This article is part of eBook. Please use the link at bottom to jump to the rest of the eBook...

Synchronization and the Role of IC Strategy

Accentuating the problems outlined above is that programs that purport to manage IC are usually scattered throughout the organization, and managed by different departments and divisions. Departments usually apply their own approaches or solutions to manage often different but over­lapping forms of IC. For example, the human resources department is usually entrusted with pro­grams to develop the human capital, the legal department develops programs for IP management, while marketing implements programs for managing customer capital, and R&D or the engi­neering department manages innovation resources for new product development. In some cases, the licensing of IP is managed by both the legal and the marketing (or special licensing) depart­ments. Of course, this advances the focused development of the various forms of IC, each by those who understand it most. But without an underlying unifying IC strategy, this will eventu­ally lead to the development of isolated and eventually conflicting approaches.

Furthermore, the conflicting purposes and interests of the various departments often will cre­ate conflict, rivalry, and misunderstanding. Allowed to grow, this tension will block effective communication among the various departments and business units, promoting the wrong culture and defeating knowledge sharing. Any initiative that attempts to implement isolated and separate programs without the collaboration of key people in the various departments and business units will result in more harm than good. In addition to resulting in disorientation and isolationism on the departmental level, it will waste management resources.

Boeing learned this the hard way in 1997 when they tried to implement two separate pro­grams, one for knowledge management and the other for IP management.9 Each program was implemented in isolation with separate departmental ownership despite the fact that the programs were developed by the same consulting team. On completion, the consulting team found irrecon­cilable differences between the approaches of the two major groups that they called knowledge managers and IP managers. These differences revolved around definitions, choice of practices, and conflicting goals and approaches. Lacking a unified IC strategy, departmental differences cre­ated departmental rivalry and misunderstanding, undermining the benefit of the whole program. Without a shift in the way the organization sees itself (vision) it is impossible to implement an effective ICM program. Strategy emanates from the vision, whereby it taints everything the organization does as it defines its mode of operation. A well-formulated strategy that is based on the vision represents the mind of the organization and directs operations, decisions, and actions performed by every business unit, department and individual. As such it brings various disciplines, perspectives and objectives under one end goal. Pursuing the common goal enables all those involved to overcome differences and create a comprehensive plan to address the col­lective and respective needs. The CICM promotes this through the formulation of the IC strat­egy at the organizational, business-unit, and departmental levels. A shared vision and well-formulated IC strategy fosters the right culture and enables the synchronization of the missions of the various businesses. This leads to creating an environment where all the pieces not only fit together but also reinforce each other, and enables the maximization of value at every stage of IC development.

This article is part of eBook. To read the rest of the eBook (full version) please look at: innovation management