Below is an archive of the comments contributed by members of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), prior to discussion within the Special Integration Group (SIG) on Systems Applications in Business and Industry (SABI). For more information on the discussion which occurred in person during the meeting, please contact someone who attended the session!
(7/7/02 2:18:53 pm)
HARUNA 2002-008 Technology Policy Process to Cope with the C
At the first part of this paper, we summarize the first of our series papers(Haruna, 1999), where we applied Harold Lasswell's concept of the policy process and the policy scientist who supports the process, and proposed the idea of technology policy process and staff because technology development process has to be understood as such a complex decision process as pointed out by Lasswell(1971). And we summarize the second of our series papers (Haruna, 2001), where we analyzed the key factors in implementing technology policy staff and the effects of digital media-enabled innovation of organizational decision field. The investigation was due to the decision model by G. T. Allison(1971) and to Transaction-cost Politics Model by A. Dixit(1996). The present paper mainly clarifies what factors TPS has to takes into considerations in the task of organizational goal -clarification in technology policy process. We examine several models of organizational vision creating process and reach an extension of the creating process by use of Peirce's idea(Moor,1972), that is, in other words, an extension of the goal-clarifying activity in Lasswell's policy process model. This extension brings about a broader aspect of recognizing the "apparatus of capture" defined by DELEUZE and GUATTARI (1980) as a strategic mechanism to integrate (merging) market and technology. The final part of this paper is concerned with efficiency of the process, where business platform and technology platform appears as an alternative realization.
(7/27/02 6:21:46 pm)
Re: HARUNA 2002-008 Technology Policy Process to Cope with t
Key insights I got from the paper:
The Research & Development function requires a balance between an ecological and/or innovation orientation (since we don't really know what the "next big thing" will be) and allocating resources towards successful directions. A clearer understanding of the selection/funding processes by researchers may improve commercialization of development efforts within the enterprise.
How might I apply these concepts:
There's an interesting balance between governance and communities of practice that might I should consider.
Additional ideas I might suggest to the author.
* Communities of practice and "knowledge management":
There's a growing literature towards "communities of practice", particularly around knowledge work. See Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
On the other hand, "knowledge management" may be headed in an unproductive direction. See Thomas A. Stewart, "The Case Against Knowledge Management", Business 2.0, February 2002.
* Market-orientation versus innovation:
You've mostly described an internally-focused program. Where is the (potential) customer for the future innovation? Are you look at breakthroughs so advanced that customers wouldn't understand the potential, or technologies so embedded that customers aren't really involved? See Vincent P. Barabba and Gerald Zaltman, Hearing the Voice of the Market: Competitive Advantage through Create Use of Market Information, Harvard Business School Press, 1991
[reply via e-mail from Koichi Haruna]
1. I think that I found a relationship between the role of reasoning for individual conception process and the corresponding role of the trust by wisdom for organizational conception process. Then the concept of trustable process in terms of policy process gives the idea of effectiveness of goal claryfing process of enterprise R&D process, where DEULEUZE and GATTARI's idea plays an interesting role.
2. Researchers activities include new system development with some leading cutomer and new technology research and development. My experiences taught me that no leader can afford to do these two activities and their convergence as business activities by himself because of the differences among those activities. It came up with my conclusion that we need Technology Policy Staff.
3. Your recognition that KM might be headed in an unproductive direction is interesting. I will give two equations;
organizational creation capability = conception capability + execution capability + governability,
governability = a function of quality in the field
= a function of political skill, trust, community culture and wisdom, informational environment, and forces.
I am looking forward to seeing all members of our session.
Some content on this website may be subject to prior copyrights.