Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

27

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR HIGH-TECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mihir Parikh, Polytechnic University

Abstract With growing product and process complexity and rising pressure to create and sustain competitive advantage through rapid, continuous innovation, modern high-tech firms increasingly depend on the efficient management of their research and development (R&D) activities and the knowledge developed through these activities. This article presents a broad framework to manage R&D knowledge. It identifies major sources of R&D knowledge and problems in managing knowledge in high-tech R&D. It presents a knowledge management (KM) cycle to channel the knowledge accumulated from these sources and to lessen the associated problems. It defines the role of KM in the new product development (NPD) process as well as the implications for managers employing KM in R&D. Introduction Modern firms have increasingly focused on identifying, cultivating, and exploiting their core competence. This leads to industry fragmentation, short product life cycles, and increased competition, especially in high-tech industries. The computer industry is an excellent case-in-point. In the last 20 years, it has transformed from vertically integrated to horizontally fragmented. Each firm in the industry concentrates on only 1 or 2 segments, such as chip design, computer manufacturing, software development, and sales. Operating in this rapidly changing and uncertain business environment, hightech firms are under constant pressure to improve their R&D activities. Firms that focus on core competence through continuous innovation in products, services, strategy, processes, and structures succeed over the firms that do not. An error in understanding technology trends or a failure to innovate can significantly affect the firms profitability and competitive position. Lucent and Xerox provide two recent examples of these errors and their effects. Lucent misread technological trends and speculated on the wrong products. Xerox failed to convert its inventions (research) into innovations (new products and processes). In todays volatile competitive environment, the continuous exchange of internal and external knowledge throughout the firm is a necessity for survival and success. To focus on core competence and curtail costs, high-tech firms often outsource non-core activities, such as manufacturing or marketing (Pisano and Wheelwright, 1995). However, organizational processes and structures streamlined through outsourcing and a narrow focus have increased dependence on outsource and alliance partners. This may lead to loss of critical business knowledge. Every business activity generates information and knowledge about the outcomes, efficiency, and

effects of the activity. When the activity is performed internally, the firms management processes and systems (both formal and informal) can provide mechanisms to collect and disseminate this knowledge. When the activity is outsourced, knowledge permeation across firm boundaries becomes difficult due to differences in organizational cultures, processes, and systems. Unless the firm makes deliberate efforts, knowledge generated by a partner remains with the partner. That can impede future innovation and competition, especially in swiftly changing business conditions. Similar barriers to knowledge-flow emerge internally with growth; structures, processes, and systems become too rigid. For a high-tech firm to innovate rapidly, it is imperative to make deliberate efforts to manage R&D knowledge. This article proposes a knowledge management framework including explicit processes and mechanisms to capture, organize, and store knowledge generated by R&D activities and to diffuse the knowledge throughout the firm and partner firms to increase innovation and improve the firms competitiveness. The article provides a primer on KM, identifies various sources of R&D knowledge, and illustrates a KM cycle and supporting information technologies to manage knowledge. It elaborates on the role of KM in the NPD cycle and discusses managerial implications. Knowledge Management Primer Knowledge definitions differ depending on context and philosophical background. Polanyi (1962) suggested knowledge itself is different to different people. In this article, in the context of business activities such as R&D, knowledge is defined through its relationship with data and information. Data are raw facts collected from business transactions and activities, such as order quantity, unit price, invoice date, and employees identification

About the Author Mihir Parikh is an assistant professor at the Institute for Technology and Enterprise and the Department of Management of Polytechnic University in New York. He has consulted in information technology services, healthcare, financial services, and retail industries in the areas of information and knowledge management, strategic IT planning, and decision support. He received a B.E. (M.E.) from Gujarat University and an M.B.A. and a Ph.D. from Georgia State University. Contact: Mihir Parikh, Polytechnic University, Department of Management, Five Metrotech Center, LC 401, Brooklyn, NY 11201; phone: 718-260-3867; mparikh@poly.edu; http://go.to/Mihir

Refereed research manuscript. Accepted by Jonathan D. Linton and Steven T. Walsh, special issue editors.

28

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

number. Information is structured data. Data processed and viewed through a specific filter or model becomes information, for example, a graph showing revenue in chronological order or a table comparing product growth. Knowledge is an interpretation of information. When information is put in context, internalized, and evaluated based on a mental model or view of the world, knowledge is generated. Because individuals have different mental models, which are not usually shared, knowledge can vary for the same information. As knowledge differs from information, KM also differs from information management. KM requires viewing all organizational activities as knowledge generating, thus transforming the firm into a learning organization. In the context of R&D, we define KM as, An integrated process (not a tool nor a technique) to capture R&D knowledge hidden in various knowledge-based activities and resources, transform it into usable knowledge, and diffuse it throughout the R&D organization for the future use. The concept of KM evolved from research on organizational learning. All organizations learn unconsciously through chance or consciously through deliberate action (Kim, 1993). Researchers have discussed organizational learning and its relationship with individual learning in terms of single-loop and double-loop learning (Kim, 1993). These loops suggest that organizations are not simply collections of individuals, but that they have their own mental models residing in organizational memory, such as databases, culture, relationships, standard operating procedures, and organizational structure. Robey, Boudreau, and Rose (2000) developed five key characteristics that define organizational learning. For a KM initiative to be successful in facilitating organizational learning, it should especially focus on these characteristics. Organizational learning takes place at the organizational level, which is different from individual, group, and social levels. KM should address organizational level issues such as creating new or revising old processes to generate knowledge, developing incentives to promote knowledge sharing, and redefining organizational structure to support KM. Organizational learning is a process, not a structure. KM should be thoroughly integrated with business processes and not designed as a specialized tool, technology, or structure. Organizational learning is both intentional and unintentional. While unintentional learning can neither be explicitly designed nor prevented, KM should try to support and maximize intentional learning. Organizational learning requires organizational memory repositories and mental models. KM should utilize both formal organizational memory (such as databases, repositories, and networks) and informal organizational memory (such as culture and personal relationships) to store knowledge. Organizational learning guides organizational action. KM should provide relevant knowledge to help knowledge workers make appropriate decisions to determine organizational actions. Recently, researchers have developed a strong conceptual foundation for KM (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport, DeLong and Beers, 1998; Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). Now, KM frameworks need development and use specific to various business activities. Since the 1960s, data management

frameworks and technologies have been employed to manage data. Information systems, tools, and techniques have been used since the late 1970s to enhance information management. Significant progress has been achieved in both high-level data and information management in major business activities. However, we have just begun the process of explicitly managing knowledge. With advances in information technologies and the emergence of KM-specific technologies, we are getting closer to making KM an integral part of organizations. Developing welldesigned and comprehensive frameworks, tools, and techniques can further this process. Knowledge and R&D: A Symbiotic Relationship Peter Drucker (1993) observed, Most innovations, especially the successful ones, result from a conscious, purposeful search for innovation opportunities. Markides (1997) further noted, Strategic innovations occur when a firm identifies and decides to fill the gaps in the industry positioning map (new customer segments; new customer needs; or new ways to produce, deliver, or distribute) and these gaps grow to become the new mass market. Thus, innovations require conscious effort on the part of the firm. They must identify the gaps, search for new opportunities, continuously exchange information and knowledge, build on current knowledge bases, synthesize external knowledge with internal knowledge, and become a learning organization. While intuition plays a critical role in the early phase of innovation, efficient knowledge exchange among functions internal and external to the firm is essential for success (Moenaert, Deschoolmeester, de Meyer, and Souder, 1992). Koivuniemi, Piippo, and Tuominen (2000) identified a broad set of purposes for the product development process, including: To help carry out the right things in the right time with the right resources; to promote the controllability, systematics, and risk management; to coordinate the tasks of different functions and departments; to promote learning and continuous improvement; and to take the entirety into account in single decisions. To accomplish these purposes, the right knowledge must be made available to the right person at the right time. Roussel, Saad, and Erickson (1995) suggested that the only real product of R&D was knowledge. Pegels and Thirumurthy (1996) found that development of technological strength and accumulation of knowledge resulting from R&D efforts determined firm performance in high-tech industries. Thus, innovation-oriented R&D processes are knowledgeintensive that not only use existing knowledge, but also create new knowledge, which provides competitive advantages to the firm. Innovations in product technologies must coincide with innovations in related process technologies. If some processes are outsourced and the firm does not share product innovation knowledge with its partner, lack of knowledge may inhibit production, reduce quality, cause low yield, delay market entry, or create unsuccessful product. Pisano and Wheelwright (1995) found that with high-tech firms that outsource, the process was often costly and potentially dangerous to the competitive health of the firm. Regular communication about product and process innovations between partner firms can reduce the risks associated with outsourcing and promote innovations. Knowledge critical for R&D resides in many sources. Exhibit

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

29

Exhibit 1. Sources of R&D knowledge

Internal Tacit Firm experiences Insights/intuitions Educational backgrounds Cultural backgrounds Intraorganizational relationships Unwritten rules of thumb History and stories Master technicians Experts/researchers Organizational databases Information systems File systems Standard operating procedures Discussion minutes/trails Designs and prototypes Product manuals Own patents

External Industry experts/consultants Industry best practices Interorganizational relationships Consumers Academic researchers Other research institutes

Explicit

Trade publications External databases Benchmarking matrices Others patents Competitors products and manuals Academic research articles Specifications and design manuals Standards Regulatory guidelines

1 identifies and categorizes major sources on two dimensions internal versus external and tacit versus explicit. Internal sources are inside the firm and generally controlled by the firm. Knowledge from internal sources is mostly proprietary in nature and should be protected. External sources are outside the firm and controlled by other entities, such as competitors, alliance partners, customers, and government agencies. Knowledge from external sources can be in the public domain and therefore available to all. Knowledge is often classified as tacit or explicit (Polanyi, 1962; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Spender, 1996). Tacit knowledge is context-specific, personal, hard to formalize, difficult to communicate, and stored in peoples minds. Explicit knowledge is externalized, codified, structured, relatively easy to communicate, and stored in databases. Some researchers, rather than drawing a hard line between the two types of knowledge, suggest that tacit and explicit dimensions are at opposite ends of a spectrum and that most knowledge falls in between (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). Tacit components can be externalized and codified to create explicit knowledge, although components known as insights, intuitions, and the gut feeling cannot be externalized, making them difficult to share (Spender, 1996; Leonard and Sensiper, 1998). For R&D to succeed, knowledge should be collected from all critical sources. However, the right combination depends on the project. The type (product versus process), characteristics (complexity, innovativeness, application, etc.), and phase (idea generation, prototype development, implementation, etc.) of an R&D project affect the knowledge collected (Kerssens-Van Drongelen, de Weerd-Nederhof, and Fisscher, 1996). The ability to manage R&D knowledge depends highly on the type of knowledge source. Internal-explicit knowledge can be easier to manage, whereas external-tacit knowledge can be more difficult to managebecause the former is already externalized and

generally within the control of the firm, whereas the latter is not externalized and generally outside the control of the firm (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Albors, 2000). When the right combination requires a lot of external and tacit knowledge, as in the case of high-tech R&D, the complexity and uncertainty of a project can increase significantly. Knowledge Management Cycle As noted previously, KM is a process, not a tool or a technology. It is an expanding spiral as more and more knowledge is managed over time (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This continuous process, the KM cycle, can be divided into four sequential and often overlapping phases (Exhibit 2): knowledge acquisition, knowledge organization, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge application. Each phase plays a specific role and incorporates relevant information technologies as support. Information technologies, such as computer-aided design, computer-assisted manufacturing, and product and work process simulations, have been used in R&D for a long time. However, their use has been limited to automating existing engineering tasks (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). To facilitate KM in R&D, we need to expand their use and involve other information technologies. Knowledge Acquisition. This phase deals with finding and acquiring knowledge in knowledge-based resources. The firm should make conscious efforts to sense, search, and define relevant knowledge and its sources. Because not all knowledge is relevant, identifying R&D relevant knowledge is the critical first step. The reasonable objective should be to identify knowledge relevant for current and predictable future needs. The next step is finding ways to access or extract knowledge. The firm may have to develop special protocols, processes, and systems to acquire knowledge. Several information technologies can be employed.

30

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

Exhibit 2. KM cycle and supporting IT

Knowledge application Supporting IT Decision support systems Data mining software Case-based reasoning Work flow systems

Knowledge acquisition Supporting IT Pull technology Search agents Embedded scanners Groupware

Knowledge management cycle Knowledge dissemination Knowledge organization Supporting IT Intra -extra networks Push technology Security/firewall Customizing/publishing agents Supporting IT Data warehousing/DBMS Data repositories/compression Filtering/structuring agents Knowledge maps and links

be used to disseminate tacit and explicit knowledge (Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney, 1999). Articulating a common language and developing tools and means to transfer knowledge are also critical for disseminating knowledge (Kerssens-Van Drongelen et al., 1996). Intranets and extranets provide a platform. User profiles can be employed to personalize presentation and access to knowledge. Push technology can be used to automatically update and alert users when a change occurs. Security protocols, encryption technologies, and firewalls can protect access to and transfer of proprietary R&D knowledge, a critical asset to maintain competitiveness. The firm must protect itself from leaks and competitive intelligence. With the growth of network technologies and integration of enterprise systems with the Internet, it has become easier for competitors and others to get classified information legally and illegally. Knowledge Application. This phase involves applying knowledge to a new scenario and learning from it. The applicability of knowledge should be evaluated in terms of its relevance, novelty, comprehensibility, life, and credibility before applying it (Moenaert et al., 1992). Perceptions about the quality of the source and interfunctional climate can play a key role (Moenaert et al., 1992). Learning from a knowledge application involves analysis and critical evaluation. Such evaluations lead to managerial learning and learning about the R&D process as a whole (Kerssens-Van Drongelen et al., 1996; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). This learning is difficult and often neglected by firms, but it is very important to maintain the wellspring of knowledge. Decision support systems with multidimensional databases, analytical models, and expert systems modules can be very useful in applying knowledge and post-application analysis. Simulation and case-based reasoning tools can also help evaluate a knowledge application on an experimental basis and reduce the risk of misapplications. Data mining tools can also help analyze applications, find previously unknown patterns, and generate new knowledge for future use. Knowledge Management and New Product Development High-tech industries by definition deal with emerging, high-risk, while often unproven, products and technologies. A competitive advantage lies is constantly creating new products that define the standards in fast-growing application areas. Tightly integrated firms innovate rapidly to advance their standards, develop a lockin effect, or create a dominant design, thus, the higher likelihood of their survival and success in the constantly changing environment of high-tech (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996; Shapiro and Varian, 1998; Anderson and Tushman, 1990). IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco are examples of firms that created dominant designs. A consortium of companies tightly integrated through a common platform for information and knowledge transfer, may be able to produce the same effects of a tightly integrated company. KM can help develop such a platform to enhance and expand innovation process and assist in developing open standards. In the early years of the personal computer industry, IBMs dominance over Apple was largely due to IBMs acceptance of open PC architecture, based on open standards and components

Pull technologies such as the Internet can provide access to a vast amount of information and knowledge on the global scale, specifically on competing products and services, patents, consumer preferences, technological, and other trends. Search and intelligent agent technologies can be employed to mine and integrate Internet-based and other resources. Groupware technologies can be used to extract and exchange knowledge stored in peoples minds. Scanners, imaging systems, documentware, digital voice, and video technologies can automate acquisition of both tacit and explicit knowledge. Knowledge Organization. This phase involves refining, organizing, and storing the knowledge collected. Knowledge is first filtered to identify and cross-list the dimensions that are useful for different R&D projects. Such codification of knowledge can increase the knowledge exchange assisting autonomous and sometimes systemic innovations (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996). To assist future interpretations, useful contextual information is added. Then, knowledge is structured with indices, links, and catalogs for storage. Knowledge maps and bibliometric methods can be useful in structuring and monitoring knowledge electronically. Database management and data warehousing technologies can provide the backbone. Filtering and structuring agents can be used to develop knowledge architecture and maps. Using these technologies, an experience warehouse can be developed to retain the experience and know-how of R&D engineers and designers. Knowledge Dissemination. This phase involves who gets what knowledge (personalization) and how (distribution). Not all collected information and knowledge is useful to everybody. Irrelevance can confuse the interpretation and application of relevant knowledge. To avoid overload, knowledge must be personalized and distributed to meet the specific needs of users. Personalization and distribution may take place within a project, between projects, between functional areas, and across organizational boundaries. A knowledge-based personalization approach and an information-based codification approach should

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

31

Exhibit 3. NPD process and KM

Reusability analysis

Concept generation

Portfolio management

knowledge can reduce the uncertainty and risks involved with selecting the wrong product and portfolio mismatch (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). This becomes even more important when the R&D functions of multiple organizations jointly develop a producta practice common in high-tech R&D (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996). KM can help collect knowledge from multiple areas and integrate it with relevant knowledge from both internal and external sources. Specifications and Prototype Development. In this phase, specifications are developed to convert the concept into a product. Several prototypes are developed to detect glitches and incompatibilities. The lack of critical knowledge can prove costly for the firm in later stages and in long-term competitiveness. KM assists in articulating product features, shape, dimensions, technologies, and in complementary products. KM can help identify or develop new manufacturing processes for effective and efficient production. It can also provide a platform to analyze how the new product will fit with other products. After the new product is designed, manufacturing, personnel, and other resources are allocated for mass production. KM can assist in resource allocation by providing critical knowledge for making decisions related to raw materials, procurement, logistics, space allocation, manufacturing tools and machines set-ups, skilled labor acquisition, etc. Commercialization. In this stage, production schedules are developed and implemented to commercialize and launch the new product. KM can provide a platform for continuous knowledge exchange among R&D, production, and marketing. KM can help refine manufacturing processes to make them more effective and efficient. It can assist in fine-tuning product features to improve attractiveness and reduce costs. It can help modify specifications without compromising quality or compatibility and develop marketing strategies. It can communicate knowledge across the boundaries of partner firms. This will advance product and process innovations as well as achieve other benefits, such as increasing new product introductions, increasing lead time over competitors, accelerating production ramp-up for successful products, continuing enhancement of product functionality, and quickly fixing pre-launch problems. Once the product is launched, several important decisions related to rollout have to be made. While R&D plays a minor role in this phase, the availability of detailed information and knowledge about the product can critically affect success. KM can help with the product price, placement, target market, packing, transportation, warehouse storage, etc. Post-launch Enhancements. In this stage, problems not found during testing are detected from customer feedback, then fixed in subsequent releases or batches. Major problems often lead to redesign or development of a new version of the product. Continuous product enhancements and versioning are common in high-tech industries (Shapiro and Varian, 1998). KM can assist with analyzing reactions of customers, competitors, complementary industry players, and other influencing forces, such as regulatory agencies and standard-making organizations. KM can also assist in performing a reusability analysis and

Post-launch enhancements & versioning

Knowledge management

Specifications & prototype development

Roll-out management

Commercialization & launch

Resource planning

that were widely available (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996). While IBM might not have had an explicitly named KM initiative in place, it did make explicit efforts to integrate with and exchange knowledge among various vendors of PC components. Thus, the impact of KM can be felt beyond organizational boundaries and even shape industry dynamics. The NPD process consists of parallel and sequential activities, which can be categorized in four stages (Exhibit 3): (1) concept generation, (2) specifications and prototype development, (3) commercialization and launch, and (4) post-launch enhancements. In between these stages, several planning and organizational issues must be resolved to facilitate successful transitions from one stage to the next and create value through rapid innovation. KM can play an important role in NPD, improving its efficiency and effectiveness as demonstrated with other business processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Davenport et al., 1998). Concept Generation. In this creative stage in the NPD process, preliminary ideas are generated. Ideas spawn from many sources, including individual imaginations, syntactic integration of unrelated innovations, or focus group deliberations. These ideas are then conceptualized by further clarifying, refining, and combining them through discussion and analysis. KM can provide a platform for conceptualizing ideas and discussing their feasibility by including other parts of the organization in the process that may have tried previously to implement similar ideas. KM can also help to identify and address gaps in the firms core technology area and explore emerging areas. This can make the firm less vulnerable to new entrants. It also increases its ability to adapt to changing situations (Markides, 1997). At this stage, most tasks are limited to the R&D organization. Once a concept is clear, whether or not to go forward has to be considered. Does the concept fit in with the portfolio of current products and future strategy? Only concepts that align with product strategy and have significant effect on the firms competitiveness should be pursued. The firm cannot and should not try to develop a product from every concept. Relevant

32

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

preparing reports on: Identifying how well new features worked in the new product and with other products; which features were accepted by users; and which features need improvements. Explaining the use of new technologies, tools, and techniques; their results; and other possible areas of application. Analyzing materials used in the new product; their superiority or inferiority; their implications on manufacturing processes; and their impact on overall product characteristics (cost, life-span, flexibility, etc.). Discussing advantages and disadvantages of implementation plans; and concerns in instituting them. Articulating the issues faced by the R&D team at each stage of the innovation process and ways to tackle them. Managerial Implications and Concluding Remarks Senge (1994) suggested that the only sustainable competitive advantage is the firms ability to learn, remember, and change. KM can be instrumental in accomplishing this objective for hightech R&D organizations. It can support both individual and organizational learning from past successes and failures while guiding future actions and changes. However, it requires taking explicit initiatives. Few R&D organizations have the know-how and ability to develop all relevant technologies internally. Most take a mixture of approaches, including purchasing, licensing, partnering, and outsourcing, to build a portfolio of technologies (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996). Building such a portfolio requires aligning and coordinating R&D activities with strategic technology partners. It requires sharing and applying information and knowledge about products, markets, and technologies to develop new products, services, processes, and structures. KM can be very useful in the activities of alliance-intensive high-tech industries. While KM can provide many benefits to R&D teams, managers implementing KM should also be aware of other important implications. KM is a complex process. Identifying usable knowledge can be very difficult. Often it requires sifting through vast knowledge bases of reusable, single-use, and nonrelevant knowledge. The focus should be not on the discovery of truth, but on effective actions and improved performance through knowledge recycling. KM is not a stand-alone process. It has to be embedded throughout all business processes. KM has to become a part of the corporate culture. Firm strategies, specifically R&D strategies, should drive the integration for a KM initiative to succeed. KM is difficult. As R&D strategies, policies, and processes integrated intricately with KM, they must be clearly defined and understood by R&D staff to achieve positive results. Additionally, any inadvertent changes can adversely affect KM through knowledge loss or reducing knowledge exchange (Kerssens-Van Drongelen et al., 1996). Design R&D processes to promote knowledge building and exchange. Develop corporate culture conducive to collaboration and knowledge leadership creation. A large component of KM is the do-it-yourself activity of finding, sorting, disseminating, and applying knowledge. It requires highly inspired knowledge workers eager to teach and learn. Firms may need to change business processes, work patterns, structure, and performance evaluation in support.

Employees invariably resist change. Developing mechanisms to reduce resistance and providing incentives may increase employee acceptance. Augmenting motivation through direct participation and communication can also reduce resistance (Albors, 2000). Developing special roles, such as gatekeepers and champions, may also increase the adoption of KM. Information technologies provide a critical platform for KM. Therefore, in many organizations, the information technology group drives KM (Davenport et al., 1998). Sometimes, this can lead to a technology takeover, where a KM initiative is driven by technologies, rather than by the knowledge needs of the firm. Emerging, but unstable and unproven, information technologies are often inappropriately employed because they are loved by the firms techno-czars. Technologies employed for KM should be enabling and not inhibiting the initiative. Their role should be supporting networked communities rather than driving them. In addition, informal communication lines should be employed to provide assistance for problems requiring extensive use of tacit knowledge (Albors, 2000). R&D in high-tech industries is global. Developing a KM system for multinational R&D organizations is critical but complicated given differences in cultures, processes, structures, and the levels of information technology used throughout the world. Another complicating factor is that, unlike accounting, knowledge lacks a common currency or unit of measure. Integrating knowledge inside and outside the firm can be challenging. However, designing and implementing a KM initiative in a global R&D environment is not impossible. The software industry has been successful with it to some extent. Software applications for many U.S. firms are developed as far away as India, Ireland, and Korea. Most software developers in these countries have neither met the users of the application to understand their needs nor been exposed to U.S. business practices. Still, through a sophisticated communication network to exchange and manage information and knowledge, developers have been very successful with applications that are produced rapidly and that provide excellent quality and low cost. A potential pitfall is being blindsided by a KM initiative that ignores changes brought by disruptive technologies. Companies fail because they focus on only incremental innovation through sustaining technologies while ignoring radical innovations created by disruptive technologies (Christensen, 1997). While disruptive changes may come from any direction, quick recognition and response preparation require constant knowledge exchange between the firm and its environment. A KM initiative should support this process. Old knowledge should not constrain new learning and action. The framework proposed and discussed in this article provides a starting point for researchers and practitioners to employ KM initiatives in high-tech R&D organizations. While it provides a broad structure to integrate KM into R&D activities in high-tech industries, to successfully implement KM, customized strategies and elaborate plans should be developed. References Albors, Jose, Knowledge Creation and Management in an SME Environment: A Practical Case, The Proceedings of R&D Management Conference (July 2000), pp. 16. Anderson, Philip, and Michael L. Tushman, Technological

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001

33

Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change, Administrative Science Quarterly, 3 5 :4 (December 1990), pp. 604633. Chesbrough, Henry W., and David J. Teece, When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation, Harvard Business Review , 74 :1 (January-February 1996), pp. 6573. Christensen, Clayton M., The Innovators Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press (1997). Davenport, Thomas H., David W. DeLong, and Michael C. Beers, Successful Knowledge Management Projects, Sloan Management Review, 39 :2 (Winter 1998), pp. 4357. Drucker, Peter, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles , Harper Business (1993), pp. 149157. Hansen, Morten T., Nitin Nohria, and Thomas Tierney, Whats 1996), pp. 246249. Kerssens-Van Drongelen, Inge C., Petra C. de Weerd-Nederhof, and Olaf A. M. Fisscher, Describing the Issues of Knowledge Management in R&D: Towards a Communication and Analysis Tool, R&D Management , 26 :3 (July 1996), pp. 213230. Kim, Daniel H., The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning, Sloan Management Review, 35 :1 (Fall 1993), pp. 3750. Koivuniemi, Jouni, Petteri Piippo, and Markku Tuominen, The Purpose of Product Development Process, The Proceedings of R&D Management Conference (July 2000), pp. 219232. Leonard, Dorothy, and Sylvia Sensiper, The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation, California Management Review , 4 0 :3 (Spring 1998), pp. 112132. Markides, Constantinos, Strategic Innovation, Sloan Management Review , 39 :3 (Spring 1997), pp. 915. Moenaert, Rudy K., Dirk Deschoolmeester, Arnoud de Meyer, and William E. Souder, Information Styles of Marketing

and R&D Personnel during Technological Product Innovation Projects, R&D Management, 22 :1 (January 1992), pp. 2139. Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge Creating Company , Oxford University Press (1995). Pegels, C. Carl, and M. V. Thirumurthy, The Impact of Technology Strategy on Firm Performance, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43 :3 (August 1996), pp. 246249. Pisano, Gary P., and Steven C. Wheelwright, The New Logic of High-Tech R&D, Harvard Business Review , 73 :5 (September-October 1995), pp. 93105. Polanyi, Michael, The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul (1966). Robey, Daniel, Marie-Claude Boudreau, and Gregory M. Rose, Information Technology and Organizational Learning: A Review and Assessment of Research, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 10 :2 (April 2000), pp. 125155. Roussel, Philip A., Kamal N. Saad, and Tamara J. Erickson, Third Generation R&D: Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy , Harvard Business School Press (1995). Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday (1994). Shapiro, Carl, and Hal R. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy , Harvard Business School Press (1998). Spender, J. C., Competitive Advantage from Tacit Knowledge? Unpacking the Concept and its Strategic Implications, Bertrand Moingeon and Amy Edmondson, eds., Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage, Sage Publications (1996), pp. 5673. Wheelwright, Steven C., and Kim B. Clark, Revolutionizing Product Development , Free Press (1992).

34

Engineering Management Journal

Vol. 13 No. 3

September 2001