Innovation management through the use of diversity networks

Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2008 357

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Innovation management through the use of diversity networks

Peter Bednar* School of Computing University of Portsmouth Buckingham Building Portsmouth, PO1 3AE, UK E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Christine Welch Department of Strategy & Business Systems Portsmouth Business School University of Portsmouth Richmond Building, Portland Street Portsmouth, PO1 3DE, UK E-mail: [email protected]

Vasilios Katos Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Democritus University of Thrace Xanthi 67100, Greece E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: A methodology for innovation and analysis in a context of complex problem spaces is presented, introducing the idea of a diversity network. The methodology draws upon a framework which puts ‘complexification’ into systemic practice. Such an application helps individual participants to outline their narratives, create and agree upon categories, and use these to classify their narratives. Clusters of narratives, reflecting innovation through diversity networks of opinion and competences, are encouraged to emerge in analytical practice. This approach can be applied to promote creativity and sharing in a knowledge management context.

Keywords: diversity network; complex methods; multi-valued logic; innovation management.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bednar, P., Welch, C. and Katos, V. (2008) ‘Innovation management through the use of diversity networks’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.357–369.

358 P. Bednar, C. Welch and V. Katos

Biographical notes: Peter Bednar is a Senior Lecturer in Information Systems at the School of Computing at the University of Portsmouth, UK. He is also affiliated with the Department of Informatics at Lund University, Sweden. Prior to his academic career, he worked as an Engineer in a number of industrial environments.

Christine Welch is a Principal Lecturer in Business Information Systems in the Department of Strategy & Business Systems at the University of Portsmouth, UK. Her research interests include critical systemic thinking and contextual analysis. She is a member of the board of the UK Systems Society.

Vasilios Katos is an Assistant Professor in Information and Communication Systems Security at the Democritus University of Thrace in Greece. Before moving to Democritus University, he was a Principal Lecturer at the School of Computing at the University of Portsmouth, UK. He obtained his PhD from the University of Aston in 2000 and his MBA from Keele University in 1995. He worked for a period of two years as a Security Architect for Cambridge Technology Partners (Novell).

1 Introduction

Human reasoning allows contradictory evidence to be accepted as valid in problem resolution, but many existing Decision Support Systems (DSS) require early choices to exclude some alternatives from further consideration. Research focusing on knowledge and learning, and to human reasoning in an organisational context, includes work by Bateson (1972) on orders of learning and critical systemic inquiry. Argyris and Schon (1978) have contributed work on learning organisations seen from a practitioner perspective. Weick (1995) discusses organisational change and uncertainty; and Lytras and Sicilia (2005) give an overview of knowledge and learning, highlighting the contextual complexities found in individual and team dynamics. Organisations have no distinct embodiment beyond that of interactions among individuals within social, communicational networks. ‘Knowing’ in an organisational context is formed through continual construction and reconstruction of meanings by individuals, as they encounter new experiences and synthesise resultant data with existing ‘knowledge’ acquired from past experiences (Langefors, 1966). Individuals need space to explore their own deeply embedded and inaccessible understandings, if they are to become able to express their ‘knowing’ in such a process of creative development. We draw on research in contextual analysis and paraconsistent logic to present a model that could underpin new forms of decision support.

Innovation needs support from people throughout an organisation. Many approaches to ‘knowledge management’ have been suggested, to encourage creativity and sharing. Knowledge resides in human beings and epistemic uncertainty is fundamental to their experience. To seek a solution, we must first explore a problem-space, knowing that many valid alternatives may exist. Such activities have been described as a negotiation of differing perspectives (Weltanshauungen) held by individuals (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). Ciborra discusses this approach to human inquiry using concepts such as bricolage, tinkering and improvisation. He suggests that, when confronted with a problem space they experience as complex, people turn first to existing knowledge, and

Innovation management through the use of diversity networks 359

familiar competences (that which is recognised), then gradually move outwards from this base towards the unfamiliar (that which is cognised) (Ciborra, 1992). As Habermas (1989) points out in his Theory of Communicative Action, any negotiation requires a discourse supporting co-creation of language upon which a communicative process may be built. The authors believe that use of four-valued logic in the creation of diversity networks, provides a springboard for such a language to be developed.

The authors describe a methodology for innovation and analysis, which presents the idea of a diversity network. The authors recognise that complex problem spaces call for methods of inquiry which do not seek to oversimplify or apply reductionist approaches. The methodology described here draws on a strategic systemic framework which puts complexification into a systemic practice. Such an application helps participants to outline their narratives, create and agree upon categories of narratives, and then use these categories to classify their narratives. In this way, clusters of narratives, reflecting innovation through diversity networks of opinion and competences, are encouraged to emerge in analytical practice.

2 Background

Systems analysis and organisational development often involve the immersion of an analyst in a situation where she applies acquired skills and knowledge. Her aim is to achieve what she believes to be a satisfactory resolution of the problem situation she perceives as relevant. The analyst’s previous personality, sociocultural background, experience and education are what frequently dictate the approach and method adopted in seeking resolution of the appreciated problem situation. The analysis that takes place within such a scenario is often reactive and experiential. Here, mental images of experiences of past problem situations are matched with mental images of current situations. Solutions that were considered to be successful in previous situations are applied to the newly appreciated situation. The basis for this is the (in many cases counter-experiential) belief that they will lead to a successful outcome. However, weaknesses may be attributed to this ‘solution-looking-for-a-problem’ approach. In particular, it may lead to any or all of the following difficulties:

• inappropriate solutions for the appreciated problem situation

• failure to recognise significant, contextually-dependent features of the appreciated problem situation

• failure to recognise the significant, relevant problem situation

• reduction in the capacity of the analyst to develop a sufficiently enhanced decision base upon which to build a problem identification and solving capability, i.e., robust decision-making.

In order to facilitate increased capability to cope with uncertainty and complex problem situations, the process of creating a decision base for resolving appreciated problem spaces needs to include acceptance of uncertainty. Such a process therefore requires development and creation of ‘new’ knowledge as part of analysis. It also needs to incorporate a reflective approach to analysis, including a break from reliance on binary logic. A combination of systematic and systemic approaches to critical reflection and


inquiry may yield a more developed appreciation of relevant problem space. Through critical systemic thinking, and continuous reflection on experiences, valuable lessons can be abstracted to inform ongoing actions.

Inclusiveness and experience of appreciated problem spaces in context form a foundation for the immersion process. These can only be facilitated by those people who are already engaged in a problem space of interest (e.g., client driven analysis). The analyst mentioned here might be assumed to be well-equipped to create relevant and useful resolutions once she has gone through some magic process of reflection and openness to uncertainty. However, it is not suggested by the authors of this paper, that an external analyst would be in a position to develop an understanding. Even analysts’ possibility to be able to direct an inquiry into a contextually relevant problem space is put into question. By definition only those who are already historically engaged in an appreciated problem space could develop a relevant inquiry into it.

The significance of weaknesses (b) and (c) in particular is concerned with lack of involvement in, and ownership of, the inquiry/reflective thinking by concerned actors. Who can appreciate what is a relevant problem space to be resolved? Who can experience a resolution as relevant or useful? Decision-making cannot be robust in the absence of collaboration by actors other than professional analysts. One important aspect is to support immersed actors in their recreation of new ideas and to sponsor a sense-making process which is not reduced by closed systems thinking or by classical bi-valued logic. The creation of diversity, and expansion of scope of a multitude of ideas, is the starting point. Four-valued logic is only really needed when exploring a resulting diverse range of views. The intention here is to highlight similarities and differences between narratives created by individual actors – not content, but characteristics of content. In this, we draw upon Bateson (1972), who suggests that ‘knowing’ comes about through perceptions of change – i.e., of a difference that makes a difference.

This paper draws upon the framework for Strategic Systemic Thinking, presented by Bednar (2000). We use this framework to support a process for appreciation of uncertainty as part of problem resolution, and for the transformation of uncertainty into structured uncertainty. The difference between uncertainty and structured uncertainty in organisational environments has been discussed by Weick (1995).

In this paper we focus upon one aspect of the framework relating to communication and dialogue among actors engaged in a problem space. Ciborra (2002) points to two types of evidence emerging when organisational phenomena are considered. The first are formal ideas or models, derived from theory. The second type of evidence belongs to the realm of informal expression – a space which hosts “the unexpected aspects of organizational life” (Ciborra, 2002, p.175). Nonaka and Konno (1998) seem to make a similar point when they speak of a space where individuals share feelings, emotions, experiences and mental models. Such a space cannot be addressed by any model or theory but only through opportunities for ‘unveiling’ by actors themselves. One such opportunity can occur when actors collaborate in an inquiry into individually-created narratives, resulting in a diversity network.

Dialogue is created in an effort to explore collectively individually-created narratives. As a support mechanism, the authors suggest breaking away from binary logic to a variant of four-valued logic, incorporating not only uncertainty, but also ambiguity, i.e., structured uncertainty (Bednar et al., 2005). In cybernetics, it is recognised that every distinct dimension of a complex system needs to be controlled in a way which is appropriate to its characteristics. Similarly, we believe that, when conducting inquiry into


a complex problem space, its many dimensions require appropriate analytical approaches (Ashby, 1964). These ideas are discussed by outlining relevant aspects of the Strategic Systemic Thinking framework, including examples of supporting tools and techniques.

3 Strategic systemic thinking

The framework for Strategic Systemic Thinking consists of three main aspects, intra-analysis, inter-analysis and value analysis. Intra-analysis: Expanding descriptions of a problem-space by encouraging individual actors in creating their personal narratives in relation to the problem space. This can be seen as an exercise in creating possible resolutions – or a narrative describing why a resolution may not be possible. The focus is on creating narratives from unique individual perspectives of relevance to an appreciated problem space. Inter-analysis: Structuring uncertainty into ambiguity through communication with others. The process puts a focus on dialogues, with the aim of making sense of similarities and differences between narratives, while expanding the inquiry into differences that make a difference. In inter-analysis, deviating narratives are maintained but the number of alternatives to be discussed later is limited as those that are classified as ‘similar’ are incorporated with each other to form clusters. The process focuses on efforts to put narratives into context of appreciated and experienced problem-space(s). Value-analysis: Creating a frame of reference with which to assess alternatives. In this aspect of the framework the participating actors are supported in trying to make sense of the different understandings of the boundary of described problem spaces. In putting focus upon shifting boundaries of described problem spaces, an inquiry into a frame of reference is also conducted. The discussion is intended help individual actors to put narratives into context of appreciated problem environment. Each one of the three mentioned aspects is a learning process in its own right. However, efforts in communication and sense-making of inclusive reflection over intra-analysis, inter-analysis, and reflection in value-analysis, together support creation of a learning spiral of a higher order of abstraction.

4 Inquiry into complex problem spaces

In a context of complex problem spaces, human individuals need support to carry out in-depth inquiry, generating many, diverse possibilities, without suffering from information overload. Davenport and Prusak (1998), for instance, have defined knowledge as a “fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, expert insight and grounded intuition”. Weick (1997) points out a need to address the complexity of human ability to reason. The potential of including a model of four-valued logic lies in the possibility to provide support in a knowledge sharing environment by codifying, not knowledge, but categories of argument/assertion. In this paper, the application of the proposed model includes a second order. In the first order, individually-created narratives are categorised according to four-valued logic: assertions of positive belief in alternatives, negative belief in alternatives, possibility of alternatives, or ignorance of any alternative. A second order is illustrated through an example in which all assertions of positive or optimistic possible belief are considered by participants. The model is applied in order to identify clusters of narratives which appear to have


characteristics in common, by creation of diversity networks. In this way, a more focused agenda for debate can be supported to emerge. Diversity networks are used to bring forward an overview of characteristics of deviation of opinion (narratives) and a visualisation technique of a process for sense-making of relationships between opinions.

In this paper, we examine one possible method for inquiry into a complex problem space, the Strategic Systemic Thinking Framework (Bednar, 2000). We also show how a model of four-valued logic can be used in creating dialogue in different aspects of the framework, in order to develop diversity networks as a base upon which better informed decision-making can be founded. When a collective problem space is to be explored, it is important to examine the element of choice available to participants. A phenomenon must be recognised, that decision makers can bear in mind that they are asserting beliefs about truths, rather than truths themselves, i.e., exercising judgement. When asked for an opinion, an individual may often give the answer ‘it depends’. If we explore this response further, we can discern four alternative variants (see Table 1). The main difference between them lies in the character and degree of certainty that each represents. (We also recognise that logic implies (1) that choices need to be made for each separate alternative, and (2) that any assertions made are not assumed to be valid under all conditions, or out of a specific context.) Each assertion requires a decision. Each decision is chosen by means of an attempt to assess risk of being ‘wrong’, taking into account fit between assumptions of context and possibility of generalisation.

Table 1 A model of four-valued logic: variants of individual judgement

Assertions of negative belief

“I do not believe that a resolution for this problem space can be achieved”

Assertions of possible belief

“I believe there it may be possible to resolve this problem space, but I don’t currently know how”

Assertions of positive belief

“I believe that a resolution for this problem space can be achieved”

Assertions of no belief

“I can offer no opinion whether or not a resolution for this problem space can be achieved”

The process described above could result in cognition-compliant knowledge transfer and propagation, for facilitating problem solving, as discussed by Dou et al. (2007).

5 Illustration of the inquiry process

In this section, we describe application of this model of four-valued logic to a process of inquiry using a complex method, the Strategic Systemic Thinking Framework. Using a fictitious business scenario, we demonstrate application of our model through first order logic, to a second order, and show how a diversity network may be elicited. In this application, individual participants consider their responses to resolution of a complex problem space. In a first order dialogue, any particular individual might express positive belief: “Yes, I believe this problem could be resolved by (suggested action)”; she might express negative belief: “No, I think it is unlikely that we could resolve the problem by reasonable means”; she might consider a possibility of resolution (either optimistic or pessimistic) but express a need for further clarification: “There may or may not be a


possible resolution (such as …), but I don’t have enough evidence to make a firm judgment”; she might express a complete lack of opinion: “Don’t ask me. I have no idea whether we could resolve the problem or not.”

Taking each suggestion arising from first order dialogue that is either positive, or which expresses an optimistic belief in possibility of resolution, a second order dialogue may be created. Participants continue to discuss the same problem scenario for which each of them has already considered the possibility of resolution in First Order dialogue. For each of these positive or optimistic suggestions, individuals consider the extent to which it matches their own idea of a potential resolution. This is illustrated in the following example scenario.

5.1 Scenario: the case unstructured

Nutalls Ltd. have been in business for 90 years selling office supplies to home and small-/medium-sized business customers in the Portsmouth area. They have a store, located in a retail park, to which members of the public can come to buy supplies. Business customers can open an account with the company, and can buy supplies either by visiting the store or by placing order with company sales representatives who visit their premises once per month. The company operates in three divisions, based on product categories: office equipment (this division originally sold adding machines, office duplicating equipment and furniture, but in more recent years has specialised in desktop and laptop computers, peripheral devises such as printers and scanners, photocopiers, calculators and telephones); office consumables (this sells paper, ink and toner cartridges, storage media for PCs, pens and other stationery items such as paper clips. It also sells software for PCs for both home and business use and operates a drop-in photocopying service within the store); the third division offers services. These include printing of customised letter headed paper, business cards, catalogues, flyers and also wedding stationery. A limited technical service for maintenance repair of equipment is also offered.

In the 1990s, the company began to see its profits fall as it became increasingly difficult to compete with national chains supplying to a similar market. In the past five years, the decline has accelerated and the Board of Directors has realised that the company must embrace radical change or risk going out of business entirely. The company has a substantial remaining customer base among small-/medium-sized businesses in the area. Attempts at consultation have revealed customers appreciate quality of products and services from Nutalls, and the discounts they can earn from loyal business, but are impatient that they need to deal with three different points of contact. In particular, purchase of computer equipment from one division and software from another has caused inconvenience. Equally, purchase of printed and non-printed stationery from different divisions has seemed illogical, especially as the order cycles do not match for these products. Price considerations are also beginning to be an issue, since national chains can offer customers more special offers and discounted products.

Following many crisis meetings of the directors, a decision was taken to restructure the company away from an orientation towards product and to focus instead on customer-relationship management. The Board believe that many long-standing customers who have ceased to trade with Nutalls in recent years might be retained or even won back from competitors by better, more focused service. At the same time,


business processes will be streamlined around one, integrated IT system, oriented towards customers. At present, each division has its own dedicated administrative team, which means that many roles are duplicated at considerable cost to the company.

The implications of this radical change include shedding a number of administrative posts which are redundant in the new, integrated system; retraining sales staff to operate on a more customer-friendly basis, including trading via a newly-created e-commerce facility; reorganising staff to work in customer-focused teams, incorporating sales and administration. The Board realise that it will be difficult for the staff to cope with such radical change that must be accomplished in a relatively short timescale. They resolve to introduce a ‘pilot period’ during which extensive consultations will be conducted throughout the company to evaluate the changes. Newly-created teams are therefore encouraged to hold weekly meetings, on Fridays, to review the challenges they have faced and their suggestions for dealing with them. At the same time, a communications hub has been created. This is a web-based facility that individual members of staff can log into and either post to discussion boards or create ‘blogs’ about their experiences. The hub is divided into areas around themes such as communications, team working, e-commerce, customer relations and problem-solving. A separate area for customer feedback has also been created.

5.2 Inquiry: the process

At the end of this three-month consultation period, the Director of Human Resources gathers together material from all the teams and from the hub. The following is a selection of material retrieved in this exercise:

• Some individuals have posted messages indicating disillusionment with the reorganisation. Some suggested complete lack of belief in any possibility that the new systems can work or that they, personally, can learn to work with them. Others indicated that they could see why the changes were needed, and don’t discount the possibility that they could be made to work, but can think of no positive measures that would facilitate this.

• Some teams believe they have gelled together and formed a group identity and are enthusiastic about the changes. Other teams, however, especially those with members from all three of the old divisions, are having difficulty in creating good working relationships. There have been suggestions that ‘away-days’ or social events might be helpful.

• A number of postings to the e-commerce area of the Hub have suggested that some staff are finding the interface with the order processing system difficult to use. Information on screens is counter-intuitive. This has meant that, when a customer has chosen to telephone to inquire about the progress of an order, they have not been able to give a rapid response due to difficulty in finding relevant data. They would like attention to be paid to creating a more usable design, and supporting users to work with it. Customers have made similar comments, to the effect that they have often been obliged to telephone their inquiries because they cannot find relevant information about their orders by accessing the company Website.


• Some staff have logged comments into the Hub to indicate that they feel overwhelmed by the demands of new working practices and feel that more formal training would have been helpful. Training provided to date has been through briefing meetings and online packages which staff can call up and work through in their own time and at their own pace. However, no trainers are available to guide these efforts. Comments on problem-solving have overlapped in this respect, where many staff have logged feelings of inadequacy in dealing with product inquiries. This appears to focus on the need to deal with an expanded range of products, e.g., a member of staff who previously dealt only with consumables now has to give advice on supply of PCs and peripherals.

• Many staff have reported greater satisfaction in their work, through team working and through the possibility of giving good service by getting to know particular customers needs. However, some of these commented negatively that inflexibilities in new systems inhibited them from taking initiative and developing customer relationships in innovative ways. Greater empowerment to develop both working practices (and career potential) was desired.

Having viewed the results of their consultation, the Directors decide to take up the suggestion of an away-day/social event. A Sunday afternoon and evening is set aside for this, the afternoon to take the form of a staff conference and the evening a party with refreshments to which families are also invited. The views listed above are fed back to the staff conference for discussion, and the following key themes are identified:

• an important role for management practices in which people feel empowered to make their own decisions and develop customer relationships

• a focus on staff training needs, of various kinds

• a need for further attention to the design of systems to enhance both usability and usefulness, for both staff and customers

• a requirement for staff to feel supported in their work roles – by appropriate services, by their managers and within their teams.

The results of an initial discussion of these themes at the staff conference, i.e., a first order dialogue, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 First order dialogue at Nutalls Ltd.

Problem scenario

How can implementation of radical change at Nutalls Ltd. be improved, following reflection upon experience of the first three months under the new regime?

Assertions of negative belief Some employees have suggested that they do not believe the changes can be made to work by any reasonable means

Assertions of possible belief Optimistic assertions/Pessimistic assertions Some employees stated that they believe the changes may be beneficial, but can think of no strategies to make them more workable

Reasons given: Complete lack of understanding of new working practices Complete lack of faith in a customer-oriented, technologically enabled approach

Reasons given: Unfamiliarity with team working Unfamiliarity with the range of products


Table 2 First order dialogue at Nutalls Ltd. (continued)

Problem scenario


Some employees expressed belief that implementation of change could be made more successful


Some employees declined to give any opinion about the future of the company

Suggestions:

More focused staff training

Better support from management

Improved system design

Reasons given:

Complete lack of understanding of the issues

Unwillingness to commit to a point of view

For each identified suggestion, employees were given a further opportunity to assert their views: whether the suggestion was worthy of support; unlikely to be beneficial; in need of greater clarification; or whether they had no opinion to give on the subject. In this way, it was possible to glean the full range of opinion among staff before committing resources to pursuing any particular resolution to the problem. Table 3 shows an example of documentation from a Second Order dialogue created around one suggestion.

Table 3 Second order dialogue at Nutalls Ltd.

Dialogue scenario

Taking only the assertions of positive or optimistic possible belief emerging from the First Order dialogue, the directors now invite staff to consider each suggestion made, to assess which are worth taking forward.

First suggestion: More focused staff training

Assertions of negative belief

Some employees do not believe that improvements to availability or quality of training will make any difference to the successful implementation of the reorganisation

Assertions of possible belief

Optimistic assertions/Pessimistic assertions

Some employees believe that training might be important, but are unsure what approaches could be beneficial

Reasons given:

Belief that CRM is only a gimmick

Dislike of automated systems

Reasons given:

Unfamiliarity with training processes


Some employees believe that improved training of staff (in a variety of different suggested ways) can make a major difference successful implementation


Some employees can offer no opinion as to the likely impact of improved training on success of implementation

Suggestions:

Face-to-face training sessions

Enhancement of online training by mentors

Interviewing staff to identify their existing skills and training needs

Reasons given:

No previous experience of change


5.3 Commentary

Such documentation forms an important record of the progress in discussion, providing an opportunity for further reflection on the process. It is important to recognise, however, that the table represents only a ‘snapshot’ at one point in an on-going dialogue where participants may frequently move from one sector to another. For example, a person who is satisfied at the beginning of debate that better support by management will lead to successful implementation of change (Assertion of Positive Belief) may become persuaded through discussion that an in-depth study is needed to determine what this would comprise in practice (Assertion of Possible Belief). Through this process of debate, in which assertions are signified and documented, a diversity network will eventually emerge, i.e., as a result of iteration of dialogue in second order and application of the categories from four-valued logic (see Figure 1). Each member reflects upon the relationship between their own understanding of a resolution and each of the narratives described by other individuals. They use four-valued logic to help them signify the characteristics of these relationships.

Figure 1 Diversity network

It can be seen that each position in the table reflects a relationship to uncertainty. Assertions of Positive or Negative Belief may be associated with low levels of uncertainty in participants. Assertions of Possible Belief reflect high degrees of uncertainty in which participants express a desire for further exploration of the problem space, i.e., a desire to turn uncertainty into ambiguity. Assertion of No Belief reflects a very high level of uncertainty in which the participant is unwilling to risk commitment to an opinion. This may be because she lacks any understanding at all of the issue, or, perhaps, because she is unwilling to reveal an opinion which may appear foolish or create controversy. Use of a model of four-valued logic can assist in recording, and reflecting upon, stages in a process of discussion but does not, in itself, address political dimensions

resolution A resolution B

resolution C

resolution D

relationships

type/category characteristics of relationship

y ? n 0

y ? n 0

y ? n 0

y ?n 0

y ?n 0

y ?n 0


of complex problem spaces. This is an iterative process which highlights all relationships discussed between all suggestions presented. The result is a diversity network, which emerges as a complex description of relationships between suggestions (e.g., Figure 1).

6 Conclusions

It is the authors’ belief that inquiry into multiple levels of contextual dependencies, using an approach such as the Strategic Systemic Thinking Framework, may empower individuals in an organisational context to ‘unveil’ phenomena underlying their experiences of organisational life. Claudio Ciborra, drawing on Heidegger, labelled these phenomena as ‘apparitions’, which no application of formal models or theories (termed illusory appearances) can reveal.

We have introduced the concept of a diversity network, and illustrated how such a network could be built using a model of four-valued logic. We have used a scenario to demonstrate how such a model may be expanded through first and second orders, in order to assist in developing dialogue among participants. Iterations of such dialogues support creation of diversity networks as a rich source of ‘knowing’ about a problem space. Participants can then draw on this in their pursuit of creative projects or to support more informed decision-making. Thus, diversity networks form a basis of support for enhanced creativity and knowledge sharing – the essence of knowledge management.

References

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978) Organisational Learning, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Ashby, R. (1964) An Introduction to Cybernetics, London: Methuen.

Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bednar, P.M. (2000) ‘A contextual integration of individual and organisational learning perspectives as part of IS analysis’, Informing Science, Vol. 3, No. 3.

Bednar, P.M., Anderson, D. and Welch, C. (2005) ‘Knowledge creation and sharing – complex methods of inquiry and inconsistent theory’, Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Knowledge Management, University of Limerick, Ireland, September.

Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998) Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field, Chichester: Wiley.

Ciborra, C.U. (1992) ‘From thinking to tinkering: the grassroots of strategic information systems’, Information Society, Vol. 8, pp.297–309.

Ciborra, C.U. (2002) The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge, Harvard Business Press.

Dou, W., Liu, X., Chen, G., Cheung, S. and Cai, S. (2007) ‘Knowledge flow management supporting complex problem solving: learning spectrum and its infrastructure’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning (IJKL), Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.88–105.

Habermas, J. (1989) The Theory of Communicative Competence: The Critique of Functionalist Reason, Vol. 2, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Langefors, B. (1966) Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, Studentlitterature.

Lytras, M.D. and Sicilia, M.A. (2005) ‘The knowledge society: a manifesto for knowledge and learning’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp.1–11.


Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998) ‘The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.40–54.

Weick, K. (1995) Sense-making in Organizations, London: Sage.

Weick, K. (1997) ‘Cosmos vs chaos: sense and nonsense in electronic contexts’, in L. Prusak (Ed.) Knowledge in Organizations, Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Innovation management through the use of diversity networks

Documents

Transcript of Innovation management through the use of diversity networks