Why%20Do%20Some%20Ideas%20Get%20Blocked%20on%20the%20Way?:%20The%20Process%20of%20Internalizing%20User%20Knowledge%20into%20the%20Organization

1
Why Do Some Ideas Get Blocked on the Way? The
Process of Internalizing User Knowledge into the
Organization
Ayaka Oda School of Business, Yonsei
University E-mail ayakaoda0205_at_gmail.com
2
Introduction
Importance of User Innovation

• Importance of knowledge residing outside the
  firmCummings (2004) empirically tested and found
  that both intragroup and external knowledge
  sharing are important for performance in work
  groups.
• Many firms have engaged in collaborative
  innovation
• Some authors have also realized the importance of
  client co-production for sustainable competitive
  advantage for IT providers (Bettencourt et al.
  2002)
• Iteration If need information is sticky at the
  site of the potential product user, and if
  solution information is sticky at the site of the
  product developer, we may see a pattern in which
  problem-solving activity shuttles back and forth
  between these two sites (von Hippel, 1994)
• First-hand involvement with consumers stimulates
  imagination more effectively than abstract market
  data (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991).
• User as an important source of innovation (von
  Hippel, 1988)

3
Introduction
External Knowledge and Boundaries

• External knowledge is of no use unless an effort
  is made to internalize such knowledge.
• When we say knowledge, we are mainly concerned
  with explicit knowledge that is transferable and
  codifiable (Kogut and Zander 1992, Grant 1996).
  lt-gt Tacit knowledge
• Codifying existing knowledge into explicit forms
  and share it via the use of IT tolls will be
  severely limited in terms of the contribution to
  innovation (Swan at el. 1999)
• To create and transfer knowledge efficiently
  within an organizational context is the central
  competitive dimension (Kogut and Zander 1992)
• The degree of communication between the firm and
  its environment is affected by someone within
  the firm who is able to communicate both with the
  technical information sources outside the firm
  and with end users of information within the
  firm (Utterback 1971)
• Form of user knowledge Problem raised by users,
  WOM, feedbacks, suggestions, reviews
• The communication across boundaries is not smooth
  (Utterback 1971, Carlile 2002).

4
Introduction
Process Perspective of Innovation

• Three-step technical innovation process idea
  generation, problem solving, and implementation
  and diffusion (Utterback 1971).
• Innovation has mainly taken two perspectives
  structural and process.Swan at el. (1999)
  mention that innovation should be seen, not
  simply as a thing to be transferred from place
  to place, but as a complex, time phased,
  politically-charged design and decision process
  often involving multiple social groups within
  organizations.
• It is important to look at the process which
  produces innovation (Gruner and Homburg, 2000).

5
Objective

• To study the mechanism how the user knowledge
  gets internalized within the firm.Basic
  AssumptionUser knowledge does not get fully
  processed within the firm.
• Thus, we are also interested in the reasons why
  information gets blocked within the firm.
• Exploratory case study approach is taken due to
  the undeveloped topic. Field interviews,
  follow-up e-mails, and subsequent survey.

6
User Knowledge Internalization Framework
Internalization The process of knowledge being
received, assigned and accepted.

1. Reception The phase that the user knowledge
   reaches the organization through gatekeeper(s).
2. Assignment The gatekeeper attempts to bring the
   user knowledge by assigning it to employee(s) or
   unit(s) for the internal solution.
3. Acceptance The assignee accepts to take the user
   knowledge to be utilized or solved, depending on
   the characteristics of the user knowledge.

7
User Knowledge in the Form of Problem
Problem may not move on to the next stage due to
the blocking mechanism in the firm.

1. Problem Reception The user knowledge in the form
   of problem raised by users reaches the
   gatekeeper(s) of the firm.
2. Problem Assignment The gatekeeper attempts to
   bring the problem by assigning it to employee(s)
   or unit(s) for the problem to be solved in the
   firm.
3. Problem Acceptance The assignee accepts to solve
   the problem.

8
Model 1
Problem Representation
H1
User Value
Problem Reception
H2
Problem Weight
H3
Problem Recognition
H4
9
Model 1

• Gatekeepers Individuals in the communication
  network who are capable of understanding and
  translating contrasting coding schemes (Katz and
  Tushman 1980). Internal stars who have a
  substantial amount of extra- organizational
  communication (Tushman 1977).Past studies
  suggest that gatekeepers not only gathered and
  translated external information, but they also
  facilitated the external communication of their
  fellow team members (Utterback 1971, Tushman
  1977, Katz and Tushman 1980).
• Problem Representation The problem is stated in
  a way that is easy for the gatekeeper to
  understand. Syntactical approach of knowledge
  boundary suggests that a shared syntax or
  language for individuals to represent their
  knowledge may ease the difficulties faced with
  knowledge boundary (Carlile 2002). The greater
  the mismatch in language and cognitive
  orientation, the greater the difficulties of
  communicating (Katz and Tushman 1980).H1
  Problem representation has an impact on problem
  reception.

10
Model 1

• User Value The user who raised the problem is
  considered as an important user by the
  gatekeeper.Many marketing studies have looked at
  the importance of customer value. Butz and
  Goodstein (1996) define customer value as the
  emotional bond established between a customer and
  a producer after the customer has used a salient
  product or service produced by that supplier and
  found the product to provide an added value.
  They further mention that customer value often
  leads to customer satisfaction and trust between
  the two parties.Also empirical finding shows
  that closeness of relationship with customer
  leads to new product success (Gruner and Homburg,
  2000).H2 User importance is positively related
  to problem reception.

11
Model 1

• Problem Weight The number of users who proposed
  the problem.We argue that as more users raise
  the same problem, it is more likely that the
  problem will be received.H3 Problem Weight is
  positively related to problem reception.
• Problem Recognition The gatekeeper recognizes
  the problem raised as important. The problem
  aligns with the firm's overall goals/direction.
  (Strategic alignment)The richness of information
  will reduce equivocality, or ambiguity. Simply
  providing large amounts of data does not
  necessarily help information processing (Daft and
  Lengel, 1986).Firm Failure Managerial cognition
  may lead to organizational inertia (Tripsas and
  Gavetti 2000).H4 Problem recognition is
  positively related to problem reception.

12
Model 2
Problem Fitness to Categorization
H5
Problem Assignment
Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Problem
H6
H7
Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Organization
13
Model 2

• Problem Fitness to Categorization The problem
  fits to the filtering system that is used to
  categorize problems.H5 Problem fitness to
  categorization is positively related to problem
  assignment.
• Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Problem The
  knowledge of the internal organization that the
  gatekeeper has.When the problem is raised by the
  game user, there may be terminologies that are
  specifically used for the particular game. Thus,
  gatekeeper shall have sufficient knowledge about
  the game in order to assign the problem. Carlile
  (2002) mentioned how knowledge in new product
  development is localized around particular
  problems faced in a given practice.H6
  Gatekeeper's knowledge of the problem is
  positively related to problem assignment.
• Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Organization The
  knowledge that the gatekeeper has on the problem
  raised by the user.Semantic approach to
  knowledge boundary suggested by Carlile (2002)
  suggests that the differences and dependencies
  between functions or groups must be
  specified.H7 Gatekeeper's knowledge of the
  organization is positively related to problem
  assignment.

14
Model 3
Work Motivation
H8
Problem Acceptance
Capability Concern
H9
H10
Control Variables Recognition of Problem
Difficulty Recognition of Problem Importance Past
Experience Problem's Relevancy to the Target
Market Assignee's Problem-Solving Style
Responsibility
15
Model 3

• Work Motivation The assignee is motivated to put
  an effort into the work.We found out through
  interview that there is no such thing as economic
  incentives at Company 100 Inc.Intrinsic
  motivation involves people doing an activity
  because they find it interesting and derive
  spontaneous satisfaction from the activity
  itself. Extrinsic motivation, in contrast,
  requires an instrumentality between the activity
  and some separable consequences such as tangible
  or verbal rewards, so satisfaction comes not from
  the activity itself but rather from the extrinsic
  consequences to which the activity leads (Gagne
  and Deci 2005).H8 Work motivation is positively
  related to problem acceptance.

16
Model 3

• Capability Concern The assignee has capability
  (enough resources) to solve the problem.It seems
  reasonable that problems that involve low
  information transfer costs would tend to be
  selected preferentially (von Hippel 1994). H9
  Capability concern has an impact on problem
  acceptance.
• Responsibility The team unit that received the
  information about the problem actually finds it
  necessary to solve the problem. Each worker finds
  it responsible about the problem. (Free-rider
  problem)Social Loafing The reduction in
  motivation and effort when individuals work
  collectively compared with when they work
  individually or coactively (Karau and Williams
  1993).H10 Responsibility has an impact on
  problem acceptance.

17
Model 3- Control Variables

• Recognition of Problem Difficulty The assignee
  sees the problem as difficult to solve.If the
  assignee perceives the problem as difficult, it
  may have an impact on the problem acceptance.
• Recognition of Problem Importance The assignee
  recognizes the problem raised as important.If
  the assignee considers the problem to be
  critical, s/he may more likely accept the
  problem.
• Past Experience The assignee has an experience
  working with a similar problem in the past. When
  trying to solve a new problem, knowledge of the
  assignee, both tacit and explicit, becomes
  important.Know-how, or tacit knowledge, is
  defined as the accumulated practical skill or
  expertise that allows one to do something
  smoothly and efficiently (von Hippel 1988).
  Thus, we propose that past experience will have a
  positive impact on problem acceptance.

18
Model 3- Control Variables

• Problem's Relevancy to the Target Market The
  problem is related to major users.We are
  interested in the amount of resource the firm
  allocates to the problem. If the firm is too
  concerned for the major customers/ high-end
  market, it may be a problem because destructive
  innovation may come from the low-end market.
  Thus, we propose that the problem is more likely
  to be accepted when the problem is relevant to
  the target market.
• Assignee's Problem-Solving Style The assignee's
  tendency to whether s/he searches for new ideas
  (explorative) or puts emphasis on existing
  issues.Spatial myopia, temporal myopia, and
  failure myopia (Levinthal and March
  1993).Exploration vs exploitation (March
  1991).Assignees problem-solving characteristics
  may also have an impact on the problem
  acceptance.

19
Research Setting

• Interview - Company 100, Inc. Date 11/18/2011
  Time 1700-1800

The company was founded in May 2008, and the firm
plans, designs, and develops mobile technologies
and services. (Source http//www.company100.net/)
20
Research Setting

• Buddy Rush

Buddy Rush is a cross-platform, single-player,
action role-playing game (RPG) developed for
Facebook. Facebook data shows that there are
180,000 monthly active users. Buddy Rush BG
21
Research Setting
Game Development Team (Planning Team) 1
Buddy Rush Team at Company 100 Inc.
Users
Facebook (http//www.facebook.com/buddyrush) /
E-mails
QA Team 1
Service Team4, but 1-FB, 1-Cy
Cyworld ????(http//club.cyworld.com/sollmo)
Client Development Team 1
Sends out Daily Report via e-mail
Game Server-Platform Team 4
Note The number in brackets are the number of
people who are in charged.
22
Research Setting
http//www.facebook.com/buddyrush
23
Research Setting
http//club.cyworld.com/sollmo
24
Research Setting

• Currently Available DataDaily Reports
  10/13/2011 - 11/21/2011Original E-mails
  5/2/2011 11/22/2011
• On 11/16/2011, there were total of 59 e-mails
  coming from facebook to the company.
• However, the daily report for facebook showed the
  following

????-Facebook ?? / ?? Daily Report (11/16)??
?? ?????.?????.
We can see that the problem was not processed
from the problem reception stage to problem
assignment stage.
25
Data Collection

• Unit of Analysis Problem
• Survey Method will be used.Survey will be
  collected for each type of problems. The
  questions related to problem reception and
  assignment will be answered by the gatekeeper,
  and those related to problem acceptance will be
  answered by the assignee(s).
• 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
  agree to strongly disagree will be used except
  for questions that can be answered by Yes/No.

26
Measures Model 1
Internalization Phase Variable Definition Operationalization
Problem Reception Problem Representation The problem is stated in a way that is easy for the gatekeeper to understand. 1. Is the problem stated in a way that is easy for you to understand? 2. Is the problem written either in English or your mother tongue (Korean)?
Problem Reception User Value The user who raised the problem is considered as an important user by the gatekeeper. 1. How important is the user to the firm? 2. Has the user been raising important issues in the past?
Problem Reception Problem Weight The number of users who proposed the problem. How many users proposed the same problem?
Problem Reception Problem Recognition The gatekeeper recognizes the problem raised as important. The problem aligns with the firm's overall goals/direction. (Strategic alignment) 1. Do you consider that this problem is important? 2. Does solving the problem align with the firm's overall goal? 3. Is the problem related to payment issue? 4. Does the problem contain a large amount of information?
Problem Reception Did the problem pass this step? Did the problem pass this step? Was the problem listed on the daily report?
27
Measures Model 2
Internalization Phase Variable Definition Operationalization
Problem Assignment Problem Fitness to Categorization The problem fits to the filtering system that is used to categorize problems. Does the problem raised by the users fit the filtering system in the firm?
Problem Assignment Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Organization The knowledge of the internal organization that the gatekeeper has. Do you know who to assign the problem?
Problem Assignment Gatekeeper's Knowledge of the Problem The knowledge that the gatekeeper has on the problem raised by the user. Do you understand the problem well?
Problem Assignment Did the problem pass this step? Did the problem pass this step? Was there a specific person/team that the problem was assigned to?
28
Measures Model 3
Internalization Phase Variable Definition Operationalization
Problem Acceptance Work Motivation The assignee is motivated to put an effort into the work. 1. Do you feel that your reputation will go up in the firm after solving the problem? 2. Are you motivated to solve the problem? 3. Do you find the problem or suggestion interesting?
Problem Acceptance Capability Concern The assignee has capability (enough resources) to solve the problem. 1. Do you think the potential cost of solving this problem is high? 2. Do you think the process speed for this problem is going to be long? 3. Were you overloaded with other work when the problem was raised?
Problem Acceptance Responsibility The team unit that received the information about the problem actually finds it necessary to solve the problem. Each worker finds it responsible about the problem. (Free-rider problem) 1. Were you specifically assigned to the problem? 2. Do you feel responsible to solve the problem? 3. Do you feel that other employee(s) may solve the probloem?
Problem Acceptance Recognition of Problem Difficulty The assignee sees the problem as difficult to solve. Do you think the problem is difficult to solve?
Problem Acceptance Recognition of Problem Importance The assignee recognizes the problem raised as important. (core vs peripheral) 1. Do you think the problem is critical to solve? 2. Is the problem related to payment issue?
Problem Acceptance Past Experience The assignee has an experience working with a similar problem in the past. Do you have an experience working with a similar problem in the past?
Problem Acceptance Problem's Relevancy to the Target Market The problem is related to major users. Is the problem related to major users?
Problem Acceptance Assignee's Problem-Solving Style The assignee's tendency to whether s/he searches for new ideas (explorative) or puts emphasis on existing issues. 1. Do you tend to solve problems in a novel way? 2. Do you interact with other team memebers when facing dilemma?
Problem Acceptance Did the problem pass this step? Did the problem pass this step? Did the assignee accept to solve the problem?
29
Data Analysis Method

• Regression analysis will be used to test three of
  the hypothesized models.

30
Contribution

• Academic- This study is one of the first
  research to look at the micro mechanism of why
  external ideas (user knowledge) get blocked
  within the firm.- Also, this study has defined
  new roles of the gatekeepers.
• Managerial- As a start-up firm, Company 100 Inc.
  shall have a lot to learn from the research
  findings.- Managers in other firms may also
  consider the importance of user knowledge, and
  find out what are the blocking mechanisms that
  such knowledge gets blocked during the
  internalization process. - They may also realize
  the important role that gatekeepers play in
  internalizing user knowledge.

31
Limitations

• Since the study was done in a particular context,
  out studys results may not be generalized beyond
  the game industry. Further research should
  consider testing the model for other industries
  for replications.
• Number of gatekeepers may be related to the
  problem reception when applied to different
  settings.
• The internalization process may be more complex
  when the problem needs to be solved by more than
  one unit. (Leadership issue)

32
Future Research Direction

• In this study, we look at how the problem raised
  by users gets internalized in the firm. In other
  words, we look at how the problem is received,
  assigned, and accepted in the firm. However, we
  may also take a step further and look at whether
  the internalized problem actually gets solved.
  Also, another interesting phase to look at is
  whether the problem that was solved gets
  processed in the organization at a different
  level, both spatial and time wise.
• Also, in this study, we look at how external idea
  gets processed. We may also compare the process
  differences between external and internal idea.
  The person who raises idea may more likely have
  raised it assuming that s/he can solve it easily.

33
References

• Bettencourt, Lance A., Ostrom, Amy L., Brown,
  Stephen W., Roundtree, Robert I. (2002). Client
  Co-Production in Knowledge-Intensive Business
  Services. Article. California Management
  Review, 44(4), 100-128.
• Butz Jr, Howard E., Goodstein, Leonard D.
  (1996). Measuring Customer Value Gaining the
  Strategic Advantage. Article. Organizational
  Dynamics, 24(3), 63-77.
• Carlile, Paul R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of
  Knowledge and Boundaries Boundary Objects in New
  Product Development. Organization Science, 13(4),
  442-455.
• Clark, Kim (1991) Product Development Performance
• Fujimoto, Takahiro. (1991). Product Development
  Performance.
• Cohen, Wesley M., Levinthal, Daniel A. (1990).
  Absorptive Capacity A New Perspective on
  Learning and Innovation. Article.
  Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
  
• Daft, Richard L., Lengel, Robert H. (1986).
  Organizational Information Requirements, Media
  Richness and Structural Design. Management
  Science, 32(5), 554-571.
• Gruner, Kjell, Homburg, Christian. (2000). Does
  Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success?
  Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1-14.
• Tripsas, Mary, Gavetti, Giovanni. (2000).
  CAPABILITIES, COGNITION, AND INERTIA EVIDENCE
  FROM DIGITAL IMAGING. Article. Strategic
  Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1147.
• Tushman, Michael L. (1977). Special Boundary
  Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative
  Science Quarterly, 22(4), 587-605.
• Tushman, Michael L., Katz, Ralph. (1980).
  External Communication and Project Performance
  An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers.
  Management Science, 26(11), 1071-1085.
• Utterback, James M. (1971). The Process of
  Technological Innovation within the Firm. The
  Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 75-88.

34
THANK YOU!ANY QUESTIONS?