Role of Organisational Memory on Innovation - Essay Example

Running Head: Role of Organisational Memory on Innovation Role of Organisational Memory on Innovation [Institute’s Role of Organisational Memory on Innovation The concept of innovation arises in different perspectives and the term has been defined in various manners, even within the organizational framework. Many researchers suggest that whether or not innovation takes place also depends on the chronological order in which things happen. In normal discourse, “it is usually assumed that composition of an activity occurs first and is followed later by implementation or execution” (Walsh, 1991, p. 59). During innovation, the time gap between these occurrences contracts so that in the limit composition meets with implementation; the more innovative a function, the thinner the time gap between creating and executing, planning and creating, or conceptualizing and applying. Researchers have identified innovation as a variation from current customs or understanding (Mooner & Miner, 1997, p. 95). As advancement involves some level of design or plan, it is believed that is a type of innovation. Nonetheless, it is just one type of innovation. For instance, if an organization innovates a fresh technique to store chemicals by analyzing its requirements, collecting details, planning the fresh storage utility, receiving proposals, and ultimately creating it, the organization has innovated. In addition, innovative activities may involve quite different levels of improvement; a very huge percentage or comparatively tiny percentage of the activities may be novel. Some level of innovation is necessary for an activity to meet the chronological order classification due to its stress on plan or design of activity. These concerns propose a fine connection between innovation and organizational memory. On the other hand, they as well mean that treating them as the same could decrease the capability to appreciate the particular concerns of chronological order by confusing level of organizational memory with level of innovation. Clarifying these differences highlights the notion that the “proposed definition makes no predictions or assumptions in and of itself regarding the consequences of innovation” Mooner and Miner, 1997, p. 96). This makes innovation more helpful as a study field, because it is then possible to hypothesize as well as check ideas regarding the situations in which innovation is and is not important. It is argued here that organizational memory signifies one of the major determinants of the environment of innovative endings. One thing that is clear with respect to organizational innovation is the effect of earlier practices as well as understanding of the innovating divisions. For example, Stein and Zwass (1995) explain the way artistes utilize pre-existing expertise to add grace notes and generate chromatic fills (p. 89). Schneier (1994) description of the conception of recent interaction practices among radiologists as well as technicians indicates that their latest practices are supported by their earlier interaction practices (p. 192). Glynns (1996) description of the Grenada rescue operation “describe the military units involved as having certain important mental skills useful in improvising the rescue of an official during the operation” (p. 1090). These as well as other cases imply that earlier understandings as well as practices are significant to innovation, but that the existence of steady competencies is not conflicting with it. Working on this insight, particular propositions were explained regarding how the success of organizational innovation relies on the processing of stored knowledge, commonly known as organizational memory. Figure 1 summarizes the proposed relationships, showing that innovation has an impartial connection with organisational outcomes, but that technical memory (expertise or action understanding) and declarative memory (fact understanding) moderate this link. Apart from showing the way organizational memory controls the effect of innovation, the figure explains that innovation can eventually shape the growth of organisational memory. Figure 1: The link between Organisational Memory and Innovation (Schneier, 1994, p. 201). Literature on organisational memory and innovation has generally highlighted influential outcomes (Brown & Duguid, 1996, p. 42). Two particular standards seem to control these outcomes. “First, does the improvisation solve a problem? Second, does improvisation permit the organization to harvest unanticipated opportunities” (Brown & Duguid, 1996, p. 44)? Hargadon and Sutton (1997), for instance, explain the way product development groups innovate to meet customer requirements and launch well-timed fresh products (p. 719). Action can differ in the degree to which it shows consistency. Consistency means the level to which an activity shows interior fit (factors of an activity have an interior constancy or order and work well in partnership) and exterior fit (factors of an activity generate effects that fit the performance perspective). As with organizational innovation, researchers disagree concerning whether organizations store information in memory as people do. Nonetheless, there is an increasing sense that organizations do have belief systems, practices, formations, as well as other physical artefacts that reveal the existence of stored knowledge (Spender, 1996, p. 66). This point of view is adopted but does not hinder the study of organizational memory to the “storage bins” (Tuomi, 1996, p. 71) mostly linked with it, nor to its related attainment or preservation procedures or outcomes. Instead, the focus in on the content as well as level of organizational memory. Two forms of memory are largely mentioned in the literature: technical and declarative. The level of memory, which indicates the quantity of stored knowledge as well as familiarity, is a familiar concern with cognitive psychologists who study professional-beginner variations (Simon, 1991, p. 131), and is increasingly acknowledged by researchers as a characteristic of organizations. As a case of the content and level of memory, an organization that has been operating within a particular industry for a long period will possibly gather a high level of declarative memory with respect to the competitive arrangement and thorough traits of this industry. It might as well collect various benchmark exercises for coping with others within the industry, indicating a high degree of technical memory. Technical memory is memory for ‘the way things are done’ (Tuomi, 1996, p. 151) or memory for ‘things one can do’ (Calantone et al, 2002, p. 518). Hence, technical memory includes expertise or practices. The nature of these expertise will rely on the specific field within which the person or organization is functioning - let it be psychoanalysis (Amabile, 1998, p. 139), learning (Bannon, 1996, p. 161), psychotherapy (Sparrow, 2002, p. 142), games (Bartel & Garud, 2009, p. 110), new product development (Walsh, 1995, p. 301), or dealing with some disaster (Weick, 1993). A main attribute of technical memory is that it “becomes automatic or accessible unconsciously” (Wexler, 2002, p. 401). Frequently termed as ‘motor memory’, technical memory incorporates the expertise required to use a newly introduced system. Technical memory, hence, generally signifies implicit knowledge for persons as well as for organizations. Due to its automaticity, it is argued that technical memory is expected to have different effects on innovation. First, by offering an affluent terminology of action from which to select, it can enhance the possibility that inventiveness will result in consistent act. “In a musical setting, for example, high levels of procedural memory provide the jazz artist with a large repertoire of potential actions. As a result, the artist is able to select the most effective action, depending on the context and the actions of other band members” (Wexler, 2009, 396). Similarly, Knight & Cavusgil (2002) account of the bricoleur as a major improviser generates mainly from the study that the bricoleur utilizes a collection of pre-existing practices, permitting for the development of a facility that solves the issues at hand (p. 135). Within the organizational framework, businesses with profound technological practices will be more expected to create innovations in new product development. The now well-known version of Hondas U.S. opening of the Supercub motorcycle offers an additional organizational example of the effect of technical memory. Hondas intended opening of large motorcycles by means of conventional systems faced problems; however, executives observed that non-conventional motorcycle clients attempted to acquire the Supercubs ridden by Hondas agents. The Honda group productively responded to the obvious demand in this perspective by inventing a fresh approach to sell Supercubs via sports stores, leaving their actual approach. Obviously, the success of this innovation relied greatly on the fact that the Honda group had a collection of advertising, sales, financial management, and technological practices. Even though the argument regarding the significance of technical memory applies to various types of improvement, it has particular strength with regard to innovation. In designed innovation, organizations can collect beforehand, tools required to execute change. For instance, they can get both physical devices as well as inspirations from sources other than the organization itself. On the other hand, keeping in view that there is slight or no time between conceiving of and executing an action in innovation, whether innovation gives consistent action relies on the presence of a large number as well as selection of technical practices that can be rejoined to go well with a given situation. In addition to raising the possibility that innovation will create consistent action, technical memory is as well expected to enhance the pace of innovation. Increased pace is because of the automatic or implicit feature of technical memory, thus forming a wealth of action. Cohen & Bacdayan (1994) found that novice trainers require additional time and were less resourceful as compared to experienced trainers in acting in response to individuals who distracted them from actual course of action (p. 555). A high level of technical memory can as well have a contrasting effect on innovation, which is to restrict uniqueness. One of the major ironies linked with innovation is that as soon as performers complete the thorough practice needed to put a language pattern into their larger store, they should improve resistance to its accustomed as well as unimaginative application. This restricting effect, to some extent, may be factual of every form of information stored in a memory. Nonetheless, its outcomes are more challenging with respect to technical memory, as technical memory is likely to be accessed automatically. In agreement with this perspective, researchers have referred to technical memory at the individual level as ‘use specific’, which indicates that its ease of use as well as utilization are linked with specific issues or frameworks present when gaining knowledge about a skill. For instance, that discrimination and incorporation skills within calculus usually do not ease learning of one another, nor do language creation and intellectual capacity. Street retailers understanding of statistical computations is restricted to application in the market - not within a laboratory situation. In addition, sports observers have noted that an athlete with powerful technical expertise; mostly will be ‘blinded’ by the ball and that this ‘thinning’ of focus lessens the visibility of essential things that take place around him. Groups with sturdy technical memories have also been found to be constrained. For example, product development groups with fixed practices least expected to diverge from pre-existing action patterns. In the same way, Argote (2000) describes, “How experienced fire fighters were unwilling to drop their packs and tools to run faster to escape catastrophic death. He speculates that this tendency was due to fire fighters over learning certain skills - a feature of technical memory” (p. 148). On the other hand, declarative memory is memory for specifics, occurrences, or propositions. As a result, contrasting technical memory, which involves regular or expertise memory; declarative memory can be more common. For instance, even though the technical memory of using a newly introduced system may be helpful in a number of circumstances, declarative memory has applications that are more general. The significance of declarative memory to innovation is apparent in a number of domains. A major trait of declarative memory is the variety of uses to which it can be put. Declarative knowledge offers a foundation for shift between various applications of the same knowledge. This trait caused different effects on innovation. First, by offering the foundation to shift to various new fields, declarative knowledge should enhance the possibility that innovation will generate consistent action. Particularly, when innovators have affluent stores of declarative memory, they are capable of identifying a large number of patterns in external occurrences and they choose activities that connect their actions to these occurrences so that a consistent whole is attained both within the activity itself as well as within the situation. The significance of declarative knowledge in “making sense out of new situations” (Schneier, 1994, p. 102), obtaining meaning from unstructured state of affairs, or applying standards to foresee results has been noted in depictions of methodical breakthroughs. In a well-known example, historians of science usually presume that Flemings comprehensive declarative knowledge of details and speculations regarding bacteriology permitted him to observe the key inferences when he observed that bacteria did not grow around an unintentional spore of the mould. On the organizational level, it can be argues that luck supports the business that is ready for it, mentioning the finding that organizations investing in research and development - which, characteristically, is extremely declarative - are likely to be more successful at identifying, inferring, and applying knowledge developed outside the organization. On the group level, declarative memory may be inherent within both combined knowledge formations, such as mutual information, and within material forms, such as drafts, reports, reviews of earlier research, and the same. Besides helping with pattern identification, declarative memory does not hold as much threat of falling into pre-existing or ‘use-specific’ patterns, as does technical memory. Since declarative memory is usually more hypothetical as well as abstract, it may be applied to various circumstances in numerous manners, thus supporting better innovation. For instance, in cognitive research, it has been revealed that understanding of algebra is utilized in solving a number of calculus problems. For many, the capability to understand an interesting plan in theoretical terms eases examination of the plans inferences, forming fresh phrases during the course of experimentation. A long, comprehensive list of practices may be more difficult to implement I unusual situations. Hence, general knowledge may be additionally helpful in circumstances involving innovation. This function of declarative memory controls innovation of various forms; however, it has specific significance for creativeness due to the fast formation of affluent meaning in novel activities. If there is significant time to plan earlier than innovation, one can look for declarative memory in the conceptualization or design procedure. This might take place, for example, if a business was planning beforehand to start a fresh technology and required knowledge from outside the organization. Nonetheless, in innovation the organization plans action while executing it, so the strong point of its own declarative memory has a vital effect on the level to which innovation generates novel activities. This observation tells the standard insight that to sustain a ‘first mover’ approach in a dynamic product market, organizations usually require steady access to advanced skill-set, whether by means their individual research or via connections with sources of basic skill-set. References Amabile, T. M. 1988. A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour. Vol. 10, pp. 123-167. Argote, L. 2000. ‘Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 150-169. Bannon, L. J. 1996. ‘Shifting perspectives on organizational memory: from storage to active remembering’. System Science. Vol. 3, pp. 156-167. Bartel, C. A. and Garud, R. 2009. ‘The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation’. Organization Science. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 107-117. Brown, J. S. and Duguid, 1991. ‘Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation’. Organization Science. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 40-57. Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., and Zhao, Y. 2002. ‘Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance’. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 515-524. Cohen, M. D. and Bacdayan, P. 1994. ‘Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study’. Organization Science. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 554-568. Glynn, M. A. 1996. ‘Innovative Genius: A Framework for Relating Individual and Organizational Intelligences to Innovation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1081-1111. Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. 1997. ‘Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm’. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 716-749. Knight, G. A. and Cavusgil, S. T. 2004. ‘Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm’. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 35, pp. 124-141. Moorman, C., and Miner, A. S. 1997. ‘The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity’. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 91-106. Schneier, C. E. 1994. Training and Development Sourcebook. Human Resource Development. Simon, H. A. 1991. ‘Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning’. Organization Science. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 125-134. Sparrow, P. 2002. ‘Strategy and Cognition: Understanding the Role of Management Knowledge Structures, Organizational Memory and Information Overload’. Creativity and Innovation Management. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 140-148. Spender, C. 1996. ‘Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory’. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 63-78. Stein, E. W., and Zwass, V. 1995. ‘Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems’. Information Systems Research. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 85-117. Tuomi, I. 1996. ‘The communicative view on organizational memory: power and ambiguity in knowledge creation systems’. System Science. Vol. 3, pp. 147-155. Walsh, J. P. 1991. ‘Organizational Memory’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 57-91. Walsh, J. P. 1995. ‘Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane’. Organization Science. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 280-321. Wexler, M. N. 2002.’ Organizational memory and intellectual capital’. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 393-414. Read More