University:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Course:
15.992 | S-Lab: Laboratory for Sustainable Business
Academic year:

2023
Views:

169

Pages:

104
Author:

antiklor0e

Knowledge Management • Gaining Knowledge – Technology Transfer • Between Organizations • Within Organizations – Gatekeepers • Disseminating Knowledge – Technical Communication • Organization Structure • Physical Structure of Facilities What do we know about technology transfer? • • • • • • • • It is a 'people process'. Transferring documentation is, at best, an auxiliary process. People must be in direct contact and understand each other to transfer knowledge. The best 'package' for knowledge is the human mind. Moving people is the most effective way to move knowledge This can imply either organizational or geographical movement. Organizational boundaries impose a serious barrier to the transfer of technology This is due to the development of different organizational cultures. The Context of the Study X X X X X Project Team Organization 'Twin' Projects X X X X X Company 'A' X X X X X Company 'B' Sources of Technology Outside Experts X X X X X Internal Staff Literature Literature & Documentation Outside Experts X X X X X Internal Staff Literature 18% 4% People as Sources of Technology Outside Experts 2X X X X X X 1X Internal Staff Literature Technology Sources for Product Development Projects People Outside People Inside All Written Material 0 10 20 30 40 50 Proportion of Messages 60 People as Sources of Technology Outside Experts Neg ative Literature X X X X X Pos itive Internal Staff Customer Evaluation of Solutions as a Function of Idea Source 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0 0.2 0.1 Internal 0 External High Low ution l o S f o n io t a Source of Idea Evalu Proportion Proportion 0.7 'Boundary Impedance' of the Organization Outside Experts Neg ative X X X X X Internal Staff Literature Science and Technology • Science is Universal. • Technology is Local. Technology • • • • • • • Technology is defined in terms of: The Business Goals The Marketing Strategy and most importantly, The Culture of the organization in which it is developed. Technical problems are thus defined in terms of that culture and its system of values. The Local Nature of Technology • • • • • • This implies that: Anyone outside of the organization cannot fully understand the way that those within the organization define technical problems without understanding the organization's culture. This difficulty in understanding the problem is the principal barrier to technology fransfer. Barriers of this sort arise any time that we try to transfer knowledge across organizational boundaries. It thus holds true for internal communication as well as communication with other organizations. It is one of the causes of poor interfunctional relations in organizations. Q u ality o f T ran sfer (F ew er E C s) Performance in Transferring Designs to Manufacturing as a Function of CAD System Use for Communication H ig h p < 0.02 Low 0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 1 .2 Mean Com m unications per Day (T hrough C AD System ) 1 .4 Using a Common Reference to Reduce Ambiguity in Communication Product Development Manufacturing Engineering 7 5 3 at io n C oLo c st s Te ll Te & Sh ow tin gs tM ee ue n Fr eq In te rv e nt io n 1 M gt Performance Score Effectiveness of Strategies for Reaching Common Understanding of Problems by Product Development and Manufacturing Engineering Partial Layout of the BMW Forschung und Ingenieurung Zentrum Product Development Prototype Manufacturing Engineering The Effect of Transfers A N1 B Continuing Relations A B Potential Contacts N1 More Continuing Relations A B Potential Contacts N1 N2 Referrals A B Referrals N1 N2 A Typical Technical Communication Network Netgraph of Communication Among Software Developers (N > 600) Netgraph of Communication Related to Age 50 Year Olds 40 Year Olds 30 Year Olds 20 Year Olds 20 Year Olds 30 Year Olds 40 Year Olds 50 Year Olds Dept B Dept A Netgraph of Communication Related to Organizational Structure A1 A2 A3 B1 C1 C2 C3 C4 Dept C C5 C6 C7 C8 Dept D C9 D1 D2 D2 D1 C9 C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3C2C1 B1 A3 A2 A1 Netgraph of Communication Related to Physical Location Fl 2 Bldg. C3 Fl 1 Fl 7 Fl 6 Fl 5 Bldg. C2 Fl 4 Fl 3 Fl 2 Fl 1 Fl 2 Fl 1 Bldg. Bldg. B1C1 Fl 1 Bldg. B1 Fl 2 Bldg. A1 Bldg. A1 Fl 1 Bldg. C1 Bldg. C2 Bldg. C3 Netgraph of Communication Related to Organizational Structure Manufacturing Plant Manufacturing Plant Communication Mapping • Order by location Communication Mapping • Order by Project Development Process Groups Netgraph Showing the Low Level of Communication Among Groups in Laboratory ‘K’. Groups Communication Network in a Small Laboratory High Communicators Compared with Colleagues in Readership of Refereed Journals p < 0.001 Laboratory 'A' Laboratory 'G' p < 0.02 Laboratory 'E' p < 0.01 Laboratory 'L' Laboratory 'M' Laboratory 'H' Laboratory 'S' p < 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 Laboratory 'T' p < 0.01 Laboratory 'U' Laboratory 'V' 0 High Communicators All Other Staff N.S. 5 10 15 Mean Journal Readership 20 High Communicators Compared with Colleagues in Terms of Regular Informal Contact Outside of the Organization p < 0.05 Laboratory 'A' p < 0.05 Laboratory 'G' p < 0.001 Laboratory 'E' p < 0.05 Laboratory 'L' p < 0.01 Laboratory 'M' Laboratory 'H' p < 0.01 p < 0.01 Laboratory 'F' 0 High Communicators All Other Staff 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Number of Contacts 6 The Gatekeeper as a Link to Outside Technology Outside Experts X X X X X Gatekeeper Literature Gatekeeper Characteristics • • • • • • • • • • • • • High Technical Performance Not 'just communicators’ Highest technical performers in the organization. Cannot be created by management. Low in the Organizational Hierarchy Concentrated at first level of technical supervision or below. Seldom found at higher levels of management. Seldom found on the technical ladder. Visibility They are easy to identify. Everyone knows who they are. Approachability Must be at least receptive to people. International Gatekeepers International Gatekeepers tend to be Engineers or Scientists, who have worked in other countries and returned home. Engineers and Scientists visiting from other countries had very high foreign contact, but insufficient domestic contact to be International Gatekeepers. A Managerial Career VP AD DM DH SH $$$ GS $$ LE $ Dual Ladder Technical Managerial VP AD DM ? DH SH $$$ GS $$ LE $ SDSS $$$ SSS $$ SS $ Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C Distribution of Positions in One Firm's Dual Ladder 100 90 Proportion (Percent) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Managerial Technical The Dual Ladder Technical Managerial VP AD DM DH SH $$$ GS $$ LE $ SDSS $$$ SSS $$ SS $ Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C Criteria for Technical Ladder Promotion Technical Managerial VP AD DM DH SH $$$ GS $$ LE $ SDSS $$$ SSS $$ SS $ Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C The Biggest Problem with the Dual Ladder Technical Managerial VP AD DM DH SH $$$ GS $$ LE $ SDSS $$$ SSS $$ SS $ Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C The Dual Ladder Technical Managerial VP AD DM DH SH $$$ GS $$ LE $ SDSS $$$ SSS $$ SS $ Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C Proportion of Engineers & Scientists in Ten Organizations Choosing Each of Three Possible Career Paths MANAGEMENT 32% TECHNICAL LADDER 20% PROJECT ASSIGNMENT 48% Career Preference as a Function of Age (N = 1,402) 70 Interesting Projects Proportion (Percent) 60 50 40 Management 30 20 Technical Ladder 10 0 20 30 40 Age (Years) 50 60 Career Preferences of Technical Ladder Staff as a Function of Age (N = 351) 70 Interesting Projects Proportion (Percent) 60 Management 50 40 30 20 Technical Ladder 10 0 20 30 40 Age (Years) 50 60 Career Preferences of Managers as a Function of Age (N = 374) Management 120 Proportion (Percent) 100 80 Interesting Projects 60 40 20 Technical Ladder 0 20 30 40 Age (Years) 50 60 The Process of Innovation Technology INNOVATION Market Departmental Organization Technology D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Market Departmental Organization Technology D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Market Time & Coordination Project Team Organization Technology P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Market Matrix Organization Technology D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Market Matrix Organization Technology D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Market The Basic Tradeoff and Dilemma in Product Development Organization • Departmental Organization • • • Departmental structure is more closely mapped to the structure of the supporting technologies It thereby provides a better connection to those technologies and better ongoing technical support to the project effort. This is, however, accomplished at the cost of much greater difficulty in coordination of the project tasks and less responsiveness to market change. • Project Team Organization • • • Project Team structure groups people from different disciplines together in a single team all reporting to a common manager. It thereby provides better coordination of the project tasks and increased sensitivity to market dynamics. This is, however, accomplished at the cost of a separation from the disciplinary knowledge underlying the project effort. When this is carried to an extreme, it will gradually erode the technology base of the organization. Organizational Structure Space I Iss dK = rate of change of dt knowledge Iss = subsystem interdependence dK dt Organizational Structure Space II Iss x x x xx x + + + Project Team + + + + + Departments o o o oo o o + + dK dt Organizational Structure Space III Iss Project Team Ti T1 T2 T1 > T2 Department dK dt Structuring the Organization • Standard Industrial Practice – Ignores the rate at which technologies are developing (despite the fact that this can often be measured). – Usually ignores the interdependencies in project work (seasoned project managers are an exception). – Focuses on project duration (and usually makes the wrong decision on this parameter). Organizational Structure Space IV dM dt Project Team Iss Ti Department dK dt Organizational Structure Space V dK dt Ti Department Project Team Depa rtmen t dM dt Iss Project Team BMW FIZ I Concurrent Engineering Matrix Connections to Market and Technology Technology Dept Head Proj Mgr Proj Mgr Proj Mgr Proj Mgr Proj Mgr Market Proj Mgr Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Matrix Connections to Market and Technology Technology Pr Mgr Dept Head IPT IPT IPT Mgr Mgr Mgr IPT IPT IPT Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Market Some Problems Technology IPT Dept Head Dept Head IPT IPT IPT IPT Market Competition for Resources Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Problems with Imbalance Technology IPT IPT IPT IPT Market OUT Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Tech Integrity IPT The Need for Balance Technology IPT Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head IPT IPT IPT IPT Market OUT B A L A E C N Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head The Inescapable Conflict Technology IPT Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head IPT IPT IPT IPT Market OUT T C I L F N O C Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head A More Complete Matrix Using Integrated Product Teams MKTG PROD DEV MFG Integrated Product Teams Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head IPT IPT IPT IPT IPT Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Matrix Connections to Product Development and Manufacturing Engineering Manufacturing Engineering Dept Head Dept Head Product Development Integrated Product Teams IPT Dept Head IPT IPT IPT IPT IPT Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Dept Head Management of Transitions • The critical points of vulnerability in the life of a project are the points of transition. – Transitions can involve many parameters, for example: • • • • People Management Leadership & leadership style. Primary organizational responsibility and reporting relationships. • Nature of the work. • Types of knowledge required. • Physical location. • To change all of these simultaneously is to court disaster. Management of Transitions II Project Size & Scope Transition Points Time Management of Transitions IV • Projects must be protected through transitions. – There must be areas of continuity to offset the areas of change. – Team size must grow in a gradual fashion. • This has implications for both organizational structure and physical architecture. • Both must be very flexible to allow this to happen along with a gradual transition in reporting relationship. – There should be an extra effort to retain a sense of ‘ownership’ among team members. • Avoid ‘runway management’. Project Size & Scope Management of Transitions III Transition Points Time social order spatial order organizational order Transition Performance 1 Performance 0 .8 p < 0.001 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 Separate Co-Located Location of Engineers PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP AGE (PELZ & ANDREWS P e rform a nc e P e rc e ntile 55 50 45 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Tenure of Group Members (Years) 12 Smoothed Project Performance Project Performance as a Function of Team Age (45 Chemical Industry Projects) 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 Mean Tenure of Project Team Members (Years) S m o o th e d P ro j e c t P e rfo rm a n c e Technical Communication as a Function of Team Age (45 Chemical Industry Projects) 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 0 2 4 6 8 Mean Tenure of Project Team Mem bers (Years) WORK PREFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF MEAN TENURE (PELZ & ANDREWS) Proportion of Group Members Reporting (Percent) 65 60 55 50 PREFERENCE FOR BROAD PREFERENCE FOR DEEP 45 40 35 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Tenure of Group Members (Years) 12 Perceived Influence Over Project Goals & Objectives (Teams with Mean Tenure Greater Than Five Years) Project Team Performance Engineers Project Manager Low High 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Mean Perceived Influence 1 PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP AGE (PELZ & ANDREWS) Group Performance 55 50 45 40 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 Mean T enure of Group Members (Years) 10.5 Smoothed Performance Project Performance as a Function of Team Age (45 Chemical Industry Projects) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean Tenure of Team Members (Years) 14 Smoothed Performance Project Performance as a Function of Team Age (45 Chemical Industry Projects) 0 2 4 6 Mean Tenure of Team Members (Years) 8 Project Performance and External Communication as a Function of Team Age (45 Chemical Industry Projects) Communications Per Person Per Week 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Tenure of Team Members (Years) 6 Project Performance and External Communication as a Function of Team Age (45 Chemical Industry Projects) 2 0.8 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 2 4 6 Mean Tenure of Team Members (Years) 8 Communications Per Person Per Week Smoothed Performance 1 WORK PREFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF MEAN TENURE (PELZ & ANDREWS) 65 Degree of Preference 60 55 Broad Exploration of New Areas Deep Exploration of Narrow Areas 50 45 40 35 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Tenure of Group Members (Years) 12 Team Performance Perceived Influence Over Project Goals & Objectives (Teams with Mean Tenure Greater Than Five Years) Low Project Manager T eam Members High 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Degree of Influence 0.8 1 We Shape Our Buildings "On the night of May 10, 1941, with one of the last bombs of the last serious raid, our House of Commons was destroyed by the violence of the enemy, and we have now to consider whether we should build it up again,and how, and when. We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. Having dwelt and served for more than forty years in the late Chamber, and having derived very great pleasure and advantage therefrom, I, naturally, should like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form, convenience and dignity." -WSC, 28 October 1943 to the House of Commons (meeting in the House of Lords). Notes: The old House of Commons was rebuilt in 1950 in its old form, remaining insufficient to seat all its members. Churchill was against "giving each member a desk to sit at and a lid to bang" because, he explained, the House would be mostly empty most of the time; whereas, at critical votes and moments, it would fill beyond capacity, with members spilling out into the aisles, in his view a suitable "sense of crowd and urgency." Distance Measurement Proportion of Communication Partners as a Function of Distance X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Probability of Technical Communication as a Function of Distance Between Work Stations P ro b a b ility o f W e e k ly C o m m u n ic a tio n 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 20 40 60 Separation Distance (Meters) 80 100 Intradepartmental and Interdepartmental Communication and Physical Separation S m oothed P robability of C om m unication 0.4 INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL INTER-DEPARTMENTAL 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 20 40 Separation Distance (Meters) 60 The Effect of Organization I P(C) D = f(1/N) DISTANCE The Effect of Organization II P(C) D = f(1/N) P = f(Iss) DISTANCE Some Obvious Points P(C) S < S 2 1 p < p 2 1 S3 < S1 p > p1 3 p3 p1 p2 S3 S2 Distance S1 Probability of Communication Departmental Size 1 Smoothed P(C) Raw Data Power (Raw Data) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 Size of Department 40 50 Face-to-Face and Telephone Communication PROBABILITY OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.0005 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0005 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01 PROBABILITY OF FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION 0.02 0.05 ‘Bandwidth’ Limitation High Complexity Information Low Complexity Information Within a Floor Within a Floor Within a Building Within a Building Within a Site Within a Site Between Sites Between Sites 0 20 40 60 80 Proportion of Contacts Face-to-Face Telephone 100 0 20 40 60 80 Proportion of Contacts Face-to-Face Telephone 100 Steelcase Ground Floor Steelcase Third Floor M ean Num ber of C o m m u n ic a tio n P a rtn e rs p e r P e rs o n Effect of New Steelcase Building on Breadth of Communication 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 M ove to New Building 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (Weeks) 14 16 18 20