Social capital as condition for knowledge productivity and sustainable innovation: An empirical study in business-education networks in health care

domain

Corry Ehlen, Msc. Open University of the Netherlands, Phd. Student Dr. Uta Roentgen, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands Dr. Marcel van der Klink, Open University of the Netherlands , Associate professor Prof. Henny.P.A. Boshuizen , Open University of the Netherlands, Professor

Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen P.o.box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands corry.ehlen@gmail.com
"

Stream 10 Innovation, sustainability and HRD Refereed Full Paper

Introduction
!" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Organisations depend for their innovations heavily on their capability to be knowledge productive. In this paper we describe an empirical study on processes of knowledge productivity. A qualitative research was carried out, using semi-structured interviews among 20 participants. The case involves a large scale innovation project in educational and health care domain. Findings indicate that social capital in innovation groups promotes knowledge productivity in a sustainable way. Outcomes of the project involved new products but above all the project resulted into an increase in participants ability to innovate. Key words: social capital, knowledge productivity, sustainable organizational innovation, professional learning Previous studies on social capital revealed that this concept appears to be a dynamic, multifaceted, cyclic process of interdependent dimensions, in particular the structural, relational, cognitive and action dimension. Together these four dimensions promote innovation processes and their outcomes. The three first dimensions of social capital are rooted in empirical evidence, collected in several domains ((Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) but the action dimension hardly has been included in empirical studies (see Ehlen, 2012). It is especially Kessels concept of knowledge productivity that operationalises the action dimension within innovation processes. He proposes the term knowledge productivity and applies it to learning processes and design activities necessary to generate improvements and innovations. Studies of De Jong, Stam, and Verdonschot (De Jong, 2010; Stam, 2007; Verdonschot, 2009) explored this term in the frame of theoretical and empirical studies. They demonstrated the positive relation between an environment with rich social capital and outcomes of knowledge productivity. These outcomes do not only refer to tangible artefacts but also to the knowledge and skills, acquired by project members during the course of the innovation process. The notion that innovation leads to new products, knowledge and skills that are not only beneficial for organisations but preferably also have meaning for the involved individuals is rooted in the work of Kessels (2001) as well. This present study adopts the term knowledge productivity to describe the action dimension of social capital. The survey investigates processes of improvement and innovation in a large scale three-year project. The project, set up within the health care domain, brought together different types of organisations, including vocational education institutes, universities and governmental organisations. The survey concludes with the findings and the conclusions and discusses the implications for further research and practice.

4" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework briefly addresses the main concepts used in our study such as social capital, knowledge productivity, sustainable innovation and their interrelatedness. Social capital Over the past 20 years substantial attention has been devoted to social capital theory, since it contributes significantly to our understanding of the determinants of success of innovations in various sectors and countries ((Field, 2005; Tsai, 2001). The appeal of the concept stems from its intriguing integration of social connections with productive value, such as the production of new knowledge or knowledge products. Social capital is defined as the network of social relations, based on shared norms and values, trust and integrity, by which material and knowledge resources become available, that are valuable for the action and the members in the network. Scholars referred to include Bourdieu, Coleman, Kessels and Poell and Nahapiet and Ghoshal. The model, referred to in this study, was created by Nahapiet& Ghoshal and describes processes of knowledge creation by social capital(1998). It has been mostly applied during the last decade. Their three-dimensional model of social capital in creation new knowledge, schedules and analyses the impact of three dimensions, - structural, relational, cognitive -, on processes of knowledge creation in the sense of collective actions of a certain quality which finally create the new knowledge value. The key idea underpinning this model is that social capital evolves and can be described as a dynamic process. In a previous study about social capital and innovation we added a fourth dimension to the model of Nahapiet &Ghoshal, which we called the active dimension. The content of this dimension is dependent of the targets the participants of the network structure wish to achieve. Within the frame of innovation projects these actions will be knowledge productive actions. The first dimension indicates the group or network as foundation. In this group or network standards and affections arise (second dimension) that enhance willingness to transfer resources (third dimension) to create new value (fourth dimension). Although the network is a necessary condition for the rise of capital, it is not a sufficient one. The affectivenormative aspect of the network is therefore essential. If these two first conditions are met and valuable resources become available to exchange, new capital can be created. In this respect there is a resemblance between the three-dimensional model of social capital in creating new knowledge, elaborated by Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998), and the concept corporate curriculum of Kessels (1996). Kessels developed the concept corporate curriculum as a learning plan for an organization to develop a supportive working environment and competencies for professionals to become knowledge productive (J. Kessels, 1996; J. W. M. Kessels, Lakerveld, & Van den Berg, 1998). The learning functions include: 1.Subject matter expertise; 2.Problem solving skills; 3.Reflective skills and meta-cognitions; 4.Communication skills; 5.Self regulation skills; 6.Peace and stability; 7.Creative turmoil. Some of these functions are similar with the three dimensions of social capital, as defined by
5" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998): the structural, relational and cognitive dimension. For instance, the learning functions one, two and three can be compared with the cognitive dimension, function four and five can be compared with the relational dimension, and function four is pointing to the structural dimension of social capital. The present study will focus on the contribution of social capital to knowledge productivity and is strongly rooted in a previous empirical study focusing on the power of social capital for organisational innovation (Ehlen, van der Klink, Boshuizen, 2012). Innovation processes proved to be to a large degree dependent on the four dimensions of social capital. The study revealed the influence of the structural, relational and cognitive dimension, but also highlighted the need to further explore the fourth action dimension. Knowledge productivity Knowledge development and innovation are keywords in almost every debate about, economic development, education and labor market, and talent development. In order to achieve long term success in todays knowledge economy, an organization needs to continuously improve their performance and regularly radically innovate its products, services and work processes (Drucker,1993; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Such knowledge oriented activities share the characteristics of learning processes. Without learning, knowledge workers cannot get their job done and add value (Kessels, 2001).Innovating products and services presupposes sharing knowledge in order to create something news. The capacity to learn and to share knowledge and to be innovative is not only becoming a critical economic factor but is also important for personal employability. The work environment becomes an important source for personal and professional development. Having access to meaningful work means having access to powerful learning environments and to remain valuable and productive for society. A useful concept in which the notions of learning and innovation blend, is the concept of knowledge productivity. Kessels (1995, 2001b) described this concept as the process by which new knowledge is created in order to contribute to innovation within the workplace. In defining knowledge productivity Kessels builds on the work of scholars such as Drucker (1993) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). These learning processes are equally valuable for the organization and for the individual. Being knowledge productive can be seen as acquiring new skills and attitudes as part of a personal competence. The knowledge productivity concept is building on the conviction that knowledge is a competence, linked to persons. As Malhotra states: knowledge needs to be understood as the potential for action that doesnt only depend upon the stored information but also on the person interacting with it(Malhotra, 2000, p. 249). The knowledge productivity concept distinguishes not only the creation of knowledge products but also the creation of personal capacities. From the perspective of HRD this is an interesting concept. Knowledge productivity refers to the competence of individuals and groups to gradually improve and radically innovate operating procedures, products and services. This process entails tracing relevant information, using this information to develop new abilities and applying these abilities to improvement and innovation. The output of knowledge productivity is twofold: for the organisation gradual improvement and radical innovations, for the professional increased ability to innovate (Kessels, 2001b).

6" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

This definition of knowledge productivity refers to a series of learning processes that take place within organizations. Empirical studies of De Jong ( 2010) and Verdonschot (2009) showed the empirical value of this concept. A specific innovation, improvement or invention may be of great economic value, but the true value lies in the ability to generate such improvements and innovations rather than in the actual innovation (Kessels, 2001). This ability of professionals to innovate is the connection with sustainable innovation. Sustainable innovation Innovation can be a gradual improvement or a radical innovation (Walz and Bertels,1995). Gradual improvement elaborates on what is already present and results into additional refinement and specialisation. Radical innovation is based on breaking with the past and creating new opportunities by deviating from tradition. Therefore, the results of knowledge productivity will be measured in terms of improvement and/or innovation of products, services and processes. The traditional view of innovation as a linear process has been challenged by theories that consider innovation as a complex process, involving many actors, their relationships and the social and economic context in which they are embedded (Westley, 2010). Such innovations tend to be more sustainable, as the professionals integrate the new knowledge and skills to competences as a resource for future action (Verdonschot, 2009). It is therefore important to discern sustainable innovation in outcomes for the organization and in personal outcomes, i.e. knowledge and skills. Results of former empirical studies (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; De Jong, 2010; Verdonschot, 2009) unravelled the effect of social capital on the innovation processes and demonstrated innovation as interdependent and dynamic process of learning and designing.

Research Aims and Questions This study entails an examination of the process and outcomes of a large-scale innovation project and the conditions promoting or inhibiting this innovation. The emphasis is laid on the process of knowledge productivity as outlined in the previous section. The unit of analysis is the learning and designing process in the innovation groups. We have connected these process with the dimensions of social capital that influence this knowledge productivity. Consequently, the key questions of this research include: 1. Which learning and designing processes in innovation groups lead to sustainable improvement or innovation of the organisation? 2. Which learning and designing processes lead to sustainable knowledge-productive capabilities of the professionals? 3. Which dimensions of social capital stimulate these processes of knowledge productivity? 4. Which other conditions stimulate knowledge productivity and support social capital?

7" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Research framework The results of an earlier longitudinal study (Ehlen, 2012) demonstrated the model of social capital to be an effective framework for analysing and guiding the process of innovation. It also demonstrated that the four dimensions of social capital are constantly interacting and can be seen as interdependent factors. This follow-up study further elaborates on this framework and focuses on the process of knowledge productivity (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The relations between social capital, knowledge productivity and sustainable innovation SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION improvements and innovations ability to innovate

PROCESS OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTIVITY

dimensions of SOCIAL CAPITAL

structural relational

"

cognitive "

active

"

FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS AND INTERVENTIONS "

Explanation: Favourable conditions and interventions: are accidental or consciously created circumstances and actions that increase the social capital of the innovation group. Social capital is defined in four dimensions: structural, relational, cognitive and action: The structural dimension addresses properties of the social system: the network ties, network configuration, positions, and time spend. The relational dimension addresses aspects of personal relationships: trust and trustworthiness, respect, norms and sanctions, expectations, identity and identification. The cognitive dimension reveals resources in the context of knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. The active dimension can be seen as the activities that make the other three dimensions productive.

8" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

The process of knowledge productivity is defined as the total set of learning and design activities in innovation groups: Improvements and innovations of work processes, products and services; The development of capabilities to innovate ( De Jong, 2010.pg 164).

The results, the sustainable innovation, can be seen as: firstly the new work processes, products and services, that are developed organically by the professionals, but mainly the personal required competences and the ability to innovate.

Design Previous studies (Claridge, 2004; Grootaert, Narayan, NyhanJones, & Woolcock, 2004 ) revealed that investigating social capital requires a research design that should include more than simple cause-and-effect relationships, or investment and return of social capital. Also recent studies on knowledge productivity, innovation and social capital ( Stam,2007;Verdonschot,2009; De Jong, 2010) demonstrated the complexity of these subjects and propose qualitative research methods in close cooperation with actors. This present study is building on the results of these studies and is explorative and qualitative in nature. A case study design has been applied including six innovation groups of a large scale innovation programme. Semi-structured interviews have been used for data collection. The research took place from November 2011 until March 2012, being the second year of a three years lasting innovation programme.

Setting and participants The case concerns a large scale three-year lasting innovation programme entailing a collaborative initiative involving the vocational, secondary, higher and scientific educational sector, four organisations within the health care domain, and two Dutch governmental organisations. Grant supplier was the National Government, represented by the HPBO (Platform Vocational Education). The project aimed at binding vocational training, higher education and research more closely into the future needs within health care. All institutes acknowledged the need to adapt professional education to future professional profiles and to develop new technological products for health care practices. The project was managed and supervised by a project management team and a steering committee, consisting of representatives of the participating institutes, of the companies and of the regional government. Six project groups, each comprising 6-8 persons, were involved. The participants originated from different institutions, did not know each other before and varied significantly in experience as being a member or a chair of a project group. Also the professional positions ranged from university professor to manager in HRD or to vocational training teacher. For some it was the first time they collaborated in projects or project management, others had much more experience. Most of the participants had not been
9" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

involved from the beginning, others played already a role in the preparation of the program and participated from the start. The project groups had to design and develop next products, processes, or services: Project group 1: Procedures for Recognition of Prior Learning Project group 2: Blended Learning Modules Project group 3: Tailor made Programmes Project group 4: A virtual Environment Project group 5: Care Innovation Project group 6: Strategic human resource planning. This innovation programme could be categorised as a chaordic programme (Weggeman and Mulder, 2012) looking to size, multi-disciplinarity, diversity of goals, variety in interest groups and expected products. Many people in different compositions from different organisations worked together, often for the first time, to reach a common goal. Instrument As advised by former studies (Grootaert, Narayan, NyhanJones, & Woolcock, 2004; De Jong, 2010) semi-structured interviews were used to collect data in order to ensure sufficient insights into the processes of knowledge productivity and its conditions and results. The model of social capital and the concept of knowledge productivity (see figure 1) served as the conceptual framework. The two researchers developed interview guidelines, in which the approach applied and questionnaire of a former study was followed (Ehlen, 2012). The interviews focused on the four categories shown in Figure 1: conditions and interventions; the four dimensions of social capital, structure, relation, cognition, action; the process of knowledge productivity, - improvement and innovation; increasing innovation ability; the sustainable results,- new products, processes or services and new innovation ability. Detailed information about the main topics central in the interviews is presented in Table 1. The elements conditions and interventions and social capital have been operationalised using the indicators out of the first study of the entire research project on social capital and innovation (Ehlen, 2012) .The elements knowledge-productivity and sustainable innovation have been operationalised by using the indicators as developed by De Jong in his study (2010, pg 58), which included: - new information sources have been located and used; - the project group has developed and acquired new capabilities; - the developed capabilities of the project group have been used to find a solution for the innovation question; - the project group has gradually improved work processes, products or services; - the project group has developed radical innovative work processes, products or services; - the project group has acquired a sustainable capability to solve future innovation questions.

:" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Table 1. Content of the semi-structured interviews

Partici pants Condi tions, inter ven tions Structure Collected Data Social Capital Knowledge productivity Sustainable innovation

Relation

Cognition

Action

Improvem ents and innovatio ns Finding and using new informatio n, finding a solution for the question, improving or innovating products

Increas ing abilities

New product s

Ability to innovat e Increase d abilities to network , coopera te, design, implem ent, act tactical and strategi cal

3 members of each of the 6 project groups (n=18); manage ment team (n=2);

Stimulati ng and hindering condition s; Stimulati ng and hindering interventi ons of different actors.

inter organisati onal compositi on, position, facilitatio n, hierarchy, autonomy

personal relations, norms and values, expectati ons, emotions, atmosphe re

expertise, meanings, internal and external knowledge, communic ation skills, ability to innovate

acquiring power, creating energy, networkin g, acquiring informati on, learning , designing implemen ting

growin g abilities to innovat e

new products , work processe s or services; strong network for continue cooperat ion

The interview questions focused on goals and products achieved, but also on the processes of cooperation and the experiences of the participants. The answers on questions to positive and negative experiences, stimulating and hindering factors for doing the job are central. Also participants were asked which support they experienced during their work in the project group as well as their observed stimulating and hindering activities of programme managers, chairs and steering committee for reaching the project results. In addition, questions about the quality of cooperation within the project group and the programme and the role of internal and external communication have been asked. Data collection The interviews with the twenty participants took between 1 and 1,5 hours each. Interviewed were three members of each project group, two members and the chair as well as the two project managers. The group members were selected at random. The interviewed persons represented six of the participating organisations: three from education, two from health care, one from a governmental organisation. Each interview was recorded and the recordings were transcribed and mailed to interviewees with the request to validate their interview report. All validated documents have been placed in an overview diagram.

;" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Analysis The two researchers analysed the assembled data, using qualitative content analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Both the coding system of elements of the research framework and the interview questions served as a guideline. A third researcher performed a double check of the analysis and collectively they wrote the conclusions and final reports. The analysis consisted of five consecutive steps: Firstly, in order to reduce the vast amount of qualitative data, in-case analyses have been made of each interview report, based on the interview topics. Secondly, the twenty analysed reports have been synthesised to gain a complete picture of each of the six innovation groups. Thirdly, the results of each group were compared in a cross-case analysis, according to the interview topics. The findings were then summarised into an extensive report about each of the innovation groups and about the general themes (Ehlen, Roentgen, 2012) following the research questions. Finally a comprehensive report (Roentgen, Ehlen, Curfs, 2012) with general conclusions and recommendations for further innovation was produced. Findings The conceptions and experiences of the participants about the innovation process, as well as about the results and influencing factors as shown in the interview reports, provide an integral picture of the process of knowledge productivity and of social capital as a favourable condition for sustainable innovation. On the basis of the with-in case analysis and the cross-case analysis of the six innovation groups, the next paragraph presents the condensed findings, showing both content and quality of the process of knowledge productivity and the conditions of social capital. Table 2 presents the elements of knowledge productivity and innovation within the six project groups. The description below presents the findings about the processes of knowledge productivity according the variables of the research framework (figure 1). Presented are the interventions, the dimensions of social capital influencing the knowledge productivity as well as the results. Also some new elements (urgency, tasks) are being introduced that proved necessary to understand the innovation process. Conditions, interventions Interventions by the chairs of the project groups: Recognising the expertise of group members, quickly defining concrete objectives to achieve and making a strict working plan for each meeting was seen as a positive contribution. Stimulating interventions prove to be enthusiasm and courage as well as a focus on the common interest. As stimulating interventions by the programme management are assessed: monitoring progress, the results and reached goals; check time and finance; keep in contact with stakeholders and external parties; attempt to acquire more grants; take care of the results after the project period; set clear goals; emphasize collaboration and make connections between the project groups.

!<" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Social capital Structure: the multi-disciplinary nature of the structure is assessed as positive as well as the unique connection between the relevant interest groups in the two professional sectors and the government. However, within such a complex structure, the sometimes conflicting interests are considered as problematic. Another difficulty is the different language being used, which sometimes complicates effective communication between the educational field and health care institutions. The autonomy to design, to have enough facilitation, and a supportive basis within the home organization (time, space and trust) is assessed as positive. A structural problem was the discontinuity within in the project groups. Changing members and chairs required telling the story over and over again, leading to changing ambitions and losing passion. Relationships: In the beginning of the project, time is required to develop trust, get acquainted with each other, to create a team spirit and common culture. Positively assessed was the good collaboration between all parties and partners (education, health care and government). Even health care organisations look for cooperation between them and the doors are really open, that was different in the past. An open and pleasant atmosphere is considered necessary; members want to be part of a motivated group with the courage to innovate: I now dare to walk in front of the troops. Members felt they were an inspiring group people with nice qualities, competent and with positive energy. Cognition: Time is required to understand each others language. Time is also required to discover the quality of the group members to carry out the task (courtesy). It is the expertise and the innovative ability of the group members that finally makes the results. The innovation cannot be further extended than the group members together are able to achieve! Action: Designing, organising, financial management, administration, time management, taking strategic and tactical decisions between the partner organizations; all these activities are necessary in order to become knowledge productive and to reach the goals. Also networking skills are necessary: linking: making connections between group and the home organisation; bridging: mediating between different interests of organisations; bonding: creating cooperation and common culture within the innovation group. Cooperation is felt as negative, if there is a lack of decision making, no or little work planning, the wrong combination of people in a group, vague targets, the absence of a common culture, and ineffective communication within and outside the programme. Obviously, lack of experience of the participants within in the project, the complexity and the high number of organizations involved influence these factors in a negative sense. An important common experience of the participants involved the notion that innovation cannot always anticipated beforehand. It is a creative process, developing and impacted by many, many factors that can hardly be influenced. Knowledge productivity Designing and developing improvements and innovations: The actions described above can be seen as knowledge productive activities. It involves a long and step by step process that takes more time than foreseen, especially in the start-up phase when the qualities and particularities of the group members still need to be discovered. Realising new products requires release of old views, letting go of your own ideas in order to reach something new collectively. It also
!!" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

requires giving up institutional autonomy and creating new structures outside the project group. We built the product we aspired to realise step by step, also looking outside our group for experts with specific knowledge. Gathering external information and combining this in order to reach our goal. This new information is also disseminated to the participating organizations. A positive factor was that most activities were closely connected with their normal tasks, that is stimulating because you have the expertise available. Another positive factor has been the external pressure. People outside the group have expectations, so you have to continue and work towards the deadline without delay. Half a year before the end of the programmme, three groups started implementing the newly developed products. Not everything was realised as planned, some adaptations were necessary, but participants did not bother about that. That is all in the game, when you are innovating on such a big scale. Of course the new structure of cooperation has to be improved and needs more coordination. And of course not everybody is working equally hard, but most members are feeling proud and satisfied with the improvements and innovations achieved. Working together with enthusiasm and with pleasure, searching inside and outside the project group for solutions fuel the participants with energy to continue. To quote one of the participants: it is not realistic to expect realising all the broad goals of such huge programme with so many stakeholders. It takes years before the existing institutions give up some of their authority. Increasing abilities: Members learned from each other how to collaborate. It was challenging and inspiring. We learned a lot from each other as professionals. We enjoyed and consumed the knowledge in our group, especially the conversations with our ambitious and passionate chair. Our workshops are a nice way to learn from each other. I acquired expertise in a new and problematic field. It is enormously captivating and interesting to see all connections between the organisations. Sustainable innovation Products: The new Care Academy certainly feels as a success. The concept is successfully copied in the Netherlands and chosen as best innovation concept in Europe. Some products are even sold to other innovation programmes. The Care Academy obviously gives spirit, makes proud and gives recognition and inspiration to handle together important problems. The exchange of knowledge and collective creativity is an important result in itself. As a result, success is not (totally) dependent of realizing the planned goals in time, because not all intended results have been achieved yet. Ability to innovate: Participants are eager to cooperate in future on inspiring ideas. As realized products can be considered the specific products, processes and services realised by the project groups. In addition, also the commonly developed vision on the problems, the desired solutions and the unique innovation concept: a network of sustainable cooperation between education, health care and government can be considered as realised products. It is not only the individual members that have learned to innovate, but also institutions have learnt. In addition to the anticipated variables, described in table 1, two variables appeared to be important for innovation: the urgency and the task.

!4" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Urgency An urgent work-related problem appears necessary for motivation, policy power and for obtaining grants. The innovation has to fit in the strategy of each organization involved. Only then the new products form an answer to the questions that slumber already long time and offer instruments for the future. Task The programme proved that it is necessary to formulate the tasks for the innovators in a smart way: not too large and not too vague. It takes considerable time for the innovators to learn to know all task aspects, to share hidden knowledge and to begin to see the feasibility to fulfill the task. It was searching a lot in the beginning; finally it became clear and transparent.

Table 2 The elements interventions, social capital, knowledge productivity and innovation in the six project groups The numbers 0-4 indicate the presence of the variables. 0 indicates absence, 4 indicates strongly represented.
P G s Interventions
Project manage ment Cha ir proj ect gro up Struc ture

Social Capital
Relat ions Cogni tion Acti on Su m Sc

Knowledge productivity
Improve ments and innovati ons Increa sing abiliti es Su m K p

Sustainable innovation
New prod ucts Abili ty to inno vate Su m In o

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1 1 1 1 1

4 4 1 2 4 4

4 4 2 2 4 4

4 4 2 2 4 4

4 4 1 2 4 4

4 4 2 2 4 4

16 16 7 8 16 16

4 4 1 2 4 4

4 4 1 3 4 4

8 8 2 5 8 8

4 4 1 2 4 4

4 4 1 2 4 4

8 8 2 4 8 8

As shown in this table there is a positive relation between interventions by the chair of the project group, high social capital, high knowledge productivity and sustainable innovation. It could be an indication for the possibility to build social capital by the chair within a group. It could also indicate that high social capital stimulates knowledge productivity.

!5" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Conclusions and Discussion

This study was conducted to address the following four research questions: 1. Which learning and designing processes in innovation groups lead to sustainable improvement or innovation of the organisation? 2. Which learning and designing processes in innovation groups lead to sustainable knowledge-productive capabilities of the involved professionals? 3. Which dimensions of social capital stimulate these processes of knowledge productivity? 4. Which other conditions stimulate knowledge productivity? Preliminary conclusions 1. Which learning and designing processes in innovation groups lead to sustainable improvement or innovation of the organization? The findings of this large-scale inter-organisational innovation project show that innovation tends to be an organic process. It grows in a fruitful supporting environment with the nutrition of the expertise, sympathy and cooperation of the innovators. Learning and designing is a matter of social learning, based on trust, open mindedness, a border-crossing mentality and courage to develop new artefacts. Social learning and designing is exploring each others explicit and tacit knowledge and accepting unusual ideas and plans. It asks releasing of old ideas and building together new realities. Searching for external knowledge is important. But adapting that knowledge has to be based on and connect with the existing knowledge and capabilities of the professionals and the organisation. What is seen as innovative results depends of many factors outside an innovation group. Often it is a matter of perspective. Each project group creates his own ideas about possible results, depending on the quality, knowledge, vision and capacities of the group members. This collectivity is the source for the innovation, and also its limit. The sustainability of the innovation depends on the acceptance of the results by the professionals. This shows that sustainability of innovation depends for a great deal on the way the innovation is rooted in the social environment of the innovators. These are not external top down plans but bottom-up developed products. As the concept of knowledge productivity suggests, sustainable innovation is something of the experts themselves. 2. Which learning and designing processes in innovation groups lead to sustainable knowledge-productive capabilities of the professionals? Knowledge productivity in a group is more than individual knowledge productivity. It is cocreation and cooperation and is a matter of social learning and designing. The innovators will use that type of knowledge, skills and attitudes from each other that they do not possess themselves already. Adding new knowledge, skills and attitudes to the existing ones, leads to sustainable improvement of capabilities. It is learning by doing, going together the way of knowledge productivity: tracing relevant information, using this information to develop new abilities and applying these abilities to improvement and innovation. This experience of systematic problem solving can be adapted in other situations if there has grown an attitude of creativity, open mind, courage, try and
!6" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

error, and goal orientation. The data show that innovators with earlier experience in innovation projects were more capable than novices. In this respect this study showes that prior required ability to innovate is sustainable. 3. Which dimensions of social capital stimulate these processes of knowledge productivity? A suitable structure, good relations, enough expertise and courage to act are factors stimulating knowledge productivity. As a consequence all dimensions of social capital are important. Necessary elements of these dimensions are: structural: a supporting and facilitating environment; relational: a common vision, shared values and norms, good cooperation; cognitive: understanding each others language, communication with all levels involved, expertise to share; active: networking, cooperation and co-creation, courage to act border-crossing. This study underlines that building social capital is an important condition for knowledge productivity and innovation success. 4. Which other conditions stimulate knowledge productivity? Important proved to be the urgency of the problem or of the target. Also a smart task was important. Necessary was real commitment of the decision makers. This means that managers not only in the beginning, but also half ways and at the end have to accept what products, processes and services the innovators are developing. Even if this is not according the formulated plans. Giving up their autonomy, sharing responsibility and developing new networks of cooperation appear conditions for sustainable innovation. Leaders in an innovation programme need to have a positive, stimulating, inspiring attitude. Giving trust and space to the groups is a condition for grow of results and grow of personal capabilities. They need to have a developing attitude instead of a command and control one. Limitations Although the conclusions above are based on the data of 20 interviews, it could be good to assume some limitations. The innovation groups had different tasks, a different composition of members and different chairs. Of course that is influencing the concrete working process. Nevertheless in general the data showed a same pattern both in the successful and in the less successful groups. The conclusions would possibly have had more rigor if there had been data from observations in addition to the data from interviews. We recommend other researchers to combine interviews with observations, to be able to acquire more deep insight in details of these processes. Another recommendation is to repeat interviews some later period and to extract more information about the sustainability of the knowledge that is produced for organisations and for the individual professional. A third recommendation includes focusing more on the role of the group chair. Our data show that his influence is considerable. Could that possibly have been influenced because one out of the three interviews per group was from a leader?

!7" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Practice oriented recommendations The most important recommendation to leaders and members is: see an innovation as an organic process! Organizing a project with strict goals, deadlines and external command and control does not provide a rich working climate. Secondly, an innovation target has to be accepted and embraced by the professionals that are innovating. Without pleasure and proud there is not enough energy to invest the best you have to offer and to achieve the ultimate result. Ownership of the problem, the way and the destination are necessary. Leadership means supporting and facilitating these owners of innovation. At third, action research is a change intervention. The interviews made the participants proud on their work, gave them respect and insight in what they are doing and about the total process in the project. It too provided the project managers with important inside information for improvements. In this respect scientific research can be an important contribution to professional practice.

------------------------------------------------------------------

!8" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

References: Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital The sociology of economic life. Richardson, J., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. (pp. 96-111; 241158). New York Greenwood. Claridge, T. B. (2004). Social Capital, from http://www.gnudung.com/ http://www.syntony.com.au/aboutus.php Coleman, J. S. (1990). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(S1), 95. Cooperrider. (2003). Appreciative inquiry handbook. Berrett-Koehler. De Jong, T. (2010). Linking social capital to knowledge productivity. Universiteit Twente , Enschede. Drucker, P.F. (1993). The post-capitalist society. Oxford. Butterworth Heinemann. Ehlen, C.G.J.M. (2012). The contribution of social capital to organizational innovation. Paper presented at conference UFHRD, Portugal. Ehlen, C.G.J.M., Van der Klink,M., Boshuizen,H.P.A. (2012). The dynamic contribution of social capital to complex educational innovation: an exploratory longitudinal study of a business-education project. In press. Ehlen, C.G.J.M.,Roentgen, U. (2012). First report research Care Academy. Zuyd University for applied sciences. Heerlen. Grootaert, C., Narayan, NyhanJones, & Woolcock. (2004 ). Measuring Social Capital:An Integrated Questionnaire (2003 ed. Vol. 18 ). Washington, D.C. : The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Field, J. (2005). Social Capital and Lifelong Learning. The encyclopedia of informal education. Glaser & Strauss, 1967/2008.The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago. Kessels, J.W.M. (1995). Training in organisations: The ambivalent perspective of knowledge productivity. Comenius, 15 (2). Kessels, J.W.M. (1996). Het corporate curriculum. Leiden University, Leiden Kessels, J.W.M., Lakerveld, J. van & Van den Berg, J. (1998). Knowledge productivity and the corporate curriculum. Paper presented at the AERA, San Diego CA. Kessels, J.W.M. (2001). Verleiden tot kennisproductiviteit (Enticing to knowledge productivity). Universiteit Twente, Enschede. Kessels, J. W. M., & Poell, R. F. (2004). Andragogy and Social Capital Theory: The Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 6(2), 146-157. Malhotra, Y.(2000). Knowledge Assets in the Global Economy: Assessment of National Intellectual Capital. Journal of Global Information Management. July-Sep, 2000, 8(3), 5-15. Miles, M.B.,& Huberman, A.M.(1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. Nonaka,I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge creating company. New York. Oxford University Press. Roentgen,U., Ehlen, C.G.J.M., Curfs, E. (2012).Final report Care Academy. Zuyd University for applied sciences . Heerlen.

!9" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"

Stam, C. D. (2007). Knowledge productivity enhancera method to give direction to knowledge management initiatives. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 392-411. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganisational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 996-1004. Verdonschot, S. (2009). Learning to innovate. Thesis. Universiteit Twente. Enschede. Walz, H., Bertels, T., (1995). Das intelligente Unternehmen: schneller lernen als der Wettbewerb. Landsberg am Lech: Modeme Industrie. Weggeman, M.C.D.P., Mulder, N.T. (2012). Value-based project management:een aanpak voor chaordische projecten. Technical University, Eindhoven.

!:" #$%%"&'&()"*)+,-./0"1(23"