The coordination of heterogeneous knowledge for innovation: The case of Technology Roadmapping (TRM)

Abstract

Innovation is an important aspect of economies and societies and is often considered the basis for competitive advantage of firms. With its focus on novelty and value-add, innovation is knowledge-intensive and relies on diverse, heterogeneous knowledge inputs. However, knowledge today is increasingly specialised and distributed within firms, industries and economies, and the effective combination of knowledge inputs poses an ongoing challenge. While the recombination of knowledge has been addressed in the literature, existing research has predominantly identified mechanisms and practices at collective levels of analysis, leaving the process itself something of a black-box. Furthermore, the role of individuals and how their actions and interactions aggregate to knowledge coordination is under researched. The research reported in this thesis investigated how heterogeneous knowledge is coordinated for innovation and the role of individuals and their interactions in this process. To most effectively answer the research questions, a qualitative research design was employed. It closely examined two enterprise technology roadmapping (TRM) projects that were initiated by the IT department of a large New Zealand organisation referred to pseudonymously as 'Alpha'. TRM is a workshop-based approach to innovation and strategic management and hence was appropriate to Alpha's organisational context. The analysis was guided by an analytical framework that is rooted in the so-called Coleman micro-macro model, which was used to deconstruct the essentially collective-level phenomenon of knowledge coordination in order to elicit the micro-level foundations. Knowledge heterogeneity was established by mapping out five different thought worlds, each displaying different content knowledge and principal tactics, which were rooted in values, attitudes and beliefs. These principal tactics formed a potential barrier to knowledge coordination, which consisted of two sub processes. The first process led to the development of collective knowledge artefacts, which once formalised became passive actors and helped translate semantic, interpretative barriers and navigate principal tactics. The second process led to decision-making based on an informed analysis once a common base was created. In both processes, the role of the knowledge facilitator was shown to be important. My findings enabled me to validate and extend the Coleman model and hence this research makes a valuable contribution to the microfoundations movement.