:14-17 Valente TW (1994) Network models of the diffusion on innovations. Hampton Press, Cresskill/ New York Welsch J (2005) Innovationspolitik. Eine problemorientierte Einführung. Gabler, Wiesbaden The Young Foundation (2009) Social Innovation wins backing of President Obama and Barroso, http://www.youngfoundation.org/social-innovation/news/social-innovationwinÂ�s-backing-president-obama-and-barroso. Accessed April 2010 Zapf W (1989) Über soziale Innovationen. In: Soziale Welt, Issue 1&2/ 40: 170-183 Zapf W (2003) Sozialer Wandel. In: Schäfers B (ed) Grundbegriffe der Soziologie. Leske & Budrich, Opladen: 427-433 ZSI (Zentrum für soziale Innovation) (2008) Impulse für die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung. ZSI discussion paper, Wien

Commentary on the Main Article “Social Innovation – Social Challenges and Future Research Fields”

The Long Road from Awareness to Systematic Research and Funding of Social Innovations Josef Hochgerner

In the debate which is currently flaring up regarding social innovations, hardly any contributions to the debate fail to omit – whether in oral or written, printed or online form – a reference to present and forthcoming societal challenges, which appear to necessitate social innovation. In the article by Jürgen Howaldt, some key areas of research are identified highlighting the relevance of social innovations on dealing with global dilemmas. Mentioned in this context are “innovation capability research”, “social preconditions for successful innovation processes”, “overcoming the digital divide”, the control “of underlying transformative processes in central social areas”, the “interfaces of different social (partial) rationalities”, the management of “dilemmas” (human resources vs. cost pressure, cooperation vs. competition, sustainability vs. profit maximization), the “establishment of strategic alliances of stakeholders from the worlds of politics and administration, business, science, and civil society”, and finally the “re-configuration of social arrangements” (for example, for the development of pro-active strategies for adapting to the consequences of climate change, 20 et seq.). All of these descriptions can be agreed with. However, is there a chance of such research areas not only being identified from diagnostic investigations of society and innovation, but also of being able to work through these in terms of research with practical relevance leading to the implementation of concrete social innovations? In answer to this question, the following text presents some observations on the current discussion on social innovation and the part it plays in Austrian policy and research on innovation.

1)>> Prerequisites and Conditions for Research and Development of Social Innovations At first the close linking between social innovation and societal challenges requires scrutiny. From a semantic point of view, the term ‘challenge’ has almost completely suppressed that of problem. It appears as if the increasing variety and complexity S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_23, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

226)>>

Josef Hochgerner

of social problems has led to the concept of the problem being divided into three levels: At a first level, the term problem today has hugely negative connotations, and indeed ones which can be defined in clear and localized ways (for example, in connection with the debate on immigration, the problem of immigrant youth gangs, theft and – recently increasingly perceived as such – begging1; or as a legendary quotation from the realm of space travel: “Houston, we have a problem”). In all these cases, nobody wants to talk about a challenge, unless he or she wishes to render the problem harmless or to downgrade it through using humor. At the second level, problems are called ‘challenges’ for which there already is or must be a solution (a strategy or measure for overcoming them). Such expectations are also placed on social innovations, which are accordingly implemented in a clearly instrumental manner. A good example of this are demands in social innovations, which were traditionally expected of technological-economic innovations (and continue to be so), such as, for example, increasing regional value creation (the gross regional product). The differentiation frequently made in this regard is that social innovation is understood as innovation in other than strictly economic fields of action (for example, with regard to education, health, youth ...), but still it is likewise subordinated to the primacy of the paradigm of economic growth. Social innovations in an extended and more basic sense could include the validity of the growth paradigm itself, the social relevance of categories such as value creation or gross regional product, and the strictly economic instrumentalization of innovations of all kinds. This is even more the case, as the really large and systemic challenges (such as climate change, globalization, poverty, ageing society) finally describe the third level of problem differentiation, at which there cannot be talk of neither consistent perceptions nor of generally valid measures. The frequently emphasized and seemingly obvious relationship between social innovations and social challenges is not fully coherent for a number of reasons: It does not apply to the entire potential of the concept, the meaning and investigation of social innovations: 1.)>> There is a clear discrepancy between the high expectations placed on the concept as opposed to a relative lack of clarity due to varying definitions and methodological deficiencies in research until now, as is appropriately mentioned in Howaldts article. True, this can be remedied through further theoretical work and empirical studies. There is, however, at least the danger at this point in time of the term being over- and misused, before it has become really established in science and public – at least among the relevant stakeholders in research and innovation policy. The dissemination and acceptance of a simple and conclusive understanding of social innovations and its primary features are crucial for both generating relatively stable and realistic expectations pertaining to social innovations and to generate sophisticated research and applications. )>> In the Austrian Regional States (Bundesländer) of Salzburg and Vienna, limited prohibitions have been passed, whilst currently in the Steiermark region, a general prohibition on begging has been decided upon through an Amendment to the Regional Law on Security: http://www. landtag.steiermark.at/cms/beitrag/11397098/58064506/

1

The Long Road from Awareness to Systematic Research)>>

227

2.)>> The discussion about forming the concept of social innovations reveals a problem between theory and practice which is rather unusual (inverse) in social scienÂ�ces. While the usual approach is to identify practical applications after theories have been formed, the reverse seems to be the case in this instance: Often exemplary cases of previous, current, or future social innovations are in discussion, their relevance being underlined because of ‘major social challenges’, whilst theoretical concepts of analysis are still in the making. That is at least relatively unusual, but at the same time emphasizes the necessity for new forms of scientific work to be produced in “Science Mode 2” (cf. Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001), 3.)>> To become effective in science as well as in practice, a generally sustainable concept of social innovation cannot just focus on large social challenges. It must in the same way be able to address the fact that ;social innovations are smallscale and possess – like most innovations in technology as well – an incremental character and are largely invisible (cf. Aderhold 2010). Actually this may be the reason that until now social innovations were hardly a topic of discussion neither in academic circles nor among the general public. Social innovations are not just relevant if they provide major adjustments, e.g. to solve the problems of an ageing society. They are also the many small innovations of everyday life in, for example, applied nursery pedagogy, or the step by step adoption of new lifestyles according to the game rules of living together in a society which is becoming increasingly diverse. 4.)>> One of the greatest deficiencies in the current debate on social innovations arises from the advocates of social innovations and the emphasis some place on believing that a characteristic feature of social innovations lies in both the methods and objectives being equally social, and generally promoting social welfare2. There can be social innovations, which contribute to an improvement in general living conditions. However, more often it can be the case that the compartmentalization and target group focusing of social innovation means that what some find innovative and advantageous (for themselves) is not at all seen in this light by another group – and is correspondingly not appreciated there. This is a situation which is only too well known in the area of innovation research concerning new technologies and economic developments and is generally accepted as obvious in these fields. In the case of social innovations raising the bar so high that nobody should be negatively affected (against their own interests or even just opinions) is not only unrealistic, but also impedes both research into social innovations as well as their implementation. Put differently, if social innovations indeed were beneficial in general and for everybody, these would constantly be accepted and disseminated without any digression. In reality, however, realizing and implementing social innovations is a process that comes up against large )>> “In general, social innovation can be defined as new responses to pressing social demands, which affect the process of social interactions. It is aimed at improving human well-being. … Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means” (BEPA 2010, 24; emphasized in the original).

2

228)>>

Josef Hochgerner

opposition and therefore seldom advances in the same way as the majority of technological innovations. For these reasons, in the case of social innovations it makes sense to draw upon an analogy of the criterion of market penetration in the case of innovations in technology and business, to take acceptance by those affected into account: “Social innovations are new concepts and measures to resolve societal challenges, adopted and utilized by social groups concerned.” (ZSI 2008, 2)

2)>> The Debate about Social Innovation in Austria Although the Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI) in Vienna has already been founded in 1990, it was unable to play any role as an institutional ‘Centre’ due to the lack of a receptive environment. It was welcomed by various sides as an ambitious undertaking to create a non-profit and financially independent research institute in the private sector, outside the university area. The topic itself was neither especially requested nor funded until recently. Beginning with its social legislation following the First World War, and as a result of the system of social partnership which had been informally established and consistently built upon after the Second World War, Austria had been very successful in achieving social innovations at a time when this term did not yet exist, and when even the term of innovation was hardly used as a principle to guide management operations. In economic and social terms, up to the end of the 1970s Austria developed an increasingly consolidated social system (cf. Schulmeister 1998). This system was exposed to increasing stress already starting in the 1980s, but especially from 1990 onwards, yet the necessity for developing and implementing social innovations as perceived today had not yet made any inroad. Due to the presumption, justified over a long period of time, of living in a tightly knit network of social security, as well as the widely spread attitude of waiting to be convinced by innovations, the 1990s saw only a single research project being set up, which included the topic of social innovation in its title – and even that was in association with the more appealing term of sustainable development (cf. Ornetzeder and Buchegger 1998). In the first decade after 2000, there was an increasing perception that socially innovative projects were being implemented (e.g. support for innovative labor market policies, cf. Scoppetta 2011). The situation gradually changes since some years. The headline ‘social innovation’ is now increasingly used by the civil sector of society, in industry and in government. However, the strengthened perception and focusing of interest in this topic have not yet lead to tangible measures or strategies being achieved. The following events may be seen as milestones in this development: • The first call for entries and awarding of a ‘Prize for innovative social projects’ under the title of SozialMarie in the year 2005 by the Unruhe private foundation. The SozialMarie price has subsequently been awarded annually, is open


229

to projects covering the area of NGOs (civil society), public administration and private business in Austria, in Hungary, and parts of other countries3. In the meantime it has been renamed as the SozialMarie – Prize for Social Innovation.4 On 1st of May of each year, three main awards (divided into EUR 15,000.00, EUR 10,000.00 and EUR 5,000.00) as well as twelve 1,000-Euro awards are distributed with extensive media coverage. • In 2010, the Platform for innovation management, http://www.pfi.or.at, in which numerous companies (such as Bene AG, Böhler-Uddeholm, Kapsch, Philips, Swarovsky), research establishments (universities and universities of applied sciences) and agencies for promoting research and innovation collaborate, placed the topic of social innovation on the agenda for meetings of its Advisory Board. Interest associations such as representing the timber industry in Salzburg and Tyrol discuss social innovation and have devoted their 2011 Annual Conference to this topic. • Within the public sector, including the political parties, social innovation became a topic of few working groups only recently. But social innovation gained great prominence with the publication in March 2011 of the Strategy of the Federal Government for Research, Technology and Innovation (known in short as: FTI-Strategie 2011). Starting with a list of challenges, it is already established in the preface that the “answer to these must be: strengthening of research, technology development and innovation. ... The aim is to ... ensure that Austria advances from the group of Innovation Followers into the group of Innovation Leaders, that is to say is among the most innovative countries of the EU. We can however only achieve this goal with a strengthened, coordinated political approach. This requires mutual dialogue between science, business and society as well as a broad approach to innovation, encompassing not only technological innovations, but also covering civil, social and economic innovations” (FTI-Strategie 2011, 2, emphasis in the original; translated by author). As a further consequence, the need for basic research is recognized and its relevance is also defined as a location factor in relation to top achievements in the area of social innovations: “Basic research, which is driven by curiosity, extends the boundaries of scientific knowledge and creates that reservoir of new knowledge, from which radical innovations can also draw sustenance. It thus forms one of the supporting pillars of the system of innovation. Its importance as a location factor in knowledge-based economies grows to the extent that we draw upon it at the front line of technological development and economic and social innovations.” (FTI-Strategie 2011, 18; translated by author, emphasis in original text)

)>> In terms of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia and Germany, a 300 km radius around Vienna is imposed for reasons of ensuring accessibility to visit applicant’s locations. 4 )>> For information about the projects which have been submitted (about 250-300 per year), terms on which awards are given, assessment criteria used by the jury and the projects of award winners, see www.sozialmarie.org. 3

230)>>

Josef Hochgerner

The fundamental message which has thus been taken on board is that social innovations are necessary and important and effective from a social as well as economic perspective and is being adopted in all sectors of society. In sharp contrast to this, the unbroken dominance of the economic-technological innovative paradigm continues to prevail in the current Report on Research and Technology 2010: In this situational report which is published annually and covers research, technology and innovation funded through Federal means, the word ‘social’ appears on just one occasion, and that is in connection with interdisciplinary collaborative projects for research into “ethical, legal, social and economic aspects of genome research, together with the effects of genome research on politics and society” (BMVIT/ BMWF 2010, 156). No indication whatsoever of social innovation can be read about in this publication. All details regarding contents and statistics strictly adhere to the definitions laid down in the so-called Oslo Manual (OECD/ EUROSTAT 2005), which is used in the European Innovation Scoreboard5 and which relates purely to the company sector. The Federal ministry primarily responsible for publishing the Report on Research and Technology is the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT). Since more than ten years BMVIT runs highly successful programs under the umbrella title of “Sustainable Economy”, including “House of the Future”, “Factory of the Future”, “Energy of the Future”, as well as funding priorities to promote talent, equal opportunities and female professionals in technological domains (femTech)” and since 2005 the Austrian Safety Research Program KIRAS. KIRAS is committed to an integrative approach, “which not only builds on technological solutions (objective safety), but also takes into account aspects such as subjective safety covered by, social sciences and humanities (SSH). Consideration of social issues in all aspects of safety research is a strategic horizontal objective of KIRAS”6. A similar position applies with regard to the benefit technology program for “addressing key social challenges through research, technology and innovation in the area of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Through the effective implementation of the potentials in this area, it not only aims at increasing the competitiveness of Austria, but also to make possible social innovation”7 (Emphasis by the author). Further important research topics which concern social development encompass ICT for growth and employment as well as supporting social science studies of the Nano-Initiative (NANOTRUST Project) and programs for promoting e-mobility. In fact the term social in a wider sense occurs relatively frequently in these programs that are aimed at promoting technology and have high social relevance, )>> Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010. The Innovation Union‘s performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation: http://www.proinno-europe.eu/inno-metrics/page/innovation-unionscoreboard-2010 (published February 1, 2011) 6 )>> “KIRAS stems from Greek and is made up of the words kirkos (circle) and asphaleia (safety). In this case, circle is to be seen in an integrating sense, as all disciplines and dimensions are included within the framework of the KIRAS Program.” http://www.bmvit.gv.at/innovation/ sicherheitsforschung/kiras.html ( Accessed April 24, 2011) 7 )>> http://www.bmvit.gv.at/innovation/iktnano/benefit.html (Accessed April 24, 2011) 5


231

while social innovation continues to be mentioned rarely as an objective.. At heart, however (corresponding to the basic self-perception of the BMVIT as a ministry of technology), all these programs are primarily and clearly programs for promoting technological innovations – with the side expectation of also supporting social development in the process. I would not be surprised, if, in the course of social innovations receiving general attention and growing approval in the near future, numerous promotional activities of this kind were to be designated ‘Promotion of social innovations’. An explicit programmatic forcing of specific social innovations, on the other hand, does not yet appear to be in sight.

Bibliography Aderhold J (2010) Probleme mit der Unsichtbarkeit sozialer Innovationen in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. In: Howaldt J, Jacobsen H (ed), Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma. VS, Wiesbaden: 109-126 BEPA (Bureau of European Policy Advisers ) (2010) Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. European Commission, Brussels, http:// ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf BMVIT (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie); BMWF (Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung) published (2010) Österreichischer Forschungs- und Technologiebericht 2010. BMVIT, Vienna, http://www.bmvit.gv.at/ innovation/publikationen/technologieberichte/ft_bericht10.html. Accessed April 25, 2011 FTI-Strategie (2011) Potenziale ausschöpfen, Dynamik steigern, Zukunft schaffen. Der Weg zum Innovation Leader – Strategie der Bundesregierung für Forschung, Technologie und Innovation. BKA (Federal Chancellery) and five ministries, Vienna Gibbons M et al (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London Kesselring A, Leitner M (2008) Soziale Innovationen in Unternehmen. Research report commissioned by Unruhe Privatstiftung. ZSI, Vienna. (download: https://www.zsi.at/object/ project/866) Nowotny H et al (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge/ UK OECD, EUROSTAT (2005) Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Third Edition. OECD, Paris Ornetzeder M, Buchegger B (1998) Soziale Innovationen für eine nachhaltige Wirtschaftsweise. Study funded by the BMWF. ZSI, Vienna Schulmeister S (1998) Der polit-ökonomische Entwicklungszyklus der Nachkriegszeit. In: Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 1/ 98. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Scoppetta A (2011) Die Governance-Modelle ‚Beschäftigungspakte’ – Ein ‚Social Container of Innovation’? In: Zentrum für Soziale Innovation (pub), Pendeln zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis. ZSI-Beiträge zu sozialen Innovationen. LIT, Vienna/ Berlin: 77-89 ZSI (Centre for Social Innovation) (2008) Stimulating Social Development. ZSI, Vienna. (download: https://www.zsi.at/object/publication/1390)

Innovation and the Subjective Conditions for Innovative Capability Matthias Trier

Abstract Innovations are not only restricted to economical spheres; one can find them in almost every social domain. They are not only inventions and discoveries but also include social valuation and utilization, especially the estimation of consequences. The social intercourse with innovation is an important feature of business culture. Conducive conditions for innovations are created by social networking of groups, organizations and civic action groups. Innovations mostly arise by continuity in the development of products, technologies or organization through focusing on developing trends. The subjective conditions for the ability to create innovations are based on dispositions in the regulation of action of the actors with special focus on knowledge, competences and values. They develop at their best through qualified work and other social and individual actions in a social environment that supports learning and further activities.

1)>> Introduction – Innovative Capability and the Change in Employment Innovation is not in any way limited to the economic sphere, but instead occurs at every level of society every day and represents a vital condition for society’s development. Progress and issues of innovation policy are in the public interest (Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungskraft Deutschlands 2010). They relate not only to products and processes, but also to the organization of labor and people’s social relationships. Innovation is only possible through systematic human action based on change. The innovative capability is therefore an important social condition for change. The change in employment is driven primarily by innovation and this innovation is in turn accelerating the change in employment. Innovation speeds up both economic development as well as socio-political change. Admittedly, the innovative capability of companies, organizations and the individuals working within them varies widely.


234)>>

Matthias Trier

It should therefore be clarified as to which conditions are conducive to innovation in living conditions and in the development of a person’s attitudes towards action and which ones affect them. This has consequences both for the organization of labor as well as for on-the-job training and learning and subsequently in educational institutions of all grades. Important factors for innovative capability in companies and organizations and the subjective conditions conducive to innovative thinking and action should therefore be pointed out.

2)>> Innovation as a Driving Force of Economic and Socio-Political Change The term innovation is often used in an inflationary way, applied inconsistently, thus remaining fickle. The claims for innovation vary. They not only have an objective dimension in the sense of novelty as a matter of principle, but also a subjective dimension that wants to refer to the novelty for a company, an industrial sector, an organization or an individual. This pursuit of novelty generates new products, processes, changes in organizational structures and social relationships, which make developmental progress possible to a greater or lesser extent or, ideally, make fundamental changes in quality. With any justifiable pursuit of the objective novelty, innovation always has an evaluative aspect. The question what is to be considered innovative is evaluated individually by groups and also by social awareness. This is associated with the fact that innovation is more than findings and discoveries, but always includes the process of using them in society and therefore evaluating them. Innovations are technical, economic and social processes driven forward by the action of individuals and groups as they interact. They may be aimed at new products and processes, but also at new services, new structures in companies and organizations or changes in social relationships. The resulting novelty, which constitutes innovation, needs to be perceived in public at the appropriate time; only then will there be opportunities on the market or in the organization’s wider activity. The introduction of innovation is always a social process as well and not an isolated economic or technical individual performance. As a rule many people are involved in its implementation at different stages in the innovation chain. Their individual contributions to implementing this innovation can vary widely and the genial explorer or inventor is just one link – although a crucial one – in this chain. Usually, several people with widely differing potential collaborate in the development of an innovation, e.g. the inventors or initiators with the problem-solver(s), the people who manage the processes, the decision-makers and the operators (cf. Hauschildt and Salomo 2007). Different resources are introduced into the innovation process by those taking part and only the combination of these resources makes the desired change possible. In the division of labor practiced here, the

Innovation and the Subjective Conditions forÂ€Innovative Capability)>>235

respective strengths of those involved are introduced when innovations are successfully placed on the market. Catalysts of innovation are inconsistencies that have surfaced or are problems pushing for a solution. The pursued solutions pursued demand the application of expertise, first of all within a company, a group or an organization. If this potential is not sufficient, the attempt is made to obtain further expertise from outside for finding solutions to problems. This process is a difficult one, particularly for in-house innovations, and often not without conflict (cf. Witte 1988). The route to producing an in-house innovation is a technical, technological, economic and social process. It is not uncommon for processes of this kind to penetrate deep into the social environment, thereby also stimulating social change through new products and procedures. Innovations extend the scope of action of people in society. They do, however, also initiate conflict with unintended or negative effects. Impact assessments of innovations are part of the total innovation process and they ought not to exclude entrepreneurial spirit and the appetite for risk, but should be stimulating the aspect of social responsibility. Conflicts in the innovation process are unavoidable. First of all there is the battle between the forces of regeneration and those wanting to preserve the status quo, which exists in every company and every organization. Innovation is not bound to the fact that young workers drive development. Innovation is not usually youthcentered, but cross-generational teams often have the greater economic potential (cf. Lippert et al. 2007, 11). Stability interests worthy of consideration constantly need to be judged in comparison with the necessary flexibility and readiness to take risks, which companies and organizations need to exhibit if they want to continue to remain competitive. There is a common conflict affecting the innovative capability in many companies: the conflict between maximizing profits as quickly as possible, as opposed to the making developments sustainable (cf. Trantow in this volume). Corporate strategies pulling in opposite directions often clash here. In situations of this kind, the ability to weigh and balance interests is essential for stable framework conditions that continually induce innovations and therefore facilitate a stable, long-term corporate development.

3)>> Factors in the Innovative Capability of Companies and Social Bodies When the process of innovation is looked at in its entirety, it cannot be explained by coincidence or a single discovery: an improvement may have come into being as a product of chance, but the entire process up to its successful commercial launch or organizational reconfiguration is based on well-planned, targeted work. This applies to companies and to organizations, even if the end use clearly differs. Economic innovations ought to improve the market position, social innovations

236)>>

Matthias Trier

ought to improve people’s living conditions; they are not primarily aimed at the market, but can affect market development as social constraints. Consider here, for instance, participation or conflict-resolution models in businesses. The source of all innovation is creative people because it is them who gain insights, make inventions, develop processes and products from them and launch them successfully onto the market. Similarly structured innovation processes take place in citizens’ initiatives or social organizations and towns and communities, which strengthen the social cohesion of society with new activities, provide help – particularly help to help oneself – and have a desire to extend citizens’ involvement in their own affairs (cf. Kesselring and Leitner 2008). They are only launched successfully if they produce lasting benefits to citizens, who should therefore be consulted. They provide a marked advantage in the public perception of current practice and only then acquire social recognition (cf. Überholspur Innovation 2007). Innovations are constantly up against a system of social values. They are Â�measured against these values and have to be compatible with them. If this is not the case, they are rejected and at the very least, a longer, sometimes very sharp, controversy arises with the representatives of current in-house practices – history is littered with countless examples of this. However, processes of innovation continue unabated. Scientific and technological as well as social innovations are at present embedded in rapid economic and social processes of change and are speeding them up. In the event of any dispute concerning values and standards and any pressure for economic recovery, innovations do not just need physical and financial leeway and social tolerance, but also time for analysis and testing. Innovation is linked to risk. It requires planning, but can be planned only to a limited extent. There is always the risk of failure even in the pursuit of innovation. After a project has failed, losses should not only be recorded, but it is not uncommon also for new ideas to emerge from failed projects, which ultimately lead to successful innovations. Failure should always be factored in, even when looking for innovations by researchers and developers thinking strategically and by the company and organization management. Quality and readiness for innovation is one of the essential critical factors of success for innovation both in economy and in the social sector. Management must be constantly in pursuit of innovations and not just support employees in their quest for new developments, but actively encourage and challenge them. Dealing with innovations and innovative people is an important part of corporate culture. Innovations prosper best in an internal network – usually in an economic system consisting of development, production, distribution and management. Many of these networks currently extend way beyond the borders of a company; they introduce into these development networks, for example, external academic institutions, independent suppliers, professionals and often clients as well, who already have clear requirements for the new product. Pivotal to their success is the fact that management perceives its role to be initiator and permanent promoter of the network, adopts proposals made by employees and external agents, acknowledges achievements, pushes ahead with its improve-


ments and lets an atmosphere of academic curiosity emerge in the search for the economic implementation of ideas and inventions, for new marketing strategies. Cases where innovation happens by chance are extremely rare. Innovations grow predominantly out of continuous technological and product development, out of a clear line of corporate activity, by which it is represented on the markets and is recognized as a competitor. The company, i.e. its employees, has acquired skills in a certain area, which are recognized, guarantee access to the market and mark the position on the market. New problems arising from the continuous development of independent production, constant attention to its problems, the simultaneous intensive pursuit of development trends among competitors and the awareness of new scientific and technical developments can be eliminated, which then creates quality turnover in independent production and may, if successful, generate innovations with a wide coverage. Pushing innovations through requires the willingness of the management to enter unconventional development territory, to have the courage to take decisions, correctly assess risk and, associated with this, to accurately plan the necessary physical, financial and human resources required for the entire process of innovation. Clear responsibilities, confidence in the strength and wealth of employees’ ideas, short decision-making routes and its implications are conducive to this. Not only product and process innovations are an advantage for companies, but also certain social innovations that strengthen the company, such as better working conditions, modified worker participation models, new conflict-resolution strategies, health care concepts or employees’ sharing in the company’s success. Unlike scientific, technological and economic innovations, this field of action should consider important characteristics of innovations in the social sector outside the economic system. The aim of these innovations is to change human attitudes in certain areas of activity. This may involve further adjustments in attitude by which self-determined access to a social life is extended in the immediate social environment or the development of a range of products that are aimed at changing lifestyles in parts of the social community. These social innovations should provide sustainable benefits for certain target groups not usually the focus of society. The strength of innovation of social initiatives, groups, organizations and networks is heavily dependent on the political and economic framework conditions under which they operate. Their internal economic resources are often limited compared with the social challenges they wish to meet, as they themselves understand them. They need a public they can materially and morally support and assist in acquiring resources, which alone make innovation possible. These limitations on their impact should be largely compensated for by initiatives, a wealth of ideas and commitment on the part of their members and sympathizers, thereby making the general public aware of the needs of these groups, organizations and networks. The cultivation of networks, particularly in previous years, has strengthened social innovation. Its influence and its effectiveness are growing. Functioning networks have proved to be a far-reaching social innovation. Created by these individuals, groups and organizations operating in networks, innovations have become

238)>>

Matthias Trier

an integral part of social change, whether they be social enterprises, care services provided both free of charge or commercially for children, the elderly, disabled or disadvantaged, the major movement of self-help groups or even new ways of participating in local affairs such as, for example, participatory budgets, and residential or urban district advisory boards (cf. Lernen im sozialen Umfeld 2003). Cooperation in these citizens’ associations strengthens civil society and can help to stabilize and develop people’s social relationships further in the immediate area in which they live and their social environment as well as in society as a whole. Social innovations are not geared towards profit; they can strengthen social cohesion in society without being able to eliminate the fundamental differences in interests between the various groups.

4)>> Subjective Conditions of Innovative Capability The subjective conditions of the innovative capability of companies and organizations are ultimately based entirely on the respective attitudes towards regulation of action of the people operating within them. Complex personal characteristics can, however, be highlighted, which may be conducive to innovation in very specific combinations: knowledge, skills, and values are the focus here. They are acquired by adults predominantly working and learning in a self-organized way, both in gainful employment as well as in voluntary non-profit activities. 4.1)>>Knowledge The opportunity to make innovations assumes that the innovators have up-to-date knowledge to solve the problem in question: They know the facts, the accessible information and earlier attempts to solve it and are able to identify existing gaps and unresolved issues, and can acquire and store any new knowledge in the form of facts and links. This is done both by mediation, but primarily by autonomous acquisition when working – i.e. through predominantly self-organized learning. Innovation always has a cognitive basis. It calls for selection of the existing knowledge and its exploratory further development based on the problem. New insights and/ or new combinations of insights are needed to solve the problem. The content of the existing knowledge therefore needs to be analyzed, classified and re-structured. New links between facts already known must be produced and existing gaps in knowledge must continue to be highlighted. Assumptions emerge, which need to be verified as work continues. Successful innovation always closes a gap in human insight and new knowledge is incorporated in it. As a rule, there are many building blocks of knowledge available to the individual as explicit knowledge, and even more to the group of innovators. Innovators also have extensive know-how that goes into the work of innovation as implicit knowledge. It is connected with acquiring new knowledge through self-organized learning at work. A working environment, in which new knowledge grows and old


knowledge is linked to new knowledge, can be described as conducive to learning (cf. Jasper et al. 2007). The required freedom in work processes, the search for new challenges, a working atmosphere that tolerates error and a culture of trust are all conducive to innovative thinking and attitudes to work (ibid., 35). Knowledge specific to a discipline or area together with know-how from an activity successfully completed forms an essential cognitive basis for skills necessary for innovation. 4.2)>>Skills Skills are personal characteristics understood as complex, action-directing dispositions that delimit the “dispositions for self-organization of a concrete individual” (Erpenbeck and Heyse 1999, 155; translated by author). Skills thus are personal traits that make the transformation of acquired knowledge into action possible in the first place. Innovation-oriented work processes stimulate the acquisition of skills, since problems need to be solved and communicated to other people with whom there needs to be cooperation. The knowledge and existing experience available are classified into more comprehensive value references and earmarked as existing gaps in knowledge. Assumptions emerge as to possible solutions and approaches. Subject knowledge and procedural knowledge are addressed equally in these assumptions. They are linked to existing resources that have already been used to solve similar problems. Analogies are sought and, if insufficient, general problem-solving methods are used. The resulting activities are knowledge-based, in many cases selforganized and complex with high creative quotas, since the creation of something new is involved here. The attitudes exhibited towards action continue to change and can be differentiated. This applies to all the essential components of integrated skills. Together with the technical and methodical skills, personal attitudes towards self-monitoring and self-motivation are addressed in innovative activities, including the self-critical perception of one’s own achievements, but also self-confidence and mental strengths. “Skills and innovation are accordingly interdependent” state Staudt and Kriegesmann (2002, 28; translated by author). Skills are seen as the basis of corporate development and as a reserve for changes. These components of personal skills such as personal responsibility, drive, academic curiosity, willingness to experiment, perseverance and ability to work under pressure receive top marks for innovation processes, as do an optimistic attitude to work and life that seeks to overcome difficulties. Innovation does not arise in social isolation, but in continuous working relationships with other people who form a group that works towards a common goal. This requires honesty, a critical attitude, but also the ability to accept criticism, tolerance of other opinions and the ability and willingness to compromise. Constant business-like and purposeful communication plays a major role in the group. This also includes openness and trust. These elements of competence in the sphere of social communication are essential for successful innovations and are closely linked to the system of values.

240)>>

Matthias Trier

4.3)>> System of Values Employees in companies and in organizations outside the economic system are committed in their work to a greater or lesser extent not only by their knowledge and ability, but also influenced by their individual system of values. Values are primarily guidelines for action under unstable conditions – conditions quintessentially necessary for creating innovations. They help operators to set priorities and deal with difficulties. This applies not only to entrepreneurs who are creative in their work, but also to employees who, in circumstances where they feel alienated from their work, would like to be working creatively. The work-based elements of the system of values are currently being extended and modified and, under stable, high-risk working conditions, work also remains a major guideline for action, even if its social benefit is questioned. Work that is mainly skilled work is recognized, makes a greater degree of independence and personal responsibility in the work process, promotes the subjective bonding to work, arouses creative curiosity and releases initiatives for improving products or the practical working process. The employee now appears to be a relatively autonomous subject in relation to the respective work process and its modification, deals with it and is able, or should be able, to produce innovative ideas that can be converted into practice. According to Böhle (2002), he turns from an object into a divided subject and has to deal with this altered situation. Skilled work is increasingly becoming self-monitored: one is personally responsible according to the principles of rational action taken for a purpose, which is absorbed into the individual system of values. The individual system of values addressed and modified in employment by the leeway given for making decisions, a gain in individual leeway, adopts the pursuit of innovation as a positive value. Technological zeal and the pursuit of scientific and technological progress have preferential status in the hierarchy of values for work thus equipped. At the same time, a more open working atmosphere is developing with more participation and elements of cooperative leadership. As an example, this altered awareness of values is demonstrated in relation to personal work in the highly innovative businesses and sectors of industry. The pursuit of innovation is turning into a subjectively meaningful value. Working on IT innovation services e.g. is considered to be actionguiding orientation anchored deep within an individual value system (Ewers 2006, 115; translated by author). This is often connected to the desire to climb the professional ladder or e.g. to establish oneself as an entrepreneur in the IT sector. Similar developments can be observed in non-profit organizations (cf. Stahl 2005). The system of values bound to employment adopts elements such as cooperative attitudes, solidarity, mentoring, and aid to help oneself. It emerges in new and traditional work and learning settings. Under unstable, high-risk working and living conditions, this system of values based on cooperation, solidarity, independence and personal responsibility becomes an important anchor for self-determined living and makes it possible to find and maintain a place in society.


5)>>Summary Innovations take place in the economic and social sphere. They should extend the human scope for action and improve living conditions. Innovations are constantly being assessed, accepted or rejected socially and responsible innovation policy therefore always includes an impact assessment. Crucial to the range of innovations in companies and organizations alike are the people working in them. Handling innovation is an important component of corporate and organizational culture. The most important attitudes to the regulation of action conducive to innovation are knowledge, skills and value systems. At best they can develop into skilled work and working environments conducive to learning and acting. The pursuit of innovation under these conditions becomes a subjectively meaningful value for those involved.

6)>> Research Requirements Further research should address itself to the subject, as different groups of stakÂ� holders – young people, the elderly, immigrants, the unskilled – are able to develop the pursuit of innovation, decide what political and learning impulses need to be given, how the working processes and the processes in social organizations need to be re-organized to make more actors become more active in innovation. Another issue is how management, particularly in traditional, less innovative sectors of industry, businesses or social organizations, can become promoters of innovation and become able to overcome tendencies towards preserving the status quo.

7)>> How Could the Subjective Conditions for Innovation Be Improved? Recommendations as to how Germany could strengthen its position in science and technology and when coping with social change have been put forward for a long time now. They predominantly come up against the limits of corporate and lobby interests as well as against traditional, relatively inflexible attitudes in schools, universities and politics. Changes need to begin with learning and its social benefit. First of all this includes standard, effective schooling for all children that extends into the basic content, without taking any particular or separate paths, but with a broad provision for different educational concepts based on problem-solving, and providing versatile learning support for all children and young people. Germany needs the entire pool of its gifts and talents. It is therefore a condition for greater innovativeness that all children and young people be challenged and encouraged and particular consideration given to those who are socially disadvantaged.

242)>>

Matthias Trier

Problem-based learning in school and at university requires a close link to practice throughout the entire educational period. Germany needs to gear itself to intelligent jobs and intelligent work. Intelligent work must also be offered to junior employees, not only to experienced workers. Unskilled work wastes and destroys human potential, reduces competitiveness and limits innovative capability in the long-term. Lifelong learning in and through work must become a benchmark for all employees and a principle for all companies and organizations. It encourages and demands innovative attitudes and puts us in a position where we are more easily able to overcome economic fluctuations and guarantee social stability.

Bibliography Böhle F (2002) Vom Objekt zum gespaltenen Subjekt. In: Moldaschl M, Voß GG (ed) Subjektivierung von Arbeit. Hampp, München/ Mering Erpenbeck J, Heyse V (1999) Die Kompetenzbiographie. In: edition QUEM, vol 10, Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Ewers E (2006) Berufliche Strebungen von IT-Beschäftigten: Streben nach Autonomie und technischer Innovation. In: Ewers E, Hoff EH, Geffers J (ed) Arbeit als Lebensinhalt? edition QUEM, vol 21, Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2010 (Reports on Research, Innovation and Technological Economic Potential in Germany). Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation. http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/ Gutachten/EFI_2010.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Hauschildt J, Salomo S (2007) Innovationsmanagement. Vahlen, München Jasper G, Rohwedder A, Duell W (2007) Alternde Belegschaft und Innovativität; Herausforderungen an das Innovations- und Personalmanagement. In: Astor M, Jasper G (ed) Demographischer Wandel als Wachstumsbremse oder Chance? – Innovations- und Personalstrategien in den neuen Bundesländern. Brochure series Demographie und Erwerbsarbeit. Berlin Kesselring A, Leitner M (2008) Soziale Innovation in Unternehmen. http://www.zsi.at/de/ projekte/abgeschlossen/3932.html. Accessed September 2010 Lernen im sozialen Umfeld (Learning in a Social Environment). Kompetenzentwicklung beim Aufbau regionaler Infrastrukturen (2003) QUEM report, vol 77, Berlin Stahl T (2005) Lernen im sozialen Umfeld als ein Weg zur Umsetzung des Konzepts vom lebensumspannenden (life-wide) Lernen. In: Internationale Trends des Erwachsenenlernens. edition QUEM, vol 19, Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Staudt E, Kriegesmann B (2002) Zusammenhang von Kompetenz, Kompetenzentwicklung und Innovation. In: Kompetenzentwicklung und Innovation. edition QUEM, vol 14, Waxmann, Münster/ New York/ München/ Berlin Überholspur Innovation: Messung, Bewertung und Steigerung der Innovationsfähigkeit durch www.innoscore.de (2007). Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation (ed), Fraunhofer IAO, Stuttgart Witte E (1998) Kraft und Gegenkraft im Entscheidungsprozess. In: Witte E, Hauschildt J, Grün O (ed) Innovative Entscheidungsprozesse. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Commentary on the Main Article “Innovation and the Subjective Conditions for Innovative Capability”

Workplace Innovation and New Industrial Relations Frank Pot and Ton de Korte

1 )>>Introduction In his interesting paper, Matthias Trier clarifies the conditions for innovative behavior and its consequences both for the organization of work and for learning on the job and in educational institutions. His conclusion is that “the most important attitudes to the regulation of action conducive to innovation are knowledge, skills and value systems. At best they can develop into skilled work and working environments conducive to learning and activity.” This topic and the deliberations about it play an important role in the Netherlands too, both in economics and in research. This will be illustrated briefly. But first attention will be paid to the definition of social innovation, because some differences can be observed. Furthermore, we will expand Trier’s arguments with some more theoretical support. Finally, the dilemmas of stakeholders and consequences for research will be discussed. In Trier’s paper it is stated that social innovations – as opposed to economic innovations, “ought to improve people’s living conditions; they are not primarily aimed at the market, but can affect market development as social constraints.” In the Netherlands, the concept contrasting to social innovation is technological innovation. Social innovation is non-technological innovation and it can serve the objective of both organizational performance and quality of working life. We – and quite a number of others in the Netherlands – advocate that social innovation should achieve both objectives simultaneously. Social Innovation in the Dutch definition includes such things as dynamic management, flexible organization, working smarter, development of skills and competences, networking between organizations. It also includes modernization of industrial relations and human resource development. The employment relationship is changing quickly, also thanks to higher education of the workforce, the phenomenon of mobile work (independent of time and place) and the growing number of self-employed professionals.


244)>>

Frank Pot and Ton de Korte

2 )>>Netherlands Center for Social Innovation Four main reasons can be given for the emerging attention for social innovation. To begin with, the need to enhance labor productivity in order to maintain our level of welfare and social security in the near future with fewer people in the workforce due to the ageing population. The second reason is the need to develop and utilize the skills and competences of the potential workforce to increase the added value as part of a globally competitive and knowledge- based economy. In the third place, private and public work organizations can only fully benefit from technological innovation if technological innovation is embedded in social innovation (making technology work through proper organization). Finally, social innovation itself appears to be more conducive to innovation successes than technological innovation does. An important policy document on this issue has been issued by the Dutch Social and Economic Council (SER 2006), the government’s most powerful advisory body. In the same year, the Netherlands Center for Social Innovation (NCSI1) was established by some employers’ associations (AWVN; FME-CWM), some trade unions (CNV BedrijvenBond; FNV Bondgenoten), some universities (Erasmus University RSM; University of Amsterdam) and TNO (Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research). These organizations have seats in the Board of the abovementioned Center. The focus of the Center is dissemination of best practices, field experiments, joint development and stimulating research. The Center has a small staff. Companies and public organizations that also support the Centre financially (50 k euro per year) have seats in the Program Council. So far, 12 large organizations have decided to participate. The activities of the Center are politically and to some extent financially (1 M euros per year) supported by project subsidies of 3 Ministries (Economic Affairs; Social Affairs and Employment; Education, Culture and Science). However, in the Netherlands social innovation is not a national program like in for example Finland and Germany, although there are similarities in activities and partners. An important difference is that in Finland and Germany the government plays a leading role (funding, program). In the Netherlands, the government is intentionally not represented in the Center. The political philosophy accepted by all parties is that the social partners can and should have a leading role.

3 )>>Supportive Theories and Evidence The possibility to achieve better jobs and performance simultaneously can be supported theoretically by the job-demand-control model, modern sociotechnology and the action regulation theory. Karasek and Theorell (1990) distinguish three dimensions in their theoretical model to explain the relations between work organization, stress risks and learning possibilities: high or low decision latitude, high or low )>> www.ncsi.nl

1

Workplace Innovation and New Industrial Relations)>>245

psychological demands, and high or low support. The best learning opportunities exist in jobs with high demands and high decision latitude (active jobs). Jobs with high demands and low decision latitude (high-strain jobs) imply a risk of mental strain and physical illness. This effect is reinforced by low support. We call them stress risks. Furthermore, stress inhibits learning. “We have seen that this imposes a double reason for managers, engineers and job designers to consider carefully that low levels of decision latitude carry the double penalty of high stress and loss of innovative potential.” (Karasek and Theorell 1990, 199). Modern sociotechnology (cf. Sitter et al. 1997) follows more or less the same line of thought. Here, however, the concept of control is developed much further than in Karasek and Theorell’s theory. A distinction is made between internal control (concerning decision latitude, autonomy in one’s own job) and external control (co-determination concerning the organization of work, setting targets, defining strategies). Although internal control is important for well-being and a smooth process, it is external control that enhances commitment and learning most. In terms of the theory of Organizational Learning (cf. Argyris and Schön 1978), one could say that external control in particular makes double loop learning possible, compared to internal control capacity and single loop learning. Hacker (cf. 2003) also pays attention to external control in his action regulation theory, but he has also elaborated on the demand side of jobs. So-called complete jobs (including qualitative job demands and control tasks) provide the best possibilities for learning. A complete job consists of both easy and difficult tasks. It is complete from the perspective of skills, including preparatory, operational and supportive tasks. Finally, the job includes coordinating or organizational tasks. Of course, these organizational design theories imply a working environment characterized by openness and trust, employee participation and good managementlabor cooperation. We have made a review of recent research into social innovation in Europe. Although it was difficult to draw general conclusions because of the diversity in concepts and research designs, the most interesting lesson is that a management’s commitment combined with employee participation is definitely the most important condition for positive effects in the quality of working life and performance (cf. Pot and Koningsveld 2009). In the Netherlands, some large research projects on social innovation show impressive results regarding organizational performance (cf. Hauw et al. 2009; Jansen et al. 2009). Unfortunately, effects on the quality of working life have not been measured. However, a growing number of case studies in the Netherlands indicate that simultaneous improvement of performance and quality of working life is possible. We would like to emphasize that this improved quality of working life does not only apply to so-called skilled work. Job autonomy and co-determination can be arranged on every level of training and education. A good example in the Netherlands is that of the street sweepers of The Hague: job autonomy was expanded, responsibility increased and co-determination improved. More work could be done with the same number of people, the quality of work improved and sickness absenteeism decreased considerably.

246)>>

Frank Pot and Ton de Korte

4 )>>Stakeholders’ Dilemmas Although there are enough reasons to develop workplaces from the perspectives of quality of working life and performance, it is not an easy task. There are a number of dilemmas which employees and their representatives are faced with if they are to be involved and to develop commitment to social innovation. Examples of these dilemmas are long-term and short-term effects on employment. Working smarter may lead to doing the same work with fewer people. Job autonomy without the proper authority and co-determination rights may be ineffective and frustrating. Mobile work offers the possibility for a better work-life balance, but also involves a stress risk. New technology and/ or business concepts can even change or lead to the dissolution of professions as such (e.g. the profession of a postman). The employers’/ managers’ side also faces dilemmas. Benefits of social innovation are apparent later than the results of short-term budget cuts; exploration and exploitation require different competences and work organization; bonuses and shareholders’ interests stimulate short-term thinking; sharing knowledge and power is not easy. Innovation cannot always be planned. Some room for coincidence and chaos is needed. Creative destruction leads to resistance and delay. Of course, it is a good starting point that in a number of countries, such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, unions and employers’ organizations have a tradition of cooperation and mutual consultation. The government always feels the dilemma of regulation and the market. In the EU2020 strategy, competence development is the most important part of the Flagship Initiative “An Agenda for new skills and jobs”. Unfortunately, the EU policy document itself does not indicate the need for social innovation of the workplace, probably – among other things – because the EU does not want to interfere on the company level. But social innovation policy on the company level is complementary to flexicurity strategy on the national level. In the draft new guidelines for employment policies (COM(2020)193/ 3) and in the Flagship Initiative “Innovation Union” (COM(2010)546), work organization and social innovation are mentioned but the contents are not yet very clear.

5 )>>Conclusions Knowledge, skills and values are important for innovative behavior. How they develop is to a large extent determined by the structure of the division of labor. Simultaneous improvement of quality of working life and organisational performance can be achieved if these objectives are purposefully combined and if the employees and their supervisors are involved. National programs (collaboration between government, social partners, consultants and research institutes) seem to generate more projects than activities by separate stakeholders do. Social innovation projects should be embedded in macro-level policies (education, labor market, social security, innovation). A stimulating role of employers’ associations and trade unions appears to be important.

Workplace Innovation and New Industrial Relations)>>247

In evaluating studies, both the quality of working life indicators and performance indicators should be considered. We recommend strongly harmonizing concepts and measurements in international comparative and multidisciplinary research.

Bibliography Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational learning. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts Hacker W (2003) Action regulation theory: a practical tool for the design of modern work processes? In: European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, vol 2, 12: 105-130 Hauw PA van der, Pasaribu MN, Zeijden PT van der (2009) Slimmer werken (Working smarter). EIM, Zoetermeer Jansen J et al. (2009) Erasmus Concurrentie en Innovatie Monitor 2008-2009 (Erasmus Competition and Innovation Monitor 2008-2009). Rotterdam School of Management Karasek RA, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work; stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books, New York Pot FD Koningsveld EAP (2009) Quality of working life and organizational performance – two sides of the same coin? In: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, vol 6, 35: 421-428 SER (2006) Welvaartsgroei voor en door iedereen. Thema sociale innovatie (Prosperity by and for everybody. Topic social innovation). SER, Den Haag Sitter LU de, Hertog JF, Dankbaar B (1997) From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. In: Human Relations, vol 5, 50: 497-534

Innovative Capability and Productivity: What has Demographic Change to do with it? Tarja Tikkanen

Abstract This paper discusses innovation and productivity vis-à-vis the demographic development, particularly ageing of the workforce, and its possible consequences on the labor market, for human resources, lifelong learning, and innovative capability. A starting point here is the commonly assumed mismatch between innovative capability and older workers. The paper examines the question, what has the demographic change to do with innovative capability. The answer is unclear, at best. The answer depends on how we handle the demographic challenge. The potential for prosperity is there – but so is it for peril. Holding on to traditional mindsets, whether these have to do with innovation and innovators, or with lifelong learning and skills development, or employment and beyond midlife career development, inevitably leads to a view of massive problems looming as the population ageing develops further. The fact is that the demographic situation already today, and in particular the one to be expected within the next about 40 years, is historically without a precedent. Indeed, any response in search for solutions to the challenge of the ageing of the workforce and beyond in itself calls for innovative thinking. Many negative views prevail on ageing workers as a threat to the national skillsand talent-bases, to innovative capability, and to productivity. However, there is no systematic evidence of these negative relationships, nor that these threat scenarios would materialize as a consequence of population ageing. Rather, focus should be on how to define measure and forecast concepts like skills and learning needs, innovation (capability) and productivity. Yet, there are age-related challenges in working life that need to be addressed, and soon. Taken that work is the context for most of lifelong learning and development of innovative capability and productivity, it is ultimately there that the solutions are also expected. Many employers have made a great start already – but many more still remain happily ignorant of what is to come.

1)>>Introduction The demographic development is setting enormous challenges to the macroÂ� economic performance and competitiveness (cf. EuroFound 2008). Many countries in Europe are facing a situation where securing a positive labor market development S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_26, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

250)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

for economic prosperity in the future will require either of increasing the immigration of (young) skilled labor (cf. Zaidi 2008) or extending the job careers of senior workers – or both. In this article the focus is on the challenges and opportunities (cf. OECD 2006) concerning older workers. The paper discusses innovation and productivity vis-à-vis the demographic development, particularly ageing of the workforce, and its consequences on the labor market, for human resources, lifelong learning and innovative capability. On one hand the demographic challenge is about manpower having enough working age people in the labor force for sustainable development. On the other hand the challenge is about lifelong learning (LLL), knowledge creation and innovative capability to secure progress, productivity and competitiveness of national economies. By the year 2030 the European Union (EU) is forecasted to face a labor shortage of some 20.8 million people (6.8%) of working age (cf. EuroFound 2008). European countries have been working hard to find ways for ageing employees to prolong their working careers. Focus has been on their work and working conditions or on pension reforms, or both. Supporting and promoting employability of older workers is a great political concern (cf. EC 2008). As younger generations are diminishing, in relative terms productivity will increasingly need to draw from the contribution of mature labor force. However, the relationship between productivity and age has long been disputed (cf. Skirbekk 2003). Lower productivity is typically related to higher age, following an inverse u-shape over the life-course (cf. Henseke and Tivig 2007), at least in non-managerial positions. Clearly, the nature of the age-productivity relationship is related, not only to how productivity is defined and measured, but also to the nature of the jobs and job tasks in question. As productivity and economic growth is strongly tied to the level of educational attainment (human capital), lower productivity becomes easily coupled with older workers with lower formal qualifications (cf. EC 2008). An unanimous, reliable measuring of the relationship is not unproblematic. Older workers are here defined as those aged 45 years and above. This demarcation is commonly used in the European discussion (cf. Tikkanen and Nyhan 2006) and among statisticians (cf. Descy 2006), as it tends to mark a starting point for age-discriminative practices in the labor market, especially for job-seekers. However, depending on the source or country, sector, or sometimes even gender, the definition (e.g. age limit) of an older worker may differ. These age-limits also tend to change over time, by socio-historical circumstances. Although frequently mentioned in policy documents, the concern for ageing of the labor force has not manifested as an active promotion of job capability development through LLL. True, it is not just straightforward to (re)train employees approaching and beyond their 50s birthday. This is not to say that it would not be possible. This not to say either that a complete retraining is what would be needed. Rather, the issue here is that our society and the education and training institutions do not have the mindset to function on a truly lifelong learning -basis, including equally those beyond their midlife. Furthermore, we need more systematic knowledge on the particular shortcomings and/ or obsolescence, as well as particular strengths in capability of mature employees. The ageing of the workforce also

Innovative Capability and Productivity: WhatÂ€hasÂ€Demographic Change to do with it?)>>251

raises major questions on: how to know what kind of competence and skills are needed, beyond information and communication technology (ICT), and how to define skills needs and quality other than in terms of formal educational. Important work in this area has been carried out by Cedefop, under “New skills for new jobs”, which has stressed the need to anticipate the skill needs – and skill gaps – emerging in the European labor market, and has called for a comprehensive assessment of skill requirements in Europe up to the year 2020 (cf. Cedefop 2008). Equally crucial are employers’ attitudes towards older workers and their views on productivity and capability beyond midlife (cf. Zaidi 2008). Employers’ negative attitudes may have an adverse effect on the official efforts to promote the employment of older workers (cf. Rix 2005). A European study concluded that in order to public policies to work to ” it is essential that employers remove their negative perceptions of older workers and facilitate a better working environment in which older workers continue to improve their productivity” (Zaidi 2008, 13). Similarly in a recent special issue in The International Journal of Human Resources Management, focusing on the demographic change, several studies pointed out to the need for considerable changes in employers’ attitudes before any major update can be expected regarding the views on older workers’ productivity and innovative capability (cf. Tikkanen 2011). Learning and training of and for older workers should be as hot topic as for younger workers. For the low- educated, encouragement and support to start with learning, and in some cases re-establishing of basic learning skills, readiness and attitudes, is often necessary (cf. Hulkari and Paloniemi 2008). To meet the challenges and cease the opportunities in this historically new situation (cf. OECD 2006), may necessitate to reject many old practices and solutions, and to start urgently to prepare to replace them with creative innovations. The demographic transition is further discussed in this paper from the perspective of innovative capability in the context of work and learning. The first part examines a demographic megatrend, ageing of the society, and its consequences to the labor force. The next part focuses on innovative capability by examining human resources development, lifelong learning and employment against the workforce ageing. Also the ambiguities concerning the age-effect on capability and LLL as the magic bullet (cf. Mayhew and Rijkers 2004) for the challenges of ageing workforce are discussed. Finally, some conclusions are drawn based on the presentation.

2)>> The Coming of “Silver Age” in Europe and Its Consequences on the Workforce “(P)opulation ageing can lead to a disaster or it can become an opportunity but it all depends on how well ageing societies prepare for it.” (Zaidi 2008, 15)

252)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

2.1)>> Facts and Trends Population ageing has complex social and economic consequences both at individual and societal levels (cf. UN 2010). Although the demographic trends were foreseeable some 20 years back, and although many countries have started to prepare for the anticipated consequences, these preparations are still insufficient in many areas concerned. The United Nation’s World Population Ageing 1950-2050 report (cf. UN 2010) points to the following four major aspects in the population ageing: it is (i) unprecedented (no parallel in human history), (ii) pervasive (a global phenomenon with individual and societal consequences, albeit the process and pace vary greatly between countries), (iii) enduring (no return to young populations anytime soon), and (iv) has profound implications (for many facets of human life). European population – as population in most countries in the world (cf. UN 2010) – is ageing as a result of two major developments: low total fertility rates (fewer babies) for decades and people living longer and healthier lives (increased longevity). These trends are expected to accelerate in the near future particularly in the developed countries. The number of people aged 65 years and over is increasing and the number of children (age group 0-14 years) is decreasing (cf. Eurostat 2010a). Figure 2.1 shows a Eurostat presentation of these population trends between 1997 and 2007 by different age groups. 130 120 110 100 90 80 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

80 years and more

65 to 79 years

50 to 64 years

25 to 49 years

15 to 24 years

0 to 14 years

2007

Source: Eurostat (tps00010)

Figure 2.1: Population by age class, EU-27 (1997=100)1

The median age is projected to rise from 40.4 years in 2008 to 47.9 years in 2060. However, there are some differences in these trends between European countries, one divide being between the old and new Member States (cf. Eurostat 2010a). Between 2001 and 2006 the growth in the share of the population 65-years and over was fastest in Germany, Greece and Latvia, while remained stable in Ireland and Sweden (cf. Eurostat 2010a). According to the United Nations (UN 2010) over the next 50 years, the proportion of children is projected to decline by almost one third. As a consequence, by the year 2050, the share of persons aged 60 or over in the population will, for the )>> http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

1


first time in history, match that of persons younger than 15 (about 21 percent each). During this period, the proportion of persons between the ages of 15 and 59 will change only slightly, from 60 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2050. In the more developed regions, the proportion of older persons already exceeds that of children; by 2050 it will be double. Indeed, Europe is turning silver (cf. Willy 2011). 2.2)>> Consequences on the Workforce A consequence from these trends is that from 2013/ 2014 onwards the European working age (15-64 year olds) population will start to shrink (cf. EC 2011). It is expected to fall by about 50 million, while the population older than 65 will increase by more than 60 million within the next about 40 years. The working age population is expected fall to 56% of the total population, while the share of people older than 65 years is expected to increase to 30% of the total population. Another major negative consequence from the demographic change is expected to be a critical labor shortage in particular as large cohorts of workers (baby-boomers) will exit the workforce at about the same time (cf. EuroFound 2008). Together these major consequences on the workforce mean that population ageing is expected to pose a serious threat to macroeconomic performance and competitiveness in European countries (cf. EuroFound 2008). By 2030 the European Union is forecasted to face a shortage of some 20.8 million people of working age. In 2007, young people under 30 years represented about 35% of the total population in the EU27. This number of young people has declined steadily. The shortage of young people is pointed out as one of the three megatrends influencing the economy in Germany (cf. Henning and Borowski 2009). On the contrary, the number of people aged 60 years has more than tripled since 1950, and is expected to almost triple again by 2050 (cf. UN 2010). Already currently this age group exceeds 25% of the population in Germany, Italy and Japan (cf. UN 2010). This age group is expected to remain in working life still good many years, not least due to the pension reforms in many European countries. Clearly, employers and management will face major new challenges and opportunities, as indicated by the example from Siemens (cf. Boronowsky 2008). How to tackle these vast challenges? A policy response in Europe to the demographic challenges was the Lisbon European Council of 2000 and the Stockholm European Council agreements on new strategic goals for strengthening employment, economic reform and social cohesion in a knowledge-based economy. The follow-up of the EU2010 benchmarks for the employment strategy (investing in people) in 2008 showed that while the overall employment in the EU rose by close to four percentage points (reaching 65.9%), employment rates for women and older workers had increased more substantially, attaining 59.1% and 45.6% respectively (cf. European Commission 2010). The results by Eurostat (2010b) showed the following: while eight EU Member States had reached the goals, Germany included, many were still far behind; the goal for the older workers’ employment (50%) was reached by 12 Member States (Germany 53.8%), being highest in Sweden (70.1%); the proportion of women working was close to the target at 59.1%, being highest in

254)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

Denmark 74.3% (in Germany 65.4%). The new EU2020 strategy promotes active labor market policies and underlines how the need for “investing more and more effectively in human capital and creativity throughout people’s lives” is crucial for Europe’s success in a globalized world (cf. EC 2008). New benchmarks are set for employment and education and training: an overall goal for employment rate for the 20-64 years old is 75%. One of the flagship initiatives towards this goal is an agenda for new skills and jobs. Keys here are modernizing labor markets by facilitating labor mobility and the development of skills throughout the lifecycle so as to increase participation in the labor force and to better match labor supply and demand.

3)>> Human Resources Development: Lifelong Learning, Career Development and Innovative Capability “Innovation holds the key to ongoing improvements in living standards, as well as to solving pressing social challenges. Skilled people play a crucial role in innovation through the new knowledge they generate, how they adopt and develop existing ideas, and through their ability to learn new competencies and adapt to a changing environment.” – Skills for innovation and research (OECD 2011, Summary in English) 3.1)>> Ageing Workforce and Human Resources: We Can Choose the Rationale Ageing of society is commonly viewed as a threat or a problem to growth, competitiveness and productivity. From human resources perspective such a view means bad news. Furthermore, the prevailing view of innovative activity does not easily incorporate older workers. Rather STI (Science, Technology and Innovation, cf. OECD 2010) underlines an activity carried out in higher education institutions, by young people, and inseparable from development of high technology and sciences. If we are to believe that science and engineering are only for young people, the ageing society will pose a huge concern for innovation and creativity (cf. Henseke and Tivig 2007). The threat scenario implied by these views is illustrated in FigureÂ€3.1. An interesting study was carried out by Henseke and Tivig (2007), inspired by the question whether an ageing population has enough talents to sustain the innovation process at basis of prosperity. They examined the age-distribution of the inventors and its variance across sectors using European patent data for Germany (from 2003). The study covered agriculture and farm machinery, metallurgy, biotechnology and information technology (IT). The findings suggested that inventive productivity is age-dependent and unequally distributed among the inventors. The overall mean age of the innovators was 45.9 years, although there were crosssectoral age-differences: in agriculture and metallurgy these ages were 51.4 and 53.2 years, respectively, and in biotechnology and IT 43.9 and 42.9 years, respec-


tively. On an average the first patent was granted at the age of 34.3 years. However, among the younger innovators, aged 35 years or below, the first patent was granted at an earlier age, around 29 years, than in the group of older (50-65 years) innovators, where the age was 37.3 years. Furthermore, only a small minority of inventors appeared to be highly productive, while majority of them were producing patents only occasionally. The authors propose that “if the distribution of talent in the population remains stable, the number of highly creative and inventive individuals will decrease with demographic change” (ibid, 6). Human Resources Lifelong Learning

Innovation

Productivity

Lacking / obsolete skills?

Reduced innovation capability?

Downturn in productivity?

Demographic change / ageing of the society

Figure 3.1: Ageing of the society: a threat scenario for growth and productivity in a knowledge society?

During recent years more positive and constructive view of mature capability has started to emerge. While investments in innovation have gone down as a consequence of the global credit crunch, some countries – including Germany – have increased investment in the science base, strengthening public research and human resources in order to improve their future innovation and growth prospects (cf. OECD 2010). This type of medicine was also used in Finland, and successfully so, as one of the worst economic recessions in the country’s history hit it early in the 1990s. On an individual level the view of the value of older workers is more ambiguous (Figure 3.1). The deficit approach tends still to prevail, especially concerning workers in non-managerial positions, emphasizing physiological decline and other limitations by age, including views on older workers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes as obsolete and lacking (cf. Findsen 2006). The deficit approach has been common among employers (cf. Walker 1997), although a more positive and active image on older worker has started to emerge. The capability claims lack broader justification as it is rarely systematically measured in workplaces (cf. Tikkanen 2008). A more constructive view of job performance and capability has been presented by Ellström (2004), who underlines the relative nature of these concepts: the part of our capability potential, which is in use daily, is a function of the dynamics and context of the workplace and the employee’s individual work-life situation rather than an objectively measurable,

256)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

stable entity. Thus, while both our potential and in-use capability may be assessed, it is the latter that matters on an everyday basis. This makes any general judgment of capabilities precarious. The rationale of lifelong learning2, however, is based on more formal, theoretical understanding of the capability (competence) concept, as leading to economic prosperity by increasing productivity of the active population (Figure 3.1). Innovation, as the link from skills development to growth and prosperity, is strongly promoted by the OECD and the European Commission. Skills development leading to increased innovation is also viewed as crucial for addressing social challenges (cf. OECD 2011). The demographic and labor market trends are forecasted to lead to an increasing demand for high skills and fewer opportunities for the low-skilled in society, many of whom are older workers (cf. EC 2008). Thus, keeping older employees longer in workplaces and updating and developing their capability, is a key economic factor long into the future. For systematically shaping the age structure of the workforce in the future and making older workers to stay longer in working life (indeed, just staying longer at work, without necessarily implementing any capability measures, is calculated to be of economic value), also career and employment security, health and well-being, and reconciliation of working and non-working life have been identified as significant key areas (cf. EuroFound 2008). 3.2)>> Participation in Learning and Employment among Mature Employees Building indicators and strategies for and monitoring of human capital, has become as important value-factor as more traditional economic indicators. It is argued that “no country is able to lead a consistent policy of economic competitiveness without a clear vision of the qualifications available and, hence, the strategic competencies necessary for a successful positioning on the worldwide market” (Walther 2002, 2). The new EU strategic goals for lifelong learning, formulated in the Education and Training 2020 program (ET 2020), are: making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship, and; enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training (EC 2009). The ET2020 benchmark for participation in lifelong learning is an average of at least 15 % of adults (age group 25-64) (EC 2009). In the following we will take a look at these indicators relative to older workers and their employment, drawing links also to the innovation performance on a country basis. Figure 3.2 shows the participation rates in LLL in 2008 for the prime age working population (20-49 years) and older workers (50-64 years and 50-74 years). As LLL here refers to all education and training in general, the table also shows the findings for participation in employer provided continuing vocational education

)>> “Lifelong learning encompasses all purposeful learning activity undertaken on an on-going basis with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competence” (Eurostat 2010, 270).

2

3

UK

Moderate

Follower

Follower

Follower

Moderate

Spain

Estonia

Cyprus

Luxembourg

Czech Republic

10.0

10.4

10.3

12.0

12.5

16.1

17.9

7.8

8.5

8.5

9.8

10.4

13.2

13.9

2.3

2.7

3.6

2.1

4.8

6.2

5.4

59

49

30

24

33

33

50

34

46

12.2 8.0

29

33

47.6

34.1

54.8

62.4

45.6

41.0

32.8

53.0

70.1

69.2

58.0

56.5

39

10.2

11.9

82.9

57.0

45.6

Employment rate of older workers (55-64 years)

n.a.

35

33

Participation in CVT C) (year 2005)

Bulgaria

Romania

Moderate

Greece

CatchingUp

CatchingUp

Moderate

Hungary

Moderate

Moderate

Poland Slovakia

Moderate

Lithuania

Portugal Moderate

Moderate

Latvia Moderate

CatchingUp

Malta

8.8

Follower

Belgium

Italy

8.3

Follower

Ireland

2.0

2.2

4.1

4.6

4.4

6.7

6.6

7.2

7.9

8.0

8.3

9.2

10.0

Leader Follower

France

20-49

Germany

Innovation performance (in 2008/09 and 2011)

Country

1.4

1.5

2.9

3.1

3.3

4.7

4.9

5.3

6.2

6.3

6.8

6.8

7.1

7.3

7.9

50-64

Age

n.a.

n.a.

0.2

0.5

1.7

1.1

1.4

0.9

2.2

2.0

2.3

2.6

3.7

3.0

4.3

50-74 (year 2007)

15

17

14

16

38

21

15

28

32

29

15

40

49

46

33

Participation in CVT (year 2005)

46.0

43.1

42.8

31.4

39.2

31.6

53.1

50.8

29.2

34.4

59.4

34.5

53.7

38.2

45.6

Employment rate of older workers (55-64 years)

Figure 3.2: Participation rates in lifelong learning A) and continuing vocational training (CVT), innovation performance and employment rates of older workers in Europe in 2008. Ranking by the age group 50-64 years. (%) – Source: Eurostat/ EC (2009) and EIS 2009 (2010) B)

Follower

Follower

Netherlands

Austria

Follower

Sweden

Slovenia

n.a.

n.a.

Leader

Norway

17.0

19.3

22.9

20.7

19.9

22.3

Leader D

Moderate

13.7

23.1

28.1

Leader

Finland

16.7

25.1

28.1

Follower

Iceland

21.7

4.3

30.2

9.5

50-64

50-74 (year 2007)

33.7

Leader

(Moderate) 11.6

EU 27

Denmark

Innovation performance (in 2008/09 20-49 and 2011) B)

Country

Age


and training (CVT)3 in enterprises. There are great differences in participation rates among the European countries. LLL is becoming a reality especially in the Nordic countries and the UK. In Germany the participation rates in all age-groups shown were below the EU27 average in 2008.

)>> CVT refers to persons employed by enterprises with the following qualifying criteria: “the training must be planned in advance; the training must be organized or supported with the specific goal of learning; the training must be financed at least partly by the enterprise” (Eurostat 2010, 270).

258)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

A) Lifelong learning refers to persons of the indicated age-groups who stated that they received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. B)Â€European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 20094. LLL-rate among those aged 25-64 years was one of the 29 indicators used to calculate the performance indicator. C) As % of employees. D) In the IUS 2010 (2011), the ranking of UK is Â�follower, while it is the same for all other countries. Figure 3.2 presents also employment rates for seniors aged 55 years and above in Europe. On one hand, we find a positive correlation between the LLL participation rates and employment rates of seniors. In countries where their employment rates are the highest (about 57- 83%), also their participation rates in LLL are the highest. On the other hand, in several countries the firms show high activity in providing CVT even if this does not find its parallel in the employment rates for seniors. That is, in Slovenia, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, France and Ireland the participation rates of older workers in the labor market are only moderate (about 34-54%), but learning opportunities provided as CVT by the companies are high (46-59%). Indeed, in these countries the CVT-rates are clearly above those in the leading countries (29-39%, 46% in Sweden), even if the opposite is the case for their LLL-rates. The data suggests that in these countries the benefits from CVT to older workers may be limited. Finally, we will compare how LLL participation, especially among seniors, relates to innovation performance on a country level. Figure 3.2 presents the European Innovation Scoreboard (2009) and the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) 2010 (2011) rankings of the countries’ innovation performance (for the sets of performance indicators used, cf. IUS 2011). Interestingly, with the exception of Germany, all ‘innovation leaders’ are also countries where the rates for LLL and older workers’ employment are among the highest (Figure 3.2). Besides formal training, much learning is taking place in workplaces. Indeed, workplaces have become the most central arenas for LLL and capability development, with or without the help of the HR function. This is also likely to be the arena where the best and worst examples related to learning of older workers are to be found. Unfortunately, these examples are seldom documented and therefore they only to a limited extend transform into more public knowledge. Nevertheless, since the 1990s several major projects have been carried out to monitor and document cases where older workers’ situation has been addressed in companies, often including a learning dimension: Ageing and Employment (2006), Ilmarinen (2006), Naegele and Walker (2006), OECD (2006), Walker (1999), and Taylor (2006). There are also some projects explicitly focusing on learning and training targeted to or including older workers (cf. Tikkanen 2008, 2011; Tikkanen and Nyhan 2006 and 2008; Tikkanen et al. 2002). )>> Innovation performance: Innovation leaders – well above the EU27 average and all other countries; Innovation followers – below the innovation leaders but close to or above of the EU27; Moderate innovators – below the EU27; Catching-up/ modest countries – well below the EU27, though performance is increasing (cf. EIS 2009, 2010). IUS 2010 (2011) used similar ranking although the number of criteria is reduced from 29 to 25.

4


3.3)>> An Ambiguous View of the Age-Effect on Job Capability In the education and training markets older workers tend to be critical consumers (cf. Tikkanen 2008). A decision to participate in formal training – assuming the opportunity is there for them – becomes a function of expected training outcomes and incentives in the context of the workplace (cf. Tikkanen 2008). Both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are needed for participation. Meaningfulness, whether it concerns options for work or learning, is a dimension increasing in importance by age. A key question for older workers’ participation is, what’s in it for me, in my job, in my workplace? Obviously finding an answer to this question is not always easy. The Eurobarometer 2004 showed that one third of the 55+ workers do not know what would encourage them to take more training (cf. Lipinska et al. 2007). Furthermore, employers’ and older employees’ (45-64 years) views can be rather different concerning the importance of increasing educational possibilities and training that promotes occupational skills, as studies from Finland (cf. Ilmarinen 2006; Work Conditions 2003 Study, Statistics Finland) have shown: while 40% of employers believed training to be important, only 13% of the older workers did so. Correspondingly, an AARP (2007) study in the USA showed that while almost half of the employees (44%) had been offered opportunities for training and skills development, only 19% found them helpful in their own situation. At the same time, existing statistics show that compared to younger workers, older workers are both offered less training opportunities and they participate less in training. Overall, the picture we can draw from the question of age-effect on capability among older workers is ambiguous. The main problem may be that there is no one picture but a more analytic approach is called for. Older workers are not just one group, but become more heterogeneous by age. Also, when it comes to the views of older workers’ capability and its development – besides being rarely based on their views of themselves – the facts typically become blended, if not dominated by negative stereotypes. Just looking at the statistics, although indicative, hardly is helpful to build solutions. We need more systematic, analytic knowledge on the extent of and the areas in which older workers have problems with their capability, problems which pose a distinctively different view from the capability concerns in case of their younger counterparts. The rest of this chapter discusses some common challenges related to participation in LLL and capability development among older workers. 3.3.1 Unawareness of Mature Workers’ Learning Needs or Ignorance? Partly the challenges of older workers have been attributed to age-discriminative attitudes and practices in the working life. Mayhew and Rijkers (2004) have suggested that in case of older workers the lack of training is dominantly a symptom of broader problems they face and that therefore it is these broader problems that need addressing. Many workplaces have a culture, which sidelines mature workers from learning. Sometimes this may be because of direct exclusion, sometimes because of management’s unrealistic expectations of the self-directive learning, the learning skills and -preparedness of their older workers, sometimes because

260)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

of management’s unawareness of older workers’ learning needs. Furthermore, jobrelated capability may be a highly sensitive issue (also) for older workers to be put under loop. Yet, job tasks among low-educated workers often set very low learning demands. When faced with an opportunity for training, if changing of a job or job tasks is not an option – and it often is not for an older worker – older workers may actively choose not to participate as they do not see real value for the new skills. The available training contents and quality are also warranted here. In general we lack systematic knowledge on the impact of employer-provided short courses. 3.3.2 )>>Economic Perspectives On one hand, financing of studies is often pointed out as a crucial issue for adults’ participation in LLL. Indeed, financial support is important. However, it does not appear to be a sufficient precondition for participation. The Eurobarometer 2004 findings showed that less than 2 in 5 European citizens say financial support would be an incentive to undertake more training – matters more in the new Member States (cf. Lipinska et al. 2007). On the other hand, economist have commonly used human capital theory, in particular the Return On Investment -theory (ROI), to address training of older workers. According to the human capital theory “costs of investments in human resources are incurred in expectation of future benefits. With regard to older workers the human capital theory would basically suggest that returns from training investments are expected to decline with age” (Ageing and Employment 2006, 128). Thus, investment in training of older workers has not been seen as profitable as in younger workers – even if the potential gains (knowledge gap) should be much larger in case of older workers. It has also been argued that the half-time of the skills has become much shorter for all workers. Indeed, already in the 1990s it was estimated that 50% of the graduating engineer’s knowledge will be obsolete within five years (cf. Harootyan 1990). 3.3.3 )>>Capability in Regards Technology Majority of claims of older workers lacking or obsolete skill are related to new technology. While some older workers can be highly reserved in front of new technology, most of them learn to master these skills with appropriate training. Thus, rather than in older workers cognitive abilities, the challenge lies in the design of the new technology – user-friendliness, possibility adjust to physical impairments by age (e.g. vision), etc. – and in the development of and access to appropriate training. A study (cf. VOX-Barometer 2006) on ICT and literacy (basic skills) showed that older workers aged 50-65 years generally experienced the least developmental needs regarding their basic skills, but they most often experienced problems in their job tasks related to the use of ICT (finding information or using ICT-systems). Apart from ICT, age differences in skills and learning needs were very small. The results from the same survey in 2005 also showed that employers were highly satisfied with the basic skills among all their employees. Furthermore, older workers who are willing to learn new ICT tools and develop new usage to them, have shown to able


to do so, without any specific ICT-equipment being necessary beyond the existing systems and software interfaces (cf. TurbÃ©-Suetens and Kouloumdijan 2008). 3.3.4 Inflexibility? Learned at Work or an Inevitable Age-Accompaniment – or a Bubble? Attitudinal challenges, such as inflexibility, resistance to changes and lacking learning motivation, are also commonly related to older workers. For example, in 2001 half of employers in Sweden considered older workers to have less relevant skills than younger workers and to be more rigid and inflexible with respect to the workplace (cf. OECD 2006). Similar findings exist for other countries in Europe and the US (cf. OECD 2006). Yet, we know that working life is continuously changing and demanding responses accordingly from those included. We know too that employment contracts and career patterns are changing (cf. European Commission 2004; Hall and Mirvis 1995) and that also many older workers are influenced by them, sometimes involuntarily. All of this calls for flexibility and willingness to change. While there are older workers who suffer, for sure, majority of them seem to be coping incredibly well in the face of the claims of inflexibility As Rocco, Stein and Lee (2003) have suggested, the workplace can become a dynamic space for older workers rather than ‘a unidirectional journey leading to retirement’ with multiple exits and entries and increased individual choice. Indeed, findings from many studies challenge this stereotypic view of older workers, underlining that older workers can and will successfully adapt to changing circumstances and to new career roles. Furthermore, research suggests that workplace characteristics are equally important, calling for a shared responsibility with employers for retaining loyal employees’ adaptability and flexibility. The study of Strate and Torraco (2005) showed that the adaptive competence of older workers is impacted greatly by experiential learning through role variety. This suggests that the workplace experiences throughout the whole of one’s working life can play a key role in the development of adaptability and flexibility in late career (cf. Stuart and Perrett 2006). Work can and should be organized in ways that continuously foster workers’ flexible skills and attitudes (cf. Dworschak et al. 2006; Stuart and Perrett 2006). As comfortable as it might be, from the perspective of LLL it appears that the worst thing an employer could do, is to allow an employee to work with the same job tasks in the same roles for years, even for decades. 3.3.5 Is Higher Education Prepared for the Demographic Challenge? The concern for older workers among policy makers, researchers and in some cases employers tends to focus on the situation of those with low or no formal education and on increasing their basic skills rather than promoting their careers. However, as the average level of education in this age group is increasing, so is their participation in higher education, paving way to second or third careers. This trend is especially observable in the USA. A recent study by American Council on Education (cf.Â€ACE 2007) on older workers in higher education made among others the following observations: comprehensive information on the wide range of older adult

262)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

learners and their postsecondary engagement is lacking; large numbers of older adults, including minority elders, recent immigrants, displaced workers, and those living in rural areas, are underrepresented on college and university campuses; for decades [in the USA], many colleges and universities have offered rich and varied programs for senior citizens, but demands brought about by demographic shifts will soon outstrip their options, especially for career transitions, and; older adults with an interest in new careers also want options that quickly transition them to new opportunities, making many to want prior learning assessment, accelerated program formats, improved career counseling, and job placement (cf. ACE 2007, 3). Overall, the picture painted here suggests that older workers are not the only one facing the capability challenge, as skills requirements keep on changing and the nature of jobs evolve. The readiness and capability of adult education and training sector, higher education included, and of human resources development in companies to meet the coming demographic challenges is a question for itself.

4)>> Concluding Remarks This paper has discussed innovation and productivity vis-à-vis the demographic development, particularly ageing of the workforce, and its possible consequences on the labor market, for human resources, lifelong learning and career development. The answer to the question on what has the demographic change to do with innovative capability is unclear at best. We have seen that holding on to traditional mindsets, whether these have to do with innovation and innovators, or with lifelong learning and skills development, or employment and career development, inevitably leads to a view of massive problems looming as the population ageing develops further. The fact is that the demographic situation already today, and in particular the one to be expected within the next about 40 years, is historically without a precedent. Indeed, any response in search for solutions to the challenge of the ageing of the workforce and beyond in itself calls for innovative thinking. As pointed out by Zaidi (2008) earlier in this article, building on the new opportunities to arise, is a matter of how well we will be able to prepare to this historically new situation. A disaster as an outcome would be man-made. Ceasing the opportunities necessitates fresh views and creative thinking. When it comes to the prevailing negative views on ageing workers as a threat to the national skills- and talent-bases, to innovative capability, and to productivity, a main conclusion here is that there is no systematic evidence of these negative relationships, nor that these threat scenarios would materialize as a consequence of population ageing. Age is just a number and a poor predictor of work performance (cf. Warr 1998). It is vast more important to focus on how to define and measure concepts like skills and learning needs, innovation (capability) and productivity, and on how the make reliable forecasts on future development of these. Yet, there is evidence of age-related challenges in working life that need to be addressed to maximize the contribution of older workers to the benefit of all parties


included: an average older worker has shortcomings concerning ICT and applying it in work contexts; older workers are prone to suffer from an erosion of metacognitive skills, i.e. skills concerning one’s own learning, which often relate to learning motivation and self-efficacy; there are stereotypes (cf. Gray and McGregor 2003) about the competence and productivity of older workers, especially concerning their learning and change attitudes and skills – these are held by employers, society at large, by work colleagues, and in some cases older workers themselves; there is a need for better to understand the older workers’ tacit knowledge and to be explicit of the particular strengths in their capability. Furthermore, it has shown to be a slow process, often a no-process, to bring lifelong learning in the workplaces, to the benefit of older workers. The most important contributions to capacity development, innovative capability and productivity take place in the context of work. Therefore, that is where the most influential, innovative solutions to the demographic challenge of the workforce for retaining innovative capability and productivity should be expected too. Many employers have made a great start already – but many more still remain ignorant.

Bibliography AARP (2007) Profit from experience. Perspectives of employers, workers, and policy makers in the G7 Countries on the New Demographic Realities. A report prepared by Towers Perrin. AARP. http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/intl_older_worker.pdf. Accessed May 2011 ACE (2007) Framing new terrain: Older adults and higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Ageing and employment (2006) Identification of good practice to Increase job opportunities and maintain older workers in employment. Final report. Warwick Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick and Economix Research & Consulting, Munich. EC Boronowsky M (2008) The Demographic Change as an Opportunity -A Driver for ICT Innovation. A paper presented at the BALTIC IT&T 2008 FORUM: eBaltics. April 9-11, 2008, Riga, Latvia. http://www.ebaltics.com/forum2008/Presentations/Boronowsky.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Cedefop (2008) Future skill needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast. Synthesis report. Cedefop Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities Descy P (2006) Review of European and international statistics. In Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (ed) Promoting lifelong learning for older workers – an international overview. Publications Office, Luxembourg: 68-89 Dworschak B et al. (2006) Building workplaces in line with the ageing process. In Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (ed) Promoting lifelong learning for older workers – an international overview. Publications Office, Luxembourg: 208-223 Ellström PE (2004) Developmental learning – a condition for organisational learning. In Nyhan B, Kelleher M, Cressey P, Poell R (ed) Facing up to the learning organisation challenge: selected European writings: Vol 2. Publications Office, Luxembourg

264)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

European Commission (2010) Commission staff working document. Lisbon Strategy evaÂ� luation document. SEC(2010) 114 final. Brussels, February 2010 European Commission (2004) Employment in Europe 2004. Brussels: European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities EC (2008) Report on the progress on the implementation of the ‘Education & Training 2010’ work program “Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation”. 5723/ 08 EDUC29 SOC46. Council of the European Union, Brussels EC (2009) Notices from European Union Institutions and bodies, C 119/ 02. Official Journal of the European Union, May 28, 2009. Council of the European Union, Brussels EC (2011) Commission Staff Working Paper: Action Plan on Adult Learning: Achievements and results 2008-2010. EDUC40-SOC186-7169/ 11. Council of the European Union, Brussels EuroFound (2008) Working conditions of an ageing population. European Foundation for Improvement of Living Conditions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg Eurostat (2010a) Ageing in the European Union: where exactly? Author: Michael GOLL. Statistics in focus, 26/ 2010 Eurostat (2010b) Europe in figures. Eurostat yearbook 2010. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg Findsen B (2006) Social institutions as sites of learning for older adults. Differential opportunities. Journal of Transformative Education, vol 4, 1: 65-81 Gray L, McGregor J (2003) Human resource development and older workers: stereotypes in New Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol 41, 3: 338-353 Hall DT, Mirvis PH (1995) The new career contract: developing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol 47: 269-289 Harootyan R (1990) Older workers and technology. In J Habib, Nusberg C (ed) Rethinking working life options for older persons. Jerusalem: JDC-Brookdale Institute & Washington, D.C.: International Federation on Ageing: 165-180 Henning K, Borowski E (2008) On the Sustainability of Social Market Economy – The future has already begun… Presentation within the scope of the IMO-project, Vaals, September 24, 2009 Henseke G, Tivig T (2007) Demographic change and industry-specific innovation patterns in Germany. Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory no 72. University of Rostock, Institute of Economics, Germany Hulkari K, Paloniemi S (2008) The NOSTE-programme promoting lifelong learning for low-educated older workers in Finland. In Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (ed), 2008. Innovative learning measures for older workers. Cedefop Panorama-series. EUR-OP, Luxembourg: 50-63 Ilmarinen J (2006) Towards a Longer Worklife! Ageing and the quality of worklife in the European Union. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; Helsinki Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010 (2011) The Innovation Union’s performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation. The Maastricht Economic and social Research and Training center on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) with the contribution of DG JRC G3 of the European Commission Lipinska P, Schmid E, Tessaring M (2007) Zooming in on 2010. Reassessing vocational education and training. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg


Mayhew K, Rijkers B (2004) How to improve the human capital of older workers, or the sad tale of the magic bullet. Paper presented at the EC-OECD seminar on Human Capital and Labor Market Perfomance. December 8, 2004, Brussels Naegele G, Walker A (2006) A guide to good practice in age management. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin OECD (2006) Live longer, work longer. A thematic review. OECD, Paris OECD (2010) Science, technology and industry outlook 2010. OECD, Paris OECD (2011) Skills for innovation and research. Summary in English. http://www.oecd-ilibrarÂ�y. org/science-and-technology/skills-for-innovation-and-research_9789264097490-en. Accessed May 2011 Rix SE (2005) Rethinking the role of older workers: promoting older workers employment in Europe and Japan. AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC (Issue Brief No 77) Rocco TS, Stein D, Lee C (2003) An exploratory examination of the literature on age and HRD policy development. Human Resource Development Review, vol 2, 2: 155-180 Skirbekk V (2003) Age and individual productivity: A literature survey. MPIDR Working paper WP 2003-028. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock Strate ML, Torraco RJ (2005) Career Development and Older Workers: Study Evaluating Adaptability in Older Workers Using Hall’s Model. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (AHRD), Estes Park, CO, February 24-27 (2005): 205-212 Stuart M, Perrett R (2006) Learning in a restructured industrial environment: older workers ‛displaced’ from the British steel sector. In: Cedefop; Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (ed). Promoting lifelong learning for older workers – an international overview. Publications Office, Luxembourg: 224-239 Taylor P (2006) Employment initiatives for an ageing workforce in the EU15. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin Tikkanen T (2008) The learning society as a greying society: Perspectives to older workers and lifelong learning. In: Cedefop (ed) Modernising vocational education and training. Fourth report on vocational training research in Europe: background report (vol 2). PubliÂ�cation Office, Luxembourg: 195-228 Tikkanen T (2011) Editorial: From managing a problem to capitalizing on talent and experience of older workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol.Â€22, 6: 1215-1218 Tikkanen T, Lahn L, Withnall A, Ward P, Lyng K (2002) Working life changes and training of older workers. Final report. TSER/ FW4, DGXII/ EU. VOX & European Commission, Trondheim Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (2006) Introduction: promoting age-friendly work and learning policies. In Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (ed) Promoting lifelong learning for older workers. An international overview. Cedefop Reference Series 65. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg: 9-16 Tikkanen T, Nyhan B (ed) (2008) Innovative learning measures for older workers. Cedefop Panorama-series. EUR-OP, Luxembourg TurbÃ©-Suetens N, Kouloumdijan MF (2008) Active ageing workforce in virtual environment – Methodology and innovation. White paper. eSangathan-project. IST/ FP6/ European Commission UN (2010) World Population Ageing 2009. New York: United Nations VOX-Barometer (2006) Grunnleggende ferdigheter i den norske voksenbefolkningen. VOX, Oslo [in Norwegian]

266)>>

Tarja Tikkanen

Walker A (1997) Combating age barriers in employment: European research report. Eurofound. Publications Office, Luxembourg Walker A (1999) Managing an ageing workforce – A guide to good practice. The European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin Walther R (2002) From Continuing Vocational Training to “Life-long Learning” in France and European Union. A paper presented at The Second International Forum on Education Reform : Key Factors in Effective Implementation, World Education Reform International Conference Series, September 2-5, 2002, Bangkok, Thailand Warr P (1998) Age, competence and learning at work. In Kilbom Å (ed.). Ageing of workforce. National Institute for Working Life, Solna Willy C (2011) Ageing Europe in Global Context: Decadence or World Trend. Bertelsmann Foundation. http://futurechallenges.org. Accessed January 2011 Zaidi A (2008) Features and challenges of population ageing: The European perspective. The European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Policy Brief, March 1, 2008

Commentary on the Main Article “Innovative Capability and Productivity: What has Demographic Change to do with it?”

Do Demographic Changes also Affect Our Views of Work? Edith Perlebach

1)>>Introduction Are fears justified that aging workforces brought about by the change in demographic structure could lead to a loss of innovative capability? Can such a development be countered by opportunities for Lifelong Learning? Do opportunities for continuing education and training within the working process increase the chances of being able to realize innovative capability among aging workforces as well? Tarja Tikkanen examines these questions and shows that, despite numerous Â�studies, the value of experiences and knowledge gained do not provide any satisfactory answers to these questions.

2)>> Work and Retirement The view that companies located in America and Europe will be faced with increased challenges to their remaining innovative and productive due to demographic changes confirms the prevalent economic and political perspectives. The arguments are plausible and easy to follow, as they relate to the physical and psychological changes incurred within the biological process of aging. They justify the consensus which has existed for decades between companies and employees that their paths should separate at the appropriate time – or at an earlier date – so as to take pressure off companies (cf. Brussig 2010). These meant employees could still look forward to some good years ahead in retirement. Retirement no longer meant the end of one’s life, but developed into a sought-after phase of life in its own right, which could be shaped creatively as a distinct stage in life.


268)>>

Edith Perlebach

2.1 )>> Retirement as a Phase of Life in Its Own Right Discovered by business as a distinct Silver Ager consumer group, the typical retiree is interested in sporting activities, opportunities for travelling and being a tourist or becomes a garden designer, recreational gourmet chef etc. The existing demand for products specifically developed to cater for these needs is revealed in good sales figures. There is no doubt that this (newly?) discovered joy of living and experiencing sensations which retirement brings is accompanied by a high potential level of learning and innovative capabilities. If the retiree has such capabilities, why should mature employees not exercise them as well (cf. Bergmann et al. 2006)? What options are offered by the freedom to develop oneself in this phase of life which could not be offered in the working process does not also offer? If businesses are really interested in re-thinking the operating framework of the working process in view of aging workforces, then crucial approaches for shaping working conditions and conditions of employment can be derived from comparing the scopes for creativity provided. 2.2 )>> Work and Lifelong Learning Creativity and innovative capability are both retained throughout the aging process in anyone’s life, provided their development is supported and promoted through an accompanying Lifelong Learning (LLL) process. If working conditions are formed in such a way that they combine these opportunities for learning and working, they will be accessed and used and are effective. Tarja Tikkanen can demonstrate this from her analysis of studies. 2.2.1 Opportunities for Continuing Education and Training The opportunities for continuing education and training are almost too numerous to mention. The starting point is obviously that the person will acquire a qualification corresponding to the intentions of the business and by implication that opportunities for continuing education and training are determined by the needs of the business. Commercial processes are, however, responses to a – global – market and are subject to the constant balancing act between supply and demand. Human resource planning, as is proven by labor market data, is subordinate to these economic processes. Gaps are consciously provided for, with short-term needs being met by hiring temporary agency workers. Opportunities to undergo training within companies frequently fulfill the legitimate purpose of selecting the best from a surplus of qualified applicants. 2.2.2 Continuing Education and Training at Work Even a positive development in the labor market is distinguished by a constantly changing number of temporary working relationships, short-term and flexibly designed working contracts, part-time instead of full-time posts and a constant reduction in occupational relationships subject to compulsory social security pay-

Do Demographic Changes also Affect Our Views ofÂ€Work?)>>269

ments. In the ICT working environment, an automatization of working processes is accompanied by a reduction in personnel posts. The working tasks which remain are monotonous, resulting from supervising the automatized working processes or compelling the employee themselves to undertake automatized working activities, which are to be completed every second. In view of this development, the question can justifiably be asked as to which preconditions must be fulfilled to promote learning effectively? This in turn leads to the next question: How should work be created if it is to retain the potential of innovative capability?

3)>> Waiting or Acting The social market economy in Germany will lose its influence on the shaping of work as a global market, that promotes sales independently of the social system, determines how businesses act. It would be possible to wait for the regulation of the global market also to lead to a new consensus between the requirements of companies and what employees envisage. The demographic trend with the Baby Boomer Generation, however, requires rapid action from a social perspective and – if one is well acquainted with the predictions as to the effects on the social security system and the demands arising from these on the pensions and health system – without any further delay (cf. Statistisches Bundesamt 2011). The largest available cohort of economically active people in Germany has already crossed the magic age threshold of 45 years of age: the aging workforces are now facts and no longer just predictions. The future prosperity of the population of Germany is crucially dependent on continuing to retain this cohort of economically active people within the working process, and for longer than the preceding generation (cf. Hurrelmann et al. 2011). For this reason, expectations should not only be directed at the willingness of employees to making their contribution towards supporting innovative capability. Expectations are likewise to be directed towards business to act in innovative ways to ensure work in the future (cf. Dolfen 2010). Business participates in the functioning German social system and must correspondingly assume a part of the responsibility for ensuring the stability of this system.

4 )>>Summary Aging workforces will not lead to an impairment of the innovative capability of business if the course is set in time for shaping working methods which promote learning as the condition to ensure flexibility, creativity and innovation. A change in perspective is, however, required for this to happen. Calling for employees to become involved is not sufficient, but, rather, to ensure that they remain mentally fit and alert through lifelong learning, scopes for creativity must also be created on the part of businesses in terms of the opportunities on offer, which support this development.

270)>>

Edith Perlebach

5 )>>Research Requirement Which conditions should working conditions which promote learning fulfill, while taking into account the economic situation? Which conditions should continuing education and training fulfill to meet the demands of an economically active person for a training qualification? Which criteria should be used to integrate continuing education and training into the human resource requirement planning of companies?

Bibliography Bergmann B, Prescher C, Eisfeldt D (2006) Alterstrends der Innovationstätigkeit bei Erwerbstätigen. Arbeit, vol 15, 1:18-28 Brenke K (2010) Fachkräftemangel kurzfristig noch nicht in Sicht. Weekly report by DIW Berlin 46: 2-15 Brussig M (2010) Künftig mehr Zugänge in Altersrenten absehbar. Altersübergangsreport, February 2010 Dolfen P (2010) Altersgerecht arbeiten. Personal 11: 30-33 Hurrelmann K, Rathmann K, Richter M (2011) Health inequalities and welfare state regimes. A research note. Journal of Public Health 19: 3-13 Pötzsch O (2011) Entwicklung der Privathaushalte bis 2030: Ende des ansteigenden Trends. Auszug aus Wirtschaft und Statistik, Statistisches Bundesamt (ed), Wiesbaden Statistisches Bundesamt (2011) Demografischer Wandel in Deutschland: Bevölkerungs- und Haushaltsentwicklung in Bund und in den Ländern. Issue 1, edition 2011

Encouraging Innovations in Research and Practice: The Labor Process and Innovation

Frank Emspak

Abstract Advanced capitalist societies face a huge challenge. In order to maintain their standard of living they must find ways to increase productivity or reduce costs, in a manner that does not undermine living standards. The best way to increase productivity and thus the potential increase in wealth is via a process of continuous innovation. This essay suggests that the most efficient way to continually innovate is to involve labor – that is those involved in the production and distribution of goods (both intellectual or physical) as well as those who service the society. This essay details the necessary conditions to maintain a system of continuous innovation. Many of the ideas require additional research, including case studies of specific innovative enterprises, detailed investigation of the education needed to sustain innovation and the effect of capital mobility on innovation.

1)>> The Labor Process and Innovation 1.1)>> Innovation and Work Process This essay focuses on the relationship between innovation and the process of work. In our usage of the term work, we mean traditional manufacturing, but also distribution and service, including professional occupations such as teaching and nursing. The labor process is a basis of innovation. It is not the only basis. Theoretical and applied research are also contributing, and sometimes decisive factors. More precisely, sustaining innovation over a long period seems to require a combination of learning from the process of production, applied research and basic research. However, even working in harmony they may not be sufficient to sustain innovation. There must also be a culture that fosters innovation. That culture must include a reward mechanism that compensates for innovation. That reward system need not be monetary, but innovation will not become part of the culture if the results of innovation are negative for the innovators.


272)>>

Frank Emspak

1.2)>> Definition of Innovation In our discussion of innovation, we are defining it as changes in the productive or organizational structure that lead to a socially positive result. Examples of socially positive results are increased productivity, or reduction in pollutants and climatewarming gases as consequences of innovative production techniques. Socially positive results could also include reductions in workplace injuries or accidents or increasing skill at all levels of the production process. Innovation itself will not necessarily lead to amelioration of social evils such as unemployment, reduction in the standards of living of sections of the population, or an increasingly contingent workforce. This is because the division of wealth that can flow from innovation is a social question, not a technical one. The society could be structured in such a way as to encourage the private appropriation of wealth as a primary goal, with division or re-appropriating of the wealth produced by innovation as a secondary issue mediated by a desire to maintain public order. To put it another way, increasing disparities of wealth suggest that the fruits of innovation or productivity are being appropriated in ways that may, in the end, inhibit innovation. 1.3)>> Observing the Interaction between the Labor Process and Innovation: Methodological Issues Methodological issues: How can one measure the relationship between the labor process and innovation? What parameters are available or measurable? There are two methods in widespread use that allow one to gauge the impact of the labor on innovation. These two methods are the participant observer process and the case study method. The observations that I make regarding innovation and the labor process are drawn from long experience as a participant in various industrial and service-sector redesign projects. Case studies derived from these projects were published in a variety of journals over a period from 1986 to 2000. A variety of these case studies were published continuously as part of the work of the Social Effects of Automaton Committee of the International Federation of Automatic Control. More recently, I observed successes and impediments to organizational innovation in my role as a trainer and facilitator as complex organizations tried to deal with rapid changes in their work environment.

2)>> Labor’s Dual Role in the Process of Innovation 2.1)>> Definition of Labor We define labor as all those within a production or service entity who are engaging in the production of goods or the delivery of a service. We exclude from this definition senior decision-makers and owners. However, we recognize that both labor and senior decision makers must be engaged together in order to create an organization with a sustainable process of innovation. If for no other reason, the work process

Encouraging Innovations in Research and Practice: The Labor Process and Innovation)>>273

includes or requires the manipulation of capital goods; machinery, information systems, etc., and these must come from somewhere. 2.2)>> Dual Role of Labor Labor is crucial to the innovative process because of the dual role that labor (workers) plays in production and consumption. On the one hand, labor at all levels is engaged in the act of producing something, so that each individual can see or experience problems with specific parts of the process. Secondly, each individual is also a consumer, especially of services, and thus can experience the results of poor process or poor quality manufacturing.

3)>> Production Methods and Innovation 3.1)>> Production Methods-Mass Production At this point in the development of technology and the attendant innovative process there is no need to recapitulate a discussion of the division of labor or Fordism as a productive system. (cf. Noble 1977; Kanigel 1977) It was a highly productive system designed to fulfill a demand for huge quantities of similar or identical parts or the assembly of practically identical equipment. A picture of what a Taylorized mass production office looked like can be seen in the film, The Apartment with its scene of the insurance company office. The scene captures the white collar world of Fordism.1 3.2)>> Integrated Production and Division of Labor However, even though mass production was a seemingly dominant production model, buried within that system, a majority of firms engaged in manufacturing on a smaller scale, using a mixture of division of labor and a more fully integrated production system. In the United States the myriad machine shops, tool and die facilities, supply houses that abounded in any major factory town are examples of this type of production, and its integration into the mass production system. 3.3)>> Humans as Conscious Beings in the Manufacturing Process Humans are conscious beings. Human beings engaged in service delivery or production means that there are conscious beings available to suggest ideas and methodsÂ� to improve the system. As conscious beings, they observe the work place and as participants in the work process, come to conclusions as to how to make it better. Depending on the reward system and social structure, the improvements may be )>> Cf. The Apartment, produced by Billy Wilder 1960

1

274)>>

Frank Emspak

limited to making it better for them personally. Sometimes, however, participants suggest improvements to management so that productivity improvements benefit the firm, and if the firm shares the increased wealth broadly, the society may benefit. But at the beginning it is the presence of a human being with the ability and confidence to observe, learn and propose that is a basis for the incremental (and sometimes) non-incremental increases in productivity. In other words, the social milieu of the workplace enables or can stifle innovation. Various work methods initially implemented by the Japanese sought to capture these innovations by the firm. The most famous American practitioner of the new manufacturing and reward systems was W. Edwards Deming. However, both the Japanese variants and the Deming principals depended on the existence of a workforce actually performing work and being conscious of their surroundings. 3.4)>> The Piecework Manufacturing System and Innovation Piecework was one social milieu and reward system that encouraged continuous innovation. Although piecework is associated with manufacturing, many clerical jobs were structured the same way. Clerical jobs or telephone operator functions were designed on the Taylor principal of division of labor, but not necessarily rewarded financially by increased levels of production. Workers in a piecework system developed productivity improvements for themselves, if for no other reason than to have more time to themselves. Piecework in industry, although now out of favor, does offer one model of sustained innovation. In a piecework system, time is of the essence, and so individuals employed their ingenuity to accomplish the productive task in the least time. The system encouraged all participants to find ways to innovate and beat the system. The individual process improvements were small, but overall they amounted to a great deal. The same type of mechanisms exist in any service industry, especially those with high volume customer interactions. However, the social system in which piecework was embedded inhibited sharing the productivity gains with the employer or with the public as a consumer. Up to a certain point, the primary motives were time off and a maximization of income, both of which could be threatened by becoming too productive or sharing too much information with management, who naturally would react by altering the pay and/ or altering the productive system to incorporate the improvements. 3.5)>> Worker Autonomy and Innovation In the mid 1970’s, efforts to regulate the autonomy of workers made a quantum leap with the introduction of various computer-aided equipment. These systems enabled management to effectively pace work and track the performance of individuals with increasing sophistication and accuracy. However, as the scope of decision-making for any worker on any particular job is reduced, so is the likelihood or capability of that worker to innovate. As a consequence regimentation and the development of a built in Taylorism can in fact yield a system where the worker cannot innovate


because decisions that he or she makes will have no impact on their work environment. 3.6)>> New Production and Monitoring System and Innovation New innovations in supply, changes in the tax codes, and other external forces encouraged firms to reduce inventory. Since many piecework systems produce a large amount of a single batch, reducing inventory as a means of reducing the tax burden and substituting the production of fewer items slowly but surely eliminated piecework as a production system. After 1985, the decreasing cost and increasing sophistication of computer-aided production equipment (e.g. the desktop computer and mouse-driven interface for example), accelerated the pace of management incorporation of computer-driven equipment in the workplace and thus management’s ability to regulate the workplace. These technological developments also accelerated the diminution of the scope of work in many instances. As the scope of the worker’s decision-making possibilities declined, so did their innovative capability. The innovative capability decreased because the worker had less ability to affect the work in comparison to the effort involved or the rewards received. There is a tradeoff between the scope of work and the field of play for innovation and a narrow, more controlled scope of work and thus less possibility for innovation. The trade-off between potentials of innovation and production or efficiency continues today. Recognizing this trade-off and its negative consequences, management theory and practice has again evolved and, in some places, workers are provided with a wider scope of authority and the scope of the job, thus at least in theory, allowing for a wider field of innovation. A long series of joint union-management experiments in work organization took place between 1970 and 2000, in many cases directed at recomposing the division of labor and utilizing computer-aided systems to do it.

4)>> Tacit Knowledge: Contributor to the Innovation Process 4.1)>> The Concept of Tacit Knowledge Innovation can occur and be sustainable at the workplace because workers possess tacit knowledge. Others outside the production system or service delivery system possess theoretical or derived knowledge. While in theory it is possible for those outside the production process to study the system and suggest improvements, it requires a huge investment of time and energy, which could be better used by simply engaging those directly involved in the process. Innovation from the outside also requires that 100% of the knowledge of the production process and its actual operations are available to the outside observer. Even with the most sophisticated real- time observation and monitoring systems, subtle events may be passed over or

276)>>

Frank Emspak

go unobserved. Such detailed and real time monitoring is also a tremendously costly endeavor even if it could be successful. Tacit knowledge is the concept that workers in the workplace (office, hospital, transportation system) possess a huge store of knowledge about the work process. This knowledge is learned on the job and is difficult to transfer. It is different from skill, although skill makes up a portion of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is the sum total of all knowledge that a worker possess about the job, including the skills needed to perform it. It is a theoretical opposite of the division of labor or Taylorism, which presupposes that the entire scope of the work can be defined and then measured. Thus from both a moral and cost effectiveness point of view, the importance of labor in the process of innovation derives from the tacit knowledge of the workforce, which if combined with more theoretical knowledge, could result in ongoing innovation. 4.2)>> Innovation: a Bottom-up Process If one accepts the concepts of tacit knowledge and a conscious workforce, then inevitably we reach the conclusion that innovation cannot be a top down affair. Many of those who have studied the history of science, especially the development of productive capacity in Greek and Roman societies noted that the researches were usually disconnected from the actual work of the society. The hierarchical nature of these societies, especially the Roman dependence on slavery within Italy, meant that labor power and laborsaving innovations aimed at increasing productivity were not an issue. One result is that we do not see applications or the widespread use of the water wheel or windmills until the so-called dark ages. As labor or labor power produces wealth, any reduction in the amount of labor power required to produce that wealth means that more wealth can be produced within a given time. Since it is more effective to solve a problem when all the complex variables can be taken into consideration, something that can only happen in complex systems with the participation of the workers involved, the importance of labor in the innovation process is clear. Labor participation is important because it is the most effective way to increase the wealth of the society.

5)>> Sustaining Innovation 5.1)>> Societal Structures Needed to Sustain Innovation What are the societal structures that make meaningful labor participation in the innovation process possible and sustainable? To recognize that labor is important is not the same thing as building political, economic and legal structures that enable meaningful participation from labor. The challenge is to engage all levels of the enterprise and motivate the intellectual abilities of the labor force at all levels. However, even if the enterprise is successful in


engaging its workforce at all levels, the outcomes may be overshadowed, or rendered irrelevant by other factors external to the individual enterprise. For example, the enterprise may move to another country, or the enterprise may be closed due to insufficient return on capital. Thus, sustaining innovation requires an approach at the level of the individual; the firm, and the nation. Sustaining innovation and distributing its fruits is a societal issue, and needs to be addressed at many levels simultaneously. 5.2)>> Economic and Social Policy There is a fundamental question of economic and social policy that underlies the process of innovation and the increased production of wealth, when it comes to advanced capitalist societies. And that question is, how is wealth produced and what types of industries or economic sectors produce it? Should manufacturing be the prime source of wealth or should manufacturing and its attendant support structures and service sector industries be allowed to or encouraged to move to a place where there is less expensive labor, with the assumption that lost manufacturing wealthproducing jobs will be replaced by other wealth production of equal or greater value. Sustaining innovation via a method of including the productive work force also requires that the view of the workforce shifts. The workforce must be viewed as an entity that adds value, not just a cost. If labor is viewed simply as a cost, then the weight of the enterprise and management will probably be focused on how to reduce that cost. 5.3)>> Workers as Innovators A basic challenge faced by management or those professionals supportive of innovation is to view labor – meaning the individual workers – as people who have the innovative capability and think, and not just relegate their participation to the improving the processes of implementation. Of course, viewing others who are in occupations requiring less formal education, skill or pay as equals is a very difficult task. Experience suggests that it cannot be done when dealt with as a moral construct. Instead, some sort of structured decision-making which requires equality and offers protection to all participants is a necessary condition to enable a greater appreciation and understanding between those who possess tacit knowledge and those who possess theoretical knowledge. One practical way to move towards equality of decision-making is to insist on methods that require consensus among the participants before a decision can be effectuated. Consensus is not the same as a vote, and if applied with vigor requires that the views of all must be respected in any thing is to be accomplished. Consensus decision-making requires mutual respect to succeed.

278)>>

Frank Emspak

6)>> Decision Making Models to Enhance or Impede Innovation 6.1)>> Consensus Decision Making The current financial, political and organizational structures of private and most public organizations are weighted against consensus decision-making on any but the most mundane matters. This is particularly true in the private sector. Firms are owned by individuals or corporations who as a matter of right have the authority and ability to make decisions without regard to non-owners but who in any case are very unlikely to surrender decision-making authority in the most strategic areas of the business, including the organization of production or the provision of services. There are some major exceptions and various efforts at co-determination, especially in Germany and the Nordic counties, that have sought to increase the participation of the workforce. In the United States as well, the International Association of Machinists still supports the concept of a high-performance workplace, a fundamental part of which is some sort of meaningful worker participation in decision-making. There are also a number of experiments in many communities which seek to involve community leaders, businesses, unions and community activists in efforts to change the way the community functions. Many of these projects revolve around the development of meaningful jobs (cf. Dean and Reynolds 2009). 6.2)>> The Structure of Decision-Making Authority The intellectual aspects of innovation will not be sustainable unless there is some practical application of ideas. At this point in the innovation process, ideas for change come up against decision-making authority. Individuals or groups will simply not participate in any long-term way if their ideas for change are ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because someone has the authority to do so. Given the nature of many public bureaucracies as well as the legal structure of private enterprise-specific distinct, definable and enforceable actions must be taken to alter the decision-making process if innovation involving the workforce is to have any practical application. Altering decision-making authority can be accomplished at many levels without necessarily compromising the existence of the firm or society. However, it usually means some transition wherein the power relations change and become more equitable. Innovation cannot be sustained on the basis of suggestions; it can only be sustained on the basis of shared decision-making. Why is this? People will not devote serious intellectual energy, physical time and emotional energy on a long-term basis to a system of suggestions, especially when it comes to serious questions like the structure of work, increasing productivity, health and safety or the direction of an enterprise. Perhaps the easiest way to envision the problem is to look at political structures based on either dictatorship or monarchy. In many of these societies, there were


conscientious groups of people attempting to innovate, but if the ruling authorities said No, then nothing happened. These societies atrophied. In the last century, this process was particularly obvious as stagnation in some states corresponded with huge changes in the technological base of our societies. But it is no less of a problem within many contemporary corporations, public enterprises or centers of learning. A practical application of a more equitable decision-making process can be achieved if the organization starts out with a set of criteria, by which the efficacy of innovation might be judged. In an enterprise, mutually agreeable criteria to encourage innovation might be that new systems will reduce pollution, increase skill, reduce unit costs, maintain employment and thus have a positive effect on the overall profitability of the entity. While most leaders will agree with this list, ordering this list in priority is another question. If each of these criteria is judged to be of equal value and the parties in some entity agree with this equal ordering, then a shift in decision making has occurred.

7)>> Initiatives to Stimulate Innovation 7.1)>> Education or Training? Specific initiatives such as training and education can be taken at a societal and enterprise level to stimulate innovation and keep it sustainable. We use the term education advisedly. Often when one speaks of workers, even professional levels (nurses, for example), we speak of training. In English, the words education and training have differing meanings and implications. Training is a more narrow concept, implying that people will be taught specific skills and specific ways to respond in reasonably identical circumstances. Education implies a development of the intellect so that individuals will have the confidence and skills to analyze their surroundings and make decisions based on a combination of observation and knowledge. Paulo Freire developed a pedagogy designed to encourage thinking and analysis on the part of those who have not had access to long years of formal education. For a process that yields innovation to sustain itself over a long period, the participants must be able to reflect, reconsider, rethink and thus arrive at new conclusions. Such a process goes well beyond the concept of training and involves time and a commitment. The organization must be committed enough to fostering innovation so that the participants have the time needed to discuss and reflect. 7.2)>> Provision of Capital at the Source of Innovation Education and a more equitable decision-making process are necessary conditions to foster innovation. However, they are not sufficient. That is because factors outside of an enterprise have a great effect on what goes on within the enterprise. One

280)>>

Frank Emspak

factor is the availability of capital dedicated to the implementation of innovations at their point of origin. This issue can be examined from two points of view. The first, will the innovation be applied where it was conceived or be moved geographically to another location. Common sense would suggest that if innovations are moved elsewhere, especially if the innovators gain nothing from this transfer, that innovation would not be sustainable. The second aspect is a policy and budget issue, which can be addressed. Provision of capital for innovation forms the basis for many current public programs aimed at increasing productivity. One way or the other through loans, tax code changes, or direct grants, funds can be made available for innovation implementation. In the United States, various economic development programs, especially the current emphasis of green production/ green jobs is an example of applying funds from the federal government to innovative ideas and processes at the point of origin. In other words, mechanisms already exist to supply capital. The question of whether it will be made available and on what terms is a political one, not a question with overwhelming technical problems. 7.3)>> Sustainable Innovation and Employment To sustain innovation it is particularly important to have agreements structured in such a way as to reward the innovators. By agreements, we mean clear and enforceable standards must be in place. In most advanced societies, a framework for innovation is established using a combination of tax incentives, public subsidies and/ or trade agreements; the innovation climate is part and parcel of public policy. If the innovation process has as its objectives the increase in productivity and the concomitant reduction of the workforce, the positive relationship between innovation and employment must be clear, and grounded in reality. Long-term structural joblessness has been a factor in advanced capitalist societies for almost a generation. Even in societies that had relatively low joblessness until the current 2008-2010 downturn, high levels of joblessness persisted in many regions, or among various racial and ethnic groups. Often the joblessness was masked via the mechanism of job substitution. Workers in higher paying manufacturing jobs found work in lower paying service sector jobs. One consequence of this development was that in the United States, wages have stagnated since the 1970’s. Meanwhile, costs have increased, especially for health care. Joblessness is not the same as unemployment, a figure measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United States. Joblessness is a broader category including those who have worked and are currently unemployed, those who wish to work and have never held a full-time job, those who have only temporary attachment to the formal economy, and those who are in the increasingly large informal economy in the U.S., but who would like to work in the formal economy. As of May 2010, when joblessness is defined in this fashion, the 10% unemployment approaches 18% or greater in many communities.


8)>> Putting the Pieces Together: Productivity, Employment and Capital 8.1)>> Productivity, Employment and Capital Mobility What does all this have to do with innovation? Innovation, productivity, employment and capital mobility are inextricably linked. Understanding those linkages and determining how best to respond to them in a context of encouraging innovation is the challenge. For if innovation, especially types of innovation that increase productivity and reduce labor costs, is perceived as the basis for the current decline in living standards in the United States, a constituency opposed to innovation at almost any level will develop and find political voice, thus undercutting needed changes. For example, opposition to the climate legislation is most often grounded in the public arena by a fear of job loss, based on the observation that polluting industries have been closed and moved offshore. 8.2)>> De-linking Productivity from Wages One of the most important aspects of the recent developments in the U.S. economy is the de-linking of productivity increases from wages. Numerous economists have noted that productivity in the U.S. has increased each year since 1970. Prior to 1970, wages also increased with productivity. After the mid-1970’s, wages no longer increased with productivity. The result is that the fruits of innovations that stimulated the productivity increases were not shared by the society as a whole. The macroeconomic indicators that demonstrate this development are measurements of income disparity. Currently in the U.S. the disparity in wealth and income distribution is at its greatest level since the 19th century and far greater than any other industrialized country. Under these circumstances, meaningful participation of the workforce in any long-term innovative activity would seem remote. And in fact the myriad joint labor management projects that existed in the 1990’s and even up until 2005 have, for the most part been abandoned. Thus, an important source of innovative potential is no longer in operation in the U.S. To support a sustainable innovation society, the society needs systems in place that foster some sense of security. To put it another way, employment guarantees must be in place for any continuous innovating process to be successful. If the personal risk is too great why innovate? The threat of a failure of the broader society, or even the firm, is not enough to motivate individuals since the default position is that failure may happen anyway and innovative success may also result in job loss. 8.3)>> Technological and Process Factors that Inhibit Workplace/ Labor – Driven Innovation In the United States, other factors have intervened to build an alternative model to workplace innovation centered at the American workplace. The game-changing

282)>>

Frank Emspak

introduction of the Internet, coupled with the rapid fall in the cost of international transportation, and combined with new laws favoring the off-shoring of production, have encouraged another type of production model. This model essentially moves the production off shore. The offshore operation often incorporates innovations that have been implemented right up to the moment the functions are moved offshore. The new production system often combines new sophisticated production equipment and a low- paid workforce. Innovation thus becomes almost irrelevant, unless the enterprise cannot move. If it does move, then the connection between on-site engineering and innovation is broken, potentially depriving management of important information. The solution, from a U.S. perspective, is to see a gradual shift of design and engineering to other countries, especially China. 8.4)>> Capital Mobility and Innovation Meaningful involvement by the workforce in fostering innovation requires that current views of short-term profit maximization must be questioned. Why? Because often, the most profitable way to capitalize on product and process innovation is to implement those innovations in low-wage locations, especially if there is an availability of relatively skilled labor and governmental support. BMW characterizes their U.S. manufacturing locations this way. A reciprocal relationship between investment and innovation must be in place for meaningful labor involvement to occur. Limitations on capital mobility are required to nurture this reciprocal relationship. The actual form of these limitations – taxes, laws against exporting capital – are not the issue here. Since profit maximization, defined as increased shareholder value, is the current measurement of success, only a change in that basic measurement system will yield the type of behavior that will encourage innovation. 8.5)>> Capital Investment A sustainable process of innovation, from a national and workplace-centered perspective, has a direct correlation with the provision of capital investment at the point of innovation. Earlier, we noted that this investment was necessary at the location of innovation. If trade policies such as the existing North American Free Trade Agreements make it easy for capital to move to the point of low-cost production and innovation, then the net effect will be loss of innovative capability and economic stagnation for the country exporting its industrial capability. While many have argued that trade policies have resulted in job creation, there is also a countervailing view. Increasing numbers of economists are researching the question, does free trade as currently practiced in the U.S. result in a net increase in employment? And if so, what kind of jobs are increasing in the U.S. economy? No credible research indicates that there is anything close to a one-to-one relationship between eliminating industrial production and its replacement by a consulting, advising, or financial services workforce (cf. Fletcher 2010).


This essay emphasizes the importance of the workforce in the innovative process and suggests specific organizational, education and policy issues that need to be addressed to maintain and encourage a sustainable system of innovations involving the workforce.

9)>> Areas of Research 9.1)>> Innovation and Proximate Production Can innovation be maintained if actual production is done remotely? In other words, can a knowledge and service-based economy generate innovations that increase productively, and thus potentially increase the wealth of the society? Is the combination of tacit knowledge and theoretical knowledge a basis for continuing innovation? Example: The printed circuit board insertion machines were developed from the old clicker shoe machine when workers and engineers observed that the key to printed circuit board manufacture was precise insertion of transistors and the clicker as a leather-cutting machine had to precisely locate the dies over the leather. We have suggested that the answer to this question is No because of the centrality of the labor to the innovative process both from a practical, financial and political point of view. But more detailed research is needed to explore this question. 9.2)>> Capital Mobility and Innovation Is unlimited capital mobility, especially tax and investment legislation that encourages the export of manufacturing (and services), an aid or a detriment to innovation in the country that exports productive facilities? Would not such subsidized exports reduce a country’s ability to create wealth? Conversely, do European Commission rules limit the ability of any particular country to restrict capital mobility? All societies must regulate capital mobility. Currently regulation of capital mobility is an accomplished fact, but in whose interest? If our societies are to remain centers of innovation and change, then how should capital mobility be regulated to achieve that end? Can we measure the rate of innovation in process and process when the facility is co-located with senior decision makers? Is it possible to measure the percentage of new ideas or process innovation that is actually transferred from the point of innovation to the technical or managerial decision makers? If the percentage is relatively small, does that imply that the transfer of production from the wealthy to the poorer countries will accelerate?

284)>>

Frank Emspak

10â•‡Summary We have attempted to demonstrate that workers are essential to the process of innovation. We have also argued that their role is not simply one of implementing ideas from others, but a much more robust one. In addition, we have argued that innovation will occur most naturally when the processes are co-located with senior decision makers. If this is the case, it has significant long-term effects on decisions to invest in manufacturing in high cost locations, IF innovation will occur at equal or increased rates in lower cost countries. In general, this paper posits that innovation is not simply a technical problem, but one that is inextricably linked to issues such as decision-making, capital investment, mobility, and education. Innovation is a social activity with profound implications for countries that are able to encourage it.

Bibliography Dean A, Reynolds DB (2009) A New New Deal: How Regional Activism will Reshape the American Labor Movement. A Century Foundation Book. ILR Press, New York Fletcher I (2010) Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why? U.S. Business and Industry Council, Washington, D.C. Kanigel R (1997) The One Best Way – Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. Viking, New York Noble DF (1977) America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. Oxford University Press, USA

Fostering Innovative Capability in Germany – The Role of Interdisciplinary Research Networks Claudia Jooß, Florian Welter, Anja Richert and Sabina Jeschke

Abstract The promotion of innovative capability is a decisive factor in the strategic orientation of global economies. The role of interdisciplinary, scientific networks in this context is of growing importance. The successful organization of these networks demands an approach to knowledge management that meets the conditions of their dynamic and complex environment. Accordingly, the Cross Sectional Processes project, which is part of the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” at the RWTH Aachen University, is presented here as a case study of the research that is currently being carried out in this area. The relatively new task of managing interdisciplinary research networks makes a contribution that helps Germany along the path to the Enabling Innovation rating. On the basis of the Cross Sectional Processes case study, this article aims to describe a method of increasing innovative capability, which is rooted in interdisciplinary research networks.

1)>>Introduction Globalization, and the concomitant fact that primary factors of production such as work and capital are no longer available in high wage countries like Germany in sufficient quantity and under relatively cost-efficient conditions, means that even in emerging and developing countries, which are commonly characterized by low wages, innovation cycles are becoming faster and faster. This increases the pressure on European countries like Germany to maintain the advantage they have in various branches of knowledge. Germany can only maintain its technical and commercial opinion leadership and market leadership, if the continual production and mastery of new knowledge is guaranteed; because in this context, knowledge is the key resource and the decisive factor of production (cf. Drucker 1998). As this article addresses the innovative capability of interdisciplinary research networks, it is necessary to look at the influence of research policy on the production of new knowledge. Already in 1996 the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) named the negotiating the existing obstacles between the generation and the application of knowledge as one of the essential tasks of science policy (cf. Bundesbericht S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_30, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

290)>>

Claudia Jooß, Florian Welter, Anja Richert and Sabina Jeschke

Forschung 1996). According to the report, innovations are not produced in a linear sequence of research and development, but in recursive and parallel processes, in which dynamic interaction is of great importance (cf. ibid.). The fact that new knowledge increasingly arises at the intersection of different specialist disciplines is evidence of the inflexibility of the linear cascade model, according to which successful product and process innovations are produced by the sequence of basic research, applied research, and commercial research and development (R&D). However, this places extensive demands on the institutional framework conditions. An important approach taken by science policy is represented by research efforts with an interdisciplinary character, which are considered a vital prerequisite for the production of innovations. The successful organization of these networks requires an approach to knowledge management that meets the demands of complex and dynamic environmental conditions and institutional framework conditions. Chapter two takes an introductory look at the environmental conditions and the transformation of work in the knowledge society. The Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” of the RWTH Aachen University is considered here under the aspect of its organizational framework conditions and classified in terms of its innovation potential. The initial practical and research experiences of the case study will be presented (sections 2.1 and 2.2). Then, following a summary in chapter 3, the demand for future research on the management of interdisciplinary research networks is formulated in chapter 4. Finally, a consideration of future prospects presents some ideas and visions for the business location Germany, which emerge from the discussion (chapter 5).

2)>> Management of Learning and Knowledge in the “Dynax” Knowledge Society With the rising complexity and dynamism of our life and working environment, as well as the increasing interconnecting and accelerating rate of change affecting processes in the knowledge society, the question arises as to how effective and sustainable planning and action is possible under these difficult conditions. This so-called “dynaxity” (Tiltmann et al. 2006), or dynamism and complexity, evokes new challenges for the management of today’s systems (companies, organizations, institutions, networks etc.), demands from individuals to partake in ongoing processes of learning and change and transforms concepts of professional learning and knowledge management into an everyday necessity (cf. Rieckmann 2004). Though existing approaches to knowledge management are designed for handling dynamic conditions they are generally applied as a cross-sectional topic in specific areas (strategic management, human resources, project and information management, etc). The claim of the dynaxity approach to knowledge management is to build on the intersections of these areas and to achieve a holistic understanding through the

Fostering Innovative Capability in Germany)>>

291

simultaneous consideration of the recursive levels of personal, organizational and technological change. Against this background, both the practice and the theory of organizational forms such as knowledge work and knowledge management can be defined as a great challenge (cf. Willke 2001). Intelligent goods and organizations, i.e., those characterized by a high degree of integrated knowledge and expertise,1 influence the nature of work: Industrial work shaped by Taylorism is reduced to a residue of simple work, while knowledge work becomes a new leitmotiv of the work-world (cf. Willke 2001 qtd. Hinke 2007). To meet the demands of this dynax and holistic aspiration to understanding, it is necessary for so-called brain workers (cf. Henning et al. 2008) and organizations to be capable of internalizing skills like learning ability and innovative capability (cf. Willke 2004 qtd. Hinke 2007). 2.1)>> Organizational Processes of Learning and Knowledge in Knowledge Intensive Network Organizations, Taking as an Example the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” The overall goal of the Excellence Initiative, which was established by the states and the federal government in 2005,2 is to make Germany an even more attractive research location, to improve international competitiveness, to promote cooperation between German research institutions, and to draw attention to the outstanding achievements of German universities and the German scientific community (cf. Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz 2008). In accordance with its three funding lines, this interdisciplinary program incorporates so-called graduate schools, Clusters of Excellences and institutional strategies to promote top level research (excellence universities). In structural terms, Clusters of Excellences are designed as highly complex networks of scientific stakeholders, each of whom researches a specialist scientific subject area. They are therefore organized in a broad, interdisciplinary manner. Since 2006, the Cluster of Excellence presented here, “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” of the RWTH Aachen University, has been researching a production science theory which delivers an integrated approach to production in high-wage countries.3 The collaboration of nineteen professorial chairs, seven affiliated institutes and several industry partners reveals that this funding line represents an important initiative in interdisciplinary research. Because of their size )>> Willke describes the transformation into the knowledge society in terms of three main factors: 1. Knowledge becomes productive and then the dominant resource (cf. Willke 2004, qtd. Hinke 2007). 2. Traditional Taylorist organizations become knowledge-based intelligent organizations (cf. Willke 2001 qtd. ibid.). 3. Products and services are transformed to knowledge-based goods, characterized by a high degree of integrated knowledge and expertise (cf. Willke 2001 qtd. ibid.). 2 )>> The Excellence Initiative is divided into three funding lines: graduate schools, Clusters of Excellences and institutional strategies to promote top level research. 3 )>> Further information: http://www.production-research.de/de/projekt.html 1

292)>>


and complexity, Clusters of Excellences face different structural and organizational challenges than other research projects4. These will be described below. According to Sydow (cf. Sydow 2001), the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” of the RWTH Aachen University can be designated a “project network”. In the specialist literature, project networks are also characterized as knowledge intensive networks, because of their capacity for developing superior knowledge. The initiation of such networks can often be traced back to current political, economic or scientific requirements for research and development. They are therefore subject to relatively high expectations with regard to their innovative performance (cf. ibid.). However, they form an advantageous constellation for the production, transfer and utilization of knowledge and information (cf. Henning et al. 2003; Krücken and Meier 2003), because the balance of cooperation and competition among the stakeholders stimulates innovation and enables processes of mutual learning. Due to the merging of previously separated competences and disciplines – and the associated combination of scientific and technical knowledge at all levels of the project organization – innovations are more readily produced in interdisciplinary research networks than in other structures. It has been known for quite some time that consortiums which have no interdisciplinary orientation and only include partners from a limited range of disciplines – from the mechanical engineering department for example – have lower potential for essential product and process innovations than interdisciplinary consortiums. The latter are composed, for example, of experts from departments such as mechanical engineering, materials, business studies, and communication and organizational development, and as a total unit they build a good basis for meeting the requirements of a learning organization. Learning organizations are characterized by the fact that they solve problems as a composite structure, experiment with new approaches, learn from their own experience and from that of other organizations, and have an effective internal knowledge transfer system (cf. Garvin 1994, 74-85). When organizations learn, further characteristics are formed which result neither from the properties of individuals nor from the sum of the brain workers participating in the network and can therefore be described as synergies (cf. Prange 1996). A knowledge intensive organization like a Cluster of Excellence can thus also be referred to as a learning organization. According to Willke, the learning that takes place in learning organizations refers to processes, structures and the control system (cf. Willke 2004). Structural methods of controlling the processes of learning and knowledge, which are anchored in an organization control system, are no longer adequate to the requirements of knowledge intensive network organizations (cf. Sauer 2005). Because of their flat hierarchies and the high expectations placed on innovative capability, this type of organization requires new procedural models and instruments for managing effec)>> E.g. Collaborative Research Centers: “Collaborative Research Centers are institutions established at universities for a period of up to 12 years, which enable the collaboration of researchers within the framework of an outstanding research program, which crosses the boundaries of disciplines, institutes, departments and faculties” (cf. DFG 2010).

4


293

tive learning and knowledge processes. Here it is necessary to take into account the individual steps to the attainment of innovative capability, as they are described by North (1998) in his Wissenstreppe (Steps to Knowledge) (cf. FigureÂ€2.1). This model describes the process of acquiring knowledge, which is of special significance to learning organizations and their innovative capability.

Innovation

Competitiveness

Acting

+ Wanting

Knowledge

Data Characters

+ Application oriented

+ Networking + Semantics

+ Syntax

Hig Ex h S pli har cit e Kn of ow led g

Information

+ Correct Acting

e

Skill

Hi g Im h S pli ha cit re Kn of ow led ge

Competence + Uniqueness

Figure 2.1: Steps to knowledge according to North

In summary, it may be stated that the effectiveness and innovative capability of an organization or a knowledge intensive project network like the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” is lastingly determined by its ability to strategically anchor organizational learning and decisions about learning preferences. For this type of strategic anchoring, however, there is a lack of research and of suitable approaches to the management of networked processes of learning and knowledge under the conditions of dynaxity faced by knowledge intensive organizational forms. Project networks like the Clusters of Excellence thus place specific demands on learning and knowledge processes and require sophisticated concepts and methods, which meet the level of complexity involved. 2.2)>> An Approach to the Management of Knowledge Intensive Project Networks: Cross Sectional Processes The pressure of expectation on the highly complex research and innovation performance of knowledge intensive project networks, along with the tendency to develop management models for scientific and university institutions, implies the need for tailored management structures as a special form of organizational development which ensures the effective cooperation of heterogeneous stakeholders. In light of this, the Centre for Learning and Knowledge Management and the Chair of

294)>>


Information Management in Mechanical Engineering (ZLW/ IMA) at the RWTH Aachen University were assigned the task of coordinating learning and knowledge processes within the Cluster of Excellence, the so-called Cross Sectional Processes project. The tasks of Cross Sectional Processes are primarily concerned with interlinking the stakeholders and sub-projects of the interdisciplinary research network. Optimal development of the network is ensured by promoting networking in the fields of scientific cooperation, education and lifelong learning, equal opportunities and diversity management as well as knowledge and technology transfer. Individual measures are implemented on the different levels of scientific collaboration (knowledge organization, research organization, communication, knowledge output). On the levels of research and knowledge organization, for example, it is a question of measures which increase the transparency of the scientific process, while fostering mutual exchange and general satisfaction among the employees. This is achieved, i.e., through regular employee colloquia at the researcher level and strategic workshops at management level. A further task of Cross Sectional Processes is to create an operation framework for the management of the Clusters of Excellence, with which the performance of the Clusters of Excellence as a whole can be measured on a regular basis and from which adequate recommendations for action may be derived. Drawing on concepts of performance measurement (cf.Â€Kaplan and Norton 1997; Jansen 2004), an annual balanced scorecard based evaluation is an important tool for the cluster management, providing an overview of the status quo and the opportunity to counteract undesirable trends. To what extent this approach, which originates in the area of company controlling, must be adapted to research networks is in need of further examination. The coordination and regulation of the cross-sectional tasks requires concrete management practices in the sense of (recurring) actions by means of which structures are updated and reproduced (cf. Ortmann et al. 1997; Sauer 2005; Sydow 2001; Windeler 2002). With this in view, in the framework of the Cross Sectional Processes, practices and measures are further developed using an inductive-deductive approach over the entire lifetime of the project. In the process, the phases of application, examination and design alternate iteratively. In this way, measures which have been used before are adapted to the needs of a knowledge intensive organization like the Cluster of Excellence. As a result of the iterative procedure, scorecard-based performance measurement, following its initial cluster-wide implementation, was discussed and refined in a workshop with the management of the Clusters of Excellence. To be able to answer the question of whether an application model can be transferred to other similar knowledge intensive networks, all of the measures implemented by Cross Sectional Processes will be indirectly and directly evaluated and qualitatively recorded using the method of continual comparison (cf. Glaser and Strauss 2008) in the parallel research project ASPO (application model for the management of Cross Sectional Processes). In view of the continuation of the nationwide Excellence Initiative, the generation of an application model is very promising, since there is need for research into a scientific approach to han-


295

dling cross-sectional tasks. To highlight the significance of such cross-sectional tasks, at this point the current research efforts of another research project should be mentioned, International Monitoring (IMO)5. Figure 2.2 illustrates the scientific cross-sectional tasks in funding priorities identified by the research project as essential. Sustainability vs. Maximizing Short-Term Profit

Trends Tertiarization and Quartiarization Merging of Work and Learning Globalization of Value Chains Changed Work and Learning Biographies s Generation Homo Zappiens Acceleration of Technological Change

Responsible Use of Human Resources vs. Cost Pressure

Long-Term Strategies to Increase Innovative Ability vs. Pressure to Succeed

Enabling and Dissemination

Health and Prevention Management

Establishment of Innovation Cultures

Focussing on Social and Organizational Innovations

Use of Knowledge and Human Potential

Holistic Innovation Strategies Opening of Innovation

Method Integration and Target Group Adaptation

Cross-Sectional Cross-Sectional Research Tasks Research Tasks

Trends Competence and Knowledge Based Working Processes Growing Change Dynamics and Increasing Uncertainty

Cross-Linkage Augmentation of and Constitution of C Customer Orientation through Customer Alliances Innovation

Time for Learning Processes Need for Stability vs. vs. Flexibilization Pressure Time Pressure Operationalisation

and Continuous Competence Development Integrative Design of Work and Learning Environments vironments

Innovative Forms of Work Organization

Measurement

Demographic Development Decentralization and Networking

Management of Uncertainty Work-Life-Balance

Dilemmata Karte

Figure 2.2: Scientific cross-sectional tasks in funding priorities (IMO)

The results from IMO suggest once more that the cross-sectional tasks of crosslinkage and constitution of alliances, operationalization and measurement, method integration and target group adaption, and enabling and dissemination should be taken into consideration in the organization of future research priorities. These were also included in the already-presented and implemented measures of Cross Sectional Processes. Points of connection between the cross-sectional tasks identified in IMO and the measures implemented in Cross Sectional Processes are characterized above all by the networking of stakeholders and the integration of thematically heterogeneous methods. This leads to the conclusion that the cross-linking tasks )>> International Monitoring (IMO) is a project of the Centre for Learning and Knowledge Management and the Chair of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering (ZLW IMA) of the RWTH Aachen, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the European Social Funds for Germany (ESF). The IMO project observes and analyses the topic of innovative capability in the international context and thereby supports the thematic development of the BMBF research and development program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” (http://www.internationalmonitoring.com).

5

296)>>


recommended by IMO also contribute to effective networking and increasing the scientific output and innovative capability of interdisciplinary research networks when applied to the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries”. The initial results of the parallel research project ASPO indicate that particular cross-sectional measures are of special significance during the initiation stage of a highly complex research network. During this phase, it is especially important for the scientific cooperation to be guided, right from the outset, in such a way that the participants in the cluster are conscious of a cluster-specific, cooperative mode of working in the Cluster of Excellence. In order to advance the network early on to a phase of high scientific output6, cross-sectional measures such as employee colloquiums, strategy workshops or training programs have proved particularly effective in the initiation phase. Moreover, the importance of balanced scorecard based evaluations increases as knowledge intensive networks mature, because they permit regular measurement of the network performance and corrective interventions to be made when necessary. On the other hand, the relatively high employee turnover in the university environment (most scientific employees, doctoral students and/ or postdocs have fixed-term contracts), represents a challenge for crosssectional tasks. The initial findings of the parallel research project suggest that several characteristics, which according to Ahren’s model can be assigned to the individual network phases – initiation, stabilization and continuation, are prolonged over several phases (cf. Ahrens 2004). This is substantiated by the example of a high employee turnover during the initiation phase: The higher the employee turnover in a Cluster of Excellence, the more likely is it that characteristics of the initiation phase are prolonged into later phases of network development. It is therefore important to find a balance between flexibility and stability in the Clusters of Excellence. Whether, despite this dynamic, an orientation towards sequential models of organizational and network development is still possible must be examined in the context of the parallel research project.

3)>>Summary In a knowledge society characterized by the systematic acquisition and purposive utilization of knowledge, knowledge itself is a decisive factor of production and an important resource (cf. Buhl and Meier zu Köcker 2009). As interdisciplinary research networks are particularly well suited to the production, transfer and utilization of knowledge, they are considered a key element of innovation-oriented science policy (cf. Röbbecke 2004). Corresponding funding programs and measures can be seen as a necessary consequence of the criticism aimed at the pillarizationÂ� )>> Ahrens et al. (2004) divide the phases of network development into the initiation, stabilization and continuation phases.

6


297

of the research sector. Among other things, the nationwide Excellence Initiative, which entails the abandonment of the linear cascade model and progress towards a dynamic and complex process of interdisciplinary knowledge generation, creates an important institutional framework. At the same time, the high pressure of expectation on the highly complex research and innovation performance of interdisciplinary networks implies the need for management structures which ensure efficient cooperation between brain workers in these learning organizations (cf. Henning 2008). The objective of the Cross Sectional Processes project and the parallel research project ASPO is to interlink the scientific processes of a Cluster of Excellence and to generate a model that can be transferred to complex, densely interlinked scientific cluster projects and research networks of a similar type. The model is based on a triangulation of data produced by Cross Sectional Processes measures, including direct and indirect evaluations as well as guideline-oriented interviews. The initial findings highlight the fact that further research and action requirements will have to deal with the relatively high employee turnover in research networks, because this fluctuation can obstruct the flow of information. Moreover, because of this dynamic, it has become clear that the classification of the characteristics of networks into phases can no longer be maintained for interdisciplinary research networks like the Clusters of Excellence.

4)>> Future Research Requirements Like every research project, the case study described here, the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” of the RWTH Aachen University, is confronted with particular project-specific framework conditions (e.g. spatial and temporal conditions). A standardized project schedule would hardly be possible for interdisciplinary research networks. This means that an effective application model must be adapted to the respective contextual requirements of knowledge intensive organizations. An application model should accordingly make allowances for the special characteristics of the development and work of the entire network. Nevertheless, experience gained from evaluation projects and parallel research projects, in this case the Cross Sectional Processes project and the parallel research project ASPO, can deliver valuable insights regarding what demands are placed on knowledge intensive and interdisciplinary research projects like a Cluster of Excellence at particular stages of the network development (cf.Â€Schophaus et al. 2003). The fact that up to now there has been no comprehensive conception, based on scientifically grounded procedures, of the management of cross-sectional tasks in Clusters of Excellences underlines the requirement for further research. Projects like Cross Sectional Processes point up the necessity for dynamic models, which are capable of describing the network development of such Clusters of Excellences and of creating an operation framework for the development of a cluster management. The work presented here was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in the framework of the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production

298)>>


Technology for High-Wage Countries” and by the BMBF in the framework of the IMO project.

5)>> Implications for the Business Location Germany The object-based ASPO model enables the dynamic management of interdisciplinary networks such as Clusters of Excellences and comparable major research projects with similar structures. This is one way to meet the growing requirement in the business and research location Germany for a greater ability to work successfully in major interdisciplinary and integrative projects (cf. Buhl and Meier zu Köcker 2009). With regard to the example studied here, the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries” at the RWTH Aachen University, the parallel research project ASPO supports the development of a dynamic approach to network management. This approach contributes both to realizing the goal of the Clusters of Excellence and to strengthening the competiveness of Germany: “The Cluster of Excellence develops contributions to integrative production engineering. The term ‘integrative’ is meant in the general sense of a comprehensive approach and thus also the comprehensive solution of problems. With reference to the challenges facing productive companies and especially companies from high-wage countries, the integrative approach has the potential to bring about a long-term rise in the competiveness of these companies (Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries”, Mission Statement, 2010). Finally, the application of a dynamic approach to the management of networks or the organization of work to interdisciplinary research networks also allows Germany to strategically position itself as an “enabler for industrial production in the world” (cf.Â€Henning 2010). In view of the primary objective of the Cluster of Excellence discussed here, the business location Germany may be considered a worldwide forerunner or enabler on the path to an integrated theory of production science. According to Henning (2010) and Buhl and Meier zu Köcker (2009), it is above all its high level of specialization, interlinking and internationalization, but also the increasingly networked German research landscape, which gives the German economy a decisive competitive advantage. In terms of suitable approaches to successfully managing heterogeneous, highly-complex research and development networks, which have a growing influence on the innovative capability of entire countries, there is an opportunity here for Germany to play a leading role on the world stage. It must be borne in mind, however, that the open research structures of other nations also contain great potential for innovation. On the whole, the fact that Germany has undergone a paradigm shift – from an industrial sÂ�ociety to a services-based society to a knowledge society – is confirmed by the rise of


299

innovative activities in interdisciplinary research networks like the Clusters of Excellence considered here. In future, the business location Germany will need to exploit “Enabling Innovation by Germany” as a unique selling point and location advantage and to bring Germany’s knowledge of promoting innovative capability to the global market.

Bibliography Ahrens D, Frank S, Franssen M, Riedel M, Schmette M (2004) Phasen der Netzwerkentwicklung und des Netzwerkmanagements. In: v. Oertel R, Hees F (ed) Das NetzwerkKompendium – Theorie und Praxis des Netzwerkmanagements. Shaker, Aachen BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) (1996) Bundesbericht Forschung. BMBF: Bonn. http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/13/045/130455 4.asc. Accessed May 2010 Buhl CM, Meier zu Köcker G (2009) Kategorien von Netzwerkservices. In: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (ed) Innovative Netzwerkservices. Netzwerk- und Clusterentwicklung durch maßgeschneiderte Dienstleistungen. Berlin. http:// www.kompetenznetze.de/service/bestellservice/ medien/publikation_netzwerkservices_ iÂ�nternetversion.pdf. Accessed June 2010 Cluster of Excellence „Integrative Produktionstechnik für Hochlohnländer“ (ed) (2010) Missionstatement, Aktennotiz – Dissertationen im Exzellenzcluster – Schriftliche Einordnung der Arbeiten in den Gesamtkontext. Geschäftsführung des Exzellenzclusters, Aachen. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) (ed) Sonderforschungsbereiche. http://www. dfg.de/foerderung/programme/koordinierte_programme/sfb/index.html. Accessed April 2010 Drucker P (1998) Die Zukunft bewältigen. Aufgaben und Chancen im Zeitalter der UngewissÂ� heit. Econ, München Garvin D (1994) Nicht schöne Worte – Taten zählen. In: Harvard Business Manager 1/ 1994 Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz (2008) Bericht der gemeinsamen Kommission zur Exzellenzinitiative an die Gemeinsame Wissenschaftskonferenz. GWK Bonn. http:// www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Papers/GWK-Bericht-Exzellenzinitiative.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Glaser B, Strauss A (2008) Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. 1. Reprint of 2. corrected edition. Huber, Bern Heidenreich M (1997) Netzwerke – Grundlage für ein neues Innovationsmodell? http:// www.sozialstruktur.uni-oldenburg.de/dokumente/netzwerke1997.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Henning K (2010) Prävention und Innovation – Strategische Ausrichtung, aktuelle Fragen und Ausblick. Talk on April 28, 2010 in Aachen Henning K, Isenhardt I, Richert A (2008) Googelst Du noch oder forschst Du schon? KÂ� ISSWIN.de für Wissenschaftler von Morgen. KISSWIN – Kommunikations- und Informationssystem „Wissenschaftlicher Nachwuchs“. Talk, KISSWIN-Tagung, October 28, 2008 Berlin

300)>>


Henning K, Oertel R, Isenhardt I (2003) Wissen – Innovation – Netzwerke. Wege zur ZuÂ�kunftsfähigkeit. Springer, Berlin Hinke H (2007) Wissensgesellschaft und Wissensmanagement – Konsequenzen und SzeÂ� narien für Arbeit, Personal, Organisationen und Gesellschaft. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen. Shaker, Aachen Jansen C (2004) Scorecard für die Wissensmanagement-Performance in heterogenen Unternehmensnetzwerken. Doctoral thesis. VDI Line 8: Meß-, Steuerungs- und Regelungstechnik, no 1024, VDI-Verlag Düsseldorf Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2007) The Balanced Scorecard Measures That Drive Performance. In: Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1992: 71 – 79 Krücken G, Meier F (2003) Wir sind alle überzeugten Netzwerktäter. Netzwerke als Formalstruktur und Mythos der Innovationsgesellschaft. In: Soziale Welt 54: 71-92 North K (1998) Wissensorientierte Unternehmensführung. Gabler, Wiesbaden Ortmann G, Sydow J, Windeler A (1997) Organization als reflexive Strukturation. In: Ortmann G, Sydow J, Türk K (ed) Theorien der Organization. 2. Edition: 315-355 Prange C (1996) Interorganizationales Lernen. In: Schreyögg G, Conrad P (ed) WissensÂ� management. De Gruyter, Berlin Rieckmann H (2000) Managen praktisches und führen theoretisches am Rande des BedenkÂ� liches 3. Jahrtausends. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main Röbbecke M, Simaon D, Lengwiler M, Kraetsch C (2004) Inter-Disziplinieren. ErfolgsÂ� bedingungen von Forschungskooperationen. Edition Sigma, Berlin Sauer J (2005) Förderung von Innovationen in heterogenen Forschungsnetzwerken und Evaluation am Beispiel des BMBF-Leitprojektes SENEKA. Aachener Reihe Mensch und Technik, Issue 55. Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz, Aachen Schophaus M, Dienel HL, von Braun CF (2003) Von Brücken und Einbahnstraßen. Aufgaben für das Kooperationsmanagement interdisziplinärer Forschung. Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft, Discussion Paper No. 08/03, Technical University of Berlin Sydow J (2001) Management von Netzwerkorganizationen. Beiträge aus der Managementforschung. Gabler, Wiesbaden Tiltmann T, Rick U, Henning K (2006) Concurrent Engineering and the Dynaxity Approach. How to Benefit from Multidisciplinarity. In: Ghodous P, Dieng-Kuntz R, Loureiro G (ed) Leading the Web in Concurrent Engineering – Next Generation Concurrent Engineering. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Issue 143. IOS Press, Amsterdam: 488-495 Willke H (2001) Systemisches Wissensmanagement. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart Willke H (2004) Einführung in das systemische Wissensmanagement. Carl-Auer Verlag, Heidelberg Windeler A (2002) Unternehmungsnetzwerke. Konstitution und Strukturation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden

Part 4 Intellectual Capital – Human Potential as Factor of Innovation

Knowledge 2010 – Intellectual Capital as Driver of Wealth Peter Pawlowsky

Abstract This contribution aims at developing some questions that may help us to learn more about the IC perspective and its potential to drive a paradigmatic change and innovation in western industrialized economies. It does not intend to give a representative or scientific picture of the developments and current state of research but rather argues on the basis of subjective impressions on the developments of the Intellectual Capital research and implementation issues. It aims at giving a subjective input into the current debate on Intangibles, Human Capital, Intellectual Capital and Knowledge and argues that an integration of IC concepts into political strategies, regional development and corporate policies is vital for the development and innovation in knowledge economies.

1)>>Introduction The necessity for a paradigmatic change is put forward by Leif Edvinsson1, who certainly is one of the Leitfigures in the developments of IC. “The wave of IC is increasing. It is evolving within universities, accounting standards groups, political and business communities. The message is that we need to understand and follow the wave of knowledge economics. The alternative is perishing by riding the life cycle curve of industrial economics down. It is a leadership liability not to address the potential or IC in waiting. A new type of Society entrepreneurship might be the key role to nourish this longitude value!” (Edvinsson undated). I will focus on three levels: • The country level: The IC of nations • The regional level: The IC for regions, cities and local communities • The organizational level: Corporate/ Enterprise IC

)>> Leif Edvinsson was the world’s first director of IC, 1991,Â€Skandia, and also the world’s first professorÂ€of IC, 2000, Lund University and founding chairman of New Club of Paris.

1


308)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

2â•‡ The Country Level: The IC of Nations The importance of knowledge for innovation and growth has fascinated researchers long ago. As early as 1768 the Swedish economist Westerman had observed that the performance level of the Swedish shipyard industry was significantly lower than the performance of Dutch and British companies. He explained this phenomenon by the lack of industrial knowledge in Sweden. Westerman had interpreted industrial knowledge to include the capability to organize work flows and knowledge and the qualification in working with new machines (e.g. Eliasson and Ryan 1987). Systematic research on human capital (HC) started in the early 1960s by Schultz (1961), Mincer (1962) and Becker (1964), who primarily focused on the impact of human capital on national economies. Since the development of national economies strongly depends on the performance of firms, human capital theory has been applied to the level of private and public companies (cf. Kuznets 1966; Anderson and Bowman 1976; Schultz 1981; Becker 1983 and 1993). Despite the level of application, the human capital theory focused on investments in education – human resources – and returns on such investments. These investments were related to different classes of dependent variables, for example economic growth, innovation capabilities, organizational profitability, and individual lifetime earning profiles. In combining the two terms intellect and capital the notion that knowledge has an important value potential is spelled out. Flad (2009) refers to Senior’s (1836) work on political economy were the term intellectual capital is possibly used for the first time in pointing out the intellectual superiority of migrants: “Resembling in kind these migratory invasions, but very different from them in effect, have been those emigrations on a smaller scale, to which we give the name of Colonization; in which a portion of a comparatively civilized nation have gone out, with their knowledge and wealth, their material, and moral, and intellectual capital, and settled in an unoccupied or thinly peopled district” (Senior 1836, chap. 4.420, qtd. Flad 2009, 5). The term information and knowledge society has spread continuously since the beginning of the 90s. There are many different specifications of the basic trends taking place in western industrial societies involving an increasing relevance of the knowledge resource and changing classification patterns of modern societies. The concept of the knowledge society reaches back to early publication in the 60s and 70s of the last century. Drucker (1959 and 1969), Bell (1976), as well as Castells (1996 and 1998) pronounce that knowledge and information have to be considered as new driving forces in value creating processes of modern societies. The central lessons for the measurement of knowledge and Intellectual capital (IC) were drawn by Machlup (1980 and 1984). Machlup’s (1962) economic research program – The production and distribution of knowledge – in which he measures the production and distribution of knowledge on the national level in the United States, sparks off assumptions about the knowledge economy, its measurement and ecomomic policies involving the knowledge economy. Godin (2008) evaluates Machlup’s contribution in the light of the current discussions: “Machlup’s study on

Knowledge 2010 – Intellectual Capital as Driver ofÂ€Wealth)>>309

the knowledge economy accomplished three tasks. It defined knowledge, measured it, and identified policy issues. The message was that knowledge was an important component of the economy, but does not completely respond to an economic logic” (Godin 2008, 28). Quite interesting for the current discussion is Godin’s (2008) observation concerning the methodological choice that Machlup made in his newer 1980’s study (Machlup 1980-84) on the knowledge economy: Here he kept to his original method as developed in 1962 – national accounting. As there were two accounting types in the literature of the time – growth accounting, which uses econometrics and was considered as more sophisticated among economists and the national accounting method which was not seen as attractive, as it relied on descriptive statistics, rather than equations and statistical correlations – Machlup’s approach and contributions were possibly undervalued in economic research. In today’s indicator based measurement of knowledge, as used in the OECD statistics knowledge is still defined as Machlup suggested and measured with indicators. “Here, knowledge is measured using a series or list of indicators gathered under the umbrella of ‘knowledge’. There is no summation (or composite value) as in accounting, but a collection of available statistics on several dimensions of knowledge…” (Godin 2008, 30). An important step on this level is certainly Edvinsson and Steinfelt (1999) contribution which focuses on the Intellectual Capital (IC) of Nations and the need for a change of perspectives from financial to intellectual values. “It is proposed that every nation should start a process in visualizing and measuring IC as a complement to traditional state finances. The present paper also examines the ongoing prototyping within Sweden, Israel and Austria that was initiated in 1996. In addition, the paper describes one of the tools — the IC Navigator for Nations — that can be used to present a pedagogical and holistic view and bring balance between intellectual and financial capital. Examples of indicators of IC for Sweden and Israel are described” (Edvinsson and Steinfelt 1999, 21). In 2010 Edvinsson also launched together with Dr. Carol Lin, Taiwan IC Research Center, a book on IC development in 40 countries during 14 years (cf. www.NIC40.org). But until today the basic methodological problems have not been solved, as the measurements of knowledge and intangible values are basically identified as the inputs and outputs of the knowledge-producing parts of the economy such ad R&D and Educational institutions etc. but there is no convincing theory of the functional effects of knowledge and intangibles in societal development and growth. On the level of political decisions in highly developed western economies – lately even more so in growing young eastern economies2 – the hypothesis of knowledge investments as a trigger of economic development is believed to have high validity and/ or is based in the central value assumptions of the culture. The notion that education, knowledge and intellectual assets are important drivers of societal wealth is further reinforced by the recent economic and structural transformation of industrialized countries toward knowledge economies. According to the estimations of the OECD labor force statistics knowledge works grows annu)>> See different national IC agendas from the World Bank Institute

2

310)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

ally by about 3 %, and around 70 % of the value creation is based on intangible factors and the market value of S&P 500 generated by tangible and physical assets was estimated around 15 % at the end of last century on (Eustace 2003). These developments towards a knowledge based economy have led to new demand for indicators that measure wealth creation and development in a knowledge economy: At its meeting at Ministerial level held in 1995, the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy agreed in its conclusions that “there is a need for Member countries to collaborate to develop a new generation of indicators which can measure innovative performance and other related output of a knowledge based economy” (STI Revue NumÃ©ro spÃ©cial). Especially after the Lisbon strategy was adopted in March 2000 the IC debate has developed pace. The European Council held a special meeting on 23-24 March 2000 in Lisbon to agree a new strategic goal for the Union in order to strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion as part of a knowledge-based economy. In this strategy concept People are considered as Europe’s main asset and are addressed as the focal point of the Union’s policies. Investing in people is seen as crucial to Europe’s place in the knowledge economy (cf. European Commission 2000). Also the World Bank is concerned with the theme of Knowledge for Development (K4D). The focus was on the “weightless economy”: “Today the World Bank has shifted much of its emphasis to the intangibles of knowledge, institutions, and culture in an attempt to forge a more comprehensive New Development Framework for our work. It is the process of embodying knowledge in people (learning) and things (application) that is costly in time and resources” (Stiglitz 1999). The role of Intangibles and Intellectual Capital is also clearly emphasized by the European Investment Bank. “To support the objectives of the knowledge based economy the EIB group is financing intangible investments and Intellectual Capital” (Mertens and van der Meer 2005, 87). In the year 2001-2002 Nick Bontis conducted research relating to IC of Nations. Based on Edvinsson’s work with the Skandia Navigator model, Bontis and his colleagues, sponsored by the United Nations Development Program conducted a study of ten Arab states. In the study, Bontis quantifies the state of IC for each nation and outlines an IC index, which can be used by each nation to rank themselves against their peers, and indeed to learn from the experiences of other countries. By looking at the IC wealth of nations rather than standard measures of national competitiveness, new insights into where a country’s enablers for the wealth creating might lie can be drawn. One of the most recent and very insightful reports on IC of Nations presented in Jan 2003, is done in Croatia, by professor Ante Pulic and his team (cf. www. vaic-on.net), called Efficiency in Croatian Economy. It is reporting a value creation efficiency index. Lin and Edvinsson (2008) present a comparison of IC in Nordic countries on the basis of longitudinal data from 1994 to 2005. Here the key dimensions are human capital, market capital, process capital, renewal capital, and financial capital. These findings confirm the assumption that the Nordic countries have a high degree of

Knowledge 2010 – Intellectual Capital as Driver of Wealth

311

national intellectual capital. Recently Lin and Edvinsson (2010) continue mapping national intellectual capital with longitudinal data between 1995 – 2008 from 40 countries. Their conceptual model and the longitudinal perspective certainly has various policy implications and may serve as a navigation map for countries, possibly indicating financial downturns on one side and drivers for more sustainable economic developments on the other. These studies have all strongly promoted the development of the World Bank initiatives to develop suitable indicators for national knowledge development and planning of national knowledge strategies. In order to help countries build their capacity to access and use knowledge to strengthen their competitiveness and increase their economic and social well-being the World Bank Institute’s Knowledge for Development Program (K4D) program has been established. “The program works with clients to design and develop realistic and achievable knowledge-based development strategies. It helps countries assess how they compare with others in their ability to compete in the knowledge economy and to identify appropriate policies to help them achieve their goals. K4D also offers recommendations for policy reform on the knowledge economy accompanied by complementary advice on what the country needs to do to develop appropriate capacity to deliver on these policies” (The World Bank). According to the Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM) the 4 pillars of the knowledge economy are as follows: PILLAR 1

PILLAR 2

PILLAR 3

PILLAR 4

Economic and institutional regime

Education and skills

Information and communication infrastructure

Innovation system

The country’s economic and institutional regime must provide incentives for the efficient use of existing and new knowledge and the flourishing of entrepreneurship.

The country’s people need education and skills that enable them to create and share, and to use it well.

A dynamic information infrastructure is needed to facilitate the effective communication, dissemination, and processing of information.

The country’s innovation system – firms, research centers, universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organisations – must be capable of tapping the growing stock of global knowledge, assimilating and adapting it to local need, and creating new technology.

Figure 2.1: The four pillars of the knowledge economy

The most recent version of the KAM, KAM 2008 makes comparisons based on 83 structural and qualitative variables that serve as proxies for the four knowledge-economy pillars described above. Some 140 countries can be compared – among them most of the developed economies of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and about 100 developing countries. The following chart that was computed with the program shows for example the standard variables compared for Germany (red), Sweden (green) and China (yellow).

312)>>

Peter Pawlowsky Germany, Sweden, China Annual GDP Growth (%) Internet Users per 1000 People Computers per 1000 People

Human Development Index

10

Tariff & Nontariff Barriers

5

Regulatory Quality

Total Telephones per 1000 People

Rule of Law

Gross Tertiary Enrollment rate

Royalty Payments and receipts (US$ / pop.)

Gross Econdary Enrollment rate Adult Literacy Rate (% age 15 and above)

S&E Journal Articles / Mil. People

Patents granted by USPTO / Mil. People

Comparison Group: All Countries

Type: weighted

Year: most recent (KAM 2009)

Figure 2.2: KAM indicators for Germany, Sweden and China, www.worldbank.org/kam, own computing

From these indicators several Indexes are calculated: The Knowledge Index (KI), economic and institutional pillar index, education pillar index, innovation pillar index and the information and communications technologies (ICT) pillar index. The Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) is mostly cited and represents a broad measure of the overall level of preparedness of a country or region for the knowledge economy.

Country

KEI Rank

KEI

Economic Incentive EIR Regime Innovation Innovation Education Education ICT ICT Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank index

Denmark

1

9.58

2

9.66

4

9.57

2

9.79

7

9.32

Sweden

2

9.56

13

9.18

2

9.79

6

9.44

1

9.83

Finland

3

9.37

5

9.47

3

9.66

3

9.77

19

8.59

Netherlands

4

9.30

12

9.18

6

9.47

9

9.21

5

9.32

Norway

5

9.29

10

9.25

13

9.06

5

9.59

9

9.24

Canada

6

9.14

6

9.42

8

9.43

8

9.24

23

8.47

Switzerland

7

9.13

4

9.50

1

9.89

32

7.76

4

9.36

United States

8

9.10

14

9.16

7

9.45

15

8.79

13

9.02

Australia

9

9.09

19

8.66

19

8.71

4

9.66

6

9.32

Germany

10

9.01

15

8.99

15

9.00

10

9.17

15

8.86

Figure 2.3: KEI Index 2008 – Preparedness for the Knowledge Economy, www.worldbank. org/KAM, p. 5

Based on this large statistical material the relation between Knowledge Indicators and economic performance can be addressed with certain validity.


GDP per capita 2006 (current international $)

50.000 Norway

KEI weighted R²=0,8735

United States Ireland

40.000

Hongkong, China United Kingdom France Singapore Italy

30.000

Spain

Kuwait

Greece

Bahrain

20.000 Saudi Arabia

10.000

Iran Djibouti Angola

Mali

India Lesotho

Sierra Leone

0 0,00

Botswana Russian Federation Mexico Dominican China Rep.

Kenya Vietnam

1,00

2,00

3,00

Sri Lanka Guyana

4,00

New Zealand Czech Rep.

Slovakia

South Africa

Turkey

Chile Bulgaria

Denmark Finland Australia

Germany Japan Taiwan, China

Korea

Cyprus

Oman

Switzerland

Hungary

Poland

Malaysia

Macedonia, FYR Mongolia

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

9,00

10,00

KEI score 2008

Figure 2.4: KEI Index 2008 and GDP correlation, www.worldbank.org/kam, p. 5

The limitations described early in the context with Machlup’s work have not been resolved as the indicators describe a certain level of knowledge output and at the same time have to be considered as input for economic performance (growth). The correlations between the KEI score and economic performance measured by GDP do show significant relations. Although no causality may be inferred from these relations econometric test “actually do reveal a statistically significant causal relationship running from the level of knowledge accumulation, as measured by the KEI, to future economic growth”. Looking at the World Bank projects and publications several countries have actively started to outline possible paths into the knowledge economy. These projects promote the development of national strategies that enable countries “to participate in knowledge-driven supply chains and markets that now dominate the global economy” (Dahlmann and Utz 2005) and that help to transform countries into knowledge based economies, by tapping into a number of existing socioeconomic advantages (Kusnetsov and Dahlman 2008). Pioneer work was undertaken by the New Club of Paris in 2007 with the dialogue Round Table in Helsinki in November 2007. Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen together with the New Club of Paris initiated the discussions about the chances of Finland in a knowledge and innovation economy. This activity certainly constitutes a new important procedure of national policy outlook that helps to map the road of national knowledge politics in the environment of a global economy. The original Finnish round table report describes the objectives and major results as follows: “The Round Table of the New Club of Paris was held Nov 14th 2006 with Finland’s Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen and fourteen other international and Finnish members. Some of them participated in the whole day dialogue, and some contributed by presentations. In addition to the presentations the dialogue was

314)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

based on the strategy work and documents produced within the last few years in Finland. The goal was to complement the previous strategy work and possibly bring up new dimensions. The Round Table concluded with five suggestions for Finland’s future. The suggestions are not in the form of the traditional to-do-lists, but rather focus on the need to work on Finland’s identity and social intelligence as source of future development. 1. Visualize a Big Dream Issue:)>> Renewal is connected with emotional drive and engagement. Finland’s Strength:)>> Finland has shown powerful drive in crisis situations. Finland’s Challenge:)>> National strategies lack the vision with emotional power. 2. Tell the Story of Finland Issue: )>> Self-image is the bases in fight for recognition in global community. Finland’s Strength:)>> The distinguished cultural elements of Finland are strong; nature, technology and culture. Finland’s Challenge:)>> Self-analyses in Finland have only been on the level of competence, and excluded the analyses of identity and values. 3. Embed the objectives of innovative attitude and praxis in the society Issue:)>> The roots of innovation are embedded in social practices. Finland’s Strength:)>> Strong bases in technology innovation and innovation systems. Finland’s Challenge:)>> Too little entrepreneurial spirit. 4. Develop social intelligence at global level Issue:)>> Informal networks and network like institutions are taking power. Finland’s Strength:)>> Finland is a small country with high agility. Finland’s Challenge:)>> Too narrow communication culture, too much consensus. 5. Take a role of an environmental forerunner Issue:)>>

The pioneer lead in environmental questions is a big possibility in global scale. Finland’s Strength:)>> Environmental awareness and technology are high. Finland’s Challenge:)>> Risk taking capability. For each of the five suggestion clusters sketched out above, high level working groups could be established to design more specific policy actions and implement the general ideas and the formulated principles. Such groups should be constituted from representatives from the government sector, the business world and the civic society” (Ståhle 2007, 1). Since 2007 further round tables have taken place, amongst other in Marokko and Kuala Lumpur and the New Club of Paris is developing new IC learning concepts and procedures in cooperation with the Future Center movement.


Since Skandia, through Edvinsson, founded its first Future center in 1996, as the World’s first lab for IC development, this idea has spread continuously: Kune (2009) describes contents and developments of the Future centers: “A Future Center is an organizational, physical, methodological and virtual space. It is a mental space, an affective space, and above all a people space. It exists across time, moving between past, present and future navigating knowledge and experiential pathways to achieve its objectives” (Kune 2009). These trends shows that the IC issue is also developing on a qualitative basis including decision makers on the political levels, developing meeting spaces for people and ideas, focusing on clearly defined goals, to examine the consequences of choices in people friendly and brain friendly working environments that allow the participants to break barriers of behavior and thinking, for ex. in Future Centers such as The Country House Future Center for the national civil service the Netherlands, The Shipyard Future Center of the Dutch Tax & Customs Administration, the Dialogues House from ABN-AMRO Bank, the Momentum Regional Ideas House, Denmark, the MindlabFuture Center for 3 Ministries in Denmark: Economic & Business Affairs, Taxation, and Employment and the futurefocus Future Center for 3 ministries in the U.K, the Future Nest Made in Hong Kong 2009, the KDI Future Center, Tokyo, and the OpenFutures of the European Commission Specific Support Action. Similarly the ACSI concept stands for a new generation innovation agenda. “It aims to channel academic knowledge to create innovative solutions helping to tackle societal challenges. An international ACSI camp will be arranged in the summer of 2010 to pilot a concept that methodologically integrates research, education and innovation activities to solve concrete problems” (Ståhle and Markkula 2010, 1). On a qualitative basis Leif Edvinsson points out different international IC activities and national strategies: “Finland being described as the country with the most rapidly growing investments into Research and Development and therefore sometimes labelled as the Kuwait among the ICT nations has developed a national agenda on intellectual capital. In 2010 it was also again pioneering with arranging the World’s First Camp on Societal Innovation, at the Aalto Innovation University. See www.acsi.aalto.fi. Denmark that some years ago shaped a National Competence Council, for collaboration between the government and the business community to map the knowledge competitiveness of Denmark that later on among others led to both guidelines for knowledge reporting and establishing a MindLab. In Norway several interesting initiatives has been prototyped. One is IC rating of Larvik Kommune. Another is IC rating of the Norwegian oil plateau. Another is the prototyping of a Future Center to nourish society entrepreneurship. In USA Minneapolis-St. Paul region was ranked number one on the world knowledge competitive index ahead of Silicon Valley and Austin Texas. In September 2003 the formal inauguration took place for Dubai as leading knowledge village, in benchmark with Singapore, by a number of projects for establishing learning and human capital as the core with support from a leveraging infrastructure in shape of high tech and inspiring architectural campus.

316)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

So called knowledge cities are emerging with among others a very visible case in Barcelona. The core of this is shaping the urban design for the knowledge economÂ�y and its knowledge workers”. Let’s look closer at those activities on the regional and city level.

3)>> The Regional Level: The IC For Regions, Cities and Local Communities When we alter our view on the development of IC (and IC perspectives) and focus on the regional and city level we encounter the historical example of the city of Ragusa (todays Dubrovnik). Leif Edvinsson, building on the work of Dedijer (2002) and a master thesis from Radovanovic (2004) describes the IC wealth of Ragusa and points out its importance for the development and the extraordinary wealth of the region between 1300–1800. “The drivers and sustainability factors for Ragusa were e.g. organized strategic intelligence and security, political stamina and government diplomacy, diversity with intensive immigrations in a quest for collective wealth, rich cultural life, and multi linguistic with writings in three languages, scientific environment and cultivated knowledge tradition as well as favorable geopolitical position and infrastructure for transports and communication” (Edvinsson 2004). Most of the indicators mentioned for Ragusa read like a list of an up to date Knowledge Balance Sheet of a modern region or city. But not so much the indicators themselves give insight into the process of growth on the basis of intellectual capital. In fact it is the capability to develop inside and outside sensors for developments elsewhere. “Ragusa can be regarded an intelligent city as its government used its international contacts to detect signals from the surrounding world to learn and adapt rapidly. They were among others developing special young dragomans for the role as knowledge navigators or more formally ambassadors” (Edvinsson 2004). Surly in today’s global village it’s not so much the role of the formal ambassadors or the question of gaining access to developments elsewhere, it’s presumably the state of mind and the ways of promoting the integration and learning from new and different developments. Looking at the concept of an intelligent city we can distinguish some different approaches: The IT perspective which for example incorporates broadband infrastructures and digital democracy (cf. http://www.intelligentcommunity.org). As critical success factors the Intelligent Community Forum has identified a number of success factors for intelligent communities in both industrialized and developing nations: “Broadband Connectivity: Broadband is the new essential utility, as vital to economic growth as clean water and good roads. Intelligent Communities express a clear vision of their broadband future and craft policies to encourage deployment and adoption. Knowledge Workforce: A knowledge workforce is a labor force that creates economic value through the acquisition, processing and use of information. Intelligent Communities exhibit the determination and demonstrated ability to


develop a workforce qualified to perform knowledge work from the factory floor to the research lab, and from the construction site to the call center or Web design studio. Digital Inclusion: As broadband deploys widely through a community, there is serious risk that it will worsen the exclusion of people who already play a peripheral role in the economy and society, whether due to poverty, lack of skills, prejudice or geography. Intelligent Communities promote digital inclusion by creating policies and funding programs that provide have-nots with access to digital technology and broadband, by providing skills training and by promoting a compelling vision of the benefits that the broadband economy can bring to their lives. Innovation: For business, broadband has become to innovation what fertilizer is to crops. Intelligent Communities work to build the local innovation capacity of new companies, because these produce all of the job growth in modern economies, and invest in e-government programs that reduce their costs while delivering services on the anywhere-anytime basis that digitally savvy citizen expect. Marketing and Advocacy: Like businesses facing greater global competition, communities must work harder than ever to communicate their advantages and explain how they are maintaining or improving their position as wonderful places to live, work and build a growth business. Effective marketing shares this story with the world, while advocacy builds a new vision of the community from within” (http://www.intelligentcommunity.org). Other concepts (Komninos 2002; Bugliarello et al.; Edvinsson 2005, 24 et seq.) refer to the production of knowledge, technology transfer and especially to abilities of adaption and renewal based on knowledge and education. Edvinsson (2005, 25) suggests the following indicators for an intelligent city: • Attractor for knowledge workers and creative class • Good geopolitical position • Mobile city with networks to various clusters and meeting places with )>> know who’s • Communicative city with good logistical flow • Cooperative city with high value making through various exchanges • Healthy, fresh and humane to offer good quality of life • Curious citizens with active interfaces towards the unexplored • Generous city with cultural capital and coherence emphasizing values • Action intensive city with multitude of active interfaces • Wealth creating • Safe and peaceful. In the light of these conceptual thoughts a number of activities have developed, such as the Most Admired Knowledge City Award (MAKCi). “Starting in 2007, the Most Admired Knowledge City Awards (MAKCi) is an international consulting process established to identify and recognize those communities around the world who are successfully engaging in formal and systematic knowledge-based development processes under the flag of Knowledge Cities.

318)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

The MAKCi exercise follows definitions of the Knowledge City (KC) as a city ‘purposefully designed to nurture knowledge’ (Edvinsson 2002; in Dvir and Pasher 2004: 17); a city ‘in which its citizenship undertakes a deliberate, systematic attempt to identify and develop its capital system, with a balanced and sustainable approach’ (Carrillo, 2004: 34). A KC is also ‘short hand for a regional economy driven by high value added exports created through research, technology and brain power’ (Melbourne City Council 2002; in Ergazakis, et al. 2004: 6). In fact, a KC is ‘a region that bases its ability to create wealth on its capacity to generate and leverage its knowledge capabilities through knowledge-based extended networks formed by enterprises and people’ (Chatzkel 2004: 62)” (http://www.wÂ�orldcapitalinstitute. org/makci/makci-awards-most-admired-knowledge-city). Cities that have been evaluated as knowledge cities or that declare themselves as knowledge intensive are e.g. Singapore, Barcelona, Manchester, Copenhagen/ Malmö, Dubai, Melbourne, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Hong Kong and Wissensregion Frankfurt/ RheinMain. Here we see a blurry boundary between scientific approaches that analyze determinants of wealth and growth for cities and regions on one and pure public sector marketing on the other hand. But in any case many of the city declarations and the award activities have led to a change in perspective and outlook upon the possible paths of urban development (e.g.: http://www.wissensportal-frankfurtrheinmaiÂ�n.de). More systematic and based on some theoretical assumptions of IC identification and measurement (for details cf. expertise of Kneisel et al. 2009) the German Wissensbilanz (Knowledge Scorecard) methodology has also found its way into the identification of regional and city potentials in a knowledge economy. Based on growing European and even international competition of regions and local communities for investors, knowledge workers and funding sources the identification of relevant locational factors and the understanding of their interdependencies has significantly grown in importance. Based on the dominant model for IC measurements (cf. expertise Kneisel and Rößel 2009) and the Methodology of the WissensbilanzMade in Germany three major types of intangibles can be distinguished: Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relational Capital. This pioneering work evolved then into the European Commission funded projects, for 5 countries (cf. www. incas-europe.org as well as recently www.cadic-europe.org as well as the application in Japan by the METI). The procedure for developing a knowledge scoreboard involves (1) the development of a target model (2) the identification of significant influencing factors (3) Analysis of systemic relations between these factors (4) Evaluation of the factor qualities (5) Identification of statistical comparisons and (6) deduction of concrete recommendations to act. The data incorporated in these scoreboards stems both from statistical indicators available as well as from the evaluation of important stakeholder groups in the region or city. For the development of a target model the participants are asked to develop a target model for the system in question and then to go through the different steps 1–4. The Knowledge Toolbox (http://www. akwissensbilanz.org/Toolbox/toolbox-download.htm) offers downloadable tools that support the development of a Knowledge scorecard.


Claus Nagel and Siegfried Mauch (2009) have ventured such a Knowledge scoreboard for the Ortenaukreis, Baden-Württemberg, mapping the important potentials and deficits of the region as basis for a political planning process and strategy. The identified influential factors for the regional development are projected on the target model and relevant strategies are derived. During the process of development of such a knowledge scoreboard the participating stakeholder groups and the individual participants learn more about the relevant factors of local development and develop a mutual understanding of relationships between these influential factors. This can lead to a joint mental model that can serve as a blue-print for future strategy implementation, or simply as a road map for policy decisions. But we can see that the methodology still has not overcome the basic problem outlined in connection with Machlup’s approach, namely the fact that these indicators are gathered under the umbrella of knowledge, without a valid assumption about the causal relation between Independent and dependent variables. The Wissensbilanz-Made in Germany bypasses this methodological problem by relying on the collective intelligence of the evaluating stakeholders, presuming that they judge on the basis of their experiential knowledge. Indeed this may not be the worst source for valid predictions as recent research in recognition primed decision (RPD Models, cf. Klein 2003) and intuitive decision making processes (cf. Gigerenzer 2007) argues. But even if these heuristics developed in well done knowledge scoreboards prove valid in each single case, there still remains the problem of comparability. Each model crafts a set of indicators that fits the specific system, but the indicators and quantity ranges cannot be compared and therefore benchmarks are impossible. This may be the reason, why the trust about the validity of intangible investments for economic success suddenly dissolves when we reach the level of corporate reality.

4)>> The Organizational Level: Corporate IC The value based assumption in the public domain that Intellectual Capital is an important driver for economic success does not hold likewise when one descends to the corporate level.3 Here the statement “[t]hat the most important capital are the Human Resources” does not go very much out over the high glossy missions statements and certainly does not withstand economic downturns. The implicit assumption that investments into intangibles lead to an increase in shareholder value is generally considered as less valid than the obvious cost cutting effects for economic )>> Witte (1962) stated this phenomenon more precisely when he pointed out the lack of innovation consciousness regarding “immaterial” investments in research, advertisement and education: “One feels obliged to carry out saving measures and cuts the above mentioned budget positions. Basically, such a decision reveals that one does not believe in the success of immaterial investments. Otherwise one should react the other way around” (Witte 1962, 223; translated by author).

3

320)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

performance of companies. We still run into the same problem that Eberhard Witte (1962) pointed out almost 50 years ago: Arguing that there is a lack of corporate awareness for intangible investments such as research, marketing and education, he explains that there is high pressure to cut costs during difficult economic phases and that this behavior reveals that there is no trust in the success of intangible investments, otherwise one would have to behave exactly the other way around (cf. Witte 1962). This error in managerial assumption making was probably unfortunate in one or the other case, but it might prove to be fatal in a knowledge economy. During the last 50 years it has become more and more obvious that there is a growing difference between the market value of a company and the cost of replacing its physical and financial assets, so the notion has grown that there is more to economic success than the tangibles we map so carefully and systematically in our financial reports. Let’s take a closer look at these developments. While macroeconomic theory sees technical, organizational knowledge and intellectual assets of a society as ways of combining classical production factors – work, land and capital – early management theory also reflects on knowledge as an asset. One basic principal of Taylors scientific management was the use of experiential knowledge of workers in order to design management principles. In his metal-cutting experiments he observed best-practice procedures of experienced workers and then systematically incorporated this knowledge into organizational processes and design. Copley exemplifies this process (1923) with an example: To make sure that the machines were oiled correctly detailed work instructions could be given based on Taylor’s observations: “Lists were made out of all the oil holes and surfaces to be oiled; these stating to what part of the machines the holes conducted the oil, and the kind of oil to be used in each case. Duplicates of these lists were filed in the office; and here we can see an early development of the principle of reducing all recurrent procedures to standard practice and recording it. The ordinary way is to leave such procedure entirely to some individual, who in the course of time may work out a pretty good method. All of this knowledge, however, he carries in his head; so that if he falls ill, the procedure suffers, and if he quits the business, someone else must work it out all over again” (Copley 1923, 270, qtd. Jelinek, 1979, 12). Within the HC-perspective, the central lessons for IC-measurement were again drawn by Machlup (1980 and 1984). He differentiated the HC concept by distinguishing three major classes of knowledge stocks: Knowledge embodied in individual physical tools, in individual persons, and non-embodied knowledge. This general differentiation between human embodied knowledge (e.g. skills, qualifications), on one hand, and non-embodied knowledge, which can be identified either as an outcome or at a product level on the other hand, is a central distinction for the IC discussion. It helps to understand the differentiation between human capital and organizational capital within the IC perspective. Although human experiences, knowledge and intellectual capacities have played a major role in the development of management theory and practice – these assets were not explicitly considered as capital.


In the 70s the Human Resource and Human Value Accounting (Hermanson 1964; Flamholtz 1974; Spencer 1986; Cascio 1987; Schmidt 1982; Marr 1982 and Fitzenz 1990) differentiated the cost and value aspects of Human resources focusing on the workforces financial value on the basis of the forecasted value to the company and on the staff replacement costs. In these concepts human capital is explicitly integrated into accounts and balance sheets of the human resource area. But this makes Intellectual capacity costly without taking its return on investment into consideration. What these approaches neglect is the generation of this capital and the development aspects of knowledge as assets. The limitation on monetary Input-output measures does not give further insight to the development of Human Capital and the specific mechanisms by which this capital enables economic value creation. Furthermore the indicators used in these systems are oriented on past developments and the prognostic value of human Capital for investors is quite unclear. Moreover the causal relation is distorted because the time for Intangible investments to develop effects does not respond to the usual ROI sequences and assessment periods. A return on knowledge investment will probably take longer than an investment into automation. With the growing gap between book value and market value of companies in the 80s and 90s the question became more relevant how this gap can be interpreted and how these intangibles could be managed. So far economic success was closely related to physical and financial assets of companies, but the prognostic value of these accounting based indicators decreased with the diminishing proportion of book value to total market value of companies. Among the first to develop models for the valuation of these intangibles were members of the Konrad Group in Sweden. As a member of this group Sveiby (1997) developed a tool, which he referred to as Intellectual Capital Monitor, to assess three dimensions in organizations which were considered as drivers for growth, effectiveness and stability: the external structure the internal structure and competence. “The External structure can be seen as a family of intangible relationships with customers and suppliers, which form the basis for the reputation (image) of the firm. Some of these relationships can be converted into legal property such as trademarks and brand names. The value of such intangible resources is primarily influenced by how well the company solves its customers’ problems, which involves an element of uncertainty. Reputations and relationships can be good or bad, and can change over time. They are partly independent of individuals. When people direct their actions internally they create an Internal Structure. The family of Internal Structure can be seen to hold patents, concepts, models, templates, computer systems and other administrative more or less explicit processes. These are created by the employees and are generally ‘owned’ by the organisation. However, the organisation can legally own only a small part of the Internal Structure. The informal powerplay, the internal networks, the ‘culture’ or the ‘spirit’ can also be regarded as belonging to the internal structure. It is useful to include also the competence of individuals in the Internal structure family, such as support staff, accounting, IT, HR and management in the Internal Structure family,

322)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

since it is not possible to separate the internal structure from it’s creators. Internal structure is thus partly dependent, partly independent of individuals. Even if the most valuable individuals leave a company that depends heavily on them, such as a consultancy firm, at least part of both the internal and the external structures (the brand name) will probably remain intact and can serve as a platform for a new start, (Sveiby & Lloyd, 1987). The Individual Competence family consists of the competence of the professional/technical staff, the experts, the R&D people, the factory workers, sales and marketing – in short all those that have a direct contact with customers and whose work are directly influencing the customers view of the organisation” (Sveiby 2001). Sveiby firstly clearly expands the view on Human capital in his works as he makes the limitations of financial perspectives clear and argues for non-financial measures that come closer to the source of value creation in knowledge intensive organizations and secondly he sees people in the center of the value creation process and argues that financial success is wrongly attributed to book values but depends on peoples knowledge and competence. This basic idea was transferred into different concepts (and has been implemented in several companies (Skandia, Celemi, WM-data). The most prominent example is Skandia were Leif Edvinsson, inspired by the Konrad Group developed a model bringing all the immaterial aspects together representing the intangible capital of Skandia the Swedish based international insurance company. The basic architecture of this instrument – the Skandia Navigator – incorporates five dimensions for future success of the company: (1) )>>The financial indicators that represent past performance (2) )>>The customer focus that includes indicators on customer relations such as market share, annual sales per customer, duration of customer relationships etc. (3) )>>The human focus, that takes into account indicators related to the members of the organization, such as competence of Leaders, turnover, training, empowerment etc. (4) )>>The process focus which intends to measure the quality of internal organizational capabilities for example quality performance, it expenses related to administrative expenses, processing time, contracts filed without errors etc. and (5) )>>The companies renewal and development focus that incorporates the companies potential for future development. Here indicators such as training, age of customers, development hours as percentage of total working time, satisfaction of employees and others were suggested and measured for Skandia. All in all a set of more than 160 indicators were used to measure the company stock of intellectual capital. Edvinsson coined the term intellectual capital as the gap between marked value and the adjusted, accounted value (Edvinsson and Malone 1997) and assumed that it is made up of the companies capabilities measured by customer-, human-, process- and renewal indicators.


Looking at this development we can see that concepts of human- and intellectual capital not only overcomes the past related perspective of accounting models but also goes beyond the individual competences as IC is implemented in the organizations internal and external structure and relationships. The scope of current concepts that aim at measuring Intellectual capital can be systematized under different aspects. The basic differentiation between human capital and structural capital and the different contents that are incorporated (cf. Roos et al. 1997; Sveiby 1997; Stewart 1997; Brooking 1997) Human Capital, Structural capital, organizational capital, innovation capital, process capital, infrastructure assets, human centered assets, marked centered assets and the methodological procedure that is applied such as levels of measurement for example components- and organizational level approaches, Financial- and nonfinancial measures (Reinhardt et al. 2001, 796), atomistic methods, holistic methods and score card methods. Focusing on the theoretical and methodical problems of the conceptualization of intellectual capital on the corporate level it can be observe that the promoters of the IC practice debate are mainly practitioners; consequently there is an increasing number of practical papers on IC-measurement and management. Unfortunately, the lack of theoretical foundation of such concepts is not only unsatisfactory for academics, but also leads to major managerial problems with regard to three aspects: Problem of definition: Many authors define IC formally as the difference between the market value and the book value of a company (cf. e.g. Brooking 1997; Edvinsson and Malone 1997; Roos et al. 1997; Sveiby 1997; Stewart 1997). Market value is usually approximated by stock exchange ratings which lead to the conclusion that a company can gain and lose millions in intelligence within a few days. It appears unsatisfactory to define IC on the basis of an indicator that changes on a day-to-day basis. Problem of content: With regard to theoretical assumptions, IC dimensions are rooted in contradicting theories. On one hand organizational capital and human capital fit neo-classical and institutional economics; on the other hand, dimensions such as customer capital or innovation capital are developed on the grounds of behavioral management theory. As this area of interest is only enfolding, many authors try to contribute new idiosyncratic models that lead to a rather confusing plurality of notions. Furthermore efforts have concentrated mostly on the dimensions as such (isolated, reductionist approach) and not on their interdependencies (cf. Edvinsson and Malone 1997), although it is the latter that characterises the intelligent enterprise (cf. Quinn 1992). Thus, it has to be explored to what extent a flow-perspective of IC-change can be identified, in order to understand the relations between the distinct IC-components. Problem of measurement: The problems of measurement refer to the objects of measurement (inputs, process variables, outputs); to their selection and to the corresponding definition of indicators; to the intervals and methods of measurement; to comparability; and finally to the cost and benefits of the measurement task (cf. Schneider 1998). This leads to the question, if it makes sense to measure IC both qualitatively and quantitatively, and if so, how these two perspectives can be linked.

324)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

A theoretical interpretation of the approaches discussed above shows that there is no explicit link of IC dimensions to theoretical schools of economical and managerial thought. The analysis of the measurement perspectives leads to the following evaluation (cf. Reinhardt et al. 2001): • Measuring intangible assets based on goodwill or market-to-book-value differences seems to be arbitrary since such measures are not based on theoretical explanations. • There is an overemphasis on highly aggregated financial measures that do not provide insight into relations between cause and effects. • There are only a few methods to describe and to assess competitive knowledge, especially activities such as knowledge development and knowledge transfer are not considered in particular in the measurement activities (stock- vs. flowperspective). • There is more emphasis on measuring individual abilities and competencies instead of measuring collective knowledge and capabilities. • Measures focus on inputs but seldom on outputs. If output measures exist, then the relation to financial performance indicators is scarce. • Availability of data and easiness of measurement seems to be the main argument of IC conceptualization, instead of theoretical or conceptual coherence. • Measurement scales of tangible and intangible assets are different; consequently, both measures are not directly comparable. • The time frame of measuring IC seems to be too short. If behavioral interventions are treated as investments in IC, then it is obvious that the time frame that has to be considered is much longer than a traditional accounting period. Based on these conclusions, IC modeling and measurement seems to be a challenge from both a theoretical and a practical perspective: A coherent theoretical framework of IC has to be developed so that managers will no longer suffer from problems that are caused by unreliable IC indicators. Here we run into the same problem as outlined earlier, the indicators of IC are mostly specific to the context in which they are to be applied and this in turn results in difficulties of comparability.

5)>> Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management activities in practice Besides of the outlined conceptual developments of the IC discussion the demands for practical instruments and methods for managing intangibles is quickly growing in corporate practice. Looking at a representative survey of small and medium sized firms in Germany in 2006 (Pawlowsky et al. 2006) we can see that activities of Knowledge Management are widely spread.


It can be seen from this study that in particular learnings from project experiences (80 %) , identification of knowledge deficits (55 %), transfer from ideas to product developments (51 %), networking activities (48 %), preservation of knowledge from employees leaving the company (43 %) and learning from other companies (40 %) are activities pursued and areas in which the companies plans to invest in the future. As the study shows this demand for intangible assets management is strongly correlated with the strategic profile of the company. Asked which competitive advantages are considered the most important, we see that small and medium sized firms in Germany rely mainly on higher quality, customized solutions , focused use of internal knowledge, the companies image and specialized know how. These strategic profiles are strongly correlated with the knowledge managemenÂ�t activities in the company. Further indicator for the growing attention that the issues of intangible assets are gaining is the success of the Wissensbilanz initiative. Thanks to the early activities of the Knowledge Reporting Programs of the AK Wissensbilanz the knowledge on the topic and the interest of small and medium firms have greatly increased in Germany- this has been one of the most successful program fundings by the ministry for Economics and Labor so far. The Wissensbilanz-Made in Germany resulted in the extensive European Commission project involving hundreds of companies in 5 countries (cf. www.incas-europe.org). Not only have these companies developed a framework for their Intellectual capital resources but also defined indicators that are incorporated into a system dynamics approach helping them to develop their strategic potential in a growing complex end dynamic environment. Recently in 2010 this project also resulted in an extension (cf. www.cadic-europe.org). Also to be mentioned in this context is the ongoing work by the European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies (EFFAS) (cf. www.effas.com) and their guidelines for Financial Analysts, as well as the WICI-World IC Initiative among the leading accounting firms. The EFFAS has defined the following Principles for Effective Communication of Intellectual Capital for Investment Professionals (Welzl 2009), and to promote comparable Intellectual Capital disclosures: â•‡ 1. )>>Clear link to future value creation â•‡ 2. )>>Transparency of methodology â•‡3.)>>Standardization â•‡ 4.)>> Consistency over time â•‡ 5.)>> Balanced trade-off between disclosure and privacy â•‡ 6.)>> Alignment of interests between company and investors â•‡ 7.)>> Prevention of information overflow â•‡ 8. )>>Reliability and responsibility â•‡ 9.)>> Risk assessment 10.)>> Effective disclosure placement and timing On a global scale there is also the collaborations between the major Accounting Firms in the search for applicable Accounting rules (cf. www.worldici.com).

326)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

6)>> Outlook and Conclusion On the 18th September 2009 the Social Intellectual Capital (SIC) Party was founded as an experiment in a IMO Conference Work CafÃ© Meeting in Potsdam, Germany. The idea was to develop a program outline for the SIC party and to discuss issues concerning the political agenda of IC with social scientist and politicians. Looking at the mind map developed in this meeting, IC was considered as the major driver for innovation in Germany. But for this driver to speed up innovation dynamics a number of barriers have to be overcome: • First of all the “investment problem” outlined earlier (Witte 1962) has to be solved, because private investment into IC (for example Personnel Development Programs) is not owned by the investor as the employees can always leave the company and therefore the risk of loss hinders necessary investments into this important intangible capital. • Secondly the IC issues may promote segmentation in companies between core groups and low skilled workers who are forced into the periphery of the system. How is this conflict resolved politically? • Another topic is the aging work force which on one hand can be considered as the deep smarts in organizations. Their upcoming exit out of the labor force not compensated by younger cohorts anymore, due to overaging populations in Western countries and Japan. On the other hand the aging workforce persists in old leadership stiles and structures which do not promote the use of IC. • A crucial barrier to the use of IC is the problem of measurement and standardization, making it difficult to compare values across entities. How can this be overcome? • The growing importance of IC as driver of wealth and the quickly progressing digitalization of knowledge make it necessary to address the question of ownership. The global availability of information and the Googleization might lead to a condemnation of intellectual property and growing power of knowledge based institutions. The discussion moves between the poles of collective ownership of IC development (methaphor: Linux-Paradigm) and the protection of intellectual property rights (methaphor: Microsoft-Paradigm). The focus of this contribution was to learn more about the IC perspective and its potential to drive paradigmatic change and innovation in western industrialized economies. Looking at the different levels – countries, regions/ cities and organisations – we see that the understanding is growing that intangibles are the major drivers of innovation and growth but IC modelling and measurement seems to be a challenge from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. Without empirical evidence on causal relations we run into the same problem on all levels: the indicators of IC are mostly specific to the context in which they are to be applied and this in turn results in difficulties of comparability.


Bibliography Anderson CA, Bowman MJ (1976) Education and Economic Modernization in Historical Perspective. In: Stone L (ed) Schooling and Society: Studies in the History of Education. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Andriessen D, Stam C (2004) The intellectual capital of the European Union – Measuring the Lisbon agenda. Centre for research in Intellectual Capital. INHOLLAND University, http://www.intellectualcapital.nl/publications/ICofEU2004.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Arbeitskreis Wissensbilanz, Toolbox to download, http://www.akwissensbilanz.org/Toolbox/toolbox-download.htm. Accessed May 2011 Becker GS (1983) Human Capital (2ndedn.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago Becker GS (1993) Human Capital (3ndedn.).University of Chicago Press, Chicago Bell D (1976) The coming of post-industrial societies. Harper Colophon Books, New York BITKOM, Wichtige Trends im Wissensmanagement 2007-2011. Position paper of BITKOM, Berlin, http://www.bitkom.org/files/documents/Trendreport_WM_zur_KnowTech2007. pdf. Accessed May 2011 Bontis N (2004) National Intellectual Capital Index – A United Nations Initiative for the Arab Region. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol 5, No 1: 13-39 Brooking A (1997) Intellectual Capital, Core Asset for the Third Millenium Enterprise. Thompson, London CADIC – Cross-Enterprise Assessment and Development of Intellectual Capital, http:// www.cadic-europe.org. Accessed May 2011 Carrillo FJ (2004) Capital cities: a taxonomy of capital accounts for knowledge cities. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol 8, 5: 28-46 Cascio W (1987) Costing Human Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior in Organizations. PWS Kent, Boston Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (vol 1). Blackwell, Cambridge Castells M (1998) End of Millennium, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol 3. Blackwell, Cambridge Chatzkel J (2004) Greater Phoenix as a knowledge capital. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol 8, 5: 61-72 Croatian IC Center, Measuring IC Efficiency – the First Croatian IC Project, http://www. vaic-on.net/start.htm. Accessed May 2011 Dahlman CJ, Utz A (2005) India and the Knowledge Economy: Leveraging Strengths and Opportunities. World Bank Publications Drucker PF (1959) Landmarks of Tomorrow: A Report on the New ‘Post-Modern’ World. Harper Colophon Books, New York Drucker PF (1969) The Age of Discontinuity. Harper & Row, New York Dvir R, Pasher E (2004) Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol 8, 5: 16-27 Edvinsson L (undated), Emerging Perspectives of Assessing and Navigating both Regional and Business Value Creation, http://www.gurusonline.tv/uk/conteudos/edvinsson1.asp. Accessed May 2011 Edvinsson L (2000) The next generation of IC measurement – The Digital IC landscape. Journal of IC, no 3 Edvinsson L (2002) Corporate Longitude. Pearson Education, Harlow

328)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

Edvinsson L (2004) Regional Intellectual Capital in Waiting – a strategic IC Quest. Paper presented at the Italian Innovation week, November 22 – 26, 2004, http://www.eucluster. net/files/Firenze%20IC.pdf?fileid=197. Accessed May 2011 Edvinsson L (2005) Some Emerging Perspectives of Leadership for Value Creation. In: Amidon DM, Eunika ML, Formica P (ed) Knowledge Economics, Emerging Principles, Practices and Policies. Tartu University Press, Estland Edvinsson L (2006) Aspects on the City as a Knowledge Tool. Journal of Knowledge ManageÂ�ment, no 5 Edvinsson L (2008) Knowledgenavigation’s Weblog, http://knowledgenavigation.wordpresÂ�s. com. Accessed May 2011 Edvinsson L, Bounfour A (2005) Intellectual Capital for Communities, Nations, Regions and Cities. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier Edvinsson L, Lin YY, C (2008) National Intellectual Capital, Comparison of the Nordic Countries. Journal of IC, no 9 Edvinsson L, Lin YY, C (2010) National Intellectual Capital , A comparison of 40 countries. Springer Edvinsson L, Malone MS (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company’s True Value by finding its Hidden Brainpower. Harper Collins, New York Edvinsson L, Steinfelt C (1999) Intellectual Capital of Nations — for Future Wealth CreationÂ�. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, vol 4, 1:Â€21-33, http:// www.emÂ�eraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1656166&show=pdf. Accessed May 2011 EFFAS – The European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies, http://www.effas.com. Accessed May 2011 Eliasson G, Ryan P (1987) The Human Factor in Economic and Technological Change. In: Eliasson G, Ryan P (ed) OECD Educational Monographs, no 3, OECD, Paris Europäische Investionsbank, http://www.eib.org. Accessed May 2011 European Commission (2000) An information society for all: Progress Report for the Special European Council on Employment, Economic Reforms and Social Cohesion – “Towards a Europe based on Innovation and Knowledge”, (6978/00) Eustace C (2003) A new perspective on the knowledge value chain. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol 4, 4: 588-596 Fitzenz J (1990) Human Value management: The Value-adding Human Resource Strategy for the 1990’s. Jossey-Bassey, San Francisco Flad S (2009) Intellectual Capital. Annäherung an eine wertschöpfungsorientierte Definition und Umriss eines zweidimensionalen Modellierungsansatzes. Technische Universität Chemnitz (unpublished dissertation), Chemnitz Flamholtz EG (1974) Human Resource Accounting. Dickenson, Encino Gigerenzer G (2007) Bauchentscheidungen: Weniger ist (manchmal) mehr. In: Gigerenzer G (ed), Bauchentscheidungen: Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition. Bertelsmann, München: 29-48 Godin B (2008) The Knowledge Economy: Fritz Machlup’s Construction of a Synthetic Concept, Project on History and Sociology of S&T Statistics. Working Paper No 37, http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_37.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Hermanson RH (1964) Accounting for Human Assets. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan InCaS – Intellectual Capital Statements for Europe, http://www.incas-europe.org. Accessed May 2011


Intelligent Community Forum, http://www.intelligentcommunity.org. Accessed May 2011 Jelinek M (1979) Institutionalizing Innovation: A Study of Organizational Learning Systems. Praeger Publishers, New York Klein GA (1993) A recognition primed decision (RPD). Model of rapid decision making. In: Klein GA, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok C (ed) Decision making in action. Models and Methods.Ablex, Norwood, New York Kneisel E, Rößel (2009) Überblick über die Entwicklung und den gegenwärtigen Stand der Intellectual Capital-Debatte aus Metaperspektive – Ausgangspunkt und Entwicklungen. Expertise on behalf of the project “International Monitoring”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Kneisel_Roessel.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Komninos N (2002) Intelligent Cities. Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. Routledge, London and New York Kune H (2009) The Future Center Experience: A View from the Work Floor. Intellectual Capital for Communities in the Knowledge Economy. Educore: Future Center Alliance, IC 5, Paris, May 28-29, 2009, http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/251742/ Kune_Session6_IC5.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Kuznets S (1966) Modern Economic Growth. Yale University Press, New Haven Kuznetsov Y, Dahlman C (2008) Mexico’s transition to a knowledge-based economy. Challenges and Opportunities. Washington: The World Bank Institute, http://siteresources. orldbank.org/KFDLP/Resources/4611971199907090464/Mexico.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Machlup F (1962) The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. University Press, Princeton Machlup F (1980) Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance. Knowledge and Knowledge Production, vol 1. University Press, Princeton Machlup F (1984) Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance. The Economics of Information and Human Capital. Princeton University Press, Princeton Marr R (1982) Humanvermögensrechnung: Entwicklung von Konzepten für eine erweiterte Rechenschaftslegung in Unternehmen. In: Schmidt H (ed) Humanvermögensrechnung, de Gruyter. Berlin: 45-50 Mertens JJ, van der Meer J (2005) Intangibles and Intellectual Capital in the European Investment Bank Project Appraisal. In: Bounfour A, Edvinsson L (ed). Elsevier: Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Nagel C, Mauch S (2009) Regionale Wissensbilanz Ortenaukreis. Offenburg, Ortenau: WRO, http://www.wro.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Alle%20Bilder/Wissenbilanz_Ortenau.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage Academy of Management Review 199, vol 23, 2: 242-266 New Club of Paris, www.new-club-of-paris.org. Accessed May 2011 Pawlowsky P, Gerlach L, Hauptmann S, Puggel A (2006) Verbreitung von Wissensmanagement in KMU – Studie zur Nutzung von ‘Wissen’ als Wettbewerbsvorteil in deutschen KMU. In: Gronau N, Pawlowsky P, Schütt P, Weber M (ed). Mit Wissensmanagement besser im Wettbewerb, Tagungsband zur KnowTech 2006. Bitkom, München: 17-22 Quinn JB (1992) Intelligent Enterprise. A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry. Free Press, New York

330)>>

Peter Pawlowsky

Reinhardt R, Bornemann M, Pawlowsky P, Schneider U (2001) Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management: Perspectives on Measuring Knowledge. In: Dierkes M, Berthoin Antal A, Child J, Nonaka I (ed) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 794-820 Roos J, Roos G, Edvinsson L, Dragonetti N (1997) Intellectual Capital. Navigating in the New Business Landscape. New York University Press, London Schmidt H (ed) (1982) Humanvermögensrechnung. De Gruyter, Berlin Schneider U, Forming and Developing Intellectual Potential. Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress on the Management of Intellectual Capital, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, January 21-24, 1998 Schultz TW (1981) Investing in People: The Economics of Population Quality. University of California Press, Berkely Spencer L (1986) Calculating Human Resource Costs and Benefits. John Wiley and Sons, New York Ståhle P (ed) (2007) Five Steps for Finland’s Future. Tekes, Helsinki, http://thÂ�enewclubofparis. org/doc/Finland_Five%20steps%20for%20Finlands%20future_FINAL_VÂ�ERSION.pdf. Accessed May 2011. Ståhle P, Markkula M (2009) ACSI – Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation. New generation innovation agenda. Aalto University, http://acsi.aalto.fi/binary/file/-/id/4/fid/77. Accessed May 2011 Stewart TA (1997) Intellectual Capital. The New Wealth of Organizations. Doubleday Currency, New York STI Revue NumÃ©ro spÃ©cial: Nouveaux Indicateurs de la Science et de la Technologie, OECD no 27:7 Stiglitz J, Remarks at the Department for Trade and Industry and Center for Economic Policy Research, The World Bank Group London, U.K.,Â€January 27, 1999 Sveiby KE (1997) The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledgebased Assets. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco Sveiby KE (2001) A Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm to Guide Strategy Formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol 2, 4 Sveiby KE, Lloyd T (1987) Managing Knowhow. Bloomsbury, London Welzl AG (2009) The EFFAS Principles for Effective Communication of Intellectual Capital – a Guideline for Investment Professionals, Handout IC 5 Conference, Paris, World Bank, May 28, 2009 Weziak-Bialowolska D, Warsaw School of Economics, Institute of Statistics and Demography. Al. Niepodleglosci 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland. Paper presented at the IMO IC-Group meeting in Berlin, November 10, 2008 WICI – The world’s business reporting network, http://www.worldici.com. Accessed May 2011 Wissensportal FrankfurtRheinMain, http://www.wissensportal-frankfurtrheinmain.de. Accessed May 2011 Witte E (1962) Forschung, Werbung und Ausbildung als Investitionen. In: Ortlieb HD (ed). Hamburger Jahrbuch für Wirtschafts und Gesellschaftspolitik. Mohr, Tübingen: 210-226 The World Bank, Measuring Knowledge in the world economies Knowledge for Development (K4D) Program, The World Bank Institute, www.worldbank.org /kam. Accessed May 2011 World Capital Institute, http://www.worldcapitalinstitute.org/makci/makci-awards-mostadmired-knowledge-city. Accessed May 2011

Commentary on the Main Article “Encouraging Innovations in Research and Practice: The Labor Process and Innovation”

Economic Democracy as a Driver of Innovation Ulrich Busch

1)>>Introduction In the article at hand it is assumed that the creation of innovation does not merely represent a technical problem but a complex socio-political matter which is linked organically to the modalities of decision making, investment, capital mobility and education. The author particularly highlights the growing importance of the labor force in the innovation process and discusses specific organization-related, education-relevant and political aspects which are to be considered in maintaining and promoting innovative behavior under the current conditions. Particular regard is given in this context to the implicit knowledge of the employees contrasted with the theoretical knowledge of external experts that only in combination enable a successful innovation process. Further arguments in this connection are predominantly related to decisionmaking and training. Economic matters in comparison are omitted. This is where my criticism lies, in that some economic aspects of the innovation process are referred to and the solution of the problem is sought predominantly in economic structural changes and in approaches of economic democracy.

2)>> Historical Classification Innovation is not an invention of the past century. On the contrary, it is characteristic of the capitalist mode of production from the outset. With the developing of industry in the 19th century which had its foundations in machinery, this process intensified and became more important with the “constant revolution of the means of production”, their improvement and continuous replacement as a result of technical inventions and based on “moral depreciation” (Marx 1969, 185; translated by author). Simply the workers have nothing of this. As a result of product innovations and increasingly of process innovations, the productivity of the work and the profit of the businessman increased but not the standard of living of the working class. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_29, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

286)>>

Ulrich Busch

This resulted in the workers being scarcely interested in improving production and so they retained their implicit knowledge for themselves. In this there is a major restriction and weighty barrier to the development of classic capitalism, as has been described by Karl Marx, John St. Mill, Alfred Marshall and Joseph A. Schumpeter. This blockade was, starting during the 1930s and particularly in the decades after the Second World War, eliminated by Fordism. Characteristic of the Fordist production and social model, as Frank Emspak correctly determined, was that “fulfill a demand” by production resulted in “huge quantities of similar or identical parts” in a very efficient manner (chapter 3.1). However, it was much more important that the increase in productivity associated with the improvement in production was then reflected in the wage increases of the workers and consequently their standard of living increased almost in accordance with the increase in labor productivity. This was particularly the case in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Western Europe and led to an economic miracle there after the Second World War. At the end of the 1960s, however, this system hit upon its limits. We are talking about an erosion of Fordism. This process of erosion was triggered by a reduction in the intensity of innovation. During the great crisis in the mid-1970s the forces formed for a neoliberal change of the system. This change, which in the following years gradually led to a development of the system of global financial market capitalism, released new forces for innovation, in that it promoted independence, favored entrepreneurship, increased the financial incentives for investment and an expansion of production. However, it reverted to methods that existed before Fordism. As a result exploitation of wage labor was heightened, the intensity of the work processes increased and the use of casual labor and the dissolution of normal employment contracts was encouraged. The differentiation of income and assets rose drastically and social polarization increased overall. Wages remained markedly behind the rise in labor productivity. This certainly had the partial and temporary effect that production increased greatly and labor productivity rose; from a long-term perspective, however, this approach led to the situation described by Emspak of an unsatisfactory economic dynamic of production and a lack of innovativity.

3)>> Economic Democracy as a Solution The author discussed the described problems predominantly from aspects of knowledge-sociology and educational policy. In contrast, the economic basis for the innovative weakness of the current system is only touched on. His solution approaches remain mostly inherent or introverted in the system. Since, where they appear radical they can scarcely be implemented under the given social conditions. This applies, for example, to his proposal of restricting capital mobility (8.4) or of eliminating income disparity (8.2). Greater opportunities emerge in contrast from such proposals as the introduction of employment guarantees for employees (8.2) or

Economic Democracy as a Driver of Innovation )>>287

the replacement of the principle of temporary profit maximization using sustainable forms of realization of profits. There are already positive approaches in practice (cf. Beyer and Hiss 2007) and it is to be assumed that in the future positive effects for the intensity of innovation will result from this. An actual breakthrough from this can though hardly be expected. But the proposals are too narrow in range for this and not of a fundamental nature. To reach new shores it would be necessary to extend the democratic system, which today largely and commonly accepted shapes the political sphere of society, to the economic sphere. In literature the term economic democracy is used (cf. Naphtali 1928; Arbeitsgruppe 2007; Bontrup 2006; Vilmar 1999). With the introduction of economy-democratic rules and principles in the economy, where currently almost exclusively private capitalistic interests determine the field, a complement to the social constitution would emerge. This would first hit the public sector, then finally via employee participation also the private sector. Market economy and private property would not be challenged by this, the participation of employees in the results of their work, however, would increase and therefore also the willingness of the workers to generate and implement innovation in the company. The button-up process of innovation described by Emspak would gain enormous momentum with the introduction of economy democracy and lead to sustainable results.

4)>>Summary The article by Frank Emspak describes a shortcoming of our time: the failing innovative strength of today’s society. The author sees a significant cause to be the low level of use of implicit knowledge held by the employees by capitalist business. His solution approaches for this correctly identified problem, however, demonstrate too much system immanence to be able to effect a real change to the situation. What is lacking is a radical change to the economic decision-making structures which the term economy democracy signifies. Greater involvement of employees in decisionmaking on the production process, distribution of the results, investments, use of profits etc. would result in a marked improvement in motivation and the innovative willingness of the workers increasing perceptibly.

5)>> Research Requirement There is a lack of empirical investigation as to what extent employee participation, a broad distribution of ownership (shares), alternative distribution models etc, would lead to higher innovativity of companies and where the opportunities and limits of these types of proposals lie.

288)>>

Ulrich Busch

Bibliography Arbeitsgruppe Alternative Wirtschaftspolitik (ed) (2007) Memorandum 2007. PapyRossa, Köln Beyer J, Hiss S (2007) Unternehmen zwischen Aktionärsinteresse und sozialer Verantwortung. In: Berliner Debatte Initial, 18 (2007) Berlin: 4-5 Bontrup HJ (2006) Arbeit, Kapital und Staat. Plädoyer für eine demokratische Wirtschaft. PapyRossa, Köln Marx K (1969) Das Kapital. Vol 2. Dietz, Berlin Naphtali F (1928) Wirtschaftsdemokratie. Ihr Wesen, Weg und Ziel. ADGB, Berlin Vilmar F (1999) Wirtschaftsdemokratie – Zielbegriff einer alternativen Wirtschaftspolitik. In: Helmedag F, Reuter N (ed) Der Wohlstand der Personen. Commemorative publication on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Karl Georg Zinn. Metropolis, Marburg

Commentary on the Main Article “Fostering Innovative Capability in Germany – the Role of Interdisciplinary Research Networks”

Foster Innovative Capabilities by Strengthening European Dimensions of Research Networks Werner Wobbe1

The essay by the authors Jooß, Welter, Richert and Jeschke deals with a question that is also extremely important for the European Union: to what extent can the innovative capability of Germany be increased through knowledge management of interdisciplinary research networks? This question is to be addressed by identifying approaches and design of different courses of action using the example of the ASPO2 Begleitforschung the so-called “parallel research project” and its Cross Sectional Processes methodology (integrative, interdisciplinary coordination and control/ strategic management of cross-sectional functions). The commentary explores the European dimension of the efforts to increase innovative capability in business and it evaluates the scope of the statements in the essay to which it refers. At European level, the new Barosso II Commission has attached particular importance to increasing innovative capability by means of a political program. The European Commission has based its government program on a total of seven flagship initiatives for Europe 2020 (http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/). One of these seven major initiatives is the Innovation Union aimed at implementing ideas or research activities in products and services. The Europe 2020 strategy represents a vision of the European social market economy over the next decade and is based on three mutually reinforcing priorities: smart growth, i.e. development of an economy based on knowledge and innovation, sustainable growth, i.e. promotion of a low-emission, resource-saving and competitive economy, and inclusive growth, i.e. promotion of an economy with a high level of employment and social and territorial cohesion. The Innovation Union )>> The views expressed by the author are exclusively his own and should in no way be regarded as the official position of the European Commission. 2 )>> Application model for the management of Cross Sectional Processes 1


302)>>

Werner Wobbe

is a means of shifting the focus of research and innovation policy in order to better bridge the gap between academia and the market. The strategy of the Innovation Union is implemented through a number of instruments and policies. The Commission’s Framework Program for Research (FP7) will support this by focusing even more on innovation challenges in future. In this context, the Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities (SSH) program will place increasing emphasis on disseminating knowledge of these challenges: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/mission_en.html. Other instruments, policies and legislative measures are, adaptation of the competition laws, use of structural funds and the coordinated national reform programs which include implications for cluster policies. In an increasingly globalized and complex world, interdisciplinary, international, national or local (university) networks for cooperation are becoming more and more important, as is the coordination of these networks. Developing instruments for the control of networks is particularly essential and becoming ever more so with internationalization. The ASPO parallel research program has developed an instrument of this type for monitoring, control and progress reporting: the specially tailored balanced scorecard. The modified balanced scorecard of the Centre for Learning and Knowledge Management/ Information Management in Mechanical Engineering (ZLW/IMA) at the RWTH Aachen University, for evaluating the knowledge management performance of large research associations, is to be used to analyses cluster performance annually through surveys of all employees and professors pinpointing weaknesses in communication, cooperation and information flow. In order to debate transferability, a detailed presentation and result evaluation of the parallel research would have been useful for international readers, since controlling international knowledge networks within the European Research Area (ERA) is a challenge. ERA builds on these networks and they have now reached a considerable size, as the Science, Technology, and Competitiveness Report by the European Commission points out.3 Is the presented project about knowledge management, (interdisciplinary) network management, information technology components or socio-technical aspects for improving network cooperation? The original project, to which the parallel research relates, the Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries Cluster of Excellence of RWTH Aachen, promises to increase innovative capability through concrete research and development work, i.e. to boost the expansion of industrial competitiveness in the welfare state of Germany. The original project, to which the parallel research relates, is a project in which interdisciplinary research is being undertaken by 19 professors, 17 affiliated institutes and various advisory partners from industry. On closer inspection, however, this original project deals only with the production science theory and not with the thing itself. Production innovation is therefore only indirectly achieved (via a development vision of a theory to be developed) )>> Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/key-figures-report2008-2009_en.pdf.: 98 et seq. and 116 et seq.

3

Foster Innovative Capabilities by Strengthening European Dimensions)>>

303

by application in the day-to-day life of international competition between global economies – as attested to in the abstract and introduction of the essay we are looking at. The parallel project therefore needs to proceed in an even more mediated way. It responds to production innovations at two remote levels of indirectness and does not produce visible action-relevant knowledge. This may also be clarified by the fact that results of the Cross Sectional Processes are not described in detail but faith is placed in a justification of these processes instead. The presented parallel research relates rather to interdisciplinary knowledge management with Cross Sectional Processes and (modified) balanced scorecards (cf. Kaplan and Norton 1993) and could actually work independently of the specialist area of the original project to which the parallel research relates. It is confusing for the reader if the innovation aspect is referred to with integrative production technology, but the application aspect of the technology and its development is not at issue. The parallel research deals with cooperation problems of interdisciplinary cooperation and is therefore only very indirectly related to the original research project relating to production technology, as it is instrumentally aims at better cooperation modalities. The initial results of the parallel research therefore refer to purely network-specific findings i.e.: a))>> Measures such as the implementation of employee colloquia, strategy workshops or training programs have proved particularly effective in the initiation phase; b))>> Performance of the networks can be measured in order to intervene to correct malfunctions (balanced scorecard-based evaluation) and c))>> Continuous employment in networks increases the stability of those networks and research on stabilizing factors in networks is crucial. With its claim of presenting a research approach for increasing innovative capability in general through Cross Sectional Processes, the Aachen parallel research is setting the bar high. It will be raised even further if justification needs to be provided for increasing Germany’s innovative capability through the parallel research project. From the point of view of the providers of European research funding, the essay poses the problem that the potential solutions – insofar as they can be identified – remain primarily in the academic realm of the concept justification and the initial research results are still highly unspecific. These findings are valuable nonetheless. Ultimately, they indicate possible courses of action to be developed for a network management system that would be transferable all over Europe. However, general transferability would have to be tested taking into account regional and socio-cultural differences. Good network management promotes complex cooperations and, indirectly, the innovative capability of Germany – and of course that of Europe.

304)>>

Werner Wobbe

Bibliography European Commission (2010) Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf. Accessed July 2010 European Commission (2010) The Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) Programme. http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/mission_en.html. Accessed July 2010 Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to work. In: Harvard Business Review. 1993, September-October: 134-147 RWTH University Aachen House of Production. http://www.production-research.de/de/27d 0ababf8555c61c125750b002d8a84.html. Accessed July 2010

Commentary on the Main Article “Knowledge 2010 – Intellectual Capital as Driver of Wealth”

Some Key Quizzics for the Future Intellectual Capital Leif Edvinsson

Are we already on our way towards another Economy beyond Knowledge Economy? What kind of thinking development is supporting us for the Future of Intellectual Capital? What kind of Intelligence is assisting us in the Navigation for Wealth, for Future Generations and how to learn to navigate with the unexpected and unknown? It is evident that the drama during 2010 of ash clouds, flooding, and heat fire are very serious ecological signals. But we also have similar serious signals in our economy, especially the European economies. The economical signals from Greece, Portugal might be early predictors of forthcoming societal and social erosion signals of wealth creation…?

1)>> The Concept of Intellectual Capital (IC) The deeper simplistic meaning of the concept of IC is roots for the fruits. A more refined distinction is the derived insights of head value/ meaning, as capital has its roots in Latin, meaning Head. Still another one is the future earnings capabilities or potential. Given these distinctions we need to look at the systemic view of the so called crises, especially in the Western economies. Could it be that the navigation for Wealth creation has lost its bearings? For the IC it is essential to have a focus on the future as well as the intangible drivers for the value creation and Innovation. Therefore as stated already in 1968 by J.K Galbraith; Intellectual Capital can be seen as a process of Value Creation…. The Asian perspective is highlighting that knowledge is more than an object, it is a relation. So I am more and more seeing that the value drivers for future Wealth might be in the space of Relationships, Networking or the in-between space. This has also in Asia been given the specific Chinese term Guanxi. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_33, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

332)>>

Leif Edvinsson

2)>> Productivity Quest This is another serious dimension of the Knowledge Economy. How do we develop the value of knowledge, innovation and science investments? In the traditional economy it might have been easier to see the metrics of productivity. But how to we score and measure the speed of thinking, or the time to market for an innovation, or the life science impact of medical knowledge? Therefore for the Wealth metrics on macro level it is essential to develop the micro metrics on Enterprise level. Major initiatives have been taken of many nations. Just to mention a few pioneering ones, they are among others Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Israel, Austria and Italy. However the major milestone might be Germany and the BMWA initiative on Wissenskapital. This was the pioneering work among SME on application of the process thinking and systems dynamics. Later it expanded through European Commission into 5 countries, as well as to METI in Japan (cf. www. incas-europe.org). Recently this has also resulted in another focus on the inter firm development of IC, or as mentioned above the Networking and In-between value creation (cf. www.cadic-europe.org). Another metrics development with focus on the Accounting is WICI, a global framework for measuring and reporting on IC (cf. www.worldici.com). The WICI, this business reporting network, was formed on November 7, 2007. The Promoting Parties of WICI are Enhanced Business Reporting Consortium, European Federation of Financial Analyst Societies, Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, the Society for Knowledge Economics, University of Ferrara and Waseda University. The European Commission participates in the WICI as an Observer.

3)>> Some Macro IC Mapping In the taxonomy of IC there are the following 3 major drivers, Human Capital, the Relational Capital and Organizational Capital. These components can for the purpose of National IC be visualized in this emerging model as statistics for Human Capital, Market Capital, Process Capital and Renewal Capital, as well as Financial Capital, as done in the recently published book – National IC (cf. www.NIC40.org). It is an investigation of the development of these intangible dimensions shaping Wealth between 1995-2008, in 40 countries, by looking into 28 indicators, 7 for each category. By looking at this unique database shaped by Dr Carol Yeh-Yun Lin, at the Taiwan IC Research Center, we can develop a number of different IC maps on National level. As all navigation is about position, direction and speed we can now start to see patterns of IC developments. This research is an invitation to ask more deepening, powerful questions for the Renewal and Societal Innovation of IC of Nations, to the benefit of future Wealth and Well-being of its citizens.

Some Key Quizzics for the Future Intellectual Capital)>>333

But what is of special navigation interest, beyond position, is the relative position versus other countries as well as the long term/ longitude development of IC. So let us look at some cases from Europe. The scatter plot for these countries can be seen below, regarding 2 categories; Market Capital versus Process Capital. The first perspective is indicating capability to generate currency for its Wealth evolution. Scatterplot of Market Capital vs. Process Capital of Greece and Portugal 1996

6.0

Country Greece Portugal

1997

1995 1998

1996

1999

Market Capital

5.5 1997

1999 2003

1998

1995

5.0

2006

2005 2003

4.5 2007

2002

2004

2001

2006

2000 2001 2005

2000

2008

2007

2002

2004

4.0 2008

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Process Capital

Figure 3.1: Market capital vs. process capital. Source: Dr Carol Lin, TICRC, www.NIC40.org

The IC navigation map shows a path that started to deteriorate already in 1998, i.e. 12 years before the crises was hitting the headlines of news media in 2010. The level of IC is also different between these 2 countries, where the IC in Portugal is going down from a level of 62 to around 48, while in Greece it was going down from 55 to around 37. In other words Greece ending up on a lower level with a severe backwards sloping trend. The map also highlight that with a more proactive understanding of IC there has been plenty of time and space for Innovation and Renewal. This raises the question of need for more refined economics navigation for Societal Development. Another category of IC mapping as scatter plots is highlighting the capability to Renew, in other words Innovation. For the Germany as the largest economy in Europe the pattern below of renewal is indicating an improved i.e. high position for its Human Capital, after 14 years, but not a very straightforward path and mainly a backwards slope for Renewal Capital since 1996. For Finland, being the overall no 1 of IC, the path indicates an improved Renewal Capital but not so impressive development on Human Capital.

334)>>

Leif Edvinsson

Scatterplot of Human Capital vs. Renewal Capital of Finland, Germany, Singapore and Sweden 9 2008 2005 2003 2007 2001 2002 2000

1998

Human Capital

8 1997

1995 2001

2008

2002 2004 2005

7

2001

6

1998

2007

1995

2007

1996

2005 2006

1999

1998

2005

2003

2004 2001 2006 2008 2002 2004

2003

2000

1996 1995

2006 2008

2007 2002 2004

2003 2000

1999

Country Finland Germany Singapore Sweden

1997

2006 1998

2000 1997

1999 1996

1999 1996

5

1997

1995

3

4

5

6 Renewal Capital

7

8

Figure 3.2: Human Capital vs. renewal capital. Source: Dr. Carol Lin, TICR, www.NIC40.org

The above simple maps are indicating signals for IC Leadership on Societal level.

4)>> New Club of Paris To address these issues of developing the intelligence as well as leadership of the Knowledge Economy the New Club of Paris has been shaped (cf. www.new-clubof-paris-org).This organization is focused on: • support in setting the knowledge agenda for nations, regions and cities in the knowledge economy • activate in the cultivating of societal and political entrepreneurship • participate in projects and platform development for creating societal innovation globally

5)>> Societal Innovation Societal Innovation can be seen as the renewal of context in a society, for the space of Social Service innovation and development, as Wealth offerings. It often perceived on the micro level as Social Entrepreneurship, such as a micro credit bank e.g. as Grameen Bank. But Societal Innovation is actually the macro design and regulatory design leading to a pioneering and energizing collective behavior of a society or community. It might be the design of a Free-port for knowledge or a

Some Key Quizzics for the Future Intellectual Capital)>>335

special Knowledge Innovation Zone (KIZ), such as Singapore. A KIZ is described by Dr. Debra Amidon as “A geographic region, product/ service/ industry segment or community of practice in which knowledge flows from the point of origin to the point of need or opportunity“ (www.inthekzone.com). In line with such pioneering thinking, the Aalto Innovation University in Finland, has initiated the World’s First Camp on Societal Innovation together with New Club of Paris. The first prototype camp took place in July 2010, with more than 100 participants from different countries, focused on 3 theme areas: Urban Planning, Educational Service development and Service development with the Silver Potential (Elderly). The next camp will be in end of August 2011. It is a good illustration of Open Service Innovation across national borders, disciplinary borders as well as generational borders (cf. Energizing Society, www.aalto.acsi.fi).

6)>> Future Wealth of Nations So the work on Intellectual Capital is multi facet, cross disciplinary and beyond the traditional accounting paradigm of productivity. IC is about Future Sustainability and how to develop the economics of that intangible as well as tangible ecology. Wealth of Nations is more and more interconnected by technologies across the seamless globe. The speed of the technology innovation is very high. The speed of Renewal of Society Service functions do not evolve as rapidly. However the understanding of drivers as well as evolution and cultivation of Societal Innovation will be one of the key differentiators for the attractive society of tomorrow. This might then become visualized as a ratio between current positions of IC of Nation vs. potential IC of Nation. This new ratio is highlighting an IC agenda of our responsibility to address already today for the velocity of IC transformation.

Some Thought Stimulating Links www.aalto.acsi.fi www.cadic-europe.org www.corporatelongitude.com www.incas-europe.org www.inthekzone.com www.new-club-of-paris.org www.NIC40.org www.worldici.com

Measuring Intellectual Capital Sabine Bischoff, Gergana Vladova and Sabina Jeschke

Abstract Steady knowledge production and a great innovative capability are crucial attributes, if not necessary prerequisites, that companies need to be and remain competitive on today’s market. The open innovation approach provides an opportunity within this article to increase companies’ innovative capability. The article also deals with the question as to how intellectual capital can be measured in the innovation process.

1)>>Introduction As the knowledge society has developed, there has been a considerable shift over the last 25 years in many sectors of industry in favor of the knowledge production factor. As early as the year 2000, the proportion of this production factor in total corporate added value was 60% on average (cf. Wuppertaler Kreis 2000, 10). A great innovative capability and the successful generation of innovation essentially holds the key to sustainable corporate success and positive growth, even for the SME stimulus for innovation. In the light of these facts, the demand for more information about the knowledge production factor on the part of many boards of management is understandable. In addition, intangible factors, including the knowledge production factor, increasingly play a major role in business valuations (i.e. from the shareholder’s point of view) (cf. Strina 2005, 106). Even when the market value of the so-called intangible assets exceeds that of the book value (cf. Helin 2001, 247), balance sheets these days also show almost exclusively tangible assets. Interim reports are increasingly obligatory, for instance as stipulated by the regulations of the International Accounting Standard (IAS) and the International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS). The terms intangible assets, intellectual capital, knowledge capital and intangible assets are used interchangeably in many cases in literature as well as in business practice. The term intellectual capital is used below as a result of the BMBF International Monitoring Project focusing on the central theme of Enabling Innovation and the core area of “human potential as an innovative and competitive advantage” (translated by author). Against the background described above, this article deals with the classification and valuation of intellectual capital and with the clarification of the significance of relationship capital as part of the same. This is demonstrated in the example of the open innovation concept. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_34, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

338)>>

Sabine Bischoff, Gergana Vladova and Sabina Jeschke

2)>> Classification of Intellectual Capital Edvinsson and Brünig (2000) differentiate between financial capital and intellectual capital, which together account for a company’s market value (cf. Figure 2.1). While financial capital is being formed from the company’s tangible and fixed assets, the intellectual capital is being specified. Edvinsson and Brünig then differentiate further between human and structural capital. In their opinion, human capital is based on experience, skills and knowledge. In contrast, structural capital consists for its part of customer capital (characterized by the customer base, customer relations and customer potential) and organizational capital. The latter differentiates again between innovation capital and process capital. Market Value

Financial Capital

Intellectual Capital

Structural Capital

Human Capital

Customer Capital

Organizational Capital

Innovation Capital

Intellectual Capital

Process Capital

Non-material Capital

Figure 2.1: Categorizing intellectual capital according to Edvinsson and Brünig (Edvinsson and Brünig 2000, 44)

Another widespread classification in German-speaking areas is one that differentiates between human, structural and relationship capital. Koch and Schneider developed this new structure in 1998 and thus presented the first concept for a so called “financial knowledge report”. The Austrian Research Centre Seibersdorf applied the new concept in 1999 which today still consists of the first ideas (cf. Koch et al. 2000). In 2007, Koch and Leitner refined the concept and developed an economic oriented concept of the knowledge report.

Measuring Intellectual Capital

339 Market

Motivation

Strategy

Value creation process

Results

Vision

Personnel

Intellectual capital report 2.0

Financial

Assets

Knowledge goals Mission

Processes

Participants

Liabilities

Human assets

Human capital

Structural assets

Structural capital

Ralational assets

Relational capital

Extrafinancial

Knowledge

Immaterial

Knowledge market

Figure 2.2: Intellectual capital report 2.0 (Koch, Leitner, Bornemann 2000)

3 Measuring and Evaluating Intellectual Capital The company’s innovative capability does not just depend on the knowledge and potential of individuals, but specifically on their interdisciplinary and interactive thinking and action. The prerequisite for emerging innovation is embedded in networks and is initially derived from the relationship and/ or interaction between the individuals (cf. Landry and Nabil 2003). The potential and innovative capability can therefore be found in “knowledge resource networks” (Lengrand and Chatrie 1999) and may produce innovations, depending on the quality of the relationships between the individual intersections of a network. Innovation in this sense can be understood as the effect of synergy in the relationship of separate individuals. In order to be able measure and evaluate the innovative capability within an organization (cf. Bischoff et al. 2010), there is, however, a lack of academically funded models that examine and describe the individual’s intellectual capital. Appropriate evaluation procedures therefore need to be developed, which describe and objectively evaluate intellectual capital so that it can be recorded as company assets as part of the relationship capital. Consequently, no conclusion is yet possible about a company’s innovative capability. Existing procedures for including important intangible results such as, for example, the balanced scorecard (cf. Kaplan and Norton 1996), are not specific enough in view of their generic nature to serve as an adequately funded model. There are many other approaches and methods, however, for evaluating working knowledge (cf. Sveiby 2001). The best known method is the “Skandia Navigator” (cf. Edvinsson and Malone 1997) of the Swedish insurance and finance group, Skandia. By the middle of the 1990s, they had already begun publishing intangible assets in so-called interim reports. The output of this method is the Intellectual Capital Report. This is a report on operational intellectual capital in addition to the annual report. The value of

340)>>


intellectual capital is determined by the so-called Skandia Market Value Scheme, which places the market value within a hierarchical structure. Another method is the “intangible asset monitor” (cf. Speckbacher et al. 2002). This is a system based on the knowledge organization for measuring the intangible asset. As a non-financial scorecard system, the intangible asset monitor should be regarded as an additional demonstration of a company’s financial success and its shareholder value. Sveiby sums this up as follows: “No one method can fulfill all purposes; One […] must select methods depending on purpose, situation and audience” (Sveiby 2001, 3).

4)>> Processes of Innovation and Open Innovation Having demonstrated how intellectual capital can be classified and how important it is for a company to measure intangible assets, a relatively recent theoretical concept will be discussed here, based on the example of open innovation, with the aim of showing the importance of a company’s external relationships for its innovative capability and also, therefore, for its success. Increasing the efficiency of product development and companies’ own innovative capability has always been an important prerequisite for success. By utilizing ideas and technologies in innovations, companies are able to tap new markets and maintain their competitiveness. Whereas large enterprises have the necessary financial and human resources to carry out their own research and development projects, meager resources and limited know-how characterize small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). It therefore proves difficult for them to find new ways and tackle challenges created by changing market conditions on the one hand and the realignment of large enterprises on the other hand (cf. Becker et al. 2007). In this context, companies and SMEs are particularly dependent on the involvement of external resources and know-how for increasing their innovative capability and therefore their competitiveness in cross-linked cooperation. Potential groups of external partners in the innovation process, according to von Hippel (1987), are: (1))>> Customers and suppliers (2))>> Universities, public institutions (3))>> Competitors and (4))>> Other nations. In the context of knowledge management, Sveiby concedes that external players have a significant role in a company and refers to the acquisition of new knowledge as “intangible income” (Sveiby 1998; translated by author). It is important for companies that know their own customers well to be able to offer the best solutions.

Measuring Intellectual Capital)>>341

Satisfied customers also have a positive impact on image-building because companies are able to refer to them. However, the opportunity to use and integrate the knowledge and experience of customers as well as business partners (suppliers, for example) into the company’s own process of innovation is particularly important. In the search for appropriate solutions, the company is able to use external knowhow for the purposes of improving profits and growth (cf. Sveiby 1998; von Hippel 1987). The open innovation approach provides companies with new opportunities for structuring external relationships and the flow of knowledge, but also sets new challenges for innovation management (cf. Vanhaverbeke et al. 2008). In the past, companies preferred to use internal research and development (R&D) and innovation resources for developing and marketing new products, and did not really involve the external environment (cf. Chesbrough 2003; Gopalakrishnan and Bierly 2006). A wide variety of factors, such as globalization, new market participants, shorter product life cycles, smaller R&D budgets and rising R&D costs superseded this closed innovation strategy at the end of the last century (cf. Gassmann and Enkel 2006; Gerybadze and Reger 1999). Chesbrough coined the term open innovation as a response to the new challenges. External resources in the innovation process were accorded a significantly greater importance in this approach than was the case in the closed innovation strategy. The new innovation strategy is defined by Chesbrough 2003 as follows: “Open Innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough 2003). Chesbrough extended this definition in 2006 as follows: „ (…) open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively” (Chesbrough 2006, 1). A comprehensive open innovation strategy offers companies many opportunities, but also poses new challenges. The knowledge-intensive innovation processes must to some extent be re-organized to include external players and the knowledge gained to be transferred to the organizational knowledge base. The significance of the informal transfer of knowledge and informal relationships with external cooperating partners, customers, suppliers and even competitors within the open innovation process and the development of an appropriate internal knowledge base should be emphasized here (cf. Chesbrough 2006; von Hippel 1987). These relationships that are difficult to grasp and formalize have a decisive influence on the success of the innovation phase, even at the stage where ideas are being generated (cf. Conway 1995). Nor should the significance of relationships among internal experts be underestimated. Informal relationships, however, are unstructured and, if anything, transparent (cf. Porschen 2008; Strina 2010). The nature of knowledge disseminated by socialization is usually implied and remains

342)>>


in the individual knowledge base of those employees who are directly involved (cf. Porschen 2008; Eppler 2007; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Ettlie and Elsenbach 2007). SMEs are faced with the challenge in their innovation processes of evaluating relationships and knowledge and structuring the processes of associated organizational learning (cf. Cohen and Levinthal 1990). The identification of experts and the exchange between them in particular must be guaranteed in order to improve the progress of the innovation process (cf. Eppler 2007; Ettlie and Elsenbach 2007) and to establish how the company can successfully integrate internal and external sources of knowledge (cf. Bougrain and Haudeville 2002). In summary, it can be said that the exploration and inclusion of external experiences and knowledge and the organization of an external network is usually a natural continuation of well-structured, consistent innovation management deepseated within the company. The strategic opening of the innovation process is only sensible and advisable if the company’s in-house structures are prepared for it. Functioning innovation management creates the framework in which it is possible to make the best possible use of external resources. Structured management of knowledge that incorporates the three levels of technology, organization and human resources in equal measure is essential for managing complex innovation processes and becomes particularly important when companies cooperate with external bodies (cf. Vladova and Müller 2010). The focus in innovation management by companies is increasingly changing against the background of these developments. Incorporation of the external environment increasingly needs to become an integral part of the entire innovation management concept. New opportunities then arise for medium-sized enterprises for strengthening their innovative capability and long-term competitive position. In order to make use of these opportunities, companies need to control, speed up and optimally plan their own (open) innovation process using a variety of methods. Similarly, individual core skills should therefore be enhanced and concepts developed for protecting intellectual property.

5)>>Summary This article has demonstrated that the knowledge production factor has clearly grown in significance over the last ten years, both for large enterprises as well as for SMEs. Business valuations increasingly frequently include intangible factors as well. The term intellectual capital emerged in this connection. This intellectual capital combines a company’s structural capital, human capital and/ or relationship capital. These items are combined in what are referred to as intellectual capital reports and their asset and liability values issued. Companies continue to be challenged by limited internal resources, particularly financial and human resources, in their innovative capability. Limited know-how is, of course, also associated with this. The closed innovation paradigm, which has been predominant to date, has been discouraged by including external play-


ers in the process of innovation. The innovative open innovation approach makes it possible for companies to supplement their internal ideas with external ones and to increase the innovative capability with this additional knowledge potential. No limits have been set on the possibility of including external ideas, whether these involve customers, suppliers, competitors, academics or other institutions. It is important in this context to create appropriate structures in the company for exchanging knowledge in both directions. This integrated concept of innovation management strengthens the competitive position of companies and, in so doing, their chances of operating successfully on the market. The question arises in this context as to how recently acquired knowledge, the intellectual capital, is measured. Two concepts were briefly envisaged here with the Skandia Navigator and the Intangible Asset Monitor. Which method will ultimately be applied in the company remains unresolved due to the specific situation of the company at the time. Indeed, the thinking here shows that in future, the processes of generating and transferring knowledge and therefore of measuring and evaluating it, will increasingly be the focal point.

6)>> Future Research Requirements Future research requirements can be deduced from the current gaps in research in the area of measuring intellectual capital. They therefore also lie in the development of structures for supporting the transfer of knowledge between employees. In addition, it is still not possible at present to visualize informal internal and external relationships so that the knowledge tucked away there can similarly be externalized without loss. To this end, the open innovation conceptual model needs to be synchronized with existing theories of knowledge management in future research work. Innovation processes are knowledge-intensive processes, in which the transfer of knowledge must be controlled within them in a target-oriented manner. Existing knowledge management theories should also expanded for this purpose with innovation-specific attributes. Based on the importance of informal networking in (open) innovation processes, there is both a fundamental as well as an application-oriented research requirement on this subject (cf. Vladova and Adelhelm 2009). A further problem in this regard is that of the protection of private property, because the involvement of external players in the innovation process is not absolutely safe for the independent company. By indicating the intangible assets, i.e. knowledge, in interim reports or the year-end accounts themselves, know-how is disclosed and therefore possible core skills made accessible to anybody. This disclosure is a major obstacle for companies and employees who do not want to see their work valued in order to protect their own reputation. In this regard, companies need to some extent to practice knowledge management the other way round. Instead of merely pursuing the usual goals of knowledge dissemination for knowledge management, the framework conditions should

344)>>


be adjusted, for example extensions and adaptations of the theoretical approaches towards the protection of intellectual property. These specifically concern the company’s internal situations and protective measures used to prevent inflows and outflows of information and knowledge in order to protect itself from knowledge unintentionally draining away (cf. Bahrs et al. 2010). In practical terms, this means banning USB sticks, for example, or other storage media. It is also possible to implement cloud computing here. This involves an approach which makes IT infrastructures (e.g. calculating capacity, data memory, etc.) available over a network and therefore removes them from the company. Professional secrecy clauses and confidentiality agreements have long been an integral part of today’s contracts.

7)>>Outlook On the basis of what has been outlined so far for Germany as a knowledge center, fundamental approaches like corporate knowledge – the intellectual capital – can be externalized. The designation of so-called intellectual capital reports or the Skandia Navigator approach (interim reports on the annual return) are preliminary steps towards an integrated business valuation. Changes are also needed on a micro-economic scale. From the buzzword open innovation, relevant recommendations for action need to be drawn up in future for corporate practice – and particularly SME practice, in order to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized world. At the macro-economic level, from a national economic viewpoint, an investigation should be carried out, for example, into to whether certain industries, which tend to operate stronger open innovation, are more successful on the market. In political terms, the question then arises as to the improvement in legal and economic framework conditions in relation to open innovation in different industries. Finally, both companies and other branches of the economy still not operating open innovation at present should be empowered to apply open innovation by appropriate regulations and laws. When organizing external political and economic framework conditions for open innovation in companies in the future, the focus here should be on the following areas (cf. De Jong 2008): • Networks and collaboration as a starting point for cooperation with competent partners. • Support when setting up firms – an example of this is spin-offs as a source for targeted exchange of knowledge and close profiling. • IP management as a source of new ideas and opportunities for marketing the company’s own know-how. • Research and development work in the company with the aim of promoting the uninterrupted development and expansion of the company’s own knowledge as well as the cooperation of companies and research institutions.


• Well-trained staff with many opportunities for on-the-job-training. • Adequate funding opportunities for companies operating open innovation. The focus should not be on certain firms or sectors of industry when implementing appropriate political and economic measures. Rather, the success of these measures depends on looking at open innovation as a change in paradigms and system.

Bibliography Becker T, Dammer I, Howaldt J, Killich S, Loose A (2007) Netzwerke – praktikabel und zukunftsfähig. In: Becker T, Dammer I, Howaldt J, Killich S, Loose A (ed) NetzwerkÂ� management – Mit Kooperationen zum Unternehmenserfolg. Springer, Berlin: 3-11 Bischoff S, Aleksandrova G, Flachskampf P (2010) Strategie der offenen Unternehmensgrenzen für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen (KMU). In: Management-Kompetenz in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen – Jahrbuch der KMU-Forschung und -Praxis 2010. Meyer JA (ed), EUL Verlag, Lohmar – Köln Bougrain F, Haudeville B (2002) Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy. No 31/ 2002: 735-747 Braun A, Müller E (2009) The Role of Trade Secrets in Open Innovation: Examples of Pharmaceutical SME, Paper at the 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium – Stimulating Recovery – The Role of Innovation Management. New York, December 6-9, 2009 Braun A, Müller E, Adelhelm S, Vladova G (2010) Knowledge flow at the fuzzy front-end of inter-firm R&D collaborations – insights into SMEs in the pharmaceutical industry. Paper accepted bei der XXI ISPIM Conference – The Dynamics of Innovation. Bilbao, Spanien, June 6-9, 2010 Chesbrough H (2003) Open Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Chesbrough H (2006) Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In: Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (ed) Open Innovation – Researching a New Paradigm. University Press, Oxford: 1-12 Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, no 35/ 1990: 128-52 Conway S (1995) Informal Boundary-spanning Communication in the Innovation Process: An Empirical Study. In: Technology Analysis & Stategic Management, vol 7, 3: 327-342 Deutsche Industrienorm (DIN) 1319 Part 1, 1996 Edvinsson L, Malone S (1997) Intellectual Capital – Realizing your company´s true value by finding its hidden Brainpower. Harpar Business, New York De Jong JPJ, Vanhaverbeke W, Kalvet T, Chesbrough H (2008) Policies for Open Innovation: Theory, Framework and Cases, Research project funded by VISION Era-Net. Helsinki, Finland Edvinsson L, Brünig G (2000) Aktivposten Wissenskapital – Unsichtbare Werte bilanzierbar machen. Gabler, Wiesbaden Edvinsson L (2002) Corporate Longitude – Navigating the Knowledge Economy. FT Prentice Hall, Stockholm Eppler M (2007) Knowledge Communication Problems between Experts and Decision Makers: an Overview and Classification. In: The Electronic Journal of Knowledge ManageÂ�ment, vol 5, 3: 291-300

346)>>


Ettlie J, Elsenbach J (2007) The Changing Role of R&D Gatekeepers. Research Technology Management, vol 50, 5: 59-66(8) Gassmann O, Enkel E (2006) Open Innovation. In: ZfO Wissen, 3(75): 132-138 Gerybadze A, Reger G (1999) Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. In: Research Policy, vol 28, 2-3: 251-274 Gopalakrishnan S, Bierly P (2006) The Impact of Firm Size on Knowledge Strategies During Product Development: A Study of the Drug Delivery Industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1): 3-16 Helin A (2001) Quality and Measurement of Intellectual Capital at an Accounting Firm supplying an Intellectual Product. In: Kwiatkowski S, Stowe C (ed) Intellectual Product and Intellectual Capital. Leon Koźmiński Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management, Warschau: 237-271 Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) The Balanced Scorecard. Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Press, Boston Koch G, Leitner KH, Bornemann M (2000) Measuring and reporting intangible assets and results in a European Contract Research Organization. Paper presented at the Joint German-OECD Conference Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships, October 16-17, 2000, Berlin Koch G, Lindner HG, Ozcelik S (2008) Die Wissensbilanzierung. http://www.seneca.de/dl/ wissensbilanz.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Landry R, Amara N (2003) Effects of Sources of Information on Novelty of Innovation in Canadian Manufacturing Firms. In: Fred Gault (ed) Understanding Innovation in Canadian Industry. Kingston, Ont.: Queen’s University: 67-110 Legrand L, Chatrie I (1999) Business networks in the knowledge-Driven Economy. Brussels, European Commission, Luxemburg Lichtenthaler U, Lichtenthaler E (2009) A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity. In: Journal of Management Studies, vol 46, 8: 1315-1338 MERITUM (2002) Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles (Intellectual CapitaÂ� l Report). Airtel-Vodafone Foundation, Madrid. http://www.costingforum.dk/ files/pdf_filer/MERITUM_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Muller E, Vladova G (2010) A Process-Oriented Tool Development in the Open Innovation Paradigm. Paper accepted for the poster session of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems. August 12-15, Lima, Peru Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York Porschen S (2008) Austausch impliziten Erfahrungswissens: Neue Perspektiven für das Wissensmanagement. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden Speckbacher G, Halatek-Zbierchoswi M (2002) Wertemanagement in Cee – Insights, Facts & Figures. Institut für Unternehmensführung der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Wien Strina G (2010) Zu Messbarkeit nicht-quantitativer Größen im Rahmen unternehmenskybernetischer Prozesse. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University (in press) Sveiby KE (2001) Methods for measuring intangible assets, updated April 27, 2010. http:// www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm. Accessed May 2010 Sveiby KE (1998) Wissenskapital, das unentdeckte Vermögen. MI Verlag, Landsberg Vanhaverbeke W, De Jong J, van der Vraude V, de Rochement M (2008) Open Innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. http://www.entrepreneurship-sme. eu/pdf-ez/H200819.pdf. Accessed May 2011


Vladova G, Adelhelm S (2009) Informal knowledge flows in open innovation: both a blessing and a curse? Paper at the 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium – Stimulating Recovery – The Role of Innovation Management. New York, December 6-9, 2009 von Hippel E (1987) Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. In: Research Policy. No 16/ 1987: 291-302 Wuppertaler Kreis e.V. (2000) Wissensmanagement in mittelständischen Unternehmen. Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst. http://www.wkr-ev.de/leitfaeden/bericht54.pdf. Accessed May 2011

Commentary on the Main Article “Measuring Intellectual Capital”

What Cannot Be Measured Can Nevertheless Be Managed1 Günter Koch

1)>> Is Intellectual Capital Measurable? With their article Measuring Intellectual Capital, the authors have approached their topic with recognizable difficulties that have beset knowledge economists for years: How to identify a method of measurement to determine the Intelligence Quotient of a company, an organization, a region, a nation, in short, the constituents of the knowledge society. The author has proclaimed for years that in the range of measurable parameters for the management of organizations, in addition to those which are generally considered to be the classical management parameters, such as sales, earnings, return on investment (ROI) etc., there is a need for a parameter with which to measure knowledge, for example, that of a company, and that change in knowledge should be interpreted as a criterion for the future direction of a knowledgebased organization. In the conventional division of the responsibilities of disciplines, however, the economic perspective is just one among many. By definition, knowledge cannot be assigned to a single discipline. But what does by definition mean here? The simple experiment of a survey of intelligent information providers will quickly prove that one can gather almost as many definitions, as one has surveyed interviewees with different disciplinary qualifications. This ambiguity leads to the fact that, in most papers on knowledge economics and knowledge management, the respective author no longer attempts to provide an axiomatic definition, or that the author at least states on which definitional premises his or her work is based. This dispensing with definition is even justified, because the concept of knowledge is )>> The saying “What cannot be measured, cannot be managed” has been attributed to several authors, in historical order: Lord Kelvin, Albert Einstein and Peter Drucker, among others. With the doubts around the primacy of (conventional) economics in the context of this article, this theory should also be questioned.

1


350)>>

• • • •

Günter Koch

not discipline-bound, but is always interpreted as such not normative: one cannot speak of the knowledge abstract, both in content and in terms of the level of use extends cross-departmentally (which, for the establishment of an operational knowledge policy, represents a relevant, practical problem) certainly not an object comparable to a database entry or, as is understood by the representatives of Intellectual Property, a legal title and hence a possible trade item, but a process in which facts are continually (re-)configured. Accordingly, the semantics of what is meant by knowledge is developed differently in different disciplinary, cultural and temporal contexts.

Even within the narrow definitional space of the knowledge economy, we find, as can be read in the article Measuring Intellectual Capital, a variety of approaches, and by no means a clear, and certainly not one single definition. From the perspective of the author, the following methodological approaches can be distinguished in the definition of knowledge in an economic (and possibly sociological) sense, for terms such as knowledge capital, knowledge assets, etc.: 1.1)>> The Model-Based Approach The invention of new, appropriate models for the description of that which one means by knowledge in an economic sense. As in any newly emergent discipline, this is the approach of the protagonists dealing with the subject. As is clear from the literature, there are dozens of models to capture the knowledge value of an organization. The author himself was co-founder of a model known as the Intellectual Capital Report (in German Wissensbilanz) which has become established as a reference model in Europe, the essential elements of which are: The (political, social and economic) context, the knowledge strategy in the sense of the setting of knowledge objectives, the human, structural and relational capital, the key processes and the reporting of intangible assets = knowledge values. The underlying concept of the models is that, in addition to the classical capital factors such as energy, finance, labor and (material) resources, an organization also requires knowledge capital, which, through the activities of the company, should be increased and transformed into sustainable knowledge assets. However, since there are no measurable metric parameters and there is thus no measure of knowledge, knowledge assets are described in terms of intellectual capacities, competencies, and complexities of structure and relationships, etc., which can be approximately represented by representative indicators and can at times be quantified in this way. If, through broad consensus, a model of this kind reaches the level of a standard, it can also be possible to normalize such a standard model – possibly in its constituent parts – and to use it for purposes of comparison among organizations or regional authorities – see: the Intellectual Capital Reporting of regions.

What Cannot Be Measured Can Nevertheless Be Managed)>>351

1.2 )>> Approaches Involving the Extension of Existing Models Models such as those characterized above are not suited to consideration within the classical framework of micro- or macroeconomics. The classical economist, and in today’s terms this applies to virtually all (economic) managers, whose decisions must be based on a standardized accounting and reporting system, requires reporting of the knowledge assets which, if anything, fits into the existing models for the description of economic realities, or which consistently complements them. This begins with the fact that this group expects that knowledge must be able to be represented in a monetary value. The approaches used here are reflected in analogies to existing, accepted paradigms: Just as in the production of material goods, a value-added process is represented in the chain linking from invention, design, production and finally marketing of a product, in a knowledge organization, analogous knowledge process (steps) are identified, each providing a value-added contribution to the knowledge assets of the organization. At the level of the aggregation of this knowledge value creation, the knowledge assets thus generated are represented on the balance sheet under intangible corporate value as an extension of the corporate assets category. It should be noted, and later debated, that knowledge processes, not the least because of their intangible nature, can rarely be described in terms of the linear or slightly non-linear processes that have been used to represent operational value creation chains to date, and instead must be modeled through complex dependence structures. 1.3 )>> Narrative Approaches A common approach is to capture knowledge in a documentary fashion, for example, using wikis, in the over-optimistic expectation that a relatively complete representation of the organization’s knowledge can be achieved in this way, in order to capture this knowledge and thus make it calculable for more formal, semantic and quantitative analysis and utilization which may lie in the future. For reasons of scope, this information theoretical approach will not be elaborated on further here. The more recent discussion on the question of how an economy must be structured, in order to meet current and, in particular, future needs, is an issue that is being directed towards economists with increasing vehemence and where, at the macroeconomic level, some new features have emerged, such as under the opinion leadership of Joseph Stiglitz, the Economics Nobel Laureate. His argument culminates in the demand that gross national product (GDP), which is a summation of all the products and services of an economy, evaluated in monetary terms, should be abolished as a central reference parameter, because it a) also includes products and services that have a negative effect, such as environmental degradation, and b) a future society can no longer be satisfied by economic criteria alone. The preservation of the environment, liveable environs, personal happiness, education and culture, etc. are factors that now carry so much more weight, that a reduction to aspects measurable in monetary terms can no longer be justified. Other economists, such as the monetary value theorist Bernhard Lietaer, go a step further and ques-

352)>>

Günter Koch

tion the concept of value determination by means of a central currency such as the EURO or the US dollar, in which nothing more is being expressed than that, in a resiliently structured world, monetary value should be fundamentally called into question. In other words: each dimension of the realities of life, i.e. our physical basis, healthy environment, cultural and intellectual satisfaction, etc. has its own currency, the convertibility of which must be negotiated anew.

2)>> The Progressive Potential of the Knowledge Economy The European Union has both in its vision for the first decade of the 21st century – proclaimed in the Lisbon Agenda – and in its strategy for the current decade, Europe 2020, made it clear that the subject of knowledge and its expression as a knowledgebased economy is an important cornerstone of its policy. It is also repeating, in common with all highly industrialized countries, the mantra that innovation is the first and most important guarantee of future prosperity. In the discussion on questions of the transformation of societies, and economies in particular, in their current evolution from information into knowledge societies, it has been pointed out with good reason that the renewal dynamic of an economy is a useful indicator of economic progress. This is absolutely not just about restitution in an environmental sense, but rather about the ability to innovate and the implementation of innovation in practice. The knowledge economy, including knowledge management as a sub-discipline, provides an efficient basis for this by facilitating the conditions for successful innovation in three respects: 1. )>>Intellectual Capital Reports as a form of description of knowledge potentials and resources provide insight into in what context and with what capital– e.g. human capital – innovation can be facilitated and organized. 2. )>> Innovation Management is a form of knowledge management – and vice versa. Innovation management is concerned with exploiting intellectual potential and bringing it to fruition in such a way that something comes out of it. 3. )>> Because knowledge is not an object but rather a continually evolving process, and therefore knowledge management is therefore concerned with managing and tracking many elements and influences – in combination – this is a form of management with a sub-objective of building knowledge assets, which at best reflects that which innovation researchers consider to be the most appropriate model for successful modern innovation systems: Networks consisting of different actors (knowledge owners) and agents beyond the classical structures such as those e.g. hierachical prevalent in conventionally managed companies. The various versions of open innovation scenarios represent this fundamental paradigm shift: Innovation winners are those who are the quickest to recognize which orchestras are possible through these networks and how these can be brought to play together. Companies like Apple or Google demonstrate this most vividly, who,

What Cannot Be Measured Can Nevertheless Be Managed)>>353

albeit with different objectives and business philosophies, but with what are, in principle, the same motivational methods, understand how to have the innovation potential of inventors work for them – and not just of their own inventors, but rather of thousands independent creators, e.g. of applet programs. In conclusion, the following hypotheses can be drawn for research and education in Germany from the discussion here of the article Measuring Intellectual Capital: • All signs indicate that our future society will see itself as a knowledge society and that consequently the development of a discipline-independent knowledge policy, knowledge sociology and knowledge economy must be placed on the agenda of political reform programs. • The self-discovery of the knowledge economy and knowledge sociology, with independent scientific programs, is still in its infancy. It consists of an agenda for a trans-disciplinary formation of a new social and economic understanding which will develop predictably, hand-in-hand with the (r)evolution in economics. The observation of the call for a new great leap forward in the modeling and theory of economic systems in coherence with the demands for a balance of environmental, social, democratic and happiness-related factors also requires that intellectual capacities must be increased, in order to develop and implement such a holistic strategy beyond the classical economic systems. • If it is true, which no-one doubts, that innovation will be the differentiating competitive factor in the global and accelerating development of future societies and economies, then in the formation of a future Germany as an educational republic, we must work far more intensely on bringing together the concept of future innovation management informed by philosophies such as open innovation and knowledge management as a sub-discipline of the knowledge economy, within the framework of a paradigm-changing reform process to develop the knowledge society. The discussion on the question of the as yet unresolved measurability of knowledge and knowledge assets provides a, perhaps even the stimulus toward this agenda.

Corporate Innovative Capability between the Forces of Typical Dilemmas – Conceptual Challenges for Knowledge and Intellectual Capital Management Hans-Georg Schnauffer

Abstract Innovative capability is the decisive success factor of sustainable competitiveness. In many respects it is based on the organization’s intellectual capital. A high significance is thereby given to managing the intellectual capital. This particularly applies with regard to the balancing of the inbuilt conflicts of objectives (dilemmas) in whose area of conflict innovative capability is to be structured. The article presents these dilemmas and shows possible approaches to structuring the intellectual capital management. A major challenge in view of the many conceivable methodical approaches is shown to be the integrated structure that is adapted to the respective organizational context. Within the scope of producing connectable solutions, reference is particularly made in each case to morphology of types of knowledge and types of innovation. In the consideration of future prospects an idea is proposed that pursues the university model of knowledge transfer beyond academic education and thereby could represent an additional approach to the continuous transfer of innovation stimuli of academics in practice. A company’s innovative capability could on the whole benefit from such improved general conditions.

1)>> Focus of the Article: Which Aspects and Measures of Intellectual Capital Management Promote Innovative Capability? Innovative capability, based on the understanding in the IMO consortium, should be understood to mean the capability to generate innovative products for the market and customers, which can ensure a sustainable development of the respective company.1 The focus of the article is a company’s perspective of the IMO subject area enabling innovation alongside the guiding question: )>> For the definition of the term innovative capability cf. Trantow et al. (in this volume). For the description of the project “International Monitoring” (IMO) cf. http://www. iÂ�nternationalmonitoring.com/en/project/goals-and-benefit.html.

1


356)>>

Hans-Georg Schnauffer

Which aspects and measures of intellectual capital management (IC management for short) promote the innovative capability and innovativity of a company? The discussion of this question takes place from a knowledge or intellectual capital-orientated perspective from the position of the practical innovation management of a company.2 Outside of the focus of this article are higher-level aspects of innovative capability as they are also considered in various contexts of the IMO project. This relates, for example, to welfare, health, regional or social innovations – in other words all those aspects for which the producing systems of innovative capability are not market-oriented enterprises in the narrow sense.3 The aim of this article is to highlight the system-internal challenges and potentials of the established industrial innovation regime from the point of view of dealing with human potential as a focal point of the intellectual capital of an organization. Within the category human potential in turn, particular reference will be made to expert knowledge and professional competencies since innovative capability especially depends on this. Based on aggregated observations and experience in practical innovation management, generic areas of conflict or dilemmas are presented. Built on this action corridors feature starting points from which the IC management can set relevant stimuli for innovative capability. The sources for the practical references presented here are results and findings of the author from the German joint research project “Inno-how” (cf. Schnauffer et al. 2004, 10), and from various consultancy projects4 including several discussions in the context of preparing the article with practice representatives in operational innovation.

2)>> On the Significance of Intellectual Capital (IC) and IC Management for Innovative Capability)>> Innovation in the broadest sense is based on improvements which in turn always have at their basis a component of expanding the organizational knowledge base. This knowledge represents intellectual capital in its value for the organizational innovative capability, if it can be used for the company and translated into value creation. The aspect of constant development and utilization of the IC represents a particular challenge of IC management in the context of innovative capability. )>> For an overview of the state of research and practice of intellectual capital cf. Kneisel and Rößel (2009). 3 )>> For the significance and connection between intellectual capital and macro-economic considerations cf. Pawlowsky (2009). 4 )>> These consultancy projects were managed by the author in his role as department leader for knowledge and innovation management at the Fraunhofer Institute for Factory Operation and Automation. They are subject to confidentiality. The sources cannot therefore be specifically cited. The central focus of these projects was medium-sized and large industrial companies in the German-speaking area with a high emphasis on technology. 2

Corporate Innovative Capability between the Forces of Typical Dilemmas)>>

357

The reason lies in the nature of origin of innovation. The innovation process is the center for new knowledge in which new requirements from the most diverse sources converge and initiate the search for new solutions. The actors that work in the context of innovative capability have often undergone the longest and most expensive professional education in comparison with other sections of personnel. Their domains of knowledge are technically so complex and advanced that they can barely be understood by outsiders. Additionally, in these areas the half-life period of the knowledge, as a result of the development dynamic, is often particularly short. For this reason the involved stakeholders are under constant pressure to expand their knowledge and thereby the intellectual capital. Yet the more specialized the domains of knowledge are, the more difficult it becomes to extract new findings that are to form the basis for an innovative solution from literature, further education programs or other traditional sources of knowledge. Rather this knowledge often has to be • accessed from other sources (for example expert databases, manufacturer documentation, science, etc.), • researched alongside considerably more targeted issues (for example relating to very specific combinations of specialist areas and areas of application), • considered in a highly interdisciplinary manner (for example relating to combination with other specialist areas) and consequently • developed by oneself to the relevant extent. The background to this reduced effectiveness of the established forms and formats of knowledge development and knowledge transfer is the specific characteristics of knowledge, which has particular relevance in the context of innovative capability. The following morphology provides an overview of the possible categories of knowledge and characteristics.

Figure 2.1: Morphology of knowledge categories – dimensions and characteristics5 )>> Based on Schnauffer and Staiger (2006, 39). On the further dichotomies of knowledge cf. Heisig (2009, 8)

5

358)>>


If the characteristics in these knowledge categories are considered in greater detail in the context of the knowledge relevant to innovative capability, then the above challenges of knowledge development and knowledge transfer lead back to the fact that, for example, high proportions of the knowledge are not explained or able to be explained. Knowledge itself is constantly in a process of development and change. Relevant knowledge areas are therefore often not repetitive and tentative. Much of the knowledge is not documented or published. The connectivity is often not given per se and must be crated in a communicative way. Expert networks are still not established, the dynamic gain in insight quickly changes the knowledge base, and decisions based on this tend to be revised just as quickly. In the context of innovation, knowledge represents a particularly volatile resource with corresponding challenges in its management. In addition to the challenges in IC management, in the context of innovative capability the significance for long-term innovative capability in particular is to be emphasized. It results from the fact that fundamental innovations that relate to entire technology and product generations particularly depend on the development and expansion of knowledge and skills. For this reason even for fundamental developments the time to market which is one of the major key performance indicators for innovative capability, starts with the establishment of know-how. Here, the degree of maturity of knowledge and IC management provides a direct contribution to the innovative capability of the company. In the following the established challenges in dealing with intellectual capital in the context of innovative capability and their significance for the sustainable ability to establish innovation-relevant knowledge based on typical areas of conflict of operational reality are to be further contextualized. These areas of conflict, as part of generating innovation, relate to many companies and personnel in the innovating sectors. As a result of their antagonistic poles they have the character of dilemmas. Consideration of these dilemmas in workplace innovation management should furthermore build a logical bridge to the IMO reference framework of global dilemmas (cf. Hansen et al. 2010, 56 et seq.; Trantow et al. 2010, 314 et seq.). On this basis it will then be reflected as to which sectors represent options for the further development of the IC in terms of innovative capability. Without claiming completeness, a series of examples is presented in the following which relate on the one hand particularly to the level of the company (chapter 3), and on the other hand the operational level in the innovation process or project or the developer themselves (chapter 4).

3)>> Typical Dilemmas in Workplace Innovation Management at the Company Level 3.1)>> Evolutionary further Development versus Leaps in Innovation Every technological basis of a product is subject to evolutionary (further) developments and disruptive developments (leaps in innovation). Disruptive developments occur at various levels. Whilst at the uppermost level entire economic sectors vanish


359

or originate (cf. for example the so-called digital revolution6), other leaps in innovation change partial aspects of existing products (cf. for example electromobility or LED lighting). Whilst evolutionary developments often logically derive from the status quo and consequently lie within reach for the company from a knowledge perspective, leaps in innovation generally require the long-term establishment of know-how. The resulting higher costs and risks remain in contrast with the corresponding longer-term usable opportunities for competitive advantages. Many companies thereby have the dilemma of distributing in a balanced way the scarce innovation resources with regard to continuous further development (quicker return on investment (ROI), lower risk, lower profit margin) versus preparing for leaps in innovation (long-term ROI, higher risk, higher profit margins)7. The possible contributions of IC management are of a particularly strategic nature in this context. Consequently the knowledge and the development of the core skills of the company are relevant, the knowledge of trends and competition and, building on this, determining the long-term development paths. With regard to the early establishment of know-how, personnel strategy and development is attributed a high level of significance. Ultimately the question of how disruptive a new technology may be internally is often coupled with the question of how much progress the corresponding measures could introduce. Consequently the coupling of strategic company development provides the establishment and expansion of the core skills and, underlying this, the establishing of knowledge at the level of experts – the most sustainable leveraging of which takes up a correspondingly large amount of time. Many companies handle this demand with skills management approaches and specialist and expert career models coupled with corporate strategy in terms of a learning organization and the transmittance of which represents the establishment of know-how. Cooperation with universities and research institutions also represents effective approaches of co-evolutionary knowledge and IC establishment. Possible forms of cooperation range from research and development services to joint development to the takeover of personnel. 3.2)>> Innovation in the Lab versus Transfer in the Field In the research and development division innovations are developed until they reach market and production maturity. The start of production or the transformation of an innovation from the direct context of development and of the thing being developed is associated with a four-dimensional transfer. The sales department must learn to )>> The term digital revolution is generally used to describe the widespread penetration of the computer. This is a dramaturgic exaggeration, yet as a result completely new industries and economic sectors emerged. 7 )>> In practice this dilemma is handled in many different ways. Whilst many companies shun the risk of the long and uncertain approach and limit themselves to exploiting the reserves of existing technologies, technology leaders invest at an early stage in establishing know-how accepting cer-tain failures. However, only a few companies completely rely on leaps in technology, generally these are technology start-up companies. 6

360)>>


communicate the features and advantages, production or assembly must learn the manufacture, after-sales support must master the maintenance. In many respects this transfer process is a process of establishing know-how and of knowledge transfer. It takes place similarly with and for the suppliers involved. This transfer especially presents a challenge in process innovation. In this case the central value-creation processes are often affected, which causes them to be interrupted for development trials. For manufacturers of materials and semi-finished products, the creation and optimization of industrial manufacture lies at the core of innovative capability. For such innovations in which scaling from the lab context of the R&D section to the production section constitutes a significant part of the innovation, the innovative capability is based to a large extent on the organizational ability to implement this work on the running motor and making a target date, the market launch date, available. To this end the expertise providers and facilities must be included which otherwise are concerned, for example, with acquiring or processing customer orders, procuring primary products or carrying out maintenance. These resources must be taken from the operational business. Many companies therefore have the dilemma of ensuring the future turnover from innovations while initially accepting interruption to current productivity such as the failure of a key plant.8 The effectiveness and efficiency with which this transfer from the lab to the field takes place has a crucial influence on the innovative capability of the organization. Contributions to IC management can in this sector be of a personnel and procedural nature. At the personnel level there is a transfer approach in creating personal continuity. Consequently the role of the product manager, for example, if they have not been part of the development, can be occupied by the role of the head of the development project. Procedurally it helps to extend the time the transfer takes and to start at as early a stage as possible. Consequently, for example, the personnel of the respective divisions can be directly incorporated as part of the planning and tests of production and service capability. Ultimately even in the context of more complicated products the formats of product data management, product documentation and training available today offer new transfer possibilities.9 3.3)>> Non-Disclosure or Protection of Intellectual Property Rights versus Inclusion of External Experts, Innovation Partners, Suppliers and Customers Innovative companies are reliant on earning an appropriate ROI in return for their investments in R&D. This requires, at the time of market entry, a sufficiently stable )>> This is evidently a temporary effect which, however, in the context of fully-stretched production capacity represents a relevant obstacle. 9 )>> Cf. for example video-based operating instructions, CAD-based 3D assembly and service instructions and training simulations, if applicable virtual reality or augmented reality. 8


361

differentiation to be ensured compared with the competition (unique selling proposition). Competitors following too early jeopardize this phase. This results in a vital interest in protecting innovation projects and –contents in general and the underlying intellectual property rights (IPR) in particular. Considered systemically the transformation of ideas into innovations is coupled in a procedural way to diverse external references which ensure a systematic filtering and refinement of the initial innovation approaches. These coupling points are necessarily outside of the innovating system in the strict sense like for example, management, R&D department, engineering. They act to incorporate external knowledge, ascertain customer requirements and customer feedback and to discover and prioritize alternative implementation options. Newer developments in the openness and participation of external references go so far that the entire idea origination process is carried out completely openly and it is thereby transparent from the outset which ideas and concepts will be fed into the innovation pipeline of a company.10 Companies are thereby faced with the dilemma that in order for the required guidance to be achieved all the more credible, they have to reveal more specific information about the innovation project. This openness makes protecting intellectual property rights difficult and increases the risk of the competition being made aware of the company’s developments at an earlier stage and reacting accordingly. For IC management the challenge lies in the safeguarding of the IPR by explicitly determining the border between openness and delimitation. Combined online and offline measures suit an open approach (cf. Reichwald and Piller 2009, 115 etÂ€seq.). Protection and delimitation measures are more difficult. They require transparency of the content and a common understanding of the knowledge areas that require such protection. Many companies find this issue difficult to answer in the context of innovation. Yet they form the requirement for establishing clear internal protection mechanisms for sensitive knowledge.11

4)>> Dilemmas at an Operational Level of Innovation and Development The following list of dilemmas references examples at the operational level of the innovation process, an individual innovation project and the individual developer.

)>> This trend is described by various approaches to open innovation (cf. e.g. Reichwald and Piller 2009, 115 et seq.). 11 )>> The protection of intellectual property rights holds the dilemma that to protect the right it is necessary at least in approaches to disclose the solution, which in turn makes imitation possible. Consequently it should be carefully checked, for example, in which cases a patent application actually provides effective protection or whether the risks of publication are too high. 10

362)>>


4.1)>> Creative Freedom versus Time and Cost Pressures The innovative capability of the organization is always based at the core of the creative potential of the personnel. The possibility to develop and implement ideas on the basis of a person’s own knowledge is also a source of motivation for the personnel and is the foundation of the innovative performance of the company. Whilst creativity per se is initially always undirected, innovative performance from a physical consideration results from the quotient of innovative work per time. Many development divisions now record timings for respective activities very precisely. This not only serves as cost unit accounting but also the monitoring of progress of the individual development projects. Personal development resources are often budgeted at 100%. As a result the time for addressing and pursuing a person’s own ideas would be replaced by the otherwise tight operational development capacity. In addition, as a result of the potential for surprise inherent in every innovation project, bottleneck situations easily result, which bring about stress and overloading effects.12 For the developers there results the dilemma that their own ideas and innovations cannot actually be achieved outside of these quotas, except in their own activity outside of the workplace or via starting up an application process which will enable these capacities to then be made available officially. The latter is too large an obstacle for many projects. Another aspect of this dilemma of scarce time resources lies in the restrictions to the further development of a person’s own knowledge, which in turn is another major requirement for the sustainable innovative capability both at an individual and at an organizational level. Proactively building on this knowledge and continuously further developing it requires time resources which compete with the time quotas for operational development activity.13 IC management can here, for example, create framework conditions by integrating time quotas or support possibilities that go beyond this which are made available and dedicated to personal further development or the development of own ideas. Yet the possibility of reflecting and exchanging ideas as a result of internal online and offline networking is an important preliminary stage for appropriate bodies officially addressing these ideas, which in turn then triggers relevant processes. 4.2)>> “A Path is Made by Walking it” versus Process Orientation In theory and practice from the idea to the innovation management approaches favor a course of action alongside phases and process steps that are clearly defined by assessment milestones (stage gates) with defined input-output relationships (cf.Â€Cooper 1988, 238 et seq.; Cooper 2001, 113 et seq.). There is therefore an )>> Various studies have now demonstrated that the workplace is generally not a place for creativity. Rather creativity at work first takes place in moments of quiet (cf. e.g. Gerlach et al. 2010). 13 )>> Cf. on this matter the detailed description of the dilemma time for learning processes versus time pressure in Trantow et al. (2011). 12


363

aspect of formalization and standardization with all the advantages and disadvantages of established bureaucratic routines which must be accomplished by the experts involved. Especially in the area of innovation, which is characterized per se by a high degree of non-repetitive tasks, the disadvantages of standardization can have a great influence. Consequently entry to the process requires defined initialization criteria. If the fulfillment of these criteria is proven not to be feasible, potentially interesting approaches are nipped in the bud. This assessment repeats in a similar way for the stage gates through the rest of the process chain. In the course of this the attainment of objectives with regard to time, cost and quality is assessed and possible corrective measures determined up to Go or No-go decisions. For all associated advantages at the regulation and control level, the degrees of freedom for the reaction to new discoveries, findings and developments reduce. Since, as a rule, development undertakings are carried out in project form, the starting point is always the planning of task forces, progressions, milestones, resources and the associated costs and time requirements. The assessment base that has been applied within the scope of planning is generally based on assumptions, analogy conclusions and estimations based on previous projects. Since the development phase of a new project takes up a very relevant part of the time to market, credible statements for all further linked processes (procurement, production, marketing, etc.) to be synchronized are important. For this reason the planning phase is attributed a particular significance. For the planning developers there is the dilemma that, in each case depending on the level of innovation, to a large extent they can give few or no indications for the expenditure and duration. Rather, assumptions must be made for such divisions without the actual feasibility of the alleged strategy being validated.14 In operational development work deviations in the planning in the case of superficial consideration can lead to the fact that even excellent achievements are not recognized as such as a result of planning that in hindsight is non-viable. Often projects that deviate from the plan initially carry the stigma of underperformance and the burden of proof is reversed to the disadvantage of the project. Furthermore, the crash barriers established as part of the planning for time, cost and quality, curtail exploration of the resulting unplanned solution potentials in the process. The developer therefore always faces the dilemma of compliance with planning and the entrainment of the manifest, unplanned innovation potential.15 Companies with a high innovative capability manage to find a healthy balance between the processes of innovation routines and the creation of framework )>> Many divisions even assign forecasts for fundamental innovations that are based on extrapolations of past innovation cycles. Cf. for example the so-called Moore‘s law – an empirical rule of thumb derived over several decades which states that the performance of computer chips doubles every 24 months. Cf. Intel http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm and Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooresches_Gesetz. Accessed January 2011 15 )>> There are many examples of successful innovations which – had they been initiated within the scope of such a method – would never have arisen. This applies particularly to innovations that run crossways to the established product areas or originate as a result of serendipity. 14

364)>>


conditions for the detection and development of emergent innovation potential (cf. Staiger 2008, 184). On the part of IC management there results various starting points. Initially obvious are elements of business process management and the related quality management such as continuous documentation, information flows, assessments and associated success criteria and decision-making processes. Furthermore, organization of the communications structure along the process chain, for example, can contribute greatly. As a result of targeted communication options both links to processexternal stimuli can be created, such as new findings from parallel projects16, and elements of reflection such as lessons-learned workshops or after-action reviews.17 If methods of this kind are regularly used or institutionalized as part of the stage gate processes, this element of standardization promotes the preservation of a balanced equilibrium between innovation routines and creative potential. Finally the possibility is suggested that as a result of the structurally pre-defined procedures for demanding sub-steps, experts are specifically used whose focus lies less within a project but more in the area of a support service to a specific task complex that will be adopted for several projects.18 4.3)>> Specialization (Specialist) versus Combination and Integration (Generalist) Innovation potentials result from various sources. The most obvious are generally further developments within the scope of the existing technology routes. This involves an increasing depth of know-how and expertise in this area. The majority of the technologies however is subject to lifecycles and is substituted by new technologies in the case of diminishing marginal utility.19 Technological leaps of this kind require similarly great steps in establishing know-how and therefore entail an additional specialization corridor which has to be followed parallel to the transition phase. Often new technologies are synonymous with new faces. Another important source of innovation potential is technology combinations, in other words the integration of different areas of technology in system solutions. Establishing the necessary know-how for this is characterized by a broad multidisciplinarity, which implies a correspondingly broad orientation of the knowledge worker. )>> Cf. on this matter the approach of the business process-orientated knowledge management according to Heisig (2005) and Mertins et al. (2009, 15 et seq.). 17 )>> A lessons learned workshop is understood according to Voigt et al. (2007, 32 et seq.) to be a project-based experience learning that is carried out at specific milestones. Such a workshop does not only have a beneficial effect on the willingness and ability to learn of the individuals, but above all also supports the learning from experience of the organization and thereby organizational learning. 18 )>> Cf. on this matter the role of the knowledge promoter. In Peters and Dengler (2004, 74 et seq.) and Peters and Dengler (2010, 563 et seq.). 19 )>> This connection is described by the S-curve concept that was introduced by Richard N Foster in 1986 (cf. Foster 1986, 95 et seq.). 16


365

For developers the resulting dilemma is to use the ever-scarce opportunities for their own professional further development in order to, on the one hand build on and develop specialist knowledge in the established areas, and on the other hand develop new knowledge on successive technologies or integrated technologies. Conceptual options of IC management in this regard are approaches of competency management and the associated specialist career paths. As a result of the high degree of specialization in many R&D divisions, possibilities for self-defined further development also represent important framework conditions which need to be created. To avail oneself of these possibilities implies in turn the creation of relevant individual degrees of freedom which permit development paths appropriate to personal strengths. In this context highly individual-driven process of competency development, opportunities and offers of internal networking play an important role. Consequently companies can establish community approaches, for example, which catalyze the networking of experts (cf. Schnauffer et al. 2004, 27 et seq.). Such networking possibilities promote the establishment of meta-knowledge in the circle of innovating stakeholders. In particular the generalist-orientated experts benefit from this, by establishing the competency to recognize and interpret comprehensive links. But the specialists are also unburdened in that they are able to align their specialization direction while being aware of the portfolio of expertise of their colleagues.20

5)>> Reflection and Assessment of these Dilemmas The list of dilemmas presented as examples in the context of innovative capability can be broadened even further. Yet these examples already convey sufficiently that innovative capability overall and the stakeholders behind this are especially exposed to inherent areas of conflict. For innovation processes in practice, many of the dilemmas presented here are often business as usual for the involved stakeholders because they are traditional and unscrutinized areas of conflict, which are resolved on a case-by-case basis at the individual level with relevant frictional losses or because the organization has actually succeeded in working out a practical middle ground which removes the dilemma being explicitly perceived as such. For empirical research the challenge associated with this effect lies in the dilemma barely being explicitly addressed as such as and often only studied with appropriate expenditure.21 Innovative companies and stakeholders manage to use relevant measures and methods with which these dilemmas are not actually resolved with regard to their criticality but can at least be curbed. Companies with a sustainably high innova)>> On meta knowledge, the various meta knowledge profiles of experts and generalists cf. SchnauffeÂ�r et al. (2004, 29 et seq.) 21 )>> The experiences underlying this article are based partly on several years of observations and monitoring of development divisions and developers. 20

366)>>


tive capability have addressed these dilemmas as a challenge and understand the inclusion of pragmatic solutions in the organizational action and interaction pattern. The solutions present themselves as different in practice as the common pattern is redundant that these solutions were developed over years and are also the subject of continuous reflection.22 It is also characteristic that the respective approaches reciprocally influence each other in the sum of their measures, in other words they are mutually dependent. It therefore concerns for the set of measures high-grade company-specific contextualized solutions whose elements interact systemically. Consequently the effects of the sectors presented as examples cannot be classified as monocausal. Rather creative free spaces, for example, for personnel are then particularly effective for innovative capability if there are systematic processes, with which these ideas and stimuli can be perceived and, for example, transformed into a stage gate process. Thereby from the perspective of dilemmas, three significant properties can be recorded for innovative capability: • Firstly innovative capability represents the capability to always question the company-specific innovation regime in the areas of conflict of the dilemmas, of adapting to new challenges and of further developing accordingly. Innovative capability is thereby highly path-dependent. • Secondly the measures underlying innovative capability can only be described and understood as an integrated system at an organizational and individual level in their causality. • Thirdly the measures underlying innovative capability, with which the principle dilemmas are defused or even overcome, often present a blind spot from the perspective of the involved stakeholders so that the observability of both the dilemmas and the effect of the measures taken is only possible indirectly and with appropriate empirical outlay. All three properties only allow simple transferable solution patterns and recommendations for action to increase the innovative capability in a very limited way. It is therefore in no way sufficient with the aim of strengthening the innovative capability to exclusively trust in the transfer of methodical approaches of which there is a sufficiently diverse choice.23 More important in addition to the examples of good practice is the accurate description of the context and the conditions under which the respective approaches manifest their effectiveness. In addition to the usual criteria with which practice examples are often roughly outlined, such as sizes of companies, products or economic area, the understanding of innovative capability from the point of view of )>> Cf. on this matter the status quo analysis among companies of the Inno-how consortium in Schnauffer et al. (2004) and the survey among companies of the UNIKAT consortium in Kohlgrüber et al. (2003, 16 et seq.) 23 )>> On the available methods of knowledge management cf. Heisig (2005). Heisig also emphasizes the challenge of selection and structuring of the methods used in line with the context (cf.Â€Heisig 2007, 4 et seq.). 22

24

Service

Organization

Licensor

Society

Politics, Society

Science

Systematic, Continuous Core Process

Discontinuous Ad-Hoc Process of Project Nature Selectively Participative (Peers, Cooperation Partners)

Unsystematized, Chaotic Process

Completely Closed (“Top Secret“)

Completely Participative (Crowd / Cloud Innovations)

Leaps in Innovation, Disruptive Innovation

Systematically-Methodically Induced Creativity

Network of Companies

Development Service Provider

Policy, Legislation, Regulations

Cost Leader

Politics

Retail

Progress Innovation

Spontaneous Creativity

Services Business Model

Several Organizational Unit Organizational Units

Cooperation Partner

Customer

Innovation Follower

Technology

Consumer Goods

Improvement or Incremental Innovation

Chance (“Serendipity Effect“)

Individual

Supplier

Network of Individuals

Technology

Company, In-House

Process

Investment Goods

Innovation Leader (“Pioneer“)

Product

Raw materials and semi-fininshed products

Figure 5.1: Morphology of innovation categories: dimensions and characteristics24

Degree of Innovation Innovation Process Innovation Participation

Innovation Owner Innovation Stimulus

Innovation Driver Innovation Provider

Subject of Innovation Innovation Strategy

Industry or Business Sector

Corporate Innovative Capability between the Forces of Typical Dilemmas)>> 367

IC management attributes two areas with a high significance. These are firstly the characteristics already presented of the knowledge categories which predominate for the respective organization. Secondly, similar to the knowledge categories these are the different features with which the predominant innovation regime in an organization can be described. Even in the case of innovation regimes there is a large variety of types which imply very different characteristics and procedures with regard to the interventions of IC management. This variety of possible dimensions and characteristics of innovation categories is illustrated by the following figure. 24

Own representation based on Hartmann and König (1996) and Söndgerath (2003, 14 et seq.).

368)>>


Alongside these innovation categories a specific innovation profile can be developed for a company using the characteristics. This innovation profile in turn can then be combined with the morphology of knowledge categories presented at the start so that an accompanying setting of priorities at the level of suitable IC measures can be narrowed down. In this way it should be possible to derive correlations, for example for clusters of business models, sizes of companies and industries. These clusterings and outlines could support the derivation of coherent measure corridors at the level of man, technology and organization, which for their part in turn promote innovative capability and intellectual capital. The specific combinatorics consist of the company context, knowledge profile, innovation profile, challenges for the future and organization intervention in the intellectual capital and ultimately the innovative capability, contextualizes transfer and scaling approaches with cluster-specific framework conditions, context factors and conceptual options.25 As a result of the systemic character and the necessary system knowledge their concrete formalization presents the actual challenge. For the preparation of this kind of defined cluster and the associated aggregation of empirical analyses there is a relevant research and transfer requirement. Of particular significance for this kind of more in-depth accessibility of relationships and patterns of high innovative capability is the systemic consideration. It implies that the stakeholders and providers of a company-specific innovation regime are not just personnel from R&D divisions. Innovations are complex and highly integrated in the individual organizational units whether it be management, sales, human resources, purchasing production or support service. Even if dedicated R&D divisions represent per se the major design area, the multilayered establishment of design measures for innovative capability comprises the entire organization. This does not only relate to the establishment and procedural organizational dimension (primary organization) but also the dimension of projects (secondary organization) and the dimension of networks and communities (tertiary organization).26 Innovative capability thereby presents an integrated and interdisciplinary performance of the entire organization whose continuous preservation and further development is to be similarly integrated, context-sensitive and interdisciplinary. This situation applies both to the further investigation of the group of themes and to fulfill the operational structure.

)>> For the derivation of systematic design approaches of a knowledge-orientated organizations structure (cf. Staiger 2008, 151 et seq.). 26 )>> Nonaka and Takeuchi describe their approach of hypertext organization with business system level, project team level and knowledge basis level (cf. Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, 160 et seq.). Schnauffer et al. refer to the approach of hypertext ability (cf. Schnauffer et al. 2004, 17 et seq.). 25


369

6)>> Sustainable Innovative Capability as a Result of a new Transfer Vision between Academics and Business – An Imaginative Outlook So far in this article, the level of consideration has taken place from the position of the practical innovation management of a company with a knowledge and intellectual capital-orientated perspective. The derivation of the significance of IC management for innovative capability, the categorization of possible knowledge dimensions, the presentation of inherent dilemmas and starting points for precise design options of IC management occurred alongside this perspective. Priority is given to the issue of which design options lie in range from a company’s view. In the context of leaps in innovation it has already been pointed out that great leaps in innovation especially depend on the establishment of know-how and require this. As an approach which lies within reach for companies, cooperation with universities and research facilities was proposed. Such cooperations present themselves in the status quo often either as a service contract, development partnership or a sponsored joint research project. It is questionable whether these approaches adequately fulfill the cooperation potential of business with academics. It is remarkable in this relationship that the transfer of expertise as part of the core business of any university, namely the teaching, is not counted as part of the canon of established cooperation forms with industry. This situation should be give grounds for closer examination, for example of the question as to whether additional models are also inconceivable, with which the transfer of know-how to learners who already hold jobs can be practiced as part of the teaching. In the status quo this format of very effective transfer regularly ends with evidence of completion whether it be a diploma, doctorate, bachelor’s or master’s certificate. In view of the universal significance of establishing know-how for the sustainable innovative capability, the hypothesis could be formulated that such models with which the format of teaching can be further pursued beyond an academic degree, represent a relevant potential whose conceptional consolidation appears worthwhile. Finally, behind the workplace innovative capability there are ultimately in many respects knowledge-based offshoots of academic training, which, in combination with the experiences gained, release creative potential. Whilst in the professional life the experiences constantly increase, the offshoots of academic training fade away with time. Additionally these bodies of knowledge become ubiquitary or even obsolete as a result of new developments. Today’s inevitability that academic education results in a degree, creates a similarly inevitable uncoupling of graduates from their alma mater. Generally this decoupling is not questioned more closely in the long term and brings about corresponding side effects that range from fears of contacts to the distancing from academic teaching by workplace experience. The resulting effects of this are unutilized transfer and cooperation potentials which are ultimately no less than a wasted chance for the sustainable innovative capability of companies. The proposal for a systematic probing of this potential and the development of suitable models that should complete this article is in the opening up of the exten-

370)>>


sively closed academic training in such a way that it is left to the professional newcomers and career climbers to continue to further build on their degree as required. Consequently it would have to be possible in a particularly clear and simplified way, after three, five or ten years of gained know-how, to fulfill the requirements by the selective attendance of relevant lectures, courses or seminars. If, therefore, as part of professional further development for the professional newcomers or career climbers, new areas of knowledge are necessary then the university education structure should make it possible for a temporary return to student status. Learning would thereby take place in the same format in which the previous academic training was completed – namely as students which as part of the usual academic routines, acquires knowledge and generates corresponding evidence. Which courses are graduated with which amount of time would be determined with the employer and the faculty focused on the future innovation projects of the company. In a similar way to a pilot who accumulates flying hours, the number of points gained from attending courses could then increase beyond the professional life and the increase in qualifications – although within the scope of the established standards, be recorded by academic certificates of achievement. In this way an additional possibility would be opened up for options of individual further development, with which especially in the context of innovative capability could be confronted with the challenge that state-of-the-art knowledge, which is generated in academic life, can only be selectively and less sustainably transferred via the established forms of cooperation. Relevant secondary effects such as the establishment and development of personal networks of experts, access and contacts to research infrastructures or partners etc. add to the benefits of building on purely specialist know-how. This effect not only conceals potentials for the respective stakeholders of workplace innovation, but academia would also gain an additional possibility for feedback into practice. Certainly the opening up of universities and higher education institutions for the temporary return of former graduates represents a complex area of educational policy, for which stable and scalable models would have to be developed, tested and implemented. Nevertheless innovative approaches and encouraging experiences already exist which could be built on.27 They show firstly that local potentials are completely feasible and success is achievable. Secondly it is conceded that this change has to overcome diverse institutional structures and limits and those particular challenges lie in the scalability requirement. In view of the potential for strengthening corporate innovative capability, the ability to make this potential accessible appears to be of strategic relevance to micro and macroeconomics. Using the same logic with which students today can of course incorporate phases of practical experience during their study in their academic education, it could similarly be a matter of course in the future for employed )>> On the various examples and concepts, also differentiated according to different learning environments cf. the article by Light and Hartmann in this volume. This article also features a series of specific challenges that are to be negotiated.

27


371

people to integrate phases of further study during their working life. In this way companies could continuously further develop their workforce with state-of-the-art know-how without this requiring new appointments which often have to carry out several years of on-the-job training. This would also be an answer to the rising working life, the demographic change and to the fact that in forcing collaboration with universities and academic institutions for many companies an important design corridor is created with which to face future challenges (cf. Pawlowsky 2011).

Bibliography Cooper RG (1988) The new product process: A decision guide for management. In: Journal of Marketing Management, 1472-1376, vol 3, 3: 238-255 Cooper RG (2001) Winning at New Products – Accelerating the process from Idea to Launch, 3rd Edition. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge Massachusetts Foster RN (1986) Innovation. Die technologische Offensive. Gabler, Wiesbaden Gerlach R, Greiling A, Thürich J (2010) Studie Ideenfindung. Survey of 500 employees on creativity and developing ideas. http://www.iqudo.com/de. Accessed January 2011 Hansen A, Trantow S, Hees F (2010) Enabling Innovation: Innovationsfähigkeit von Organisationen vor dem Hintergrund zentraler Dilemmata der modernen Arbeitswelt. In: ARBEIT. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung, Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik. NoÂ€01/2010: 53-67 Hartmann M, König B (1996) Standortsicherung durch Innovation. Grundlagen zukünftiger Strategien und Prozesse. In: Lutz B, Hartmann M, Hirsch-Kreinsen H Produzieren im 21. Jahrhundert. Herausforderungen für die deutsche Industrie. Frankfurt: 145-192 Heisig P (2005) Integration von Wissensmanagement in Geschäftsprozesse. Eureki, Berlin Heisig P (2007) Professionelles Wissensmanagement in Deutschland – Erfahrungen, Stand und Perspektiven. In: Gronau N (ed): 4th Conference „Professionelles Wissensmanagement – Erfahrungen und Visionen“ – March 28-20, 2007 in Potsdam, Berlin. Vol 1, GITO-Verlag, Berlin: 3–19 Heisig P (2009) Harmonization of knowledge management – comparing 160 KM frameworks around the globe. In: Journal of Knowledge Management, vol 13, 4: 4-31 Kneisel E, Rößel C (2009) Überblick über die Entwicklung und den gegenwärtigen Stand der Intellectual-Capital-Debatte aus einer Metaperspektive. Expertise on behalf of the project “International Monitoring”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/ Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Kneisel_Roessel.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Kohlgrüber M, Schnauffer HG, Jaeger D, Staiger M (2003) Sechs Schritte zur Einzigartigkeit. In: Kohlgrüber M, Schnauffer HG, Jaeger D (ed): Das Einzigartige Unternehmen – Mit dem Potenzialscanner strategische Wettbewerbsvorteile entdecken. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg: 15-31 Light B, Hartmann E (2011) Die Integration von Innovation, Arbeit und Lernen in die Hochschulbildung – das Beispiel des Lernens am Arbeitsplatz. Cf. this volume Mertins K, Alwert K, Heisig P (2005) Wissensbilanzen. Intellektuelles Kapital erfolgreich nutzen und entwickeln. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg

372)>>


Mertins K, Finke I, Orth R (2009) Ein Referenzmodell für Wissensmanagement. In: Mertins K, Seidel H (ed) Wissensmanagement im Mittelstand – Grundlagen, Lösungen, Praxisbeispiele. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg: 15-22 Moore‘s Law Made Real by Intel Innovations: http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/ index.htm and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooresches_Gesetz. Accessed January 2011 Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company – How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York Pawlowsky P (2009) Knowledge 2010: Knowledge Navigation Quizzics – Intellectual capital as driver of wealth. Expertise on behalf of the project “International Monitoring”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University, http://www.internationalmonitoring.com/ fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise%20Pawlowsky. pdf. Accessed May 2011 Pawlowsky P (2011) Wettbewerbsfaktor Wissensmanagement 2010: Stand der Praxis in der deutschen Wirtschaft. Chemnitz (in preparation) Peters S, Dengler S (2004) Wissenspromotion in der Hypertextorganisation. In: Schnauffer HG, Stieler-Lorenz B, Peters S (2004) Wissen vernetzen – Wissensmanagement in der Produktentwicklung. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg: 72-92 Peters S, Dengler S (2010) Wissenspromotion als Element von Wissensarbeit. In: Moldaschl M, Steher N (ed) Wissensökonomie und Innovation. Marburg: 563-588 Reichwald R, Piller F (2009) Interaktive Wertschöpfung: Open Innovation, IndividuaÂ� lisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung, 2. Edition. Gabler, Wiesbaden Schnauffer HG, Nitschke M (2010) Mit Communities of Experts Potenziale der Wissensvernetzung erschließen. In: Bentele M, Gronau N, Schütt P, Weber M: Mit Wissensmanagement Innovationen vorantreiben! KnowTech proceedings: 345-358 Schnauffer HG, Stieler-Lorenz B, Peters S (2004) Wissen vernetzen – Wissensmanagement in der Produktentwicklung. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg Schnauffer HG, Staiger M (2006) Verbindungen von Kopf zu Kopf – Entwicklung maßgeschneiderter Wissensmanagement-Konzepte. In: Wissenschaftsmanagement May/ June 2006: 37-41 Söndgerath B (2003) Steuerung von Innovationsprojekten unter Einbeziehung von Erfolgsfaktoren: 14 et seq. Staiger M (2008) Wissensmanagement in kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen. Systematische Gestaltung einer wissensorientierten Organisationsstruktur und -kultur. In: Peters S (ed) Weiterbildung – Personalentwicklung – Organisationales Lernen. Vol 6, Rainer Hampp Verlag, München und Mering Trantow S, Schuster K, Hees F, Jeschke S (2010) Spannungsfelder der Innovationsfähigkeit. Internationales Monitoring im BMBF- Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm A-L-K. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F. (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Aachener Reihe Mensch und Technik, vol 63. Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 310-332 Trantow S, Stieger J, Hees F, Jeschke S (2011) Resisting Time Pressure – Work-Integrated Learning Facing Individual Challenges in Knowledge-Based Economies. In: Cuzzocrea V and Laws J (ed) The Value of Work. ID-Press Voigt S (2009) Wissensmanagement Lösungen auswählen. In: Mertins K, Seidel H (ed) Wissensmanagement im Mittelstand: Grundlagen – Lösungen – Praxisbeispiele. Springer, Berlin

Commentary on the Main Article “Corporate Innovative Capability between the Forces of Typical Dilemmas – Conceptual Challenges for Knowledge and Intellectual Capital Management”

On the Way to a Renewed IC-Agenda Ahmed Bounfour

The perspective taken in this chapter is very stimulating, since it poses the problem of innovation in terms of dilemmas for management and decision making and hereby challenge the traditional intellectual capital perspective; The issues posed here are particularly relevant in the context of the development of open innovation as a strategic perspective in most of large companies in Europe as well as in other large and emerging countries. This is of course a key topic for IC research, because it brings to the fore very concrete but strategic issues for research and action: how to make the trade-off between exploration and exploitation, between the short term and the long term perspectives. How to connect inside innovation capabilities and outside ones? The short also brings to the fore on the most delicate issues in knowledge: its transfer. Of course, the categories proposed might be discussed, and are often discussed in academic and experts’ arena, especially the frontier between what is explicit and what is implicit. The author is right to emphasize the strategic nature of these issues (cf. 8), but I am not sure that the IC community as a whole is taking them seriously. By seriously I mean not stating their importance, but providing the necessary analytical tools, beyond, or at least beside the now established categories (human capital, structural capital, relational capital). In sum, the chapter provides a good overview of some of the key dilemmas in innovation arena. But, due to its status, the chapter does not provide the full perspective for that. Some of these have to be included in a renewed agenda of the IC community.


Learning by Playing: Potential of Serious Games to Increase Intellectual Capital Bodo von der Heiden, Verena Bock, Anja Richert and Sabina Jeschke

Abstract This article discusses the potential for the use of serious games by businesses. Firstly, it explores the world of digital learning games in general, then goes on to explain the frequently used yet somewhat vague term serious games and the general benefits to be gained from combining the two ostensibly opposed concepts of playing and learning. Finally, a particular discipline – the digital simulation game – is examined in more detail using a practical example.

1)>> Introduction to the Topic Due to their increased inclusion in basic and further training and simulation, serious games have been a key subject of academic discourse for some years (cf. Eismann and Lampe 2008). There is as yet no standardised definition of the term serious games which range from simple learning games to simulation games lasting up to several months and First Person Shooter1 games used for training by the military (cf. Michael and Chen 2006). Despite or even because of the broadness of the term serious games, their applications can be adapted to suit different companies. They provide an opportunity to boost a company’s innovative capabilities and thus generate or increase competitiveness. This is particularly thanks to the fact that the use of serious games enhances a company’s intellectual capital by improving the players’/ employees’ soft skills (know-how), which in turn increases the probability of economic success.

2)>> Learning Games, Serious Games and Simulation Games 2.1)>> Playing and Learning The prevailing learning culture of the German-speaking world tends to take a critical view of synthesising learning – a serious activity – and playing – an entertaining )>> Games where the players assume the role of a human or human-like game character and fight other players or computer-controlled opponents with firearms in a virtual environment.

1


376)>>

Bodo von der Heiden, Verena Bock, Anja Richert and Sabina Jeschke

pursuit (cf. Meier and Seufert 2003). These two activities are polarised as far as possible (learning vs. entertainment), particularly in an academic context, as demonstrated among other things by the fact that computer-assisted learning concepts have up till now rarely been used in the classroom (Petko 2008 offers an overview of the potential of computer-assisted teaching). In academic discussions, however, it is apparent that playing and learning are not by any means opposites, that there is in fact a long tradition of combining the two (cf. Bopp 2006), and that playing holds an important place in the human learning process (cf. Vester 2003). In parallel with – and also because of – these insights, the social stereotypes that claim a causal link between an alleged loss of values among the youth and excessive use of computer games are gradually fading. In the age of Web 2.0, computer games have long since transcended the realm of children’s bedrooms and living rooms, with the trend for computer-based learning games extending into corporate (basic and advanced) training, known as game-based learning (cf. Breitlauch 2009) or serious games (cf. Zyda 2005). The concept behind computer-based learning games is based on the idea that a close link between learning tools and digital play tools supports the acquisition and consolidation of knowledge and skills. This is achieved by transferring play-based learning processes to a computer-generated virtual environment. Unlike traditional, non-computer-assisted learning games, they use motivational methods from digital entertainment media – such as para-social relationships between players and NPCs (Non Personal Characters) (cf. Klimmt and Vorderer 2002) – in order to encourage the player to learn (cf. Bopp 2006 and 2007). 2.2)>> Overview of the Genre 2.2.1)>> The Term Serious Games The term serious games was used at the end of the 1960s before the computer age by Clarc C. Abt, who discussed the use of non-digital games and simulations in education in his book Serious Games (1987). This label now covers a broad spectrum of digital learning applications with play-based elements, and what exactly lies behind it is not always clear. In both German- and English-speaking countries, a whole range of terms are used in a similar way, such as game-based learning, digital learning games, computer learning games or educational games. In some cases, these are used synonymously, but mostly the terms differ depending on the concepts on which they are based. Lampert, Schwinge et al. (2009) offer a good overview of this. Although the term serious games is becoming increasingly more established in literature, there is no standardised definition. Zyda (2005) defines it as “a mental contest, played with a computer in accordance with specific rules that uses entertainment to further government or corporate training, education, health, public policy, and strategic communication objectives”. The author distinguishes serious games from conventional computer games as follows: “[…] activities that educate or instruct, thereby imparting knowledge or skill. This addition makes games seri-

Learning by Playing: Potential of Serious Games to Increase Intellectual Capital

377

ous. Pedagogy must, however, be subordinate to story – the entertainment component comes first. Once it’s worked out, the pedagogy follows.” What pedagogic intentions are constituent in a particular game and how the learning environment is structured accordingly depends ultimately on various factors such as the learning objective, requirement and motivation of the target group. Over time, many different forms have therefore emerged within the genre of serious games. 2.2.2 Types of Serious Game The typology of digital learning games by Meier and Seufert (2003) (cf. Figure 2.1) systematically classifies the different serious game formats. CBT/ WBT

Simulation game/ simulation

CBT/ WBT with game elements

Clearly defined Clearly defined Clearly defined

Visibility of learning objeclearning objeclearning learning tives; didactitives; didactiobjectives, cally oriented cally oriented attractive story objectives structure

structure

& characters

Communicable content/ skills

Primarily knowledgeoriented content ("know that")

Primarily decisionmaking skills & systemic interrelationships ("know how", "know why")

Primarily decisionmaking skills & systemic interrelationships ("know how", "know why")

Motivation primarily through

Expected learning success; certificate

Expected learning success; role-play & curiosity; context/story

„MySQL für Einsteiger”

„TopSIM Logistics”

Expected learning success; context/story; game/fun elements „Das Vermächtnis des Amun”

Example

Quiz, Virtual Memory, Solitaire, etc. learning env.

Adventure learning game

Clearly defined task

Little pre-structured Integration of game-play & discoverybased learning and didactics

Recall/testing of what has been learnt ("know that")

Orientation Primarily behaviour; knowledgeknowledgeoriented oriented content ("know content ("know that"); that"); decisiondecisionmaking skills making skills ("know how") ("know how")

Direct feedback (success)

Curiosity; experiencing success in solving tasks; context & characters

„KnowCar”, „The Challenge”

„Mathica”, „Addy-Serie”

Inherent momentum of the game; expected learning success „The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy”

Other games Unperceived, unplanned learning (or "hidden curriculum") Primarily cognitive & sensomotoric skills; media skills

Inherent momentum of the game (fun, excitement)

„Tomb Raider”

Figure 2.1: Types of learning games according to Meier and Seufert (2003)

Based on the pedagogic dimensions of interactive learning systems according to Reeves (1992), the authors assign each individual type a place between the two poles objectivist and constructivist (cf. Figure 2.2). The categories visibility of learning objectives, communicable content and skills and motivational impact are used as features for distinguishing the individual types. The prototypical characteristics of the objectivist teaching concept are demonstrated by clearly defined learning objectives and highly structured learning content that make learning objectives clearly visible to the user. Emphasis is placed on conveying knowledge – knowing that – as opposed to constructivist concepts which also focus on the acquisition of decision-making skills, i.e. knowing how. Learning from experience through the player’s interaction with learning objects is also a high priority in constructivist learning games. The learning objectives are therefore relatively unfocused. Games that are based on the latter concept offer the user the possibility of appropriating the content independently or in cooperation or interaction with a learning and game community. This carries with it an intrinsic motivation to learn, insofar as the player is rewarded by the inherent momentum or

378)>>


positive play experience, unlike objectivist learning games where the user is subject to external stimuli such as corrections through implemented feedback. Objektivism Instructivist Behaviorism Well-Focussed Abstract

Epistemology Pedagogic philosophy Underlying learning psychology Goal orientation Experimental value

Teacher, corrector

Role of teacher

Errorless learning

Value of mistakes

Nonexistent

Motivation Structure of contents and ways of learning Adaptation to individual differences

Nonexistent

Learner control

Extrinsic highly structured

Not supported

Cooperative learning

Example: Learning quiz in classic WBT

Constructivism Constructivist Cognition psychology Unfocussed Concrete Balancer, enabler Experience-Based learning Intrinsic Unstructured Perspectivic Unlimited Integral

Example: Virtual learning environment with Learning / Gaming Community

Figure 2.2: Pedagogic dimensions of interactive learning systems according to Reeves (1992)

It should be mentioned at this point that, in addition to differentiating between serious games based on their didactic design, the literature also contains other typologies (e.g. Ritterfeld 2009) which differentiate individual forms on the basis of other features such as the age of the target group or the level of training (cf. Breuer and Bente 2010).

3)>>

Simulation Games and Business Simulations

3.1)>> Classification and Overview 3.1.1 What are Simulation Games? Because the term serious games is very broad, as described in chapter 2.2.1, this chapter takes a more detailed look at a particular type of serious game – the simulation game. This type of serious game was chosen because it is already used frequently in the Anglo-American world, but still has potential for more widespread use in German-speaking areas (cf. Raffoul 2009). Referred to by German speakers as Planspiele (literally planning games), the established terms for this concept in English are gaming simulation and simulation game – terms which leave no doubt as to the close link between these games and

Learning by Playing: Potential of Serious Games to Increase Intellectual Capital

379

simulation. According to Henning and Strina (2003), a definition of the term simulation game should above all stress the simulation aspect as a central feature and place less emphasis on the planning aspect. This aspect is explored by Ameln and Kramer (2007), among others, in their definition of simulation games: “Simulation games are dynamic models for simulating a (business-management, economic, social and psychological) dynamic system with the aim of understanding, evaluating and shaping it more effectively” (translated by author). Though simulation is a central element of a simulation game, the two are not one and the same, as a pure simulation has no planning aspect (cf. Geilhardt and Mühlbradt 1995). The literature on this subject includes many further definitions of simulation games which are largely consistent and stress, for example, the simulative character as a key feature of simulation games (cf. Geuting 2000). 3.1.2 Differentiation Criteria and Applications of Simulation Games In Germany, there are currently around 400-500 simulation games on the market which are – as Ameln and Kramer (2007) rightly state – “as varied as the reality they attempt to represent” (translated by author). Ameln and Kramer (2007) summarise the differentiation criteria and applications of simulation games on the basis of the classification scheme according to Blötz (2005) (cf. Figure 3.1). They distinguish between: group vs. individual simulation games; company, job-oriented and industry simulation games; open vs. closed simulation games2 and manual and computerassisted simulation games. Classification according to type of Model / frame of reference

Game medium

Social arrangements

Tutorial guidance

PC-supported interactive learning games

Corporate simulation games (gen.)

Trainer-led simulation games

Group simulation games in parallel operation

Form-supported simulation games

Job-oriented simulation games

Simulation games without trainers

Group simulation games with ( competition

(

)

Interactive online games

Industry simulation games

Competition centre (electr.)

Behaviour-based, role-based sim( ulation game

)

Free-form games (open)

)

Competition centre (conv.)

(

)

Online tutorials (

(

)

)

Individual simulation games Remote simulation game competitions

Board-based simulation games

Figure 3.1: Types of simulation game according to Blötz (2008)

2

Closed simulation games are based on a problem and how the player wishes to solve it, while open simulation games are based on a situation and how to handle it.

380)>>


It is important to note that the classification of the individual categories is prototypical. Many games exhibit characteristic features of several categories and therefore cannot be uniquely assigned to just one category in the classification grid. The boundaries are often fluid in practice. 3.1.3)>> Advantages of Simulation Games Eichhorn (2000) sums up the advantages of simulation games compared with classic approaches to learning as follows: • Present complex and convoluted theories in a simplified model • Equip the participants to convert their existing theoretical knowledge into practical skills Simulation games are particularly beneficial to learning “when the contexts learnt in the simulated reality can be transferred and applied to the learner’s known environment or a subsequent application scenario (reality). […] This mirroring is what makes the game experiences useful for the learner’s own reality” (Capaul 2002; translated by author). Regarding the similarity between game and real scenarios, Kerres, Bormann et al. (2009) note that the following should be borne in mind: “In company simulation games, the simulation can only imitate the real system, as the design principles of this system are not known. Rules for successful company management can be plausibly formulated on the basis of models, but can scarcely be converted to functional equations that reliably represent e.g. real corporate developments” (translated by author). The situations experienced in the game are simplified representations of reality, but the gap is reduced in future developments, for instance by using computer-assisted Augmented Reality concepts. Whether and to what extent developments like this lead to further problems also depends on the extent to which the players are still able to distinguish between the real and the virtual. 3.2)>> The Benefits of Simulation Games for Companies 3.2.1)>> Role of Simulation Games in Establishing and Developing Professional Decision-making Skills The experiences required to make the right decisions in everyday work activities can only be acquired to a limited extent through theoretical input. As a rule, these skills are amassed through practical experience and routine work tasks, and mostly on the basis of knowledge gained as a result of correct or incorrect decisions. Simulation games can be particularly useful in this regard. They provide a risk-free space where users can try out diverse strategies for everyday work situations without having to suffer possible negative consequences which would entail action in reality, and receive direct feedback (cf. Eichhorn 2000; Breitlauch 2009). Simulation games help to improve the planning and decision-making behaviour of individuals and groups (cf. Henning and Strina 2003).

Learning by Playing: Potential of Serious Games toÂ€Increase Intellectual Capital)>>381

3.2.2)>> Increasing Intellectual Capital Knowledge is a central production factor in our current and future knowledge- and information-driven society. Endogenous, i.e. internally driven, growth of knowledge is integral to this. Tomorrow’s knowledge is generated from today’s knowledge base and increases rapidly in scope. In order to keep pace with this development, the various social groups are forced to continuously update their (technical) knowledge. The structure of our knowledge society necessitates lifelong learning (cf. Meier and Seufert 2003). On the one hand, increasing employee fluctuation (for demographic and structural reasons), shorter lengths of stay (cf. Hübner et al. 2003) and the associated changes of employer put companies at risk of a knowledge drain, i.e. of their employees taking knowledge away with them when they leave. On the other, knowledge needs to be conveyed to new employees and their soft skills adapted to the needs of the company if necessary. According to Brooking (1997), the term intellectual capital when referring to employees encompasses their (factual) knowledge, their skills, their work-relevant know-how and their ability to network. Serious games, in the form of special simulation games, allow new concepts for realising lifelong learning of knowledge and soft skills, because they enable existing knowledge to be distributed throughout the company and new knowledge to be integrated into the company, e.g. through observation of the simulation game process. They also provide the opportunity to communicate the know how to all employees. 3.2.3 A Look at the Learning Culture of the Next Generation Having grown up in a digital world, the younger generation handles web technologies intuitively and with natural ease. Since the personnel development of the future will also include this generation, companies need to take this factor into account. Prensky (2001) describes the younger generation as Digital Natives (singularity) as opposed to Digital Immigrants – today’s generation of adults who, although they did not grow up in the digital world, are nonetheless able to tap into it. Veen and Vrakking (2006) call this digital generation Homo zappiens and define it as follows: “This generation that we describe as Homo zappiens is the generation that has grown up using multiple technological devices from early childhood.” Linked to this are new forms of speech, expression and communication, as well as new learning and thought structures which exhibit networked rather than linear characteristics. “Homo zappiens are active processors of information, skilled problem solvers using gaming strategies and effective communicators” (Veen and Vrakking 2006). Against this backdrop, the training sector is under growing pressure to find appropriate forms that cater to the requirements of this learning culture in new media. These include linking learning tools and computers, a challenge that companies will increasingly have to deal with in future. Alongside other e-learning formats, simulation games and simulations may offer a solution that allows both the next generation and the current generation of Digital Immigrants a suitable space to enhance their qualification profile with basic and further training and also

382)>>


ensures efficient knowledge transfer from one generation to the next when handing over to new staff.

4)>> A Practical Example – Simulation Game Portal for Large Groups 4.1)>> Introduction to Practical Example Simulation games have demonstrated for centuries that they offer the means to activate “passive knowledge, i.e. knowledge that, though theoretically mastered, cannot be activated in a concrete application situation” (Seufert and Meier 2003, 13 et seq.; translated by author). These games attempt to combine learning dry theory with enjoyable play (cf. Heidack 1992, 46 et seq.). In the past, they were mostly board games such as chess and Go, probably the two best-known simulation games (cf. Knabke 2004). Examples of simulation games that have been used successfully to date include Q-Key (Haferkamp 2000), Micro-Key (Henning and Strina 2003, 135 et seq.), LogisticPLUS (Eichhorn 2000) und Mastering Project Management (Meier and Seufert 2003). These demonstrated “that direct, real interaction of the game players is particularly effective in achieving key learning results which virtual interaction cannot replace” (Henning and Strina 2003, 132; translated by author). Despite this assessment, an attempt was made to adapt these simulation games for web-based play. Like most conventional board-based simulation games, Q-Key and Micro-Key can only be played by relatively few people at any one time (5-10 players). This ensures personal contact among the players, while at the same time keeping the costs of implementing each individual round of the game the same. The aim of this experiment is the “web-based implementation” of these games “for large-scale and cost-effective application (e.g. as part of university lectures)” (Heiden 2008; translated by author). Use in (large) companies is also planned in addition to university teaching. This result of successful implementation described by Högsdal (cf. 2001, 96 et seq.) as an efficiency target not only helps save costs while maintaining equally high learning success for the players and thereby increasing the intellectual capital (cf. chapter 3.2.2), but also enables the application as part of a large event such as a university lecture or a large-scale further training program within a company. 4.2)>> Q-Key and Micro-Key The simulation game Q-Key was developed in order to increase the quality awareness of the employees of a company. The players learn that the quality of a product or a service is inseparably linked to this awareness. Using the simulation game allows the players to experience the networked interrelationships that produce quality within the company. Central to this is the awareness that the quality of a product also depends on cooperation between different departments (in a concrete scenario: Production, Sales/Shipping, Marketing/ Service, Development/ Construction and


Acquisition). Each player assumes the role of a department other than the department in which he himself works (cf. Haferkamp 2000). By adapting the names of the individual departments, the game can be set up to perfectly fit different companies. Haferkamp (2000) describes in his dissertation the story of how Q-Key was developed and the principles behind it. He also describes in two case studies the extent to which its use by a model car manufacturer and a manufacturer of remote control systems for vehicles led to improvements in interdepartmental cooperation and the development of a shared quality image. Micro-Key is a simulation game developed by Nußbaum (2004), based on the work of Haferkamp (2000), to boost the decision-making skills of micro entrepreneurs.3 Nußbaum (2004, 73 et seq.) defined six learning objectives that deal with the way in which micro entrepreneurs can gather experiences through cooperation, be motivated to increase their skills through reflection of their own behaviour and be shown information and tips on organising work processes. These learning objectives are achieved by setting the micro entrepreneurs the task of organising a trade fair stand together. While each entrepreneur presents his own product on this stand, he is also shown how the services of the other companies can complement his own product. In the game itself, different players address the following tasks: coordination, writing talks, organising stand personnel, producing flyers, and stand equipment and design.

Sh

ipp

in g

Pro

du

le

s/

ct

io

Sa

n

Phasenübergreifende Fragen/Ereignisse

Suprafunctional events

M

ar

n

ke ti

t io

n g/ S

i Acquis

e r v i ce

Phasenübergreifende Fragen/Ereignisse

De

ve l

opm

e n t / Co n s t r u

c t io

n

Figure 4.1: Q-Key game plan (left), Micro-Key game plan (right)

In both games, all players sit round a table (cf. Figure 4.1) and throughout the duration of the game take responsibility for the department of a fictional company or 3

)>> Also very small businesses, mostly independent, that frequently provide knowledge-intensive services, have made a deliberate decision to be independent, wish to remain as very small businesses, do their own marketing and establish for themselves a supportive network of business relations (cf. Schmette et al. 2002).

384


micro enterprise. Players play in turn, and the individual actions of one player can have effects on the others. In both Q-Key and Micro-Key, players learn through their interactions and those of their fellow players. 4.3 Web-based Implementation Based on the knowledge that developing completely new simulation games is relatively expensive and that the concept behind Q-Key had also proved effective in the context of micro entrepreneurs (Micro-Key), a portal was developed for games with structures comparable to Q-Key and Micro-Key (cf. Heiden 2008). A web-based version necessitates some changes to the game principle, such as the parallelisation of play, which had up till then been serial (cf. Figure 4.2), changing the view of the play area (cf. Figure 4.3) and introducing groups playing in parallel to create a competition situation. (a)

(b)

Next Level

Next Level Section 1 Section 2

Section 2 Section 1

Section 3

Section 4 Section 3

Section 5 Section 4 Section 5

Figure 4.2: (a) Serial play in the board-based version, (b) parallel play in the web-based version (Heiden 2008)

Figure 4.3: The simulation game portal – game view (Heiden 2008)


The biggest problem with a web-based version, however, is the lack of face-to-face communication, as this is precisely what most of the learning success of the boardbased version relies on. Based on Fischer (2006), the simulation game portal was therefore not developed purely as a web portal, but rather as a complement to an integrated learning concept that combines virtual learning modules with attendance events. Concepts such as forum, chat etc., for example, along with an award ceremony, are effective in boosting the integration of virtual and attendance segments while at the same time increasing learning motivation (cf. Heiden 2008). There has not as yet been any detailed evaluation of the portal. Initial experiences show, however, that a system of incentives needs to be put in place, as the quality of learning drops for the individuals if all the participants do not jointly ensure this quality (cf. Heiden 2008).

5)>> Conclusion and Future Prospects The aim of using serious games in a corporate context is to train a large number of employees to a high level. These games offer companies the opportunity to increase their intellectual capital (cf. chapter 3.2.2) and make early preparations for future developments, such as a new generation of employees or a different knowledge structure within the company. Although serious games and in particular simulation games are now being intensively studied, there is still a significant need for research in a number of areas. On the one hand, this centres around the question of the portability of existing, often successfully implemented board-based simulation games to web-based forms and the associated problems of adapting game concepts, as well as communication and awareness concepts. A further area where research is required is the question of evaluating the success (right up to certification) of further training based on serious games.

Bibliography Abt CC (1987) Serious games. University Press of America, Lanham MD Ameln F von und Kramer J (2007) Organisationen in Bewegung bringen: HandlungsÂ� orientierte Methoden für die Personal-, Team- und Organisationsentwicklung. Springer, Berlin Back A (2009) Web 2.0 in der Unternehmenspraxis. Grundlagen, Fallstudien und Trends zum Einsatz von Social Software, Oldenbourg, München, http://www.gbv.de/dms/ilmenau/toc/601406966.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Blötz U (2008) Planspiele in der beruflichen Bildung. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld Bopp M (2006) Didactic Analysis of Digital Games and Gem-Based Learning. In: Pivec M (ed) Affective And Emotional Aspects of Human-computer Interaction. Game-based and Innovative Learning Approaches. 1 (Future of Learning). IOS Press, Amsterdam

386)>>


Bopp M (2007) Storytelling as a motivational tool in digital learning games. In: Hug T (ed) Didactics of microlearning. Concepts, discourses and examples.Waxmann, Münster Breitlauch L (2009) Lernen heute: mobil und unterhaltsam. In: Zeitschrift WissensÂ� managment – Das Magazin für Führungskräfte, no 01: 30–32 Breuer J, Bente G (2010) Why so serious? On the Relation of Serious Games and Learning. In: Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, vol 2010, 4 (1): 724, http://www. eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/viewArticle/78/146. Accessed May 2010 Brooking A (1997) The management of intellectual capital. In: Long Range Planning, vol 30, 3: 364–365, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V6K-3SWXXNT-5/2/0cdc ed1416152accc6e69d1fece5d48b. Accessed May 2011 Capaul R (2002) Didaktische und Methodische Nalyse der Planspielmethode. In: Erziehungswissenschaft und Beruf, vol 50, 1: 3–14, http://www.sembbsrp.de/fileadmin/Seminare/Neuwied/UploadFL/BWL/Planspielmethode_Theorie.doc. Accessed May 2010 Eichhorn M (2000) Logistische Entscheidungen und ihre Auswirkungen:Â€Die Unternehmenssimulation LogisticPLUS. Dissertation, Göttingen, http://deposit.ddb.de/cgibin/ dokserv?idn=964390310&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=964390310.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Eismann A, Lampe U (2008) Konferenzen zum Themenkomplex „Serious Games“ – Eine Übersicht. Vorlesungsbegleitende Arbeit, Darmstadt, http://www.gris.informatik.tudarmstadt.de/lehre/courses/SeriousGames/ss08/slides/Ausarbeitungen/Konferenzen%20 zum%20Themenkomplex%20Serious%20Games.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Fischer M (2006) Erklärungskomponenten für interaktive Internet-Planspiele. Research report, Basel Geilhardt T, Mühlbradt T (1995) Planspiele im Personal- und Organisationsmanagement. Hogrefe, Göttingen Geuting M (2000) Soziale Simulation und Planspiel in pädagogischer Perspektive. In: Simulation und Planspiel in den Sozialwissenschaften. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der internationalen Diskussion. Herz & Blätte, Münster: 15–62 Haferkamp S (2000) Entwicklung und Anwendung eines brettorientierten Planspiels zur Qualitätsentwicklung in Unternehmen. Shaker Verlag GmbH, Aachen Heidack C (1992) Lerninstrument an Hochschulen und in der Wirtschaft. In: Graf J (ed) Planspiele – simulierte Realität für den Chef von morgen. Gabel, Speyer: 45–58 Heiden B von der (2008) Planspielportal für große (Studierenden-)Gruppen zur webbasierten Umsetzung von strategischen Lernspielen wie Q-Key und Micro-Key. Master thesis, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen Henning K, Strina G (2003) Planspiele in der betrieblichen Anwendung. UnternehmensÂ� kybernetik in der Praxis. Shaker Verlag, Aachen Högsdal N (2001) Internetplanspiele im praktischen Einsatz. In: Mandl H (ed) Planspiele im Internet: Konzepte und Praxisbeispiele für den Einsatz in Aus- und Weiterbildung. Bertelsmann, Bielefeld: 95–113 Hübner W, Kühl A (2003) Kompetenzerhalt und Kompetenzentwicklung älterer Mitarbeiter in Unternehmen. In: Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM (ed) Quem-Report Schriften zur beruflichen Weiterbildung, no 84 Kerres M, Bormann M, Vervenne M (2009) Didaktische Konzeption von Serious Games:Â€Zur Verknüpfung von Spiel- und Lernangeboten. In: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, no 08, http://www.medienpaed.com/2009/kerres0908.pdf. Accessed May 2011


Klimmt C, Vorderer P (2002) Lara ist mein Medium. Parasoziale Interaktionen mit Lara Croft im Vergleich zur Lieblingsfigur aus Film und Fernsehen. In: Rössler P, Kubisch S, Gehrau V (ed) Empirische Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung. Fischer, München: 177–192 Knabke T (2004) Konstruktion von Planspielen mit Hilfe von Generatoren. Bachelor thesis Universität Göttingen Lampert C, Schwinge C, Tolks D (2008) Der gespielte Ernst des Lebens: Bestandsaufnahme und Potenziale von Serious Games (for Health). In: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, vol 15/16, http://www.medienpaed.com/15/lampert0903.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Meier C, Seufert S (2003) Game-based Learning: Erfahrungen mit und Perspektiven für digitale Lernspiele in der betrieblichen Bildung, Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Köln, http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/EXPORT/DL/34407.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Michael D, Chen S (2006) Serious games. Games that educate, train and inform, Thomson Course Technology, Boston, Mass., http://www.gbv.de/dms/bowker/toc/9781592006229. pdf. Accessed May 2011 Nußbaum C (2004) Ein Planspiel für Mikrounternehmer mit wissensintensiven Dienstleistungen zur Förderung ihrer Handlungskompetenz in Kooperationen. Dissertation at RWTH Aachen University, Aachen Peter VAM, Vissers, GN (2004) A Simple Classification Model for Debriefing Simulation Games. In: Simulation Gaming, no 35: 70–84, http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/ reprint/35/1/70. Accessed May 2011 Petko D (2008) Unterrichten mit Computerspielen. Didaktische Potenziale und Ansätze für den gezielten Einsatz in Schule und Ausbildung. In: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, Vol 15/16, http://www.medienpaed.com/15/petko0811.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Pivec M (2006) Affective And Emotional Aspects of Human-computer Interaction. Gamebased And Innovative Learning Approaches. 1 (Future of Learning). IOSÂ€Press, Amsterdam Prensky M (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. In: On the Horizon, Vol 9 No 5: 1–6 Reeves T (1992) Effective dimensions of interactive learning systems. In: Proceedings of the Information Technology for Training and Education Conference (ITTE ‘92). Brisbane, Australia Ritterfeld U (2009) Serious games. Mechanisms and effects. Routledge, London. Rössler P, Kubisch S, Gehrau V (2002) Empirische Perspektiven der Rezeptionsforschung. Fischer, München, http://www.gbv.de/dms/bs/toc/340083921.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Schmette M, Nußbaum C, Strina G (2002) Positionspapier: Der Mikrounternehmer. zur Vorbereitung des Arbeitsforums “Stand und Perspektiven im Forschungsfeld Mikrounternehmertum”. Positionspapier, Mülheim an der Ruhr, http://www.ifu.rwth-aachen.de/ downloads/positionspapier_mikrounternehmer.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Seufert S, Meier C (2003) Game – based Learning: Erfahrungen mit und Perspektiven für digitale Lernspiele in der betrieblichen Bildung. In: Hohenstein A, Wilbers K (ed) Handbuch E–Learning für Wissenschaft und Praxis. Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Köln Seufert S, Meier C (2003) Planspiele und digitale Lernspiele: Neue Edutainment Welle oder nicht erkannte Potenziale neuer Lernformen. http://elearningreviews.org/seufert/docs/ lernspiele-planspiele-edutainement.pdf. Accessed September 2010 Veen W, Vrakking B (2006) Homo zappiens. Growing up in a digital age, Network Continuum Education, London, http://www.gbv.de/dms/hbz/toc/ ht015223608.pdf. Accessed September 2010

388)>>


Vester F (2003) Planspiele in der betrieblichen Anwendung. In: Henning K, Strina G (ed) Unternehmenskybernetik in der Praxis. Shaker Verlag, Aachen Wolf D (2010) Unternehmenssimulationen: Spielend Erkenntnisse gewinnen. http://www. business-wissen.de/fileadmin/doc/DruckdateiPDF/Unternehmenssimu lationPlanspiele. pdf. Accessed May 2011 Zyda M (2005) From Visual Simulation to Virtual Reality to Games.In: IEEE Computer. Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA: 25–32

Commentary on the Main Article “Learning by Playing: Potential of Serious Games to Increase Intellectual Capital”

Serious Rigor for Serious Games Sebastiaan Meijer and Wim Veen

While playing is as old as the human species (Homo Ludens, Huizinga 1971), it is remarkable how little we understand about what makes people learn from playing games. In our eyes, the contribution of this chapter is threefold. Firstly, the main text discusses a variety of ways to structure all different types of games with the purpose to explain the learning outcomes. Secondly, it addresses some differences between two somewhat separate communities of practice, divided by language, even though the geographical distance is rather small. Thirdly, it presents a computer-based version of a paper-based game that has promising applications in teaching applications. Our comment will sequentially address the three contributions, to end with opportunities for future research. The authors are right in their observation that the field of serious gaming is using a multitude of definitions and terms that differ slightly in meaning and interpretation. The various classifications that exist and that undoubtly will appear in forthcoming years each have their use, but none has proven to be universally applicable. The work of Ben Sawyer (2008) has come closest, but has no link to learning and is therefore mostly used in computer game and entertainment game literature. The question that comes up after five decades of academic publications in this field is whether we are discussing one phenomenon. The authors question the strict distinction between learning and playing that traditionally prevailed in the German speaking world (cf. Meier and Seufert 2003). It will be above any doubt that children learn from playing games. But what they learn is difficult to assess. Gaming assumes that a serious game can be designed to teach specific competences. Druckman (cf. 1994) suggests that more specific competences require games with more fidelity (i.e. process or structure validity in terms of Raser (cf. 1969). Kato et al (cf. 2008) proved that medical competences could be learned in games that resemble reality closely, while Bekebrede (cf. 2010) proved learning about complexity in simulated harbor development projects. Armies and emergency services have tremendous history of learning in ‘as-if-real’ environments. This is where the world of ‘gaming’ is left and we move to the world of ‘simulation’. The authors of this chapter use the terms simulation game and gaming simulation to describe what they consider as a specific branch of serious games, and that they S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_39, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

390)>>

Sebastiaan Meijer and Wim Veen

implicitly consider better suited for learning. We doubt whether gaming simulation is a special branch of serious gaming, considering that according to Duke and Geurts (2004), a gaming simulation is “a special type of model that uses gaming techniques to model and simulate a system. A gaming simulation is an operating model of a real life system in which actors in roles partially recreate the behavior of the system”. We would assert that the tool used to teach competences is always a gaming simulation instead of a pure game, because every documented serious game for learning applications describes some aspects from reality that are modeled more real or abstract, but always to recreate the behavior of the system. Now one might wonder why this positioning is important. This brings us to the second contribution of the chapter: the differences between communities of practice. Culture is defined as “the collective programming of the mind” (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005), and distinguishes one group of people from another. Following the Hofstede theory, cultures can be described by scoring them on five dimensions. The different communities of practice that the main chapter addresses are divided by language, and can be linked to groups of countries. On the one side there is the English speaking world where Americans, British and Australians contribute, with academic contributions from the rest of the world and a wide-spread audience for their papers. The second group is the German-speaking world where Germans, Swiss and Austrians build their games and publish in professional literature that is rarely seen outside the language barriers. If we look at the cultural differences between these groups of countries (cf. Hofstede WEB), the most important differences are found in the level of individualism (high in ENG, medium in GER), and long-term orientation (short in ENG, medium in GER). What could this explain for the practices in the two communities around gaming? Hofstede emphasizes that one cannot make direct assertions about behavior from scores on the culture dimensions, but that it explains trends, tendencies and likeliness of certain behavior (cf. Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Meijer (cf. 2009) discussed the interplay between culture and the organization of transactions and supply networks like for instance the gaming community in the framework of Williamson (cf. 2000). Given these limitations, we can make some assumptions about trends in the gaming community based on the culture dimensions. In the English-speaking world, the combination of high individualism and short-term orientation makes that instant satisfaction for participants is favored. (Serious) Gaming therefore is an ideal method as it combines fun, instant feedback and active participation and interaction with learning outcomes. The results of the individual in a game are deemed important, enabling both single-player and multiplayer games. This matches ideally with the concept of Homo Zappiens (cf. Veen and Vrakking 2006). As long as the participant experiences that he learned, all will be happy, both from an education supplier and education client side. The German-speaking community however, will put more emphasis on the aspects of the group or organization that influences the process about which has to be learned, as the level of individualism is lower, so the group is more important. The medium score on long term orientation makes that instant satis-

Serious Rigor for Serious Games)>>391

faction is less needed and games may take longer to reach a learning outcome. These two aspects make that games for learning that are made in the AngloAmerican paradigm will be experienced as too much fun, and too little about the complex processes between people, the organization and the process about which has to be learned. Simulating a process better matches the likely attitude in the German-speaking world. Gaming simulation, when the term is used precisely, puts more emphasis on the process and structure of the system under study. It is therefore likely that after the serious gaming hype that is currently seen in media, gaming simulation is what will remain in the German community. The third contribution of the chapter is the presentation of a computer-based version of the existing games Q-Key and Micro-Key. While in itself web-based games can be useful, the authors rightfully pose the question whether this is still the same game as the analog version. The lack of face-to-face interaction (solved through facilitation in this case), the lack of physical objects to interact with, as well as the changed game-play from serial to parallel make us wonder about the value of this attempt. In the book Why do games work (De Caluwe et al. 2006), the contributors all shed their light on what is the active substance. The facilitation, creativity through interaction with objects and most importantly the rich social setting are on the top of their lists. What the chapter lacks is an evaluation of the results. This is not surprising as the most important critique of education designers of the ‘prophets’ of serious gaming is the lack of evaluation in most positively reported cases. The German-speaking world, however, produced the most elaborate evaluation framework described in literature by Kriz and Hense (cf. 2006). In our country, Harteveld (in press 2011) introduced the Triadic Game Design method that addresses this point. This brings us to our conclusions. The main chapter has a positive attitude towards gaming for learning applications. It does not mention possible drawbacks. Because of cultural differences between communities of practice, it is important for the advocates of this innovative method to be aware of the preferences and attitudes towards the key aspects of gaming. Using the vocabulary right will not only clear up confusions, but will also steer the development of games towards ‘gaming simulations’ that will be favored in the German-speaking world. In our country (The Netherlands), a similar trend can be seen yet. A transfer of existing games to web-based versions is not the answer to the questions in industry. A thorough study of what can be trained, with proper evaluation and attention to local preferences better serves the spread of gaming as an innovation method.

Bibliography Bekebrede G (2010) Experiencing Complexity: A Gaming Approach for Understanding Infrastructure Systems. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology CaluwÃ© L de, Hofstede GJ, Peters V (2008) Why do games work? In search of the active substance. Kluwer, Deventer, The Netherlands

392)>>

Sebastiaan Meijer and Wim Veen

Druckman D (1994) The educational effectiveness of interactive games. In Crookall D, Arai, A (ed) Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures. SAGE publications: 178-187 Duke RD, Geurts JLA (2004) Policy games for strategic management. Dutch University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Harteveld C (2011 in press) Triadic Game Design. Springer-Verlag Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ (2005) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. Third Millennium Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill Hofstede G (WEB) Hofstede Dimension Data Matrix. http://www.geerthofstede.com/ research--vsm/dimension-data-matrix.aspx. Accessed October 2010 Huizinga J (1971) Homo Ludens: a study of the play-element in culture. Beacon Press Kato PM, Cole SW, Bradlyn AS, Pollock BH (2008) A Video Game Improves Behavioural Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Randomized Trial. Â�Pediatrics, vol 122, 2 August 2008: e305-e317 Kriz WC, Hense JU (2006) Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation. Simulation Gaming, 37: 268–285 Meijer SA (2009) The organisation of transactions: studying supply networks using gaming simulation. Wageningen Academic Raser JC (1969) Simulations and society: an exploration of scientific gaming. Allyn & Bacon, Boston Sawyer B (2008) Serious games taxonomy (Serious Games Summit). http://www.seriousgames.org/presentations/serious-games-taxonomy-2008_web.pdf. Accessed October 2010 Seufert S, Meier C: Planspiele und digitale Lernspiele: Neue Edutainment-Welle oder nicht erkannte Potenziale neuer Lernformen. http://elearningreviews.org/seufert/docs/Â� lernspiele-planspiele-edutainement.pdf. Accessed October 2010 Veen W, Vrakking B (2006) Homo zappiens. Growing up in a digital age, Network Continuum Education, London Williamson OE (2000) The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, vol 38, 3: 595-613

Future Center – An Unconventional Approach to Promote Intellectual Capital Potential An Overview over International Developments and the Perspective of National Adaptation Günther M. Szogs

Abstract The knowledge society is attested everywhere in Germany and at the same time an inadequate culture of social dialogue bemoaned. The most prominent examples are the disputes over the Stuttgart 21 development or considerations as to how a different citizen participation in the intellectual discussions was to be arranged. Using the example of the financial crisis politicians such as the ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt or Steinbrück, the Finance Minister responsible at that time, bemoan a loss of sustainable dialogue and serious collective consideration. Whether by media or mediator, – communication between social agents and not just about issues, seems to be a major weak point. For this purpose there also needs to be places to hold the meetings – the Federal government, for example, is considering a House of the Future. Reason enough to examine houses of the future, or future centers, in other countries, compare them with German establishments and reflect on an adaptive approach prescribed by responsible social thoughts and actions.

Introduction Innovative capability is an essential accessory for any nation that wants to play a serious role on the international stage. Play a serious role – it’s almost reminiscent of serious games. The underlying paradigm must also be understood societally. Connecting seriousness, determination, a sense of duty on the one hand and play, effortlessness, fun on the other is not always easy. Contrasting them usually seems the more obvious choice. This is expressed in commentary which thinks of inconsequential noncommittal when discussing today’s hedonistic society while associating work with the serious side of life. But relating the two to each other unleashes creativity. Increased innovative capability is therefore indicated by the degree to which this connection is successfully established. In technical development this is routine. An experiment emphasizes insight gained through systematic trial and error, that is, through playing with various options. Attempting to transfer the experiment philosophy to societal life however engenders fear. No experiments! has boosted many an election campaign despite S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_40, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

394)>>

Günther M. Szogs

the fact that experience is a term describing evaluated observation. What seems to cause these anxieties is that the outcomes of innovations are feared to be irrevocable, to be final. So we refuse to seriously play along; instead playing becomes a serious matter and we fail to see the fun in it. But this response hampers societal progress – because it undermines our innovative capability, because we actually cannot see the fun in it. But we should! And not in the sense of popular TV programs like You’ve Been Framed that demand tolerance for any prank, but in the sense of comprehending effects that are often achieved playfully. The Future Centers take advantage of this playfulness as a component of their approach. Originating in Scandinavia, they developed as concept spaces that promote societal innovative capability, allow serious playing along and inspire joint creativity in solving problems. Just as a scientist finds a protected space in his or her laboratory, here a societal process has the chance to develop with care (both carefully and cared for) and less fear of permanent results. Germany is today also home to future laboratories, future workshops and future academies. But the Future Centers first set up in Scandinavia appear to be particularly successful in advancing innovation processes. It is therefore worth our while to take a playfully serious look at this approach, that is, to increase our own innovative capability by reviewing these innovations from other countries with regard to their potential for adaptation to local challenges. This article attempts to do so by means of a knowledge journey – true to Goethe’s observation that travel broadens the mind. It begins with the hope that attaches to shaping the future, with 1. Happy Future; in chapter 2 it briefly discusses Intellectual Capital and Future Centers before examining pioneering establishments in 2.1 Knowledge Journey: The Origins of the Future Centers. 2.2 discusses the adaptations in the Netherlands. Chapter 3 takes the time to reflect on Future Centers – What Exactly are They?, outlining The Actual Effects on Intellectual Capital in 3.1 and incorporating a small excursion to High-Performance Teams or Voetbal Total in 3.2. Chapter 4 opens the second leg of the Knowledge Journey: Use of Future Centers in Germany? It examines concept houses that do not act as Future Centers and moreover operate on very different ground. This difference however makes it possible to better explore the specific characteristics of Future Centers. Chapter 5 completes our discussion of Future Centers with Perspectives for Adaptation: ACSI as Open European “Future Building”. The Finnish project for societal innovation is used to illustrate that use of the Future Center approach goes far beyond simplistic copying of a furnishing shop for innovation and creates processes that indeed promote one thing: Innovative Capability.

1)>> Happy Future Who wouldn’t want to claim the future for themselves? Future has similarly positive connotations to knowledge and innovation. Much like these, a qualitative attribute

Future Center – An Unconventional Approach toÂ€Promote Intellectual Capital Potential)>>395

hardly seems necessary. Connecting an organization, a program, an issue with the suggestion that it is knowledge-based, innovative and additionally future-oriented seems to make it almost unassailable. After all, who would want to stand in the way of intellect, of change, of the future? But beware! Despite shifts in values and attitudes in recent years, despite the fact that we live in a knowledge society whose greatest resource is supposedly between the ears of its members, the knowledge of those who highly innovatively drove entire economies to the edge of ruin with sub-prime papers was rewarded with billions in bonuses. That too is a facet of the future. A specific characteristic of the future is that it is unknown to us. What direction we would like it to take, how we hope to jointly shape it, must be reflected in structurally relevant criteria for this future-forming process. When discussing Future Centers as a possible means of promoting intellectual capital potentials it will therefore be relevant to examine the extent to which they do justice to what links personal happiness with societal progress and well-being. Or, as one of their initiators and promoters, Leif Edvinsson, succinctly puts it in the greeting on his Facebook profile: Happy Future.

2)>> Intellectual Capital and Future Centers If we are to discuss Future Centers as a means to expand the potential of intellectual capital, then we must at least briefly outline the understanding of intellectual capital (IC) underlying this article. In addition we refer you to extensive descriptions of the IMO field of action Intellectual Capital directed by Prof. Peter Pawlowsky. Intellectual capital describes the value-creating interaction between human, structural and relationship capital. In this context it is therefore specifically not reduced to the intellectual potential of human capital, as is sometimes the case. Alongside a wide range of personal abilities and competencies, the focus is always also on the associated processes, equipment, systems, and the various relevant relationships in the interplay of which human and structural capital can only be effective. Intellectual Capital Statements and the knowledge survey” introduced in Austria and Germany in various forms are based on this understanding of IC. That leaves the second component of the relationship discussed here: Future Centers. Even the origin of the Future Centers leaves no doubt regarding their close connection to the term IC as introduced here: “Value creation occurs in the interaction between people (human capital) and organizational structural capital, for example R&D processes, which Nonaka (cf. 1994) describes as knowledge-creating dialectics and kinetics. He referred to them as Ba, which means ‘space for acknowledgement’ in Japanese. At Skandia they called it Future Center” (Edvinsson 2006, 370; translated by author).

396)>>

Günther M. Szogs

2.1)>> Knowledge Journey: The Origins of the Future Centers Let’s attempt a first look at this space for acknowledgement, travelling from the pioneers to the successful adapters. Pioneers in Companies and Ministries Turning the future into an asset was the reason given by Skandia CEO Björn Wolrath in 1996 for the Skandia Future Center (SFC) in Vaxholm. Skandia, famous for the Skandia Navigator, one of the first IC Reports on immaterial assets, took the insight to its logical conclusion that IC Reports are not there for their own sake, but to accompany a process that carefully and responsibly promotes creativity in a company. This contemplating of new ways, turning accustomed procedures upside down, seeking solutions to overcome position-, age-, and gender-related tensions and unlock joint creativity for the company’s success required a spatial manifestation. The SFC radiated precisely this in a spectacularly unspectacular way. The legendary tar smell of the old boathouse, contrasting styles that intentionally combined past and future, avoiding purely theatrical high-tech scenarios while nonetheless using modern technologies as a matter of course – all these are the first fundamental building blocks of the Future Center philosophy. Another FC of a Swedish company, Sydkraft’s InnoVision in Malmö, took these analogies further, countering drab offices, rarely inspiring places for cutting-edge thought, with a spatial design based on central cornerstones of modern projects. Initial brainstorming sessions for developing preliminary drafts take place playfully standing around architect’s tables, there is a tent-like area into which one can retreat for meditative phases, but the FC also contains inspiring shared conference and decision-making areas. All this in an ambience that is not strictly segregated, but rather inspiringly integrative. These two FCs, originating from a corporate context, have in common that they go far beyond traditional training centers with their obligatory seminar rooms. The senses are involved in all phases of collaborative working and development, and not functionally separated as solely regenerative areas. Let’s leave the world of business and venture into the FC of several state ministries – usually thought of as dry, humorless and uninspired organizations: MindLab in Copenhagen. MindLab is a trans-organizational unit for no fewer than three ministries: the Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Employment. In the course of a visit followed by a dinner with initiators, key players and managers which the author was privileged to attend, the participants spoke of how they had provided a theatre stage designer with a not particularly large budget, but with extensive freedom to design this FC. He thereupon presented them with, among other things, a sort of SpaceLab as an intellectual warm-up opportunity for the FCs visitors and users. The rewriteable walls of its restricted space can be inscribed with initial messages to other participants – like a kind of ice-breaking speed dating. This FC was worth a visit to the European heads of state during a meeting at the time of the Danish EU presidency.


Its trans-organizational orientation illustrates further particularities of the FC approach. Flexible, sometimes provocative spatial design paired with state-of-theart networking technologies for joint, location-independent collaboration between users also requires an entirely new form of process consulting. If the objective is neither the usual standardized transfer of knowledge nor a pure exchange of ideas or platform for events held by interest groups as in education centers or meeting houses, several further success-critical adjustments are required. If a Future Center is to serve to motivate stakeholders who are factually but not disciplinarily dependent on each other to develop possibly new joint approaches to meeting challenges that affect everyone, particularly in a cross-institutional, hierarchy-relativizing manner, this requires more than just moderation. FCs need independent facilitators, sensitive observers who provide users with the necessary methodical, material and technical means required in any given situation. They do not communicate results, no learning content, no art. They communicate communication. But that means more than technical support or psychological assistance in conflict situations. They assist in establishing a co-creative process with an outcome that by definition cannot be determined in advance. 2.2)>> Significant Adaptations in the Netherlands The Dialogues House in Amsterdam, situated in a former traders’ hall on the initiative of ABN-AMRO bank, is also home to a wide range of flexible spatial concepts. In the midst of the hall, users can withdraw for conferences into an oversized, multimedia-equipped capsule which is several times larger than the small SpaceLab in Copenhagen’s FC, but also gives rise to associations with Starship Enterprise. And enterprise is the keyword. Like a slightly futuristic agora, the Dialogues House allows the use of various spaces – from hanging lounges through dialogue benches to an integrated casino. Innovator Paul Iske stands for a concept that binds start-up initiatives and also Public Private Partnership projects to the house’s flexible free spaces. Young businesses and old businesses doing business – perhaps with each other or with public funding – is what the Dialogues House aims to facilitate. 2.3)>> LEF – Courage in a Public Authority? Cees Plug, Director of the Utrecht LEF Future Center, presented this institution of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management at Learntec 2010: “We are continually challenged to search for durable, boundary-expanding solutions and innovative breakthroughs. This is hard to achieve with traditional approaches in conventional surroundings.”1

)>> For more information see http://www.learntec.de/cgi-bin/x-mkp/newsletter/newsletter. pl?language=1&eve_id=9&txt_no=7&arch_id=28. Accessed May 2011

1

398)>>

Günther M. Szogs

True to its name, the LEF (lef means courage, bravery) boldly implements the characteristics of Future Centers that we have described. New media are uncompromisingly placed at the service of innovative processes. In the center is a small hall that takes advantage of neuropsychological findings to present relaxing desert scenarios with oriental music and in the next moment a wild media-supported journey through the century. The floor, ceiling and walls are integratively and medially incorporated, like a large cube. All the furniture is specifically designed to be multifunctional and adaptable to the respective situations of the development processes taking place in the LEF. Great value is also placed on staff who work as facilitators, as incubators. Its proximity to the relationships we described at the outset to concepts of intellectual capital is underlined by the fact that the LEF itself subjects itself to the process of creating a knowledge survey. They call it Kompass. The procedure is very similar to the Knowledge Surveys – Made in Germany: human capital for example is more than just an abstract category; it defines competencies and skills that are crucial to the success of the LEF’s approach. Being able to varyingly give participants space or take it away, allowing them comfort zones and then urging them to let go of and leave those comfort zones, is among those skills at LEF. And this human capital is assessed according to QQS (Quality, Quantity and Systematics) and tracked in Kompass along with the other components.

3)>> Future Centers – What Exactly are They? We have consciously approached the Future Centers through a little journey of exploration, during which we made the following typical observations: 1.)>> FCs can apparently be used both in businesses and in municipal or state authorities. 2.)>> FCs place great importance on open, multifunctional, sometimes provocative architecture that stimulates the senses, and on equipment that also does justice to this situationally varying inspiring use. 3.)>> FCs require a high degree of independence from their clients. Even their disciplinary assignment must not endanger their remit as hands-off, but nonetheless committed facilitators. 4.)>> FCs use many methods and techniques familiar from other areas, be they modern networking software or elements of the future workshop founded by Robert Jungk. 5.)>> FCs – and this is perhaps the most important observation – represent a holistic approach that is significantly manifested in a physical edifice but describes a process to support societal or corporate change. Let’s go a step further from the first observation and consider their shared selfimage. For the Open Futures movement, in which numerous Future Centers cooperate in a loose association, Hank Kune has formulated this in a manner as precise as it is charismatic:


“A Future Center is an organizational, physical, methodological and virtual space. It is a mental space, an affective space, and above all a people space. It exists across time, moving between past, present and future as it navigates knowledge and experiential pathways to achieve its objectives” (Kune 2010, 1). And somewhat more specifically: “Future Centers are special working environments that help organizations and people break out of patterns and routines, see issues from multiple perspectives, and choose effective courses of action. They are high-touch, technology-enhanced learning spaces, which enable people to create, develop, prototype, and communicate ideas, strategies, plans, solutions and actions that help them to: a) deal effectively with today’s challenges b) achieve middle- and long-term goals c) deliver sustainable solutions and results” (ibid.). 3.1)>> The Actual Effects on Intellectual Capital Success stories exist alongside reports that even showcase institutions like the Skandia Future Center have lost management support. How do you measure success in promoting intellectual capital? So far, there have been no comprehensive reliable empirical examinations of the effects of Future Centers. But that too is related to our subject. As briefly explained at the beginning of this article, intellectual capital involves the value-creating interaction between human, structural and relationship capital. Criticism of traditional accounting systems, which is meanwhile shared even by numerous Nobel Prize winning economists, Centers on the omission of such intangible values from corporate and national reporting. On the other hand, gross national product increases enormously even when CO2 is massively produced and conditions for life are partly destroyed. Reporting on the results of Future Centers would have to relate to immaterial values, developing societal or corporate progressive solutions, positive changes in living or working attitudes etc. This may be done for example by means of knowledge surveys. Those in turn are currently recognized as suitable instruments, but not widely established – and a public that might create pressure is nowhere to be seen either. What emerges is a classic deadlock situation resulting structurally from the innovative subject: a topic receives no support because it is not widely established, but would require support all the more urgently precisely because it is not established. In this situation only start-up financing will help, and structural analytical arguments can be made in its favor.

400)>>

Günther M. Szogs

3.2)>> High-Performance Teams or Voetbal Total A qualitative and structural comparison from football demonstrates that Future Centers make sense, that they can support the demand for societal and corporate development that is ubiquitously raised but only inadequately implemented. As long ago as 2006, before the Football World Cup, we brought proponents of knowledge surveys and top sporting personalities (women’s football world champions Nia Künzer and Renate Lingor) together at Learntec under the heading Knowledge World Champion Germany? – Ways out of the Offside Trap (Translated by author) to discuss the interaction of human, structural and relationship capital using football as an example. The German football team KSC, by the way, has meanwhile introduced a knowledge survey, and proudly announces it on its website.2 At this point we would like to expand this idea by an aspect of the research on high-performance management conducted by Prof. Peter Pawlowsky in collaboration with other researchers (cf. Pawlowsky and Mistele 2010).3 Top-class teams, Pawlowsky never tires of emphasizing, develop an incredibly intuitive mastery of collaboration that allows fast response times even in unexpected situations. One, although certainly not the only, important prerequisite for this is that competencies overlap. Redundant competencies, so to speak – something that any traditional personnel manager would instantly see as an opportunity to cut costs. They turn out to be an excellent way of promoting mutual empathy and thus optimally coordinated behavior. The Football World Cup 2010 confirms such insights by Pawlowsky in expert discussion. While initially sports coverage focused only the solo superstars, the criteria for what makes ‘superstars’ suddenly changed. When the German team played against Spain, it was accused of being no more than a copy playing against the original – so fascinated was the public by Spain’s game intelligence. And the Spanish superstar? When Spain’s trainer del Bosque speaks of his guaranteed scorer David Villa, he apparently always adds that Villa is an extraordinary striker because he does a lot for the defense. Strange praise for a striker, but it quickly makes sense if one examines the structural principle of the Spanish footballing style, established by Dutchman Johan Cruyff and considered world-leading: “This style is known as the game of flexible triangular formations, where any player can play any position. […] It is referred to as ‘voetbal total’” (Frankfurter Rundschau, 10/7/2010, Sports, 5; translated by author). Any player can play any position – overlapping competencies for intelligently flexible link-ups – certainly doesn’t mean that there are no functional specializations, i.e. strikers and defenders. )>> Cf. http://www.ksc.de/aktuelles/anzeigen/news/karlsruher-sc-erstellt-als-erster-bundesligisteine-wissensbilanz/6.html. Accessed May 2011 3 )>> Cf. ZDF Abenteuer Wissen. Siegen lernen – Das Geheimnis des Erfolgs. Broadcasted on July 28, 2010 2


We don’t wish to overstretch the football example. But it does make clear that shifts in perspective relating to interaction lead to entirely different types of training, of youth promotion, of team development. Human, structural and relationship capital are remixed and new institutions are formed (e.g. exciting new centers at FC Bayern or the sudden rise of 1860 Hoffenheim) that support these approaches. What is respectfully admired in sports professionals, where high costs are naturally accepted as an investment in the future and rewarded by corresponding ticket prices, what a nation of virtual national team managers debates more hotly at fan gatherings or in pubs than the grilled sausages they eat there, seems almost unimaginable when it comes to societal interaction. Why do we reduce societal training areas to often narrow-mindedly drab lecture halls, standardized, frequently badly designed seminar rooms, or sterile county halls? Why do we as societal stakeholders not permit ourselves the high standard of media support, of attendants or brilliant training equipment that we apparently consider entirely justified for ‘professionals’ but completely over the top for ourselves? The Future Centers in the Scandinavian countries and in the Netherlands show that a different attitude is also possible.

4)>> Knowledge Journey 2: Use of Future Centers in Germany? With a German cultural background, expectantly visiting Scandinavian or Dutch Future Centers (there are meanwhile approximately 60 in other European, Asian and American countries too) may easily lead to initial reservation. Many things are presented as new that not only seem familiar, but sometimes also appear to be of a higher quality in Germany. Protagonists here have long since also realized what a significant influence buildings, equipment and materials have on allowing the people acting within these environments to unfold their creativity. It is no co-incidence that many management seminars are held in the attractive surroundings of manor hotels, while young academics roam award-winning locations in GermanyÂ€– Land of Ideas selected by exquisite juries. Numerous industrial heritage buildings have been transformed into exciting learning environments. The traditional form of lecturing knowledge transfer has also long since been overcome. The future workshops introduced by C. G. Jungk in the 80s have found their way into summer schools and leadership academies. Spinner Suites at Learntec compete with world cafÃ©s and thousands of 2.0 social somethings that have the advantage of a cutting-edge arithmetic scale that has no upper limit. In short: we’re not that easily impressed on our knowledge journeys to our European neighbors. Of course one shouldn’t compare apples and oranges. Were we to ignore our initial deliberations on intellectual capital, we would arrive at a collection of ingredients without including the recipe or the dish in our considerations. Measuring a Future Center by institutions that pursue entirely different purposes makes no sense. Conversely, a German institution that dedicates itself to innovative knowledge transfer will certainly not be provoked by allusions to Future Centers if the

402)>>

Günther M. Szogs

focus of the latter is not even within the former’s field of view. However, such comparisons illuminate the differentia specifica, which in turn does make sense. Two contrasting approaches from the Knowledge Region FrankfurtRheinMain, the House of Finance in Frankfurt and Schloss Freudenberg in Wiesbaden, may serve to illustrate this point. 1.)>> Goethe University – House of Finance An award-winning site in Germany – Land of Ideas, the House of Finance is located on the new campus of the Goethe University, one of the current Houses of concepts. The aim of these ‘Houses’ is to bring business, academia and politics together in Public Private Partnerships across disciplines. For the financial sector this concept goes far beyond traditional academic approaches. Architectural firm Kleihues+Kleihues has done justice in an outstanding manner to the site of the new structure in the context of the IG Farben building by Poelzig, and created a home in the style of the New Objectivity for the prestige project of the federal state and the financial industry in the field of excellence training. From the state finance minister through the state premier to the grandees of the financial sector – themselves unexpected recipients of academic distinctions in the form of honorary professorships –, all important players are found on the board of this trans-disciplinary institution, and they certainly show no noble restraint when it comes to naming the lecture halls. They document their sponsorship straightforwardly by assigning the lecture halls the names of their institutes, in a similar fashion to that meanwhile considered standard for sports arenas. The materials are of the highest quality. And yet: little in their functional design corresponds to the intellectually postulated pleasure in experimenting. Seminar rooms, cafÃ©s, group workspaces, library, offices – everything is present in high style. Lecture rooms are small, but exquisite. Otherwise they barely differ from ‘standard lecture halls’ – except for the fact that everything is perfectly equipped with electronic access points. Rooms, media and materials which, similarly to e.g. MindLab, consciously combine intellectual working with other forms of occasionally sensual project work and invite experimental, sometimes artistically playful processes, are nowhere to be found. In this respect, the House of Finance remains strictly traditional – while documenting that nothing is lacking. This could be described as ‘imperfect perfectionism’. 2.)>> Schloss Freudenberg The counterpoint to these environments for knowledge transfer are institutions such as Schloss Freudenberg, founded by former circus boss Schenk and supported by the city of Wiesbaden. It too is a place to which bankers occasionally dispatch their knowledge-seeking employees. The imperfect is a design principle that is apparent right down to the architecture. It’s tempting to speak complementarily of perfect imperfectionism. Building repairs are sometimes intentionally neglected; the message communicated throughout is: if it were finished, it would be dead. But here is a living process that aims to also make knowledge experienceable in a natural and sensory way. “It’s like kissing.” is how its web-


site welcomes visitors. “What is that? You have to do it. Only then will you know what it is. The same is true of the experience field”4 They also quote their great mentor Hugo Kükelhaus: “Experience has to do with travel. This is the barrier. We have become practiced for centuries in replacing experience with knowledge. And live in a replacement world in which nothing less is replaced than life itself, that is: experience” (ibid.; translated by author). And so visitors of all ages and hierarchy levels journey into the impressive dark, light, olfactory and auditory worlds of this impressive institution in order to attain a clearer picture of themselves and many things in their environment in a new and different way. If we compare this local knowledge journey with our visit to the Future Centers, the intention of the Future Centers becomes more clearly apparent in the points in which they overlap and differ from the two institutions described as examples. Including sensory worlds is a characteristic that Future Centers would hardly forego. But this is by no means a contrast to traditional forms of knowledge transfer. (Almost) anything is permitted that supports different but mutually interdependent stakeholders in solution scenarios. Therefore – in contrast to a House of Finance – they rather keep their distance within the projects they accompany, consider themselves ‘neutral solution spaces’ that themselves offer no solutions. The sensory experiences or utilized concepts related to the future workshops are always integrated into a societal or corporate development process that goes beyond self-discovery or group experiences. In areas and for topics where it makes sense, Future Centers dissolve the traditional separation between results-oriented project work on the one hand and ‘upgrading’ in terms of knowledge, morals and creativity on the other. They aim to imaginatively expand the scope for creativity, and therefore see themselves not as research institutes investigating the future, but as institutions that help people in projects with shared objectives but different contexts to master challenges that arise from the past, must be dealt with in the present, but will continue to exist in the future. This requires not so much thematic solution competence, but instead high process competence – relating to all three components of intellectual capital. Function as a Complementary Function The question of whether using Future Centers in German regions makes sense must incorporate the extent to which they facilitate success in societal progress beyond that of other institutions. The previous discussion has made clear that postulating false alternatives is not a useful approach. For their respective objectives, the high performance of a House of Finance or a Schloss Freudenberg is undisputed. However, they are not well suited to working on collaborative objectives. They )>> Cf. http://www.schlossfreudenberg.de/html/index.php. Accessed May 2011

4

404)>>

Günther M. Szogs

lack suitable spaces, appropriate methodologies and systematic support for dealing with institutionally or hierarchically overarching issues in a truly collaborative manner. The function of the Future Centers would be to complement specifically oriented knowledge transfer institutions with a catalyst function when working on overarching issues. Frankfurt can be used to clearly indicate how helpful such a space would be. The memorandum Frankfurt for all by architect and urban planner Albert Speer has garnered high praise from all sides. Although this memorandum makes a large number of very specific suggestions to urban society that should be implemented jointly by the societal groups, there is no space where this societal discourse could take place in a hands-on fashion. It is however hampered not only by the lack of such a Future Space, but also by a constricting attitude in evaluating such approaches. Current public discourse aims to keep these approaches under discussion through municipal debate, by confronting all involved parties with the concepts and constantly new commentary. It is thwarted by remits. By classifying Speer’s memorandum as an interesting contribution everyone pays their respects to his concepts while at the same time quietly shelving them. In this, regional is similar to national appraisal. The federal government’s future summit with leading representatives from business and trade unions in July 2010 at Schloss Meseberg limited this meeting to three hours and thus replaced the specific joint development and co-ordination of an agenda with the already familiar declarations of commitment to the future. On the other hand, government circles too are sensing that the knowledge society requires new sites to further societal issues: Berlin is also considering a House of the Future. “Its basis is the coalition agreement, which stipulates that a location is to be created in Berlin, under academic management and with support from business, where Germany presents itself as a knowledge society and innovation driver. As a top-class ‘showcase’ for Germany as a science and knowledge location, this ‘House of the Future’ is intended to offer space for changing presentations of science topics and research projects. As a highly flexible event venue, it will additionally serve as an outstanding place of exchange between science, business, politics and the public (http://www.partnerschaften-deutschland.de/projektberatung/aktuelle-projekte-der-pd/hochbau/hausder-zukunft; translated by author). As welcome as this may be, the announcement reveals the underlying traditional model of thinking. The aim is to present oneself, to be a showcase. To provide a space for dialogue. But meeting houses already exist in vast numbers, and innovation results are also presented time and again. That the whole thing is now assigned the attribute future does not change the traditional approach. Future Centers on the other hand don’t want to limit themselves to the provision of discussion areas, possibly with added exhibitions. They aim to offer a space to start projects that specifically conquer new areas of living and thinking – this is what their architecture is measured by, what their equipment is measured by, what the new competencies and skills are measured by. If a Future Center is to be both catalyst and incubator,


those working there to accompany processes will also require special abilities as facilitators. Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by Future Centers to unfold intellectual capital requires the courage to go beyond one’s usual comfort zones. It means letting oneself in for a societal scope and leeway of knowledge that knows no top dogs and is not dominated from the outset by the interests of a specific stakeholder. Future Centers are based on the consensus that even one’s own interests are sometimes better served when temporarily put aside to make room for a joint approach. But when that happens, intellectual capital can unfold unhindered.

5)>> Adaptation Perspectives: ACSI as Open European Future Building In our brief overview we have visited the pioneers of the Future Centers, we have used examples to describe which adaptations have taken place in the Netherlands, for further clarification we have introduced institutions in the Frankfurt Rhein Main region that consider themselves cutting-edge but focus on different topics, and finally referred to the early phase survey on the House of the Future planned by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. By means of these explorations we have compiled numerous implicit and explicit arguments that show the concept of Future Centers – which cannot be reduced to simply a building – to be suitable for promoting intellectual capital in its holistic sense. So far we have restricted ourselves to discussing Future Centers according to their results. We would like to close with an impressive example of the way there, because it may present a perspective for the German discussion. A perspective that can strike an important path to societal innovation that involves all important players without reducing the debate to ethical challenges and admonitions on the one hand or delegating important societal development processes to the usual suspect project managers on the other. In 2010 three important universities in the Helsinki area combined to form Aalto University. With the support of the Finnish parliament’s Committee for the Future and together with the regional municipal association and the New Club of Paris they founded the Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation. They believe that this camp, carried out in the style of and with the support and advice of leading experts from Future Centers, is nothing less than “a next-generation innovation agenda that brings forth a concept, operating mode and a network for a global innovation platform” (Aaalto University 2010). They summarize their procedure as follows: “ACSI builds up a self-renewing collaboration network and integrates global innovation activities for learning, research and rapid implementation” (ibid.). The interaction between “self-renewal” and “rapid implementation” deserves particular emphasis. Constant questioning and further development are thus inherent to the system; immediate implementation is not thwarted by a sense that something irreversible is being put in place.

406)>>

Günther M. Szogs

However, one can only implement things where everyone is on board. And so ACSI stresses that students, researchers, experts from the world of work and decision makers must be involved. Only then can challenges be tackled in the camp that relate to real societal and business life: “Their themes focus on learning in a knowledge society, the strategic design of communities and new service concepts for ageing people. Each real-life case bears significance to the structural changes currently ongoing in society and has the potential to be developed into globally unique results by Aalto and its partners” (ibid.). These projects of everyday life, which are however structurally integrated, processed and driven, allow insights for the German context as to what rapid development means: as a first step, local politicians, social workers, parliamentarians, members of the European parliament, international and local experts, professors, students and business managers have worked through six such real life cases in the camp for nine days. With results that in some cases truly open up perspectives. These were then ACSI-llently presented amid popping champagne corks at the closing exhibition, ACSI-bition. And this approach, anchored in corresponding institutions, e.g. a Future Building where verb and noun are one, does not represent a perspective for German communities, businesses, academic institutions? What a laugh. Which brings us back to the basic approach required and described at the start: Happy Future!

Bibliography Aalto University (2010) Towards Creativity and Innovation. http://www.digijulkaisu.fi/aaltorae/aalto_future. Accessed May 2010 Edvinsson L (2006) Das unerschöpfliche Potenzial des Kapitals. In: Mertins K, Alwert K, Heisig P (ed) Wissensbilanzen. Intellektuelles Kapital erfolgreich nutzen und entwiÂ� ckeln. Springer, Berlin: 361-373 Henkel M (2010) Voetbal total. In: Frankfurter Rundschau vom July 10, 2010, Sport: 5 or online: http://www.fr-online.de/sport/fr-videos/voetbal-total/-/1473512/4451920/-/index.html. Accessed May 2011 Kune H (2010) The Reality of Future Centres in Europe. Intellectual Cafe Presentation Paper, http://resilientcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/FutureCentres.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Pawlowsky P, Mistele P (2008) Hochleistungsmanagement: Leistungspotenziale in Organisationen gezielt fördern. Gabler, Wiesbaden ZDFAbenteuer Wissen. Siegen lernen – Das Geheimnis des Erfolgs. Broadcastet on July 28, 2010, http://abenteuerwissen.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/17/0,1872,8093777,00.html. Accessed May 2011

Commentary on the Main Article “Future Center – An Unconventional Approach to Promote Intellectual Capital Potential”

Facilitating the Future Hank Kune

1)>> On the Happiness of Futures: We Get what We Are Unprepared for Happy Futures? Szogs cites Future Center pioneer Leif Edvinsson’s iconic salutation, while recognizing that things don’t always turn out that way. Futures are not necessarily happy, certainly not for everyone, even when we work hard at trying to make them so. We don’t always get what we prepare for, but we do have to put in the work, otherwise we must make do with what we are unprepared for. Does facilitating the future enhance innovative and competitive advantage? If so, how can we leverage the innovative capacity of our organizations for the benefit of society? If we accept William Gibson’s famous pronouncement that “the future is already here, just not evenly distributed,” we should make effective use of the signs and signals around us to place the world in a sharper perspective. But consider how society thinks about the future. Marshall McLuhan’s contention that “We drive into the future using only our rear-view mirror” is as apt now as it was in the 1960’s, when he observed that most people do not foresee change until it has occurred, and then consistently misinterpret its consequences. Other ways of thinking are needed to create stepping-stones towards happy futures. Although we are living in a knowledge society, not everyone accepts it, or acts accordingly. Adapting Gibson’s dictum about the future, we can say that the importance of intellectual capital is already clear, just not acted upon equally. At the start of the 21st century, collaboration, continuing knowledge development and innovation should be much sought-after in business, social and societal contexts. Unfortunately, the recognition of knowledge, intellectual capital, innovation and sustainability thinking as cardinal points for our corporate values compass will not happen by itself. The road is long, and the journey must be facilitated. Future Centers in different parts of the world, as Szogs indicates in his article, have demonstrated how to facilitate this journey. The journey is as much about discovering the past as the future, as they both relate to how we think and act in the present. It is also about taking steps in the present, after considering and S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_41, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

408)>>

Hank Kune

understanding their possible consequences. In this sense, Future Centers help us to facilitate the future.

2)>> Insights on the Edge: What Future Centers Are Learning Now As Günther Szogs points out, Future Centers have proven their value as intellectual capital accelerators and facilitators of the future for organizations in diverse places in Europe and Asia. Working in such centers takes people out of their present day cÂ�oncerns, their habitual thinking patterns, assumptions and routines, and in turn requires them to examine their dominant logics, ask difficult and sometimes disturbing questions, and look at issues through multiple perspectives. Central to understanding why Future Centers work is seeing how they stimulate innovation capacity. Space in Future Centers is important, but the concept is broader than buildings. A Future Center works through the synergy of physical and virtual space, operating philosophy, active facilitation, working methods, and the diversity of people working together. People are central; and their mental and emotional spaces are essential elements in the mix. As Szogs indicates, the neutral safe-fail space and playfulness are important elements in why Future Centers work. Accepting failure is another critical factor. Being able to learn from failing is an essential competence. Rapid prototyping, a key working method in innovation environments, is an iterative process of doing and learning, in which good = good enough. It is fast-track continuous improvement that is often characterized as failing your way forward. This entrepreneurial spirit is needed to deal with the many challenges facing modern knowledge organizations and knowledge societies. These include the rapid pace of change and the changing nature of work; the increased need for collaboration across borders, cultures, disciplines, and generations; institutionalized territorialism and compartmentalized work regimes where responsibilities are arranged in silos; and the ineffective future-orientation in government and business. In the Netherlands, we see a variety of promising approaches for addressing challenges like these. LEF future center’s approach is to consciously pursue breakthroughs in the issues its clients bring, based on what neuroscience and cognitive psychology teach us about how the brain works. Courage is the essence of working in LEF; it is the name of the center and the personality trait required for project managers and program directors to work towards breakthroughs there. In addition, LEF is committed to discovering why their different working environments work, and how they can be made more effective, supporting research at several Dutch universities aimed at measuring how space influences behavior and creativity. Working from a different vision, ABN-AMRO’s Dialogues House creates a physical and intellectual space for making more possible together, creating what founder and Director Paul Iske calls a collaboratorium where bank personnel and people from the outside world can meet in dialogue about enhancing innovation, entrepreneurship, sustainability and collaboration, and pursue diverse objectives

Facilitating the Future)>>409

relating to these goals. Dialogues House also houses the bank’s Incubator, an Arena for introducing powerful ideas, and its Institute of Brilliant Failures, a facility aimed at building new perspectives on failure and entrepreneurial spirit into the mindset of its parent organization. The Shipyard, Future Center of the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, is a place steeped in organizational tradition, while at the same time definitely not the normal workplace. This is an environment where civil servants come to unlock their innovative potential and apply it to making the organization more innovative and effective in the work it does. The Shipyard actively exercises its license to disturb in order to move the organization in new and useful directions. In Asia, there is increasing interest in Future Center concepts. Hong Kong has a Future Center, a number of other Chinese cities are looking into creating new facilities at science and technology parks; Taiwan and Malaysia are exploring what such centers can mean for them. The most exciting developments, however, are in Japan. KDI, the Knowledge Dynamics Initiative of Fuji-Xerox, opened its Future Center in 2009. They see Future Center concepts as one way to help Japan transform the way it organizes work. Through their center, they coordinate a Japanese Future Center Community with more than 40 organizational members. Although initially influenced by European Future Center thinking, their intention is to prototype new models tailor-made to fit Japanese culture and capable of dealing with the challenges Japanese society faces. What are Future Centers doing with their lessons learned? They are prototyping new work environments, based on concepts like these: • Playful spaces. Playfulness in Future Center practice has various functions: disarming and relaxing people working on difficult problems and complicated issues, de-stressing people who usually work in brain-unfriendly work environments, demarcating the procedure-zone from the creative zone. Having fun while working on serious business is seen as a critical factor defining Future Center effectiveness. And this provokes the question: Why shouldn’t playfulness and creativity be part of our daily workplaces? • Realization spaces. Throughout the Future Center process, the emphasis is always on achieving concrete results. Centers continually prototype processes to turn ideas into actionable plans, policies, products and services. A good idea, however widely held, is not enough for innovation; ultimately, organizations and regions benefit most from realization spaces where ideas are turned into practice. Rapid implementation in the real world is the bottom line. • Collaboration Counts. Successful innovators are excellent collaborators. They work together in laboratories, science and technology parks and extended networks, leveraging insights from the past and present, taking relevant work from diverse sources and combining it into something new.Â€This is true for innovations in technology but also in social science and societal processes. Paul Iske of Dialogues House calls this “combinatoric innovation”, and he describes why it is essential to “create the conditions under which parties with diverse backgrounds can combine their knowledge to find new ways for value creation”.

410)>>

Hank Kune

• A Future Center Alliance. In 2010 a group of Future Center practitioners from eight countries, meeting at the Future Center Summit in Tokyo, initiated an international alliance. This Future Center Alliance brings people and organizations with diverse interests and backgrounds together through a shared passion to support collaborative innovation and ‘futures thinking,’ and a desire to leverage core expertise, complementary skills, and their extensive networks to deal with complex multi-disciplinary challenges to organizations and society. 2.1)>> Finland Creates Value in Practice As Guenther Szogs points out at the end of his article, there are many ways to enable innovation and facilitate the future. Finland’s Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation (ACSI) is an initiative for enhancing our understanding of how societal innovation happens, while at the same time creating actual value in practice. ACSI is such a promising initiative because it facilitates a mind shift for societal change at different levels: in the problem-owners who bring real issues to work on, in their stakeholder communities of users and end-users, and in camp participants. It is all about how people reframe their problems and how organizations and regions think about the future. Yet another perspective on innovation systems in Finland is the regional innovation ecosystem, a concept central to initiatives organized through Aalto University and ACSI. It describes a systemic approach to how cooperation and extensive cocreation integrates government, business, universities, NGO’s and citizens working in a region. Diverse projects strive to discover how healthy innovation ecosystems function, and which conditions enhance self-organization and self-renewing innovation processes. Why do initiatives like ACSI and practical working concepts like the regional innovation ecosystem find fertile ground in Finland? Although the Finnish innovation system has consistently been rated among the top national innovation systems in the world, people recognize that it will not be adequate to meet the challenges that lie ahead. There is no national complacency about being one of the best, rather a drive to keep improving in order to better face the road ahead.

3)>> The Relevance of Future Centers for Germany The successful organizations and innovation ecosystems of today have been created through the technology and insights that were, not the technology and insights that will be. It is necessary to think in more future-oriented ways about our organizations and what they can offer, our regions and what they can become, and our society and where it is going. Germany already has many relevant sources of inspiration, ranging from the work of Jungk and his colleagues with Future Workshops to the fascinating thought experiments of Dr. Helmut Volkmann at Siemens in the 1980’s. There have always


been many cutting-edge experiential knowledge initiatives in Germany; today more of them than ever. Consider Berlin’s Betahaus, Deutsche Telekom’s T-City, or the dynamic, temporary future center at Zeche Zollverein during the Ruhr’s 2010 stint as European Cultural Capital. Looking at these examples through the lens of Szogs’ apt distinction between perfect imperfection and imperfect perfectionalism, we see their limitations, but also their possibilities. At Freudenberg we can extend our experience of the world – but where is the focused application to real-world issues? In the House of Finance we see how bricks and bits can be attractively integrated to address contemporary objectives – but where is the broader societal context in which key stakeholders get their hands dirty, wrestling with real issues of the future? Doesn’t a house of the future need participative process space, where diverse and divergent parties can act and interact; and realization space where they can create the future together? With its diverse building blocks, its enormous store of intellectual capital and its powerful knowledge economy, Germany seems ideally positioned to develop a new generation of Future Centers. What is standing in the way? We can speculate on a number of factors that hamper innovation in knowledge societies; as evidenced by Szogs’ article, they are also present in Germany and as a result may be limiting the will to create new Future Center concepts there: • We are not impressed. While Germany has an impressive collection of ingredients, as Szogs says, there are not enough recipes. And beyond the recipe, it is the cook, the kitchen, and the actual cooking that make the difference. • We do that already. Complacency and self-satisfaction are often part of the problem: That’s nothing new, is a classic innovation-cruncher. If the ingredients look familiar, combinatoric creativity is called for is to create new recipes and cooking techniques. • Wanting to be perfect. Prototyping is not waiting for the right answer but going with the best guess, even if it means failing your way forward. Experimental and experiential learning are key. • Paralysis by analysis. Innovation requires hard work and dedication, Thomas Edison’s famous 99% perspiration. Analysis alone, no matter how good it is, will not achieve innovation. 3.1 )>> The Houses of Frankfurt-Rhine-Main Szogs argues that the Frankfurt Rhine-Main region can make stronger use of its House of concept. Using the FRM House of model, it is interesting to speculate on how to tweak the design of each individual house with future centre thinking to make it a more powerful instrument for using intellectual capital to renew the region. Even stronger is to conceive a House of Houses that integrates and actualizes the work of all the Houses within the broader context of Germany, Europe and a globalized world. Such a House of Houses would be a House of Connections and a House of Impacts: a safe-fail environment for challenging assumptions about regional goals, roles, resources, relationships, driving forces and realization road-

412)>>

Hank Kune

maps, and a Realization Center to guide plans into practice. It would be a nextgeneration Future Center. The House of Impact would discover how to create impact from the Houses approach within and beyond the individual sectors. It would organize context-oriented dialogue to co-develop promising solutions, best options for good investments and venture ideas for next-generation science, priming the pump for paybacks in 40 years and concrete societal impact by 2020. A House of Houses would integrate and facilitate collaboration, providing a neutral space amidst highly competitive cities. It would not be Frankfurt’s House or Darmstadt’s, but a regional center for innovation and realization: here, the regional players would not relive old patterns, but use them in the context of breakthrough thinking and appropriate actions, leveraging the interlocking capacity of powerful sectors – mobility, logistics, pharmacy, medicine, financial services and ICT – to create an attractive place for people to live, work and flourish in a connected world. 3.2 )>> Lessons Learned for Germany Healthy knowledge economies of the future will thrive on innovative capacity, active networks, and collaborative spirit. Entrepreneurial spirit is important and governance is required in order to create conditions for active participation and overcoming fear. These economies need spaces to work in: innovation environments. This entails, as Szogs points out, they key is an integrated approach in which space, appropriate methodologies, diversity of participants and the systemic anchoring of results in organizations. These innovation spaces are places in which we can reframe the what and work actively with the how. The central question is always: Does the organization really want innovation? Are there lessons for Germany in this story? Perhaps in the lessons of the Dutch Future Centers, using courage to translate questions about issues in government, business and society into prototypes and possible breakthroughs, making use of their license to disturb. Perhaps in the lessons of Japan, collaborating internationally through Future Centers while actively prototyping of new Future Center models of their own, uniquely suited to Japanese society. Perhaps in the lesson of Finland, which saw itself in the mirror of international evaluation as being one of the best, and decided to take action now in order to ensure that its innovation ability is capable of keeping it there. Being smart is less important on this road than getting your hands dirty, wrestling with real people and their issues, enriching your perspectives on where you are going and how to get there. This leaves you better prepared in some small but important ways, even when the future comes and you get what you haven’t prepared for.


Bibliography Benedetti P, DeHart N (ed) (1997) Forward Through the Rearview Mirror: Reflections on and by Marshall McLuhan. Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Ontario Dvir R (ed) OpenFutures – Operating System for Future Centers (2008). Published by OpenFutures (European Commission Project): http://www.open-futures.net Iske P (2010) Combinatoric Innovation: Environments for creation and mobilization of intellectual capital. Inaugural Lecture, University of Maastricht Kosterbok, Kune, Meines, Van Dijk (2006) Work in Progress (Video). Het Buitenhuis, The Hague Kune H (2005) Future Centers: Ruimte voor innovatie. XPIN: The Hague Kune H (2008) Future Centers: Environments where Innovations Emerge. METI: Tokyo Markula M (2010) Energizing Society: Energizing Societty: The Role of Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation in Creating the Regional Innovation Ecosystem 2.0. Internal project document

Part 5 Findings from the German R&D Program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”

Innovative Capability – Learning Capability – Transfer Capability. Promoting Innovation systematically Max Haarich, Sylvia Sparschuh, Claudio Zettel, Sven Trantow, Frank Hees

Abstract The article Innovative Capability – Learning Capability – Transfer Capability. Promoting Innovations Systematically provides an overview of the contents, structure and management of the BMBF research program on “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”. The object of research innovative capability shows heterogeneous prerequisites for generating innovations and forms of appearance which require more flexible and more specific funding instruments. It is shown that promoting innovative capability is inextricably linked to increasing the learning capability and transfer capability of the funding program itself. The BMBF is responding to these requirements with open program structures that support inherent learning and transfer capability in order to address the changing challenges efficiently and in good time. The contribution of the monitoring and meta-projects to producing this learning and transfer capability of the program is then shown in conclusion.

Introduction Germany is the land of innovations. Hardly any other industrial nation has generated such a high proportion of added value with research- and knowledge-intensive products and services. Innovative companies, training, research and technology therefore form the bedrock for Germany’s position in the international competitive arena and the basis for its affluence and employment.1 However, innovations must be measured against the extent to which they contribute to social progress and economic success (cf. BMBF 2007a, 9). They are normally successful and effective in the long term if the interaction between people, organization and technology is effective (cf. Bullinger 1994; Trantow et al. in this volume). Against the backdrop of global scarcity of resources and the opening up of powerful economies on the international market, the major challenge for

)>> Cf. in this regard Forschungsunion Wissenschaft – Wirtschaft 2009, 4; Spath et al. 2009, 156.

1


418)>>

Max Haarich, Sylvia Sparschuh, Claudio Zettel, Sven Trantow, Frank Hees

Germany is to strengthen and sustain this power to innovate (cf. Forschungsunion Wissenschaft – Wirtschaft 2009, 4). For this reason, innovative capability is a fundamental requirement which is inseparably linked to competent people and versatile companies. HR, organizational and skill development therefore carry equal weight in a comprehensive innovation management system and are thus firmly anchored in the horizontal objectives of the High-tech Strategy (cf. BMBF 2006, 113 et seq.). Innovative capability is strongest in companies that challenge and support people in the work process. In this process, a high priority is afforded to practical and research activities concerned with Occupational Health and Safety as well as the effects of demographic changes in the working environment. These topics therefore build a focus for the research and development program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The goals of this BMBF program are closely related to the goals of the Hightech Strategy. The funding program thus helps to shape the framework conditions that lead to comprehensive innovation strategies for different users. The program focuses in particular on enabling German companies (particularly SMEs) and institutions to respond flexibly and rapidly to new technological trends and on building bridges between academia and business. With its programmatic orientation towards R&D funding for creating innovation-friendly framework conditions, and researching and/ or establishing coherent strategies between the academic, business and political spheres, the program corresponds to the core goals of the High-tech Strategy. This article provides an overview of the contents, structure and governance of the program. It focuses on newly introduced funding instruments and their targeted adaption to the specific features of the R&D object innovative capability. Particular attention is paid in this to the importance of the program’s learning and transfer capability for funding innovative capability in business and society and the contribution of the monitoring and meta-projects.

1)>> Program Governance and Cross-Linkage The high demand for top level research and the successful and rapid conversion of research outcomes into innovative marketable products and services poses specific challenges for the shaping of research and development programs (R&D programs). A research program that deals with strengthening innovative capability is itself faced with the challenge of fulfilling its own requirements. The research program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” of the BMBF is progressing in an exemplary manner in this regard. Since 2007, the program has been funding new approaches to HR, organizational and skill development which ensure that working and learning are combined in a single process and help maintain work capability and employability. The pro-

Innovative Capability – Learning CapabilityÂ€– Transfer Capability)>>

419

gram appears highly aware of its own challenges with a new program management structure which equally accommodates both own learning ability and a wide range of innovative elements that apply at all levels of research funding.

2)>> Innovative Capability and Learning Capability In an increasingly complex and dynamic world, the conditions under which innovative capability thrives are often highly context-specific and mostly apply only for a limited time. From a funding-policy perspective, this demands that acute problems be identified and addressed in ways which are both precise and timely. To fulfill these requirements throughout the whole funding period of the program, the program was set up as a Learning Program. The program has, to a well-defined extent, been designed from the outset to be flexible, adaptable, short and capable of learning in order to respond to new challenges through timely readjustment of the funding-policy activities. This inherent learning ability is established through program governance with a new type of structure and innovative instruments, which can be used to feed improvement incentives back from the projects to the program in a targeted way. 2.1)>> Instruments of the Learning Program The idea behind the Learning Program was already tested in the previous program of “Innovative Work Design – the Future of Work” and was adopted in the current program of “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” from the start as an integral component in designing the program. The learning program allows for reflections at all levels of funding during the program running time. At the same time, learning loops are also called for, and these need to incorporate the reflections in order to ensure both further development of the content priorities and suitable funding instruments. The following instruments have been integrated in the program design as elements of these “open program structures” (BMBF 2007a, 26; translated by author) and will apply within the framework of research funding and program governance: 1.)>> “Impact analyses and strategic audits aimed at the BMBF funding program as a whole (after around five years) that are used for overall analysis of the funding measures with regard to direct and indirect effects and the strategic further development of the program.”(BMBF 2007b, 16; translated by author) 2.)>> “Regular international monitoring processes that are used to integrate research activities into the international context and as a basis for critical discussions about the further development of the BMBF funding program [...].” (BMBF 2007a, 26; translated by author)

420)>>


While evaluative elements and, if necessary, program monitoring instruments are to be found in this or a similar form in other R&D programs, what makes this program unique is its additional sophisticated program governance instruments. These were explicitly formulated as recommendations by an expert group during an evaluation prior to the current program and integrated from the outset during reformulation of the program (cf. Hermann 2007, 502 et seq.). There follows an outline of the functions of the following instruments (cf. Figure 2.1): • • • • • •

Funding priorities, focus groups, collaborative projects, meta-projects, monitoring projects and the Strategic Partnership “Fit for Innovation”

Figure 2.1: Instruments and accompanying projects of the program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment“ 2.1.1)>> Funding Priorities

The first instruments to be considered are the funding priorities of the program. Funding priorities reflect professional fields of action initiated by notifications as well as currently established topic areas, in which research projects are being funded. Up to now, three funding priorities have been addressed in the program: “Innovation Strategies beyond Traditional Management“, “Balance of Flexibility and Stability in a Modern Working Environment” and – the latest priority, which is still in development since 2010 – “Innovative Capability in the Context of Demographic Change”. A further funding priority, “Occupational Safety and


421

Health”, began in 2005 under the previous program, “Innovative Work Design – the Future of Work” and was continued under the new program until its successful conclusion in 2010. The notifications of funding priorities were published at intervals of approximately one year apart. This procedure has the advantage of providing an on-going program evaluation, allowing the contents of the details given in the notifications to focus on whichever areas of enquiry are of major social concern at that time. Because the Project Management Agency in the German Aerospace Center (DLR), and the BMBF cooperate closely with representatives of the funding priorities, new research questions and action requirements can be addressed in good time and used to readjust existing funding priorities or orient new ones. In addition to this contribution to the learning ability of the program, the funding priority forms a thematic framework for cross-linkage and exchange between the projects, which is then further subdivided due to the wide areas covered by the funding priorities. 2.1.2)>> Focus Groups A focus group is a thematically focused subgroup within a funding priority, in which several collaborative projects with closely related contents are combined. A focus group works on a voluntary basis and without any formal legal basis. The functions of focus groups include promoting academic exchange at a higher aggregation level, ensuring internal cross-linkage, increasing external impact, for example through joint publications, and developing recommendations for action and research. A focus group is composed of members of the projects selected through a funding notification. A further aim is to harness and integrate the experience of external experts (cf. Sarkar 2010). Due to the thematic proximity, expectations are placed on the focus group to carry out joint activities (for example conferences, publicity work), exchange of academic findings as well as early recognition of the latest developments in the field. In a lesson learned report, the project “Strategic Transfer in Occupational Safety and Health” (StArG) indicates the strengths of the focus group concept, which are primarily apparent in network formation. However, StArG does not conceal the questions that have emerged during implementation, such as questions of financial resources for focus group spokespersons or the challenges in coordinating (shared) goals (cf. Bach et al. 2011, 16). The focus group is viewed positively overall as an instrument for network formation (community building) by the Ministry, the responsible project management agency and also in individual feedback from projects. A clear added value is acknowledged in comparison to the traditional funding of individual projects, regarding transfer and synergy promotion. 2.1.3)>> Collaborative Projects Collaborative projects between companies, research partners and intermediaries form a thematic nucleus within which multiple subprojects are combined and a research idea is formulated. Representing the collaboration, the collaboration coor-

422)>>


dinator submits the joint project outline in response to a notification. In case of a call for applications, a joint project description is agreed as the binding basis of the subsequent form of the project by the collaborative project and then submitted. Despite the professional agreement, which is regulated within the collaboration via a syndicated agreement, each subproject receives its own allocation in terms of licensing rights. This means that, on the one hand, the collaborative subject matter is protected, while on the other hand, however, individuality and confidentiality are guaranteed in funding matters. 2.1.4 Meta-Projects As a further program governance instrument, the funding priorities are each accompanied by a meta-project and if necessary meta-studies which process cross-sectional themes. Meta-studies, according to the program’s recommendations, should be assigned to individual funding priorities and shall integrate their results into the current priorities (cf. BMBF 2007a, 26). All funding priorities are currently accompanied by meta-projects. Meta-projects address inter-project issues within their funding priority and therefore assist the further development of the content of the whole R&D area. Through close dialogue with the focus groups and collaborative projects, they continuously collect and consolidate current project outcomes, so as to compare these with the targets of the program. A notification’s areas of activity are thus linked and consistently combined to form an integrated overall picture. This allows, for example, stakeholders in research, HR planning, training institutions, chambers and social partners to receive the corresponding information on important trends, developments and discussions in order to take these into account in their activities. In this way, the meta-projects generate incentives for further development of the research program. Among the funding priorities to date on prevention, innovation strategies and balance of flexibility and stability, meta-projects were set up entitled “Strategic Transfer in Occupational Safety and Health” (StArG), “Innovation Capability as a Management Task, Synthesis, Transfer and Support of Research and Development Projects” (MANTRA) and “BALANCE”. A new meta-project for the demographics funding priority will start in 2011. Owing to the running times of the funding priorities, the StArG project from the “Prevention” funding priority was the first to be completed (cf. Figure 2.2). The Lessons Learned report refers the StArG Project, among other things, to the fact that the new instruments have resulted in new functions and therefore also new roles which not only need to be individually filled in a suitable way, but also need to interact with each other appropriately. It refers to the focus-group spokespersons, meta-project advisers for the focus groups and those responsible for the focus groups at the Project Management Agency in the German Aerospace Center (DLR) (cf. Bach et al. 2011, 14 et seq.).


423

Figure 2.2: Overview to the meta-projects of the program together with their running times and allocation to funding priorities

2.1.5 Program-Supportive Projects: Monitoring Projects Like the meta-projects, monitoring projects are tasked with bundling research results from all the funding priorities of the program process-supportively, reflecting them and thus identifying knowledge gaps and action requirements for program development which could not have been deduced from notifications alone. In this way, the monitoring projects fulfill a basic function within the framework of the Learning Program. The tasks of the monitoring projects also include observing international developments, comparing findings from programs in an international context and identifying and valuating national and international dilemmas and suitable solutions. Likewise, a network of experts extending beyond the national community is to be set up. Within the BMBF program on “Working – Learning – Developing skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment“, the Department of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering/ Centre for Learning and Knowledge Development (IMA/ZLW) of RWTH Aachen University have been assigned the task of program-supportive “International Monitoring” (IMO). The IMO project procedure for fulfilling these stated tasks is shown below, with particular emphasis on the influence of transferability of R&D programs on the opportunities and limits for increasing innovative capability. 2.1.6 Program-Supportive Projects: Strategic Partnership The Strategic Partnership “Fit for Innovation” is constituted as a knowledge, transfer and learning forum, which was established as program-supportive with a particular focus on the Practice target group. Within the forum, companies exchange views and are provided with academic support in finding suitable instruments with which innovations can be stimulated and necessary changes within the company can be initiated. At the same time, the Strategic Partnership provides companies with access to the outcomes of research and new methods of personnel, organizational and skill development. The Strategic Partnership is therefore important in

424)>>


setting a course to increase innovative dynamism within companies in a targeted way, support the development of innovative capability sustainably on a large scale and therewith promote a climate for innovation in Germany. The members and key knowledge carriers of the Partnership are the representatives of companies, flanked by partners from academia and research. So as to focus on the varying needs and interests of the companies, the Partnership is divided into topic areas, to which interested companies can then attach themselves. One hundred companies are currently engaged in the “Fit for Innovation” Strategic Partnership in six topic-specific study groups. They engaged in the activities by sharing their experiences or by gaining effective recommendations for action based on the experiences of others. The key materials the study groups deal with are the experiences of companies and also instruments used in pilot trials in companies from the program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”. So as to make the experiences shared in the business to business dialogues in the study groups available to further companies in a targeted way, the Strategic Partnership employs both conventional and innovative means of transferring and disseminating knowledge. The expectation placed on the Strategic Partnership is that the exchange of experiences among the companies and the dialogues with the partners from the research world, which provide direct access via the Partnership to innovative instruments and experiences of personnel and organizational development, will lead to a direct acceleration in the rate of innovation in these companies. A key role in this is played by the spokespeople of the Partnership, who are composed of senior company representatives of a well-known medium-sized company in Germany as well as the Director of a Fraunhofer Institute.

3)>> Innovative Capability and Transfer Capability With the High-tech Strategy for Germany and its further development High-tech Strategy 2020 for Germany, the German Federal Government has developed, set in motion and implemented a cross-disciplinary innovation concept (cf. BMBF 2006 or BMBF 2010). Embedded within this are employment research and service research with their current funding programs. A central remit of these programs is to transfer academic findings to practical applications (cf. BMBF 2007a, 19). The transfer of academic findings into operational personnel, organizational and skills development frequently encounters hurdles, for which additional program-supportive instruments are made available in the R&D program “Innovative Capability in a Modern Working Environment” research program. 3.1)>> The Transfer Mission of the IMO Project To improve the transfer from science to science at an international level and from science into practice, the findings currently generated in the program for enhancing innovative capability by the IMO Project are collected, summarized and their


425

transfer is then supported. This requires specific processing of the results for the target groups economy, science and politics. To validate the national results, identify research gaps and determine research requirements early on, these are reflected by IMO in the international context. To perform these tasks, IMO uses an extensive portfolio of diverse monitoring instruments. The instruments used by IMO range from participation in fundingpriority and focus-group events to expert interviews and running its own summer schools, innovation workshops and international conferences. Important instruments for establishing the learning capability of the program are the two expert panels: IMO coordinates a national and an international panel with members from science, politics and economy. To respond in good time to the diverse challenges involved in funding innovative capability, program-complementary fields of action were identified by the national panel and worked on by expert teams. To this end, experts from the academic and practical spheres wrote expertises, trend studies and whitepapers in which current results and future research requirements for political action are formulated in detail.2 In their work, the experts of the IMO fields of action referred repeatedly to an almost paradoxical finding related to the funding of innovative capability, which had been mentioned in in-depth expert interviews (cf. Busch et al. 2011): One of the results to be transferred in order to increase innovative capability states that result transfer itself needs to be reassessed and changed. Innovative and transfer capabilities are closely linked to one another; the ability to generate and adapt solutions through interactive knowledge generation, information selection and exchange of experiences is an important prerequisite for the innovative capability of companies (cf. ibid., 69). The thesis can be derived from this that, for any further development and enhancement of innovative capability in addition to intensive content-based research into inhibiting and promotional factors of innovative capability, awareness and targeted application of findings from company practice which are already available is essential. The central program remit stated above – to transfer academic findings into practical applications and transform academically well-founded concepts into operational HR, organizational and skill development or suitable business models – cannot be implemented through a funding instrument which focuses exclusively on individual projects according to the experts. The funding program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” addresses these needs: as a center of academic research, Germany has a wide range of knowledge for strengthening innovative capability in combining measures of HR, organizational and skill development. The competence for disseminating and implementing this knowledge in the German economy is available and must be promoted. That is why the program represents a considerable advance over project funding. In the context of this program, basically only associations, )>> The trend studies, expert reports and white papers worked on so far can be downloaded from the IMO Project homepage (www.internationalmonitoring.com).

2

426)>>


that is to say consortia, are funded, in which practice and research work closely together from the initial research phase onwards. This ensures that transfer capability is already guaranteed within this consortium. The OECD points out in its 2010 Report on innovation that in Germany basically too much time elapses from the development of the idea to the actual market launch (Time-to-Market Performance), meaning a fundamental need for change and improvement existing at this stage. 3.2)>> Underlying Problem Areas for Result Transfer in Projects Within the framework of interviews with experts and national working groups, the following key problem areas and dilemmas in the area of application-focused research with innovations were identified by the experts questioned as confronting R&D programs in general: • Transfer after the end of funding: In some, new largely concluded R&D programs, a transfer of findings from the research activity was downstreamed. This meant that consideration of how a transfer of the findings can be effected is also delayed into the concluding phase of a project. This contradicts the experience and clear recommendation of the experts for integrating successful transfer to the partners in practice directly into a project – the sooner, the better. In practice, it is certainly acknowledged that the conclusion of a research and development program for every project results in extensive concluding reports and a wealth of publications are available as research outcomes, the evaluation of which, however, can no longer be assured in the case of a downstreamed transfer. • Transferability of results: A frequently addressed, but in the view of the experts too little analyzed, problem is the transferability of successful solutions – in view of how conducive the work is to learning and skill-building – but also the learning of organizations. Research gaps with urgent needs for action exist in this area, according to the recommendation of the circle of experts on organizational learning and on successful transfer concepts, to enable conditions to be created which promote learning or which can be transferred to other organizations (cf. Hartmann 201, 16). • Resources for transfer work: In R & D programs, in addition to the actual funding, enhanced transfer funding is also increasingly being required. In view of this, the circle of experts urgently advises that planning includes a framework for adequate resources of time and finances for research, academic support and transfer in research and design projects and is considered on the part of the funding providers (cf. Busch et al. 2011, 73 et seq.). • Target-group oriented processing: The academic interviews identified a transfer dilemma lying in the fact that preparing a target group-oriented processing of outcomes for practical application calls for linguistic simplification and catchy representation, which is frequently associated with trivialization in of the area of academic communications. At the same time, linguistic processing requires additional, more journalistic competence. The high level of academic


427

professionalism required for scientific study and the right to carry out research thus conflicted with the additional, but simultaneously also just as professionally required transfer in a target-group oriented manner. As both the academic representation and the transfer of the academic outcomes in the language and modes of thinking of the companies are crucial for the success of a project, it is proposed to include the target companies as well as additional company-related institutions (e.g. associations, transfer agencies) in the process of knowledge generation from the outset (cf. ibid., 75). • Information overload on the company side: For companies, the central dilemma of transfer lies in the relationship between the quantity of findings offered and the capacity for processing and applying this information. Companies are drowning in a flood of information in the form of newsletters, brochures, blogs etc. As regards transfer, this means that, in addition to providing information, intermediaries also have responsibility to select information appropriately (cf. ibid., 76). 3.3)>> A New Transfer Understanding To summarize, the following can be concluded from the IMO results to date of both the national panel and the in-depth expert interviews: Transfer requires, both from the perspective of academic as well as the economic stakeholders, focused governance and programmatic imbedding. The knowledge and service society produces to a degree more complex and higher requirements for transfer than in an industrial society – a new understanding of transfer is needed. Traditional views, according to which science is ready to provide the solution to any problem and that this then only needs to be applied are obsolete. More modern and effective transfer can only be achieved through active integration and communication of all participants on the academic and practical sides. New interactive and communicative models for shared generation of knowledge and solutions are called for. The “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” R&D program for this reason tests new approaches by basically funding collaborative projects in close cooperation between academia and practice and applying different instruments for transfer and cooperation in networks. In addition, as program-supportive measures, both IMO Project and “Fit for Innovation” represent a new understanding of transfer. 3.4)>> The IMO “Transfer” Field of Action and its four Cross-Sectional Research Tasks In view of the complexity and urgency of the transfer problem as outlined above, the IMO project has developed in close collaboration with the BMBF a new field of action to improve the transferability of R&D programs in the field of innovative capability. The project aims to provide incentives for developing and establishing a new transfer understanding. The concrete goal of the field of action is to provide action recommendations for implementing this transfer understanding within cur-

428)>>


rent and future program funding. Overall, the transfer understanding should clearly distance itself from technicistic sender-receiver models and the knowledge gain should be based on partnershiporiented and continuous interaction of all relevant transfer partners. Transfer must not be seen as a modular work package that is only tackled once the academic results are completed and consists solely of the printing of academic publications. Promoting transfer means more than increasing the circulation. Promoting transfer means increasing individual and organizational transfer skills and optimizing the transferred knowledge itself, taking into account the needs of the target group and integrating this target group right at the start of knowledge production (cf. Haarich and Leisten 2010, 292 et seq.). The success of a research and development program in strengthening innovative capability must not be judged solely on the basis of the quality of the content of the solutions developed, but must also in future be measured against the subsequent diffusion of this newly acquired knowledge into corporate practice. Not just the production of knowledge, but also its transfer, is a task that researchers must (help to) shape in order to increase the sustainability of the funding. Researchers’ understanding of their roles and tasks must be expanded so that it goes beyond the generation of new knowledge to actively helping to ensure its application, and the users themselves must be integrated into this process. Researchers as well as practitioners must be more effectively enabled to transfer structuring solutions and for the establishment and strengthening of innovative capability. The goal of transfer is changing from knowledge production to enabling, in the course of which the transfer partner is not just informed about the action requirements but also enabled to act. “In principle, SMEs must be better enabled to increase innovation transfer in the use of modern technologies and the implementation of academic findings – and also particularly of work structuring and management. Innovative solutions must be transferred quicker and more effectively on a more widespread and practice-oriented basis. Different, more effective forms of transfer must be found for this” (Brall et al. 2009, 44; translated by author). As part of monitoring activities, the IMO Project recommends four cross-sectional research tasks3 as approaches for sustainably establishing successful transfer in the “Working – Learning – Developing skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” as well as the following funding program for enhancing innovative capability:

)>> The four cross-sectional research tasks are to be seen as routing differences, delimiting the scope of the stated transfer term as it appears to be target-aimed in the current situation. In this process, the question remains as to how strong the overlaps are between these groups of topics, for how long precisely these four cross-sectional research tasks will retain their validity, or whether they will need to be focused or supplemented in the course of the research.

3


• • • •

429

Operationalization and Measurement, Method integration and Target Group Adaptation, Cross-Linkage and Constitution of Alliances and Enabling und Dissemination (cf. Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Cross-sectional research tasks for promoting the transfer capability of R&D programs

The cross-sectional research tasks represent inter-thematic activities to be allowed for in the transfer design of a funding program and which increase the probability of transfer success by helping to implement fundamental process components of the transfer. The cross-sectional research tasks are explained individually below together with associated research questions. 3.4.1)>> Operationalization and Measurement Operationalization and Measurement aims at the formation, delimitation and measurement of innovative capability and associated factors. The capacity of individuals, organizations, networks and societies to create innovation as the key to competitiveness depends to a crucial extent on the underlying understanding of the concept and its aim. A selection of suitable strategies, methods and measures is based on the most objective measurements possible, which presuppose comparability and sufficiently similar operationalization processes. Ultimately, the question of positive and negative influencing factors of innovative capability and therefore the question of the innovative capability concept in general depends on reliable and valid operationalization and measurement methods. What is frequently lacking is not data availability, but rather the fact that available methods and data are often unsatisfactory in mapping the complex investigation phenomena, not generally applicable, or not widely accepted. From a pragmatic perspective, there is also the fact that imple-

430)>>


mentation of the findings in the company usually still requires proof of concept by means of quantitative data. Examples of research questions for this cross-sectional task are as follows: • What aspects must be taken into account for the operationalization of a holistic innovative capability? • Alongside quantitative indicators, how can crucial qualitative and subjective aspects also be integrated into the measurement of soft factors? • How can the comparability of the constructs be preserved despite individual operationalization methods? 3.4.2)>> Method Integration and Target-Group Adaption Method integration and target-group adaptation comprises the identification of necessary steps during the development of customized solutions. The technical specifications and also attempts of interdisciplinarity have led to a heterogeneous variety of methods in the sciences and afford the opportunity of optimization. A lack of dissemination of academic insights, procedures and approaches to solving problems in economic practice cannot just be the result of limited application opportunities, but could also be considerably increased through more intensively conducted interdisciplinarity and integration of new methods, e.g. directly during its creation process. However, the aim and challenge must not be the conglomeration of one-size-fits-all concepts, but the joint development of flexible methods that can be adapted to the specific needs of the companies (to some extent even by the companies themselves) (cf. BMBF 2007a, 9). Examples of research questions for this cross-sectional task are as follows: • How can methods be constructed in an interdisciplinary manner? • How can methods be adapted to the individual conditions and requirements of organizations? • How can the expert knowledge of the practitioners be made usable for method integration? 3.4.3)>> Cross-Linkage and Constitution of Alliances Cross-linkage and constitution of alliances deals with the processes and technical infrastructure for structuring the virtual and real interaction between relevant stakeholders. To prepare actual implementation of (integrated) methods optimally not only requires the theoretical combining of content, but also the relevant stakeholders and institutions from research and practice must be brought together in a practical sense. Only through cross-linkage and intensive exchange can the theoretical content of research be adapted to the practical needs of companies and made usable by them (cf. Haarich and Leisten 2010, 291 et seq.). Further to the required merging of academia and practice, internal practice and research cross-linkages are also highly significant (cf. Bullinger 2006, 12).


431

Examples of research questions for this cross-sectional task are as follows: • What cross-linkage structures and technical infrastructure can be used to establish effective, lasting and flexible cooperations between research and practice? • Which relevant stakeholders must be integrated in the transfer process at what time? • How can motivation and benefits be increased for all transfer partners? 3.4.4)>> Enabling and Dissemination Enabling and dissemination explains processes of knowledge transformation for the assimilation, dissemination and application of results. The basic problem of enabling is the impossibility of simply copying knowledge. Only explicit knowledge can be directly transmitted, but only implicit knowledge can enable actions being taken (cf. Polanyi 1985). The challenge therefore lies in the communicative formation of transformation processes between explicit and implicit knowledge. The application of explicit research knowledge requires the skill to contextualize, i.e. knowledge to be applied to new practical problems. From the manifold research outcomes from various academic subareas, the way into economic practice could be opened up for many through this. It had been hoped that the evaluation, dynamic in its own right, of outstanding theoretical results and prototypically successful practical implementations within the framework of collaborative projects would be provided with considerable momentum (cf. Leisten and Hees 2008). From the perspective of the project, it is therefore recommended that the idea of the transfer is to be supplemented or even be replaced by the active moment of practical implementation and the idea of enabling (cf. Trantow et al 2010, 327 et seq.). Research questions for this cross-sectional task are as follows: • How can researchers and practitioners be enabled and motivated to undertake mutual and target-group-oriented knowledge requirements and provision? • How can translation or commercialization processes be used to reduce the knowledge gap between research and practice? • How can models of knowledge co-production (Action Learning, Work Based Learning etc.) be made time-efficient and comprehensive?

4)>>Summary The promotion of innovative capability is a key lever for securing and developing the economic ranking and research status of Germany amongst its international competitors. This was acknowledged with the High Tech Strategy of the Federal Government and, among other measures, translated and applied into targeted funding measures in the “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” R & D program of the BMBF.

432)>>


The innovative capability object of research indicates complex prerequisites for the creation and forms of innovations which require flexible and specific funding instruments. The BMBF is responding to these requirements with open program structures that create inherent learning ability in order to address the changing challenges efficiently and in good time. In addition to the learning capability of the program, the transfer capability of the program represents a key skill, with which innovative capability is supported. The IMO Monitoring Project handles this topic with an field of action of its own, in which a new transfer understanding is worked out for the transfer of results from R&D programs in the area of innovative capability, while the “Strategic Partnership” represents what has up to now been a very successful attempt to promote and experience transfer with partners in practice within the network. While IMO performs its activities at the level of the whole program, the metaprojects of the program operate at the level of the funding priorities. Its current findings regarding internal and external funding-priority transfer activities represent a large proportion of the academic basis for distilling the four cross-sectional research tasks proposed by IMO to increase transferability. Because of their closeness to the project participants, the meta-projects are particularly significant for establishing and increasing transferability and ultimately innovative capability. Independently of the different thematic orientations of the meta-projects resulting from the relevant funding priorities, they are all jointly tasked with the bundling and processing of results. In the following three articles, the current meta-projects StArG, MANTRA and BALANCE provide a brief overview of the findings to date of their accompanying funding priority. StArG outlines the potential of Occupational Safety and Health to improve working conditions and boost the motivation and performance of employees as a prerequisite for the innovative capability and competitiveness of companies. The MANTRA project deals with work organization processes and demonstrates that innovation strategies converge at right angles to thematic priorities in three dimensions: nonlinearity, exceeding organization boundaries and subjectification. The latest BALANCE meta-project focuses on the use of social software in project work for the identification of network partners, the organization of networks and the archiving and dissemination of project content beyond institutional, disciplinary and physical boundaries.

Bibliography Bach U, Hees F, Leisten I (2011) Prävention & Transfer. Lessons Learned-Bericht des Metaprojektes StArG (unpublished) Bullinger HJ (1994) Ergonomie: Produkt- und Arbeitsplatzgestaltung. Teubner, Stuttgart Bullinger HJ (2006) Verdammt zur Innovation. In: RKW-Magazin, 57: 12–14 Busch S, Lammert C, Sparschuh S, Hees F (2011) Innovationsfähigkeit im Gespräch. Forschungsbedarfe und Handlungsempfehlungen. Trendstudy on behalf of the project “International Monitoring”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University


433

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2006) High-Tech-Strategie für Deutschland. Berlin Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2007a) Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. BMBF-Forschungsund Entwicklungsprogramm. Berlin Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2007b) Innovationen mit Dienstleistungen. BMBF-Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm. Berlin Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2010) Ideen. Innovation. Wachstum. Hightech-Strategie 2020 für Deutschland. Berlin Forschungsunion Wirtschaft – Wissenschaft (ed) (2009) Woher das neue Wachstum kommt. Innovationspolitische Impulse für ein starkes Deutschland in der Welt. Empfehlungen der Forschungsunion Wirtschaft – Wissenschaft 2009, Berlin Haarich M, Leisten I (2010) Langfristiges Verstehen durch kurzfristiges Missverstehen. Die Bedeutung der interaktiv-transkriptiven Störungsbearbeitung für den Transfer von Wissen. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen Hartmann EA (2011) Ergebnispapier Kompetenzentwicklung, Arbeitssysteme, Arbeitsprozesse – eine innovative Herausforderung. In: Jeschke S, Hees F (ed.) Ergebnispapiere der Aktionsfelder. Results of the Fields of Action in the scope of the project “International Monitoring”, IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University (in preparation) Herrmann T, Jahnke I, Klick H, Skrotzki R (2007) Ex-post und ex-ante Evaluation des BMBF-Rahmenkonzeptes “Innovative Arbeitsgestaltung – Zukunft der Arbeit“: Zukunft eines Forschungsprogramms. In: Streich D, Wahl D (ed): Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. Personalentwicklung – Organisationsentwicklung – Kompetenzentwicklung. Beiträge der Tagung des BMBF. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.: 501-528 Leisten I, Hees F (2008) Strategische Transferkommunikation von Innovations- und Forschungswissen. In: Tagungsband der GWS Jahrestagung “Innovation und Information“, December 4-5, 2008, Oestrich-Winkel Polanyi M (1985) Implizites Wissen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. Sarkar R (2010) Fokusgruppen als innovatives Instrument des Forschungsprogammmanagements. In: Krcmar H, Böhmann T, Sarkar R (ed) Export und Internationalisierung wissensintensiver Dienstleistungen. Eul-Verlag, Lohmar-Köln Spath D, Ganz W, Tombeil AS (2009) MARS – International Monitoring of Activities and Research in Services. In: Spath D, Arbeits- und Dienstleistungsforschung als InnovaÂ� tionstreiber: Bilanzen, Herausforderungen, Zukünfte. Symposium, May 22, 2009. Stuttgart: 155-167 Trantow S, Schuster K, Hees F, Jeschke S (2010) Spannungsfelder der Innovationsfähigkeit. Internationales Monitoring im BMBF-Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm A-L-K. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed.) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 260-280

Occupational Safety and Health as an Innovation Driver Ingo Leisten, Ursula Bach and Frank Hees

Abstract Improving working conditions and promoting employees’ motivation and ability to perform boosts capacity for innovation and corporate competitiveness. The “Occupational Safety and Health” funding priority of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has established a platform to address the challenges of the modern work environment from the perspective of occupational safety and health policy. Demographic change is influencing general conditions, and Occupational Safety and Health needs to be repositioned accordingly. The integration of safety and health into work practices and the support of cross-company stakeholders are prerequisites for successful integration of prevention within companies. This article discusses the relationship between capacity to innovate and prevention in terms of the current dilemmas surrounding the potential for innovation (cf. chapter 1). These dilemmas characterize the challenges addressed by the “Occupational Safety and Health” funding priority and its focus groups (cf. chapter 2). To this end, the findings of the focus groups vis-à-vis the respective issues are presented in summarized form (cf. chapter 3). Based on the approach of Taking prevention forward, the research results are summarized and the potential of prevention as a field for future development explored in the Aachener Impuls zur betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention in der modernen Arbeitswelt (Aachen Impulse on the promotion of occupational health and prevention in the modern work environment). The article concludes by presenting the funding priority within the context of European prevention strategies.

1)>> Capacity to Innovate and Prevention The pressure to innovate and the highly dynamic nature of the work environment demand high flexibility, autonomy and networking, on the part of not only companies, but also staff. Demographic change poses an additional challenge for companies, in that they need to ensure their employees remain fit for work. The pace of change and the associated flexibility that these demands are leading to a transformation in people’s career paths and learning behavior. The fact that all areas of production and service are becoming increasingly knowledge- and skill-based means that requirements for processes and structures are becoming more demanding. People S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_43, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

436)>>

Ingo Leisten, Ursula Bach and Frank Hees

are constantly required to relearn and retrain, both at individual and organizational level. The key to overcoming these challenges lies in developing the capacity to innovate at individual, organizational, network and societal level while taking into account the relevant interdependencies. The importance of the physical and mental health of employees is often stressed as a key factor for innovative capacity, citing the maxim a healthy employee is an innovative employee. Motivated and committed employees are a company’s guarantee of competitiveness and innovative capacity (cf. Jochmann 2008, 5). To maintain the physical and mental health of employees, therefore, employment research has for a long time been developing comprehensive occupational safety and health concepts. Healthcare management and consulting-based promotion of occupational health have become a common feature in German companies. Benefits are being gained from this in terms of business management and personnel management, for example through the regulation of absences due to illness or through efficiencyboosting programs, and these are being systematically incorporated in work practices (cf. Zahn-Elliott 2010, 3): “Economic requirements and social obligations to create safe and healthy working conditions are not inherently opposing, but rather complementary, factors” (cf. Bullinger 1999, 29; translated by author). However, sustainable integration of health and safety in work processes, particularly based on proactive, innovation-friendly prevention, and support for crosscompany stakeholders in reorienting their tasks, has in many cases not yet been achieved (cf. Zahn-Elliott 2009). The health policy challenges within a highly dynamic work environment and ongoing demographic change make this particularly urgent. An increase in innovations that promote competitiveness in business calls for a future-focused approach to occupational safety and health, which is much more far-reaching than simple health promotion and classic safety measures. The aim is to ensure sustainable structuring of jobs and working conditions that not only satisfies the demands of business but also meets the needs of individuals (cf. Jochmann 2008). This can realize synergies between companies’ efficiency objectives and individuals’ requirements to produce good work. The potential that can be unleashed through prevention needs to be recognized and companies given the means to harness it (cf. Bullinger 1999, 29). Measures for Occupational Safety and Health can then make an elementary contribution to boosting the capacity for innovation and can even define workplace innovation strategies, which are a key competitive factor (cf. Jochmann 2008, 7). The BMBF funding priority “Occupational Safety and Health”, which supports 18 cooperative projects with a total of 52 subprojects and nine individual projects, focuses on developing and communicating future-focused, application-oriented concepts for prevention in the workplace. Within the projects, diverse research results and solution proposals are compiled by various research institutes, companies, stakeholders from chambers of commerce, associations, intermediaries and special interest groups (cf. PT im DLR 2008, 4). This funding priority contributes to competitiveness by:

Occupational Safety and Health as an Innovation Driver)>>437

• counteracting economic loss caused by lack of prevention, • taking account of the changes in the modern working environment (cf. BMBF 2005) and • supporting the intermediaries in their role as service providers (cf. BMBF 2006, 263). Prevention plays a multidisciplinary role within the framework of the BMBF funding program “Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt” (“Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”), and therefore also within the high-tech strategy of the German federal government (cf. BMBF 2007). Safety and Health at work and good working conditions thus become a “constituent requirement for innovation policy” (cf. Zahn-Elliott 2010, 6; translated by author) based on a comprehensive innovation concept that is not restricted to technological developments.

2)>> Prevention in a Modern Work Environment Companies and their employees today have to adapt to rapid changes continuously. These are characterized by increased competitive pressure, short product and innovation cycles, globalized division of labor and delocalization of work. They need to bundle all their resources in order to survive on a globalized market, ensure their capacity for innovation and thus maintain their competitiveness over the long term (cf. Henning et al. 2009a). The more the technical possibilities expand and the faster the work environment changes due to globalization, the more challenging it becomes to implement an innovation-friendly occupational health and safety program (cf. Zahn-Elliott 2010, 3). “If one of the foundations underlying Germany’s capacity to innovate is ‘sustainability of work’, then this is one of the most urgent problems” (cf. Moldaschl et al. 2007, 14; translated by author). The sphere within businesses operate appears to be increasingly plagued by dilemmas. These dilemmas stem from socio-economic tensions characterized by today’s working and living environment (cf. Trantow et al. 2010). Against this backdrop, companies and the people working for them face complex decisions. Trantow et al. (2010) identify as dilemmas for innovative capacity those dilemmas that affect and influence the recursive levels “individual, organization, network and society” on the road to innovative capacity and global competitiveness (cf. also Trantow et al. in this volume): • • • •

Responsible use of human resources vs. cost pressure, Long-term strategies to increase innovative capability vs. pressure to succeed, Time for learning processes vs. time pressure, Need for stabilization vs. flexibilization pressure.

438)>>


As the results of an international expert survey also show, the work environment is increasingly faced with the challenge of performing work services fast, cheaply, in high quality and with the maximum of variability in order to remain competitive (Brall et al. 2009). These pressures to which the stakeholders in the modern working and living environment are subject can be attributed to the overarching meta-dilemma of sustainability vs. short-term profit expectations – i.e. the conflict between economics and ecology. Prevention measures and strategies operate within this very context. Prevention should “be measured according to whether it contributes to the development of a company’s potential, to its ability to adapt to changes” (Volkholz 2007, 43; translated by author). As part of a foresight process (cf. Cuhls et al. 2009), a need for action was demonstrated in three key areas: On the one hand, the significance of the traditional standard work and employment model is decreasing due to the increase in flexible and atypical forms of employment, combined with a further segmentation of work and the labor market. In addition to the new risks that this entails, Occupational Safety and Health needs to address the developments with solutions appropriate to the situation. Occupational science findings cannot easily be applied to new forms of employment, e.g. in the IT industry, and are not suitable for the specific situations (cf. Moldaschl et al.2007, 14). A second area where action is needed stems from the increased desire for selfmanagement and individual responsibility by employers and the self-employed. For employees, this means more freedom to act on the one hand, but also new risks on the other (cf. Zahn-Elliott 2009). Self-management and self-regulation skills need to be built up in order to maintain individual employability. Thirdly, the ever-changing general global conditions are posing challenges for Occupational Safety and Health. More regional concepts are required as well as the involvement of professional organizations that have not been active in the field of occupational safety and health (cf. Zahn-Elliott 2009, 4). Traditional occupational safety is primarily determined by normative requirements and by a causal logic and approach based on safety-related and/ or occupational healthcare. However, this description is inadequate for Occupational Safety and Health (cf. Bullinger 1999, 31). New challenges for Occupational Safety and Health are emerging from the above-mentioned developments in the modern working environment and new research questions are being formulated for the research community. The BMBF addressed these questions to the funding priority that was to be set up with its focus groups (cf. BMBF 2005): Integration of prevention in workplace innovation strategies a))>> To enable health potential (harnessed as an element for promoting innovation and competition), measures must be demonstrated that incorporate preventive work design in companies’ economic action strategies and the cost-effectiveness of these measures must be quantifiable in practice. The aim is to optimize the relationships between work culture, productivity and health.


b))>> The increasing flexibility is to be counterbalanced by strategies to overcome psychological pressure and to build up individual resources. These strategies should exert a positive influence at individual level and in terms of technical and general organization. c) )>>A further aim is to promote the development of comprehensive management concepts that integrate prevention into the routines of an organization as an element of workplace innovation management, and that highlight the special role of managers in companies’ prevention cultures. d) )>>The challenges of demographic change emphasize the need to establish demographic-related prevention, particularly with regard to mixed-age workforces (diversity). New stakeholder alliances in the field of prevention a) )>>In the knowledge economy, prevention and health promotion in the workplace must be structured according to the changing requirements of the modern work environment. Within the knowledge economy, particular focus is to be placed on companies in the IT industry, for example, and professional and industry associations in the IT sector are to be won over to prevention issues. b) )>>Employees’ extensive rights of involvement are to be actively utilized for prevention and health processes by promoting their (prevention) skills and enabling organizational learning processes (giving particular consideration to the management culture). c) )>> The support of prevention service providers in implementing preventive organizational and work design aimed at health promotion, and in situations involving the cooperation of various cross-company stakeholder groups, requires the formation of new stakeholder alliances. Prevention stakeholders should therefore develop new service networks to enable the individual partners in order to boost their own capacity for innovation. New transfer pathways for prevention The transfer of prevention knowledge must be guaranteed by specific measures, and insights into the success of these measures must be obtained. This refers to not only the broad impact, but also the setup and development of suitable communication pathways between different partners involved with regard to the success of the cooperation.

3)>> The Funding Priority as a Solution Space 3.1)>> Innovative Funding Structures When authorizing the funding priority, the Project Management Agency in the DLR (German Aerospace Center) and the BMBF introduced innovative funding struc-

440)>>


tures that extend beyond the cooperative projects: focus groups1, the Meta Project2 StArG (Strategic Transfer in Occupational Safety and Health), the funding priority itself and the IMO monitoring project3 were introduced as transfer and learning instruments (cf. Figure 3.1). World Political field of action

Research program

Funding priority

Meta Project

Focus groups Cooperative projects

Figure 3.1: Innovative funding structures in the BMBF program “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”

Collaborative knowledge exchange and knowledge production, which had been publicized through various activities and media in terms of transfer, took place at these levels (cf. Henning et al. 2009, 14-17). Through bundling, systematizing and concentration of the various project stakeholders and by using targeted communication channels, new stakeholder and institution groups were identified as target groups and were addressed. The external visibility of the research community was thus successfully enhanced. Thanks to the collective research in the focus groups and the interaction at the level of the funding priority, stakeholders from diverse )>> Focus groups combine four to six projects that deal with the key content of the funding priority. )>> The Meta Project StArG was authorised to support the transfer activities and network management of the funding priority. The remit of the transfer project is to provide services for the funding priority and carry out research into broad and deep transfer. 3 )>> For more detailed information on this, cf. Zettel and Haarich in this volume. 1 2


academic disciplines, different industries and the various target groups were able to develop an inter- and transdisciplinary research community for Occupational Safety and Health (cf. Bach et al. 2010, 276). To promote interaction and knowledge exchange/ knowledge production processes within the funding priority, a comprehensive online work system was piloted – the interactive work and discussion platform (iDA) – which will be made available to all funding priorities within this field in future following its successful rollout. The “Occupational Safety and Health” funding priority gathers knowledge on how prevention affects the promotion of innovation, based on research results and practical experience. This knowledge is accumulated using various methods and validated in numerous industries and fields of practice. The way in which the membership of the focus groups is composed allows the interrelationships between the content of particular projects to be formulated. The intentionally diverse stakeholders in the projects are actively supported by network management. The Meta Project StArG is responsible for further development and structuring of the network management (cf. Bach et al. 2010, 267). The results of the discussions, academic discourses and methodological discussions of the focus groups are compiled in pamphlets. These represent a collection and concentration of the academic content of the projects pertaining to the topics addressed by the focus group. Each of the focus groups condenses these and outlines research desiderata in policy documents. Selected topics and contents of the focus groups, taken directly from the policy documents and pamphlets, are presented below: 3.2)>> Prevention as an Element of Workplace Innovation Management4 Qualified, healthy and efficient employees are the key to developing and implementing new products and services in a globally competitive environment. Potentially effective workplace health promotion within the context of workplace innovation management pursues this aim by utilizing the tried-and-tested prevention strategies of situational and behavioral prevention within a systematic framework. Healthcare management has become an established organizational concept for larger organizations, while smaller organizations use a systematic management and organizational model incorporating external, cross-company stakeholders. The promotion of )>> Instruments and strategies for workplace health promotion as part of workplace innovation management are to be maintained through the respective projects of the focus group: IMMMA – Interaktive Module zur Umsetzung der Maschinenrichtlinie in der Entwicklung und Nutzung von Anlagen und Maschinen (Interactive modules for innovative implementation of the EU Machinery Directive) (www.immma.net), Inope – Netzwerkbasierte Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention in der Finanzverwaltung (Network-based Worksite Health Promotion and Prevention in the German Tax Administration) (www.inope.de), PräGo – Präventives Gesundheitsmanagement durch integrierte Personal- und Organisationsentwicklung (Preventive healthcare management through integrated personnel and organisational development) (www.praego. net) and Noah – Nutzenoptimierter und kostenreduzierter Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz in Handwerksbetrieben (Benefit-optimised and cost-effective occupational health and safety in handicrafts businesses) (www.noah-projekt.de).

4

442)>>


individual and structural resources needs to take place alongside this. The passive protection concept for reducing or eliminating risks and stress is juxtaposed by a salutogenic concept for promoting individual responsibility and resources. In this model, the protection concepts are complemented by the individual or group-specific resource orientation, the health promoting effect of which has been demonstrated. The ongoing dynamism and ever growing complexity of workplace processes are also increasingly causing mental stress and diseases, which should be addressed with suitable health promotion measures. These measures are be structured according to risk group and should be gender- and life-phase-specific in nature in order to promote health, fitness for work, life expectancy and individual resources (cf. policy document of the focus group “Betriebliches Innovationsmanagement” (Workplace innovation management) 2010, 13 et seq.). 3.3)>> Prevention as a Competitive Factor5 This focus group deals with the question of how and under what conditions measures for Occupational Safety and Health can make a relevant contribution to the competitiveness of businesses above and beyond pure cost aspects. It has been demonstrated that integrating human and social aspects into corporate strategy has a considerable influence on economic success and therefore the competitiveness of a company. An integrated approach to occupational health and safety affects both the performance and the motivation of employees, and therefore can make a lasting contribution to the positive economic development of companies. The economic benefits of prevention strategies become clear when the relationship between healthcare management and performance-related results is highlighted at company and employee level. The development of performance indicators enables companies to assess the actual current status of occupational safety and health in compressed form. On the basis of which cross-company benchmarking can also be initiated. Furthermore, this benchmarking triggers subject-related exchange between the companies which fosters the establishment of communication networks. Insights and practical aids to action provide companies with a comprehensive overview of their own occupational safety and health for the first time from the perspective of occupational science, occupational healthcare, personnel management, psychology, resource orientation and controlling, and clarify the effects of occupational safety and health on productivity and performance (cf. policy document of the focus group “Prävention als Wettbewerbsfaktor” (Prevention as a competitive factor) 2010, 31 et seq.).

)>> Specific results and findings on this topic can be found in the relevant publications by the PARSAG projects – Partizipatives Systemisches Arbeits- und Gesundheitssmanagement (Participative systematic work and healthcare management) (www.parsag.cbm-ac.de), PAGSmonitor – Ökonomischer Arbeitsschutz durch Benchmarking (Economical occupational safety through benchmarking) (www.pags-monitor.de) and BiG – Benchmarking in einem Gesundheitsnetzwerk (Benchmarking in a health network) (www.projekt-big.de).

5


3.4)>> Innovation Strategy and Health6 The thematic framework of this focus group is based on the conditions for occupational safety and health in the knowledge economy. As a leading industry, the IT sector is especially affected by the changed requirements of the modern work environment: extreme knowledge dynamics, flexible forms of employment, job nomads, temporary employment contracts, diffuse places of work, blurring of the boundaries between work and private life etc. As well as causing an increase in health risks, these factors also highlight the limitations of current prevention concepts. The projects’ studies show that knowledge-economy employees whose health is affected are less motivated, less committed and less innovative. To ensure the competitiveness of the industry, effective strategies must be developed to cope with mental demands and build up individual resources. Selective interventions in cases of mental stress (either at individual level or at organizational level only) are often fruitless, since they do not address (autonomy-oriented, operationally disconnected) employees, mobile workers or freelancers. For this reason, and also in order to systematically implement prevention in workplace healthcare management, interaction between people, situations and organizations needs to be optimized in a targeted manner. These strategies need to take into account the fact that the SMBs in the industry, which represent more than 80 percent of companies, often lack the organizational structures needed to implement workplace health promotion measures. Promoting personal resources and individual responsibility, internal interaction aimed at forming interfaces, development of customized solutions by the involved parties on site and the creation of external, integrated prevention centers can exert a crucial influence (cf. policy document of the focus group “Innovationsstrategie und Gesundheit” (Innovation strategy and health) 2010, 16 et seq.). 3.5)>> Health Promotion in the Context of Demographic Change7 Workplace health promotion in the context of demographic change requires the development and valorization of human resources throughout working life. This entails dovetailing of operational, social and individual responsibility for health. )>> The current state of research in this subject area and development needs in the IT and software industry for Preventive Occupational Health and Safety are demonstrated by the following projects: GemNet – Vernetzung und Steuerung des betrieblichen Gesundheitsmanagements (Networking and control of workplace healthcare management) (www.gemnet.de), pragdis – Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz in diskontinuierlichen Erwerbsverläufen (Preventive Occupational Health and Safety in discontinuous career paths) (www.pragdis.de), ITG – Präventiver Gesundheitsschutz in der IT-Branche (Preventive Occupational Health in the IT industry) (www.uni-due.de/~sx0172/cms/startseite.html), PräKoNet – Entwicklung von Präventionskompetenz in ITK – Unternehmen durch gezielte Vernetzung der Akteure (Development and prevention competence in ITC companies through targeted networking of stakeholders) (www.praekonet.de) and PRÄWIN – Prävention in Unternehmen der Wissensökonomie (Prevention in companies in the knowledge economy) (www.projekt-praewin.de). 7 )>> The Demopass projects – effects of match/ mismatch between aspects of human and social capital, corporate strategy and work organisation on physical and mental health in the workplace, DiWa-IT – Demografischer Wandel und Prävention in der IT (Demographic change 6

444)>>


Demographically oriented health promotion requires an increased prevention element, since all the operational and individual aspects relating to the stress situations of employees can only be accounted for and structured by using an integrated approach. Only by matching workplace services with individual needs and requirements can prevention of this type become effective. The integration of prevention in workplace is becoming essential, in order to allow for the effects on the health of the involved parties when designing work systems and processes – i.e. a foresighted, preventive and driven approach to work design. A society undergoing demographic change needs to see its working environments increasingly as learning environments. Continuous training and learning at individual and operational level establishes the initial prerequisites for living and growing old in good health, which in turn increases and supports fitness for work. A workplace culture where appreciation is expressed can help to promote health. The integrated approaches of the focus group’s projects show that prevention under conditions of demographic change is not solely the task of safety professionals, ergonomists or occupational health practitioners. All stakeholders who create and shape workplace structures and processes, as well as cross-company health promoters, are being called upon to help implement the available approaches, instruments and procedures and adapt the respective requirements (cf. policy document of the focus group “Gesundheitsförderung im demografischen Wandel” (Health promotion in the context of demographic change) 2010, 23 et seq.). 3.6)>> Participation, Leadership and Prevention8 This focus group researches the way in which Occupational Safety and Health relates to the participation of employees, the role of managers and innovative work design. Classic prevention guidelines often include standardized codes of conduct, and prevention measures are experienced by employees as a burden in some cases, and prevention in IT) (www.diwa-it.de), TAQP – Technologieinnovation, Arbeitsorganisation, Qualifizierung, Prävention – Systematisches Handlungskonzept für Produktivität und Gesundheit (Technology innovation, work organisation, qualification, prevention – systematic action concept for productivity and health) (www.taqp.de), MeGa Wandel – Menschen- und alter(n) sgerechte Gestaltung der Arbeit – Gestaltung des demografischen Wandels in einem Unternehmen der Abwasserbranche (Person-centred and age(ing)-oriented work design – structuring demographic change in a company in the wastewater industry), LEGESA – Lebenslang gesund arbeiten (Lifelong health in the workplace) (www.lebenslang-gesund-arbeiten.de/), GeFüDo – Gesundheitsorientierte Führung im demografischen Wandel (Health-oriented management in the context of demographic change) demonstrate concepts and instruments for prevention under the conditions created by demographic change. 8 )>> Concrete case studies for implementation and generalised examples can be named for the basal aspects of participative prevention from the experiences of the 3P projects – Partizipative Präventionskompetenz Pflege (Participative prevention competence care) (www.alice-3p.de), PaPsD – Partizipative Prävention im Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz durch sozialen Dialog (Participative prevention in occupational health and safety through social dialogue) (www. papsd.de), Quiero – Qualifizierung durch Integration erfahrungsbezogener Ressourcen in Organisationen der Pflege (Qualification through integration of experience-related resources in care organisations) (www.quiero-online.de) and PARGEMA –Partizipatives Gesundheitsmanagement (Participative healthcare management) (www.pargema.de).


extending in many cases beyond the work environment to private life, and are seen as rules imposed from outside. The concept of participative prevention for occupational safety and health structuring processes can fulfill a crucial intermediary function between the objective nature of prevention requirements and personal structuring requirements. The employees are seen as work-design and organization specialists, and must empower themselves to protect their own interests and set their own goals. In this approach, participation is successful • when it promotes a process of (innovative, modernizing) organizational development that serves to reorganize the prevention and participation objectives. • when management structures and behavior are redetermined through their interaction with the participation requirements. • and sustainable, when it has stable procedures within which it can develop dynamically on a long-term basis. Participation therefore allows prevention objectives to be acknowledged as having equal value and status to economic objectives. Management behavior and a culture of trust within the company are regarded as very important for social (i.e. evaluative, emotional, instrumental and information policy related) support of participative prevention processes (cf. policy document of the focus group “Partizipation und Führung” (Participation and leadership) 2010, 25 et seq.). 3.7)>> Cross-Company Alliances9 The projects’ studies show that there is a major need to address issues concerning prevention and occupational health safety and health in the workplace, and that this stems from current requirements and problems rather than classic fields of activity relating to occupational safety. The studies indicate that potentially effective prevention strategies call for more emphasis to be placed on specific (regionally oriented and industry-specific) action requirements of SMBs rather than on unilateral, normative messages. For various reasons, this need for innovative, practicable prevention concepts is not greatly heeded or addressed by occupational safety and health institutions. However, the functions of associations, chambers of commerce and trade organizations such as training, information, consulting, exchange of experiences and industry dialogue offer strategic potential for prevention, which )>> The PräSend projects – Betriebliche Prävention durch Service Engineering und Dienstleistungsmanagement (Prevention in the workplace through service engineering and service management) (www.prae-send.de), PräTrans – Transferpotenziale der Kammern und Fachverbände für gesundheitliche Prävention in Klein- und Ein-Personen-Unternehmen (Transfer potential of chambers of commerce and professional associations for health-related prevention for small companies and sole traders) (www.gesundheit-unternehmen.de), InnoGeMa – Netzwerkentwicklung für innovatives Gesundheitsmanagement (Network development for innovative healthcare management) (www.innogema.de) and NeuPrag – Neue Präventionsallianzen für mehr Gesundheit in KMU der Baustoffindustrie (New prevention alliances for improving health in SMBs in the construction materials industry) (www.neuprag.de) are developing innovative prevention strategies for small and medium-sized businesses with an emphasis on establishing sustainable networks with intermediary organisations and companies.

9

446)>>


needs to be harnessed and developed. Because human and material resources are often limited, however, this will only be successfully achieved if the ability and will to cooperate increases on all sides, sometimes through new forms of collaboration. Greater, continuous cooperation and networking of chambers of commerce, associations and occupational safety and health service providers and institutions, when built on correspondingly sustainable structural foundations, can improve in particular the standard of information and the availability of consulting services. For both the development of prevention instruments and the transfer of products and services to practical applications, businesses and networks need to be involved so that prevention in the workplace is increasingly regarded as being dialogue and service based (cf. policy document of the focus group “Überbetriebliche Allianzen” (Cross-company alliances) 2010, 34 et seq.). 3.8)>> Strategic Transfer in Occupational Safety and Health With regard to transfer communication in the field of prevention, the combination of measures for broad and deep transfer can help to optimize the transfer problem. These measures enable the explicit forms of knowledge to be mapped in a publicly accessible way through broad transfer and communicated with the help of methods adapted to the target group (mostly in a media mix). Interactive methods of deep transfer, however, appear more effective for the development of implicit knowledge (cf. Hees et al. 2010, 14). Successful deep transfer at project level requires systematic development of communication and cooperation by the relevant prevention stakeholders and as part of company procedures, so that the requirements, interests and target systems of all parties involved in the cooperation can be taken into account. For transfer into work practices, prevention must be derived from company’s needs or benefits. Transfer must not simply be aimed at conveying superficial information, but must identify opportunities for collective knowledge production and sustainable integration in practice, in order to fulfill the respective individual and organizational needs.

4)>> Taking Prevention Forward At the annual meeting of the funding priority in 2009, the Aachener Impuls zurbetrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention in der modernen Arbeitswelt (Aachen Impulse on the promotion of occupational health and prevention in the modern work environment) perspective document was consolidated and approved. This Impulse (cf. Figure 4.1) summarizes the research results and future potential of the Occupational Safety and Health field of research. The content was discussed by the meeting participants, who came from the academic and business communities as well as associations, chambers of commerce, intermediaries and special interest groups, and underpinned by the focus groups of the funding priority through the drafting of policy documents with the latest research results from the individual projects. The Impulse is a strategic policy document. The fact that the Impulse was


widely discussed in the run-up to the meeting and collectively approved during the event not only enabled the definition of a status quo for conducting research, but also the establishment of a shared perspective on the future.

Figure 4.1: Aachen Impulse: Realign Prevention Research – Strengthen Innovative Ability.

448)>>


Through the construct of the funding priority with its specific structures and processes, it is possible to pass on condensed information, e.g. in the form of the Aachen Impulse, to the IMO monitoring project and the Learning Program (cf. Bach et al. 2010, 276). Thanks to this and because of the discussion of the Impulse by the International Panel of the monitoring project, the findings at national level are being incorporated in international discourse and the research results can be integrated in the relevant European prevention strategies. At European level, prevention issues are being addressed in the research network for work design, working conditions and occupational health and safety within the ERA-NET program of the European Commission. For these activities, “the future sustainability of a modern working environment and the question of how to position research and innovation policy within this context” (Zahn-Elliott 2009, 3; translated by author) play a key role. According to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion, the promotion of physical, mental and social wellbeing at work and the development of skills, competence and a sense of responsibility must be addressed through coordinated measures (cf. European Foundation 1997). This is to be achieved by improving working conditions and work organization and by promoting active staff participation through the cooperation of employers, employees and society (ibid.). As well as the more technical matter of optimizing working conditions, the funding priority has also made it possible to define approaches to structuring prevention-oriented organizational and personal development. The joint declaration of the 18th World Congress on Safety and Health at Work in Seoul (2008) formulated an orientation framework as follows: “The right to a safe and healthy working environment should be recognized as a fundamental human right; education, training, and the exchange of information and good practices are highly important in this context (…); and governments and all other stakeholders, i.e. the social partners and professional safety and health organizations play an important role in this” (quoted according to Zahn-Elliott 2009, 4; translated by author). The declaration states: “Promoting high levels of safety and health at work is the responsibility of society as a whole and all members of society must contribute to achieving this goal by ensuring that priority is given to occupational safety and health in national agendas and by building and maintaining a national preventative safety and health culture” (ibid, 5; translated by author). Through the research and development of practical and scientifically founded solutions, the “Occupational Safety and Health” funding priority is developing important prerequisites and orientational incentives which enable the relevant stakeholders to make prevention an integral part of their activities. Being firmly embedded within the national high-tech strategy and international health and safety requirements, the “Occupational Safety and Health” funding


priority offers methods and results that address the challenges and dilemmas of the modern work environment. Examples of good practice have been developed through experience gained from business practices. It has been shown that the concept of prevention can be successfully integrated in corporate activities. The development and consolidation of an Occupational Safety and Health research community ensures that these issues and questions are addressed in society over the long term.

Bibliography Aachener Impuls “Präventionsforschung neu ausrichten – Innovationsfähigkeit stärken“ (Aachen Impulse “Realign Prevention Research – Strengthen Innovative Ability“). In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 11-12 Bach U, Leisten I, Hees F, Jeschke S, (2010) Innovative Förderstrukturen im Förderschwerpunkt Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz – das Metaprojekt StArG als Netzwerkmanager. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 264-277 Brall S, Sparschuh S, Hees F (2009) The Future of Work and Learning. Aachen Bullinger HJ (1999) Innovation und Prävention. In: Eichendorf, W et al. (ed) Arbeit und Gesundheit – Jahrbuch 2000. Wiesbaden: 19–40 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) (2005) Declaration on the promotion of research and development in the field of “Occupational Health and Safety”. http://www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/4655.php. Accessed August 2010 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) (2006) Bundesbericht Forschung 2006. Berlin Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) (2007) Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen entwickeln. Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. BMBF research and development program Berlin Cuhls K, Ganz W, Warnke P (2009) Foresight process by order of BMBF. Zukunftsfelder neuen Zuschnitts. Stuttgart European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1997) Workplace Health Promotion in Europe. Program Summary. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg Jochmann H (2008) Innovationsfähigkeit in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. In: Henning K, Richert A, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020. Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 2-9 Henning K, Leisten I, Bach U, Hees F (2009) Präventionsforschung und unternehmerische Praxis: Zwei Seiten einer Medaille. In: Henning K, Leisten I, Hees F (ed) Innovationsfähigkeit stärken – Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erhalten. Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz als Treiber. Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 12-31 Hees F, Leisten I, Bach U (2010) Strategischer Transfer im Präventiven Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz. Pamphlet of the StArG Meta Project. Aachen

450)>>


Moldaschl M, Ludwig J, Schmierl K (2007) Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland. In: ibid. Rainer Hampp Verlag, Munich and Mering: 11-21 Policy document of the focus group “Betriebliches Innovationsmanagement“ (“Workplace innovation management“). In: Henning, K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeitsund Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 13-15 Policy document of the focus group “Gesundheitsförderung im demografischen Wandel” (“Healthpromotion in the context of demographic change”). In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 23-24 Policy document of the focus group “Innovationsstrategie und Gesundheit” (“Innovation strategy and health”). In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 16-22 Policy document of the focus group “Partizipation und Führung” (“Participation and leadership”). In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 25-30 Policy document of the focus group “PräventionalsWettbewerbsfaktor” (“Prevention as a competitive factor”). In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 31-33 Policy document of the focus group “Überbetriebliche Allianzen“ (“Cross-company alliances“). In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 34-38 PT im DLR (the Project Management Agency in the German Aerospace Center) (2008) Themenheft Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz. Bonn. www.starg-online.de/ publikationen. Accessed August 2010 Trantow S, Schuster K, Hees F, Jeschke S (2010) Spannungsfelder der Innovationsfähigkeit. Internationales Monitoring im BMBF-Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramm A-L-K. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 310-332 Volkholz V (2007) Capability für Innovation. In: Moldaschl M, Ludwig J, Schmierl K (ed) Arbeitsforschung und Innovationsfähigkeit in Deutschland. Rainer Hampp Verlag, Munich and Mering: 41-49 Zahn-Elliott U (2009) Innovation und Prävention – eine forschungsund innovationspolitische Perspektive. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Innovationsfähigkeit stärken – Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erhalten. Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz als Treiber. Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 2-11 Zahn-Elliott U (2010) Gesundheitsförderung in einer modernen Arbeitswelt. In: Henning K, Bach U, Hees F (ed) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020: Prävention weiterdenken! Mainz Verlag, Aachen: 2-8

Innovative Capability as a Management Requirement – Which Organizational Strategies Can Promote Innovation Processes? Heike Jacobsen, Arno Georg and Milena Jostmeier

Abstract Are there specific new forms of work organization that promote the innovative capability of an organization? And what are the implications of these forms for the work process? These questions are subject of 43 research and development projects in the “Innovation Strategies beyond Traditional Management” funding priority that forms part of the “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” program of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). This paper outlines the work of associations from science, business and transfer centers that have joined together in subject-based focus groups to study this key issue. It appears that beneath the level of the thematic foci, and transversely to them, new innovation strategies converge essentially in three central dimensions: nonlinearity, exceeding organization boundaries, and subjectification.

1 )>>Introduction With the funding announcement of “Innovation strategies beyond traditional management” (February 2007) the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) created opportunities for associations of science and industry to “[...] identify the drivers and obstacles to the innovation process and to develop practice-appropriate concepts, tools and strategies which contribute towards strengthening the innovative capability and enable the successful organization of innovation processes.” The understanding of innovative capability that forms the basis of this funding priority is very broadly defined – and includes the basic pre-requisites of productive and personal development work as well as the potentials of cooperation with customers, other companies, educational institutions and other organizations. In this funding priority innovation seems to be a very complex and demanding process which challenges the level of knowledge of many scientific disciplines and the cooperation of many stakeholders with different action conditions. The present paper gives an insight into the work of the 43 joint projects from science, business and transfer centers that are active in this field. In view of the S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_44, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

452)>>

Heike Jacobsen, Arno Georg and Milena Jostmeier

multitude of funded projects – in total 166 sub-projects are executed – only a roughly sketched outline of the topics can be discussed. The projects were clustered into six focus groups; the following thematic views address this structuring of the content of the focus (section 2). It appears that beneath the level of these thematic foci, and transversely to them, new innovation strategies converge essentially in three main dimensions: They are based on nonlinear organizational forms, they attempt to incorporate external parties with the company and they highlight the subjectivity of the parties involved (section 3). What is the result of running through the guidelines of this funding priority? Which new research questions should be addressed and pursued further in future programs? (section 4). Finally, if the observer disengages themselves from established problems and pre-existing examples of good practice – what appears to be on the horizon for the possible promotion of innovations? (section 5).

2 )>> New Innovation Strategies – Insights into the Work of the Joint Projects and Focus Groups 2.1 )>> Focus Group “Innovation Strategy and Health” The joint objective of the projects involved in this focus group is to create the conditions for healthy and safe work in the knowledge-based economy, specifically in the IT field, an industry with a high proportion of highly qualified employees who are used to flexible working practices. Job nomads, labor entrepreneurs, temporary employment contracts, ever-changing places of work, a blurring of the boundaries between work and private life and increasing, irregular working hours are encountered relatively frequently. The present concepts of occupational safety and workplace health promotion offer little help in dealing with varied health risks. The group therefore is dedicated particularly to investigating research and implementation of preventative health management. In terms of a holistic management process the industry-specific requirements for preventative measures, the designing of a prevention strategy with cross-company/ regional stakeholder alliances and the promotion of individual prevention skills shall be integrated and implemented in concepts that are in line with common practice for target group-specific consultancy services. The investigations of the joint projects tellingly confirm the fact that employees in the knowledge-based economy which have health problems are less motivated and committed and can be less innovative if ineffective strategies are implemented for coping with stress, high levels of work requirements, and the consequences of the dissolution of boundaries and individualization. Such strategies must account for the high proportion of freelancers, microenterprises and small businesses which as a result of the dissolution of work boundaries have a reduced commitment to companies, company-organized prevention and the performance culture of independent working which is characterized by indirect

Innovative Capability as a Management Requirement)>>

453

modes of management. They must further take into consideration that there is often a lack of specialist personnel in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the industry that can implement operational measures. Since SMEs are reached at too low a level by the intermediary stakeholders of preventative occupational health and safety, here, more than for larger companies, management staff is to be gained as the promoters and drivers of health promotion and prevention. The PRÄWIN association (Health Promotion in Knowledge-Based Industries) under its piggy back strategy for SMEs, intends to integrate methods and principles of workplace health promotion (WHP) into existing work processes, work organizations and management tools. Thereafter a health-promoting structuring of work can arise as a result of feedback-intensive normalization processes of aspects of WHP. For this purpose there is care radar and a specific toolbox. From the perspective of the focus group there is a lack of viable management strategies for health-promoting career development. It should make possible burnout prevention, for example, through flexible working hours, changes in function and position alongside skills development, and a work-life balance which are requirements throughout employment. The PRAGDIS association (preventative occupational health protection), with the Burnon center in Düsseldorf, has founded the first ergonomic burn-out center in Germany. Burnon is a network of experts made up of psychologists, doctors and ergonomists. Analyses of the burnout risk and prevention advice give the basis for the selection of intervention options in the most diverse technical disciplines (psychology, medicine, ergonomics and law). Prevention services are offered which focus both on those affected and on the companies, and for which working conditions take a central importance in analysis and intervention. As a result of the development and trial of innovative methods, tools and concepts for prevention provide the focus group projects with effective initiatives for changes in internal and external prevention practice. 2.2 )>> Focus Group “High-tech Strategies in the Innovation Process” Knowledge-intensive companies are forced to sustainably secure the essential innovation potential by including the outside world and increasing the integration of all employees. The projects involved in this focus group want to develop new innovation strategies in future fields of high-tech strategy by combining technical innovations that feature new concepts of organizational and personal development with the integration of external knowledge and a working structure that promotes creativity and competency. As a joint object the focus group has chosen the contouring of the category innovation work. Innovation work manifests itself in the daily innovation activities of companies and networks in new thought patterns and practices adapted to situations in the area of conflict between giving freedom to and the scheduled managing of innovation processes. MANKIP (management of creativity-intensive processes), for example, deals with the development of concepts for creativity-intensive processes, the modeling of these processes and the development of supporting software tools. The newly

454)>>


created organization and communication platform for creative teams allows the user group the greatest possible freedom to organize themselves and supports work processes for creative tasks and for the generation of new ideas. The traditional approach of developing new technologies on the basis of structured innovation processes is no longer sufficient. Company boundaries can be made transparent for the purposes of promoting innovation, stimuli from the entire company or parts of the company environment can be connected by Enterprise 2.0 technologies. In addition various roles are to be redefined such as the boundary spanner between the organizations. The work organization must itself offer hightech technologies in order to encourage further innovation: The 2nd TECH-CYCLE group is testing the distribution of used high-tech equipment. The innovation concept lies in offering this equipment to small and medium-sized organizations to utilize the activation of the innovation potential there. Thereby these companies (e.g. from education and health) should be enabled generating more rapid product and process innovations. The expectation of the focus group is that as a result of new innovation strategies, practices can be established which create and support the (new) habits. They regulate the ways of implementing the action which have proved to be viable for innovations and thereby promote sound evaluations of situations and processes in an innovation-friendly environment. 2.3 )>> Focus Group “Innovation Strategies and Participation” The term participation by definition always covers co-operation or co-determination, therefore it means a limited decision-making power or power of control (cf. Kratzer et al. 2008). The joint research projects of this focus group assume that participation represents an essential pre-requisite for successful innovation because the employees are regarded as a crucial resource for integrated and effective innovation processes. Participation cultures (Translated by author) should be further developed which besides established forms of participation as part of statutory employee participation also comprise options for involvement by including informal structures and unscheduled cooperation processes. The objective of the joint work is to strengthen the competitive position, in particular for SMEs, through a higher quality of products and services and the creation of better jobs. With the aid of external support and incentive systems it is investigated how internal potentials for the development and implementation of sustainable innovation strategies can be mobilized and structured, i.e. in which way employees and their representatives are systematically included to improve the company performance. The precise forms of participation should have a fair ratio to the cooperation contributions of the value adding partners. The conditions under which the potentials of the employees can be unfolded in the daily work include in particular the development of competency and lifelong learning, preventative health protection, strong organizational and personal development across all demographics and the qualification of corporate representations of interest.


455

The approaches analyzed by the BM INNO association (works councils and colleagues in innovation processes) for structuring company innovations in the metalworking and electrical industry predominantly concerned employment agreements for implementing innovation processes and monitoring the actors in the implementation of these agreements. In cooperation with the cross-company social partners the company restructuring and innovation agreements should present the relevant requirements for strategic empowerment and participation. At the level of the focus group work the findings obtained by the projects are systemized and generalized. Using appropriate consulting and further training approaches the results should be propagated. 2.4 )>> Focus Group “Technology and Network Management” This focus group is concerned with innovation and value creation potentials from the network of organizations. Small and medium-sized technology producers and –service suppliers often lack the necessary resources to invest in their own research and development and thereby in product innovations. In addition, market relationships along the value-added chain in the competitive environment must be established and maintained with larger competitors. The theory is that synergies result from networks of different actors and products and markets can be jointly (further) developed. The joint projects of this focus group investigate different types of networks and examine the conditions for successful networks: NET-MANAGEMENT investigates how SMEs can be integrated into networks with large companies. The success would depend, amongst other things, on the specific resources and also on the disclosure of and reflection on the shortfalls of the venture partner and its cooperations. The “development of systemized perception, reflection and problem-solving abilities with regard to the specific problems and discrepancies of the heterogeneous partners in the value-added group” is necessary. (Duschek and Sydow 2010, 184; translated by author) KMU 2.0 investigates which innovation potentials web 2.0 technologies could open up in the (regional) collaboration of SMEs. The theory is that success depends on the stringent implementation of the principle of self-organization (cf. Lindermann et al. 2009). How do the different motives of the parties involved influence the quality of communication in a network? This question is pursued by KREANETS. The entirely self-serving motives of individuals only function in terms of a mutual open exchange: “provided that transparency, reciprocity and mutual trust are regarded as important personal requirements and conditions of successful collaboration in the virtual group [...], predominantly open, transparent means of implementation and influence which have a lesser emphasis on hierarchy appear to be legitimate and successful on a long-term basis.” (Staar and Janneck 2009, 9 et seq.; translated by author). KREANETS established in a Germany-wide survey of 11,440 SMEs, that one third (3,822) of the surveyed companies were already active in a network – of these

456)>>


almost a third were nationally organized and about a fifth were regionally organized. Overall it showed that in 58% of the cases (2,204 companies) a commercially exploitable improvement had already been achieved even if the networks were not explicitly R&D groups (cf. Glückler et al. 2009). The aim of the focus group is to develop tools which give small and mediumsized companies in different industries recommendations for the sustainable establishment and operation of innovation networks. 2.5 )>> Focus Group “Organizational and Personal Development” Subjective personal resources such as creativity and flexibility are increasingly considered to be an important pre-requisite for innovation by company management. Which forms and tools of integrated personal and organizational development are suitable for establishing a balance between channeling and controlling innovative work and between innovation and routine? The projects of this focus group are dedicated to this question. IKM is developing a concept for an “integrated competency management”, which considers the mutual requirement of individual and organizational competencies: “the development of individual competencies depends on the general conditions of the organization. The design of these general conditions is, in turn, influenced by the competencies of the employees” (IKM 2009, 2; translated by author). The IIRLICHT project assesses the basic organizational dilemma: the necessity to set up organizational rules and procedures which should ensure the functioning of the organization by making it independent from the subject. However, innovative capability as the ability to react to the unexpected mainly depends on a freely acting, competent subject. To empower the organization for change meta rules have to be implemented which confront its established rules and procedures: “Reflexivity means opening systematically option areas (e.g. creating scenarios), regularly evaluating the consequences of action – even the unintended consequences – and, if applicable, relating this critically to the own premises for action” (Moldaschl and Manger 2010, 285; translated by author). MICC assumes that it is vital for the promotion of innovative capability, to reflect on organizational and individual states of affairs, which move beyond the quantitatively presentable indicators. Using music, MICC investigates a medium that seeks to make up for this deficit. The IPOB project expounds the problems of a lack of recursivity in organizational consulting. Based on the special nature of this knowledge-intensive industry, to be regarded as specialist by clients, consultants have tended to conceal their own mistakes. A better no blame culture could counteract this. A considerable barrier to organizational and personal development promoting innovation appears to be a certain discrepancy between strategically applied innovation rhetoric and the company reality of being reluctant to accept change (cf. Argyris and Schön 1999). The focus group aims to “identify the ratio of reality and rhetoric in the development of organizational and individual competency for innovation and to work out contributions to breaking down the supposed discrepan-


457

cies” (cf. Fokusgruppe Selbstdarstellung 2010). Many of the projects show that this discrepancy can be best overcome by developing or setting up an organizational and individual ability to reflect on the company’s or person’s pattern of action. 2.6 )>> Focus Group “Management of Open Innovation Processes” The fact that innovation does not necessarily have to be generated within a company but also takes place in discussion and collaboration with external stakeholders, structures and processes has been increasingly theorized in the recent past (e.g. Duschek 2002; Strebel and Hasler 2003). Recently, such innovation processes have increasingly called for awareness, in which not only companies, research institutions and other organizations are involved but also individual users, customers and consumers. Even if in the past companies were always well advised to incorporate feedback from their customers in the further development of their products, now the Internet in particular provides new forms of interaction with customers. Furthermore, Internet applications also enable contact between consumers in various ways (Hippel 1976; Chesbrough 2003; McAfee 2006; Buhse and Stamer 2008). The intention of this focus group is to examine such novel innovation processes in which private persons as well as companies are involved. A series of proposals asks how the intelligence of the masses can be utilized for innovations: which technical, organizational and personal factors are important to facilitate innovation in interaction with external individuals and communities? The STRATALL project investigates sustainable strategic alliances between companies, government bodies and/ or citizens. An innovation potential that is particularly sought-after results from an exchange between heterogeneous, social actors with differing motivations: “A particular innovative energy can be released in cross-sectoral or intersectoral cooperation between companies, non-governmental and governmental organizations since in these cases different contexts of knowledge and experience converge” (Bluszcz 2007; translated by author). New communication technologies which enable several users to interact at the same time, in particular IT-based interaction and cooperation platforms, also play an important role in the answers to this question: The KOPIWA project wants to support digital businesses to open up to innovation processes as a result of a cross-company exchange of various stakeholders such as independent developers using Web 2.0 technologies. The projects work on identifying the necessary qualifications and skills for open innovation processes and to some extent systematically and continuously record them in terms of human capital controlling. It is furthermore interesting, that some of these associations focus far beyond the success of microeconomic innovation. It appears essential for certain technological improvements that new framework conditions are created for the user. The strategies of individual manufacturing companies are not sufficient to successfully establish innovations in these cases.

458)>>


The SITE association investigates the conditions for the distribution of telemedicine applications, for which there is a certain public interest. Its use however is highly dependent on various conditions because not only interested actors from private businesses have to be actively involved but also, for example, medical insurance companies and particularly private end users. In this case a possible public interest in the implementation of a precise innovation is therefore addressed. An even further reaching problem is addressed by the association AKINET by assuming that not only a company’s willingness to change and to create new framework conditions are a pre-requisite for long-term innovation, but also recursive social learning processes are necessary. These examples show that the proposals of the funding priority of innovative capability also pose a challenge for politics and society.

3 )>>Summary: Dilemmas of Non-Traditional Innovation Strategies The projects executed in the funding priority cover a broad spectrum of approaches which are considered in science and business to be significant to the promotion of individual, organizational and social innovative capability. The sub-division of the funding priority into six focus groups serves to structure and organize this diversity and complexity. Above all, however, they create synergies with regard to the method and content between the joint projects and the persons in science and business. Across the focus groups three dimensions are emerging which summarize the understanding of innovative capability represented in the funding priority: nonlinearity, exceeding organization boundaries, subjectification (for more detail on this see Jacobsen et al. 2010). 3.1 )>> Innovation as a Result of Nonlinear Forms of Organization: Control of vs. Receptiveness to the Unexpected Organizations attempt to increase their innovative capability by trying to establish decentralized self-organized structures and processes which enable recombining existing elements and adding new elements. Individuals and the organization should always be encouraged to reflect on their actions in terms of a constructive breakdown and consequently learn from this. Nonlinearity could refer to communication processes within an organization if for instance the linear product lifecycle – from the development to application, production and sales to customer service – is interrupted and replaced by a principle of countervailing influence in the valueadded chain so that the knowledge that comes from each section is always made available to every other section (SINN). Nonlinear forms of organization can also be developed with external parties – often supported by Enterprise 2.0 solutions. Essential for the success is the incorporation of an organizational culture that pro-


459

motes creativity and does not punish trial and error. Such a no-blame culture does, however, hit upon limits with regard to organizational theory and business management. Routines must be designed in the structure and process which can guarantee that organizational objectives are achieved (cf. Lewin et al. 1953; Argyris and Schön 1978, 1999). The precise innovation performance of an organization lies in the fact, it seems, that it seeks an individual balance between planning on one side and receptiveness to the unexpected – and therefore for innovation – on the other side. 3.2 )>> Interaction beyond the Limits of the Organization: Competition vs. Cooperation Open innovation improves access to information from other organizations or contexts that are relevant to competition, for instance products are co-produced with the help of customers and according to their wishes and requirements (cf. Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2002; Jacobsen and Jostmeier 2010). Companies become part of a new value-added chain in which they link up vertically with other companies. Solutions for companies with a similar structure are jointly developed on web portals. Especially for small and medium-sized enterprises such networking strategies offer enormous innovation potential and a competitive advantage over larger competitors which cannot be underestimated. Intrinsically tied with this outside in process and virtually indispensable for the sustainable functioning of such networks is, however, the inside out process (cf. Gassman and Enkel 2006), i.e. communication thrives on a mutual opening process: If solutions are to be jointly developed the problems must be disclosed; if products or markets are to be (further) developed, the respective details on this products or the company-specific operation of market segments must be divulged. So that companies are able to make use of the opportunities that arise from interacting with others, a continuous reflection of the objectives and the respective resources and measures of the network is necessary between the network partners (cf. Huxham 2005). The question of how to soundly handle complex processes and relationships in the medium and long term will certainly still remain on the agenda. 3.3 )>> Subjectivity as a Source of Creativity and Innovation: Creativity Freedom vs. the Pressure to Succeed The classic question how to bring novelty into the world is frequently answered with the fact that it is the creativity of the individual which gives the stimulus to deviate from the conventional and therefore for innovation. Nonlinear organization forms are often set up with the objective of giving space to the personal subjective potential of the employees, such as creativity and the skill of self-organization, and to increase these potential through cooperation. Freedom that is given to (groups of) employees if, for example, Google lets its specialist and management staff use ten per cent of their working hours for the free pursuit of self-selected projects, serve ultimately not (only) to release the individual

460)>>


but are subject to indirect forms of control (cf. Peters and Sauer 2006; Georg and Peter 2008), provided that the freedom of action is not created as an end to itself but with the aim of innovation. Many projects reveal opportunities for the individual to contribute to the innovative capability of the organization: in addition to forms of working structure which promote the creativity of those employed in the process of work, qualification and the promotion of competency of the employees is also central in strengthening their prevention skills (cf. Ciesinger et al. 2009). The conflict between freedom of action on the one hand and the pressure to succeed and making demands on the subject on the other hand will remain a main topic of work and innovation research in the future.

4 )>>Future Research Requirement Some open research questions have already been mentioned. Some others are outlined in the following: • A )>> central challenge is transferring the findings of this funding priority, and the comprehensive understanding of innovation and innovative capability that has been developed here, to other industries and fields of activity involved in the Hightech Strategy. The relationship between technological and social innovation processes should be investigated in much more detail and integrated in technology-orientated programs and projects. The significance of regulatory institutions or new job descriptions shall also be investigated for the success of technological and social innovations. • )>>The research requirement with regard to the diffusion of technology in small and medium-sized companies consists in particular of innovation alliances and technology groups for the basic technologies electronics and microsystems, software systems and knowledge processing and communication technology and networks. • )>>Human resources management and leadership play a vital role in innovation management. The possibilities for the management to contribute to innovative capability with value-based strategies and strategies based on ecological and social sustainability should continue to be examined (cf. Holbeche 2009; Buß 2008). • )>>In particular, work in contact with external parties – providing services in contact with customers and boundary spanning, or networking in cross-organizational cooperation and improving knowledge in contact with external innovation communities – demands new concepts for its structure in relation to the promotion of innovation and personal development. Here is a need for research and development that can benefit the working life of an increasing number of employees.


461

5 )>>What Comes after the New Innovation Strategies? The vision of the specialized (work-orientated) innovation researchers extends to the year 2050: In their eyes, trained by their own research experience, reading and (not least) life experience, to some extent a new world is on the horizon: the future of work continues to be found in the reduction of simple work in production and service provision and in the relative expansion of knowledge-intensive and creative work. The conditions under which this work is performed are dependent on social developments and political decisions. Technological development can be much more simply predicted than these social processes... But so much is supposed: the relationship that the employee has with his/ her employer not just as a stakeholder in business but also as a citizen with rights and obligations, may continue to lose significance in the future. For independent work in all forms, new regulations are necessary that at present still cannot be identified at a rudimentary level – this is a challenge for science and politics in equal measure!

Bibliography Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective. Â�Reading MA, Addison-Wesley Argyris C, Schön DA (1999) Die Lernende Organisation. Grundlagen, Methode, Praxis. Stuttgart Bluszcz O (2007) Strategische Allianzen zwischen Profit- und Non-Profit-Organisationen. In: Hafner et al. (2007) Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung in Organisationen. Fallstudien unter organisationstheoretischen Perspektiven. München und Mering: 107-117 Buhse W, Stamer S (2008) Enterprise 2.0 – Die Kunst, loszulassen. Berlin Buß E (2008) Managementsoziologie – Grundlagen, Praxiskonzepte, Fallstudien. Oldenbourg, München Chesbrough H (2003) Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston Ciesinger KG, Klatt R, Siebecke D (2009) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz in diskontinuierlichen Erwerbsverläufen – Neue Konzepte betrieblicher und individueller Gesundheitsprävention in der Wissensökonomie (pragdis). Vortrag zur GfA-JahresÂ� tagung, Illmenau Duschek S (2002) Innovation in Netzwerken: Renten – Relationen – Regeln. Wiesbaden Duschek S, Sydow J: Aktionsforschung zum Management von Innovationsnetzwerken. In: Schallock B, Jacobsen H (ed) (2010) Innovationsstrategien jenseits traditionellen ManageÂ�ments. Beiträge zur Ersten Tagung des Förderschwerpunkts des BMBF, October 8-9, 2009, Berlin Fokusgruppe „Organisations- und Personalentwicklung“. Selbstdarstellung zur Zweiten Tagung des Förderschwerpunkts des BMBF, June 24-25, 2010, Dortmund Gassmann O, Enkel E (2006) Open Innovation: Externe Hebeleffekte in der Innovation erzielen. In: Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation, Issue 3, 2006: 32-138 Georg A, Peter G (2008) Subjektivierung der Arbeit – Subjektivierung der Arbeitswissenschaften. Was folgt aus dem Epochenbruch? In: Arbeit – Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung, Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik, Issue 1, 2008: 38-50

462)>>


Glückler J, Armbrüster T, Janneck M, Dehning W, Hammer I, Staar H (2009) Unternehmensnetzwerke in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer Unternehmensumfrage. http://www. kreanets.com/fileadmin/documents/Publikationen/Bericht_Online-Screening_.pdf Accessed October 2010 Hippel E v: The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process. In: Research Policy, Issue 3, 1976: 212-239 Huxham C (2005) Grasping Collaborative Advantage: Enhancing serendipity through reflective practice. In: PSL (ed) Partnering for Profit, London Holbeche L (2009) HR Leadership, Oxford IKM-Abstract zur Ersten Tagung des Förderschwerpunktes des BMBF, October 8-9, 2009, Berlin Kratzer N, Dunkel W, Menz W: Partizipation im betrieblichen Gesundheitsmanagement. In: Henning K, Richert A, Hess F (ed) (2008) Präventiver Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz 2020. Tagungsband zur Jahrestagung 2007 des BMBF-Förderschwerpunkts, Aachen: 175-180 Lewin K, Weiss Lewin G, Frenzel HA (1953) Die Lösung sozialer Konflikte. Bad Nauheim Lindermann N, Valcárcel S, Abram I, Blinn N, Fäcks K, Jung R, von Kortzfleisch H, Nüttgens M Netzwerken 2.0 in KMUs. Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Zentrum Web 2.0 basierter Kooperation. Arbeitsberichte aus dem Projekt KMU 2.0. No 1/2009 Lindermann N et al. (2009) Netzwerken 2.0 in KMUs. Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Zentrum Web 2.0 basierter Kooperation. Arbeitsberichte aus dem Projekt KMU 2.0. No 1/2009 Jacobsen H, Jostmeier M: Dienstleistungsinnovation als soziale Innovation: neue Optionen für soziales Handeln und produktive Aktivität. In: Howaldt J, Jacobsen H (ed) (2010) Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma, Wiesbaden Jacobsen H, Georg A, Jostmeier M: Das Profil des Förderschwerpunkts: Was ist das Neue an den nicht-traditionellen Innovationsstrategien? In: Schallock B, Jacobsen H (ed) (2010) Innovationsstrategien jenseits traditionellen Managements. Beiträge zur Ersten Tagung des Förderschwerpunkts des BMBF, October 8-9, 2009, Berlin McAfee A: Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. In: MIT Sloan Management Review, Issue 3, 2006: 20–28 Moldaschl M, Manger D (2010) Institutionelle Reflexivität als Modus der Kompetenzentwicklung von Organisationen. In: Schallock B, Jacobsen H (ed) (2010) Innovationsstrategien jenseits traditionellen Managements. Beiträge zur Ersten Tagung des Förderschwerpunkts des BMBF, October 8-9, 2009, Berlin Peters K, Sauer D (2006) Epochenbruch und Herrschaft – Indirekte Steuerung und die Dialektik des Übergangs. In: Scholz D et al. (ed) (2006) Turnaround? Strategie für eine neue Politik der Arbeit. Münster Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V: The Co-Creation Connection. In: strategy + business, Issue 27, 2002: 1-12 Staar H, Janneck M (2009)Einer für alle, alle für einen? – Eine Analyse mikropolitischer Prozesse in virtuellen Netzwerken, In: Meißner K, Engelien M (ed) (2009) Virtuelle Organisation und Neue Medien 2008. Dresden: 271-282 Strebel H, Hasler A (2003) Innovations- und Technologienetzwerke. In: Strebel H (ed) (2003) Innovations- und Technologiemanagement, Wien: 347-381

IT-based Interactive Research – on the Use of Social Software in Research Uta Renken, Angelika C. Bullinger

Abstract The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) launched the funding program “Balance of flexibility and stability in a changing work environment” to examine successful ways of balancing flexibility and stability to foster innovation. More than 150 interdisciplinary projects are nationwide conducted by academic and corporate institutions. They answer the question, how chances and challenges in a modern work environment can be used to enable innovation by successfully balancing aspects of stability and flexibility. To support these researchers IT-based interactive research tools are used. A social research network site allows the researchers to connect and cooperate. These network sites are state of the art in international research projects and overcome institutional, disciplinary, and geographic boundaries. Thus, social software not only enables researchers to find new project partners or manage their network but it also leads to a topic related legacy of the program due to the fact that a web-based platform allows future users to inform about the status quo.

1)>> Setting the Stage How can a young Tanzanian researcher find new cooperation partners for a project on Type II diabetes in Germany, Israel, Canada, and the U.S.? 50 years ago the answer would have been ‘hardly ever’, and even some years ago, it would have been quite a task to solve. Despite the world wide web offering information on every imaginable topic, identifying a fitting research partner is far from trivial. But along with the rise of web 2.0 technologies, researchers – along with the rest of the online population – increasingly use social network sites (SNS) like facebook.com or linked.in. The young Tanzanian researcher found indeed cooperation partners using ResearchGATE, one of the new social network sites especially addressing researchers (cf. Use 2010). The field of these new sites ranges from commercial to publicly funded platforms and allows new innovative ways of doing interactive research in the 21st century. The successful search for and identification of qualified and fitting research partners allows researchers to establish international and interdisciplinary cooperation endeavors. Thus, researchers are able to overcome geographic, institutional, cultural, and disciplinary boundaries. Cooperating with S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9_45, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

464)>>

Uta Renken, Angelika C. Bullinger

the most fitting and capable partners means an important part of innovation capacity by integrating outside views and new perspectives. Beside the technology also social initiatives can extend the network, such as political programs addressing and linking researchers who work in the same field. A possible way to enable new collaborative projects among an anonymous community of researchers doing their work in a similar field is implementing an online platform. In the following we show how the researchers of the funding program “BALANCE” (funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research) are linked by using social software. Furthermore, we illustrate how social software can foster innovation by facilitating the development of new research partnerships. Current research routines are described and IT-based support possibilities presented. Afterwards, we give insight into the work of the metaproject “BALANCE” which unites a community of researchers, before we close the paper with a conclusion and outlook.

2)>> Balance of Flexibility and Stability in a Changing Work Environment To examine successful ways of balancing flexibility and stability the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated the funding program “Balance of flexibility and stability in a changing work environment”. This initiative contains more than 150 projects working together in 40 project groups. The interdisciplinary research projects are conducted by academic and private institutions. They answer the question, how chances and challenges in a modern work environment can be used to enable innovation by successfully balancing aspects of stability and flexibility. While flexibility is generally considered to be a crucial precondition to innovation, stability is often considered to lead to stagnancy. But this simple dichotomy is often misleading: A working balance between the two concepts can be a major driver for innovation and value creation in modern societies and economies. The researchers of the BMBF funding program aim at preserving and sustainably increasing the corporate capacity for innovation. In this respect flexibility allows companies to react to the requirements of a dynamic market and rapidly changing customer needs. Nevertheless, innovation needs stability as a key factor in the everyday company business. Without stability planning individual careers and reliable human resource or organizational development cannot be realized. The funded projects examine various fields of interest and can be distinguished into eight focus groups. One focus group deals with internal and external trust relations and identifies the balance between flexibility and stability as a key factor to maintain intra- and extra organizational cooperation relations. Trust in innovation processes analyzes the interdependency between the dimensions trust and innovation, and the question of how to create a sustainable industrial production is answered by the group flexibility strategies for production systems. Managing change processes refers to a group of projects dedicated to the problems which

IT-based Interactive Research – on the Use of Social Software in Research)>>465

occur when companies conduct too many innovation and change processes in a too short period. The group intra- and intercompany cooperation strategies examines how new cooperation forms linked to a sustainable HR and business planning can contribute to realize efficient security and flexibility concepts. In sustainable forms of working time new forms of employment and working time models (parttime jobs, shifts etc.) are tested with regard to their fit to changed company needs and employees interests. The projects which are cooperating in the group changing employment forms develop innovative concepts of personnel placement, HR and temporary employment services. Finally, the focus group work life balance examines how the changing working environment can be matched with individual stability needs. An additional project examines the matching between innovation capability and sustainable organizational models. The projects ally researchers with company, politics and society partners. The interdisciplinarity of the research partners and the heterogeneity of the corporate partners within the funding program allow various points of view on problems within companies and present solutions. These groups are framed by the metaproject “BALANCE” which spans boundaries between the projects by identifying thematic relationships and offering an Internet platform (www.balanceonline.org) to link the project members. By linking researchers and institutions who work in the same field, the metaproject BALANCE supports the innovative potential of the BMBF funding program and unleashes the innovative power of the community. This weaving of a working innovation network is supported by social software which corresponds to the latest developments within the area of computer supported cooperative work.

3)>> The Solution: Internet and Innovation In an increasingly accelerating environment with shorter life cycles of knowledge, the demand for new products, services and technologies is rising. Many organizations have already replaced their up to then closed innovation processes and opened towards external interested participants. Ubiquitous broadband Internet connections link all parts of the world and facilitate the involvement of new innovators. This tendency has been researched under the term open innovation since the early 2000s. More recently, a new form of work has emerged: IT-based interactive innovation work. This term refers to a number of persons who work interactively, i.e. in close exchange about their work, on the creation of innovation. One example for this interactive work is the cooperation process among researching individuals or groups who are members of academic or corporate R&D departments. Knowledge workers in science and industrial research work have to overcome an increasingly virtual context, such as geographic dispersion or IT supported team work. At the same time, they create highly complex innovations when they develop new methods, empirical validated insights or new technologies. The necessary interactions on account of these innovation processes are supported by first IT-based platforms

466)>>


focusing on knowledge workers (e.g. researchgate.com or academia.edu). However, first studies show that the existing offers do not yet match scientists’ requirements and do not provide the necessary support functions.

4 )>>Research in 2.0 – Towards IT-based Interactive Research In the last two decades, a considerable increase in numbers of scientific collaboration can be witnessed, with temporary collaboration being formed by scientists across departments, institutions, disciplines, and countries. The percentage of scientific publications that were produced by internationally collaborating partners increased from 8% in 1988 to 20% in 2005 (cf. Atkins et al. 2003), publications with authors from more than one institution grew from 40% to 61% in the same timeframe (cf. Bullinger et al. 2010). The US National Science Board (cf. Atkins et al. 2003) sums it up: “[…] research is an increasingly collaborative activity”, i.e. effective scientific research requires bringing together experts by forming temporary collaboration alliances between scientists across departments, institutions, disciplines, and countries. Several political programs have been set up to foster distant collaboration among researchers in order to enlarge the creation of innovation or to save resources. A good example for technology-supported dispersed research practice is the share of an expensive instrument by synchronous usage of it and simultaneous discussion about the observations. The outcome of this practice was evaluated. Sonnenwald and colleagues examined a scientific collaboratory, i.e. “a center without walls, in which researchers can perform their research without regard to physical location – interacting with colleagues”. Sonnenwald’s team found that quality of scientific is the same when comparing face-to-face and remote collaboration. In addition, both ways of collaboration have been experienced as satisfying by the researchers in the collaboratory (cf. Sonnenwald et al. 2003). Contradictory, Bozeman and Corley (2004) argue that distance matters and that the likeliness of co-authorship depends on the spatial distance of scientists. After examining the collaboration practices of 451 scientists and engineers at US academic research centers they summarize that scientists tend to work with members of their own work group. The authors list some reasons for collaborations (e.g. access to equipment, resources, funding, knowledge, and increasing productivity or pleasure) and emphasize successful informal communication as basis for future collaboration. Informal communication is also influenced by spatial proximity and thus, Bozeman and Corley (2004) state that increasing spatial distance between scientists leads to a decreasing number of co-authorships. With the broad availability of Internet-based communication technologies and new generations of web-based collaboration tools, commonly subsumed by the term social software (cf. Avram 2006; Boulos and Wheeler 2007; Green and Pearson 2005; Raeth et al. 2009), the requirements of spatial proximity can be significantly reduced and informal communication can be offered globally. Social


software tools are able to offer different support opportunities for research work, ranging from support for the individual researcher to solutions that support communication, coordination, and collaboration of teams (cf. Soeldner et al. 2009). There exist a set of studies which research scientific communication and differences in usage, finding a relationship with disciplines (cf. Walsh et al. 2000; Kling and McKim 2000). Walsh et al. investigated the use of computer communication in scientific work (2000), Kling and McKim the differences in the use of electronic media in scientific communication (2000). Thelwall and Price analyzed disciplinary differences in the usage of the Internet among British scientists according to the website of academic institutions (2003). Matzat investigated the use of Internet discussion groups on disciplinary differences (2009). Studies on the use of IT-based interactive applications in science (e.g. the European research network GARNET) have shown that their acceptance and usage varies across the disciplines and demographic variables (cf. Riemer et al. 2008). Women were generally more interested, for example, in participation, postdocs rather less. Summarizing, extant literatures shows that interactive research both within an established team and with partners beyond the institution can be well supported by social technologies. The phenomenon of doing research by applying social software has been coined open research (cf. Soeldner et al. 2009) and is related to different trends and initiatives like e-Research, also known as cyberinfrastructure (cf. Atkins et al. 2003; Lawrence 2006), OpenData (cf. Arzberger et al. 2004; Uhlir and Schroeder 2007), OpenAccess (cf. Harnad and Brody 2004), OpenScience or eScience (cf. Goble 2005; Schroeder 2007). One of the basic principles of social software applications is the connection of users in a social network. In the 1950s and 1960s, mathematical sociologists argued that the society could be segmented into a network and examined the effects of great networks on the spreading of information, diseases, and innovations (cf. Rapoport and Horvath 1961, Coleman et al. 1966). In 1967, Milgram published his small world experiment which showed that a connection between any two individuals in the world could be established and that they are only six degrees away from each other. Thus, any information could theoretically be transported between any sender and receiver by only using five intermediating individuals- or any researcher could reach a colleague anywhere in the world. Not even a decade later, Granovetter (1973) examined individuals searching for a new job and distinguished between strong and weak ties. The existence of these ties is also included in the social networks for researchers. During the last years a broad number of social software and IT-based tools especially addressing scientists has entered the market. Nevertheless, the question remains of how scientists can profit from this technology. Hence, among the different social software tools which are able to support direct communication, interaction as well as awareness/ matchmaking among scientists, the application social network sites stands out as particularly suitable. It will be presented in the next section – first in general, then in particular for scientists.

468)>>


5)>> Social Network Sites and Social Research Network Sites Social network sites (SNS), a particular application of social software as illustrated before, have been defined with respect to their functionalities: “a web-based service that allows individuals to 1) construct a public or semi-private profile within a bounded system, 2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and 3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (Boyd and Ellison 2008). SNS are continuously gaining importance. A well-known example is facebook.com which attracted 50 million new users between July and September 2009, reaching a total number of 350 million users (cf. Zuckerberg 2009). Social network sites integrate the basic functionalities of social software (cf. Koch and Richter 2007). They allow identity and network management, information management, and communication with peers. As effective tools for collaborative research need at least these three functionalities, this makes social network sites particularly useful to support virtual communities of researchers (cf. Moeslein et al. 2009). Recently, many social network sites focusing on researchers have emerged, attracting a wide population of users (e.g. ResearchGate or academia.edu). Thus, it seems necessary to better understand this phenomenon of social research network sites. To delineate social network sites focusing on researchers from leisureoriented social network sites, Bullinger et al. (2010) adhere to Boyd and Ellison’s definition of SNS (2008). However, the utilitarian aspect of collaboration – relevant for users of SRNS – is not yet covered by this definition. Hence, they add the basic functionality of collaboration and propose the following definition: “Social research network sites (SRNS) are a web-based service that allows individual researchers to 1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system (identity), 2) articulate a list of other researchers with whom they share a connection and communicate (communication), 3) share information with other researchers within the system (information) and 4) collaborate with other researchers within the system (collaboration)” (Bullinger et al. 2010). In a study on SRNS to support the virtual community of researchers, Bullinger and colleagues found that developers of social research network sites are convinced that their platforms differ significantly from existing social network sites which are considered insufficient for researchers’ needs. Subsequently, Bullinger et al. present these differences along the framework of Koch and Richter (2007). According to the classification scheme for social software, information management tools allow for data structuring making wikis a prominent example. This need is mirrored with one SRNS in Bullinger’s sample of ten which has been explicitly developed to support information management. Beyond the individual scope, SRNS can support information management within a group, i.e. efficiently support interaction, communication and collaboration within a (virtual) community. Identity and network management is another main functionality of social software which is primarily rep-


resented by SNS, with facebook.com as the most prominent example. It allows for representation of one’s self and the management of one’s own contact lists, also to be found on social research network sites, which strive to become a facebook.com for researchers. However, profile details are designed to display the scientist’s experience with certain research methods or show the publications of a user. Another issue which can be addressed by the identity and network management functionality is gaining an overview about actors in the same research field, i.e. support for matchmaking/ awareness. The basic functionality communication is represented within the social network sites most prominently by instant messaging tools. This is a feature that is also present in almost all SRNS in Bullinger’s sample (8 out of 10). In addition to the three basic functionalities of social software (cf. Koch and Richter 2007), the SRNS comprehend new tools to support researchers, exceeding the offers by hedonic social network sites. Multiple research-specific features, like knowledge management tools, citation management, and paper recommendation engines have been implemented and are typically combined in a platform. These tools enable researchers to collaboratively structure, coordinate and conduct their work online. Thus, Bullinger et al. (2010) propose that the classification scheme for social software should be extended by an additional basic functionality, namely collaboration.

6)>> Approach of the Project “BALANCE of Flexibility and Stability in a Changing Research Environment” Considering the factors supporting scientific work, one crucial element is the identification of new collaboration partners and overcoming the challenges of geographically dispersed research. Both stages (identification and collaboration) can be supported by IT-based interactive research tools. One prominent example within this category is the social research network site as described above. To support the collaboration the community of social scientists exploring the changing working conditions in Europe, the BMBF funded metaproject “BALANCE of flexibility and stability in a changing research environment” has established an SRNS adapted to the needs of this research community. Background of this site is the research program funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education to analyze new ways of work in the 21st century in order to enlarge innovation capabilities. This research program includes approximately 500 researchers (social scientists, psychologists, economists) in about 150 small projects which are organized in 40 project clusters. Although the researchers are geographically dispersed, the SRNS www.balanceonline.org links individuals, fosters exchange and thus overcomes local and disciplinary boundaries. Most of the project clusters consist of both universities and companies and are internally well acquainted. Nevertheless, the initiation of new trustful cooperation relations among researchers linked by a similar scientific interest is one of the most important goals of the publicly funded project. Thus, the role of “BALANCE” is enabling innovation between different

470)>>


research clusters: New contacts are the base for new ideas, ideas are the base for scientific results, scientific results are crucial to scientific innovations and innovations are a guaranteeing factor for social and economic success of societies and economies. Accordingly, the platform provides researchers with information about recent developments within the research program, enables the exchange between researchers by actively posting news or other contributions, and helps to initiate or intensify new contacts which can help to enable innovation.

7 )>>Conclusion and Outlook There are broad opportunities offered by social research network sites to support the globally dispersed community of researchers. This particular application of social software is able to provide support for direct communication, interaction and awareness/ matchmaking as well as for collaboration. Nevertheless, to the date insights into this special type of web-based services is still rare. General questions about features must be answered in addition to questions regarding trust and collaboration management. How can a social research network site be designed to attract many users? What can their developers learn from hedonic social network sites and the support requirements of virtual communities? Another element to understand is a viable business model for a social research network site. However, the profit for researchers partaking in a social research network can be illustrated by the example of the young Tanzanian scientist: scientific soul mates do exist somewhere out there – it’s just about finding them. Social research network sites point to a future where this search will be easier and innovation can be more easily enabled by IT-based interactive research.

Acknowledgements We thank all inside and outside innovators who are part of our ongoing innovation research journey. We gratefully acknowledge support by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BALANCE von Flexibilität und Stabilität in einer sich wandelnden Forschungswelt, FKZ 01FH09153).


Bibliography Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulie A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L et al. (2004) ProÂ� moting Access to Public Research Data for Scientific, Economic, and Social Development. Data Science Journal, (3): 135-152 Atkins DE, Droegemeier KK, Feldman SI, Garcia-Molina H, Klein ML, Messerschmitt DG et al. (2003) Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure. http://www.nsf.gov/cise/sci/reports/atkins.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Avram G (2006) At the Crossroads of Knowledge Management and Social Software. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (1): 1-10 Boulos MN, Wheeler S (2007) The Emerging Web 2.0 Social Software: an Enabling Suite of Sociable Technologies in Health and Health Care Education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24: 2-23 Boyd DM, Ellison NB (2008) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1): 210-230 Bozeman B, Corley E (2004) Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scienÂ� tific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33: 599-616. doi: 10.1016/j. respol.2004.01.008 Bullinger AC, Hallerstede SH , Renken U, Soeldner J, Moeslein K (2010) Towards Research Collaboration – a Taxonomy of Social Research Network Sites. In: Proceedings of the 16th AMCIS, Lima. Coleman JS, Katz E, Menzel H(1966) Medical innovation: A diffusion study. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Goble C (2005). Putting Semantics into e-Science and Grids. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science’05) Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6): 1360–1380 Green D, Pearson J (2005) Social Software and Cyber Networks: Ties That Bind or Weak Associations within the Political Organization? In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Hafner K, Lyon M (1996) Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet. Simon and Schuster Harnad S, Brody T (2004) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA articles in the Same Journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (6): 2-6 Hillery GA (1955) Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement, Rural Sociology (20): 111-123 Ishida T (1998) Community Computing. John Wiley and Sons Kling R, McKim G (2000) Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American SoÂ�ciety for Information Science. 51, 14 (2000): 1306-1320 Koch M, Richter A (2007) Enterprise 2.0 – Planung, Einfuehrung und erfolgreicher Einsatz von Social Software im Unternehmen. Oldenbourg, Muenchen Lawrence KA (2006) Walking the Tightrope: The Balancing Acts of a Large e-Research Project. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15: 385-411 Matzat U (2009) Disciplinary differences in the use of internet discussion groups: differential communication needs or trust problems? Journal of Information Science. 35, 5 (2009): 613-631

472)>>


Milgram S (1967) The Small World Problem. Psychology Today, 1(1): 61‐67 Moeslein K, Bullinger AC, Soeldner J (2009) Open Collaborative Development: Trends, Tools, and Tactics. In: Jacko JA (ed) Human-Computer Interaction, Part 1, HCII 2009, LNCS 5610: 874–881, 2009. Springer, Berlin Raeth P, Urbach N, Smolnik S, Zimmer C (2009) Towards Assessing the Success of Social Software in Corporate Environments. In Proceedings of the 15th AMCIS, San Francisco Rapoport A, Horvath WJ (1961) A study of a larger sociogram. Behavioral Science (5): 279-291 Riemer K, vom Brocke J et al. (2008) Cooperation Systems in Research Networks – Case Evidence of Network (Mis)Fit and Adoption Challenges. 16th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Galway (IRL), June 9-11, 2008 Schroeder R (2007) e-Research Infrastructures and Open Science: Towards a New System of Knowledge Production? Prometheus, 25: 1-17 Soeldner J, Haller J, Bullinger AC, Moeslein KM (2009) Supporting Research Collaboration – on the Needs of Virtual Research Teams. In Proceedings of the 9th WI 2009, Vienna: 275-284 Sonnenwald DH, Whitton MC, Maglaughlin KL(2003) Evaluating a Scientific Collaboratory: Results of a Controlled Experiment. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction Thelwall M, Price L (2003) Disciplinary Differences in Academic Web Presence – A Statistical Study of the UK. 53, (2003): 242-253 Uhlir PF, Schroeder P (2007) Open data for global science. Data Science Journal (Open data issue) (6): 36-53 Use EO (2010) ResearchGATE and Its Savvy Use of the Web. New York, 2009-2010. http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/dec2009/id2009127_441475.htm. Accessed May 2011 Walsh JP, Kucker S et al. (2000) Connecting minds: Computer-mediated communication and scientific work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51, 14 (2000): 1295-1305 Zuckerberg M (2009) An Open Letter from Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg. Retrieved from http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=190423927130 Accessed May 2011

Authors Ursula Bach, M.A. Research assistant at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). Key activities and research focus: in addition to managing the StArG (Strategischer Transfer im Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz, Strategic Transfer in Occupational Safety and Health) meta project, communication and organizational development, knowledge and research transfer, networking and research management, governance structures in third party funded research. Dipl.-Kff. Sabine Bischoff Studied business studies, specialized in technology and innovation management at the RWTH Aachen University. Worked two years in the dean’s office of the faculty of Mechanical Engineering of RWTH Aachen University as a research fellow on budget, finances and structure; since 2008 PhD scholarship holder of the Excellence Initiative at RWTH Aachen University at the Institute for Management Cybernetics. Research focus: knowledge management and –economy, performance measurement for universities, innovation management. Verena Bock Studies communication science, sociology and political science at RWTH. She specializes in web design and usability research, communication and ageing, and sign language. Since 2007 she has been a student colleague in the knowledge management division at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). Prof. Dr. Fritz Böhle Professor of socio-economics of the working and professional environment at the University of Augsburg (up to 2008). Sociology studies in conjunction with economics and psychology. Since 1972 performed research work at the Institute for Social Science Research Munich (ISF) and since 1998 served as chairman of the ISF executive board. Research specialisms: developments in work, scientification and empirical knowledge, experience-led, subjectivity-based action, limits of planning and uncertainty, informal processes and trust in business, innovation work and work structuring. Prof. Dr. Ahmed Bounfour)>> Professor of intellectual capital and innovation at University Paris-Sud, Founder and titular of the European Chair on Intellectual capital management (www. chairedelimmateriel.u-psud.fr) and Deputy Chairman, The New Club of Paris. S. Jeschke et al. (eds.), Enabling Innovation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-24503-9, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

474)>>Authors

Graduated from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris and has a PhD in economics and strategic management from the Paris-Dauphine University. Was Associate Professor for Innovation Policy and Strategic Management at University of MarneLa-VallÃ©e, East Paris, France (1994-2004). Was previously Director for high tech programs within Euroconsult, especially in charge for space projects (telecommunications and Earth Observation) (1984-1994). Has developed a guideline for reporting and measurement of intangibles, namely the IC-dVAL® -Intellectual Capital dynamic Value. Works as reviewer or Member of the Scientific Board for several journals in innovation, knowledge management and management science. Among his recent publications: “Organisational Capital, Modelling, Measuring, Contextualising”, Routledge, London & NY, 2009. Prof. Michael T. Brannick, PhD Professor and Chair of Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Industrial psychologist, has published on topics of job analysis, individual and team performance measurement, and research methods. Dr.-Ing. Peter Brödner Studied Mechanical Engineering in Karlsruhe and Berlin. Since 1968 Assistant and promotion (1974) at the Institute for Production Technology and Automation of the Berlin Institute of Technology (Institut für Produktionstechnische Automatisierung der TU Berlin). 1976 to 1989 management of industrial development projects in the fields of NC programming, flexible manufacturing systems, production planning and control, anthropocentric production systems for the Project executing organizations humanization of working life and manufacturing technology. 1989 to 2005 Research Director and Head of the Department Production Systems at the Institute for Work and Technology in the Science Centre of North Rhine-Westphalia with the work fields design of computer based work and organizational change. In retirement since then. Dr. Angelika C. Bullinger Academic assistant at the department of Business Information Technology I – Innovation and Value Creation of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, business studies course specializing in the management of information, technology, media and communication, Masters degree in business studies at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (HEC) in Paris. Research interests: borderline between information systems and innovation management, in particular interactive innovation processes of research and development teams in academia and practice. Dr. oec. habil. Ulrich B. Busch The Centre for Technology and Society at the Berlin Institute of Technology and Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften e.V. Berlin (Leibniz Society of Sciences). Studied Finance, PhD and postdoctoral qualification at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Executive function in banking, university lecturer of economics, editor of academic journals, expert on the former East Germany and academic publicist

Authors)>>475

Dr. Petra Dassen-Housen Project manager at FORUM, Institute for multicultural issues, the Netherlands. Main Area: Integration of Islam in Dutch society, questions of multiculturalÂ€coexistence. Studied political science and Romance studies, promotion from the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University) on the subject of learning competencies. Stephen Downes Senior researcher for Canada’s National Research Council and a leading proponent of the use of online media and services in education. Has earned international recognition for his leading-edge work in the field of online learning (OLDaily online newsletter). Built a learning management system from scratch and authored the now-classic “The Future of Online Learning”. Pioneered the development of learning objects and was one of the first adopters and developers of RSS content syndication in education. Downes introduced the concept of e-learning 2.0 and with George Siemens developed and defined the concept of Connectivism, using the social network approach to deliver open online courses to three thousand participants over two years. Prof. Leif Edvinsson Key pioneering contributor to both the theory and practice of Intellectual Capital. World’s first director of IC in 1991; initiated the creation of the world’s first public corporate Intellectual Capital Annual Report 1994. Awarded in 1996 by the American Productivity and Quality Centre, USA and Business Intelligence, UK, in 1998 with Brain Trust “Brain of the Year” award and “The KEN Practitioner of the Year 2004”. Listed in a book by London Business Press as one of The 50 most influential Thinkers in the World. Studied at University of California, Berkeley, USA and Lund University, Sweden. Since 2000 Professor at Lund University on Intellectual Capital. In January 2006 appointed professor adj. at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, later promoted to Chair Professor in 2007. Author of numerous articles on the service Management and on Intellectual Capital. Prof. Dr. Martin Elbe Lector at the H:G Hochschule für Gesundheit und Sport (H:G University for Health and Sports) in Berlin and at the University of Applied Management (Fachhochschule für angewandtes Management) in Erding. Focuses on: employment and human resources, socialization and salutogenesis, organization and management consultancy. Prof. em. Frank Emspak, PhD Chief Executive Officer, Diversified Media Enterprises, emeritus professor, Department of Labor Education (School for Workers) University of Wisconsin Extension. Studied Zoology, History; PhD in American history. Skilled machinist,

476)>>Authors

union leader, director Center for Applied Technology, facilitator/organizer jointlabor management projects. Francesco Garibaldo Industrial sociologist by education. Last appointment was as director of the Foundation “IpL” (Institute for Labor) in Bologna and before as director of IRES (Institute for Economic and Social Research) the Institute of CGIL, the main Italian Trade Union. In the last 20 years he was engaged in many research projects in Italy, Europe, Brazil and India. He contributed to these projects with interactive and participatory methodologies such as discussion groups and research conferences, as well as, together with other colleagues, scenario conferences. The methodologies were utilized to support participatory processes of organizational change. Dipl.-Soz. Wiss. Arno Georg Social science graduate and research assistant at the Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund, the Central Scientific Institute of the TU Dortmund, studied social sciences, history and philosophy, coordinator of the “Labor Policy and Health” research unit, specialist fields: prevention research; health, labor and social policy; labor and demographic change. Prof. Dr. Rainer Greca Professor for Business and Organizational Sociology at the Faculty for History and Social Sciences of the Eichstätt-Ingolstadt Catholic University. Max Haarich, M.A. Studied Communication Sciences and minored in Psychology and Sociology at RWTH Aachen University. Today, he is research associate at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). His capacity included work for the BMBF meta project „StArG“; currently he is tasked with the BMBF monitoring project „International Monitoring“. His research focuses on innovative capacity, knowledge transfer and intelligent systems. PD Dr. Ernst A. Hartmann Is head of the socio-economic section of VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH in Berlin, and also director of the Institute for Innovation and Technology (iit) of VDI/ VDE-IT. Studied psychology with a specialization in work and organizational psychology. His main areas of interest are the interactions between learning and innovation, technology foresight, design and evaluation of publicly funded research, development, and innovation programs. Dr. rer. nat. Frank Hees 2nd Deputy Head of the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute

Authors)>>477

for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). Key activities and research focus: developing qualification concepts, restructuring business processes in small and medium-sized companies, development of communicational skills and team building in industrial enterprises and skilled trade businesses, designing and supporting learning processes for service and customer orientation, facilitating operational processes for redeveloping advanced vocational training, knowledge management in businesses and corporate networks, developing academic further education concepts and designing organizational and interorganizational learning processes. Dipl. Inform. Bodo von der Heiden Graduate in computer science, has been an academic colleague in the knowledge management division at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University) since 2009. Here he has been taking part in the further development of a knowledge map in the EU-funded project ROLE and the further development of the KISSWIN portal (KISSWIN.de). His degree dissertation “simulation and gaming portal for large groups (students) for the web-based implementation of strategic educational games such as Q-Key and Micro-Key” won him third place in the German Simulation and Gaming Award. Prof. Dr. Josef Hochgerner Founder (1990) and scientific director of the Centre for Social Innovation, Vienna. Following vocational training in aeronautical engineering, 1965-68, studies in social sciences and economics in Vienna and Freiburg/FRG; M.A. 1974, PhD 1978, habilitation in Sociology 1986. Work experience in research institutions, social partners‘ organizations, national and European agencies and advisory boards on RTD and innovation since 1974; lecturing in adult education and at various European and Austrian universities since 1980. 2001-2005 President of the Austrian Sociological Association. Main focus in research, teaching and practice: Innovation and the particularities of social innovations; social use of knowledge and technology; working, learning and living in the global information society. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Howaldt Director of the Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund (Bureau for Social Research, central scientific institution of the Dortmund University of Technology) and Professor for work and organizational sociology at the Dortmund TU. Main areas of research: corporate and regional innovation processes, organizational development and consulting, knowledge and network management. Prof. Dr. Heike Jacobsen Studied social sciences and psychology in Göttingen and Berlin; employment: research assistant at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin; SOFI, Göttingen; the Social Science Research Centre Berlin; and

478)>>Authors

the Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund. Since 2002, scientific manager of the Sozialforschungsstelle; Privatdozentin (Adj. Professor) of sociology at the TU Dortmund, Deputy Spokeswoman of the Executive Committee of SAMF e.V. (Society for Social Scientific Labor Market Research). Co-editor of the magazine ARBEIT. Work areas: sociology of labor, industrial sociology and economic sociology; labor market research; gender research; specialist fields: social innovation, social and cultural aspects of the development of services, scientific work as a profession, quality of work in research and politics in the European Union. Harold Jarche Is a Principal with the Internet Time Alliance, an international think tank on working smarter in a networked economy. He passionately believes in the re-integration of work and learning. A graduate of the Royal Military College, Harold served over 20 years in the Canadian Army in leadership and training roles. Clients have contacted Harold over the past decade, through his blog (jarche.com) and consulting practices, for innovative ideas on business, technology, social networks and learning. Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Sabina Jeschke Director of the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). She was previously employed as a professor at the Institute of Information Technology Services (IITS) and also as the director of the computing center (RUS) at Stuttgart University before she was appointed a junior professorship at the Berlin Institute of Technology. She studied mathematics and computer science, graduated in physics and earned a doctorate in mathematics. Some of her research specialisms are: complex IT systems such as cloud computing and green IT, (heterogeneous, cooperative) robotics and virtual worlds for research cooperations such as virtual laboratories and intelligent assistants. Claudia Jooß, M.A. Cultural scientist, is employed as an academic colleague and doctoral student at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). Her specialisms are in the field of knowledge and network management in national and international research projects (“Cross-sectional processes” of the cluster of excellence “integrative production concepts for high-wage countries” of the RWTH, focus group supervisor “prevention as a competitive factor” of the focus area of “preventative occupational health and safety protection”, coordination of the EU project RELOAD). Dipl.-Soz. Wiss. Milena Jostmeier Social science graduate and research assistant at the Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund, the Central Scientific Institute of the TU Dortmund, “Services and

Authors)>>479

Societal Change” research unit, work areas: sociology of labor, organizational sociology, sociology of science, specialist fields: work-oriented and social innovation, knowledge production in alliances between academia and practice, employment research as a transdisciplinary field. Prof. DI Günther Koch Is Chairman of the Vienna-based execupery consultancy partnership and a partner in the Knowledge Management Austria Advisory Group (KM-A). He is General Secretary of the New Club of Paris, which operates world-wide, sees its mission as being a “Developer of the Knowledge Society” and which publishes reports on the transformation of states into knowledge societies and knowledge economies. In his role as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the largest Austrian research institute (currently: Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT), comparable to the Fraunhofer in Germany), he developed jointly with Professor Ursula Schneider from Graz and assistants what is regarded today as the standard reference model of an Intellectual Capital Report and introduced this in the AIT for the first time in 1999. Intellectual Capital Reporting in accordance with this model is now legally required of all Austrian universities and, beyond this, has also been widely adopted in business under the title of “Intellectual Capital Statement – Made in Germany / Europe”. Dr. Anna Maria Köck Research associate at the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics in Hamburg. Worked at the Knowledge Management Institute at Graz University of Technology at Know-Center Graz and at the Chair for Innovation and Technology Management of the University of Vienna. Interdisciplinary dissertation on how creativity in the innovation process can be supported and promoted using web applications. Main area of research: Web 2.0 and Open Innovation. Drs. A. W. Ton de Korte, MMC Director of the Netherlands Center for Social Innovation (NCSI). Until 2006 managingÂ�director at Dutch consultancy firm Berenschot. Visiting professor at the Free University Amsterdam, author of several books on HRM and labor relations. Hank Kune, M.Ed Is founder and Director of Educore, an organization specialized in hands-on solution seeking in projects about systemic innovation in the areas of public policy-making, sustainable futures, and social and societal renewal. His background is in Educational Technology, organizational learning and comparative literature. He is a member of the New Club of Paris, and a Founding Partner of the Future Center Alliance. He is the author of numerous publications about innovation and Future Centers, member of the international Board of the Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation (ACSI) and co-convenor of three international Future Center Summits.

480)>>Authors

Ingo Leisten, M.A. Research assistant at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). Key activities and research focus: in addition to managing the StArG (Strategischer Transfer im Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz, Strategic Transfer in Occupational Safety and Health) meta project, communication and organizational development, transfer engineering, network and research management. Dr. Barbara Light Consultant in Higher Education curriculum development. Expert in innovative processes of accreditation of prior learning, work based learning, and methods of knowledge creation. Works with universities and with industry to identify and develop high level learning approaches for individuals and organizations. Senior academic at the Institute for Work Based Learning at Middlesex University in London, regularly speaks at conferences and workshops across Europe, and researches and writes for academic and commercial publications. Dr. ir. Sebastiaan Meijer Assistant professor at Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management. Studies the social aspects of complex and non-hierarchically organized production systems like supply chains and networks and multiorganization services. Current domains of study: railway systems, (food) supply chains and relief services. Special interest: methodological contribution of gaming simulation as a research instrument. Responsible for several courses in management and organization, designs and coordinates the Delft minor ‘Consultancy’. Prof. Dr. Rita Meyer Professor for professional and corporate continuing education at the University of Trier. Important waypoints of her career: Professional education for Industrial Business Management, studied professional and business education, sociology and philosophy. Key activities: occupational and profession research, cooperation of competency and organizational development, learning in the process of work, professionalization of occupational training personnel. Prof. Dr. Peter Pawlowsky Chair in Personnel Management and Leadership/research center organizational competency and strategy at Chemnitz University of Technology, studied social and business sciences. Important waypoints of his career: managerial function at Bertelsmann foundation in the field: socio-political issues and corporate, founding member and president of the Society of Knowledge, Manager of the Centre of Excellence “Technology and Knowledge Management” at Chemnitz Management Institute of Technology. International research projects: personnel development, organizational learning, knowledge management, high-performance management, human resources management and management research.

Authors)>>481

Dr. Edith Perlebach Study of Nutrition and Domestic Sciences at the Rhineland Friedrich Wilhelm University in Bonn. Has been Chair of the DGUV (Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung) (German Social Accident Insurance) Study Group on “The Consequences of Demographic Change” since September 2010. Career: Chair of the Topic Initiative Group (TIK) on “30, 40, 50 plus – Aging at work” in the Initiative on New Quality of Work (INQA), Director of the Office of “Basic Principles of Concepts of Prevention” in the Head Office for Health and Safety of the DGUV, Director of the Office of “Social Change and Demographics” in the Central Prevention Division of the DGUV (2007), Expert Advisor to the Bundestag (Parliamentary) fraction of the Green Party at the Public Consultation on Proposed Legislation to adjust Normal Retirement Age in line with Demographic Developments. Prof. Dr. Sibylle Peters Chair for Professional Further Education and Personnel Development at the Institute for Professional and Economic Education of the Otto- von- GuerickeUniversity Magdeburg. Studied Sociology, Pedagogics/Adult Education, main areas: Children’s Early Development (earlier: Mentoring), Project and Knowledge Management, Knowledge Sociology, Professional and Competence Development/ Management Prof. Frank Pot, PhD Professor of Social Innovation at the Institute for Management Research of the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Was director of TNO Work and Employment at the Netherlands Organization of Applied Scientific Research (TNO). In this capacity he was co-founder of the Netherlands Center for Social Innovation (NCSI). D. Tech. Elise Ramstad Currently works as a Senior Technology Advisor in the technology and research area ‘Workplace Innovation and Development’ at Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation. Has been a member of the project team of the Finnish Workplace Development Program (1999-2010). Is a member and national contact point for the WORK-IN-NET project (2004–) within the ERANET scheme, which is funded out of the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Program for Research and Technology Development. Has been responsible for launching European-level joint call activities and benchmarking between the workplace development programs. Assoc. Prof. Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen Sociologist and associate professor at The Technical University of Denmark. Teaches interactive methods in Engineering. Main research area: interactive methods to enhance the change of organizations, networks and communities by involving the actors actively in the change process.

482)>>Authors

Dipl.-Kulturw. Uta Renken Since 2009 academic colleague at the department of Business Information Technology I – Innovation and Value Creation of the University of ErlangenNuremberg, cultural studies graduate of the University of Passau, practical experience at the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce and at the delegation of the European Commission in Japan. Research specialisms: social networks and new research methods. Dr. Anja Richert Communication scientist with a PhD, is head of the business and research division of knowledge management at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). The focus of her activity and research specialisms include the study and optimization of flexible processes that enable knowledge and technologyintensive organizations to deal with turbulent times, the development of knowledge management concepts and solutions for diverse industries and target groups and the investigation and development of semantic knowledge management and E-learning concepts. Yvonne Salazar, M.A. Personnel Development and Adult Education. Has constantly been occupied with learning transfer and learning efficiency as well as with management of skills. Important waypoints of her career: Advisor to the Brazilian Government on the implementation of a reform in professional education, Head of Further Development at the Berlin Municipal Sanitation Service, CEO of an educational and counseling agency. Today: Head of Project for Competence Management at Festo Didactic. Dipl. Volksw. Johannes Sauer Graduate economist, 40 years of experience in adult education/continuing education, research and administration. Head of division on professional competency development in the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Initiator of the ABWF (working group on training and continuing education in the workplace) and the working group QUEM. Dipl.-Kfm. Hans-Georg Schnauffer Since 2005 he has been a specialist at ThyssenKrupp AG in the Corporate Development division, responsibleÂ€for strategic knowledge management and for the group-wide Intranet.Â€Previous to this he managed various consultancy and research projects as a department leader for knowledge and innovation management at the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. Specialisms: knowledge networks, innovation processes, trend identification and organizational learning. Member of the advisory board of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology’s initiative “Ready for the Knowledge Competition” and of the KnowTech program committee. Lecturer at the Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg.

Authors)>>483

Dr. Michael Schwarz Long-time administrative member of the Cologne ISO Institute, since 2005 research associate of the Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund (Bureau for Social Research, central scientific institution of the Dortmund University of Technology) in the area of organizational development and consultancy for network economy. Main areas of research: sustainable development and sustainable economic activities, networks and intermediary arrangements, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Dipl.-Ing. oec. Sylvia Sparschuh Is a Research Assistant at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). She is a member of the Research Group on “Research in Innovation and Future Developments” and works in the Berlin office of the International Monitoring (IMO) Project. Her work focuses on the national monitoring of the BMBF Research and Development Program on “Working – Learning – Developing Skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment”, as well as in design, execution and evaluation of interviews and conferences of experts. Dip.-Päd. Günther M. Szogs Education scientist and system analyst, expert in holistic knowledge and skills management. Important stages in his career: Director in Commerzbank AG, co-founder of the banks interest group on training, member of the international expert advisory board “Knowledge Surveys – Made in Germany”, advisory board member of several courses, involvement in the program advisory board of LEARNTEC and Know Tech and in expert bodies of the task force on generation management of the Association for Economic Management (AWV) and of the area “Intellectual Capital” (IMO – international monitoring project), founding member of the “New Club of Paris”. Developed innovative formats for forums on knowledge transfer for use during trade fairs and congresses. Active in the Initiative for the Promotion of the Knowledge Region FrankfurtRheinMain. Assoc. Prof. Tarja Tikkanen, PhD Associate Professor at the Stord/ Haugesund University College and the Head of Research in the area of Competence, Organizations and Management in the Innovation-group at the International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS) in Norway. Took her education at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland, where she also worked 10 years at Department of Education. Research focus: lifelong learning and job competence, organizational and leadership development at schools, learning and innovation. Has almost 20 years of broad experience on international and interdisciplinary research, development and education. Her publication record is extensive, including editorial works for books and journals. She is also frequently invited in various expert tasks, among others by the European Commission.

484)>>Authors

Prof. Dr. Klaus Tochtermann Worked for more than 10 years on the subject of knowledge management in various application-oriented research institutions in Germany, Austria and the USA on topics of knowledge management. Since June 2010 Director of the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics and Head of Chair for Media Informatics at the Christian Albrecht University Kiel. Prof. Peter Totterdill, PhD Established The Work Institute at Nottingham Trent University in the early 1990s and led the European Work & Technology Consortium involving research partners from across the EU. Peter left the University in 2005 to become Joint Chief Executive of the UK Work Organization Network (UKWON) which he helped to create in 1998 with support from social partners, researchers and public policymakers. Under his leadership UKWON runs a portfolio of projects embracing research on work organization, future thinking about work, public policy development, workplace dialogue and innovation, and inter-organizational learning (see www. ukwon.net). Peter was also appointed Visiting Professor at Kingston University London in 2005. Sven Trantow, M.A. Research Group Leader “Innovation Research and Futurology” as well as Project Leader “International Monitoring” at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). Current research focus: Trends and dilemmas in the working and economic environment, strategies for increase organizational and social innovative capability, development of concepts for knowledge monitoring. Prof. Dr. Matthias Trier Freelance author who is engaged in themes like adult education and advanced vocational training. He was teaching and researching at the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena for many years, especially in the field of adult education. Since 1992 he is concerned with diverse projects of competence development and advanced vocational training supported by BMBF. Focal points of work: Development of personality in social transition situations, organized and self-organized learning in jobs and in social environment, competence and development of competences. Prof. Dr. Wim Veen Professor at Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management. Research focus: new concepts and strategies for ICT enhanced learning in both private companies and regular educational institutions. Developed concept of “Homo Zappiens”, a generation of learners that has never known a world without the Internet. Teaches corporate learning. Consultant for educational institutions as well as for private companies and governmental authorities. Latest book: “Homo Zappiens, Growing Up in a Digital Age”.

Authors)>>485

Gergana Vladova, M.A. Since 2006: research team for knowledge management, fractal communication, culture, and competency management (CCCM) at the chair of Business Informatics and Electronic Government at the University of Potsdam. Studied International Business Relationships at the University for National and World Business in Sofia with Magistar po ikonomika; Media Studies and Communication Studies/ Economics at Berlin Free University. During her studies: Worked for the Fraunhofer research institute FOCUS, the Berlin Office for Partnerships with the industry of the German Society for Technical Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit – GTZ) and the Internationaler Bund e.V. (International Alliance) in Stuttgart. Research focus: Knowledge management, business communication, intercultural relationships and change processes. Florian Welter, M.A. Economic geographer and economist. He is employed as an academic colleague and doctoral student at the Institute Cluster of Information Management in Mechanical Engineering, Center for Learning and Knowledge Management and Ass. Institute for Management Cybernetics e.V. (IMA/ ZLW & IfU – RWTH Aachen University). As part of his work in various national and international projects his specialism lies in the field of knowledge management, in particular models and methods to measure the performance of interdisciplinary research associations. Dr. disc. pol. Werner Wobbe European Commission, Brussels, General management of research: analysis and monitoring of the national research policies of member states. Supervision of the group of “Knowledge and Innovation Economists” of the EU Research Commissioner. Former head of the scientific and technological projection on the change of the global research landscape and the activities in a research program of the future on “Technology, Work and Employment”. Previous employment with the Institute for Sociological Research (SOFI) Göttingen on empirical field studies on new technologies, occupational change and business strategies. PD Dr. Harald Wolf Member of the Sociological Research Institute (SOFI) at the Georg-August University Göttingen and private lecturer at the University of Kassel. Key activities: sociology of work, social theory. Dr. Claudio Zettel Is a geographer and business sociologist. Within the Project Management Agency of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research in the DLR, he is responsible for the research program on “Working-Learning-Developing skills. Potential for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment” and chairs the working group on “Innovative Work Design”. He has spent periods researching in the informal sector and has held several teaching posts at universities in Brasilia and Talca (Chile), while in Brazil he also advised the Brazilian government on restructur-

486)>>Authors

ing the system of vocational education. His areas of specialism are strategies for innovation, the organization of work, sustainability and international cooperation.

Enabling Innovation: Innovative Capability - German and International Views

Building Innovation Capability in Organizations: An International Cross-case Perspective

Eco-Innovation in Industry. Enabling Green Growth

Enabling a Simulation Capability in the Organisation (Decision Engineering)

Enabling a Simulation Capability in the Organisation (Decision Engineering)

Grabbing Lightning: Building a Capability for Breakthrough Innovation

The International Handbook on Innovation

The International Handbook on Innovation

Innovative Forms of Organizing: International Perspectives

International Political Economy: Contrasting World Views

Building the Innovative Organization: Management Systems That Encourage Innovation

Uncensored: Views & (Re)views

Uncensored views & (re)views

Uncensored: Views & (Re)views

Beyond Skill: Institutions, Organisations and Human Capability

Uncensored views & (re)views

Innovation and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation for German Firms

German Unification and the International Economy (Centre for International Studies)

BASF: innovation and adaptation in a German corporation since 1865

Innovative Cryptography

Innovative Cities

Innovative cryptography

Process Capability Indices

The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity: The Innovative Bureaucracy (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology)

Beyond Skill: Institutions, Organisations and Human Capability

Collaborative Design and Learning: Competence Building for Innovation (International Series on Technology Policy and Innovation)

Enabling Social Europe

Innovation Performance and Clusters: A Dynamic Capability Perspective on Regional Technology Clusters

Global Innovation: Innovation 01.02

Innovation Algorithm:TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity

Innovative Geschäftsmodelle

Enabling Innovation: Innovative Capability - German and International Views

Building Innovation Capability in Organizations: An International Cross-case Perspective

Eco-Innovation in Industry. Enabling Green Growth

Enabling a Simulation Capability in the Organisation (Decision Engineering)

Enabling a Simulation Capability in the Organisation (Decision Engineering)

Grabbing Lightning: Building a Capability for Breakthrough Innovation

The International Handbook on Innovation

The International Handbook on Innovation

Innovative Forms of Organizing: International Perspectives

International Political Economy: Contrasting World Views

Building the Innovative Organization: Management Systems That Encourage Innovation

Uncensored: Views & (Re)views

Uncensored views & (re)views

Uncensored: Views & (Re)views

Beyond Skill: Institutions, Organisations and Human Capability

Uncensored views & (re)views

Innovation and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation for German Firms

German Unification and the International Economy (Centre for International Studies)

BASF: innovation and adaptation in a German corporation since 1865

Innovative Cryptography

Innovative Cities

Innovative cryptography

Process Capability Indices

The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity: The Innovative Bureaucracy (Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organizations and Technology)

Beyond Skill: Institutions, Organisations and Human Capability

Collaborative Design and Learning: Competence Building for Innovation (International Series on Technology Policy and Innovation)

Enabling Social Europe

Innovation Performance and Clusters: A Dynamic Capability Perspective on Regional Technology Clusters

Global Innovation: Innovation 01.02

Innovation Algorithm:TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity

Innovative Geschäftsmodelle

Recommend Documents