1. Relatinoship model between
Knowledge Management and
Innovation Activity in
organizations
The Second International Doctoral Consortium
on Intellectual Capital Management
University Paris-Sud. May 27, 2009
Professors: Jose Maria Viedma and Jose Albors. icbs.viedma@telefonica.net
Author:Jose Carlos Ramos. jcramos@avanzalis.com
1

2. aim
Demonstrate the positive relationship between Knowledge
Management maturity and Innovation Activity in
organizations.
Aware senior management about the critical role of Knowledge
Management and Innovation, through a scientific justification
Introduce new competitive approaches based on knowledge
to overcome the actual paradigm shift
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 2

3. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 3

4. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 4

5. research and academic profile
Education
Masters Engineer of Telecommunication. Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain)
MBA Executive. Estema Business School
MsC Knowledge Management . Knowledge Associates, The University of Hull (UK)
IT in Organization PhD program. Business Administration Departament, PUV
Publications related to the Thesis work
Paper: “New learning network paradigms”. International Journal of Information Management. 2008
CiNET Congress presentation, Gotheborg, 2007
Paper in publication process: “Management Innovation: Lessons from the OS Community”
Paper in development process: “Actional Intelligence: attitude and value alignment”
Cowritter in several books on KM and Innovation. IBM (residencies on USA laboratories)
Teaching experience (MBA’s, specific masters)
Ford University. Depending on PUV
Postgrade Training Center, PUV
Summer University, Campus TI. PUV
Inede Business School
Estema Business School
Adeit. VU
Lecturing in congresses and address several Final Projects
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 5

6. professional profile
Avanzalis Knowledge Associates (Spain)
Director Partner
Senior consultant on business strategy and IC
IBM Laboratories (Texas, USA)
Member of the strategic collaborative solutions workgroup
Member of the SMB Management Council
Aitana Business Solutions. IBM Business Partner (Spain)
Services National Manager
Global Manufacturers’ Services (old IBM Plant)
Project Manager
Freelance
Engineer of Telecommunication
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 6

7. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 7

8. hypotesis formulation
More maturity on Better
Knowledge systematization
Management on Innovation
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 8

9. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 9

10. doctoral work structure
1. Objectives. Motivation
2. State of the art
3. Work hypothesis. KM&I Model
suggested
Review or demonstration
4. Method. Fieldwork
of hypothesis
5. Analysis. Fieldwork outcomes
6. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 10

11. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 11

12. state of the art: topics
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge
relationship Innovation
concepts Management
State of the art is presented using conceptual maps [Novak, 1990], a knowledge management tool.
All maps done using CMap Tools [Institute for Human and Machine Cognition www.ihmc.com]
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 12

13. SoA. key concepts
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge relationshi
Innovation
concepts Management p
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 13

14. SoA. key concepts
Argyris, C. “Double loop learning in organisations”, Harvard Business review, no.77502. 1977
State of the art
Argyris, C. Actionable knowledge: intent versus actuality. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science; 32, 4; ABI/
INFORM Global. 1996
Ausubel, D. P., J. D. Novak, and H. Hanesian. Educational Psychology: A Cog-nitive View, 2nd ed. New York: Holt,
relationshi
Foundational Knowledge
Rinehart and Winston. 1978 concepts Management p
Innovation
Barton, DL. Wellsprings of knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. 1995
Bessant, J, Hoffman, K., Parejo, M. Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation: a literature review,
International Journal of Innovation Manag. London. 1997
Bontis, M. “Capital Intellectual: an exploraty study that develops measures and models”. Management Decision,
pp. 67-76. 1998
Burns,T. y Stalker, GM. The management of innovation. Oxford University Press. 1961
Chesbrough, H. “Why companies should have open business models”. MIT Sloan Management Review Vol 48, n2 .
2007.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative
Science quaterly, 35, 128- 152. 1990
Davenport, T. y Prusak, L. “Working Knowledge”. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. 1998
Drucker, P. “La Productividad del Trabajador del Conocimiento: máximo Desafío”. Harvard Deusto Business
Review, núm. 98, p. 4-16. 2000
Drucker, P.F. From capitalism to knowledge society. Wobum MA: Buterworth. 1998
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. “The intellectual capital”. Management 2000, Barcelona. 1999
EIS. European Innovation Scoreboard. European Commission.2005 y 2007
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. : “The Balanced Scorecard”. Management 2000. Bar-celona. 1997
Kirton, C. quot;Adaptation- Innovationnquot;. Long Range Planning, Elsevier. 1984
Nonaka. “The knowledge-creating company”. Harvard Business Review, pp. 96-104. 1991
Polany, M., The tacit dimension, Ed. Routledge, Londres. 1967
Schumpeter JA; Scherer FM. Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives. MIT Press. 1984
Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organi-zation. New York, Doubleday/
Currency. 1990
Von Hippel, E., Herstatt, C. Developing new products concepts via the lead user method, Journal of Product
innovation management, vol. 9, iss 3, Sept. 1992
Yin, R. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. SAGE 2003
Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Zahra, S. A.; George, G. quot;Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualiza-tion, and extensionquot;. Academy Ramos
20090513ka03 Jose Carlos
of 14
Management Review, Vol. 27, Nº 2, p. 185-203. 2002

15. SoA. KM
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge relationshi
Innovation
concepts Management p
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 15

16. SoA. KM
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge relationshi
Innovation
concepts Management p
Alavi, M. Leidner, D. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: conceptual
foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly. 2001
Alegre Vidal, J. La Gestión del Conocimiento como motor de la innovación. Universitat Jaume I de Castellón. 2004
BSI (British Standards Institution), various authors. Knowledge Management: a guide to good practice. BSI. 2001
Camisón, C.; Palacios, D.; Devece, C. quot;Un nuevo modelo para la medición del capital intelectual: el modelo
Novaquot;, Ponencia presentada en X Congreso Nacional de ACEDE, Oviedo. 2000
Comisión Europea. EUROSTAT, Community Innovation Survey, Brussels. 1994
Coombs R. 'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in Innovation. Elsevier ScienceResearch
Policy 27. 1998
KnowNet. The KnowNet Consortium. Esprit research project EP28928. 2000
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics
education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Mentzas Gregoris. A strategic management framework for leveraging knowledge assets. International Journal of
Innovation and Learning (IJIL), Vol. 1, No. 2, 2004
Ponzi L. The Evolution & Intellectual Development of Knowledge Management. Leo-nard J. Ponzi. Long Island
University. 2003
Sveiby, K. “Organizatonial The new wealth: managing and measuring intan-gible assets”. Berret-Koelher
Publishers, San Francisco. 1998
Teece, D; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. “Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-agement”. Strategic Management
Journal, No.18, p.509-533. 1997
Viedma JM. Strategic benchmarking of IC (SBIC). An IC strategic management meth-odology and strategic
information system. E-Know Net. 2001
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 16

17. SoA. Innovation
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge relationshi
Innovation
concepts Management p
Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 17

18. SoA. Innovation
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge relationshi
Innovation
concepts Management p
Boisot, Max H. “Is your firm a creative destroyer? Competitive learning and knowledge flows in the
technological strategies of firms, Research Policy, Vol. 24, 1995, pp. 489-506
Drucker, P.F. La innovación y el empresario innovador, Edhasa. 1986
Henderson, R y Clark, K.B. “Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and
the failure of established firms”. Administrative Sci-ence Quaterly, vol 35, nº 1. 1990
Adams R., Bessant J. y Phelps, R. Innovation management measurement: A review. In-ternational Journal of
Management Reviews. Volume 8. Issue 1 pp. 21-47. 2006
Arundel A. The Knowledge Economy, Innovation Diffusion, and the CIS. Proceedings of the 21st CEIES
Seminar, Innovation Statistics – More than R&D Indicators, Athens, April 10-11, 2003, Eurostat, General
Statistics, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2003.
Arundel, A. Hollanders, H. EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards. MERIT. March, 2005
Luecke, R. Katz, R. Managing Creativity and Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. 2003
Utterback, J.M. Dinámica de la innovación tecnológica, Fund. Cotec, Madrid. 2001
Quinn, J., B. Technological Innovation, Entrepeneurship and strategies, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.
19- 30. 1977
Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 18

19. SoA. KM & Innovation relationship
State of the art
Foundational Knowledge relationshi
Innovation
concepts Management p
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 19

20. a review of seminal contributions
• Next two slides show a detailed list of most important works in
management discipline along the history
• It represents a radar diagram organized by 5 main pillars about
management:
– Strategy
– Operations, production, processes and systems
– Market, marketing and sales
– People, skills, human capital
– IT and communications
• The green bubbles show where KM and Innovation are present, and
the size of the bubble gives an idea of the impact it had
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 20

21. Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 21

22. Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 22

23. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 23

24. KM&I model Individual
Individual Individual
actionning and and CKO
CKO control
Absorb/
INDIVIDUAL
Tacit and applied Create Tacit
Intern
alize
Actioni Actioning
ng, and Validate
applicat measure
ion
Review/
Improve
COLLECTIVE
Tacit and Explicit
Explicit
collective
Share/ and CKO
Social network, Storage
organization, shared Colaborate
system
Shared
repository
Externalize, socialize
Paris, May 2009 And transfer Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 24

25. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 25

26. methodological framework
Plan the research strategy
Case study design
1.Research questions
2.Suggestion or thesis
3.Analysis unit
4.Link data and thesis
5.Criterion for finding interpretations
Theory development
Fieldwork
Questionnaire arrangement and guides for research
Protocol. Relate research questions with analysis issues in case studies
Specific evidences found
Collected data storage
Report generation
Multiple source triangulation for verification
Analysis and external validation
Report generation
Final review by the own analyzed organizations (sources)
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 26

27. KM variables
Absorb/
Tacit and applied Create Tacit
Intern
alize
Actioni Actioning
ng, and Validate
applicat measure
ion
Review/
Improve
Tacit and Explicit
Explicit
Share/
Storage
Colaborate
Variable Indicator Id
Externalize, socialize
And transfer
Range
There are systems and tools for capturing knowledge when it happens (A>er Ac0on Reviews,
brainstorming repositories…) KinCapt 0, 1
Incorporate: There are collabora0ve policies and external collabora0on is also promoted:
capturing, genera0ng, 1. Educa0on
absorbing 2. Consul0ng KinAbs 1, 2, 3
3. and compe0tors monitoring
Valida0on: iden0fiing Business key knowledge areas are iden0fied
the relevant issues Valid 0, 1
There are repositories organized using a taxonomy and there are also procedures to explicit
knowledge in a homogeneous way along the company:
Storage: explici0ng 0. No StorExplic 0, 1, 2
and codifiing in 1. Basic
repositories 2. Advanced
It exists and is recognized the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) role, accountable for KB and
repositories CKO 0, 1
Needed knowledge (intern and extern) for workers ac0vity is accessible and easy to use KAccess 0, 1
Sharing: broadcas0ng There are competences to promote open communica0on, collabora0on and knowledge sharing in
HRColComp 0, 1
and collabora0ng the HR development systems
There are Communi0es of Prac0ce, Purpose, internal and mixed (with external members) Social
Networks CoPSNA 0, 1
Useful knowledge is applied to produce and perform. The 6 step KM process is adopted in the
organiza0on in a more or less formal way Kact 0, 1
Ac0oning: applying,
using and measuring There are specific Key Performance Indicators for KM KPI 0, 1
the impact of doing it When recrui0ng and in HR development policies the corpora0ve values are matched with the
individual is assessed. An open aZtude towards long life learning is requested HRActVal 0, 1
Con0nuous maintenance, improvement and review of KM system is done:
Mantain: review, 0. No
improve and 1. Basic KMImp 0, 1, 2
Paris, May 2009 Ref. Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
evolu0onante
20090513ka03 2. It allows sugges0ons and improvements made by users Jose Carlos Ramos 27

28. innovation activity variables*
Variable Id Range
Organiza0on has done innova0on ac0vi0es before InOn 0, 1
Organiza0on abandoned its innova0on ac0vi0es InAB 0, 1
Organiza0on introduced a new or significantly improved product to the market Inpdt 0, 1
How did product innova0on happen?:
1 = leaded by the organiza0on or the group where it operates
2 = coopera0ng with other firms InpdtW 1, 2, 3
3 = mainly by other firms or ins0tu0ons
Organiza0on introduced a new or significantly improved process to the market Inpcs 0, 1
How did process innova0on happen?:
1 = leaded by the organiza0on or the group where it operates
2 = coopera0ng with other firms InpcsW 1, 2, 3
3 = mainly by other firms or ins0tu0ons
It develops internal R+D RrdIn 0, 1
Kind of R+D:
1 = con0nuous RdEng 1, 2
2 = episodic
Main market of the company:
1 = local
2 = local/regional SigMar 1, 2, 3, 4
3 = na0onal
4 = interna0onal
Organiza0on introduced new or significantly improved products which where new to its market InMar 0, 1
Organiza0on had done collabora0ve ac0vi0es for innova0on Co 0, 1
*EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards. Arundel, A. Hollanders, H. MERIT. 2005
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 28

29. outcomes. KM maturity
HRColComp
StorExplic
HRActVal
KAccess
CoPSNA
KinCapt
Organization KM level
KMImp
KinAbs
Valid
Kact
CKO
KPI
PHARMACEUTICAL DISTRIBUTOR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accidental
AERONAUTICAL BROKER 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Pasive
INFORMATIC SOLUTIONS PROVIDER 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Active
ACADEMIC INSTITUTION 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accidental
ELECTRONIC DEVICES MANUFACTURER 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Active
PRINTING SOLUTIONS FOR CHERAMIC 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Active
STRATEGIC BUSINESS CONSULTANCY 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Intentional
INDUSTRIAL BAKERY 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accidental
EXCLUSIVE FURNITURE MANUFACTURER 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Active
WELDING AND STAMPING PROVIDER FOR
1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Active
AUTOMOTIVE
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 29

30. outcomes. innovation activity
InpcsW
InpdtW
SigMar
Organization Innovation type
RdEng
InMar
RrdIn
Inpcs
Inpdt
InOn
InAB
Co
PHARMACEUTICAL DISTRIBUTOR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 Adopter
AERONAUTICAL BROKER 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 Episodic
INFORMATIC SOLUTIONS PROVIDER 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Strategic
ACADEMIC INSTITUTION 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 No Innovator
ELECTRONIC DEVICES MANUFACTURER 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 Episodic
PRINTING SOLUTIONS FOR CHERAMIC 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 Episodic
STRATEGIC BUSINESS CONSULTANCY 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 Strategic
INDUSTRIAL BAKERY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 Technology modifier
EXCLUSIVE FURNITURE MANUFACTURER 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 Strategic
WELDING AND STAMPING PROVIDER FOR
0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 Episodic
AUTOMOTIVE
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 30

31. outcomes. relationship
Iformatic Exclusive
solutions furniture Buiness strategic
INNOVATION provider manufacturer consultancy
STRATEGIC Aeronautical
Broker
Printing solutions for
cheramic
EPISODIC
Electronic device
manufacturer
MODIFIER
Welding and
stamping provider
for automotive
ADOPTer
Industrial bakery
Academic institution
Pharmaceutical distributor
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 31

32. content
1. PhD student profile
2. Hypothesis formulation
3. Doctoral work structure
4. State of the art
5. A suggested model in Knowledge Management and Innovation
6. Empirical work
Methodological framework
Variables
Case study analysis and outcomes
7. Conclusions
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 32

33. conclusions and future works
Knowledge Management
• Today is a key element for competitiveness. It was seen as a fashion and very linked to ICT's
• Its management is complex and still remain great efforts to be done for measuring its impact in business
• The holistic approach (strategy, productivity, competitiveness, systems and people) is the most complete one
• As smaller a company is, more strategic KM becomes
• As larger a company is, more systematic KM becomes
• The 5 step KM process gives special relevance to actioning knowledge
• The knowledge worker should:
– be more thoughtful, invest more time to investigate and study; train himself on new environments, systems and
technologies to discern and apply the useful knowledge; be more open to collaborate, to share and work on open
standards
– Organize and work in new ways, it means innovate in management (e.g., the success of the Internet communities)
Innovation
• Many of the competitive advantages achieved with innovation have not been preserved  it shows a lack of
systematization, a poor awareness on collaboration and, barriers to seek, absorb, share and enrich knowledge
KM and Innovation
• They are a competitive advantage not only for knowledge-intensive activities (KIA), but also for traditional
business
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 33

34. final conclusion
There is a positive relationship between the Knowledge
Management maturity and Innovation Activity in
organizations
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 34

35. Further information: Jose Carlos Ramos
www.avanzalis.com www.josecarlosramos.com
Paris, May 2009 Doctoral Thesis. KM and Innovation
Ref. 20090513ka03 Jose Carlos Ramos 35