Relating learning, knowledge creation and innovation: case studies into knowledge productivity

Keursten, Paul; Verdonschot, Suzanne; Kessels, Joseph; Kwakman, Kitty

doi:10.1504/ijlic.2006.011749

Cited by 20 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(v) Is based on the process of experiential learning. Keursten et al (2006) found the following development principles for the support of learning processes leading to improvement and innovation, among other, enhance reciprocal appeal, search for passion, and temping towards knowledge productivity . Also some of his 10 design principles have a relation with our tool variables: formulating urgent and fascinating questions, and creative learning: knowledge developing by collaborative constructing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Research Model for Architectural Meetings to Support the Implementation of New Building Technologies through Collaboration of Brainpower

Gassel

Maas²,

Bronswijk³

2009

Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2009)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing new technologies in the domain of "Robotics and Automation in Construction" is necessary to enhance the values for clients and society. The technologies are available but implementing them is the coming challenge.Building technologies are not used exhaustively or intelligently. In the manufacturing industry of complex products collaboration of brainpower through involvement of all stakeholders has resulted in a major enhancement of the values mentioned. Making the experiences of the involved professionals collaboratively explicit by well-prepared meetings can be a success factor to implement new building technologies. The aim of this paper is to develop a successful approach for organizing collaborative architectural meetings of the bonding type. This study has been divided into three phases: (i) getting insight in the relevant factors of a successful collaborative architectural meeting (desk research), (ii) analyzing case studies, and (iii) developing a meeting model for further research. The following parameters can describe an architectural meeting: (i) system variables, (ii) input variables, (iii) leading variables, (iv) participant variables, (v) tool variables, and (vi) outcome variables. These are included in a meeting model for further study to facilitate the collaboration of brainpower for enhancing the values for clients and society during the construction and use of buildings objects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Research Model for Architectural Meetings to Support the Implementation of New Building Technologies through Collaboration of Brainpower

Gassel

Maas²,

Bronswijk³

2009

Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2009)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Learning lies at the heart of knowledge productivity: tracing relevant information and developing and applying new competences rely on powerful learning processes (Keursten, Verdonschot, Kessels, & Kwakman, 2006). The assumption behind the notion of knowledge productivity is that in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage an organization needs to continuously improve and from time to time radically innovate its work processes, products and services (Drucker, 1993).…”

Section: Knowledge Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking social capital to knowledge productivity : an explorative study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-productive networks

Boom¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Li n ki ng sociaL capitaL to knowLe dge productivity Why are some networks more successful in achieving innovation than others? Why do some groups within organizations manage to operate without hierarchical boundaries, and at the same time achieve extraordinary, innovative results? How do they learn? And what kinds of network characteristics do they cherish? This book presents the process and findings of a four-year PhD study on these questions. With empirical data of more than seventeen networks a theoretical framework is presented in which characteristics of social capital are linked to knowledge-productive learning processes. This book invites you to connect to the world of social capital, participative research and innovative learning and at the same time offers a practical guide to get started within your own social network. About the authorTjip de Jong is a member of Kessels & Smit, The Learning Company, an international network of consultants and researchers who support individuals, teams and organizations in learning and development issues. He has a particular interest in learning processes in communities and the relationship between social capital and knowledge productivity. In his consultancy practice he uses the concept of the playful organization as a basis for his work. He looks for opportunities to make things happen directly, to get going, and to bring pleasure, lightness and suspense: all of which to him is the essence of play. Tjip is the editor of the Dutch HRD journal Develop and lecturer at the Foundation for Corporate Education.9 7 8 9 0 3 1 3 8 2 0 9 5 i s B n 9 7 8 9 0 313 8 2 0 9 5 Li n k i ng soci a L ca p ita L to k nowLe dg e p rod uctivit y An explorative study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-productive networks tj i p d e j o n g Li n k i ng soci a L ca p ita L to k nowLe dg e p rod u ct i vi t y tj i p de j on g Linking Social Capital to Knowledge Productivity An exploratory study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-productive networks Network participantsMany network participants invested their valuable time in the research activities. I would like to thank the nurses, doctors and psychiatrist of GGNet, the teachers, staff members and managers of the ROC Midden Nederland, the constructors and project members that took part in the RISNET activities, the ICCO network participants and relevant external partners, the participating teachers, managers and entrepreneurs connected to the Limburg Leisure Academy and fi nally the network participants in the initiatives of the Academie voor Overheidscommunicatie. XLinking social capital to knowledge productivity

show abstract

“…The first learning function has been defined as acquiring subject matter expertise and professional knowledge directly related to the organization"s business and core competencies (Kessels, 1996;Keursten, Verdonschot, Kessels, & Kwakman, 2006). In a sense, the first learning function covers the main part of the concept of knowledge management (Davenport & Prusak, 1998;Stam, 2004;Weggeman, 1997).…”

Section: Learning Function 1: Subject Matter Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a sense, the first learning function covers the main part of the concept of knowledge management (Davenport & Prusak, 1998;Stam, 2004;Weggeman, 1997). Subject matter expertise stresses the importance of "strategic grounding" (Stam, 2004) as it is about knowledge which is directly related to the main work processes and work-related objectives (Keursten, 2001;Keursten et al, 2006;. Furthermore, subject matter expertise is both about tacit and explicit knowledge (Kessels, 2002;Polanyi, 1974), and it is about the way knowledge is developed, shared and codified throughout the organization (Kessels & Keursten, 2001;Keursten, 2001).…”

Section: Learning Function 1: Subject Matter Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fourth learning function of the Corporate Curriculum has been described as acquiring communicative and social skills that help people access the knowledge network of others, participate in communities of practice and make learning at the workplace more productive (Kessels, 1996;Keursten et al, 2006). Communication skills stresses that knowledge is processed through people.…”

Section: Learning Function 4: Communication Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making Sense of Knowledge Productivity

Stam

Identifying, Measuring, and Valuing Knowledge-Based Intangible Assets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the knowledge economy knowledge productivity is the main source of competitive advantage and thus the biggest management challenge. Based on a review of the concept from two distinct perspectives, knowledge productivity is defined as the process of knowledge-creation that leads to incremental and radical innovation. The two main elements in this definition are "the process of knowledge creation" and "incremental and radical innovation". The main aim of this chapter is to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of knowledge productivity in order to support management in designing policies for knowledge productivity enhancement. After elaborating on the concept of knowledge productivity, the two main elements are combined in a conceptual framework -the knowledge productivity flywheel. This framework appeared to be an effective model for supporting initiatives that aim for enhancing knowledge productivity. INTRODUCTIONOur economy has changed from an industrial into a knowledge economy Toffler, 1981), in which the competitive advantage of organizations is based on the ability to exploit knowledge resources. The increased importance of knowledge as an economic resource has been reviewed from many perspectives, resulting in slightly different denotations, each usually emphasizing a different but related aspect of the same phenomenon. Some examples of this are the "knowledge society" (Toffler, 1981), "knowhow society" (Sveiby & Lloyd, 1988), "information society" (Giddens, 1994), "information economy" (Shapiro & Varian, 2003), "learning society", "learning economy" , "network society" (Castells, 1996), "intangible economy" (Andriessen, 2004) and the "creative economy" (Florida, 2002). Within the different denotations of the new reality, we see that authors are either referring to society as a whole, or to the economy. However, as Jacobs (1999) argues, the term knowledge society is a tautology -a needless repetition -as society and mankind have always been dependent on the interpretation of knowledge. Yet, the knowledge economy, in which knowledge has become the main factor of competitive advantage, is a new phenomenon. The transition to the knowledge economy is about the increase in scale of knowledge as a production factor. Knowledge is not a new production factor, but the relative importance of knowledge, related to land, labour and capital, has substantially increased during the past few decades (Castells, 1996;Weggeman, 2000). In line with this reasoning, Stewart reminds us that, "not for nothing are we homo sapiens, thinking man" (Stewart, 1997, p.5, italics in original). Inspired by Stewart (2002) and , the essence of the knowledge economy can be summarized in three characteristics. First, in the knowledge economy, knowledge is what we buy, sell, and do. Second, intellectual capital (IC) is the new wealth. Third, knowledge productivity (KP) is the biggest challenge (Stam, 2007). Whereas the first and second characteristic of the knowledge economy are extensively elaborated on, the third rem...

show abstract

Relating learning, knowledge creation and innovation: case studies into knowledge productivity

Cited by 20 publications

References 5 publications

A Research Model for Architectural Meetings to Support the Implementation of New Building Technologies through Collaboration of Brainpower

A Research Model for Architectural Meetings to Support the Implementation of New Building Technologies through Collaboration of Brainpower

Linking social capital to knowledge productivity : an explorative study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-productive networks

Making Sense of Knowledge Productivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About