Lotte Dars0Innovation in the Making1. edition 2001 Samfundslitteratur1. edition reprint 2002 Samfundslitteratur

© Samfundslitteratur 2001Cover: Torben LundstedTypeset: Narayana PressPrint: Narayana Press, Gylling, Denmark

ISBN 87-593-0881-8

Published by:SamfundslitteraturRosenoerns Alle 9DK-1970 Frederiksberg CDenmarkTelf: + 45 38 15 38 80Fax: + 45 35 35 78 22slforlag@sl.cbs.dkwww.samfundslitteratur.dk

All rights reserved.No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any informationstorage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Contents

Preface 13

Acknowledgements 17

Chapter 1: Innovation in the making: Introduction 21

Introduction to the chapter 26

Innovation 28

Industrial challenges 29

Product development cycles 30

How does innovation start? 31

Why groups? 31

Why is it interesting? 32

Summary: Why study Innovation in the Making? 33

Innovation in the making: the first research question 33

Processes of innovation 34

The working model 35

Positioning the book 37

Summary: what is 'Innovation in the Making'? 38

Objectives 38

The first objective 39

The second objective 39

The third objective 43

Summary: How is 'Innovation in the Making' examined? 43

The preject - a nascent research area 44

What this book is not about: Delimitation 44

What this book is about: Reading guide 47

Chapter 2: Industry and organization 51

Megatrends 52

Innovation policy 54

The Innovation War 55

Danish industry 56

The pharmaceutical industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56

Merger-mania 57

Patents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58

5

To merge or not to merge - or demerge? 58

Product development cycles 60

Biotechnology - a new industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61

Tendencies of the pharma and biotech industries ... . . . . . .. 62

Future challenges ofthe pharma and biotech industries. . . . .. 63

The company: Novo Nordisk A1S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65

Brief history of Novo Nordisk A1S 66

Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71

A 'war of position' versus a 'war of movement' . . . . . . . .. 72

Exploration versus Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76

Leadership and Innovation Management 79

A dual organizational structure 82

Future challenges 83

Concluding remarks 85

Chapter 3: Theoretical foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89

Paradigms and models 89

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89

Scientific framework 90

Innovation process models 93

Introduction to this section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93

Definition of innovation 93

Innovation process models 94

Innovation stage models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95

Innovation relational models 97

Emergent models of innovation processes 100

Concluding remarks _ 106

Group development 108

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108

Group characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109

Definitions and delimitations 111

Homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups __ ., 111

Group management and leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115

Group process models .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120

Concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 124

Knowledge Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126

Introduction 126

From Mode 1 towards Mode 2 Knowledge Production 126

Classification of knowledge 128

What is a problem? 141

6

What is an idea 143

Knowledge creation process models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151

Concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 155

Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156

Lines of research 157

Some characteristics of creativity 157

The characteristics of the creative person , 159

Process models of Creativity 166

Creativity and group interaction 168

Crystallization 169

Innovative crystallization 172

Concluding remarks 173

Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 174

Delimitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 174

Definition 175

Shannon & Weaver's 'Tube' model of communication 176

Developing the model of 'Genuine Communication' . . . . .. 177

Genuine communication 178

Collective monologue 179

Context 180

Discussion 183

Listening or hearing? 186

Discussion 188

The message 188

Discussion _. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190

Antagonistic dialogue 191

Concluding remarks 195

The preject-project model 196

The preject 196

Concluding summary 199

Chapter 4: Methodology 203

Outline of the chapter 204

The nature of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 204

The inner circle: the individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205

The middle: the group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206

The outer circle: the organizational context. . . . . . . . . . .. 206

Outside the circle: the environment 207

7

The case study method .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 208

Research questions and objectives 208

The propositions 210

The unit of analysis 211

The logic linking data to propositions 212

Criteria for interpreting the findings 212

Triangulation 212

Prospective versus Retrospective studies 213

Clinical research and ethnography 216

Tension between roles 218

Bias 219

Classification of Data 220

Criteria for research evaluation 223

Concluding remarks 224

Chapter 5: Case study overview and narrative 226

This chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 226

Introduction to case studies 227

The preject-project figure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 228

Going Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 229

The pilot study 230

From External to Internal 233

First cultural clash 233

Chasing the 'beginnings' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 234

How does a reorganization feel? 235

Base-line case study 1: Values In Action 236

Second clash: Don't ask if you don't have the answer! 239

Base-line case study 2 239

Case study 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 241

Third clash: 'Our' world versus 'your' world 243

Case study 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 243

Case study 5: Creative Problem Solving 245

Case study 6: The Mediator Group 246

Identifying Novo Nordisk cultural values 249

Analysis of Novo Nordisk culture 252

General work practice 254

Innovation Coach 255

Concluding remarks 258

8

Chapter 6: Communication patterns: Findings and Analysis . . . . . . . . . .. 260

This chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 260

Linking data with propositions 261

Establishing construct validity for the communication

framework 261

From data to findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 264

The overall pattern of communication 266

Findings and clarifying questions 267

Data from case study 1 268

Data from case study 6 269

Data from case study 4 271

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 272

Discussion: The beginning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 273

Beginnings in group process models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 274

The Butterfly effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 277

Antagonistic dialogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 278

Concluding remarks 281

Chapter 7: Communication content: Findings and analysis. . . . . . . . . . .. 284

Introduction to the chapter 284

Uncertainty versus certainty 285

Establishing construct validity for the Kubus framework 287

Coding 288

Discussion of the first findings of case study 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 291

Data from case study 1 (base-line study) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 292

What is a fact? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 293

Information and exformation 294

Structure and leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 296

Investigating the Questions 297

Classification of questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 298

Findings in relation to questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 302

Data from case study 6 305

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 306

Case study 3: Findings on the processes leading

to crystallization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 308

Framing through multiple perspectives (diversity) 313

Knowledge and Ignorance 315

Concluding remarks 317

9

Chapter 8: Conclusion and implications for future research 319Introduction 319

In what ways can innovative processes be initiated,

supported and managed towards innovative

crystallization in heterogeneous groups? 320

Initiating innovative processes 320

Supporting and managing innovative processes. . . . . . .. 323

In what ways does communication influence knowledge

creation in heterogeneous groups? 326

Communication and Knowledge Creation 326

Synthesis of frameworks and models 328

Synthesis of models 332

Which process models contributed to 'Innovation

in the Making'? 334

Revised process model 336

Implications for future research 339

Questions and ignorance 340

Beginnings 341

The generative potential of antagonistic dialogue 342

Research as a way of life 344

Concluding remarks 345

Chapter 9: Recommandations for innovation in groups

and organizations 347

Introduction 347

Target group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 348

Innovative Process Model 351

The four dimensions 352

The four roles 353

Relations 354

Concepts 357

Knowledge versus Ignorance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 359

Communication frameworks and meeting forms. . . . . . . . . .. 364

A typology of meeting forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 365

'Club' meetings 365

'Reception' type meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 366

'Debate' type meetings 366

'Dialogue' type meetings 367

Innovation in Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 368

10

Barriers for innovation in organizations 369

'Umbrella' and emergent strategies 371

Potent Reward and Incentive systems 371

Recommendations for organizations 373

A global Hot-House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 373

Innovative partnering workshops .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 375

Innovation Cafes 376

A virtuous circle of innovation 376

Appendices to Innovation in the Making 379

Appendix A: CV for Lotte Dars0, Ph.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 379

Appendix B: EB Project Overview from 1996-2000 384

Appendix C: Success/Failure Visualization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 385

Appendix D: Attitude Clarification - 'Firewheel' 386

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 388

Index 404

11

Chapter 1

Innovation in the making

Introduction

John: "I hope you people are sufficiently open minded and don't con­sider this a waste of time."

Anders: "I would like to see the group work in a very creative and openatmosphere. I hope we can avoid getting political undertones and awhat's-in-it-for-me atmosphere."

Brian: "It's really important that we have a creative discussion, not try­ing to just criticize when we get some fancy ideas, but try to fluttera little bit before we get down to the roots."

Eric: "Yes, open discussions are what we need to make this a success."Frank: "I think that we should pool our efforts and experience into a

concrete action plan."Gary: "More should come out of this workshop than another system."Carl: "We should use different perspectives from diverse markets,

resources and strengths. Difference is not wrong, and you're notstupid if you come up with a different idea. We need to thinkbeyond the normal conventions."

Gary: "Since we have a lot of different perceptions ofhow we deal withnew leads, we should challenge each other's perceptions, and hope­fully this will result in some kind of structure or overall plan thatwe can all buy into."

This was part of the conversation at the beginning ofa 2-day workshop with8 persons of different backgrounds: from different nations (USA) China)France) Denmark)) different parts of the organization (research) develop­ment) technical service) marketing and sales) and with different functionsand tasks. A heterogeneous group ofexperts with the challenge oj, within twodays) coming up with a new way for the organization to collect and benefitfrom good ideas from employees. The business was industrial enzymes andthe workshop had been organized in order to enhance innovation and long-

21

term business development. The setting was a conference room facing the seaat the Hvidere mansion on a beautiful autumn morning of 1997. For morethan 50 years Hvidere was a diabetes hospital, but from the early 1990s ithas functioned as an international conference mansion for the company.

Anders: "In our part of the organization we have accepted that thefastest of our ideas come from our customers, and we have actual­ly assigned 3 of our field managers to use 15% of their time on newidea development, but then the idea goes into one person's officeand he is then the killer of all ideas, because he is very very verybusy ... If the ideas were channeled into somebody with a mindthat was a little bit more creative, maybe the ideas could be bentinto something, but we are frightened that we have put too manyideas into the system and that we haven't done our homework wellenough, and we have started to become so self critical that nothinggets through the system."

Carl: "And when the idea gets to the market, the market person runsaround to do market research, and there it dies."

Dieter: "What is important is that if the idea has the right content,we'll all listen and do something. It has to be the right message ifyou want to create a system where this happens automatically. Ithink it is impossible. We all have a lot of good ideas, but if weshould receive and deal with everything, then it will be too much."

John: "If you have an idea it might just be a tiny part of something.Maybe another person can help if you have the right system."

Dieter: "But that depends on people.You cannot create a system - youcan have a culture, you can develop an attitude in people and makethem give this serious thought."

Anders: "But a lot of the people who send in an idea do not know thatwe have had this idea before, and then the person who looks at theidea at the other end says "Gee! We looked at this 10 years ago!""

The group had been instructed not to come up with solutions right away (asthey would usually do) but instead to use some time to identify the ('prob­lem". They did this by talking about what was happening locally and abouthow things were in their part of the organization. In accordance with theagenda the group focused on finding the barriers for idea development local-

22

ly. The end result, i. e. the recommendations from the workshop, should meetthese challenges in order to be satisfactory.

Gary: "It's about creating an environment where it is o.k. to take risks.In an environment with cut-backs, the problem is that we havebecome averse to risk."

Dieter: "Is there any difference when we look at the American organ­ization compared to the Danish organization? I have a feeling thatthe American organization is more willing to get good ideas than inthe other part of the organization."

Frank: "It seems that Americans are much more receptive to embrac­ing new things, like new technology, compared to European organ­izations. They tend to sit back and wait to see somebody else do it- they like to wait and see."

Anders: "How do you stop the bad ideas? What is the process?"Frank: "All the easy apples on the trees have been picked, so technical­

ly you have to figure out a clever way of how to pick the high apples,so we spend a certain amount of our R&D budget on new things,so that the commitment is always there to do new things. Respon­sible risk taking. At our American competitors they actually triedout some new ideas ... made some feasibility studies. They did notshoot them down until they had tried them. I think they spendmore of their resources trying out the ideas and less time shootingthem down."

Dieter (ironically): "And what we do is that we set down a committeethat will be discussing the ideas for three years, whereas our com­petitors have been testing the idea for three years. The cost was thesame."

The group continued to share their knowledge in order to identify the ('prob­lem". A lot ofsubjects were covered. Above the themes were «culture" and thegeneral practice of the organization compared to how their competitorsworked. One person knew how the competitors worked as he had been work­ing for one of them for many years.

Anders: "I still think that a lot of the things have to do with the factthat the organization has grown too big and the networks do not ex-

23

ist that would allow people to channel new ideas into the system. Ithink that if the package is right and if we get the message to theright people who get enthusiastic, then it will work. So it is findingthese people who can do it for you, without getting it blocked frombureaucracy."

Dieter: "It is about selling the idea."Anders: "But you cannot sell it to the Industry Strategy Group

because they are so focused on long-term projects and big indus­tries and only on focus areas."

Frank: "So what you are saying is that you have to keep things like asubmarine, under water and have some success and then the sub­marine can surface?"

Dieter: "Still some people have the ability to set the whole organiza­tion in motion around a stupid idea ... "

At the end of the first day, people were getting frustrated. The group couldstill not agree on a shared problem formulation and with everything up inthe air and no common vision, the whole thing seemed rather chaotic. Infact, there were a lot of disagreements regarding what the real problem was- and consequently also what kind of solution would be required. Duringdrinks and dinner people aired their frustrations but also had a lot construct­ive conversations making use of the occasion to talk about what was hap­pening in the organization locally.

The next day started with a clarification of the concept of "a peerreview group".

Anders: "What you need is a center of support, not another criticalevaluation based on the fact that it does not work like that in Den­mark."

Dieter: "This is very fluffy, we walk around like the cat around the hotporridge, but how will it work if I sit somewhere and then I havethis wonderful idea which I think is revolutionary? Then I send it tothe peer group, and who is that and what kind of people are they,what will they do with my suggestion?"

John: "In my opinion it should be a mix of people from all over theorganization. It is very important that they have a broad networkand that they have business knowledge."

Carl: "I disagree with you, it should be as local a group as possible ...because you are gonna get so many ideas that if you have it all cen­tralized without some prescreening system you could spend yourentire career chasing down silly ideas."

Anders: "But could we point out one or two people in each geograph­ical area that are part of this prescreening, sparring partners of akind, so that you can get it past the managers?"

Gary: "Then you have created another gate to go through."Frank: "Let's just imagine, just for the sake of argument, just as one

example, let us say that there is a web page, where there is a box.You type your idea in the box, you have a box where you type yourinitials, and then a number of buttons. Is this a textile opportunity,animal feed, detergent? Those buttons are linked to mail buttonsfor key people in those areas, so when you type in your idea, youtype in your initials, you hit the button, that opportunity messagegoes to whoever was the support person or sounding board."

Anders: "But can you actually write in the Intra-web?"Carl: "Yes, you can, you can put links ... "

At this point the participants were bending eagerly towards each other andtalking rapidly - everybody trying to talk at the same time. The energy wasroaring. The first solution had crystallized. The rest of the day was used todescribe this solution. The whiteboard was covered with circles, squares, wordsand arrows in order to see if this solution could really overcome all the bar­riers that had been discussed earlier.

How did this happen? W'hat were the processes that lead to the crystalliza­tion? W'hat role did communication play? was the frustration necessary? W'hydo some groups come up with novel results while other groups come up withresults of the ((lowest common denominator"?In short, how does new knowledge and new solutions to problems crystallizeand in what ways can these processes be supported or even managed towards

innovative results?

That, in fact, is the content of this book.

Introduction to the chapter

The purpose of the first chapter is to introduce the research problem,its setting and relevance. The introduction aims at answering the ques­tions of why, what and how:• Why study 'Innovation in the Making'?• What is 'Innovation in the Making'?• How is 'Innovation in the Making' examined?• How is the book organized?

The first part of the chapter concerns the 'why' and is a figurativejourney starting with a macro-process view where the reader becomesacquainted with some of the challenges of global knowledge society.Gradually and logically this leads us to focus on some major indus­trial and organizational challenges until we reach the particular organ­ization that forms the context of the study. As we shall see, a majorchallenge for pharmaceutical and biotech companies is to make thediscovery phase more effective and efficient. However, little is knownabout the processes that precede the development of a new lead, andeven less is known about innovative processes in heterogeneousgroups. Thus, the answers to "why study Innovation in the Making"can be summarized in the proposition that knowledge creation and innov­ation in heterogeneous groups is a major competitive and an inimitablebusiness advantage.

The second part of the introduction concerns the 'what'. Here weintroduce two research questions and a working model, which pro­vides a first and simple illustration of the research problem. The work­ing model structures an introductory discussion of the main conceptsand pinpoints the focus of research in order to position the study. Inbusiness organizations the innovation process is generally understoodas phases or stages in a linear development. Interestingly most innov­ation process models do not include the focus of the present study: thegenesis of innovation. Strong arguments for selecting this focus arethat the genesis of innovation determines the entire innovational develop­ment of a company (Sundbo, 1998:311).

The third part of the introduction briefly describes 'how' 'Inno­vation in the Making' will be examined. Here we introduce three

26

objectives: 1) to gain new knowledge about innovative processes, 2)to develop a special theory, derived from practice, and 3) to developa set of recommendations for the organization. We position the studyas distinct from state-of-the-art on innovation research, which con­sists of mainly retrospective interviews or surveys. Contrary to state­of-the-art, the present study is a prospective, processual, real-timeand real-life study of heterogeneous groups working in practice. Webriefly outline the fields involved in the theoretical foundation: socialpsycholgy, cognitive psychology, organization, and business economy.Regarding the third objective of developing a set of recommendationsfor the organization, seven arguments are given for how organizationscan profit from the findings. It is pointed out that the recommenda­tions can be generalized to other organizations and to society atlarge. To sum up and clarify the focus of the study, some boundariesand delimitations of the study are outlined towards the end of the

chapter.Finally, a reader's guide is provided with an outline of the 9 chap-

ters and the Appendices, including (ultra) short summaries.What you are about to read is the description and development of

a unique study on how new concepts emerge, how new ideas are born,and how innovation processes can be developed and handled byimproving relations and communication in groups. At the turn of themillenium project groups and networks constitute a major part oforganizations. Consequently the ways in which groups interact andproduce knowledge, services or products are becoming highly relevantobjects of investigation. In addition, the competency of exchangingand creating new knowledge in groups has become the key competi­tive advantage in knowledge society, because it cannot be imitated.

The book is a blend of theory and practice, of analysis and narra­tive, based on prospective real-time case studies in a Danish pharma­ceutical and industrial enzymes company. It concludes with a chapterof practical recommendations for groups working in business com­panies and organizations.The recommendations derive from the innov­ative process model, a conceptual model, which is developed through­out the study. In addition a set of more general recommendations andpractical suggestions are given regarding how organizations can build

a "virtuous circle of innovation".

27

Innovation

"The basic economic resource - 'the means of production' touse the economist's term - is no longer capital, nor naturalresources (the economist's 'land'), nor 'labour'. It is and willbe knowledge ... Value is now created by 'productivity' and 'in­novation', both applications of knowledge to work."(Drucker, 1993:7, italics original)

Peter Drucker's term 'Knowledge Society' (1993) most accurately sig­nals the central aspects of society and industry towards the turn of themillennium. Knowledge, and particularly new knowledge or innov­ation, is a major criterion for the survival or growth of companies. In­novation is defined as the creation and implementation of new know­ledge into a product or service that yields profit. Three major types ofinnovation are: incremental, radical and social innovation (Sundbo,1998). Incremental innovations are improvements of processes,products and methods, often found by the technicians or employeesduring their daily work l . In this category we also find second gener­ation products, new applications of existing products, and new mar­kets for existing products. Radical innovation, as the term indicates,is novel, surprising and different in approach or composition. Scien­tific inventions belong to this category. Often radical innovation isbased on the convergence of several different kinds of knowledge. Thecomputer, for instance, was built on the convergence of five differentknowledges2

• However, radical innovations often include high risk andlong lead times. Finally, social innovations spring from social needs,rather than from technology, and are related to new ways of socialinteraction, behavior or function. According to Drucker, social innov­ations may have an even higher impact than scientific or technologicalinnovation (1985:126).

However, the contours of a fourth type of innovation begin toemerge. The significance of small but critical incremental changes, asin the 'Butterfly Effect' (Gleick 1990), have been identified withChaos and Complexity theory. Earlier radical and incremental changewere regarded as opposites, as 'either-or'. The new paradigm of com­plexity theory facilitates a 'both-and' perspective, which gives rise to a

28

new concept: Quantum Innovation3 . Quantum innovation refers tothe emergence of qualitatively new system states brought about bysmall incremental changes. "Seemingly insignificant changes canunfold to create large effects" (Morgan, 1997:265). In groups whooperate in 'contexts' of freedom and flux, the process of qualifyingknowledge can unleash innovative potential, in particular if the groupis open and alert towards emergent opportunities in its information

search.

Industrial challenges

The conditions and setting of the present study is a global knowledgesociety characterized by constant change, increased complexity and

high uncertainty.In the 1990's there has been a prevalence of industrial mergers and

acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry. Big organizations becamebigger while many middle-size companies were taken over or ceasedto exist. At the same time small specialized entrepreneurs emerged,particularly in the areas of information technology and biotechnology.Often larger companies bought the knowledge or products of thesesmall firms or alliances were made, typically between large pharma­ceutical and small biotech companies.

Novo Nordisk A/S, the company involved in the present study, isconsidered a large company in Denmark, but in an international per­spective the company belongs to the group of middle sized pharma­ceutical (and industrial enzymes) companies, which could be threat­ened by hostile takeovers, a subject of frequent discussion in the Dan­ish press4 . Novo Nordisk has, however, a construction of ownershipthat would make this rather difficult. Until recently (the beginning of2001) Novo Nordisk has consisted of a Health Care Division, in thepharmaceutical business, and an Enzyme Business of industrialenzymes. In 1999 Novo Nordisk announced a demerger in order toseparate these entities (from 2001) under Novo A/S, a wholly ownednew structure. The separation took place on November 14,2000. Thereasoning behind this decision was that separate units would have bet-

ter opportunities for focusing on their special strengths and core com­petencies} as the development of these two industries at the turn of themillennium involves more differences than similarities. We will returnto this discussion in chapter 2. The point here is that due to this newposition} the new Novo Nordisk entities} more than before, needstrong profiles of effective and efficient innovation.

Product development cycles

A major reason that big organizations want to become bigger is a wishto increase Research & Development. The 'Innovation War' describesa trend of increasing the number of launches of new products everyyear and at the same time decreasing the product development lifecycles (von Braun, 1997). In the pharmaceutical industry, life cyclesare presently 10-12 years5 but a recent survey emphasizes that 'Dis­covery processes have gone largely unaddressed'6 and need to be cutin half, i.e. reduced from to 4-7 years to 2-4 years.

In 1995 Novo Nordisk completed a thorough revision and bench­marking of their Research & Development processes in Enzyme Busi­ness and in Health Care and managed to shorten the developmentphase from 4-7 and 12-14 to 2-5 and 10-12 years, respectively. A stan­dard project development cycle for the pharmaceutical industry isillustrated below:

Timeline for Discovery and Development of a new drug

Adding the above figures} the sum is 10 years and 3 months withoutcounting the time of the pre-project. A pre-project concerns identify­ing a target and generating a new lead. However} the present studyconcerns processes before the pre-project - which are not even in­cluded in the above timeline - and it is the claim of this book that thisis where the strongest potential for innovation lies. From then on andthrough the whole development process} we primarily find incremen­tal innovation.

How does innovation start?

The challenge would be to investigate how the idea or concept thatforms the basis for such a long life cycle was developed. Surely, onewould believe that a lot of focus, support and attention of the lead­ers/managers would be dedicated to this phase, and that an abundanceof methods, frameworks and manuals would be available to facilitatethe crystallization of new knowledge. Surprisingly, this is not the case.What happens before something turns up as a pre-project is ratherobscure} in 'real life' as well as in literature. At best it is described as achaotic or turbulent phase with certain individuals as central actorswho make use of informal networks, intra- and inter-organizationally.Others describe the process as 'skunk work'?, research that is con­ducted in the spare time or after hours because of the scientist's inter­est or because it is 'off the agenda' by management.

Why groups?

I Preclinical I Phase 11 Proof of Iconcept

36 months

Lead structureidentified

Pre-projectl Discovery

3°

36 months

PLPcProduct LeadProfile Candidate

36 months

Clinical proofof concept

Phase 2/3

15 months

NDA- Launchfiling

I Approval

"Creative teams solve and identify problems in much the sameway whether they are developing new software, dreaming up anew marketing strategy, seeking a scientific discovery, or con­triving a financial ploy." (Gibbons et. aI, 1994: 124)

However, in a world of accelerating competition along with shorterproduct development cycles and growing complexity, new ways arenecessary in order to survive and grow. Organizations can no longer

31

afford to depend on the invention and innovation efforts of single indi­viduals, no matter how dedicated, intelligent or creative these may be.Today the knowledge of one person is not enough. With growing com­plexity and accelerating change, organizations need innovative teamswho are competent in knowledge creation and who can effectively andefficiently (and in that order) generate and examine new opportunitiesand new leads. Today, "indeed, organizations largely consist of per­manent and temporary groups" (Gersick, 1988:9). However, moststudies with a group perspective are on decision making and commu­nication, and the majority of these are conducted in laboratories(Frey, 1996). Thus, there are good reasons for conducting a studyfocusing on groups (as the level of analysis). In the words ofThomasScheidel (1986:125):

"Group influences on the innovation process, and anystructured communicative approaches which may facilitateit, cry out for research attention." (emphasis added)

As a matter of fact, most studies on innovation take a managementposition in order to provide managers with systems or tools for man­aging innovation. The management perspective is evident in a majorstudy on innovation processes, the Minnesota Innovation ResearchProgram (MIRP) (Van de Ven & Angle, 1989:4):

"Although such a process theory may never reach the precisionto tell managers exactly what to do and how an innovation willturn out, it may produce some fundamental 'law of innovating'useful for describing and explaining a broad class of processes,sequences, and performance conditions central to the manage­ment of innovation".

Why is it interesting?

Stimulating innovation is a general objective of the company in orderto be competitive and survive. As stated by a corporate executive vice­president at a Novo Nordisk international human resources meeting

32

in 1997: 'We need to quadruple our product innovation'. When theproposal for 'Innovation in the Making' was presented to NovoNordisk management, they saw a potential gain for the organization instarting a research project with focus on the early phases of projectdevelopment in groups of knowledge workers. The objectives were todevelop a set of recommendations for enabling and supporting in­novative processes in heterogeneous groups. Could it be that toachieve the desired 'hard' and competitive results, 'soft' qualities wereneeded such as communication, trust and a different approach to co­operation?

Summary: Why study Innovationin the Making?

• Because knowledge creation and innovative competencies are themain assets for survival and competition in industries and organ­izations in a 'global knowledge society'

• Because the competency of innovative teams is a non-imitablecompetitive advantage of organizations

• Because research on knowledge creation and innovation in hetero­geneous groups is nascent - and in particular communication andinteraction research from a group perspective

• Because new approaches are needed to make the discovery phaseof New Product Development more effective and efficient to obtainbusiness advantage and growth

Innovation in the making: the firstresearch question

In this book we shall investigate 'Innovation in the making' by concen­trating on what happens before a concept crystallizes, by studying theformative processes of problem framing, by studying the communica­tion, interaction and leadership of groups of knowledge workers, or in

33

sum: by studying the processes that lead to the crystallization of newknowledge (innovation). How are problems found, opportunitiesidentified and knowledge created, which can lead to the creation ofnew products or new approaches? The main question is then:

it could be because of the immense complexity involved and becauseof difficulties with practical accessibility to real time studies in naturalcontexts.

Research \Vorking Model

crystallization

question Qorproblem

people ~~~

relational processes

conceptual processes

The approach to studying innovative processes is depicted in themodel below. This model is, so to speak, hypothetical - a workingmodel. Before starting the case studies, I had 5 years of experiencewith innovative groups8 and I had developed a theoretical framework,but I knew little about the 'real' nature of innovative processes. Thatwas, in fact, the knowledge I hoped to gain. This situation is "charac­teristic of philosophical inquiry: one wishes to discuss a concept, andhence must try to make clear what concept is being discussed, but thepurpose of the discussion is to enlighten the meaning of the concept"(Churchman, 1971 :4). A starting point, however, is still necessary - asphrased by Van de Ven (1988: 187): the first requirement for studyingprocesses of innovation is "a clear set of concepts about the objectbeing studied".

The working model

• In what ways can innovative processes be initiatedJ

sup­ported and managed towards innovative crystallization inheterogeneous groups?

Sundbo (1998:311): "The first phase of the innovation process,the generation of the idea is of utmost importance since it deter­mines the entire innovational development of the company. Thecontents of the innovation is primarily created in this earlyphase."

In the present study we refer to innovative processes as the generationand development of new ideas and concepts in the formative phase ofprojects. Definitions and discussions can be found in chapter 3. As thefocus is on the generation of innovative crystallization, implementa­tion is not included in this book, except one implementation of aninnovative crystallization, which was studied for 16 months (casestudy 6).

In the present study the initial phases have priority. It is the actualgenesis of innovation that is the focus. Flyvbjerg (1992: 19) has pointedout that the decisive activities for planning projects take place beforeobjectives, plans and policies, i.e. in the genesis.

"At a time when so much attention is given to innovation andentrepreneurship, it is rather pathetic that a deep understandingof the process is lacking." (Teece, 1987:3)

Processes of innovation

If the first phase of the innovation process determines the entire innovation­al development of the company, we would expect this area to be boom­ing with research. How come that this is not the case? We propose that

The basic model of innovative processes is intended to provide asimple illustration of the components of complex dynamic processes.The goal is, ultimately, innovation. However, in this start up phase of

34 35

problem identification and concept generation, the goal is crystal­lization of (new) knowledge, as seen in the right side of the model.Innovative crystallization involves collective transformation of accu­mulated and integrated ideas into a new conceptualization or proto­type. Innovative processes are defined in this book as processes thatlead to the creation of new knowledge during problem-forming, prob­lem-framing and crystallization of opportunities (in heterogeneousgroups). However, this definition is provisional- even hypothetical, asthe main objective of the book is to investigate and define what innov­ative processes are. This is answered with the research questions inchapter 8.

At the left side of the model there is a question/problem cloud,which signifies that often a project starts with something vague, notyet formed or identified, or with something that needs to be investi­gated and then reformed and reframed. Below the cloud, still on theleft side of the model, is a group of people. This symbolizes a projectgroup of knowledge workers with different backgrounds whose task isto create new knowledge and new leads. Heterogeneous groups re­fer to diversity in backgrounds, perspective, culture, age, gender, andorganizational or geographical affiliation.

Two levels of analysis are proposed. As depicted in the middle ofthe working model the main approach is communication, understoodboth as action and as leading to action. Communication influencestwo process levels: the conceptual and the relational level. The con­ceptual processes refer to the topical and the cognitive content ofcommunication, whereas the relational processes concern the inter­action between participants, the leadership process and the emotion­al context (climate). This separation is only analytical. In real life theprocesses operate at many levels simultaneously. Problem formation isgenerally a rather turbulent process, characterized by iterative cyclesand back loops, rather than linearity.

Knowledge creation in groups entails communication. But how isknowledge created in groups and in particular how is new knowledgegenerated? In what way (if at all) are innovative processes linked to thequality and type of communication? The working hypothesis for theresearch and case studies is that communication is central at all levels.Therefore we have formed a second research question:

• In what ways does communication influence knowledgecreation in heterogeneous groups of knowledge workers?

Positioning the book

In most literature on project management the pre-phase is as non­existent as in the pharmaceutical product development cycle displayedearlier. Classical literature on project management simply presupposesan idea or describes projects as phases starting with a concept andmoving to development, implementation and termination. The idea orconcept exists a priori to the project and the decision has already beenmade regarding goals. In classical project management, projects wereconsidered tools for innovation and for testing out new strategies. Asa consequence (classical) project management was mainly concernedwith planning. As we shall see in chapter 3, classical process modelsfor project management, as well as for innovation and group develop­ment, are primarily stage models with distinct steps.

In newer literature on project organization, the 'planning paradigm'is opposed to the 'explorative paradigm', which incorporates a moreprocessual view (Morsing, 1997). Here projects are understood as'temporary organizations', where individuals are temporarily enactinga common cause. The present study is more in line with the "tempor­ary organizing processes, i.e. the deliberate social interaction occur­ring between people working together to accomplish a certain, inter­subjectively determined task." (Packendorff, 1995:328).

Some attempts have been made to generate methodology in relation tosystematic innovation in the preject phase. One system, Kubus®, wasdeveloped at Copenhagen Business School (Herlau, 1995). Its mainapplication has been in regional development and in the area of educa­tion, but in 1996 it was applied in Novo Nordisk research teams by theauthor (Dars0, 1997a) and this led to the Ph.D. preceding this book.

In 1996 Dars0 & Herlau coined a new concept in order to discernthe pre-phase from goal-directed projects: the preject. Briefly, a pre­ject is defined as an open (divergent) process of search for opportun-

37

ities and creation of new knowledge through group interaction andleadership. Prejects precede projects. Prejects are characterized asbeing nonlinear and process driven, whereas projects are more linearand goal driven. This will be discussed in chapter 3.

Summary: what is 'Innovation in the Making'?

• it is an analysis of 'innovative processes' or the generation anddevelopment of new conceptualizations in the formative phases ofprojects

• it is research dedicated to finding answers to two research ques­tions:

1. In what ways can innovative processes be initiated, supportedand managed towards innovative crystallization in heteroge­neous groups?

2. In what ways does communication influence knowledge cre­ation in heterogeneous groups of knowledge workers?

• the focus is on knowledge creation and innovative crystallizationand the level of analysis is group communication

• the focus is on the 'preject', a divergent process of search for oppor­tunities under a structure of leadership

Objectives

1. To gain new knowledge about the processes that lead toinnovative crystallization through case studies in a real­time and real-life organizational context in interaction withheterogeneous groups working to create new knowledgeand new leads in the preject phase.

2. To develop a 'special theory'9 derived from practice for in­itiating, supporting and managing innovative processes toenhance innovative crystallization in heterogeneous projectgroups.

3. To develop a set ofrecommendations for the organization: amanual with methods, frameworks and advice for groupsworking with knowledge creation and novel approaches.

The first objective

To gain new knowledge about the processes that lead to innovativecrystallization is important and the study is in many ways a pioneer­ing adventure because of the constellation of 'innovative crystalliza­tion', 'case studies', 'real time', 'real life', 'interaction', 'heterogeneousgroups' and the 'preject phase'. The formative phase of projects is notwell understood. As described above, it is not on the 'map' - perhapsbecause it does not have an authorized 'label'. The 'preject' is anattempt to label it and define the space. We have outlined a workingmodel for the study. Real-time studies on innovation processes inorganizations are rare - and even rarer in a group perspective. Thus,answering the research questions are of major importance for groups,organizations, industry and society.

The second objective

The second objective involves existing theory.The challenging conceptsare here: a 'special theory', 'derived from practice', 'initiating', 'sup­porting', 'managing', 'innovative processes', 'innovative crystallization'and 'heterogeneous groups'.

A 'special theory derived from practice' needs a few words ofexplanation. A special theory has a philosophical rationale, an idealmodel based on rules, and recommendations for improving practice(Bormann, 1996). The philosophical rationale is that innovative pro­cesses can be initiated, supported and managed towards innovativecrystallization, and that communication is possible. The ideal modelbased on rules is developed in chapter 8, and the recommendationsfor improving practice can be found in chapter 9. The theoreticalfoundation is comprehensive as it draws on theoretical input fromdifferent fields. This is displayed in the figure below.

39

Theoretical contributions from the social sciences

The idea is to encompass and possibly integrate multiple theoreticalcontributions that can throw light on innovative processes in prejectgroups. As the field is nascent, relevant theory must be searched for indifferent areas. This task has a slight resemblance to detective work, aphrase also used byYin (1994). In this paragraph we will narrow downthe 4 major fields to the relevant sub-fields or disciplines. The realtheoretical framework will follow in chapter 3.

However, none of these theories can be applied directly to the presentstudy. First of all, most small group research as well as most researchon communication related to decision making in groups has been car­ried out as laboratory or field experiments in so-called zero-historygroups. In a survey on small group research by McGrath & Altman(Fiedler: 1967: 17) less than 5% of the 250 studies reported were nat­ural groups in field settings. Frey (1988) reported that 64% of thestudies were of zero-history groups, 72% used students, 60% werelaboratory experiments, and 72% observed a group only once. In asimilar survey by Frey in 1994 the numbers had barely changed. Stateof the art in Small Group Research is therefore as follows (Frey,1996:39): "Most researchers thus still study a single meeting of zero­history, college student groups in the laboratory or classroom." It goeswithout saying that this is critical. It is tempting to raise the questionwhether studies of this kind contribute at all to understanding naturalgroups in natural contexts? The parallel to detective work does notseem that far-fetched when the job is to find the less than 5% of stud­ies on natural groups that could be relevant - and how many of thesegroups have been studied in the preject phase?

small group research [1948] (1973) and the educational innovations ofT Groups (T = training) and 'laboratories' immediately before hisdeath in 1947. Small group research has made important contributionsto understanding group dynamics (Bradford, Gibb & Benne, 1964),group climate (Gibb, 1964) and leadership style (Fiedler, 1967).

As for communication in relation to decision making in groups, thisfield has grown steadily with the development of three major theoret­ical approaches in the 1980'es: The functional, the structurational andthe symbolic convergence theory (Frey, 1996).

organization

businesseconomy

cognitivepsychology

socialpsychology

The kaleidoscopic exercise

Social psychology

From social psychology we shall draw on two fields: Small groupresearch and the study of group communication and decision making.Interestingly both fields have been inspired by the same person, a pio­neer, not only in group psychology, but also in the psychology of lead­ership and action research. Kurt Lewin inspired the development of

Cognitive psychology

When examining knowledge creation, we draw on theories from cog­nitive psychology. In order to understand how ideas are generated andproblems found, formed and solved, we must gain insight into cogni­tive processes (Simon, 1978, Hansen 1997), intelligence (including

'emotional intelligence', Goleman 1996), styles of thinking (e.g. diver­gentJconvergent in Scheidel, 1986), the meaning of tacit knowledge(Polanyi, 1966) and 'skilled ignorance' (Dars0, 1997c) and, of course,knowledge creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and creativity(Maslow, 1970; Edwards, 1987).

Organization

The reason for drawing in the field of organization is the 'structural'(Giddens, 1984) influence of the organization on groups working withknowledge creation. Processes of innovation in researcher groups donot happen in a 'lab' - at least not in the above meaning of SmallGroup Research! The organizational impact is reflected in the organ­izational culture (Schein, 1986, 1994), in networks (Stacey, 1996), inpolitics (March & Simon, 1958, Hosking & Morley, 1991) and instrategy Gohnsen, 1994, Stacey, 1993, Mintzberg, 1989). Even thoughthese areas must be regarded as somewhat peripheral to the presentstudy, which is focused on the group as the unit of analysis, the the­ories are necessary for describing and understanding the direct andindirect influence of the organizational context. Also the structure ofthe organization may have significance for project initiatives.

In relation to innovation, Jim March (1991) pointed out the impor­tance of a balance between strategies of exploration and exploitation.This parameter would influence the degree of 'freedom' of researchersworking with innovation.

Business economy

Finally, to complete the circle (or square), business economy includesthe fields of innovation & entrepreneurship, management and strategy.There are some overlaps with organization, e.g. with strategy. Man­agement, however, the fastest growing field in business (Micklethwait& Wooldridge, 1997), is important in relation to: the management ofknowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) and the management ofinnov­ation projects (Van de Ven & Grazman, 1997) and project groups(Mikkelsen & Riis, 1992; Packendorff, 1995). This perspective is dis­cussed in chapter 2.

The third objective

The third objective is important for Novo Nordisk, but will also behighly desirable for other organizations working with initiatives forinnovation - and indeed for society at large. Is there anywhere whereit is not desired to improve communication in heterogeneous groupsand turn problems into opportunities, leading to new products, ser­vices or ways of adding value to the world we live in? "Research issocially desirable precisely because it often generates such widespreadand indiscriminate benefits." (Rosenberg, 1990: 167).

As mentioned earlier, in industry it is of the utmost importance fororganizations to look for new ways to gain advantage in their business.A more systematic and focused preject phase would serve several pur­poses:• it would qualify the knowledge creation process by exploiting the

diverse resources of the group and of the environment• it would shorten the early phases of product development and

thereby shorten the whole process• it would make the pre-phase less turbulent• it would allow a more effective screening of new research areas ear­

ly at little cost (opposed to closing costly projects at a later stage)• it would reduce the dependency on specially talented individuals

("idea generators") as a better practice could be applied by groupsin general

• the system could be applied in critical phases of product develop­ment

• it would support team work across the organization and strengthenthe working climate and the innovative culture of the organization

Summary: How is 'Innovationin the Making' examined?

• by focusing on 3 objectives in order to develop theory, practice andconcrete recommendations

• through research applied in practice

43

• as a prospective processual real-time study

• as case studies conducted through a case study research designcombined with triangulation

The preject - a nascent research area

Summing up, this book points out a nascent area of research that hasbeen overlooked and neglected - or almost - nonexistent. The pre­ject phase encompasses the entire process of problem finding, goalseeking, knowledge creation and innovative crystallization in hetero- 'geneous groups. The preject phase is important because it is wherethe seeds of innovation are sown and cultivated. The aim of thisstudy is to identify and examine processes that help or hinder theseeds in sprouting and growing. It goes without saying that if thequality of the seed of innovation is determined in the preject phase- whether by group relations, communication, knowledge creation,or by other factors - if the DNA is 'imprinted in the seed' by thetime of crystallization - this has important implications for futureresearch.

What this book is not about: Delimitation

"On those remote pages it is written that animals are dividedinto (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones,(c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f)fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in thisclassification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innu­merable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hairbrush, (1) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase,(n) those that resemble flies from a distance."(Borges 1966, p.108) (in Lakoff, 1987:92)

The above quote was invented by Borges, and his point (and Lakoff's)was to show the extraordinary diversity of human categories found

44

around the world, which may look rather odd, particularly when seenfrom a Western perspective. My intention with the above quote is topoint to the oddity of the headline of this paragraph and to ask thereader not to take it literally, as this would entail a similar diversityof things that are not included. The idea here is rather to sum up andclarify the boundaries and delimitation of the study.• It is neither a macro-process, political or sociological study, nor is

its main level of analysis organizational.

In chapter 2 of this book, a macro-process and organizational perspec­tive is taken, and that is in order to set the societal, business andorganizational context of the case studies. In the rest of the book, themain level ofanalysis is that of the group. This does not mean thatthe organizational perspective is left out. It means that in the casestudy analysis the organization is seen from the perspective of the indi­viduals who work with the creation of new knowledge.• It does not take the individual as its main level of analysis.

Likewise, even though at times some individuals will stand out fromthe group, we do not take an individual perspective, which wouldinclude interviews about personal motivation, background, difficul­ties, likes and dislikes, politics and power games, etc. This book has abusiness perspective and is meant to improve or transform practiceon innovation activities in a business organization and as the major­ity of work in business organizations include groups, we have chosena group communication and interaction perspective. Further­more, it is not a study of homogeneous groups, as in knowledge soci­ety it is more often the case that groups display high diversity. Thuswe study primarily heterogeneous groups.• It neither takes a management perspective, nor a strategic, or a

power perspective.

A majority of studies of innovation take a management perspective,obviously because management has a major influence on innovation,particularly in relation to resource allocation and to strategy. Admit­tedly, both the top-down management and strategy perspective areessential for the development of innovation in organizations. However,

45

in knowledge society most managers have had to realize that in manyareas they have less knowledge than their knowledge workers. Thus,also for managers, it is important to examine from a bottom-upperspective, how knowledge workers create new knowledge and whattheir needs and constraints in relation to management and to a busi­ness strategy are. We thus primarily adopt a bottom-up perspective,but do not entirely leave out a top-down perspective.

Regarding power, power has been studied as political science andsociology from a perspective of power as conflict as well as power asconsensus (Haugaard, 1997: 136-137). In this book we do not take aperspective of power. But because we cannot exclude power as a forceat play in organizations, we shall regard power as both conflictive and'consensual and see power as relational and potentially construc­tive (Foucault, 1979).• The major focus is not on innovation as a result.

It is important to point out that the primary focus and the unit ofanalysis is innovative processes. Certainly, we are interested ininnovative processes because they eventually lead to innovation. Thus,our interest in the result, which we describe as innovative crystalliza­tion in prejects, is primarily to study the processes in real-time, whichprovide the result. The challenge with working in real-time is its'openness', that we do not know whether the process is successful un­til it ends.• It is not a retrospective study based on interviews; nor is it a survey

based on questionnaires. It is not a laboratory or experimentalstudy with students (as most group studies), and it is not basedsolely on observation.

The study is prospective instead of retrospective. It is a real-time,forward-looking, open, processual, practical, 'hands-on' study ofknowledge workers. In my role as researcher, I deliberately shiftbetween observing, participating, and directing the group sessions inorder to gain knowledge of innovative processes, regarding how theyare best initiated, supported and managed towards innovative crystal­lization.

In SU1n, this is a 1nicro-process social psychological study in agroup-co1n1nunication and interaction perspective. The unit ofanalysis is innovative processes in the genesis of innovation(the preject).It is a prospective, real-ti1ne case study with het­erogeneous groups of knowledge workers in a natural, organ­izational context interacting with the researcher in solvingpractical proble1nS and in creating new knowledge.

What this book is about: Reading guide

The book is simple in its construction: Introduction~Global,Indus­trial & Organizational Context~Theory~Method~CaseStudies~­Analysis~Conclusion and Future Research ~Recommendations

~Appendices.

The general structure of the chapters is the following: Each chap-ter begins with an introduction to the chapter, which outlines the con­tent, and each chapter ends with concluding remarks. Chapter 3 ontheory has, because of its size, been divided into 7 subsections, eachof which begins with an introduction to the section and ends with con­cluding remarks. Chapter 9, the distilled research findings, can be readseparately as 'Recommendations for innovation in groups andorganizations'. Since the reader can easily orientate him/herself ineach chapter by reading the introduction, the following outline of the

chapters will be brief.

47

Chapter 1: Why study 'Innovation in the Making'?

Introduction What is 'Innovation in the Making'?

How is 'Innovation in the Making' examined?

How is the book organized?

Introduction to research field, research problem and research questions, industry,organization and context, objectives, focus, working model, main concepts, unit andlevel of analysis, methodology, theory.

Chapter 2: Chapter 2 focuses on the innovational context of the study: the external

Industry and environment (a global 'Knowledge Society') and the relevant industries

Organization (pharmaceuticals and biotechnology). A brief history of Novo Nordisk is told.Strategy and management of innovation are discussed, and the chapter ends byoutlining the contemporary challenges for organizations.

Chapter 3: Chapter 3 provides a state-of-the-art theoretical foundation for positioning the

Theoretical study. At the same time it discusses and generates theory, models and theoretical

foundation frameworks for the case study.

I. Paradigms and I. The general paradigmatic shift from Newton to Quantum is discussed and threemodels categories are introduced: stage models, relational models and emergent models.

2. Innovation 2. Innovation is defined, and selected process models are discussed. The mostprocess models relevant models for the present study are Toyota's 'set-based concurrent

engineering', Sundbo's dual strUCture and the M1RP process model. However,most innovation process models are organizational and are not relevant for groupsworking in the preject phase.

3. Group 3. The section on groups consists of clarification of concepts, development ofdevelopment frameworks, and a review of selected process models. Apart from providing

background material on group development, the main themes include group/team,diversity/ similarity, group leadership, and conflict.

4. Knowledge 4. The field of knowledge creation provides higWy relevant frameworks and processcreation models for understanding innovative processes. In this section we provide a meta-

framework for discussing knowing and knowledge. Several classifications ofknowledge are introduced, including discussions on 'tacit knowledge', 'intuition',information/exformation and 'ignorance'.

5. Creativity 5. Creativity mainly contributes to the present study in relation to delimitation,differentiation, and substantiation of concepts. The boundaries are clarifiedbetween creativity, innovation and innovative processes. In this section we discussseveral classifications of thinking, which links to the section of knowledge creation,and most importantly, we discuss and clarify the concept of 'innovativecrystallization' .

6. Group 6. In this section a theoretical framework for group communication is developed,communication based on three ideal type models: genuine communication, collective monologue,

and antagonistic dialogue. Communication is used in its original meaning ofsharing. The communication models are discussed by relating them to context andgroup climate, to listening or hearing, and to the message and rhetoric. The sectionconcludes with an overview of the communication framework.

7. The preject- The main characteristics of the preject-project model are outlined and the roots ofproject model the model are explained as going back to Herlau & Tetzscner's didactic concept

from 1995. The preject-project model will form the basic framework throughoutthe book for understanding and discussing innovative processes.

8. Concluding Concluding summary of the major contributions from the above fields.summary

Chapter 4: Chapter 4 focuses on application in practice. The problem is examined and

Methodology tentatively illustrated in a model in order to show its complexity. This justifies acase study research design. I argue for using a prospective instead of a retrospectiveresearch method. Clinical research and ethnography are introduced as the chosenapproaches, which are followed by a discussion on the differences and tensionsbetween these roles.

Chapter 5:

Case studyoverview andnarrative

Chapter 6:CommunicationPatterns:Findings andanalysis

Chapter 7:

CommunicationContent:

Findings andanalysis

Chapter 8:

Conclusion andimplications forfuture research

Chapter 9:

Recommendationsfor innovation ingroups andorganizations

Appendices:

A: CV of LotteDarse

B: EnzymeBusinessProjectOverview

C: Success/FailureVisualization

0: Attitudeclarification ­'f>rewheel'

ReferencesIndex

The focus of chapter 5 is on praxis and starts by outlining the case-study portfolio.The chapter is a subjective narrative of what happened and how it happened, whatproblems and obstacles I met during my research. The narrative is chronological,and the case srudies are briefly told including a workshop on Novo Nordisk'sculrural values leading to an analysis of Novo Nordisk's culture and generalpractice. The narrative ends with a short description of what happened after theresearch project ended: my work as innovation coach.

In chapter 6 the focus is on the relational level of analysis: communication patterns.Construct validity is developed in order to make the communication frameworkoperational. The overall communication pattern of case srudy 3 is illustrated in agraph and the data is triangulated with data from the other case studies. We diSCUSSthe influence of "beginnings" and the potential of conflict at some length andcompare that to theories outlined in chapter 3. We conclude by adding a fewelements from complexity theory and a constructive and a destructive trajectory tothe communication framework.

In chapter 7 the focus is on the conceptual level of analysis, communicationcontent. Construct validity is developed, and the Kubus framework IS developedinto a coding tool. An overview is provided with the main themes, "plus" words,metaphors, and "minus" words from case study 3. Data is triangulated between thecase studies and theory in relation to two main discussions: certainty andknowledge versus uncertainty and ignorance. The difficulty of distinguishing .between facts and opinions is pointed out. The discussion focuses on the funcuonof questions and the influence of framing or reframing the problem. We concludeby developing a 'Dynamic Knowledge Map' of exploring ignorance and tacllknowledge, combining it with rhetoric to 'qualified knowledge'.

This chapter forms the conclusion and synthesis of the book: 1) completing theresearch cycle by answering the research questions, 2) making a syntheSIS of therelational and conceprual levels of communication, and 3) integrating some of theframeworks and models from the book and from theory. The preject-project modelis cognitively transformed into the innovative process model, and it is argued thatthis model most accurately represents innovative processes in the preject space of'Innovation in the Making.' The four main dimensions are: relations and concepts,ignorance and knowledge.Finally, three promising areas of future research are outlined: I) the area ofignorance and divergent/convergent questions, 2) the influence and significance ofbeginnings, 3) the generative potential of antagonistic dialogue.

This chapter displays the distilled findings and practical outcome of the book. It ismade in the form of a practical users' guide of do's and don'ts. The manual startsby clarifying the target group.The four dimensions of the innovative process model impose a structure on themanual, and recommendations, frameworks and methods are given for workingwith each dimension and its corresponding role in innovative groups: theinnovation gardener is responsible for relations, the innovation conceptualizer forconcepts, the innovation challenger for knowledge, and the innovation jester forignorance.The second part concerns innovation in organizations. First the major barriers arelisted for innovation in organizations and secondly a 'virtuous circle of innovation'is outlined. This is followed by some general recornnlendations and practicalsuggestions for organizational transformation.

A: CV and list of publications by Lotte DarseB: Novo ordisk Enzyme Business's process model for ew Product Development

C: SuccesslFailure Visualization is mentioned in chapters 5 and 9 and in Casestudy 3 and 6. Appendix C is a template of an ideal-type SIFVisualization.

D: Attitude clarification or the 'firewheel' is mentioned in the same chapters asappendix C. Appendix 0 is an instruction with an illustration. Both were originallydeveloped by Herlau (1995).

49

NotesThe close link between cooperation and innovation is pointed out by OleFogh Kirkeby (1998:77).

2 The audion tube (a scientific invention); the binary theorem (a major mathe­matical discovery); a new logic; the design concept of the punchcard; and theconcepts of program and feedback (Drucker, 1985:132).

3 The term 'quantum innovation' was coined by the author. Morgan describedit (1997, 1997:265), but did not give it a name.

4 As for instance in 'Mandag Morgen', a Danish weekly business magazine,191098

5 EFPIA: The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures, 1999: 126 'Re-inventing Drug Discovery: Issues and Actions in the Quest for Innovation ,

and Productivity', by Andersen Consulting, 1997:67 The term 'skunk works' dates back from the US aircraft manufacturer Lock­

heed, where it was used for the design and development of the US's first pro­duction jet aircraft. Skunk works is now a registered service mark for Lock­heed (Trott, 1998:210).

8 CV is included in Appendix A9 A special theory has three main components: a philosophical rationale, an

ideal model based on rules, and recommendations for improving practice(Bormann, 1996).

5°

Chapter 2

Industry and organization

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the 'context' of the bookfrom an external business and organizational perspective. The focus ofthe present study concerns the micro-processes of initiating, supportingand managing innovative processes in heterogeneous groups.

Thus we will approach the unit of analysis, innovative processes, bystarting with a macro-process global perspective and point out somegeneral trends in society and industry that influence organizations atthe turn of the millennium, then continue with the pharmaceuticalindustry and biotechnology, and, through that, meet the specificorganization, Novo Nordisk. General trends, such as globalization,technological development, 'knowledge society', the political con­sumer, and innovation policies, along with the overall change frommaterial to immaterial values, make innovation the major competitivefactor for firms and organizations who want to survive and grow. Howinnovative are organizations in Europe compared to the US andJapan? How do Danish companies fit in, and what is Danish policy inrelation to innovation?

After this we zoom in on one particular company, Novo NordiskA/S, the context of the book. We outline a brief history of one of theflagships of Danish industry, a middle-sized company in an inter­national context. The aim of the historical account is to provide thenecessary background information for understanding the presentorganization as well as the situation leading up to the present study.History also explains the special structure of this company, as it (untilNovember 2000 1) consisted of two rather distinctive divisions: apharmaceutical and an industrial enzymes division.

In the first part of the chapter we try to maintain an external per­spective on the organization, which is supplemented by an internalperspective in chapter 5. It is important to know how the press andexternal analysts evaluate the organization, in particular because NovoNordisk is known to be one of Denmark's most skilled companies2

28 Andersen Consulting, 1997:829 Berlingske Tidende: 03069830 Berlingske Tidende: 24109831 Berlingske Tidende: 30109732 Berlingske Tidende: 22050033 Berlingske Tidende: 22049734 Berlingske Tidende: 20010035 Numbers from Forrester, in Berlingske Tidende 04029936 Berlingske Tidende: 04020137 Scrip Magazine, January 1999:338 Berlingske Tidende: 04020139 Jan Leschly left SmithKline Beecham in april 2000 and became CEO of Care

Capital LLC, a private equity corporation investing in healthcare.40 Berlingske Tidende: 21099841 Berlingske Tidende: 20040142 Novo Nordisk: Stock Exchange Announcement No. 21/1999, p. 443 From Novo NordiskWebhotel, 16089944 Novo NordiskAnnual Report 199845 The Novo NordiskWay of Management was introduced in 1997 with 10 fun­

damental principles to be followed throughout the organization in order toensure productivity and alignment with Novo Nordisk values

46 Unless otherwise stated, the following is based on 'Livet pi! Novo' ("Life atNovo") fortalt afHelge Richter-Friis, 1991

47 B0rsens Nyhedsmagasin, no. 6, 15039948 A famous Danish architect49 Interestingly, Enzyme Business still works in 'Business-to-Business' relations50 CIMI (Copenhagen International Management Institute) report, Peter

Feldinger, 199751 Enzymer - hvor bruges de? ("Enzymes - where are they applied?") Novo

Nordisk, 199552 Stock Exchange Announcement No. 21/1999, page 453 See the organizational chart e.g. in Berlingske Tidende 22020154 According to Mandag Morgen, No. 14, 1997, Novo Nordisk invested 15,1 %

of the turnover in 1996, whereas other pharma companies invested from 16,2to 18,1 %. In 1997 Novo Nordisk invested 16,3%, still a little behind the aver­age of that year of 16,9%, according to Scrip Magazine, Jan. 1999:40

55 B0rsens Nyhedsmagasin, No.6, 1999:4456 E-mail correspondence of Aug. 199957 B0rsens Nyhedsmagasin, No.6, 1999:4458 BerlingskeTidende: 21020159 Berlingske Tidende: 21020160 Scrip Magazine, January 1999:72

88

Chapter 3

Theoretical Foundation

"In debating the epistemic status of scientific theories, likewise, itmust be made clear whether one has in mind, say, the mathematicalschema of quantum-mechanical field theory, the populational analysisof natural selection, the microstructures and mechanisms of molecu­lar biology, the developmental sequences of cognitive psychology, thelabour theory of economic value, the general regularities of terrestrialmeteorology, or what."1

Paradigms and modelsIntroduction

This chapter has two main purposes. The first is to provide a state-of­the-art theoretical foundation, based on four different disciplines fromthe social sciences: social psychology, cognitive psychology, economy,and organization (se p. 40). The intention is to position the study inrelation to the theories and empirical findings relevant for the phe­nomenon under study, i.e. to establish in what ways the present studydiffers from state-of-the-art and in what ways the present study gen­erates new knowledge.

The second purpose is to identify and develop theoretical frame­works for understanding and interpreting the empirical findings, asrequired by the case study method. Theoretical frameworks andmodels are the researcher's 'instruments' as they provide a lensthrough which complex phenomena can be understood. The disad­vantage is that, as cognitive schemas, they may bias the interpretationof the empirical findings. That is why this study is multi-paradigmaticand seeks knowledge by applying different paradigms.

'Episteme', 'Techne' and 'Phronesis' were three intellectual virtuesdefmed by Aristotle (Flyvbjerg, 1992:71-76). Episteme, as in epistem-

Zohar's Eight Principles of the Old and New Science, 1997 (pp 41-73)

tion and context. A new paradigm (Quantum) has gradually emergedwith the science of complexity and deterministic chaos, whichstresses non-linearity, unpredictability and disorder as the 'normal'conditions (Gleick, 1990). In relation to the present study, we shalllook into whether this paradigm can improve our understanding of theprocesses observed in prejects. The differences between the 'old' andthe 'new' paradigms are displayed below:

ology, concerns universals that are invariable and predictive, such asNewtonian science or analytic rationality. 'Techne', as in technology,concerns the concrete that is variable and dependent on the context.It is about practical, means-end rationality, and concerns productionand arts. Phronesis, or prudence, concerns values, which are relevantfor praxis. It concerns conduct, which is variable, context dependent,and related to judgment, experience, and choice.

The present study combines multiple perspectives in a real-timeprospective study in practice, a Mode 2 approach to knowledge pro­duction (Gibbons et aI, 1994). I, the researcher, start out with theo­retical frameworks, which are based on and generated from existingtheory, i.e. from a paradigm of 'episteme'. This perspective is preva­lent in the present chapter. Throughout the book, however, the'techne' perspective is evident because it is a study of problem solvingin practice, i.e. it involves a target that must be achieved, and a targetfor which I am also, at least partly, responsible. As for 'phronesis',questions of judgment and choice, based on experience and sensitiv­ity to the context, 'phronesis' is ever present, as I work as clinician andethnographer in real-time processes. Thus, the present study involvesall three of Aristotle's intellectual virtues.

NEWTONIAN SCIENCE

• atomism

determinate

reductive

either-or

certainty

actuality

subject-object split

• vacuum

OUANTUM SCIENCE

• holismindeterminate

emergent and self-organizing

• both-and

• uncertainty

• potentiality

• participatory universe

quantum vacuum

Scientific framework

According to Kuhn (1970) a paradigm is an exemplary model, a set offundamental assumptions that are characteristic for a scientific field ina specific period of time. In order to reflect the general paradigmaticshift that is taking place in the social sciences, the scientific frameworkof the present study is multidimensional. Many of the theories arerooted in Newtonian science, some in a constructivist perspective, anda few in a complexity paradigm. The idea is to investigate in whichways each paradigm can contribute to our understanding of complexinnovative processes.

Newtonian or natural science is based on rationality and concernswhat can be measured, explained and predicted. The social construct­ivist paradigm focuses on the subjective origin of making sense of theworld. It deals with interrelations between intelligent agents, organiza-

The major difference is Newtonian linearity versus the non-linearityof complexity theory. In Newtonian science the scientist claims to beable to predict effects, movements and reactions because nature isseen as law-abiding, determinate and controllable, whereas, with com­plexity theory, events or developments cannot be predicted becausenature is seen as complex, chaotic and indeterminate.

During the study of literature it became evident that a commondenominator for the theoretical fields would be needed, and the unit­ing key turned out to be process models. Therefore process modelswill form the zone of convergence between the different disciplinesand paradigms.

A process model demonstrates the relations between processes andthe elements that may influence the development. A process model isalso a cognitive tool that draws attention to some processes or rela­tions and thereby tends to ignore others. Having a process model doesto some extent direct research, which is the case in the present study.In social theory, models often get a 'quasi-ontological' quality as a

91

model can create a new way of perceiving the object/process understudy based on new concepts (Yin, 1994:234). This aspect is alsoimportant in this book. One objective is to perceive innovative pro­cesses in new ways at the conclusion of the text.

In the present study we have developed a framework of three majorcategories of process models: stage-models, relational models andemergent models. Not all process models belong to one category only,there are, of course, overlaps and approximations.• Stage models are linear and sequential - and thus predictable. In

this perspective innovation is seen as 'an orderly, logical process'that can be broken down into its component parts (Saren,1984:21).

• Relational models focus on the interfaces between stages or on thelinks between people, and between people and context, culture,organization, and environment. The model is holistic in trying toprovide a general picture of processes of interaction and in tryingto show interrelations, which mutually affect each other.

• In emergent process models uncertainty, change, and flux arecentral. And so is the potentiality of becoming. Chaos deals withirregularities, discontinuity, unpredictability and complexity.Models of emergence place more importance on the context, as thecontext plays a major part in changing patterns ('attractor') ofbehavior (Gleick, 1990).

In the following we shall review some of the major process models forinnovation/new product development, group development, knowledgecreation, creativity, and communication. Each section will be intro­duced separately. The chapter ends with a summary in which the pre­ject-project model is positioned in relation to the reviewed processmodels (state-of-the-art). In this chapter the focus is on 'episteme'.'Techne' is the main perspective in chapter 4 in relation to methodol­ogy, and the 'phronesis' aspect is involved in chapter 5, the narrativeaccount of the case studies.

The represented theories and models are not meant to be an extensiveor full account of all process models of the above disciplines, but

rather a way to discuss some similarities and differences, strengths andweaknesses of the most relevant approaches.

Innovation process models

Introduction to this section

It is natural to start out with innovation process models in a project oninnovative processes, but as we shall see, most of the models presentedin this section are organizational models and do not add much value inrelation to group interaction. Used as descriptive frameworks fororganizational innovation some of these models are, however, enlight­ening, because a framework provides an opportunity for discussing thetaken-for-granted organizational project models of the specific com­pany - which can result in some concrete suggestions for improvement.The roots of these models are mainly economical, as the concept of'innovation' was coined by Joseph Schumpeter (1934), an Austrianeconomist. We take our point of departure in reviews of some generalinnovation process models and add other types of models, which areparticularly relevant for the present study: The Takeuchi & N onaka 'Re­lay Race', 'Rugby' and 'Sashimi' models, the Toyota model of 'set-basedconcurrent engineering', the 'edge of chaos' model by Stacey, Sundbo'scombined dual organizational structure, and the MIRP meta-processmodel. We also discuss the paradigmatic change that is taking place inproject management from stage-models (the project as a tool) towardsrelational models (the project as a temporary organization). We con­clude the section with a discussion and concluding remarks.

Definition of innovation

Before describing process models of innovation, a definition is need­ed. We use Joseph Schumpeter's original definition as described bySundbo (1998: 13):

innovation is an effort of one or '»'lore individuals tocreate econo'»'lic profit through a qualitative change.

93

Innovation can be a new product, a new production process, a newform of organization or management, and a new form of marketing orgeneral market behavior. Drucker too builds on the theoretical foun­dation of Schumpeter, but Drucker has added the systematic andrational aspect which is attractive, particularly from a managementpoint of view. And perhaps innovation is rational, but does that go forinnovation processes too? We provisionally defined innovative pro­cesses as processes that lead to the crystallization of new knowledgethrough problem forming and problem framing. We do not repeat thedefinitions of incremental, radical, social, or quantum innovation, butrefer the reader to chapter 1. Other classifications of innovation areavailable, e.g. product, technological, or market innovation, but these'are not relevant for our study of innovative processes and will not bediscussed.

Innovation process models

"But a good process model of innovation development doesmore than simply define its component events; it strings themtogether in a particular temporal order and sequence to explainhow and why innovations unfold over time."(Van deVen & Poole 1995:163)

The following is built on a review on process models by Saren (1984)and by Trott2 (1998). Saren (1984:11-12) defines innovation as differ­ent from invention and diffusion. "Innovation is the process by whichan invention is first transformed into a new commercial product, pro­cess or service." If we follow Saren's definition, "innovation in themaking" would be a project in the field of invention and only casestudy 6 would belong to the field of innovation. The process modelsthat Saren lists, however, do not have the exact same boundaries, andhe quotes a much more encompassing definition by Rutten (1959) ofinnovation covering "the entire process by which 'new things' emerge"(Saren, 1984:12). Paul Trott (1998:12) also has a broad definition ofinnovation (from a management perspective): "Innovation is the man­agement of all the activities involved in the process of idea generation,

94

technology development, manufacturing and marketing of a new (orimproved) product or manufacturing process or equipment."

Saren (1984:11) lists 5 types:• Departmental-stage models• Activity-stage models• Decision-stage models• Conversion process models• Response models

Trott adds two more (1998:126):• Cross-functional models (teams)• Network models

Innovation stage models

The three first and the fifth of Saren's categories are stage models.They have different purposes and different focus, but are all based onstages of development.

The departmental-stage model is merely descriptive and basedon concrete organizational structures. Trott calls this type of model foran 'over-the-wall' model, which points to the problematic interfacebetween departments. This model is becoming outdated as too muchinformation and knowledge is lost every time a project is thrown 'overthe wall'.

The activity-stage model focuses on the (separate) activities relat­ed to the innovation process, e.g. idea generation, screening, commer­cial evaluation, technical development, testing, and commercialization.While the departmental-stage model merely describes where the newproduct is being developed, the activity-stage model focuses on what istaking place, which activities and tasks are being performed in order foran idea to be transformed into a product. Advanced activity-stage mod­els furthermore describe influences from the external environment.

The decision-stage model takes a different perspective by focus­ing on decisions related to innovation processes. In some models deci­sions are listed sequentially, this involving decision criteria for each

95

stage of GOINO GO. This way some projects are gradually eliminatedwhile some survive. In other models decisions are listed according tokey decisions and action points regarding e.g. personnel, marketing,production process, etc. While the former concerns decision on activ­ities, the latter concerns decisions related to departments.

The Response model is a stage model developed by Becker andWhisler in 1967, which focuses on the response of the organization, as"innovation is represented as the firm's 'response' to some external orinternal stimulus" (Saren, 1984:23).The stages of the model are: Stim­ulus (to create a new idea), Conception (of the idea), Proposal (of aproject), Adoption (or rejection). What is interesting in relation to this'book is the focus, the scope and the significance given to the initialactivities as key determinants for the response - and thus for determin­ing the start of the innovation process.This over-emphasis is, of course,also its weakness, as the rest of the innovation process is not included.

The innovation stage models described above all have in common thatthey are viewed from an organizational perspective. They have mainlyan internal focus, and are concerned with innovation processes insidean organization. The influence from external sources are mostlyignored (except in the response model). They also tend to have a man­agerial or top-down organizational perspective. As this is also the casewith traditional project management, we shall discuss the shift of para­digm that is taking place in project management before introducingprocess models of the relational category.

Project management

Projects started as unique enterprises for testing out new strategiesGohnsen, 1994), but became established as a more permanent way oforganizing with the matrix organization. Project management thusstarted as a functionalist or engineering matter, primarily related toplanning and resource allocation. Thus, the first models were stage­models. The Project Management Institute, describes four basicphases of project work (Lundin & Soderholm, 1995): concept, devel­opment, implementation, and termination. The phases are based onfunction, which makes it an activity-stage model. An important

aspect, however, is that certain key variables have to be managed dur­ing specific periods of the project. Thus, the time aspect is of majorimportance in project management, both in classical project manage­ment and also in the new paradigm of the 'temporary organization',but in the new paradigm, action (instead of decision making) is one ofthe main parameters. Below, the change of paradigm that is takingplace in project management is displayed.

OLD AND NEW PARADIGMS FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

~o the project as aresearch focus the project as a tool temporary organization

development plan expectations

t --r i ----implementation control action

t-- ------~----------------

termination evaluation learning

Packendorff, 1995:328

The major difference between the two paradigms is the shift from afunctional, mechanistic, elegant, not human design - a prototype ofthe 'engineering' culture (Schein 1998) - to a design involving humanagents who act according to expectations and learn (Packendorff,1995). The shift can also be interpreted as a shift from a product focustowards a more processual focus, acknowledging that human beingsinfluence processes and products and that most errors and failures canbe traced back to lack of information, miscommunication, conflict, orinept management.

Innovation relational models

According to the conversion-process model, innovation is per­ceived as a process of conversion of input through a 'black-box' to out­put. This approach avoids breaking down the process into parts or

97

stages and can give some overall insights into what factors influenceinnovation, its direction and costs. The black-box is, however,unknown.

Cross-functional and network models are team-based models, whichmeans that we move to a different level of analysis, in fact, to thelevel of analysis of the present study: the group level. As the networkmodel, the way it is described by Trott, is based on process modelsthat have been categorized in the present context as knowledge cre­ation models (e.g. Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), we will leave that forlater.

The idea of cross-functional teams, representing differentdepartments of the organization during large parts of the project andparticularly through the interfaces, has been implemented in manyorganizations. An example of this approach is 'concurrent en­gineering', which involves all functions from the start and throughoutthe project (Trott, 1998:128).

'Relay race', 'Sashimi' and 'Rugby'

The difference between stage models and relational models is articu­lated by Takeuchi & Nonaki in an article from 1986, where they equalthe traditional sequential model of product development to a 'relayrace', "with one group of functional specialists passing the baton tothe next group" (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986: 137). An alternative(relational) model resembles a 'rugby' approach, "where a team triesto go the distance as a unit, passing the ball back and forth" (ibid.). Inthe cases studied by Takeuchi & Nonaka, a mix of the two approacheswas found: the 'sashimi' system. This originated from a stage model(relay race), but was changed to overlap like 'sashimi' (slices of rawfish) on a plate, this way strengthening the interaction between theproject members internally but also with suppliers externally. Incomparison the Honda 'rugby team' consisted of one big team fromstart to end. The advantage of the overlap approach is that it "enhancesshared responsibility and cooperation, stimulates involvement andcommitment, sharpens a problem-solving focus, encourages initiativetaking, develops diversified skills, and heightens sensitivity towardmarket conditions." (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986: 141) The difficulty of

the approach was that it tended to create more tension and conflict inthe group.

Set-based concurrent engineering

Another 'concurrent engineering' model is Toyota's 'set-based concur­rent engineering' as opposed to a 'point-to-point' design (stage­model). The point-to-point design, which is common practice, is tomake modifications or improvements in series on one alternative until'the' solution has been obtained. Toyota has a different approach ofhaving many alternatives, and as Toyota has been very successful andfast in its car design, a group of researchers set out to investigate whythis was so. The following paragraph (including all citations) is builton an article by Ward, et al. from 1995. They found the paradoxicalsituation that in spite of their effectiveness, many steps of Toyota'sdevelopmental process seemed highly inefficient. One of the secretsappears to be thatToyota keeps the design process divergent for as longas possible: "The second paradox, in brief, delaying decisions, commu­nicating 'ambiguously', and pursuing excessive numbers ofprototypes,enables Toyota to design better cars faster and cheaper." (1995:44)

A few of the surprising differences between Toyota and US automo­bile companies were (1995:47-49):• Toyota explores a much larger number of concepts in 1/4 or 1/5

clay models. As expressed by a Toyota general manager of styling,they "prefer lots of torpedoes to a single sniper bullet."

• They delay freezing specifications for body shape. The remark ofthe general manager of body engineering was: "The manager's jobis to prevent people from making decisions too quickly."

• Giving approximate targets in order to give the suppliers the oppor­tunity of exploring various alternatives.

"The large number of prototypes and alternatives is not a con­sequence of rapid changes in the design concept, but an effortto explore broad regions of the design space simultaneously."

Of major interest for the present study is the deliberate exploration ofmultiple opportunities and alternatives in an extended divergent

99

phase and the deliberate postponed decisions. The authors conclude(1995:58): "In the conventional, point-to-point search, every changethat part of an organization makes may invalidate all previous decisions ...Conversely, in the set-based approach, all communication describesthe whole set of possible solutions. As the set narrows, the earlier com­munications remain valid but are supplemented with further, moreprecise information."

We shall let the authors conclude with another promising perspective,which in many ways describe a fully-fledged preject:

"Set-based concurrent engineering, conversely, explores manyconcepts in depth and can potentially fmd better solutions basedon radically new concepts. It also allows a company to pursueradical improvements with a fair degree of safety: if one ideadoes not work out, another is likely to". (1995:59)

Emergent models of innovation processes

In the revised reviews, there were no innovation process models ofemergence, except perhaps Nonaka & Takeuchi's knowledge creationmodel (1995), mentioned briefly above. The most salient example ofan emergent process model is that of Ralph Stacey (1996), who drawson the framework of complexity and deterministic chaos. Staceydescribes the processes of creativity and innovation as being 'on theedge of chaos'. Stacey claims that a space for novelty exists in the ten­sion between the extremes of stability (ossification) and instability(disintegration). In a state of 'bounded instability' innovation canemerge in groups of people. Stacey (1996: 13) writes:

" ... these are the very conditions required for creativity, an excit­ing journey into open-ended evolutionary space with no fixed,predetermined destination. The whole universe, it seems, is law­ful and yet it has freedom of choice. The price for this freedomis an inability to know the final destination or to be in control ofthe journey."

100

Stacey's strong points of are the underscoring of innovation as emer­gent, as a potential ("archetype") that can be actualized given the rightconditions. A weak point is Stacey's rather vague definitions of creativ­ity and innovation. According to Stacey, both creativity and innovationcan be potential and actual:

"However, we only apply the labels creative and innovative if theresulting behavior actually turns out to improve fitness. Creativ­ity, then is a change in the pattern of symbols in the mind thateventually turns out to produce behavior that increases fitness,and innovation is that behavior. Changes in the recessive symbolsystem are potential creativity. If these changes replace existingdominant symbol systems, then performance ofthe current prim­ary task changes; this is potential innovation. If that innovationactually improves fitness, we can say that innovation and creativ­ity have actually taken place." (Stacey, 1996:131-132)

The chaos framework of emergence adds meaning and value to a pro­cess perspective, but as it appears from the above quotation, Stacey'sdefinitions of creativity and innovation are not very clear.

Ion Sundbo found empirical evidence for a dual organizational struc­ture of innovation processes in large service companies. In someinstances the innovation process followed a linear intended trajectory,close to a stage model (mainly in large top-strategic organizations),and in other instances it was more complex, non-linear and emer­gent (mainly in loosely coupled interactive structures) (Sundbo,1998:370). Furthermore, Sundbo found that the early phases of ideageneration and acceptance would often consist of a collective bottom­up process starting in the loosely coupled structure. Thus Sundbodescribes a combined relational/emergent bottom-up innovation pro­cess and a top-down sequential stage model.

The Minnesota Innovation Research Program (MIRP)

The MIRP study, a longitudinal study, examining 14 different techno­logical, product, process and administrative innovations in both indus-

101

7. Setbacks

Angle, H.L. & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989:666): Key Components of the Innovation Jonrney

A

13. Adoption

...,,,,,,,_/

~ 8.

Criteria ~ 14. Terminationshift ",

o \~5. Attribution,,'t'

6. Peopletransitions

10. Relationships 11. Infrastructurewith others development

Organization Direction Over Time~

1. Gestation 2. Shock

•••••••• ••••

103

tive and negative. In that sense shock merely indicates a major changeor critical event. In the MIRP this could be a change in leadership, aproduct failure, a new disease or even an approach from another com­pany offering a joint venture. 3. The third period concerns the pro­posal submitted to resource controllers in order to launch the devel­opment of the innovation. Here Poole & Van de Ven state (1989:657):"In the initial stages, when the need for innovation is felt, the innova­tion concept is emerging, and only a small group supports the innova­tion, a 'marketplace of ideas' prevails. Events on the idea and peopletracks are the driving force and the innovation path is complex anddisorderly."

Schroeder et aI's 'fireworks' model was developed by Angle & Vande Ven into the model displayed below.

The development period, as can be seen, consists of the steps 4-11.Implementation and termination concern steps 12 to15.

try and in the public sector, ran from 1984 to 1990. In that study,Schroeder, Van de Ven, Scudder & Polley (1989) did a review of pro­cess models, comparing literature from group development models,decision process models, organizational planning models, organiza­tional change and development models, and innovation processmodels. None of the reviewed models were found adequate fordescribing the developmental patterns of innovation processes inorganizations. The research teams developed a common frameworkand a process model, the 'fireworks model', which was grounded ondata and empirical studies. This model was quite different from thetheories described in literature. Schroeder et al. (1989: 132) describeinnovation as "a rather fluid process where an idea seems to start offwith a shock, then proliferates, is subject to setbacks and surprises,and then links with the old organization along the way."

The innovation process was indeed found to be complex and vari­able: "We conclude that a much more complicated multiple progres­sion process of divergence and parallel and convergent streams ofactivities occurs in the development of innovations." (Schroeder et aI,1989: 133)

One of the important aspects of the MIRP is its comprehensivenessand the researchers' attempt to form a metatheory on innovation pro­cesses. In outlining their metatheory, Poole & Van de Ven combinedthe theories into global and local interacting theories, and furthermoredivided the innovation process into three major periods: Initiation,development, and termination.

Initiation

Angle and Van de Ven (1989:665) describe the initiation period asconsisting of three parts: Gestation, shocks and plans. 1. Gestation isdescribed as the period (often lasting three or more years) of 'settingthe stage' for the innovation. Usually this consists of many eventsoccurring that eventually lead to an innovation being initiated. Ac­cording to Van de Ven, Angle & Poole (1989:9), this part of theresearch was retrospective, i.e. it derived from 'published reports andother documents, interviews, and questionnaires'. 2. The 'shock' thatseemed to trigger the initiation of an innovation could be both posi-

102

Development

4. The proliferation stage is described as a divergent process of mul­tiple, parallel and interdependent paths of activities. 5. The fluid par­ticipation concerns the shifting of individuals who participate onlypart-time and enter and leave the project continuously. 6. People tran­sitions refer to the emotional content or climate of the project groupand to the individual emotional changes from euphoria to frustrationto closure. 7. Setbacks often happen during innovation because ofencounters with unexpected events or problems. 8. Criteria of successor failure change over time as the environment change in favour ordisfavour of the project.3 9. Top management influences the projectthrough four different roles: sponsor, critic, mentor, and institutionalleader. 10. The relationship with others, internal or external units,influence the project in various ways. 11. Infrastructure developmentin relation to the external environment such as an industry or a com­munity can be influenced by management in favour (or disfavour) ofthe innovation being developed.

Termination

The termination period deals with 12. Linking the old with the new,which can be done through gradual integration or through a more rad­ical transformation or even replacing the old with the new. 13. Theadoption of the innovation concerns the way that the innovation isimplemented and accepted or rejected. 14. Termination is due to theinnovation having been successfully implemented or to that resourcesrun out. 15. Attributions about the innovation refers to the fact thatmanagers make (subjective) attributions about the success or failureof the innovation, which influence the next innovation project. Thedifficulty regarding how individuals make attributions is that we tendto blame others' failure on them and our own failure on the situation.The conclusion of one study was (Angle & Van de Ven, 1989:690):"The evidence indicates that attributing failure to mismanagementwas incorrect, and resulted in making managers the scapegoats forevents beyond their reasonable control."

1°4

Discussion

The reason for devoting so much attention to the MIRP is that it isthe largest, broadest, longitudinal real-time case study of innovationprocesses. As most studies on innovation, it takes the perspective ofmanagement. The present book differs in that perspective and also inscope, as here the primary perspective is that of group interactionwhereas the management perspective is secondary. Another differenceis the focus on micro-processes in the 'embryonic' innovation pro­cesses. In the framework of the MIRP 'fireworks' model, the present(main) study would start after step 3 (the decision to screen oppor­tunities for starting an innovation) and mainly concentrate on step 4of proliferation, and on steps 5 and 6. Interestingly, Angle and Van deVen describe this part of the process as not very well understood(1989:672): "As a consequence, after a short initial period of simpleunitary activities, the management of innovation soon lapses into aneffort to direct controlled chaos. This mushrooming of activities overtime appears to be a pervasive but little understood characteristic ofthe developmental process." From this we see why the present studyis important and relevant, and distinct from the MIRP. The presentstudy intends to enlighten this early part of the developmental pro­cess, the preject. Furthermore, the MIRP does not seem to capture

the crystallization of innovations.

Peter Drucker, the grand old man of innovation, is not included in theabove process models as his theory did not fit any of the categories.Drucker is primarily concerned with the practical aspects of innovation,the 'techne', which he presented in his seminal work on 'Innovation andEntrepreneurship'in 1985. Drucker defines innovation (1985:49):

"Systelnatic innovation therefore consists in the purpose­ful and organized search for changes, and in the systeln­atic analysis of the opportunities such changes lnightoffer for econolnic or social innovation."

In his book Drucker gave formulas on how to exploit the sevensources of innovation (1985). Drucker's contribution is a systematicapproach based on 20 years of practice and the idea that innovation

1°5

can be taught and learned. Drucker, however, describes knowledge­based innovation (the seventh source) as highly risky: "Knowledge­based innovation differs from all other innovations in its basic charac­teristics: time span, casualty rate, predictability, and in the challengesit poses to the entrepreneur. And like most 'super-stars', knowledge­based innovation is temperamental, capricious, and hard to manage"(Drucker, 1985:126). The risks are highest in the areas of science andtechnology, whereas the risk is a lot lower when the knowledge base isdifferent, as e.g. in social innovations. Finally, according to Drucker,bright ideas are the riskiest and least successful source of innovativeopportunities with an enormous casualty rate.

Concluding remarks

The innovation process models revised in this section primarily forma descriptive framework for the overall innovation process in organiza­tions. The revised models serve as background and furthermore reflectthe way organizations choose to illustrate New Product Development.The Novo Nordisk pharmaceutical development cycle is a depart­mental stage model with a sharp division between Discovery and De­velopment, and Novo N ordisk Health Care works this way with theproblems it entails. The culture and general practice of Discovery andDevelopment are different and much knowledge is lost when projectsare thrown 'over the wall'. Still, the real life of projects is more dynam­ic than the model alludes, and procedures have been made to supportthe transfer, e.g. with project managers participating in a more over­lapping 'Sashimi' style. The pharmaceutical business is restricted byrigid laws and regulations, and the development phases, in particular,have to follow the steps and procedures of quality and regulations. Thedivision between Discovery and Development, however, is optional,and other pharmaceutical companies have chosen more holistic waysof organizing New Product Development.

The project structure of Novo N ordisk Enzyme Business is some­what different. There used to be a separation between Discovery andDevelopment - until the summer of 2000, when it was decided tomake an organizational change and merge them. Enzyme Business is

106

bound by different regulations that are not as rigid in relation tosequential steps as is the case in the pharmaceutical business, and En­zyme Business has a much shorter development cycle of 2-5 years. InEnzyme Business's 'new' project structure (from 1996), a 'concurrentengineering' style has been chosen. This means that the same projectdirector will supervise a project all the way through discovery, devel­opment, production, launch, and product maintenance (see AppendixB), and that the project groups will have at least one person from eachfunction participating in the work throughout the project. The otherparticipants shift with the demands of the project, e.g. with most par­ticipants from the discovery area when the project is in the discoveryphase. Furthermore the Enzyme Business structure includes decision­stages involving decision criteria for each stage as well as industrystrategy groups that provide Godfathers/-mothers for each project.Appendix B exhibits an overview of the Enzyme Business's projectstructure before the merge in 2000.

The purpose here was to demonstrate how the models outlined inthis section provide a framework for discussing the organization ofinno­vation and new product development. With this said, most of the revisedinnovation process models are organizational and do not serve the pur­pose of understanding innovative processes in their early stages. Themost relevant models were the Toyota 'set-based concurrent engi­neering', Sundbo's dual organizational structure and the Minnesota In­novation Research Program (MIRP) process model. The first is relevantbecause of its focus on divergence and postponed decision making ­and the surprisingly positive results in spite of the apparently inefficientdevelopment process. The second is relevant because its dual structurereflects how organizations consist oftop-down strategies, objectives andmanagement interacting with bottom-up entrepreneurial enterprises ofemergent innovative activity. In particular, the latter is relevant, asaccording to Sundbo, this is where idea generation and innovative pro­cesses emerge. Finally, the MIRP process model stands out as the mostholistic and comprehensive process model of all the revised models.MIRP is interesting because it consists of 14 real-time, longitudinal,innovation process case studies. More than the others the MIRP pro­cess model serves the purpose of providing an overall framework forpositioning and discussing the present study. The MIRP, however, does

107

not provide a framework for understanding the preject and the process­es of interaction in heterogeneous groups that lead to innovative crys­tallization. Thus, we shall examine the development of groups.

Group development

Introduction

The main purpose of this section is to clarify and discuss the concept'heterogeneous group' (of knowledge workers), and next to that, twomajor challenges for groups: leadership and conflict. This section ongroup development is important because the present study, contraryto the majority of studies on innovation, takes a group level of analysis.As mentioned earlier, most studies on groups have taken place with'zero-history groups of students meeting once in a lab-type setting'(Frey, 1996:39). Less than 5% of the groups have been studied in real­time natural settings - and even less in organizations. Apparently veryfew groups (if any) have been studied in real-time in relation to 'innov­ation in the making' in organizations.

We start with a clarification of the difference between a group and ateam. These terms are often used intermittently but in this book weargue that there is a difference. Next we discuss homogeneous versusheterogeneous groups, the study of which is becoming more urgent asglobalization increases. A matrix of perceived similarity/diversity isintroduced which forms four different types of interaction. After thiswe turn to group leadership, and discuss Herlau's model of groupwork structure and Stacey's 'edge of chaos' model. We end the chap­ter with a brief description of some of the main process models ofgroup development and include models that focus on conflict. Thestudy of conflict is relevant for the present study, as conflict is inher­ent in diversity. Thus how conflict develops, how it is triggered, andhow the innovative potential of conflicts can become constructive aresome of the questions we want to examine. This will be continued un­der the section on communication, where it is pointed out that one of

108

the communication models, the 'antagonistic dialogue', potentiallyholds a constructive as well as a destructive trajectory. This discussionis closely related to both of the research questions and will be con­tinued throughout the book.

Group characteristics

As the concepts of 'group' and 'team' are often used synonymously inliterature and in practice, we need to define them. One feature isincluded in most definitions, but with different meanings: interde­pendence. Kurt Lewin [1948](1973), among others, argued thatinterdependence was an important characteristic of groups.

Interdependency can be understood as:• psychological relations (Lenneer-Axelson & Thylefors, 1983)• sharing a common goal (Lenneer-Axelson & Thylefors, 1983;

Sjolund, 1965, Fiedler, 1967)• purpose4 (Herlau & Darso, 1994; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993;

Buchholz & Roth, 1987)• In the bona fide group perspective interdependence is seen as an

inter-group phenomenon related to permeable boundaries. Ac­cording to this approach, a group is defined as "patterns of repetit­ive behaviors that become interdependent and interstructured"(Putnam & Stohl, 1996: 175). The advantage of this perspective isthe permeability of the boundaries between group and environ­ment and between groups and other individuals/groups. Putnam &Stohl criticize the traditional intra-group perspective of most the­ories for seeing the group as a 'container' with rigid boundaries.

• Finally, Edgar Schein (1994:23), known from his clinical work withorganizational culture, points out history as the distinguishing fea­ture between a group and a gathering of people. According toSchein a crowd of people turns into a group when there has beensufficient shared history to create some form of culture.

109

Groups and teams

Thus, groups and teams can be seen as stages of a development.Buchholz & Roth (1987: 15) outline three steps ofteam development:From a collection of individuals, through 'group' and finally becom­ing a 'team'. A collection of individuals is, as the term connotes, indi­vidual-centered and have individual goals. Groups have establishednorms for working together and have clarified their purpose. Groupsare leader-centered, as the leader directs, assigns tasks and controlsperformance. Teams, on the other hand, are purpose-centered andshare responsibilities and rewards. Mutual accountability is con-sidered a decisive feature for being classified as a team. .

The most developed definition of groups and teams is seen in the'team performance curve' by Katzenbach & Smith (1993:91-92)where distinctions are made between five modes of cooperation.Katzenbach & Smith mention two conditions for creating a team: ademanding performance challenge and a shared purpose, similar toHamel & Prahalad's concept of 'stretch' (1994) and Collins & Porras'BHAG's (Big Hairy Audacious Goals, 1994). The five types of coop­eration are:1. Working group: characterized by having 'no significant incremen­

tal performance need'. A working group has no real common pur­pose except sharing useful information for each individual to per­form better separately.

2. Pseudo-team: not focused on collective performance and usingmore energy for group maintenance than on performance itself,which often results in the 'lowest common denominator'.

3. Potential team: trying to improve performance, but still lackingclarity about purpose, goals, working approach, etc. Also still notsharing accountability.

4. Real team: people with complementary skills, clear purpose, goals,working approach and with mutual accountability.

5. High-performance team: a team ofpeople who are not only mutu­ally accountable in relation to working skills but also deeply com­mitted to supporting each other's personal development andgrowth.

110

Finally Herlau & Dars0 (1994), in relation to the didactic Kubussystem, describe innovative teams normatively with the followingeight characteristics: 1) a shared sense of purpose, 2) open communi­cation (in a supportive team-culture), 3) trust and mutual respect(with constructive feedback), 4) shared leadership, 5) effective workingprocedures, 6) building on differences (complementary skills), 7) flex­ibility and adaptability, 8) continuous learning (reviewing the process).

Definitions and delimitations

We are now able to outline the following definitions. A group is a col­lection of individuals with a common purpose or goal. The individu­als of a group are, however, accountable only for their own tasks orcontributions. The group may have a formal leader, no leader orshared leadership. A(more than a group) shares information, knowledge, ignorance, lead­

ership, energy and accountability. Interdependence is stronger in ateam, and the 8 characteristics mentioned above generally apply.

There are multiple ways of classifying groups. Fred Fiedler (1967)distinguished between social groups, therapy groups and task groups.The main focus in this book is on 'task' groups, which will be usedinterchangeably with 'project' groups.

Homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups

"Because businesses are rapidly restructuring around workteams (versus individual contributors), understanding thedynamics of diversity within work teams is especially import­ant." (Sessa & Jackson, 1995: 134)

'Homo' means same, 'hetero' means other. Accordingly, homogeneousgroups are of the same kind (i.e. similar), and heterogeneous groupsare of other kinds (i.e. diverse). In this book we shall use the termhomogeneity interchangeably with similarity, and heterogeneity withdiversity. In a framework by Sessa & Jackson, diversity is conceived

111

similarity

Matrix of Diversity and Similarity

abling for novelty. This may depend, however, on whether the divers­ity is perceived or exposed in a particular group. If we combine theauthor's classification of diversity in groups5 (1. not perceived, 2. per­ceived but ignored, 3. exposed leading to destructive conflict, 4.exposed leading to creative conflict) with 'perceived similarity', a cen­tral concept from Harry Triandis' theoretical framework for diversity(Triandis, 1995: 17), we obtain the following matrix for describing dif­ferent types of group interaction.

According to a review by Triandis from 1977, various studies haveshown that we are attracted to those we see as similar to ourselves(Triandis, 1995:21). Perceived similarity tends to make interactionsmooth and easy, as indicated in the top right box (B). When neithersimilarity nor diversity is perceived, this indicates relations that aretemporary and superficial (A). In a 4-hour course with 50 partici­pants, one would probably focus on the content of the course and notcare much whether the other participants were similar or diverse.When diversity is perceived, and there seems to be no similarity, mostpeople get anxious and on guard (C). Culture shock is related to a loss

perceived

Matrix of group interaction

not perceived

superficial smoothrelations and in-groupinteraction interaction

A B

C D

on guard dynamicculture shock tensionconflict on the edge

of chaos

not perceived

perceived

diversity

One of the consequences of globalization is a greater awareness ofdiversity, which has effects at all levels of society. In macrolevel studiesof diversity there are two major poles: the 'melting pot' ideology (e.g.Japan), which tries to preserve an original culture by absorbing differ­ences through assimilation; and the 'multicultural' ideology (e.g.Canada), which tries to preserve differences through integration intoa dynamic whole (Triandis, 1995: 14). The first aims at homogeneity,convergence and consensus, whereas the latter involves heterogeneity,divergence and multiple voices.

In relation to organizations, Sessa & Jackson (1995: 140) observe:"Although research and theory based in the horizontal approachsuggest that diversity has a positive impact on performance, diversityis hypothesized to have the opposite effect on cohesion."

Thus, diversity in groups can be both potentially enabling and dis-

Heraclitus said: "Nature desires eagerly opposites and, out ofthem, it completes its harmony, not out of similars."(from Bennis, Parikh & Lessem, 1994:137)

Diversity - Similarity

both as 'horizontal' referring to characteristics such as race, gender,age, profession, etc., and as 'vertical' referring to status and powerrelations. The first perspective, often assumed by psychologists, is that'all differences are created equal', whereas the second, 'differencesamong team members create a rank ordering', is mostly assumed bysociologists (Sessa & Jackson, 1995: 140-143). In this book primarilya 'horizontal' perspective is assumed, focusing on diversity in relationto professional, cultural, age (both chronological age and length ofemployment in the organization), and organizational affiliation. The'vertical' perspective is not adopted in this book, even though powerrelations may have had some influence in the studied groups. Statuscould have been considered if the case study groups had been com­posed of scientists and e.g. technicians or blue-collar workers. As itwas, the groups consisted of mainly white collar knowledge workers.What is important is the concept of diversity, which we want to exam­ine a little closer in the following.

112 113

Herlau developed a model of group leadership in order to discuss theboundaries of Stacey's (1996) model of 'stability - edge of chaos ­instability'. The following is taken directly from Herlau (1997:9):

1 "The project work system is characterized by: The uncer­tainty is calculated and it is partly transparent. Knowledgeis generally explicit. It is goal oriented and the leadership ispersonified - in a project leader. The project has resourcesand a time limit.

2 The loosely bonded phase is characterized by: a high level ofuncertainty, turbulence and chaos. Opaque. Knowledge isprepared explicitly. There are many goals. The leadership isnot clearly defined, everybody is a leader. Neither time norresources have been allocated. The process is self-organiz­ing, which emerges as a result of uncertainty, i.e. chaos.

3 The preject phase is characterized by: a high level of uncer­tainty, turbulence, chaos, transparency. Knowledge is pre­pared explicitly. Activity is partly goal oriented (theme­goal). The leadership is well-defined. Time and resourceshave been allocated. The process is moving towards aleadership- and knowledge-potential system that can beconverted into a project work system."

In the following Herlau's model for group interaction will structurethe discussion. Ideal types allow a stronger distinction between cat­egories, which further the understanding of guiding principles butwhich is, of course, also farther from reality. In real life situations, e.g.meetings, all three forms may be manifested, interchangeably, withoutthe participants noticing this.

Type one: the project system

Traditional project management works by the planning-evaluation­control paradigm, where projects are seen as 'tools' for improvementand innovation. Just as Taylor divided the work processes into frag­ments, the planning paradigm of project management has a workbreakdown structure, identifying tasks and resources and arranging

116

these in optimal sequences as in 'Gantt'9 or 'Pert' charts. "'Bestpractice' advocates that project managers should adopt the hierarchystrategy for coping with accountability. Authority resides in the nego­tiated design and plans." (Kreiner, 1995) ,

If the project manager is completely on top of the task, this may bethe fastest way to achieve the objectives, simply by delegating the tasksto the participants, and controling that the tasks are carried out ontime. This works best in relation to routine tasks, under circumstancesof clarity and certainty. In such cases group interaction has a qualitysimilar to the 'smooth in-group interaction' category (B) in the matrixof diversity and similarity. In a group with an autocratic leader, the cli­mate will most likely be persuasive with relations of distrust, a gooddeal of argumentation and many hidden agendas. The communicationwill be mainly defensive. Whether conflict will actually come up, willdepend on what the project manager tolerates. In an autocratic set­ting, the group will meet on only rare occasions to coordinate theirtasks and not in order to discuss. Whether the project is successful ornot, the reward/blame will go to the project manager.

Groups of knowledge workers working with innovation and newleads are, however, mostly in non-routine tasks, under conditions ofuncertainty and ambiguity. Under such conditions the autocratic lead­er-followership can have a different purpose and take the form of a'specialization strategy' (Stacey, 1996). In the specialization strate­gy the leader takes on all the anxieties and behaves as a shield for thegroup members, at the same time trying to influence them to followhis ideas and get inspired by the opportunities. This takes a strong andcreative leader, as the leader alone has to be creative and come up withall the good ideas and new opportunities, and it also takes a well­functioning leader-followership, but as Stacey points out, this hasproved to be a successful strategy for many organizations (1996: 156).

The problem with project management of the 'ideal type' autocraticstyle is the utter dependence on the individual manager and the personalqualities of that manager. Most managers have had courses on projectmanagement where they have learned, primarily, how to plan and con­trol tasks and resources. The human side is often left to skills the man­ager mayor may not possess from experience and personal interest.

117

We have discussed, however, a management prototype. In real life,project management is dependent on the situation, the participants,the task, the community of practice, the organizational culture, thetime limit, the attention from managers, power structure and politics,changes from the external environment - and of course the personal­ity and style of the individual project manager. Next we shall examinesituations without a leader or manager: the loosely bonded structureor informal networks.

Type two: Networks

Often groups get together to discuss a subject of common interestwithout an appointed leader. Here leadership will shift according towho takes initiatives. Leadership by profession can work well, if every­body feels at ease with this. More often than not, however, the partici­pants experience uncertainty, ambiguity and anxiety, which may resultin superficial relations and interaction (category A in the matrix ofdiversity and similarity), as nobody dares to ask questions that couldreveal their ignorance or confusion. Thus, on the surface this type ofinteraction would seem democratic, but also prone to manipulation bystrong individuals. According to Ralph Stacey (1996), creativity andinnovation emerge in the zone between stability and instability. Thekey control parameter of human systems is anxiety and being able to

'hold' or sustain it, and normally it is the task of the leader to managethis process: "The paradoxical space for novelty must be occupied forcreativity to occur either by the leader alone or by all the members,and this remains true no matter how powerful the leader" (Stacey,1996:159).

Above we described the specialization strategy. In the participa­tion strategy, as the word indicates, all group members occupy thespace for novelty and take shifts at being 'leaders' when they contrib­ute with their knowledge or ideas. This way everybody contributes tothe creative process, and at the same time everybody 'holds' the anx­iety of being at the edge of chaos. The participation strategy is moreprobable when the participants know each other. If the group is new,the network type of interaction most often stays superficial.

118

Type three: Poled leadership

The concept of poled leadership took its beginning in 1989 with theKubus framework (Herlau, 1995) and is based on functions by turns.The idea of poled leadership derives from the Greek word 'polis'(Argyris & Schon, 1996:9), and signifies an open discussion followedby a collective decision and action. Thus, polis is a way of organizing,and corresponds to the original sense of the term democracy.

Poled leadership is displayed in a tension field between two dialec­tic, yet complementary leadership functions in a group. One role istask-oriented and the other is relation-oriented. The task-orientedleader pulls in the direction of outcomes, decisions, and results,whereas the relation-oriented leader is responsible for the process, thegroup climate, the creativity and the social interaction. The groupworks in the tension between these two poles. What differentiates thissystem from the approaches mentioned above is that the functions areregularly shifted between the participants through taking turns. Thishas the advantage that the functions can be gradually formed accord­ing to the special human composition of the groups and their wishesconcerning leadership. Some groups are very democratic and thrivebetter with consensus decisions, whereas others prefer a more author­itative style.

The idea of leadership taking place between two poles may createa 'dynamic tension on the edge of chaos' (category D in the matrix)and is also found in 'dialectical leadership' (Van de Ven & Grazman,1997:298) and in 'contention management' (Snyder & Clontz,

.'1997:68).

Leadability

A major advantage of poled leadership is the shared accountability,which is formed along with the shift of roles. This is what is meant byindividual or group 'leadability'. The point is that an individualbecomes a lot more leadable (able to be lead, i.e. a good follower),after having tried to be group leader and having experienced the hard­ships of leadership - especially if people do not cooperate. 'It is diffi-

119

cult to appreciate the pressures on leaders until you have walked intheir shoes'. Even though the responsibility of leadership is assigned tothe (shifting) leaders, it is important that every group member sup­ports, participates in and feels responsible for a well functioning lead­ership. During the process groups really find out that leadership is aserV2ce.

In the end, it is not a question of having two leaders in a group, butmore a question of building an appropriate leadership process. Bysplitting the leadership into two complementary roles, leadershipbecomes 'transparent', and genuine learning can take place. Throughthat people are encouraged to develop new skills and competencies.Thus, the system can either be used for action learning/leadershiptraining or for team/culture building. In both cases, the spin off that ishoped for, is that afterwards the competent leader can perform bothroles as one person according to the needs of the situation.

Group process models:

Stage models

A good deal of research on groups has been dedicated to the study oftheir developmental stages in order to look for a general pattern. In1977 Tuckman & Jensen made a review on twenty years' literature ongroup development and concluded that all groups (therapy, natural,laboratory, self-study and task groups) go through basically five stages:Forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Napier &Gershenfeld, 1989). This is a unitary sequence model, which triesto explain group behavior through a sequence of predictable events.

The unitary sequence model dates back to Dewey's reflectivethinking modepo of 1910, which inspired the classical phase-model(l.orientation, 2.evaluation, 3.control) of Bales & Strodtbeck from1951. The advantage of unitary sequence models is, that if groupbehavior could be explained according to a predictable pattern ofbehavior, this would make facilitation a lot easier, as each phase couldthen ideally be handled according to a normative 'recipe'.

As the preject has been defined as an nonlinear and rather turbu-

120

lent space, it would be counterintuitive to apply a unitary sequencemodel approach. "Traditional phasic definitions - which emphasizeisolating a simple set of periods of unified activity - are too generaland too vague to encompass the diversity of group activities. Studiesof group development show a far greater variety of activities than canbe covered by any simple set of phases;" (Poole, 1983b:326). Poolehas criticized classical stage models of group development for beingtoo general and vague, and too rigid for describing and understandingthe dynamic processes of group development. Based on his empiricalstudies, Poole developed a 'multiple-sequence modeI'll, which will bediscussed under relational models.

Group models of conflict

We include conflict models here as most of these started as stagemodels. Aubrey Fisher (1970) did a study on group interaction in 10groups by examining three categories. The third category is relevantfor the present study and had the following dimensions: favorable,unfavorable, and ambiguous attitudes. Fisher found four distinctphases of decision making: 1) orientation, 2) conflict, 3) emergence,4) reinforcement. The orientation phase had more ambiguous andfavorable than unfavorable verbal cues, and here ambiguity wasdescribed as 'tentatively favorable'. In the conflict phase a polariza­tion of attitudes, disagreements and ideational conflicts were seen inrelation to the decision proposals that emerged. Thus, this phase hadmore unfavorable units than favorable and ambiguous attitudes. Fa­vorable attitudes, however, increased, compared to the orientationphase, probably due to the polarization. Conflict more or less dissi­pated during the phase of emergence of the decision, where ambi­guity seemed to be the prevalent pattern of interaction. In this phase,however, ambiguity had a different function (of modified dissent),mediating the change of unfavorable towards favorable attitudestowards the emerging decision (Fisher, 1971 :63). Fisher noted(ibid.:64): "But since the dissipation of conflict is gradual and markedby ambiguity, the question concerning the point in time at which deci­sions are made must remain unanswered." Thus, the third phase waslabeled 'emergence'. Finally the fourth phase of reinforcement was

121

characterized by more favorable attitudes of interpretation towardsconsensus and unity.

Linda Putnam (1986:181-182) distinguishes between three typesof conflict: substantive, affective, and procedural. Substantive conflictis related to the ideas or the content of the task (corresponding to theconceptual level of analysis in this book), affective conflict is related torelations or personality clashes (corresponding to the relational levelof analysis), and procedural conflict concerns meeting procedures,etc. (i.e. structure or methods in this book).

An interesting perspective is that of deviance. Of course, the label'deviance' is in itself problematic as it implies conformity or normal­ity. In a group perspective, however, 'deviant' behavior involves differ­ent or diverse perspectives, and is therefore relevant to the presentstudy. Putnam (1986: 188) defines deviance as 'behavior that departsfrom the social and task norms of the group' and lists three types ofdeviance: role, opinion, and innovative deviance. Here we are mainlyinterested in the last two types. Deviance of opinion indicates a differ­ence or opposition to the overall opinion of a group. When this devi­ance of opinion manages to break the frames or expand the boundar­ies of the group's thinking, it is called innovative deviance.

In 1974, Valentine & Fisher made a pilot study (of 6 zero-historygroups) on Verbal Innovative Deviance, building on Fisher's earlierstudy and his 4-phase theory. Verbal Innovative Deviance consists ofcontradictions, rejections, strong assertions, amplifying disagree­ments, pointing out new directions, and advocating opposing opin­ions. Two findings are interesting: Verbal Innovative Deviance wasfound to constitute one fourth of all group interactions (i.e. of 6 zero­history groups). "While VID appears to be quite acceptable during theConflict phase and, to some extent during the Emergence phase, suchdeviant behavior is probably detrimental to the group process duringthe formative stages of Orientation and the final phase of Reinforce­ment as the group nears consensus." (Valentine & Fisher, 1974:420)and (ibid.) "Deviance appears to function differently in each succes­sive phase or group interaction."

Tjosvold (1982) found that confrontation through cooperativecontroversy, rather than 'smoothing' (avoiding controversy) or 'forc­ing' (competitive controversy), was most effective in group decision

122

making and most effective for conversations between managers andsubordinates (Tjosvold, Wedley & Field, 1986).

Finally, Scheidel (1986) proposes that it is the shift from divergentto convergent thinking that provokes conflict, and that the core prob­lem concerns judgment and evaluation as this causes defensiveness,e.g. as described by Gibb (1961).

Putnam concludes (1986: 195): "This review suggests that ineffec­tive conflict management stems from listening evaluatively and defen­sively, clinging tenaciously to positions, behaving inappropriately atparticular stages of conflict development, failing to adapt to a partic­ular type of conflict, relying on "trained incapacity" to determine workhabits, and developing conflict spirals from repetitive power plays. Ef­fective conflict management, in contrast, entails both procedural andcontent matters."

The issue of conflict is relevant when groups meet to discuss urgentand important matters related to innovation, particularly in heteroge­neous groups with diverse perspectives. Conflict is usually seen asdestructive, but as we shall see in the following chapter, the conflictiveelement does entail a potential for 'creative abrasion' (Leonard-Bar­ton, 1995), 'constructive controversy' (Tjosvold, et aI., 1986) or a 'con­structive trajectory' towards innovation (Dars0, 1998).

Relational group models: Continuous models

As alternatives to stage models we find continuous models or MultipleSequence models, as the 'three path' model proposed by Poole (1983b).The three paths focus on: a) task-process activities, b) relations, and c)a topical focus. To these paths Poole added three types of'breakpoints>l2:

normal breakpoints (topic shifts, natural breaks, planning, etc.), delays(back-looping or 'comprehension cycles')3) and disruptions (conflict orfailure) (Poole, 1983b:330). The concept of breakpoints facilitates ob­servation of changes or events that influence group interaction.

Finally, Poole (1989) found three types of activity cycles in hiswork: a) a unitary sequence (a linear path), b) a complex cycle (work­ing in circles, back-looping) and c) solution cycles (focusing on solu­tions without examining the problem). Poole argues that some courses

123

of events are best described in a linear pattern, whereas others need tobe understood as continuous models or cycles.

Poole's framework is interesting as his path approach as well as thedifferent types of activity cycles are relevant and incorporate multipleaspects of complex patterns found in the present study. From theabove description it appears how Poole's work has influenced thedevelopment of the MIRP innovation model described earlier.

Emergent group models: Critical event models

A third way of studying group development is through critical eventmodels, represented by Gersick (1988; 1989). Gersick started in 1988by observing 8 groups in real time and natural contexts. Throughgrounded theory she unexpectedly found that the activities of thegroups did not follow the classical stage models. Instead they pro­gressed in two rather steady patterns of 'inertia', interrupted by a sud­den 'revolutionary period', which took place in the middle of the workperiod of the project. The revolutionary period was triggered by anawareness of time and deadlines. In 1989 Gersick repeated her study,this time with students in a laboratory setting and of a much shorterduration. Gersick's studies are very well documented. Gersick foundthat time turned out to be more decisive than any specific develop­mental phases. Is it surprising that groups are aware that 'about halfof the time has passed, let's move on'? In relation to 'killing' the tradi­tional stage model, it is interesting.

Even more interesting was that Gersick found that the working pat­tern of groups formed within the first minutes of the first meeting andcontinued up till the revolutionary period. After that it would changeinto a different pattern, which was kept for the rest of the time, or itwould go back to the earlier pattern and continue. We shall return tothe significance of 'beginnings' in chapter 6.

Concluding remarks

Groups form a major part of organizations and society. Therefore itis important to find out how groups perform and what the challeng-

124

es are in relation to group work. It is, however, difficult to studygroups in real-time and real-life - particularly in relation to the earlyphases of innovation. In fact, very few studies of this kind have beenmade.

With increasing globalization comes an increasing diversity ofsociety and consequently of working groups in organizations. As wehave tried to demonstrate in this section, the main point, however, isnot diversity per se, but rather the degree of perceived diversity (andsimilarity) as shown in the matrix on page 113. Therefore more em­phasis should be made on getting groups to work with attitudes, com­munication and relation building.

Another feature of diversity is that it often provokes conflict. In thissection we have provided some 'raw material' for a discussion aboutthe potential of conflict, by revising process models related to conflictand 'innovative deviance'. Scheidel's proposition that conflict is boundto happen when changing thinking mode from divergent to conver­gent thinking is interesting and will be taken up later.

A challenge in groups is also the question of leadership. This is ofparticular interest in preject groups, because the working situationwithout a clear goal differs considerably from normal project work.The image of leadership is undergoing change. Old managementmodels are not sufficient or even relevant for heterogeneous groupswho work with knowledge creation and novelty. Margaret Wheatleymentions some of the new metaphors that describe leaders: gardeners,midwives, stewards, servants, missionaries, facilitators, and conveners(1999: 165). In this book we have suggested participative or poledleadership for the early phases of innovation, and it was argued that inpreject groups leadership is a service.

The main purpose of this section was to revise literature on groupdevelopment and group interaction as this book operates from a groupperspective. In sum, this section has provided clarification of concepts,new frameworks, raw material for later discussions and a general back­ground for understanding group development.

125

Knowledge Creation

"We hold that knowledge is a tool of knowing, that knowing isan aspect of our interaction with the social and physical world,and that the interplay of knowledge and knowing can generatenew knowledge and new ways of knowing."(Cook & Brown, 1997:6)

"Whether it is held by a bat or a biologist, knowledge minimizesan organism's consumption of energy, space, and time for agiven amount of effort." (Boisot, 1998: 11)

Introduction

In this section we combine social psychology with theories from cog­nitive psychology. The purpose is to clarify, classify and discuss know­ledge and knowing in theories that relate to or derive from practice.The American pragmatist, John Dewey's book 'How we think' from1910 has provided many insights and contributions, which we buildon in this section. His seminal stage-model of reflective thinking hasinspired much later work, practical as well as theoretical. Dewey hasinspired group stage-models (Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951) and actionscience (Argyris & Schon, 1996) as well as action learning (Revans,1991). In this section, in particular Dewey's perspective on the natureand function of 'problems' and 'ideas' is illuminating. A much later,but also important, influence on the discussion of theory and researchon knowledge is the Mode 2 approach by Gibbons et. al. (1994), but,in fact, various valuable frameworks and models are presented in thefollowing section.

From Mode 1 towards Mode 2 Knowledge Production

The general paradigmatic shift that is taking place at the turn of themillennium is also reflected in research and 'knowledge production'.Gibbons et a1. (1994) describe this shift as going from Mode 1 to

126

Mode 2. Gibbons et al. write (1 994:vii) : "A new mode of knowledgeproduction affects not only what knowledge is produced but also howit is produced; the context in which it is pursued, the way it is organ­ised, the reward systems it utilises and the mechanisms that controlthe quality of that which is produced."What distinguishes Mode 2 from Mode 1 is:• Mode 2 is focused on application in practice - rather than within a

particular discipline• Mode 2 is centered on the usefulness for the involved parties and

for society in general - Mode 1 produces knowledge in the absenceof interested parties

• Mode 2 is a collective phenomenon with a wider set of criteria ­Mode 1 is an individual matter with criteria of one particular dis­cipline

• Mode 2 is transdisciplinary and heterogeneous - Mode 1 is homo­genous and disciplinary within one specific scientific community

According to Gibbons et aI, transdisciplinarity has four characteris­tics:• It involves creativity and frameworks that evolve in the process• It makes a contribution to knowledge, which is developed in the

special context of application and people• The outcome is primarily processual, absorbed by the people

involved and transformed into new knowledge in new applicationsand situations

• It is dynamic and is not to be evaluated by traditional academia butrather to be communicated and become parts of new configur­ations

The present study has many of the characteristics of Mode 2. It con­cerns problem solving in practice and in real-time, in heterogeneousgroups, creating new knowledge. It is useful for the parties involved ­and for society in general. It is transdisciplinary in the sense that itcombines different disciplines and different fields. There are, ofcourse, features of Mode 1 in the sense that the research has beenreported and evaluated as a Ph.D. - but then again the committee wasinternational and included both academia and industry.

127

Thus, what we are aiming at discussing in this book is knowledge cre­ation in practice, the process of knowing and of generating new know­ledge in interaction with others. We are studying the processes thatlead to innovative crystallization, which refers to the conceptual out­come of the 'generative dance between knowledge and knowing'(Cook & Brown, 1997).

At the turn of the millennium, in our global knowledge society,knowledge is high on the agenda or discourse of media, managementand academia. From the 'learning organization' we have moved to anew fad of 'knowledge management' with new 'witch doctors'. Lately,much literature has been published on this matter, as e.g. Nonak;a &Takeuchi (1995), Krogh, Roos and Kleine (1998) and Davenport &Prusak (1998), just to mention a few of the more recent ones.

Classification of knowledge

There are various classifications and categorizations of knowledge.Venzin, von Krogh & Roos (1998) take a strategic management per­spective in examining the roots of three major epistemologies. Nona­ka & Takeuchi discuss organizational knowledge creation (1995). Her­bert Simon applies a cognitivist perspective on individual cognition(1986). Jerome Bruner examines cognition and linguistics from asocial constructivist view (1986). Max Boisot (1995a) outlines a polit­ical economy of information and examines the production andexchange of knowledge.

PPEP Process Model

In this book we apply the framework ofJohn Heron (1981) as it facil­itates an advanced differentiation of knowledge. According to Heronthere are three kinds of knowledge, which may (or may not) be activeat the same time:• Propositional knowledge• Practical knowledge• Experiential knowledge

128

Propositional knowledge corresponds to Latour's term of 'readymade science' (1987). This means that it has been established as afact, a product, an entity, or a statement about the world. It is not aconcrete or direct part of the world, but it contains information aboutthe world, as for instance, the law of gravity. We cannot see the law ofgravity, but we can see that it works. This is explicit knowledge (Nona­ka & Takeuchi, 1995), declarative knowledge (Hansen, 1997), orknowledge as 'possession' (Cook & Brown, 1997). It corresponds toAristotle's concept of 'episteme'.

Practical knowledge is about knowing how to do something. Pract­ical knowledge is seen in craft and in all skills, and consequently pre­supposes some training and experience. This involves 'tacit' knowl­edge (Polanyi, 1966), procedural knowledge (Hansen, 1997) or ,­knowing' (Cook & Brown, 1997), and corresponds to Aristotle's con­cept of 'techne'.

Experiential knowledge signifies a direct experience, knowing some­thing or somebody from a face-to-face encounter and interaction.Reading about a place or seeing a video of some people is never thesame as a direct encounter. Being able to express knowledge as expe­riential is not a direct part of the Nonaka & Takeuchi framework, yetit is a distinct way of knowing, different from that of know-how orskills. The knowledge that one has from having been present and hav­ing been part of the 'history', first-hand experience, is highly relevant.It is one of the prime advantages of real-time case studies. This know­ledge, in fact, constitutes the 'context' (Hall, 1983), which we shall getback to shortly. Cook & Brown (1997:9) make a point: "we see theinterplay of knowledge and knowing as a potentially generative phe­nomenon - that is, for human groups, the source of new knowledgeand knowing lies in the use of knowledge as a tool of knowing withinsituated interaction with the social and physical world. It is this thatwe call the generative dance." Experience is contextual. Experientialknowledge leaves open the possibility of including the ethical or valueaspect of Aristotle's concept 'phronesis', even though the concept isnot quite the same.

129

Heron coined an additional term: presentational knowledge, whichis experiential knowledge at a deeper level and concerns the directexperience of a non-linguistic, spatio-temporal quality of presence(1981 :27-29). As this thinking is holistic (characteristic of the righthemisphere of the brain), it can best be expressed in drawing, fantasy,story-telling or movement (Reason, 1994:44-46). The process ofknowledge creation in the paradigm of cooperative inquiry is displayedabove.

As seen above, the PPEP process model shows a cyclic process ofknowledge and reflection that can start anywhere. Most often it startswith some proposition or problem that a group wants to examine. Thiskind of knowledge creation takes what Reason calls 'criticalsubjectivity', which refers to the quality of attention (Reason,1995:46): "It develops through the cyclical process of cooperativeinquiry, in the iteration between experiential knowing through directencounter; presentational knowing expressed in patterns of imagery;

start here ) Seed idea(Phase 1)

First (phase 4) Provisionalpresentational , propositionalportrayal of data knowledge

Second Refined" propositionalpresentational

portrayal of data knowledge

~Etc. ,I.'

Second Secondexperiential action-plan ,I.'grounding and practice

First First action-experiential

oJplan and

grounding ...... practice(Phase 3) (Phase 2)

,_ p«:.r£':P!'!..a! ~n.? _, conceptual filters :I II ,I ,,

II

Boisot,1998:12

event(data source)

~

~

~

~L- --' data

Data, Information and Knowledge

propositional knowing expressed in concepts and theories; and pract­ical knowing expressed in the skills of living (Heron, 1992)."

Individual knowledge acquisition

To some extent this section builds on an earlier paper (Dars0, 1997c),describing the processes of individual knowledge acquisition. Here webriefly discuss the four phases: perception, cultivation, integration andrecuperation.

Individual knowledge is cultivated, integrated information.

Perception is a screening stage, filtering what is taken in. Basically, yousee what you 'want' to see, you hear what you 'want' to hear, etc.,understood as a usually non-conscious process, based on individualinclination, experience and cognitive structures developed during thesocialization process. These are referred to as: schemas (Stacey, 1996),schematas (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), or mental models (Senge et aI,1994), and described as processes of sense making by Karl Weick(1995). Below is a simple illustration by Boisot, which captures thedifference between data, information and knowledge.

Propositional

Practical

Presentational

Experiental

Reason, 1995:45 (After Heron, 1992)

13° 131

According to Boisot (1995a:22): "Data in its most basic formulationis a discernible difference in the energy states of phenomena as theyoccur and propagate in space-time, whether as matter or electromag­netically." Perceptual and conceptual filters let some data through.This is turned into information and is processed to become individualknowledge. An interesting question here is whether the perceptual andconceptual filters are passive like screens, or whether they are active,i.e. can be controlled or adapted by an individual?

The processing of information is what is meant by 'cultivation'(Dars0, 1997c). This is an active process of thinking that relates infor­mation to prior knowledge (any kind of the PPEP), and either leads todiscarding the information - or to a process of integration throughassociation or mental categorization (i.e. storing14 it).

Cultivation is a process of the short-term memory, our mental workspace. Recuperation is an activation of long-term memory, which theninfluences what data are selected. Long-term memory is spread allover the brain. The American psychologist Karl Pribram claims thatthe brain functions as a hologram, which means that the whole islocated in the parts, and that removing parts will make long-termmemory only more vague (Hansen, 1997: 179). The process of indi­vidual knowledge creation is illustrated below.

Investigations show that short-term memory has a capacity to hold 7(plus/minus 2) elements in our consciousness at the same time(N0rretranders, 1991: 170). In our mental work space we can digestthe information we have taken in, compare it or integrate it with ourprior knowledge (through access to our long-term memory), organizeor recombine it - even think new thoughts. In order to be able to holdmore than seven elements in consciousness, the brain has developedthe process called 'chunking'. This means that similar concepts arelinked into chunks, which form greater wholes of mental categories oroverall symbols (Boisot, 1995a:48).

Tacit knowledge

Human consciousness has limited capacity. Psychologists, however,have found that at a different, subconscious level a lot more informa­tion is taken in. This phenomenon was studied by Lazarus &McCleary in 1949 as 'subception', and by G.S. Klein as 'subliminalactivation' (Polanyi, 1966:7;95). N0rretranders argues (1991:165):

"Perception opens for millions of bits per second; consciousnessonly a few dozens. The stream of information, measured as bitsper second, is understood as bandwidth. The bandwidth ofconsciousness is much lower than the bandwidth ofperception"(my translation).

action

recuperation

inte2ration

cultivation

framine:

data selection

direct data experience

There seem to be diverging opinions or a lack of clarity as to whatexactly Polanyi's concept of tacit knowledge encompasses. Polanyistates (1966:7): "These two aspects of knowing have a similar struc­ture and neither is ever present without the other... I shall alwaysspeak of "knowing," therefore, to cover both practical and theoreti­cal knowledge." Nonaka & Takeuchi, who build their process modelfor knowledge creation on the iteration between tacit and explicitknowledge, follow Polanyi when they argue that tacit knowledgeincludes both cognitive and technical elements, the cognitive partbeing the 'mental models' through which we perceive and define theworld:

The Ladder of Knowledge

132 133

"For example, knowledge of experience tends to be tacit, phys­ical, and subjective, while knowledge of rationality tends to beexplicit, metaphysical, and objective. Tacit knowledge is created"here and now" in a specific, practical context and entails whatBateson (1973) referred to as "analog" quality. Sharing tacitknowledge between individuals through communication is ananalog process that requires a kind of "simultaneous processing"of the complexities of issues shared by the individuals."(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995:60).

Cook & Brown (1997: 14) make a point of stating that tacit knowleqgecannot be converted into explicit knowledge, thereby implicitly criti­cizing N onaka & Takeuchi. Using Polanyi's example of bicycling, theyclaim that explicit knowledge is "generated in the context of ridingwith the aid of what we knew tacitly."

Whether tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge (Nona­ka & Takeuchi, 1995) or explicit knowledge is generated through tacitknowledge (Cook & Brown, 1997) is, in fact, merely a matter ofwords, i.e. an academic dispute. The main question is whether tacitknowledge must remain tacit or whether by some activity or method- be it through conversion, generation or translation - that tacitknowledge can be rendered useful in communication and interactionwith others for generating new knowledge. According to Polanyi, thisis possible 'provided we are given adequate means for expressingourselves' (Polanyi, 1966:5) - i.e. presentational knowledge in thePPEP framework. According to Jacobsen (1971), psychic materialwith 'tacit knowledge' quality can be expressed. This is based on Ku­bie who in 1958 argued that primary processes related to creativitycould be brought from the 'preconscious' into consciousness. Primarythought processes have a dream-like quality and will be discussed inthe next section on creativity.

Thus, when Polanyi claims that we know more than we can tell(1966:4), the explanation may be that the body takes in much moreinformation than the individual is conscious of. People with developed

134

intuition may simply know how to access this bodily information to agreater extent than others. As intuition is another concept that lacksclarity and that is often used intermittently with tacit knowledge, letus examine it a little closer.

Intuition

In 'Mind over Machine' the brothers Dreyfus (1986) have describedtheir studies of human learning, e.g. language acquisition, the game ofchess, different kinds of human skills. They found that human learn­ing goes through five stages and that there is a qualitative leap fromthe third step of being competent to the fourth of being skilled. Theyclaim that this qualitative leap is caused by going from rule-based tocontext-based activity, and that this involves experience and intuition.An expert is recognized by his/her fluent performance and immediateaction, based on skills and intuition. Many skills have the quality of'flow' (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), where the person is one with theactivity and looses the sense of time. The Dreyfus brothers called thisquality 'arationality' (1986:36). In the illustration below the sixth stephas been added by Bent Flyvbjerg (1990) in order to describe anotherqualitative leap from expert to renewer. This concerns the creation ofnew knowledge or rewiring the brain. "Rewiring the brain, challengingall those initial habits and assumptions in the face of new experience,requires far more energy than the original wiring" (Zohar, 1997:28).The qualitative leap from expert to renewer concerns the difficulty ofbreaking habits, whether they are mental or physical. Biological organ­isms have an in-built mechanism of following the mental paths thathave already been trodden, and it takes a lot of energy and willpowerto break away from expertise or excellence.

135

•••

Six steps in human learning:an illustration of the Dreyfus &Dreyfus model, 1986. The sixth step added by Flyvbjerg, 1990

Tacit knowledge involves much more than skills of e.g. bicycling, or'practical knowledge' (PPEP framework). One of Polanyi's own ex­amples concerned the recognition15 of faces, which could not bedescribed (through explicit knowledge), but could easily be recog­nized. This, however, does not concern 'practical' knowledge or skills,but rather 'experiential' knowledge. By applying the PPEP frameworkwe can see how Polanyi's original concept of tacit knowledge encom­passes both 'practical' as well as 'experiential' knowledge and couldpossibly be articulated through 'presentational' knowledge.

Do we have two 'bodies' of knowledge? In 1981 the Danish psychol­ogist Olav Storm formed a theory about 'the two bodies', the cogni­tive-voluntary body (carried by the ego) and the emotive-vegetativebody (not controllable by consciousness). The first is our controllablebody, which we can make walk, do gymnastics and bicycle. The sec­ond can be made partly conscious, like we can control our breathingand swallowing, but we cannot stop breathing entirely through ourwill (because then we will faint and start breathing again) and we can­not control our feelings or reactions when e.g. getting scared. Accord­ing to Storm, breathing and sexuality bridge the two bodies, which iswhy most mental and spiritual techniques build on breathing exercis­es (N0rretranders, 1991 :400).

The concept of two 'bodies' adds meaning to Polanyi's descriptionon how we must keep our attention elsewhere while producing thistacit knowing, just like we, at night, need to focus our eyes on some­thing next to what we really want to look at in order to see it. Like­wise, in studies on creativity many scientists have reported that illu­mination (see later paragraph on creativity) always happens when theyare attending to something else, preferably a routine job (Edwards,1987). Many scientists rely on this way of thinking. It is as if the brainworks on its own - much better than when you focus your attentiondirectly on the problem. Maybe this is what Scharmer (1998:3) relatesto as the 'sources for producing things' or 'self-presencing knowledge'.

Other theories that confirm the body perceiving independently ofour consciousness is the findings from 'subliminal' research (N0rre­tranders, 1991 :200). These findings were commercialized in the 1950sas subliminal advertizing, showing ultra-short images during a TVshow. The consumer would not be conscious about a subliminal com­mercial but it would still influence his behavior. This was, of course,forbidden by law. The point here is that the findings proved that thebody takes in and reacts to much more than we are conscious of.

In sum, tacit knowledge is primarily bodily knowledge, but it involvesmore than skills. The body perceives and absorbs signals that the 'I' isnormally not conscious of, because the'!' is attending to somethingelse, as Polanyi has described it. Tacit knowledge is produced while themind attends to something else and may surface during cyclic think­ing processes. Thus the body learns and has knowledge, which is inde­pendent of our rational intellect. Intuition involves access to the tacitbodily knowledge 16, often described as 'hunches' or 'gut feeling'. TheDreyfus brothers (1986) studied how intuition developed fromhunches to virtuosity. Intuition concerns the immediate and simultan­eous thinking, knowing and acting according to the specific time, situ­ation and people, i.e. to the context. Related concepts are 'flow' (Csik­szentihalyi, 1990), 'self-presencing awareness' (Scharmer, 1998) and'abduction' (Kirkeby, 1994).

137

The knowledge map is created by crossing the axes between informa­tion and exformation. The axes 17, which go from plus to minus, arethus: information (vertically) and exformation (horizontally). Whenthese are combined, we get four abstract categories.

In the north-east corner we find ignorance, the combination of noinformation with no exformation. There are, however, varying degreesof ignorance. In the top corner ignorance is 'squared', i.e. ignorance ofbeing ignorant, or 'cognitive blindness'. After that we could speak of ,­conscious' ignorance, a person knowing that he/she is ignorant. Thefirst step is to know that you do not know, the second is to have iden­tified a gap regarding what you do not know. This was expressed byReg Revans (1991:6): "Action Learning suggests that, only if a man,particularly the expert, can be persuaded to draw a map of his ownignorance, is he likely to develop his full potential."

Information and Exformation

Also the concept of 'exformation' by Tor N0rretranders (1991) issomehow related to tacit knowledge. When producing information,some is selected and a lot is discarded. The latter is the exformation.Information is the result, it is concrete and can be measured. Exfor­mation is what was discarded, the mental work that was done in or­der to produce the information. The purpose of information, of theexplicit content, is to indicate what is behind, what is implicit in thecontent. "Exformation is the history of information, information isthe product of the history. Both are meaningless without the othey ­information without exformation is empty talk; exformation withoutinformation is not exformation, but rather discarded information."(N0rretranders, 1991:131)

Of specific relevance to the present study are the processes ofknowledge creation, i.e. the history of information, both because itindicates the 'depth' or the 'weight' of the information, and becausethe history is contextual and practical, and includes direct 'experi­ence'. It is in this meaning that exformation is applied in the follow­ing. Thus, exformation without information is here understood ashistory, presence, experience, and depth. Exformation may be con­scious, but hard to articulate, it may be non-conscious as intuition,it may be experience, knowledge or skills, which could possibly bearticulated, i.e. combined with information. Whereas N0rretranders'point of departure is information, where exformation is seen as dis­carded information and thus as part of the past, I have 'adapted' theconcept of exformation to form a forward-pointing potential for build­ing 'qualified knowledge'. This is illustrated in the knowledge matrixbelow.

information

+

tacitignorance

knowledge

qualifiedrhetoric

knowledge

exformation

Dar,o, 1997c: Knowledge Map

West of 'Ignorance' we find tacit knowledge, the combination of noinformation with exformation18. Tacit knowledge consists of individu­al memory, experience, ideas, intuition, hunches, feelings, values,which are hard to articulate in language. There are two levels of tacitknowledge, non-conscious and conscious, tacit knowledge. The social­ization process is an example of a non-conscious process. Also ourcognitive structures, our very personal way of perceiving and framing

139

the world, our schemata, are normally non-conscious. These, howev­er, are sometimes revealed or exposed because of voluntary or invol­untary clashes with reality. Our conscious tacit knowledge 19 can betechnical or practical as in skills or know-how or they can be gut-feel­ings or hunches connected to action and experience. An importantpart of knowledge creation is trying to surface tacit knowledge andcommunicating it to others (representational knowledge in the PPEPframework). Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) argue that the core of know­ledge creation concerns this conversion of tacit knowledge into explic­it knowledge.

.Moving south-east in the 'landscape' we find rhetoric, informationwith no exformation, one of the great challenges of the Internet andglobal Knowledge Society. How can we validate information? At the'bottom' of the box of rhetoric is the area of hollow presentations,the strategy of eloquent 'shooting from the hip'. Some people are ex­tremely skilled in persuasive talk and get high up in the hierarchiesof organizations. Roger Bernstein, the manager of Random House,formulated this dreaded person as the 'articulate incompetent'(Larsen, 1995). The next step is rhetoric with a little exformation.Entertainment and politics are examples that could very well illus­trate this area. Certainly also the status of the person may influencehow information with little exformation or depth is interpreted byothers.

Finally qualified knowledge combines information and exformation.Qualified knowledge is explicit knowledge based on qualified exfor­mation. Qualified knowledge is the outcome of a process of exploringthe other areas of the knowledge map. This process may start by try­ing to make tacit knowledge explicit, what Nonaka & Takeuchidescribes as 'knowledge conversion', or by uncovering and clarifyingimportant areas of ignorance, as described by Revans. Ideally adynamic process emerges between the two. Qualified knowledge iscreated when combining this internal process with an external scan­ning for information in a searching spiralling process and by addingrhetoric throughout the process, and particularly in the end for thepresentation (or report).

What is a problem?

Plato's paradox (Polanyi, 1966:22): If you know what you are lookingfor, then there is really no problem, but if you do not know what youare looking for, then how would you be able to identify it?

Plato's explanation of this paradox was that discovery is simplyremembering past lives. Polanyi, however, uses this discussion to un­derscore his claim that "we can know more than we can tell" (Polanyi,1966:4) and that knowing that a problem is a 'good' or an 'original'problem must be a function of our "tacit foreknowledge of yet undis­covered things" (Polanyi, 1966:23). Polanyi's main conclusions arethat tacit knowledge can account for:• a valid knowledge of a problem• the scientist's capacity to pursue it, guided by his sense of approa­

ching its solution• a valid anticipation of the yet indeterminate implications of the dis­

covery arrived at in the end

John Dewey describes four types of problems [1910](1997:72 -74):

1. "the difficulty resides in the conflict between conditions at handand a desired and intended result, between an end and the meansfor reaching it."

2. "the difficulty experienced is the incompatibility of a suggested and(temporarily) accepted belief (that the pole is a flagpole), with cer­tain other facts" (last parenthesis added)

3. "an observer trained to the idea of natural laws or uniformitiesfinds something odd or exceptional in the behavior of the bubbles.The problem is to reduce the apparent anomalies to instances ofwell-established laws."

4. "In cases of striking novelty or unusual perplexity, the difficulty,however, is likely to present itself at first as a shock, as emotionaldisturbance, as a more or less vague feeling of the unexpected, ofsomething queer, strange, funny, or disconcerting."

The first two types of problems are similar to the common sense appli­cation of problems, which usually have negative associations and are

regarded as something to 'get rid of'. In this context problems arepreferably avoided.

The two latter types of problems are disturbing in a different wayas they attract the curiosity of a 'trained observer'. To a researcher, aproblem can be challenging - even 'beautiful'- yet still something thatis meant to be solved. Thus, to a researcher a problem is more like anopportunity. This leads to two further distinction of problems by Bales& Strodtbeck (1951) and Reg Revans (1991).

Bales & Strodtbeck distinguished between 'truncated' and 'full-fledg­ed' problems (1951 :487). Truncated problems are e.g. 'open and ~hut'

cases, i.e. closed and with little room for divergence and diverse per­spectives. Full-fledged problems have some degree of ignorance anduncertainty, involve different values and interests, and must be solved.

Revans' (1991) distinction is between problems and puzzles. Ac­cording to Revans (1991: 11), a puzzle is "an embarrassment to whicha solution already exists, although it may be hard to find even for themost accomplished of experts." Many technical or production 'pro­blems' are really puzzles, as they can be solved by finding the rightsolution. In contrast, a problem "has no existing solution, and evenafter it has been long and deliberately treated by different persons, allskilled and reasonable, it may still suggest to each of them some dif­ferent course of subsequent action. This will vary from one to another,in accordance with the differences between their past experiences,their current values and their future hopes."

In this book we take Revans' definition and view problems asopen-ended and as having potentially many different solu­tions. This definition goes well with scientific search, which is oftenan open-ended process of search and discovery. The heart of the mat­ter concerns the journey from an unarticulated or yet unknown prob­lem towards formulating the problem or knowing what the problem is.This is problem-finding as opposed to problem-solving.

"The formulation of a problem is far more often essential thanits solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical orexperimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, toregard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagin-

ation and marks real advance in science," as Einstein and Infeldhave expressed it in 'The Evolution of Physics' of 1938(Maslow, 1970:18).

In 'How We Think', Dewey focused on thinking as reflection [1910](1997:57):

"Reflection is turning a topic over in various aspects and in var­ious lights so that nothing significant about it shall be over­looked - almost as one might turn a stone over to see what itshidden side is like or what is covered by it."

Dewey outlined 5 steps of reflection (1910:72):i) a felt difficultyii) its location and definitioniii) suggestion of possible solutioniv) development by reasoning of the bearings of the suggestionsv) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance

or rejection; that is, the conclusion of belief or disbelief

What is an idea?

"An active consciousness holds all ideas lightly"Gudy Marshall at a Conference in Bath, 1995, in Torbert,1997a:14)

Ideas are suggestions that can be more or less articulated or advanced.Some are diffuse and vague, others are specific and ready to implement.

In Dewey's framework an idea is primarily a factor in judgment(1997:108):

"In this process of being only conditionally accepted, acceptedonly for examination, meanings become ideas. That is to say) an ideais a meaning that is tentatively entertained,iormed) and used with ref­erence to its fitness to decide a perplexing situation, - a meaning used

as a tool ofjudgment ...

143

· .. But if we treat what is suggested as only a suggestion, a sup­position, a possibility, it becomes an idea, having the followingtraits: a) As merely a suggestion, it is a conjecture, a guess,which in cases of greater dignity we call a hypothesis or a theo­ry. That is to say, it is a possible but as yet doubtful mode ofinterpretation. b) Even though doubtful, it has an office to per­form; namely, that of directing inquiry and examination ... Tak­en merely as a doubt, an idea would paralyze inquiry. Takenmerely as a certainty, it would arrest inquiry. Taken as a doubt­ful possibility, it affords a standpoint, a platform, a method ofinquiry. Ideas are not then genuine ideas unless they are tools in.a reflective examination which tends to solve a problem."

Thus, according to Dewey ideas are 'working hypotheses' thathelp in directing inquiry and examination. This definition, infact, covers our common sense understanding of an idea that couldbe for a new product or application, as well as suggestions for someactivity. It also makes it possible for us to distinguish between aproblem and an idea, even when they are both vague, as the formerinvolves a perplexity and the latter involves a suggestion. Both directthinking.

"The problem fixes the end of thought and the end controls theprocess of thinking." (Dewey, 1997: 11)

"Logical ideas are like keys which are shaping with reference toopening a lock." (1997:109)

"I like to stress that ideas are the raw material of solutions,potential stimuli for the high-quality ultimate solution," saysVanGundy (in Grossman, 1997:10).

The shaping and fixing quality of ideas is seen in the framing orreframing of problems. The way that a problem is defined more or lessdetermines the solution (Schon, 1986).

144

Problem framing

"Reality has a tendency to reveal itself in accordance with theperspectives through which it is engaged." (Morgan, 1997:350)

Goffman (1974) uses framing to explain the 'organization ofexperience'. This incorporates the whole situation and all the cues thatan individual uses in order to make sense out of 'what is going onhere?' Goffman's concept thus concerns relational as well as concep­tual matters. In the present chapter our scope is narrower as we wantto examine the activity of conceptual framing.

An area where framing and reframing problems have been of ma­jor concern is in the psychology of brief therapy. Watzlawick et aldescribe reframing (1974:95): "What turns out to be changed as aresult of reframing is the meaning attributed to the situation, andtherefore its consequences, but not its concrete facts." This is relevantin the present book as reframing concerns the changing of perspec­tives - not things. In this sense reframing has to do with the concep­tual framework, i.e. the views, the expectations, the reasons and thepremises (Watzlawick et aI, 1974: 104). De Shazer, also into brief ther­apy, defines frames as 'rules' by which we construct our reality, differ­ent rules might apply in different situations. And it is the transform­ation of these rules that are necessary for creating change. De Shazerconcludes (1988: 118): "The best way to design a failure is to estab­lish a poor definition of the complaint."

Thus problem framing happens early in perception, as seen in the 'lad­der of Knowledge', described earlier in this chapter. Donald Schon(1986) describes, how we, intentionally or unintentionally, make useof 'generative metaphors', which derive from our cognitive schemas.In his example from the area of social policy, he points out how see­ing an urban housing situation as a 'slum area' and as 'possessed of acongenital disease' indicates a different solution than describing thesame situation as a 'locus for social relationships' and a 'natural com­munity and its dislocation'. "Each story constructs its view of socialreality through a complementary process of naming and framing"

145

(Schon, 1986:264). The point is that in the description of a story or aproblem there is already an inherent subjective evaluation. And it is"this sense of obviousness of what is wrong and what needs fixing(that) is the hallmark of generative metaphor in the field of social pol­icy" (parenthesis added, Schon, 1986:266). The process of problem-·setting matters profoundly because it reflects subjective values andpurposes, and because it (implicitly) prescribes the diagnosis and setsout the direction for seeking solutions.

often used for benchmarking. Of course, it is important to develop thebest routines and to keep improving them. Sometimes organizationsand groups fall into the trap of doing things right (routines) instead ofdoing the right things (Larsen, 1992). The drawback of routines is thepath-dependency and the in-built conservatism of being habit-bound.Therefore routines need to be revised and scrutinized regularly. Organ­izations, in fact, need to build in 'organized abandonment' of all rou­tines (Drucker, 1993).

Problem-finding and problem-solving

"Successful leaders are "committed to problem-finding, not justproblem-solving. They embrace error, even failure, because theyknow it will teach them more than success."(Warren Bennis, 1992) (in Snyder & Clontz, 1997:71)

Routines: When combining a known problem with a known solution,we are in the field of routines or procedures. There is no need for'novelty' when 'continuity' is working well. Routines are time savingand efficient, and are part of the structural capital of the organization(Sveiby, 1991). Routines can be shared as 'best practices' and are

routines problem-SOlving

exploitation explorativesearch

Problem solving: When a solution to a known problem (in fact: a puz­zle) has to be found, we can speculate, seek information, make trial­and-error experiments, or design scientific experiments. Problem solv­ing involves investigation and focused search for information. Somescientific discoveries belong to this area. Thomas Edison knew theproblem very well, but it took more than 500 trials and a lot of persist­ence to find the solution20 • Two of Drucker's seven sources of innov­ation (1985) concern problem solving: investigating the problem ofan 'incongruity' or mismatch, and trying to find the 'missing link' inrelation to a 'process need'.

Problem solving involves real practical problems, which Deweydescribes as forked-road situations. By that he indicates that there isoften an urgency for action.

Exploitation: In knowledge society one way of applying knowledge isto exploit existing knowledge, products or compounds for new appli­cations or new markets. One area in which a known solution can beexploited to find answers to unknown problems is in technology-basedsearch, where technology is exploited in order to find new applica­tions. The company has the 'solution' but lacks the 'problem'. Simi­larly, industries such as chemical or pharmaceutical companies maybe in the possession of various compounds that can be screened, putthrough experiments and adapted or changed. The point is to exploitexisting assets in every possible way.

(Dewey, 1997: 11): "Thinking begins in what may fairly enoughbe called a forked-road situation, a situation which is ambiguous,which presents a dilemma, which proposes alternatives ...

Problem Map

unknown

solution

known

known

unknown

problem

Problem-finding versus problem­solving implies two vastly differentperspectives, but involves the sametwo elements: a problem (known orunknown) and a solution (knownor unknown). Whether these ele­ments are known or must be searc­hed for determines the kind ofapproach that is appropriate forproject work. The matrix offersfour combinations ofproblems andsolutions, resulting in four differentapproaches: routines, exploitation,problem-solving, and explorativesearch.

147

The dilemma of project planning, Mikkelsen & Riis, 1992

Problems of the third kind

The figure illustrates how important decisions, taken early in a project,as for instance the choice of a certain technology, is decisive for the scopeand path of the project. Other technologies were from the beginningcounted out, even though they might actually have proved to be better.

.......'.

..........................

available information and knowledgethe impact of decisions

. .

.....".

"......

Thus, the problem formation process is usually skipped, as the prob­lem is given. This means that quite often, by the termination of a pro­ject, project groups realize that they have been working with the wrongproblem. And the irony is that now that they know what the problemreally is, the project is over. This type of error has been called 'error ofthe third kind' or the 'fallacy of misplaced precision' (Mitroff &Featheringham, 1974).

Reg Revans (1991 :6) describes this situation: "there is nothing soterrible in all human experience as a bad plan efficiently carried out,when immense technical resources are concentrated in solving thewrong problems. Hell has no senate more formidable than a conspir­acy of short-sighted leaders and quick-witted experts."

What is described here could very well be caused by a well-knowndilemma of projects: that important decisions are often made early ina project at a time when there is little information and knowledge. Thisis illustrated in the model below.

Demand for the solution of a perplexity is the steadying andguiding factor in the entire process of reflection ... But a ques­tion to be answered, an ambiguity to be resolved, sets up an endand holds the current of ideas to a definite channel. Every sug­gested conclusion is tested by its reference to this regulatingend, by its pertinence to the problem at hand. This need ofstraigthening out a perplexity also controls the kind of inquiryundertaken."

Explorative search: An unknown problem combined with an un­known solution is difficult to tackle, and some would be inclined. tosay: why bother, if there isn't even a problem? In a competitivebusiness world, however, where innovation is essential, new areasmust be explored and new problems or needs must be identified(and preferably before the competitors). As Simon stated (1986: 13):"By its very nature, scientific discovery derives from exploring pre­viously unexplored lands. If it were already known which path totake, there would be no major discovery - and the path would mostlikely have previously been explored by others." Exploration can bea time-consuming process. Even Peter Drucker (1985) warns entre­preneurs of the hardships of the seventh source of innovation: newknowledge.

Explorative search often starts with searching for an original prob­lem, by posing a 'burning' question, by wondering about something,or by having a vague idea. It implies a general scanning for informa­tion and attempts to build a general database for decision making.

Interestingly, the stage of finding or forming the problem is oftenskipped. In scientific literature as well as in everyday life, individualsand groups prefer 'solution cycles' (Poole & Roth, 1989a). Thus themain interest lies in problem-solving. Donald Schon criticizes thisprevailing attitude, which directs our attention to search for solu­tions, even before the problem has been identified. The problem isoften taken more or less for granted. Schon writes (1986:261):"There are great difficulties with the problem-solving perspective ...Problems are not given. They are constructed by human beings intheir attempts to make sense of complex and troubling situations."

149

Postponing decisions is in accordance with Dewey's reflective think­mg.

"Set-based concurrent engineering bases the most critical, early deci­sions on data. The earliest decisions about designs have the larg-.est impact on the ultimate quality and cost, but these decisionsare made with the least data." (Ward, et. aI, 1995:59)

In this book the applied methods aim at lifting the curve of knowl­edge, before making important choices (see figure below). In fact, oneproposition of this book is that by building enough data, informationand knowledge concerning the problem area, the problem formula­tions become more qualified, more potential is captured, better oppor­tunities emerge and decisions (whether to 'stop or go') can be madeon a more solid basis. This is demonstrated in the Toyota approach,discussed earlier:

tion. To turn the thing over in mind, to reflect, means to huntfor additional evidence, for new data, that will develop the sug­gestion, and will either, as we say, bear it out or else make obvi­ous its absurdity and irrelevance. Given a genuine difficultyand a reasonable amount of analogous experience to drawupon, the difference, par excellence, between good and badthinking is found at this point. The easiest way is to accept anysuggestion that seems plausible and thereby bring to an endthe condition of mental uneasiness. Reflective thinking isalways more or less troublesome because it involves overcom­ing the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at theirface value; it involves willingness to endure a condition of men­tal unrest and disturbance. Reflective thinking, in short,means judgment suspended during further inquiry; andsuspense is likely to be somewhat painful. As we shall see lat­er, the most important factor in the training of good mentalhabits consists in acquiring the attitude of suspended conclu­sion, and in mastering the various methods of searching fornew materials to corroborate or to refute the first suggestionsthat occur. To maintain the state of doubt and to carryonsystematic and protracted inquiry - these are the essen­tials of thinking." (emphasis added)

Knowledge creation process models

We have already examined a few process models of knowledge cre­ation. We started with Heron's PPEP model of Cooperative Inquiry, acyclical model, which has formed the framework for our discussion.We have described two stage models: the Dreyfus & Dreyfus learningmodel and Dewey's reflective thinking model. We want to concludethis section on knowledge creation with Nonaka & Takeuchi's twomodels (1995): the 'knowledge spiral' of four modes of knowledgeconversion, and the 'spiral of organizational knowledge creation'.

....­._--_.

available information and knowledgethe impact of decisions

············.~·-·r·....., "." ..' ' ../."./ :'" I "

...... ,/ "'Y>---' '\/ .... "" ,"". ,"". .

,;,; '. '.-,," ",

-_.::::~-- ...

Ideal Project flow (inspired by Mikkelsen & Riis, 1992)

(Dewey, 1997:13): "If the suggestion that occurs is at onceaccepted, we have uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflec-

"The cornerstone of our epistemology is the distinction betweentacit and explicit knowledge ... the key to knowledge creation

Nonaka & Takenchi 1995:72. Contents of knowledge ereated by the four modes.

Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledgeTo

Even though the four modes of knowledge conversion are experiencedby the individual, the conversion between tacit knowledge and explicitknowledge is also social, according to Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995:61).There appears to be some inconsistency in the theory regarding howindividual knowledge is turned into organizational knowledge, whichhas also been pointed out by Griffin, Shaw & Stacey (1997).

According to Nonaka & Takeuchi, the social process of knowledgecreation is triggered by different mechanisms. In the socializationmode it is triggered by building a 'field' of interaction for sharingmental models and experience. Tacit knowledge is externalizedthrough dialogue or collective reflection, using metaphors or anal­ogies to articulate tacit knowledge. Combination of explicit knowledgeis facilitated by networking and thereby creating a new product, ser­vice or system. Finally, 'learning by doing' is what triggers internal­ization.

Eventually a spiral emerges and knowledge is elevated or 'amp­lified' from individual, through groups, to organizational levels. At theorganizational level a fifth phase is added: cross-leveling knowledge.This means that the knowledge generated is extended and spreadsinternally and (sometimes) externally and thereby gives rise to a newknowledge spiral (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995:88).

(Socialization) (Externalization)

Sympathized ConceptualKnowledge Knowledge

(Internalization) (Combination)

Operational SystemicKnowledge Knowledge

From

Tacitknowledge

Explicitknowledge

lies in the mobilization and conversion of tacit knowledge."(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995:56)

The four modes of individual knowledge creation, described below,are the 'engine of the entire knowledge-creation process' (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995:57). It will be complemented by the four characteris­tics of 'Ba', which have been added to the original knowledge spiral byNonaka & Konno (1998:46). 'Ba' stands for a shared space that cantake several forms:1 Socialization (from tacit to tacit): Sharing experiences and build­

ing shared 'mental models' through observation and direct exp~ri­

ence (e.g. like setting up a 'brainstorming camp') helps to create'sympathized' knowledge. This is 'Originating Ba'. In the PPEPframework this would correspond to 'experiential' knowledge.

2 Externalization (from tacit to explicit): Articulating tacit know­ledge can be encouraged through metaphors, analogies, images andmodels. This process is typically seen in concept creation throughcollective reflection - thus 'conceptual' knowledge. This is 'Inter­acting Ba', and would correspond to 'presentational' knowledge inthe PPEP framework.

3 Combination (from explicit to explicit): Concepts are linked toexplicit knowledge and sorted, systematized, and recombined intomore complete documentation or 'systemic' knowledge (e.g. proto­types). Nonaka & Konno label this 'Cyber Ba'. It would correspondto 'propositional' knowledge in the PPEP framework.

4 Internalization (from explicit to tacit): Through documents, man­uals or stories explicit knowledge is internalized, absorbed or inte­grated into each person's individual knowledge and experience. Itis closely related to 'learning by doing' and is called 'operational'knowledge, or 'Exercising Ba'. In the PPEP framework this wouldentail a completed learning cycle of combined 'practical' and 'ex­periential' knowledge.

153

Nonaka & Takeuchi's process model at first sight appears holistic andrelational as it is cyclic and described as a 'spiral' of knowledge creation.In some ways, however, it also has similarities to a stage model, as it isdescribed as a 5 phase model of 1. Sharing tacit knowledge, 2. Creatingconcepts, 3. Justifying concepts, 4. Building an archetype, and 5. Cross­leveling knowledge (1995:84). At the same time it is pointed out that theinvolved teams are cross-organizational, working more like 'rugby teams'than as the participants of a 'relay race' (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1984).

Nonaka & Takeuchi's theory of 'Organizational Knowledge Creation'(1995) has been trend setting in the new field of 'Knowledge' 5=re­ation and Knowledge Management. At the same time it revitalizedMichael Polanyi's concept of 'tacit knowing' (1966) and started adebate. Whether we call it tacit knowledge, bodily knowledge, implicitknowledge or 'Ba' is not the point. The point is that human beings'feel'/'sense' something that is hard to articulate in language, butwhich can be transformed into images, drawings or metaphors andfrom there into new knowledge. What Nonaka & Takeuchi have, tosome extent, underestimated is the significance of communication andinteraction. Their perspective is partly seen from the level of the indi­vidual, partly organizational. Theirs is not a group perspective, as inthe present case studies. Still, as we shall see later, their model, at leastpartly, does serve as a constructive framework for understanding com­munication in heterogeneous groups.

By others N onaka & Takeuchi have been criticized for a discrepancybetween a claimed social process but actually maintaining an individ­ual perspective throughout their book. Likewise N onaka & Takeuchiare criticized for promoting a linear process of knowledge develop­ment, seeing knowledge as 'possessed' by individuals and sharedbetween individuals instead of seeing knowledge as participative andas emerging out of edge-of-chaos situations (Griffin, Shaw & Stacey,1997: 11): "What Nonaka and Takeuchi end up with, then, is a processfor knowledge creation which can be managed and controlled. Wewould maintain that management has important and legitimate con­trol functions, but that knowledge creation is a process which cannotbe controlled or managed from outside of that process ... "

154

This, indeed, leads to a good question: can knowledge creation bemanaged from outside the process - and can it be managed fromwithin?

Concluding remarks

In Knowledge Society knowledge creation is the heart of the matter.Information floats freely and can connect people everywhere - at leastthose who have access to the new global infrastructure: the Internet.But if information is to be turned into knowledge it needs to be pro­cessed by individuals - or even better - by interacting individuals whoapply multiple perspectives (as in heterogeneous groups) in order tocreate qualified knowledge.

As we have seen in this section, knowledge can be differentiated in avariety of ways and understood from a variety of theories and frame­works. As a meta-framework we selected John Heron's PPEP (Propo­sitional, Practical, Experiential, Presentational) model, developed incooperation with Peter Reason, because we will need a differentiatedframework for discussing different kinds of knowledge and knowingthroughout the book. We introduced a Knowledge Map as we foundthat one particular aspect of knowledge was missing in literature:ignorance. Other aspects of knowledge that are attracting interest in aKnowledge Society are intuition and bodily knowledge. As long aspeople have existed on this earth intuition has been part of decisionmaking. Managers admit that even in their rational world they still relyon intuition when in doubt. More studies are needed on intuition andbodily knowledge.

One of the challenges of this book is to find answers to Plato's para­dox: How can you identify a problem, when you do not know what itis? What is a problem - and how are problems best formed, framed,identified, and constructed? Interestingly, John Dewey's contributionsfrom 1910 were highly relevant and valuable in defining 'idea' and'problem', which are central concepts for the present study.

155

In sum, the field of knowledge creation is rich in providing frame­works, classifications, and process models that are highly relevant forthe study of innovative processes. When reviewing literature onknowledge, however, it appears that the group perspective is miss­ing, 'ignorance' is ignored, and 'communication' is 'commonsensical'and not in focus, i.e. not built on a profound psychological founda­tion.

Creativity

"In our willingness to step into the unknown, the field of allpossibilities, we surrender ourselves to the creative mind thatorchestrates the dance of the universe."(Deepak Chopra 1994: 81)

Introduction

The purpose of this section is primarily to clarify and discuss the'chameleonic' concept of creativity, and secondly to compare anddistinguish creativity from innovation. The concepts of creativityand innovation are often intertwined because of their close relation­ship. As we shall see, however, there are important differences. Inrelation to the research questions of this book, we would like toknow: What is the role of creativity in enhancing innovative process­es? Is creativity a necessary condition for innovative processes tocome about?

This discussion entails a clarification of different types of thinkingand different types of creativity. Another important aim of this sectionis to clarify and discuss 'innovative crystallization', a concept coined inthe present study in order to describe the emergence of novelty. Inaccordance with the previous sections, a few process models of cre­ativity are introduced.

Lines of research

Creativity is hard to define and most researchers refrain from exactdefinitions and try instead to pin down some of its characteristics. Re­search on creativity has been inspired by Osborne, who invented the ,­brainstorming' technique, of which the most original feature was therule of non-judgement. Also Abraham Maslow's studies of self-actual­izing individuals have influenced research (1970). Maslow proposed ahumanistic psychology studying creativity in healthy, middle-agedpeople as opposed to most psychological studies focusing on abnor­malities and deviance. The core of creativity, in my opinion, lies in per­ception and in the ability to make an original change of perspective.David Bohm writes (1998:4): "But real perception that is capable ofseeing something new and unfamiliar requires that one be attentive,alert, aware, and sensitive." It takes curiosity and alertness to performa change of perspective and from that see what could be possible.Bohm finds that the essence is to see new sets of relevant differencesand similarities, which can give rise to new order, and to new hierar­chies of order.

There are two main schools of creativity: Creative Problem Solving(CPS), also called the Buffalo school, that has a strong orientation to­wards tools; and Synectic, a theory developed by Gordon and Prince21 ,

that focuses on unconscious processes. These are brought forwardthrough fantasy, analogy, metaphor, and intuition or through a climateof acceptance. This line of thought was discussed in the prior sectionon tacit knowledge and intuition. We shall outline the CPS processmodel later. First we want to focus on five characteristics of creativity.

Some characteristics of creativity

• Knowledge: It has been stated time and again that knowledge is aprerequisite for creativity. This point was well phrased by HerbertSimon (1986: 11): "It is the surprise, the departure from theexpected, that creates the fruitful accident; and there are no sur­prises without expectations, nor expectations without knowledge".

157

• Cognitive processes: In general, creativity is associated with imag­ination, perception and association, i.e. primary processes, holisticthinking and divergent thinking. Creativity is about finding newsolutions to old problems, combining things in new ways or seeingthings in a different perspective.

• Emotions: Creativity is related to emotions, expressed in art suchas poetry, music, paintings, dance, etc. In addition, creativity, whenexpressed in art, incorporates an aesthetic feature.

• Activity: The root of creativity is creation. The activity can be phys­ical or mental, but it is hard work.

• Novelty: Creating is often a combination of known elemen~s toform something new, ranging from 'a little different' to 'radicallynew'. Chikszentmihalyi (1996:28) defines creativity as "any act,idea or product that changes an existing domain, or that transformsan existing domain into a new one."

When the 'new' product can form the basis for economical growth, wetalk about innovation. Innovation is often the result of a creative pro­cess. There are many similarities between creativity and innovation.They both deal with novelty and activity, and both take hard work,knowledge and skills (mental or physical). Let us look at some differ­ences between creativity and innovation.

An important difference between creativity and innovation stands outwhen looking at the key elements of creativity, drawn out of 22 con­tributions to the field by Welsch (1980, in Isaksen, 1988):

"Creativity is the process of generating unique products bytransformation of existing products. These products, tangibleand intangible, must be unique only to the creator, and mustmeet the criteria of purpose and value established by the cre­ator."

In contrast, when aiming at innovation, the products must be uniqueto the recipients, and must meet the criteria of purpose and value ofthe recipients, i.e. the company board or evaluation committee and,later, the customers or clients.

Summing up:• Creativity is a process - innovation is a result• Creativity is not primarily aimed at economic gain - innovation is• Creativity is evaluated by the creator - innovation is evaluated by

the recipients

"Creativity is getting the idea, and innovation is making it hap­pen" (Gamache, 1988).

We shall now distinguish creative processes from innovative processes,which are the focus of this study. The main difference lies in the qual­ity, the strength and the active use of emotions.

In creative sessions emotions are at play. The persons involvedexpress their emotions, e.g. people laugh a lot. "If you're laughing,you're more likely to break all that education and come up with awicked-good idea" (Doug Hall, in Grossman, 1997:4). Creativityallows people to become playful and foolish, which, in fact, is recom­mended for organizational renewal (March, 1979). By some ther­apists, creativity is even regarded as crucial for maintaining mentalsanity. Creative activities have been described as the experience of'flow' in a theory of optimal experience (Chikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Innovative processes, on the other hand, are conceptual and cog­nitive processes of forming and framing a problem. The topic is inves­tigated rationally, based on internal and external knowledge. Bothdivergent and convergent thinking is applied, and emotions are most­ly ignored. The search is focused or at least has some direction.

The characteristics of the creative person

It is beyond the scope of the present study to examine individuals. Itis a fact, however, that some individuals appear to have more creativetalent than others. Buzan & Keene (1994) made a thorough study ofgreat geniuses and found 20 capabilities that are characteristic for tal­ented individuals. They advocate that these skills can be learned,which is in line with other approaches. Critical voices maintain thatschooling and Western dedication to rationality literally kill the seeds

159

of creativity that all children possess and express in play (Spang Olsen,1998). "As our education increases, our imagination decreases" saysDoug Hall, US innovation guru (Grossman, 1997:4).

As the context of the case studies is one of science, we shall con­clude this paragraph with Simon's findings on the characteristics ofcreative scientists (1986: 18):

"From our review of scientific discovery, we have seen that atleast three stigmata seem to characterize scientists who areunusually creative: first, sensitivity to 'accidents' and readinessto respond to them, even abandoning an ongoing program (a.sthe Curies did in their search for radium); second, care andthoughtfulness in defining and selecting research goals andresearch problems; third a propensity for risk taking."

Divergent and convergent thinking

How are innovative processes initiated? How does a search processstart?

The pragmatist philosopher, John Dewey described the search pro­cess in his 'reflective thinking model' from 1910 as consisting of fivesteps (described earlier). Dewey regarded curiosity, playfulness, andsuspended judgment as important ingredients in problem solvingactivities and used ideas as working hypotheses. Dewey's model andmethod from 1910 have inspired and influenced many researcherswho were interested in creativity, thinking, communication and prob­lem solving.

Later two major thought patterns, divergent and convergent think­ing, were identified and discussed i.e. at a conference in 1963, whereGuilford, Getzels and Jackson, and Thomas Kuhn, among others, par­ticipated.

Divergent thinking is a searching process of generating ideas, look­ing for information, scanning the environment, inquiring into matters.It is a process of searching, exploring, expanding, developing andunfolding. Most importantly, it involves the suspension of judgment.

Convergent thinking is a process of narrowing down and focusing.It involves comparing, classifying, examining, analyzing, selecting,

160

eliminating and synthesizing. The goal is judgment, evaluation, choiceand decision making. The generally accepted view is that both typesof processes are essential for creativity, but that especially the shift tothe convergent phase may create some tension (Scheidel, 1986: 119,128-129).

The Nobel-prize winner, Dr. Roger Sperry, a pioneer in brainresearch, was the first to describe two fundamentally different ways ofthinking: the 'logical' left-hemisphere (linear, verbal, sequential,syntactical, digital) versus the 'holistic' right-hemisphere (global,nonverbal, simultaneous, perceptual, spatial) thinking processes(Buzan, 1993). Later research modified the actual location of theseprocesses, but not the distinction. It is therefore more adequate toregard these as different styles of thinking.

With the rapid development of technology, research on cognition hasaccelerated. The concept of intelligence has been expanded to encom­pass 'emotional intelligence' (Goleman, 1996) or, in fact, multipleintelligences (Buzan & Keene, 1994). In her book on Quantum think­ing (1997), Danah Zohar describes recent research, which has iden­tified three neural brain patterns:• Serial thinking• Associative thinking• Quantum thinking

Serial thinking is the brain's intellect. It is rational, logical and rule­bound. In the brain, neurons are connected in neural tracts, inseries of one-on-one neurons. This thinking is linear and determin­istic. Serial thinking is fast, accurate, precise and reliable. The dis­advantage is that it is inflexible.

Associative thinking is the brain's heart. It is emotional, social andhabit-bound. In the brain this thinking is linked to neural networksthat can wire and rewire themselves according to experience. Thisthinking is linked to practice and develops through trial-and-errorlearning, bodily skills (such as bicycling), tacit learning and patternrecognizing. The disadvantage is that it is slow, inaccurate andhabit-bound.

Quantum thinking is the brain's spirit. It has to do with deep values,visions and a quest for meaning. Quantum thinking arises from afield across the brain of synchronized oscillations of neurons. Thepattern has been identified in brain research, but cannot yet beexplained. Quantum thinking is creative, intuitive, insightful, rulebreaking and rule making. It is holistic and unifies and integratesserial and associative thinking.

Primary and secondary thought processes

A weakness of the 'hemispheric' division of thought processes i~ thatemotions are generally attributed to the right hemisphere. In compar­ison, the concepts ofprimary- and secondary thought processes, stem­ming from Freud Qacobsen, 1971), encompass distinct thought pro­cesses as well as different ways of organizing emotions.

Primary thought processes are characterized as simultaneous,spontaneous and with changing images, no borders, no sense of time,no language, no precision and no nuances. They have a dream-likequality and can hold ambiguity, as opposite feelings can exist at thesame time without conflict and as feelings have changing bindings toobjects. Needs must be gratified immediately. Primary processes workaccording to some general principles, which are easily recognizablefrom dreams Qacobsen, 1971:17-23):1) Resemblance between people, animals or objects means that they

are represented as identical in dreams. This means that if an objectresembles something else (even as a certain 'feeling quality'), theyappear identical, e.g. when a bird is suddenly a dog and later turnsinto something else.

2) Pars pro toto =the part is the same as the whole. A person can, forexample, be represented in a dream by a small part, e.g. an earringor a special walking style.

3) Condensation. A number of different objects may have a commonpart, which then can express all the objects.

Secondary thought processes are logical and closely related to lan­guage. Ambiguity is difficult to hold and creates conflict. A sense of timeis prevalent and gratification of needs can be postponed Qacobsen,

1971). Feelings have stable bindings, which is essential for the develop­ment oflanguage.The same stable bindings offeelings enable 'chunking',the linking of related concepts/feelings/experiences that expand the hu­man potential for thinking and memorizing (Hatch, 1997: 11).

Primary and secondary processes are usually not sharply divided innormal individuals. Particularly secondary processes are not found intheir 'ideal form'.

Discovery

The process of discovery is often described as a 'heureka' experiencewhere the solution to a problem suddenly 'pops' up in the brain. Inorder to explain how this can happen without conscious secondary pro­cess thinking, we need, however, to look deeper into the area of the pri­mary processes. In 1958 Kubie, who studied neurotic behavior andcreativity, found it necessary to categorize primary processes into theunconscious, which consists of repressed ('sick') psychic material, andthe pre-conscious which consists of psychic material, thoughts, feel­ings and memory that can be brought into consciousness Qacobsen,1971). Material from this area will, however, often be difficult to expressin language (tacit knowledge, Polanyi, 1966). In this way primary pro­cess thinking is used for thinking many thoughts simultaneously and forswift movements between thoughts and feelings (e.g. according to thelaws of primary processes, e.g. part pro toto). This is followed by de­cision or selection of one among many - the characteristic precision ofsecondary processes. All this takes place in the pre-consciousness.

Jacobsen points out that the most difficult achievement is to thinkup something that has no language, which means that it cannot evenbe translated into secondary process thinking. Here images of primaryprocess thinking must be pulled into secondary process thinking,words are borrowed from other areas until the idea or concept finallygets its own vocabulary. This is, according to Jacobsen, one of thehighest forms of creativity. In fact, this is the key to Synectics. Thismay also happen with experiential knowledge and feelings, which canbe extremely difficult to describe. Often this must be described inmetaphorical language or in art. Ultimately art and science seem toderive from the same source (Maslow, 1970).

Abraham Maslow has taken this a bit further and distinguishes between:

Simon said (1986:4): "The processes required for creative acts are thesame as those required for all intelligent acts." But are the processesthe same or is there a difference between 'divergent thinking', 'primaryprocess' and 'holistic thinking'?

The model below was constructed as an attempt to answer thatquestion.

1. Primary creativity: a creativity that mainly uses primary processes,as e.g. in associations (brain-storming), imagination, fantasies, etc.This creativity involves divergent thinking in the sense that it meansopening up for possibilities, asking lots of questions and taking inlots of information.

2. Secondary creativity: a creativity based mainly on secondary pro­cess thinking, as e.g. in production of bridges, houses, new cars,which is often an improvement of already existing ideas. This ismainly convergent thinking aiming at narrowing down possibilitiesand making decisions or obtaining solutions to problems.

3. Integrated creativity: a creativity that equally applies both types ofthinking, intermittently and sequentially. According to Maslow, it isthis kind of creativity that yields the great scientific discoveries andworks of art.

Creativity: Combining primary processes with divergent thinking isthe prototype of creativity. It stretches from crazy fantasies (on theborderline of psychosis) to playfulness, idea generation, associ­ations, images. Many of the activities of composers, poets, writers,choreographers and painters, among others, start in this form.

Creative problem solving: Here we find primary processes combinedwith convergent thinking. Most Creative Problem Solving tech­niques work with associations or analogues (Harriman, 1988) char­acteristic of primary process thinking, but the fact that the processstarts out with an identified problem makes it convergent already. Itshould be noted that the concept of creative problem solving and theschool, Creative Problem Solving, need not be identical. The latteris a school with its own techniques. It involves various sets of diver­gent/convergent steps (Isaksen, 1988), as we shall see later. Othertechniques are straightforward problem solving techniques involv­ing creativity. The main difference is whether the problem hasalready been identified or whether this is a part of the exercise

Focused search: We now combine secondary process thinking withdivergent thinking. In most research search is focused. It is diver­gent in the sense that it opens up for new information and knowl­edge, but it is still focused on or around a topic.

Analytical problem solving: The final space combines secondary pro­cess and convergent thinking. This thinking is analytical, critical,goal-oriented, and strategic. This is the 'prototype' of science.

After this discussion it becomes possible to distinguish creativity fromscientific search. Creativity involves primary process thinking, whichcan be combined with divergent as well as convergent thinking (as inthe bottom two quadrants).

Scientific search involves secondary process thinking, combinedwith divergent and convergent thinking (as in the top two quadrants).

Integrated creativity combines all 4 quadrants as indicated by thedotted line, and holistic/sequential thinking can, in principle, beapplied in any quadrant. Even though this is taking the conceptbeyond Maslow, we shall use his (1970: 159) descriptions of self­actualizing human beings. Maslow noticed how ignition, inspirationand illumination would coexist with hard work, long training, harsh

convergent

Integrated creativity

divergent

// ,

/,

/, ,

//

~l1tllyticalfOCI15'e'ds~rch

prob~em

// solving',

/,

/, ,

/ ,,

//,

/, , /, /, , creatjvecreaqvity pr¢lem,, ,96lving, , , /

/, , /

primaryprocess

secondaryprocess

criticism and perfection. He also noted that the spontaneous wasfollowed by deliberation; total acceptance was followed by critique;intuition was followed by logic; fantasy was followed by reality testing.And actually, these descriptions of integrated creativity agree well withthe implications of the depicted model.

Process models of Creativity

The first to describe different stages of creativity was the Germanphysiologist and physicist, Helmholz, who, at the turn of the 19th .cen­tury, described three stages of creativity (saturation, incubation andillumination). A fourth stage (verification) was added in 1908 by theFrench mathematician, Poincare. The last phase (which was actuallythe first stage of the creative process) was added by the American psy­chologist Getzels in the 1960s: the problem-finding stage or the firstinsight (Edwards, 1987).

The creative process consequently consists of the following fivephases:

1) First insight, 2) Saturation, 3) Incubation, 4) Illumination and5) Verification.

Betty Edwards (1987) has linked holistic and sequential thinking tothese phases:1 The first insight often derives from curiosity or from a question.

Somebody starts wondering about something. This mainly consistsof holistic thinking.

2 The stage of saturation involves logical thinking as this concernsobtaining information and data about the problem or question.

3 Incubation is described as a period where the information isreflected upon and cultivated, and then thrust away from con­sciousness. This is mainly a process of holistic thinking.

4 Illumination usually happens after a period of relaxation or of do­ing cyclical work (e.g. weeding the garden, taking a shower). It isdescribed as a lightning 'AHA' (holistic thinking).

5 Then follows verification where the idea or the solution is 'ra­tionalized' through processes of logic.

166

The Creative Problem Solving Model (CPS)

The CPS model consists of 6 stages, of which each has a divergent anda convergent phase. "The current model is built on the belief thateffective problem solving relies upon both creative and critical think­ing." (Isaksen, 1986: 154) The stages are:

• Mess Finding• Data Finding• Problem Finding• Idea Finding• Solution Finding• Acceptance Finding

Isaksen describes creative thinking as divergent: It aims at making newconnections in order to generate many, different and unusual possibil­ities. Critical thinking is convergent and analytical and concerns com­paring, improving, selecting, judging, and deciding.

The CPS model is a stage process model, but Isaksen (1998:151)notes that real creative problem solving is a 'messy' process, which willdepend on the specific task and situation, and that some of the stageswill be accentuated and others left out. The CPS model includes 'Ac­ceptance Finding', which concerns the implementation of the solu­tion. This is unusual, but constructive. Often the creative process stopswhen a thousand ideas have been generated - and then what? It alsohappens that ideas are screened and one solution selected, but theadoption of the solution by the organization is often ignored - detri­mental to the result, i.e. losing the (opportunity for) innovation.

The '4 Steps of Problem Solving' process model

Herluf Trolle, who has worked practically with creativity for manyyears, has integrated the main ideas of Synectics and CPS into a pro­cess model, 'Steps of Problem Solving', including the following four

steps (1988):• Problem Formulation• Problem Reformulation• Idea Development• Idea Improvement

Trolle explains the process of problem formulation as a process thatcan be focused on general or more specific levels. With 'why' ques­tions a 'problem' can be taken to a more general level of thinking(involving goals and motives), whereas 'how' questions pull the prob­lem into a more concrete mode (involving means). Trolle proposes agoal/means problem hierarchy (1988: 10) with a general problem atthe top being divided into different formulations of the problem,indicating totally different means. Thus, Trolle has found a way ofoperationalizing Schon's (1986:264) thoughts about 'naming andreframing'. Furthermore, Trolle's suggestions of reformulating theproblem incorporate the perspective of diversity in a constr~ctive

way, which is relevant for the present book. Trolle's model is relevant,operational and systematic.

Creativity and group interaction

How does creativity affect group interaction and how does groupinteraction affect innovative processes? A quote by Edward de Bonofrom Metcalf and Felible answers (1992, in Lumsden & Lumsden,1997:201):" ... But it is the willingness to play with ideas, to risk fool­ishness without fear, that are the hallmarks of the creative thinkers.And it is the creativity which springs from humor that increases oureffectiveness."

It seems that one of the major impacts that creative sessions have,apart from generating ideas, has to do with the atmosphere. Thedemands of postponing judgment, maintaining a positive attitude anda general looseness provide a supportive comfortable climate. It ishealthy to laugh together and laughter can relieve a lot of tension in atask group.

Regarding how group interaction can affect innovative processes,we found a suggestion by Leonard & Sensiper (1998): "When a groupof diverse individuals addresses a common challenge, each skilled per­son frames both the problem and its solution by applying mental sche­mata and patterns he or she understands best. The result is a cacoph­ony of perspectives. In a well-managed development process, these var-

168

ying perspectives foster creative abrasion, intellectual conflict betweendiverse viewpoints producing energy that is channeled into new ideasand products."

Creativity and creative problem solving techniques can be helpfulin generating new ideas and angles to solve problems as well as forbuilding up a constructive group climate. The need for integrativecreativity is related to the task, the participants, the context, and inparticular to the type ofproblem. Creativity may give the spark or lightthe fire, may 'kick-start' a stranded project, but it takes more thancreativity to make innovation happen.

Let us conclude the paragraph with a quote that underscores this lineof thought:

"The quote 'Genius is one part inspiration and ninety-nineparts perspiration' has been attributed to at least a half-dozenpeople. I would like to paraphrase it and say that "Innovation isone part creativity and ninety-nine parts productivity"(Gamache, 1988)

Crystallization

"We could review all the OpInIOnS offered to explain why anopen controversy closes, but we will always stumble on a newcontroversy dealing with how and why it closed. We will have tolearn to live with two contradictory voices talking at once, oneabout science in the making, the other about ready made science... The left side considers that facts and machines are well deter­mined enough. The right side considers that facts and machinesin the making are always under-determined22 ."

(emphasis original) (Bruno Latour, 1987: 13)

The overarching goal of problem search, problem framing and know­ledge creation is crystallization. The ideal type of crystallization is themoment when everything falls into place, when opportunities emerge,

when the strategy or the solution becomes clear, when the problemcan finally be formulated and when the group breathes a sigh of reliefor shouts 'AHA!' Crystallization resembles 'illumination', the fourthphase of the creative process, described earlier.

Emergence

Emergence is the unfolding of potential. "When simple rules areallowed to operate for enough time or on enough elements, new qual­ities emerge, break out, surface, appear" (N0rretranders, 1991 :445,my translation). Emergence is not seen when studying a small ar:nountof elements; emergence appears only when these characters haveaccumulated to a degree that it has collective effects, group attributes.Thus emergence cannot be studied by studying particular elements.This is exemplified by measuring temperature in a liquid. Temperaturecannot be measured by measuring particular molecules; temperatureis a collective thing, expressed by the dispersion of speed among manymolecules. "In emergence, global patterns cannot be predicted fromthe local rules of behavior that produce them. To put it another way,global patterns cannot be reduced to individual behavior." (Stacey,1996: 287).

One of the challenges of this study is that emergence cannot beforeseen, calculated beforehand or deducted from studying the par­ticular elements - and that it must necessarily be studied in its prop­er context and in real-time. "Tight control is achieved at the expenseof lost potential. Fullest potential is achieved by letting the systemunfold, emerge, as it will. No amount of controlled intervention canforesee and realize emergent possibilities." (Zohar, 1997:53)

Archetype

A way of understanding emergence is through 'archetypes'. Staceydefines an archetype as (1996:283):

"A potential behavior that preexists experience and awaits spe­cific experience to be actualized or realized. Although the arc­hetype exists in a recognizable general form, its specific actu-

17°

alization is always unique and depends upon the specific expe­rience. An archetype is therefore a similar concept to an imma­nent, implicate, or enfolded order as used by Bohm (1980)and by Aristotle. It is also similar to Plato's concept of idealform."

The key elements are the disposition or potential in relation to theactual experience. "When I use the terms archetype, potential, or dis­position, I am seeking to describe a possibility that is enfolded in a setof rules of interaction." (Stacey, 1996:55)

What this entails is that by changing the rules of interaction, newarchetypes may be realized.

In Stacey's framework crystallization would be the actualization ofarchetypes. In a group this happens through building up the reces­sive schemas of the group. Groups, like individuals - and organiza­tions, have dominant and recessive schemas. We know from theabove that cognitive schemas are filters for our perceptions, interpre­tations and actions. Dominant schemas of a group are related to pro­cedures, norms, functions, responsibilities, and formal organization.Recessive schemas concern much of what goes on at another level ofinteraction, the 'shadow' system23 . This is related to emotional rela­tionships, political maneuvering, fantasizing and other non-verbalbehavior. Crystallization can then be explained as a change of thedominant schemas of a group, a change that emerges from the shad­ow system as a process of interaction in the recessive schemas. Or itcan be explained as something emerging at the right moment, 'kairos'(Kirkeby, 1998:77).

In real-time situations, however, crystallization is usually not thatsimple, even though it may seem simple in hindsight. In groups workingwith the creation of new knowledge or new leads, the question ofwhen 'enough is enough' (knowledge) is often debated. Sometimes adeadline is the decisive factor for a group having to produce some­thing. Then they must use the collected data and knowledge to makea proposal, which is the best they can provide under the given condi­tions. This is not crystallization - but closure.

171

Innovative crystallization

We shall conclude by setting up some criteria for recognizing 'innov­ative crystallization' and then attempt a definition. It is not unusual forauthors to describe that something has 'crystallized'. E.g. N onaka &Takeuchi write (1995:86). "The shared tacit mental model is verbal­ized into words and phrases, and finally crystallized into explicit con­cepts." I have not, however, found the concept of 'Innovative Crystal­lization' in others' writings. I shall argue that such a concept is needed,because it can be distinguished:

• from a decision - even though a decision is implicit in it• from a solution - even though it is sometimes a solution to a com­

plex full-fledged problem• from an idea - even if the end result may resemble a perfect and

finished idea• from an innovation - even though it definitely involves novelty• and from a conceptualization - even though it involves cognitive

elements.

Characteristics of innovative crystallization

Most of all, it resembles 'illumination', the fourth phase of creativity,but whereas illumination is individual, innovative crystallization emergesout of collective interaction.

• It is a stepwise process of accumulation and integration of informa-tion and knowledge.

• It incorporates many ideas and multiple perspectives.• It involves a transformation that produces novelty.• It synthesizes tacit knowledge with the accumulated and integrated

knowledge material into an overall model, a substantive form, aprototype, or a new conceptualization.

• It is simple and complex.• It yields enthusiasm and creates immediate commitment from the

persons involved.• It needs to be examined, adapted and tested before it is ultimately

accepted.

172

In sum, innovative crystallization is defined as the outcome ofa process involving collective transformation of accumulatedand integrated ideas into a new conceptualization or proto­type.

Concluding remarks

The field of creativity is large, and what we have included here is farfrom exhaustive. We have mainly tried to uncover the boundariesbetween creativity and innovation. Creativity contributes to the studyof innovative processes primarily as a source for delimitation. We clar­ified the boundaries between creativity and scientific search through adiscussion of cognitive psychology's different thinking styles, and weargue that creativity is not a necessary ingredient for innovative crys­tallization to occur. Creative methods can, however, add a differentquality to the conceptualization process, and will often make the con­tribution more original.

Innovative crystallization is a focal concept of this study. When coin­ing a new concept it is often easier to describe it through what it is notthan to come up with a straightforward definition. We found a resem­blance between crystallization and 'illumination', the only differencebeing that illumination is an individual process, whereas crystalliza­tion is a collective process. Crystallizations emerge out of group inter­action and sharing of knowledge.

Creativity can, apart from supporting idea generation, help create apleasant group climate where people feel confident about one another.And, as we shall see in the next section on communication, that isimportant.

To sum up, creativity has contributed important material for delim­itation, differentiation, and substantiation of concepts and prior dis­cussions.

173

Communication

"There is only one language, the language of the heart" (Sai Baba24)

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to construct a theoretical communica­tion framework, which can be applied in the case studies. Related tothe second objective of the book, the development of a 'special theory'of communication, we will deal with the two first component.s: thephilosophical rationale and an ideal model based on rules. The thirdcomponent, recommendations for improving practice, will follow inchapter 9, after the case study narrative (chapter 5) and the data an­alysis (chapters 6 and 7). In this section we will look at two oppositephilosophical rationales and develop a theoretical framework for com­munication, which consists of three ideal-type models.

We start with a delimitation and definition of the concept of com­munication and a discussion of the traditional 'tube' model of commu­nication by Shannon & Weaver (1948), which forms the backgroundfor the majority of models on information and communication. Thenwe describe the development of two ideal type communication models,the 'Genuine Communication' model, inspired by Bormann (1996)and the 'Collective Monologue', inspired by Hewes (1996). We attempta dialectical discussion of these by examining three dimensions: thecontext, 'listening' or 'hearing', and the message.

After introducing and discussing the third ideal-type model, theAntagonistic Dialogue, we summarize the chapter with a presentationof the communication framework, consisting of the three models.

Delimitation

"Spoken discourse among persons interacting on matters ofmutual concern and coming to agreement on an appropriatecourse for common action is the social atom - the building blockofhuman society and human social activity." (Scheidel, 1986: 113)

174

Communication is basic and penetrates human life at all levels.Even animals communicate. In fact, everything is communication.This idea derives from Paul Watzlawick who said, "One cannot notcommunicate" (Lieth, Kuschel & Petersen, 1991 :7). Thus, we needto delimit communication to encompass only interpersonal commu­nication in relation to knowledge creation in groups. We could, ofcourse, make the concept still more operational by narrowing thescope to cover only communication that is intended, perceived andreacted upon, as proposed by D.M. McKay (in Dars0, 1992). Thisis tempting, but would be to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', as the focus of this book is on complex processes. Reducingthe complexity too much would give a false appearance of simplic­ity. Summing up:

In the present study communication concerns interpersonalcommunication in groups and includes conscious or non-con­scious, intended or not intended, verbal or non-verbal sharingand interchanging of words, meanings, sentiments and mes­sages.

Definition

The concept of communication comes from Latin and means 'to sharewith'. As Hatch (1997) pointed out in relation to culture, sharing has,however, two contrary meanings: One emphasizing similarity and theother emphasizing separateness. An example of the first is when shar­ing an experience and thereby creating 'sameness' by having that incommon. An example of the second is sharing a cake. In this casesharing means dividing the cake into individual pieces and distribut­ing them among the group. Hatch incorporates the double meaning ofsharing this way (Hatch, 1997:206):

"Sharing (culture) means that each member participates in andcontributes to the broad patterns (of culture), but the contribu­tions and experiences of individual members (of the culture) arenot identical." (Parentheses added)

175

We will adopt Hatch's point, but add one more ingredient. As we willdevelop that ingredient into more depth shortly, we will only intro­duce it here. Communication requires listening, and there is a differ­ence between listening, which is active, and hearing, which is passive.Listening is essential for communication. Thus:

Q encoding/\ )

noise

~

message

commnnication channel

decoding Q)/\

Communication consists ofsharing between members in sucha way that each member listens, participates in and contrib­utes to sharing, but the contributions and experiences of indi­vidual members are not identical

Shannon & Weaver's 'Tube' model of communication

Unintentionally it seems, Shannon & Weaver's model has become thebackground as well as the battleground for studies of information andcommunication. Earlier in this chapter we used a figure by Max Boisotto illustrate the difference between data, information and knowledge.Information is, to use Bateson's famous quote, a 'difference that makesa difference', meaning that what appears as information is data thatwas different enough to be "let through" the individual's perceptionaland conceptional filters.

The original meaning of information concerned something thatwas 'indeterminate', contrary to how it is used today. According toNonaka & Takeuchi (1995:90), Shannon used only the 'syntactic'dimension of information and saw it as the 'difficulty in transmittingthe sequence produced by some information source'. As engineers inthe Bell Labs, Shannon & Weaver were mainly interested in noisereduction and in being able to transfer signals (messages). They werenot interested in the semantic aspect, the meaning.

The model is illustrated below: a sender encoding a message, send­ing it through a communication channel, to be decoded by the re­ceiver. The 'tube' metaphor has influenced models of communicationsince it came out. Certainly, it has been modified, changed, and addedto, but for many decades this has been the main model.

176

An illustration of Shannon & Weaver's communication model

The 'tube' metaphor is criticized by Maturana & Varela (1998: 196):"From the perspective of an observer, there is always ambiguity in acommunicative interaction. The phenomenon of communicationdepends not on what is transmitted, but on what happens to. the per­son who receives it. And this is a very different matter from 'transmit­ting information'." Thus, what Maturana & Varela object to is Shan­non & Weaver's focus on the congruity of the message (on themechanistic noise reduction), rather than focusing on the meaning(semantics) of the message (and its effect). The question is, however,whether Shannon & Weaver should be blamed? Mter all, they were ful­filling a prescribed purpose of an engineering job. Should the critiquenot be addressed to the people who adopted the model?

Developing the model of 'Genuine Communication'

My own first model of 'genuine communication' was developed on theconceptual foundation of Shannon & Weaver's model (Dars0, 1995).It has also been inspired by other contributions, e.g. the model ofintercultural communication by Samovar & Porter (1985). After somereflection, however, I saw how using Shannon & Weaver's communi­cation model as a fixed framework had, in fact, limited my thinking.Actually, I had a quite different model in mind. I found that the modelof 'genuine communication', the essence of which is to build a'common ground', was much more in line with the symbolic conver­gence theory, developed by Ernest Bormann and others during the1970s and 1980s. Symbolic convergence focuses on the formation ofa group consciousness through shared concepts, ideas and motives.

177

We will adopt Hatch's point, but add one more ingredient. As we willdevelop that ingredient into more depth shortly, we will only intro­duce it here. Communication requires listening, and there is a differ­ence between listening, which is active, and hearing, which is passive.Listening is essential for communication. Thus:

Q encoding/\ )

noise

~

message

communication channel

decoding Q)/\

Communication consists ofsharing between members in sucha way that each member listens, participates in and contrib­utes to sharing, but the contributions and experiences of indi­vidual members are not identical

Shannon & Weaver's 'Tube' model of communication

Unintentionally it seems, Shannon & Weaver's model has become thebackground as well as the battleground for studies of information andcommunication. Earlier in this chapter we used a figure by Max Boisotto illustrate the difference between data, information and knowledge.Information is, to use Bateson's famous quote, a 'difference that makesa difference', meaning that what appears as information is data thatwas different enough to be "let through" the individual's perceptionaland conceptional filters.

The original meaning of information concerned something thatwas 'indeterminate', contrary to how it is used today. According toNonaka & Takeuchi (1995:90), Shannon used only the 'syntactic'dimension of information and saw it as the 'difficulty in transmittingthe sequence produced by some information source'. As engineers inthe Bell Labs, Shannon & Weaver were mainly interested in noisereduction and in being able to transfer signals (messages). They werenot interested in the semantic aspect, the meaning.

The model is illustrated below: a sender encoding a message, send­ing it through a communication channel, to be decoded by the re­ceiver. The 'tube' metaphor has influenced models of communicationsince it came out. Certainly, it has been modified, changed, and addedto, but for many decades this has been the main model.

An illustration of Shannon & Weaver's communication model

The 'tube' metaphor is criticized by Maturana & Varela (1998: 196):"From the perspective of an observer, there is always ambiguity in acommunicative interaction. The phenomenon of communicationdepends not on what is transmitted, but on what happens to the per­son who receives it. And this is a very different matter from 'transmit­ting information'." Thus, what Maturana & Varela object to is Shan­non & Weaver's focus on the congruity of the message (on themechanistic noise reduction), rather than focusing on the meaning(semantics) of the message (and its effect). The question is, however,whether Shannon & Weaver should be blamed? Mter all, they were ful­filling a prescribed purpose of an engineering job. Should the critiquenot be addressed to the people who adopted the model?

Developing the model of 'Genuine Communication'

My own first model of 'genuine communication' was developed on theconceptual foundation of Shannon & Weaver's model (Dars0, 1995).It has also been inspired by other contributions, e.g. the model ofintercultural communication by Samovar & Porter (1985). After somereflection, however, I saw how using Shannon & Weaver's communi­cation model as a fixed framework had, in fact, limited my thinking.Actually, I had a quite different model in mind. I found that the modelof 'genuine communication', the essence of which is to build a'common ground', was much more in line with the symbolic conver­gence theory, developed by Ernest Bormann and others during the1970s and 1980s. Symbolic convergence focuses on the formation ofa group consciousness through shared concepts, ideas and motives.

177

The theory describes how the sharing of fantasies or visions in relationto the task influences communication and decision making. In thewords of Bormann (1996:89): "Symbolic convergence creates a sym­bolic climate and culture that allow people to achieve empatheticcommunion as well as a 'meeting of the minds'." In this respect, itcame very close to the essence of the model of genuine communica­tion, which is sharing. Also Nonaka & Konno's (1998:40) concept of'Ba' concerns sharing: "Ba can be thought of as a shared space foremerging relationships."

In the following I will outline two contrasting communication tpodels:the model of 'Genuine Communication' and the model of 'Collective

Monologue' .

"We cannot leave language, for then we cannot talk to oneanother. But neither can we say what we would like to say, forwe have only language to communicate with."25(N0rretranders, 1991 :380)

To the extent, however, that an idea can be rephrased by another per­son through his own words or by model or metaphor to the satisfac­tion of the originator, this will pertain to the concept of 'genuinecommunication'. The model distinguishes itself through two import­ant features: 1. the building of 'common' ground, and 2. the formingof a relational bond, which in this model is considered a preconditionfor the development of real sharing. Shotter provides the following'ideal type' image of sharing (1993:146):

Genuine Communication(inspired by Bormann, 1996)

Collective Monologue(inspired by Hewes, 1996)

"But we can, I think, at least say this: first, that there are certainspecial moments which one shares with others - I shall call themmoments of common reference - in which, as two people (twobeings) regard one another and their common situation, theyknow from each others' 'attunements', as I shall call them, thatthey are each sensing it in the same way ... The second thing isthat in such moments, one's expressions can work to give ashared significance to such shared circumstances ... "

Collective monologue

Genuine communication

The model of genuine communication is based on the philosophicalrationale that communication is possible. Genuine communication isthe result of a successful communication process where, ideally, 'truesharing' has taken place. Perfect congruence of understanding is, ofcourse, an abstraction, and it is easily argued that this is not possible,as you will only be able to understand the life of a person if you havelived it. Another limitation is the inadequacy of language.

The second model of communication is somewhat provocative. Theunderlying rationale is here that real communication is neither pos­sible nor intended. The 'socio-egocentric model' by Dean E. Hewes(1996) claims that what is going on in decision making groups is notcommunication at all, but rather 'collective monologues', character­ized by turn-taking and 'vacuous acknowledgments'. The model isinspired by Jean Piaget's empirical studies of children's 'egocentricspeech', a pattern that exists among young children. At first glance thechildren seem to be engaged in some sort of dialogue. On closer study,however, each child concentrates on her own conversation and stayswith that only. Piaget's explanation is that it is difficult for children at

179

that age to contain both their own thoughts and those of the otherchild. Hewes draws a parallel to conversations or meetings of adults,where it may seem initially that the participants are communicating,as they are dealing with the same subject and taking turns in speakingabout it. When examined more closely, however, people are actuallytalking to themselves, following their own trains of thought, and at thesame time pretending to communicate by utilizing 'vacuousacknowledgments'. These are polite statements that ostensibly link themessages, but which, when analyzed in more depth, have no semanticlinks at all. Hewes' model is original and critical towards muchresearch on group communication.

Context

"I have called the kind of knowledge required to be able to talkand to understand in this self-specifying way, knowing of thethird kind: it is a knowing from within a discursively constructedsituation; that is, from within an event. As such, it is a form ofknowledge whose nature cannot be described theoretically, inways amenable to evidential support. Even to try to do so wouldbe paradoxical: for we want an account of it in practice, a con­texted understanding of it from within the context of its use, ... "(Shotter, 1993: 113)

Context encompasses the physical, social and psychological environ­ment of a situated event 'alive in its present', of 'events in their goingon now', (Shotter, 1993: 11 0-111). Context is the 'sister' of praxis. Inhis doctoral thesis, Flyvbjerg deconstructs the concept of theory in thesocial sciences, and replaces it with context and practical rationality(1992: 159).

Communication is a complex whole that is dependent on bothrationality and intuition, culture and context and synchronicitybetween the people involved. A useful model for (intercultural) com­munication involving diversity is the model of High-Context and Low­Context Communication by Edward T. Hall (1974). The model illus­trates how meaning is generated in conversations of different cultures.

180

In a High-Context culture more meaning is derived from the contextthan from the message itself. This means that, for instance, attentionmust be directed towards the situation, to prior history, to gesturesand tone of voice, pauses and subtleties. Sensitivity to the occasionand the situation is more necessary than listening to what is actuallysaid. (Classical) Japan is supposedly a good example of a High-Con­text culture. Low-Context cultures, on the other hand, attach mean­ing to the message itself, having context playa minor part. This formof communication is very direct, aiming at efficiency. Europe andNorth America are typical Low-Context cultures. Many failures ofcommunication and cooperation between High-Context and Low­Context cultures have been reported. Hall's model is relevant for thepresent study, partly because of the focus on differences, partlybecause 'context' is relational, and 'information' conceptual, like ourlevels of analysis. Furthermore, examining how meaning is generatedis central for communication and knowledge creation.

High-Context

Fig. 3.6.4 Hall's model of High-Context

and Low-Context Communication

Low-Context

Group Climate

An important part of the context is the psychological environment orthe group climate. Among the first to point out the significance ofgroup climate was Jack R. Gibb (1964). His theory is based onresearch in various T-groups (Training groups) as well as on a largenumber offield studies in industries and organizations. Gibb clusteredfour general dimensions of social interaction: Acceptance, Data flow,Goal formation, and Social control.

GROUP CLIMATES

Acceptance concerns the formation of trust and acceptance of selfand others and of growing confidence. It is linked to group member­ship. Data-flow concerns all data, feelings as well as perceptions andattitudes, which finally produce decision making or choice. Goal-for­mation relates to the integration of the group members' motivationsregarding producing something, whether it is learning, growing orperforming a task. The control dimension has to do with regulationsof group behavior, i.e. to group organization. Gibb proposed twoideal-type models of group member behavior: a) persuasive behavior,and b) participative behavior. Below is a table contrasting these twobehaviors:

PERSUASIVE BEHAVIOR

1. fear

distrust

2. strategy

facade

3. manipulationpersuasion

4. control

bargaining

Gibb (1964:294)

PARTICIPATIVE BEllAVIOR

1. confidence

trust

2. openness

spontaneity

3. Self-assessment

problem solving

4. permissiveness

interdependence

data, false assumptions, inadequate theory. Regarding the goal 3),reactions would arise like resistance, low commitment, manipula­tion, competition, a need for structure, which would finally lead to4) chaos, disorganization, dependency, hostility (often latent), pow­er struggles.

On the other hand, if acceptance was developed in a group, thenthe participative track would be highly possible with 1) trust andacceptance, diversity and nonconformity, 2) clarity, problem-solvingbehavior, open expression of feeling and conflict, 3) work orientation,creativity, reduction of competitive behavior and conflict, and 4) inter­dependence, allocation of work by consensus or ability, informalityand spontaneity.

Gibb's conclusion was (1964:298): "The relevant dimensions ofgrowth of groups seem to be in the direction of supportive climate,reality communication and feedback, maximal goal integration, andfunctional interdependence in action and structure." Gibb's findingshave later been complemented by Ekvall (1991), who found that aninnovative climate was characterized by dimensions of perceived highchallenge, freedom, idea-support, trust, dynamism, playfulness, de­bates and risk taking.

Discussion

As this discussion is based on the analytical abstraction of ideal typemodels, we will draw up some sharp lines, but remind the reader thatit is not our intention to simplify real life communication. 'Ideal types'are extremes that enhance understanding.

According to Gibb, the four dimensions are hierarchically contin­gent upon each other, as each sets boundaries for dimensions lowerin the hierarchy, the decisive entry point for behavior in a group be­ing acceptance, the first dimension. If that fails to develop, mostgroups would get trapped in the persuasive mode, like a vicious cir­cle of: 1) distrust, fear, resistance, cynicism, 'polite' behavior. Thiswould lead to 2) ambiguity, tricks, facade building, distortion of

In 'genuine communication' context and climate playa major part.Gibb found that acceptance and trust were the building blocks forgroup processes, communication, decision making and outcomes.Stephen Covey takes this a bit further in a matrix with axes of trustand cooperation:

High

TRUST

LEVELS OF COMMUNICATION

Syner . 'c (WinlWin)

Respe ul (Compromise)

where context matters more than information. The exact combinationof context and information will, of course, depend on the purpose ofthe group. In Western business contexts, which tend to pull towardsLow-Context, i.e. more weight on information, it would be unusual tofind groups who would invest (even) equal attention in context andinformation. This seems, however, to be the strength of many Easterncompanies (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In relation to the matrix ofdiversity and similarity (see page 113), sharing builds on perceivedsimilarity and tends to produce 'smooth in-group interaction'.

The lowest level of communication, the Defensive, is characterizedby defensiveness, rules and regulations. The outcome is oftenWin/Lose or LoselWin. This is similar to Gibb's 'persuasive' behaviorand further substantiated in Gibb's article on 'Defensive Communi­cation' (1961). The middle level with medium trust and mediumcooperation is called Respectful communication. Here people arepolite, but avoid conflicts. Often the result is a compromise. Accord­ing to Covey, however, a compromise means that 1 + 1 = 11/2. It canstill be a low WinIWin solution, but the creative potential is not used.Finally, the highest level is Synergistic communication, which is atotalWinlWin solution, where "1 + 1 may equal 8, 16 or even 1,600."(Covey, 1992:271). This form of communication is highly creative,enjoyable and benefits from valuing differences between people andtheir paradigms. In comparison, Gibb's 'participative' climate is simi­lar to Respectful communication and has within it the potential forSynergistic communication.

LowDe sive (Win/Lose or LoselWin)

Low

COOPERATION

Stephen R. Covey, 1992:270

High

As for the other extreme, the 'collective monologue', context is lessimportant. This type of communication is superficial. People are, so tospeak, 'skating on ice', greeting the people they meet in a friendly way,shouting 'Hi, how are you', and are gone before they can hear theanswer. In the matrix of diversity and similarity, the interaction isbased on not perceived similarity or diversity (as perception is totallyself-centered), which we have called superficial relations and interac­tion. Participants of the 'collective monologue' are mostly interestedin themselves. In an interview Hall explained the difference of High­Context and Low-Context cultures this way (Bluedorn & Hall, 1997):

"I like to say that more information is transmitted in mono­chronic26/low context cultures than in polychronic/high contextcultures, but more information is shared in the polychronic thanin the monochronic cultures. As an example of context's import­ance, think of the situation when somebody describes an eventthat had everyone in stitches when it happened, but that doesn'teven produce a smile when it is described to people who weren'tthere. The teller usually shrugs and says, "I guess you just had tobe there." "Being there" is a reference to context and illustratesthe point that not all of the meaning is contained in the message(the story)."

In fact, a climate of acceptance and confidence is the foundation for'genuine communication'. In relation to Hall's figure of High-Contextand Low-Context communication, ultimate sharing is High Context,

In Hall's terminology the 'collective monologue' is Low Context. Stillone dimension is, however, missing: that of attention and listening.

Listening or hearing?

In the traditional 'tube' model of communication, communicationwould always take place between a 'sender' and a 'receiver'. Thesender would have to have skills in encoding the message in order forthe receiver to be able to decode, i.e. understand it. The former will bediscussed shortly under the headline of 'the message'. The latter is thesubject of this paragraph, where we shall try to illustrate the signifi­cance of listening skills for communication. Stephen Covey(1992:237) has made the following important point:

"If I were to summarize in one sentence the single most import­ant principle I have learned in the field of interpersonalrelations, it would be this: Seek first to understand, then to beunderstood. This principle is the key to effective interpersonalcommunication."

According to Covey, few people have had any training in listening,whereas most people spend years on learning how to read and writeand how to speak. The greatest problem is that people do not listen tounderstand, most people listen to reply and are either speaking or pre­paring to speak. People often give solutions before they know theproblem. They 'prescribe' before they 'diagnose'.

Covey lists four ways of 'listening' that people normally practice.The fifth way, empathetic listening, is rarely taken into use.

1. ignoring the other, simply not listening at all2. pretending, saying sounds of confirmation, but not listening3. selective listening, putting our attention to certain parts4. attentive listening, paying attention to the words, as in 'active

listening', where you repeat the words of the person in order to

check your understanding5. empathetic listening is seeking an understanding of the person

that goes beyond words, i.e. an understanding based on empathy,where you both emotionally and intellectually seek to understandthe other.

186

The French doctor Alfred Tomatis, who has conducted research onthe functions of the ear for 50 years, found that auditive perceptiontakes place through the ears, the skin and the skeleton27

. Interesting­ly, he found two distinct functions: one active process of focusing, fil­tering, remembering, and reacting - the activity of 'listening', and onepassive process of letting auditive impressions pass, i.e. 'hearing'.Tomatis has proved his 'listening-therapeutic' theories by teachingdeaf people to listen, and even to play music in symphony orchestras28

by feeling the vibrations of music through their skin and skeleton. Thepoint is that they can learn to listen, even if they will never be able tohear.

Covey's taxonomy is built on an increasing degree of listening, start­ing with 'hearing' (the first three steps) and gradually turning into'listening'. Before discussing this in relation to our communicationmodels, we will add one more dimension.

Emotional Intelligence

The concept of emotional intelligence derives from Howard Gardner'sconcept of multiple intelligences. One of Howard Gardner's intelli­gences is 'interpersonal intelligence', which involves the ability to workcooperatively in a group and to communicate with others. Emotionalintelligence includes five parameters29 (Goleman, 1996:43), of whichtwo are related to communication: Recognizing emotions in oth­ers (the essence of this is empathy, the ability to feel what other peo­ple feel) and handling relationships, a cornerstone of leadershipand interpersonal effectiveness. It has been found in several investiga­tions that individuals with a high emotional intelligence often do bet­ter than their more intelligent (higher IQ30) peers. In fact Golemanstates (1996:36): "Emotional aptitude is a meta-ability, determininghow well we can use whatever other skills we have, including rawintellect" .

Discussion

Tomatis's findings regarding the difference between 'listening' and'hearing' highlight Covey's taxonomy. Genuine communication isrelated to listening and to Coveys 'attentive' and 'empathetic' listen­ing. Furthermore, genuine communication can be enhanced throughinterpersonal and emotional intelligence. Collective monologue, onthe other hand, is related to 'hearing' and to the first three of Covey'slistening modes: ignoring, pretending and selective listening. In meet­ings characterized by 'collective monologue', most participants are soeager to prepare their own contribution that they only 'list~n' verysuperficially in order to catch words that will allow them to enter intothe conversation.

The message

Interpersonal communication is a two-way dynamic process, takingplace at multiple levels. Above we discussed how communication isreceived, actively or passively. Here we want to examine how commu­nication is prepared and expressed. Encoding concerns the ability toexpress thoughts or ideas clearly. Rhetoric concerns presenting it con­vincingly to others. If we start with the communicator's intention; thiscould be to be understood - or the opposite. In the first case the object­ive could be anything from creating interest, getting informationacross, inducing commitment - to producing change or action (Dars0,1995). When the intention is to be understood, the sender has thegreatest chance of 'getting across' by understanding the recipient andhis or her context/situation. One would have to present things different­ly to a colleague with a different background than to a colleague with asimilar background. Likewise, the selection of content should be differ­entiated, as different data or different arguments would be convincingto different audiences. What this boils down to is, in fact, emotionalintelligence: the interpersonal skill of empathy. S0ren Kierkegaardexpressed it this way: "That if, indeed, one shall succeed in guiding ahuman being to a certain place, one must first and foremost take careto find him where he is, and start there." (M0nsted, 1991)

188

In some cases, the intentions of the communicator is not to be under­stood. Ambiguous messages are also part of conversations, but theyoften go undetected. This ambiguity may be conscious as when man­agers leave certain decisions open for interpretation in order to beable to adapt or change the decision later. Or ambiguity may be non­conscious. Many knowledge workers and 'experts' are masters at pro­ducing eloquent messages that sound convincing, but which, uponfurther analysis, turn out to be personal opinions (but sound likefacts), 'cover-ups' for not-knowing or not wanting to tell - or pure'platitudes' .

Rhetoric

The Greeks described three forms of appealing to others: ethos,pathos and logos. Ethos is related to ethics and expresses the person­ality or 'image' of the speaker, i.e. the authenticity, the integrity, thetrustworthiness, the history. Ethos is built slowly and is easily wornout. Pathos appeals to feelings, sentiments and atmosphere. Itappeals to spontaneous reactions. A good example of pathos is MartinLuther King's famous speech of 1963 'I have a dream'. Finally, logos,related to logic, appeals to the intellect of the recipient. This type ofpresentation is rational and objective, based on data and facts.

In communication studies two different approaches are: the self­other, rhetorical-responsive, dimension of interaction as opposed tothe person-world, referential-representational, dimensions of interac­tion. In social constructivism the former is considered primary andthe latter secondary: "The account of language offered is a communi­cational, conversational, or dialogical account, in which people'sresponsive understanding of each other is primary." (Shotter, 1993:8)Shotter points out the formative power of words and language, wherewords can materially 'move' others and thus transform people andorganizations.

Certainly, this 'moving' power is most often attached to leaders. Arhetorical leadership style of managers can persuade followers toidentify with their vision. McCloskey (199831 ) considers 'sweet talk' amajor instrument of management, the rationale being that if you canconvince people of something, they will do it. Shotter argues that good

managers not only 'make history' but also should be seen as 'authors'.In that sense, language is power, not only of leaders, but also in every­day conversations (Shotter, 1993:20):

"By contrast, the studies in this book, display an interest in thecontested activity of words in their speaking; that is, in the practi­calities of their use as means or as 'tools' in effecting everydaycommunicative processes, and in particular, in their formative or'shaping' function, and the 'resistances' they meet, in such pro­cesses. Thus the stance I take in all the following chapters, is thatin an everyday process involving a myriad of sponta~eous,

responsive, practical, unselfconscious, but contested interac­tions, we unknowingly 'shape' or 'construct' between ourselves,as already mentioned, not only a sense of our own identities, butalso a sense of our own 'social worlds'."

Discussion

There is a profound difference between a person who communicatesto be understood and a person who communicates to hear himselfspeak. At a surface level, they both seem to convey a message, and, infact, both may influence others. In genuine communication, a deeperunderstanding is generated when each person carefully 'frames' theirutterances and each person applies listening skills. The formativepower of words and language can be supportive in creating 'commonground'. In collective monologue, the focus is more on the self thanon others. As this 'communication' is superficial, utterances becomerhetorical in a correspondingly superficial way, using 'buzz words' orprovocation in order to catch others' attention. Messages are thus amatter of self-monitoring.

In the beginning we proposed to discuss three models of communica­tion. Until now we have discussed two with opposing rationales. Thefinal model of communication, the antagonistic dialogue, involves ten­sions between opposites.

Antagonistic dialogue

Between the extremes of two ideal type models of non-communica­tion (collective monologue) and genuine communication we find thethird: antagonistic dialogue. An antagonist is a biological term used todescribe something with the opposite effect (of an agonist). The worddialogue comes from the Greek word 'dialogos', 'dia' meaning'through' and '10gos'32 meaning 'the word'. Antagonistic dialogue isthus a dialogue between opposing opinions or between diverting per­spectives. The opposition can take two forms, which are based on dis­tinct logics: 'rock' logic or 'water' logic (De Bono, 1991 :8). A rock ishard and unchanging, and if you add one rock to another there will betwo rocks. Water flows and takes the form of the container in which itflows, and if you add water to water, there will not be two waters butrather more water.

Schein gives a vivid example of a 'traditional academic' argumen­tation from a seminar on clinical method (1987: 14): "We found our­selves 'interrogating' the presenter, competing with each other for air­time, arguing with each other about the validity of ideas presented,and generally behaving in a manner that I labeled as 'aggressive',though some members aggressively denied that there was any aggres­sion present." We could call this antagonistic friction combined with'rock' logic.

The potential of antagonistic friction in organizations is describedby Brown & Duguid (1991 :54): "Out of this friction of competingideas can come the sort of improvisational sparks necessary for ignit­ing organizational innovation." The friction of antagonistic forces canbe softer, as seen in the following description by David Bohm(1996:6): "The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of astream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. Thiswill make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of whichmay emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which maynot have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. Andthis shared meaning is the 'glue' or 'cement' that holds people andsocieties together." Bohm's description (and his choice of words) is agood example of what we could call 'water' logic.

Antagonistic dialogue can be more or less constructive, spanning

from battle and destructive conflicts to cross-fertilizing confrontationsleading to innovative knowledge creation. In this respect antagonisticdialogue displays a tension similar to 'edge of chaos' situations(Stacey, 1996). Originally dialogue was a 'nonconfrontational' way ofsolving problems in ancient Greece and only later did it turn intodebate and voting, as in our modern democracy. In the words ofVanMaanen (1995:140) who contrasts 'debate' with 'conversation': "Theobject of debate is of course to overwhelm or obliterate one's oppon­ent: to prune, pare and discard. The object of conversation is to keepit going: to plant, nurture and cultivate."

Several researchers have pointed out the latent creative pot€ntial ofopposition. For example, Eisenhardt states: "Creative insight oftenarises from the juxtaposition of contradictory or paradoxical evi­dence" (1995:85). The advantage of the model of antagonistic dia­logue is its potential for describing conflict in a prospective contextwith a yet indeterminate outcome.

The Harmony-Conflict Span

Harmony is linked to stability. According to the Random House dic­tionary, harmony is an "agreement; accord; a consistent, orderly, orpleasing arrangement of parts" (Snyder & Clontz, 1997:63). In a groupcontext, harmony concerns group cohesiveness and consensus. Cohe­siveness can be described as a 'we-stick-together' feeling. If all partici­ipants agree on a decision or a goal, group cohesiveness grows. Con­sensus can, however, be superficial, caused by fear of conflict, fear ofloosing face, fear of a superior (present), or by simple miscommunica­tion, etc. An apparent consensus not based on (genuine) communica­tion can be explosive.

Thus, the function of cohesion and consensus is that it providesstability and 'glues' the group together. When a group has cohesion,anxiety is reduced and the participants can relax, as cohesion, onceestablished, demands little energy. The danger is, of course, 'group­think' which Janis observed empirically and described (Janis,1989:276): "excessive risk-taking based on a shared illusion of invul­nerability, stereotypes of the enemy, collective reliance on ideologicalrationalizations that supported the belligerent escalation to which the

group became committed, and mind-guarding to exclude the dissidentviews of experts who questioned the group's unwarranted assump­tions". Thus the dangers of cohesiveness is a very strong internal focusthat resists opposing data or information from external sources.

If harmony is linked to stability, conflict is linked to instability. "Con­flict exists, presumably, because of the simultaneous presence of atleast two mutually incompatible response tendencies" (Festinger,1969:3). From a perspective of harmony, conflict is negative, as it isdisturbing and disruptive. If, however, we choose to regard conflict as'unresolved difference', new perspectives open up towards resolvingthese. Bennis, Parikh & Lessem, (1994: 153) describe three ways:

domination, compromise, and integration.A. Domination is the warfare method, where the strongest or most

powerful will win, a win-lose situation. In relation to the discussionof this chapter, domination is related to a defensive group climate,to defensive communication and to the destructive trajectory of

antagonistic dialogue.B. Compromise involves bargaining, but it is in many respects similar

to domination, as the strongest or most powerful will usually getthe best compromise. In a compromise, however, differences aresmoothed out and covered up, and therefore, in reality, a comprom­ise solves nothing. Usually a new conflict will arise, e.g. regardingthe interpretation of the compromise. In our terms, compromisecould be a product of collective monologue, as this is very superfi­cial, or to use Covey's framework, a product of respectful commu­nication. Compromise has no winner, it is a lose-lose situation.Certainly, there are times and situations where this is preferable to

a disruptive conflict - like war, for instance.C. Finally, integration means finding a third and new alternative that

can satisfy the highest prioritized wishes of both parties. This solu­tion, however, demands openness and transparency on the part ofthe participants, 'no cards up the sleeve', as this approach doesneed the efforts of both parties in trying to find a solution to their(now) joint problem. If we try to draw some parallels to the frame­work of communication, integration seems close to the concept of

genuine communication of sharing in an open way.

193

But something is missing in the above methods for resolving conflicts.The concept of integration implies inclusion of what is known, butthere is no indication of novelty, as implied in the constructive trajec­tory of antagonistic dialogue. Conflicts can be caused by both concep­tual and relational matters, and are often a strong mix of both. Ac­cording to Schneider, Garcia-Prieto & Bellard (1998), Jehn found thatpeople in work teams perceived relationship conflicts as an impedi­ment for group effectiveness, whereas task related conflicts, in fact,improved performance. Thus, in innovative groups, where the cause ofconflict is often related to the topic, at least at the surface level, con­flict or antagonistic dialogue could be enhancing. Putnam (1986: 190)has proposed, based on literature, that there is a high frequency ofcontroversy in the middle stage of group decision making 'when prob­lems are defined and solutions considered'.

Thus, the essence of 'antagonistic dialogue' is much like the Chinesecharacter for 'crisis', which is composed of two characters: one fordanger and one for possibility. The challenge in the following chaptersis to examine processes that initiate, support or trigger a destructiveversus a constructive outcome - innovative crystallization. With thiswe have concluded the construction of an analytical framework forcommunication, displayed in the model below:

Concluding remarks

Communication is an essential part of knowledge creation - bothregarding what knowledge is shared and how this knowledge is shared.It matters profoundly whether people are more focused on promotingthemselves (collective monologue) or they listen attentively and try tobuild on other people's ideas (genuine communication).

The purpose of this section has been to construct a theoretical andanalytical framework for communication in groups. The 'genuinecommunication' model is based on two core features: building 'com­mon ground'33 and forming a relational bond between people. Incontrast the 'collective monologue' is not real communication (as wehave defined it). People talk to each other - but actually, when youanalyze it, they talk to themselves. The main difference is the attitudeof the participants of being either active (listening) or passive (hear­ing). Genuine communication requires listening. We also saw in thissection that the type of conversation that will take place in a group toa large extent depends on the context and in particular on the groupclimate.

The third type of communication introduced is the 'antagonisticdialogue', built on the communication of opposing views. It will beinteresting to investigate this opposition to find out which processeslead to constructive results and which lead to destructive ones.

collectivemonologue

194

BASIC MODELS OF COMMUNICATIONPROCESSES IN HETEROGENOUS GROUPS

Darsa, 1997c: Communication framework

genuinecommunication

The communication framework consists of these three ideal-typemodels. By using ideal-type models of communication we want to beable to identify communication patterns in natural groups of know­ledge workers working on innovation. In chapter 6 we will operation­alize the communication framework in order to establish constructvalidity and then, through the analysis that will follow, we will identifythe communication patterns that turn out to enable innovative crys­tallization.

195

The preject-project model

The preject

ject is characterized by a structure that differs from the structure of agoal. This structure is leadership -leadership understood as functions,roles, processes of communication and interaction.

A project is per definition (Herlau & Tetzschner, 1995:87) a goaldirected, time limited, unique effort, which uses the available human,material and economical resources from across an organization. Theword project derives from the past participle of the Latin verb'projicere' (to throw), and refers to an activity that has been 'thrown',i.e. it concerns planning to obtain a goal. In an attempt to distinguishbetween goal-driven and goal-searching processes, and in order to com­municate this distinction, the term 'preject' was coined34 (Dars0 &Herlau, 1996). 'Preject' refers to the process 'before' a goal has beenset. A preject thus precedes a project. The former describes the pro­cess before ideas have been generated, decisions made and goalsformed, whereas the latter indicates activities carried out to achieve anexisting goal.

D:1fSO & Herlau, 1996

PREJECT-PROJECT DIAMOND

Phase 4Phase 3Phase 2Phase 1

Herlau & Tetzschner's model is a phase model, outlining four phases(1995:223):1. An intensive course of training tools and developing a common cul­

ture.2. The inventive phase consisting of project work with stochastic lead­

ership.3. Linking the project to 'reality' through goal-directed project man­

agement.4. Implementation.

Thus, the preject is a phase of problem identification, problem fram­ing and reframing, whereas the project phase concerns problem solu­tion. The preject-project process model is primarily a cognitive model,which can be applied in different ways. It was inspired by and derivedfrom a larger model, the didactic concept by Herlau & Tetzschner,used for training interdisciplinary student groups (LFPP5).

goal

project phase

~anning

executio~

time-­process.

execution-preject phase

start

As seen in the Preject-Projectdiamond, the preject is charac­terized as nonlinear, divergentand process driven, whereas theproject is characterized as linear,convergent and goal driven(Herlau, 1995). The significantdifference is the lack of goal inthe preject phase, which meansthat the normal structure ofpro­jects is missing, and consequent­ly gives it an apparent turbu­lence. In projects the goal dic­tates planning and tasks, whichmakes the process more predict­able and linear.

In order to distinguish between new knowledge emerging from net­working (Kreiner & Schultz, 1993) and new knowledge being createdin project groups, it is necessary to add one more ingredient: the pre-

Herlau & Tetzschner, 1995:223: The Didactic concept(drawn (and translated) after the original by the author)

197

The didactic model is understood as a sequence, starting out, as illus­trated, at the left side of the model by the convergent funnel. This sym­bolizes the development and training of a shared framework amongthe participants before starting on the inventive (preject) phase 2. Inthe inventive phase the group applies the Kubus tools in order to solveor identify a problem. Here they USe internal as well as externalresources for building a project that can be used by the target group.In phase 3, the project is linked to the target group and in phase 4, theproject is implemented, and feedback is fed into the funnel.

The above sequential phase model was part of my cognitive frame­work

36• The preject-project diamond was developed later in a-different

. 37 ki dproject as a wor ng an instruction model. In this way, the preject-project model became the point of departure and has, together withthe working model from chapter 1 formed my cognitive map throughall the case studies.

The main advantage of the preject-project model is that it is holisticand simple. Nonaka & Takeuchi's knowledge spiral model could alsohave been applied, but its vagueness regarding individual, group, andorganization makes it difficult to apply as the main framework. Thus,it will serve better as comparison. Another advantage of the preject­project model is that it is familiar and well tested. It provides a frame­work for discussing processes that are difficult to understand andarticulate, and it enables a conversation about divergent versus con­vergent processes, and likewise, it facilitates a conversation aboutvague and fluffy goals that emerge when enough knowledge has beencreated in a group. To use the words of Polanyi (1966:7): "We can,accordingly, interpret the use of tools, of probes, and of pointers asfurther instances of the art of knowing, and may add to our list thedenotative use of language, as a kind of verbal pointing." Here, weextend Polanyi's idea to call the model a processual 'pointer'. We willcontinue with this model as a processual pointer throughout the book.We will struggle with it in chapter 5 in relation to illustrating the casestudies, and we will transform it in the synthesis of chapter 8. In chap­ter 9 it appears as the main structure for understanding and discuss­ing innovative processes. Thus, the conjectures of the preject-projectmodel survive, but a new perception transforms its meaning.

Concluding summary

The purpose of this summary is to conclude what the major contribu­tions have been from the different fields we have reviewed here. In­deed, they have all contributed to form a multifaceted and compre­hensive synthesis - but in different ways.

The innovation process models were organizational models thatprovide the context and the setting for the case studies. The frame­works serve a discussion of how new product development is organ­ized, which we did for both the pharmaceutical and the industrialenzyme units of Novo N ordisk. This way we discussed different typesof systems in which innovative groups have to form and frame theirwork. Apart from providing the necessary organizational framework,three process models were identified as relevant: the set-based Toyotamodel of a prolonged divergent phase with postponed decision mak­ing, Sundbo's dual organizational structure (1998), and the MIRPmeta-process model with its holistic and processual perspective.

The group process models contributed with background materi­al, clarification of concepts, new frameworks and research on groupconflict and other process models. Reviewing research on group pro­cess models was furthermore necessary because we apply a group per­spective in this book. We find the group perspective a major challengein global knowledge society, as now and in the near future organiza­tions and society at large are becoming, and will become increasinglydependent on the quality of group communication and knowledgecreation. As Gibbons et al. have pointed out (1994: 120) "Createdcomparative advantage results not only from resources but from thecreative combination of resources and resourcefulness." And these areincreasingly human. It is therefore disturbing that only little researchhas been and is done with real-time real-life groups working withinnovation in the early phases.

From group development we sought the necessary clarifications ofconcepts and frameworks, and developed a framework for perceiveddiversity and similarity, which will be used throughout the book. Asprejects do not have specific goals, a different structure is applied:leadership, and here we used Herlau's framework for discussing lead­ership in groups. Finally, we found relevant theory on conflict in

199

groups, which will be used later during the analysis. Interesting pro­cess models were Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model and Poole'smultiple sequence model.

The field of knowledge creation contributed to the overall frame­work considerably, both in relation to methodology (Mode 2approach), and in relation to classifications, frameworks and processmodels. This section entailed important discussions on different typesof knowledge and knowing and on forming, framing and solving'problems'. In this field some highly relevant process models wereidentified, in particular Nonaka & Takeuchi's knowledge spiral (1995)and Dars0's Knowledge Map (1997c).

Creativity was important for discussing delimitations and bound­aries, in particular between creative and innovative processes. Throughthe discussions related to creativity we also managed to differentiatethinking processes and to substantiate earlier discussions. In particu­lar, the concept of innovative crystallization was important to clarify.Process models of creativity contributed to the overall knowledge butwere not directly applicable.

Communication is central to the present study, and from the theo­retical contributions we developed a communication framework ofthree ideal type models: genuine communication, collective mono­logue, and antagonistic dialogue. This framework will be operational­ized later for construct validity and will form the foundation for pat­tern matching with the data from the case studies.

Finally, we outlined the major characteristics of the preject-pro­ject model and provided the background for the development of themodel. We concluded by emphasizing that the model is primarily aprocessual 'pointer' and will form the basic framework for under­standing and discussing innovative processes throughout the book.

In chapter 3 we have focused on 'episteme'. In the next chapter weshall focus on 'techne' and examine how we can generate knowledgein practice for answering the research questions.

200

Notes"Philosophies of the Branches of Knowledge: Philosophy of science: PHILO­SOPHICAL STATUS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Philosophical analysisand scientific practice." Britannica Online (Nov. 98)

2 In the article Saren (1984) lists only 5 categories. Still, Trott writes(1998:126): "Among the burgeoning management literature on the subject itis possible to classify the numerous models into seven distinct categories(Saren, 1984):" Thus it seems that Trott has added two 'extras' on his ownaccount: cross-functional models and network models.

3 This was also found by Christensen & Kreiner, 19944 According to Buchholz & Roth (1987:57) the difference between a purpose

and a goal is that "a purpose is an ongoing, general direction, whereas a goalhas a beginning, middle, and end. It is a specific target. A goal that fits underthe purpose is 'on purpose'. A purpose is like an umbrella under which fit the

specific goals the team chooses."5 The following is based on a paper presented at the EGOS conference of 1998:

Lotte Dars0: "The Butterfly Effect. The Difference that makes a Differencefor the Emergence of Innovation in Researcher Teams"

6 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a 'test' developed to understand and value thedifferences of individual preferences. It was based on the work of lung, anddeveloped by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs.

7 S = Sensation, N= Intuition (the I is used in the E-I code: Extrovert versus

Introvert)8 See Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, 1999, 3: 'Medarbejderdiver­

sitet som konkurrenceparameter' (Employee diversity as a parameter of com­

petition, my translation)9 The originator Henry Gantt was a 'disciple' of Taylor and developed the

Gantt-chart in 1910 (Packendorff, 1995:321)10 See also under Knowledge Creation models11 Poole, 1981, 1983a, 1983b, Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b12 A breakpoint is a key situation, where the group can either change direction

or can choose to continue in the same direction (Poole, 1983b: 330)

13 Mintzberg et a!., 1976:26514 In my paper of 1997c, individual knowledge acquisition was described as per­

ception, cultivation, storing, and recuperation. Storing has now been replacedwith the more dynamic concept of integration.

15 According to Zohar (1997:36) 80% of a given pattern can be removed, and

the brain will still be able to recognize it.16 In 2000 a book about this subject came out: 'Ubevidst Intelligens. Du ved

mere end du tror' ('Non-conscious intelligence. You know more than youthink', my translation) by Ole Vedfelt, Gyldendal

201

17 The axes have been reversed in relation to the figure of Dars0, 1997c: 11, butthe meaning is the same.

18 I recognize that I am probably digressing from N0rretranders' definition here19 The question is whether 'tacit knowledge' is tacit per definition or whether it

can actually surface20 And then in the end he bought the solution from Swan (Drucker, 1985)21 e.g. discussed in Scheidel, 198622 The Duhem-Quine principle asserts that one single factor is not enough to

explain the closure of a controversy or the certainty acquired by scientists.23 The shadow system "comprises all social and political interactions that are

outside the rules strictly prescribed by the legitimate system. It is the arena inwhich members of an organization pursue their own gain but also the arenain which they play, create, and prepare innovations." (Stacey, 1996:290)

24 Overhead quote from a lecture by Dr. Chibber, at the Institute of Manage­

ment, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, Sept. 199625 This has been translated by the author from Danish: "Vi kan ikke forlade

sproget, for sa kan vi ikke tale sammen. Men vi kan heller ikke sige det vigerne viI, for vi har kun sproget at meddele os igennem."

26 in monochronic cultures people prefer to be engaged in one thing at a time,in polychronic cultures people engage in several activities and events at the

same time27 Berlingske Univers: Det bevidste 0re (the conscious ear), 180599

28 The Scottish percussionist Evelyn Glennie, ibid.29 1. Knowing one's emotions, 2. Managing emotions. 3. Motivating oneself. 4.

Recognizing emotions in others. 5. Handling relationships30 IQ= Intelligence Quotient, the traditional way of measuring intelligence31 Lecture at Miniconference at The Institute for Management, Politics &

Philosophy, CBS, 199832 Zohar makes the point that there is a more original Greek meaning of 'logos'

meaning 'relationship'. Thus 'dialogos' means 'through relationship' (Zohar,

1997:136)33 Interestingly, the first feature was developed before Nonaka & Konno (1998)

described the Japanese concept of 'Ba', but the content and meaning is per­fectly similar.

34 Schein notes that a new concept is valuable when it explains events that areotherwise difficult to grasp (Schein, 1986: 12)

35 Lereanstalternes F::elles Projektledelse og Innovationskursus (Interdisciplin­ary project management and innovation course)

36 I have instructed students, teachers and business people in the Kubus conceptfor several years, see CV in Appendix

37 The Kubus pilot study under the Ministry of Education (Dars0 & Herlau,1996)

202

Chapter 4

Methodology

"The proper place for the scientist - once in a while at least - isin the midst of the unknown, the chaotic, the dimly seen, theunmanageable, the not-yet-well-phrased. This is where a prob­lem oriented science would have him be as often as necessary"

(Maslow, 1970: 17)

The research problem concerns how heterogeneous groups can fosterinnovative crystallization in order to produce wealth - a complexproblem - as we will see in the following. The methodology concernsa Mode 2 approach to knowledge production as the research isfocused on usefulness and application in practice. According to Flyv­bjerg (1992: 45), methodology concerns concrete practical rationalityor 'techne', and that is the main perspective of this chapter.

In accordance with the Mode 2 approach of Gibbons et al.(1994:44), we will apply "a pluralism of approaches which combinedata, methods and techniques to meet the requirements of specificcontexts." Thus the chosen method is a series of real-time case-stud­ies, combining mainly two approaches: clinical and ethnographic

research.What makes this study stand out is, however, that it is, indeed,

'Innovation in the Making'. Unique characteristics of the study are:its 'real-timeness', its 'thrownness'l into innovative processes, theresearcher's interaction with the 'researchees'2, and its prospectiveapproach of looking forward instead of looking in retrospect. Retro­spective studies are state-of-the-art in studies on innovation andknowledge creation. We try to avoid "the'ex post facto fact' fallacy: thefallacious retrospective claim that, for present events to be as theyare, their causes must have been of a certain kind." (Shotter,

1993:25)

203

Outline of the chapter

As the objective is to gain knowledge about Innovation in the Making,we need to ask: what is the nature of the problem? and secondly:through which methodology can this kind of problem be studied? Wewill examine the nature ofthe problem by outlining processes and elem­ents that may influence the research problem area. The complexityof the problem justifies the case study method, and we introduce themajor features of the case study method as well as the research designand the propositions. The most important part of this chapter is, how­ever, the deliberation on prospective versus retrospective research.Here we draw on the concept of sense making by Karl Weick (1995),but also include arguments from John Shatter (1993) and Bruno La­tour (1987). The discussion focuses mainly on the difference betweensituations in their making that are open, and situations when they are'made', i.e. closed.

Also the researcher's role of clinician and ethnographer is discussedand some differences and tensions between the two roles are pointedout. We conclude by contrasting the criteria for evaluating research ofthe positivistic (functional, modernist) and the naturalistic researchparadigms: internal validity versus credibility, and reliability versusdependability. As the study applies multiple perspectives, we argue forapplying both.

The nature of the problem

In order to demonstrate the complexity of the problem we are examin­ing in this study, we will try to highlight some of the aspects anddynamics that could influence the process and the outcome from agroup of knowledge workers dealing with knowledge creation andproblem solving. Innovative processes are multifaceted, intangible,dynamic and complex. We want to study the processes that lead to andenhance crystallization of new concepts or new knowledge in hetero­geneous groups. An attempt to illustrate the multifaceted problem isdisplayed below. The model has certain limitations. Its point of depart-

2°4

ure is psychological, based on (different) levels of interaction, startingwith the single individual, then group, organization and society. Themodel is meant to be holistic in showing the different life-worlds as'layers' of the same world, indicated in the model by the dotted boun­daries. The model may, however, give the impression that individualsare not in direct interaction with the organization or with the environ­ment. This interpretation is, of course, not intended. Another short­coming of the model is that it is not all-inclusive.

globality NN image

global trends - .flI'"aanizrrtiunuHevel-- - - - _ _ _ stakebolders

//// Industri Strategy Group ----_ customers~~/// ," _..gF/ftrp-level----.P~liticS '"

uncertainty ,,/' timing ..... -- -- .....~ternal networkS-, .// ...... /.......... using diversity ..................... rhetoric ',competitors

I/opportunities/.......... ideas _--- _ info by networks """''-, . "

I I ideas / t·ti -irnlivldual revet-_ ' anchonng "/ II oppor um ~....... """ ' ...... emergent strategy'\ \

cbange I I / competition ' , t t ,I visions I problem / perceptiono " rbetoric ,s ra egy ,I ,I forming I . t 'ti' 0 0 personal gain' 'I . . II I In ill on \ . . . deCISIon II needs I I 0 I deCISIOn making I . II I org. culture \ ignorance liVid"1 knowledge I I making I\ problems \ , I\ ' harmony _, inner drive. tasks / goals I evaluatiOl"\'\ \" / /, org. culture \ conflict "commitment time pressure." methods / /\ ',climate .............. -..__ values __-// tasks III ppe /

\ " ------ ,/ /\~ommunication ' ........... communication . time/ressource ...-// resources II

" .............. _..... leadershLp .... /...... II

, . k -- I -// /. ..,tnternal networ s - - v.!~~ - - - reward systems / I decologIcal '" matrix /// aws ~n

concerns .......................... management .......... ,....,.... regulations............... --_..........

___v.!l~~_

Research problem area

The inner circle: the individuals

Knowledge workers are intelligent in diverse ways, and some are high­ly creative. Different education brings about different subcultures, e.g.engineering cultures are prone to problem-solving and technical de­signs (Schein, 1998), whereas academic cultures are known for stronganalytical skills. Still there is a large spectrum of personalities, as mostscientists have their highly individual style. Diversity is abundant re-

2°5

garding individual commitment, individual perception of opportu­nities, personal goals, immediate personal situation (both family-wiseand job-wise), etc. The influence of specific individuals on 'innovationin the making' can vary from little to very high. We could have taken aperspective focusing on the individual personality or we could haveexamined the composition of a good team. Certainly each group isunique as it consists of unique individuals. Therefore individuals domatter. In the present study on innovative processes, however, we willlook at the group as a whole, as having a group identity ('syntality'),while still acknowledging the fact that a group consists of individualagents, and that each individual could make a difference for the finalresult.

The middle: the group

At the group level many aspects may influence the final result. Re­garding input, apart from the professional knowledge and skills eachindividual brings to the group, the purpose, goal or task of the prejectgroup, the available ideas or opportunities, the knowledge brought inthrough literature and networking as well as the resource allocation _all these inputs will to some degree influence the result. As pointed outearlier, the forming and framing of the problem, the type of commu­nication, the climate, the harmony-conflict potential, the leadership,the decision making, the type of goals and the strategy of the group willalso influence the result. In addition, the methods and approaches thegroup applies to accomplishing the result, as well as the organization­al culture, the diversity of professional cultures, national culture andglobal culture, influence the result and thus add to the complexity ofthe interaction pattern.

The outer circle: the organizational context

But this is not all. As seen from the illustration, the group (and theindividuals) cannot be separated from the context. The working groupis influenced by the overall strategy and by the visions and decisions

206

of top management. Different styles and roles of leadership, as well asthe direct influence from line management (e.g. in relation to resourceallocation) can encourage or discourage groups working with innova­tion. Politics and rhetoric play a part in most organizations throughthe internal networks. The outcome from the group must fit into thelarger context, as for instance into the project portfolio, the urgentneeds and the contemporary priorities. The perception of the evalu­tion board regarding quality and viability, combined with the group'srhetoric in presenting the proposal also play a part. Finally, timing isof major importance, and luck is a component that should not beunderestimated.

Outside the circle: the environment

Groups working with innovation depend on the relation to the cus­tomers and the development in the local and global market. The activ­ities of competitors must be taken into consideration (as for instance,whether the competitors plan to launch a similar product and therebychange the 'fitness landscape') as well as the relation between theorganization and its stakeholders. Finally, in this study the concurrenttrends of the pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology, and industrialenzymes are important. Globalization and change are challenges ofmajor influence along with the development in information technolgyand communication.

All the above may influence directly or indirectly, to a greater or less­er extent, 'Innovation in the Making'. Indeed, the problem is complex.It involves many sub-units, relations, dimensions, dynamics, and pro­cesses that are ongoing, interrelated and that mutually shape eachother. In the words of Bales & Strodtbeck (1951), it is a full-fledgedproblem - and with plenty of ambiguity, uncertainty and flux.

How can we best approach and investigate the problem of 'Innovation in theMaking'?

207

The case study method

The criteria for selecting the case study approach are that the researchproblem involves complexity, real-time events and processes that arenot easily distinguishable from their context and that must conse­quently be studied in real-life (Yin, 1994). The case study methodtherefore suits the purpose. The case study has a strong design and atthe same time can include qualitative as well as quantitative data. Casestudies cover contextual conditions and can be applied to explain(causal links), describe, illustrate, and explore these. The present studyexplores, describes, and illustrates innovative processes in their mak­ing and also attempts to explain or draw inferences in order to answerthe research questions.

Yin lists five components that are important for the case study design(1994:20):1. The questions2. The propositions3. The unit of analysis4. The logic linking data to propositions5. Criteria for interpreting the findings

Research questions and objectives

According to King, Keohane &Verba (1994:18) a good research ques­tion satisfies two criteria: "it should deal with a significant real-worldtopic and be designed to contribute, directly or indirectly, to a specif­ic scholarly literature."

The research questions:• In what ways can innovative processes be initiated, sup­

ported and managed towards innovative crystallization inheterogeneous groups?

• In what ways does communication influence knowledgecreation in heterogeneous groups ofknowledge workers?

208

The necessity for research on heterogeneous groups working with thegenesis of innovation and new knowledge has been pointed out byresearchers of various fields. For example, Gibbons et al. emphasizethe comparative advantage of team innovation and thus a need forresearch in this area (1994:120):

"The ability to innovate continuously is crucial to long-termperformance. It is the source of creative comparative advan­tage which drives forward changes in terms of products on thefirst level. On the first level competition is concerned with tech­nology, on the second level with knowledge and skills.Created comparative advantage results not only from resourcesbut from the creative combination of resources and resourceful­ness. The novel element is that the relevant resources areincreasingly human ones and widely distributed. The trendtowards alliances is a natural outcome of the need to accessthese human resources. Resourcefulness consists in the abilityto configure these resources and the source of the value­added lies in the precise form of the collaborative groupsand in the skills of their members."(emphasis added)

In order to answer the research questions, the present study proposesthree objectives. In relation to King, Keohane & Verba's criteria(above), the first objective concerns a 'real-world topic', the secondconcerns the contribution to 'scholarly literature', and the third addsthe important aspect of practical usefulness.

Objectives:

1. To gain (new) knowledge about the processes that lead toinnovative crystallization through case studies in a real­time and real-life organizational context in interaction withheterogeneous groups working to create new knowledgeand new leads in the preject phase.

2. To develop a 'special theory'3 derived from practice forinitiating, supporting and managing innovative processes

209

to enhance innovative crystallization in heterogeneous pro­ject groups.

3. To develop a set ofrecommendations for the organization: amanual with methods, frameworks and advice for groupsworking with knowledge creation and novel approaches.

The propositions

Propositions point out the direction of the case study as to how theresearch question may be examined and what should be investigated.Of importance when discussing propositions, is the question of falsifi­cation. King, Keohane & Verba (1994: 19) recommend that theresearcher select theories or propositions that can be falsified by usingKarl Popper's principle of falsification (1968). He argues that aresearcher must primarily be able to answer one question: "What evi­dence would convince us that we are wrong?"Because of the complexity of the research problem it seems adequateto apply Popper's approach. Considering the many possible influences,how could we know that the processes we focus on are not influencedby other elements than the ones we examine. Thus, we shall adoptPopper's criteria of falsification in order to see if we can reduce thecomplexity by eliminating some elements. We will start with the prop­ositions and then examine the question of falsification.• 1. When diversity is matched with genuine communication, innov­

ative crystallization is enhanced• 2. Innovative crystallization is triggered by certainty and know­

ledge, rather than by uncertainty and ignorance

Re. 1. Earlier we defined the concept of diversity and constructed amatrix of perceived diversity and similarity. We have also defined anddiscussed the concept of genuine communication, but we have yet tomake the communication framework operational. This is done inchapter 6. Regarding innovative crystallization, we managed to devel­op criteria for recognizing the phenomenon. Then how could the firstproposition be falsified? This would be possible if communication pat­terns, other than 'genuine communication' (e.g. collective mono-

210

logues), were seen to enhance innovative crystallization in a hetero­geneous group. We would not regard it as falsified if we found a pat­tern of genuine communication in a group, which did not coincidewith crystallization. We would, however, look further into the patternsof communication if genuine communication coincided with innova­tive crystallization.

Re. 2. The second proposition relates to the content of communica­tion, to the conceptual level. The Kubus model (Herlau, 1995) will beused as an analytical tool to classify the topical conversation, as con­versations can be coded by applying the Kubus framework into threearenas of uncertainty and three arenas of certainty. This way the con­tent of the conversation can be coded and quantified (see chapter 7).Thus, if crystallization emerged when more time was spent in areas ofuncertainty and ignorance than in arenas of certainty and knowledge,the proposition would have been falsified.

The unit of analysis

The unit of analysis is the innovative process, i.e. a process that leadsto 'innovative crystallization'. In chapter 3 we made a tentative defin­ition of innovative processes as the formative processes of problemforming, problem framing and crystallization of (new) knowledge. Wewant to gain a better understanding of innovative processes in orderto understand how innovative processes are initiated, supported andmanaged in heterogeneous groups of knowledge workers, and wedecided to examine patterns of communication on two levels of analy­sis, the relational and the conceptual level.

By studying communication patterns, could we identify elements,processes, or patterns that encourage or discourage innovative activ­ities?

211

The logic linking data to propositions

The empirical data will be linked to the propositions through 'analyt­ical generalization'. Analytical generalization is based on the develop­ment of theory prior to data generation. "This role of theory devel­opment, prior to the conduct of any data collection is one point ofdifference between case studies and related methods such as ethnog­raphy" (Yin, 1994:27). The communication framework of ideal-typemodels will primarily serve as the basis for comparison with the dataobtained on the two levels mentioned above. But also the relevanttheories and process models discussed in chapter 3 will support ana­lytical generalization.

Criteria for interpreting the findings

As the data will derive from different sources, methodological triangu­lation will ensure construct validity. The findings will be interpretedthrough pattern-matching in relation to the frameworks developed inchapter 3. The intention is to find a match with one of the outlined(rival) process models, or regarding communication, with one of theideal-type communication models. Alternatively new theoretical mod­els will be developed to match the findings. "The method of general­ization is 'analytical generalization', in which a previously developedtheory is used as a template with which to compare the empiricalresults of the case study." (Yin, 1994:31) Thus a synthesis is reachedthrough combining the findings, possibly in a causal or some inferen­tial relationship, in relation to understanding innovative processes andanswering the research questions. Finally recommendations will bemade based on the findings.

Triangu lation

"Consider the difficulty of establishing the occurrence of anevent. You would be more confident in saying that the eventactually had occurred if your study showed that information

212

from interviews, documents, and your own observations allpointed in the same direction. With such converging evidence,you might even feel very confident about your conclusion thatthe event had occurred. This type of triangulation is the mostdesired pattern for dealing with case study data, and you shouldalways seek to attain such an outcome." (Yin, 1993:69)

The concept of triangulation originates from the field of cartographyand navigation, where it is based on the rationale that it takes meas­urement from three different points to locate a new point or to takebearing. The parallel in the social sciences is primarily a combinationof methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon.

Triangulation means using different or multiple sources of data,methods, investigators, or theory. The present study, aiming at a com­prehensive or multi-perspective approach, applies the triangulatedapproach in three ways. Firstly, it serves as a method for generatingdata (primary and secondary data) from a variety of sources to con­struct valid knowledge about innovative processes. Secondly, themethods are triangulated by applying the case study method, clinicalresearch and ethnography. Finally, analytical generalization is matchedwith Popperian falsification. Evidently, triangulation most adequatelyreflects the complexity of the problem and will help to point out con­verging evidence and thus to answer the research questions.

Prospective versus Retrospective studies

"Most studies of innovation or change to date have been retro­spective case histories conducted after the outcomes of changewere known. However, it is widely recognized that prior know­ledge of the success or failure of an innovation invariably biasesa study's findings. Historical analysis is necessary for examiningmany questions and concerted efforts can be undertaken tominimize bias, but it is generally better, if possible, to initiatehistorical study before the outcomes of a strategic change pro­cess become known" (Van de Ven and Poole, 1989:35).

213

What makes the case studies of 'Innovation in the Making' stand outmethodologically is the real-time, processual, prospective approach. Asstated above, most studies on innovation have been retrospective, i.e.interviews based on success stories. That includes one of the largeststudies on knowledge creation by Nonaka & Takeuchi, which is basedon 130 interviews (1995:17).

Two main points will be made here. The first concerns 'hindsight bias'(Weick, 1995). The second examines the openness versus the'closed­ness of situations. Together these arguments justify a real-time pros­pective study of innovative processes.

Regarding hindsight bias, Weick (1995:30) reports experiments withstudent groups who were, after a task, randomly given feedback on theirperformance (high or low) and then given questionnaires regardingmotivation, communication, group cohesiveness, openness to change,etc. The ratings of 'high-performance' groups were significantly morepositive than the 'low-performers'. This is one of many examples fromempirical research of hindsight bias. Weick summarizes this (1995:28):"The nature of these determinant histories is reconstructed differently,depending on whether the outcomes are seen as good or bad."

Many other examples are reported in literature of sense-makingprocesses (Weick, 1995:18): "people concerned with identity in thecontext of others engage ongoing events from which they extract cues andmake plausible sense retrospectively, all the while enacting more or lessorder into those ongoing events" (Italics added).

The second argument, regarding openness versus dosedness, will takeits point of departure in John Shotter's explanation of the 'ex post facto

fact' fallacy. The following sequence is quoted at full length (Shatter,1993:85):

1. "Firstly, a situation is described which, although we do notrealize it at the time, is open to a number of possible inter­pretations.

2. We are, however, then tempted to accept one of thesedescriptive statements as true.

214

3. The statement then 'affords' or 'permits' the making of fur­ther statements, now of a better articulated nature, till asystematic account has been formulated.

4. The initial interpretation (already accepted as true, of cour­se) now comes to be perceived, retrospectively, as owing itsnow quite definite character to its place within the nowwell-specified framework produced by the later statements.

In other words, the original situation has now been 'given' or'lent' a determinate character, within the terms of the system,which it did not, in its original openness, actually possess. This,I think, is a fallacy which operates on a grand scale in the socialsciences, where we always attempt to make sense of social andpsychological phenomena within well-defined systems of terms- that is, systematic discourses."

The above account adds valuable insight to the concept of 'process', inhow open situations become closed events, and how sense is made after­wards through 'narrative smoothing'4. Shotter continues (1993: 128):"Our attention is diverted, because, in a hermeneutical construction, allthe fragments which have occurred are decontextualized, and made intoa orderly or systematic whole - often with, as Freud put it, the insertion ofthe 'missing points' which must have 'originally' been there if things areto be orderly."

The real-time case study of 'Innovation in the Making' is an attempt tostudy processes in their openness, in their making. Processes are gener­ally fragmented and incoherent, and may not make sense at the moment.Afterwards, however, when events have been 'constructed' or 'labeled',they make sense, but this is a retrospective construction (Weick, 1995).

If sense-making or retrospective 'construction' of events and factsguides experience and recollection, then there is a significant differ­ence between things in their making and things made. The point hereis not to judge or evaluate which is better or more 'scientific'. Weickdistinguishes between 'pure duration' and 'discrete segments' of time.According to Brown & Duguid (1991:41), Bourdieu distinguishesbetween a 'modus operandi' (work in progress, i.e. open) and an 'opus

215

operatum' (the finished task). And Latour, who did an ethnographicstudy on scientists in their labs, emphasize a similar difference in theconstruction of scientific facts:

"Uncertainty, people at work, decisions, competition, contro­versies are what one gets when making a flashback from certain,cold, unproblematic black boxes of their recent past. If you taketwo pictures, one of the black boxes and the other of open con­troversies, they are utterly different. They are as different "as thetwo sides, one lively, the other severe, of a two-faced Janus. 'Sci­ence in the making' on the right side, 'all made science' or 'readymade science' on the other;" (Latour, 1987:4)

The sum of the argument is the following. In order to produce newknowledge about innovative processes, we need to study processes intheir making, i.e. in their openness. Thus the researcher needs to bepresent, to experience (experiential knowledge) the potential of thesituations. I, the researcher, participate and can follow how knowl­edge is created. Shotter (1983: 156) claims that action creates condi­tions for further action, i.e. action sets a direction and a path. Onlyin the midst of the process in its making is it possible to see howinnovative crystallization comes about and perhaps what makes itemerge.

According to Shotter, that which is well-organized and rational actu­ally prevents us from seeing that our circumstances surround us withpossibilities for constructing a new and different future. We cannothelp constructing a 'smooth' narrative afterwards, but we can comple­ment the retrospective with the projective narrative through experi­encing and participating in the process.

Clinical research and ethnography

The approach of the present study is clinical and ethnographic. Twomajor characteristics of the clinical role are the qualitative aspect of

216

the relation to the client, and the 'helping' aspect of trying to improverelations or solve practical problems. The clinical process model is pd­marily built on the relations between the researcher and the client. Forthe clinician, it is always the needs of the client that come first - andthis to the extent that research is secondary and must be abandonedif it suits the client better. Regarding applicability, it is the function orthe practical aspect of the methods that are central. Thus methodol­ogy depends on the nature of the problem.

In ethnography the aim is to understand and describe a group ofpeople and try to reveal some underlying structure - but without dis­turbing or changing the organization (Schein, 1987:30). The primarygoal is thus to obtain scientific knowledge by understanding a groupor a culture from within and by uncovering deep structures. This hasbeen elegantly done by David Guss who lived for many years with theYekuana tribe in the jungle of Venezuela. He found the underlyingstructure to be 'To Weave and Sing'S, which penetrated the Yekuanaworld from constructing houses to communication about all dailyactivities (Guss, 1989).

In his book on The Clinical Perspective in Fieldwork from 1987,Edgar Schein contrasts the clinical with the ethnographic view. Scheinconcludes:

" Both perspectives are ultimately necessary to understand fullywhat goes on in groups, communities, and organizations, butonly by understanding the differences in the perspectives can wegrasp fully what is meant by saying that we need both perspec­tives." (Schein, 1987: 14)

According to Schein, some differences between the roles of the clin­ician and the ethnographer should be noted. The clinician must beoriented towards the needs of the client, as the clinician has beenasked to come into the organization and is paid for it. The ethnogra­pher, on the other hand, gets a more free-riding situation, as s/he haschosen the organization and has created his/her own entry and condi­tions for being there. The clinician is there to do the job of helping theclient to solve a problem. Therefore the clinician cannot leave until thejob is finished (or s/he is kicked out).

21 7

The ethnographer is there to learn and is free to leave when s/hehas learnt enough. The clinician has a limited amount of time, whilein principle the ethnographer has the amount of time it takes.

Another difference is that the clinician must concentrate on theproblem at hand and therefore goes into depth, whereas the ethno­grapher tries to cover a wider field, and mayor may not get into thedeeper layers of the group or organization. Schein illustrates this bypointing out that the clinician tends to be invited 'back stage', i.e.to see what goes on behind the curtain from the management per­spective, whereas the ethnographer is only allowed to see the frontstage from the lower levels of the organization. Schein concludes(1987:59):

"For the clinician to learn to translate insights obtained in thefield into scientifically valid useful information is a secondaryskill, just as for the ethnographer to learn to help his or her sub­jects is a secondary skill. It is this secondary learning for eachtype that is the real challenge because in organizational work thetwo roles so often come to blend into each other."

Evidently, the complementarity of the roles of clinician and ethnog­rapher is a methodological strength - but also a challenge. We willexamine the tension between roles in the following.

Tension between roles

Schein (1987 :29): "The implication of this situational reality is thatthe person who works with living human systems must be able tofunction in both the clinical and ethnographic role, and, furthermore,must be highly aware of when he or she is in which role so that nei­ther relationship is fundamentally compromised."

One of the difficulties of performing several roles, maybe even dur­ing the same session, is the tension between predicting the outcomesand in letting outcomes emerge. This is, in fact, a tension between twoopposing paradigms, Newtonian versus Quantum Science.

218

We said earlier that the case study method is anchored in the rational(or Newtonian) paradigm. A major difference between the case studymethod and ethnography is thus that the researcher has developed atheoretical framework as part of the case study design in the former,whereas the ethnographer uses an inductive method of letting peopleand events 'speak for themselves'. The ethnographer is thus closer toa 'grounded theory' approach, as described by Glaser & Strauss in1967. Having a theoretical framework prior to fieldwork does not,however, necessarily hinder people and events in speaking for them­selves or in the emergence of unexpected findings. As described ear­lier, a theoretical framework certainly influences the researcher's per­ception and interpretation of these (in particular the clinical fieldworker who tries to predict the outcome). But when these interpre­tations are contrasted or challenged by other sources of data, as inmethodological triangulation, this influence will be modified or cor­rected.

Bias

We have mentioned earlier that cognitive schemas or the underlyingassumptions of the researcher are strong filters for what is seen andfor what data are generated. There are, however, ways to meet thatconcern. The researcher can make her general presuppositions re­garding philosophical paradigm, values and beliefs explicit and try to

hold ideas and hypotheses 'lightly' in order to let the data direct thefindings instead of framing the findings beforehand. Another way tomeet the problem is through methodological triangulation, discussedearlier.

The demand for intersubjectivity is becoming more in demand byresearchers, mainly because of the ethical dimension. In the naturalis­tic6 approach 'member checking' is one way of establishing credibilityas the members or subjects of the study are asked if they recognize thedescription or whether they agree with the findings or the conclusion(Erdunder, 1993:142). This is, certainly, not always unproblematic,

219

depending on the subject being studied and on the controversy of the

findings.

Other factors are the conditions of the research itself and the condi­tions of the 'subjects' (Argyris, 1992). The major importance for us isthe effect and degree of changed behavior, which the researcher'spresence calls forth in the subjects. This includes a varying degree ofhostility (covert or overt) and deception, as for instance trying todeliberately misinform the researcher or pretending to be cooperativeand "giving the researcher what he wants in such a way that theresearcher does not realize that the subject is doing this" (Argyris,

1992:426).Another factor is the degree to which the researcher is perceived as

representing management. The clinician is normally engaged by man­agement, which could easily set off some of the above behaviors. Forthe ethnographer it is more a question of being a stranger and conse­

quently of developing relations of trust.

Classification of Data

We usually talk about data in the plural and rarely employ the sin­gular term of datum, which signifies a basic element of information.In the present study a distinction between primary and secondarydata makes sense, as it is a real-time study in a real-life situation.Only in this type of study is primary data generated. Most casestudies are built on secondary data, based on qualitative interviewsabout past events. Primary data relates to direct 'experiential','practical' and 'presentational' knowledge (Heron, 1981). Secondarydata concerns what happened after the act/ interaction, such aswritten reports, empirical data, analytical methods and theoreticalmodels. Thus secondary data mainly concerns propositional knowl­edge (and experienced knowledge). Primary data is contextual,open, and concerns things in their making, whereas secondary datais decontextual, and concerns closed 'black-boxes' of facts or infor-

mation.

220

It is evident, that the immediate quality of primary data cannotbe kept in any way. Some of the qualities can be revived with person­al notes, symbols and mind maps. Inter-subjective interaction can betaped, but even a videotape does not have the authenticity or imme­diacy that existed at the meeting. Audiotapes and videotapes are,however, still the most authentic information we can produce from areal-life situation. But certainly it makes a qualitative differencewhether the person who is to analyze the data has been present ornot.

Regarding secondary data, which most empirical studies mustrely on, a few comments are necessary. Relying on first-person sub­jective interpretation only, can be problematic. The skill needed hereis for the researcher to develop a kind of 'transparent subjectivity' ofdisplaying at least some of the steps from raw data to assumptionsand conclusions. This could be, for instance, by making use of the'Ladder of Inference'. 7 Research with a high degree of reliabilityshould include a description of some of the steps, aiming at makingthe researcher's inferences transparent to others. No doubt this willalso add reflective quality to the researcher's own dialogue with thetext.

Summing up, in relation to science and research the essential pointis that 'voices' of other subjects than the researcher are also heard. Inthe present study this is attempted in the triangulated approach wherethe aim is to reach convergence of primary and secondary data.

221

Table 4.1: Data type and researcher role in case studies

Descrip- Pilot (0) Base-line Base-line Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6tion 1 2

PRIMARYDATA

Experi- clinician participant participant clinician clinician clinician clinicianencing role and observer observer role and role and role and role andthings in participant participant participant participant participanttheir observer observer observer observer observermaking

'High-context'interaction

data Notes Notes notes notes notes notes notesgenerated: mind maps mind maps mind maps mind maps mind maps mind maps mind mapsnotes overheads audiotapes audiotapes audiotapesmind maps flip-over overheadsaudiotapes papers,flip-over evaluationpapersevaluations

SECON-DARYDATA

Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutes Minutese-mails e-mails e-mails e-mails e-mails e-mails e-mails e-mailsquestion- questions questJons questions questions evaluation questionsnaires evaluations evaluations (Success/ (Success/ (success/evaluations Failure) Failure) Failure)

evaluation evaluation evaluation

informal with many with many With many with with with with allCOllver- scientists & partici- scientists & chairman chairman chairman partici-sations director pants director and many and many and many pants also

project partici- partici- partici- betweenleader pants pants pants meetingssteering gr.

qualitative with with CVP with with with with CP, threeinterviews director & project director & chairman chairman chairman CVP's

leader managers director etc

internal teports instruction memos e-mails, e-mails e-mails e-mails,Org. data: Novo memos e-mails present- present- present- present-reports Nordisk e-mails ations, ations ations ations,strategic vision repor- Intra-Web transcribed transcribed Intra-Webgoals memos tings Data-base, tapes from tapes from Data-base,memos e-mails fInal report article in other prs. other prs. memosIntra-web Dialogue interviews interviews reportse-mails strategyIntra-web newsletterinfo articles inpress DialoguereleasesDialogue(int. news-paper)

external articles articles in Internet-data: from news- newspaper page: couldmedia and papers CEO in enzymespress TV be the key?

222

Criteria for research evaluation

"The unity of all science consists alone in its method, not in itsmaterial" (King, Keohane & Verba, 1994:9)

Regardless of the purpose of research, methodological soundness isthe focal point. In fact, methodological soundness or 'trustworthiness'seems to be a uniting value for all paradigms. As both a clinical and anethnographic approach are applied in the present study, we have triedto encompass criteria of validity from conventional (positivistic)research as well as from naturalistic8 research. But here we will onlymention two pairs or contrasts (Erdunder, 1993: 133):• internal validity versus credibility• reliability versus dependability

According to Yin, internal validity is central for data analysis in casestudies that are explanatory or causal, but not for descriptive orexploratory studies (Yin, 1994:33). Dealing with a complex problem,some inferences and explanations will be attempted, but a causal rela­tionship will hardly be the outcome.

Credibility involves some of the following elements: prolongedengagement, persistent observation, triangulation, member checking,and a reflexive journal. Prolonged engagement leads to a deeperunderstanding of an organization, e.g. regarding the differencebetween being an insider and an outsider9• The risk is, of course, 'go­ing native' whereby a researcher becomes so deeply involved that theresearch perspective is lost (Erdunder, 1993: 135). Persistent observa­tion provides depth and involves a thorough examination of differenthypotheses, avoiding early closure, etc. Member checking concernsinteraction and dialogue with the participants about key issues andalso letting them read through the report and comment on it orchange it before it is published. A reflexive journal or a case study pro­tocol is highly recommended, as this helps to provide reliability. Re­liability concerns demonstrating that by following the same procedureas the researcher, this will lead to the same results. Likewise, in natu­ralistic studies dependability is related to the reflexive journal as well

223

as to an 'audit', based on the journal, data from all the different stag- .es of data processing, and notes. This corresponds to Yin's recommen­dations of setting up a case study data-base.

This goes to show that, in many ways, what was earlier called the'soft' sciences are becoming 'hard' in their strict demands for credibil­ity and dependability, particularly in relation to data processing. In thewords ofYin (1994: 16): "Case study research is remarkably hard, eventhough case studies have traditionally been considered to be "soft"research. Paradoxically, the "softer" a research strategy, the harder it

is to do."

Concluding remarks

Methodology is the focal point of research. The type of researchundertaken in the present study is different from other studies oninnovation, and in this chapter I have tried to explain in what ways. In­stead of gathering qualitative interviews after innovation has takenplace, I became part of the innovation groups to see what happenedduring the innovation. That is why the book is called 'Innovation in the

Making'.In this chapter I have argued for the advantages of a prospective

method compared to the state-of-the-art, retrospective methods. Inparticular I discussed the influence of hindsight bias after things havedeveloped (or not developed), and pointed out the difference betweenthe openness of being in a process versus the closedness (black box)of 'things already made'. This feature makes the present study stand

out.

The selection of methods depends on the problem to be investigat­ed. The research problem was illustrated through a map of the mul­tiple facets that could potentially influence the emergence of innova­tion in the preject phase. This was done to illustrate the complexityinvolved and to show the multiplicity and interrelatedness of process­es and sub-units, as well as the permeability of boundaries betweengroups and context. The complexity of the problem justified choos-

224

ing the case study method. To ensure trustworthyness this was com­bined with triangulation of data generation, research methods andanalysis.

Regarding my own role as researcher, I chose two complementaryapproaches: clinical research and ethnography. Eric Jantsch has arguedthat different approaches elucidate different aspects of the world:

"Scientific inquiry does not produce 'objective truth' - it pro­duces a human design which orders and formalizes certainaspects of reality in a communicable way."

Notes1 I.e. ongoing experience, see Weick (1995:44)2 This word is invented (as interviewee, employee) to avoid 'objectification' of

the individuals3 A special theory has three main components: a philosophical rationale, an ide­

al model based on rules, and recommendations for improving practice (Bor­mann, 1996).

4 'Narrative smoothing' was coined by Donald Spence (in Shotter, 1993: 127)5 The name of the book is 'To Weave and Sing'6 There seems to be some confusion around the term 'naturalistic'. As "the pur­

pose of naturalistic inquiry is to understand the constructions of the respon­dents on their own terms" (Erdunder, 1993:132) this approach resemblesethnography, but with an aim at building empowerment and authenticity intothe research, similar to the ethics of cooperative inquiry. Richard Norman,however, applies the term for the natural sciences, i.e. positivism (Norman,1979:188).

7 The Ladder ofInference consists of 7 steps (Senge, et a!., 1994): Observabledata, selection of data, adding meanings, making assumptions, drawing con­clusions, adopting beliefs, and taking action (see also chapter 7)

8 The naturalistic paradigm "deals in the constructions created by the stake­holders in the context being studied" (Erdunder, 1993: 132)

9 The researcher's own experience regarding this is described in chapter 5 inthe case narrative

225

Chapter 5

Case study overviewand narrative

"In all of these situations, the distinctive need for case studiesarises out of the desire to understand complex social phenom­ena. In brief, the case study allows an investigation to retain theholistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events ... "(Yin, 1994:3).

This chapter

ture workshop and the base-line studies. The chapter ends with a'post-study' narrative of my work as innovation coach, the implemen­tation of the results.

Introduction to case studies

The following case study overview provides a simple illustration of thecase studies that were conducted to study 'Innovation in the Making'.The circles illustrate the number of groups involved in each study.The pilot study does not 'count' as a case study, but was conductedin order to assist "an investigator to develop relevant lines of questions- possibly even providing some conceptual clarification for theresearch design" (Yin, 1994:74). Therefore the pilot study gets thenumber O. The pilot study was conducted when I was an external con­sultant, whereas the case studies were all conducted from within theorganization.

Case study overviewIn this chapter we focus on praxis, the case studies. The guiding prin­ciple here is Aristotle's third intellectual virtue of'phronesis', i.e. pru­dence. Prudence concerns values and judgment and depends on thesituation and context.

The purpose of this chapter is fourfold: 1) To provide the readerwith a general understanding of the case study portfolio, 2) to add'life' to the case studies through a subjective narrative account, 3) todescribe the focus of the preject more accurately, and 4) to arrive ata description of Novo Nordisk culture and 'general practice', whichwill (later) serve as background knowledge for the findings and dataanalysis.

The case study portfolio is illustrated in a case study overview,which is accompanied by a first-person subjective narrative of how thecase studies came about and developed. The narrative includesexcerpts from the research diary as well as some 'cultural clashes' thathappened on the way. To increase the understanding of the preject­project figural space, the focus and process area of each case study isillustrated with arrows. An analysis of Novo Nordisk culture and 'gen­eral practice' of knowledge creation follows, based on data from a cul-

226

Pilot study (0)

Base-line case study (1)

Base-line case study (2)

Case study 3

Case study 4

Case study 5

Case study 6

oe5bo00oooo

Role of researcher

participant-observerand intervention

participant-observer

participant-observer

participant-observerand intervention

participant-observerand intervention

participant-observerand intervention

participant-observerand intervention

227

Simple preject-project

Going Narrative

PROJECTPREJECT -

For each case study the illustrationwill display whether the case studyoperates in the divergent or in theconvergent space - or both. It willfurther display 'where' in the figuralspace the beginning takes place, i.e.if it starts in the divergent or con-vergent space, and which courseand direction is taken by the group.Finally it will appear that the total-ity of cases cover all of the figuralspace and that one case in particu­lar covers most of the space. Tomake the illustration simpler, mostof the explanatory terms have beenerased from the original model.

In the case studies, all persons,male or female, are described in the male form to ensure anonymity.The 'time of writing' referred to during the analysis was Spring 1998in the excerpts from the diary, and February 1999 in case study 6.

Two base-line studies were conducted with me (the researcher) as par­ticipant-observer before intervention was attempted. This was donebecause a real-time, real-life study with a researcher doing clinical andethnographic research poses a few methodological challenges. Apartfrom the tension between the two roles (described in chapter 4) andthe difficulty of discerning these in practice, there is the 'problematic'(from a research perspective) irreversibility of human interaction.Meetings cannot be rewound and started again in order to tryout adifferent approach. Intervention cannot be 'undone' or 'redone'. Sothe hypothetical question of what would have happened if ... remainsunanswered.

A related challenge is to establish a 'before' the intervention instudies of process. Process is continuous and ongoing, there is no 'be­fore' and no 'after' but only 'in'. The base-line studies were conduct­ed to establish a 'before' or a description of Novo Nordisk's 'generalpractice'. In particular the first base-line study was informative andgenerative. The central case study was no. 3. In fact, case study 3 hasqualities that make it 'revelatory'. According to Yin (1994:40): "Athird rationale for a single case study is the revelatory case. This situ­ation exists when an investigator has an opportunity to observe andanalyze a phenomenon previously inaccessible to scientific investiga­tion ... " This is the case here: The phenomenon under study is, undernormal circumstances, highly inaccessible. Still, the research design isnot a single case study, but a multiple case study including a revela­tory case.

The preject-project figure

"We cannot avoid using narratives, metaphors or theories, butwhat we can avoid is becoming entrapped within their confinesby claiming anyone of them to be the single correct narrative,metaphor or theory. They are instruments, not depictions."(Shotter, 1993: 132)

The idea of using the preject-project figure is to illustrate the 'space'occupied by each case study. This space is abstract and figurative,needless to say, but it will serve the purpose of a 'processual pointer'bridging 'immaterial' processes in their making with a 'cognitivespace'.

The reader should now prepare for a different style of writing, as weturn from a professional-scientific neutral text into narrative. Fromdescribing and discussing in the grammatically 'passive' mode or us­ing the form of 'we', the text turns into a story from real life with anindividual 'I' who experiences and reflects.

228 229

Three features of narrative deserve to be mentioned: 1) narrativesdescribe intentions of a subject 2) they are indeterminate or ambigu­ous and 3) they involve the reader's imagination in a particular way:"The reader receives it by composing it" (in Bruner, 1986:24).

Regarding the intentions, the following narrative is topic-centeredaround the theme of 'chasing the beginnings'. The reason for chasingbeginnings rests on the proposition that beginnings are important forgroup climate and communication - and thereby also for innovativeprocesses. As for indeterminacy, this quality has been difficult tomaintain - after things have developed. I have tried to stick to thequality of indeterminacy and openness by not changing what wasalready written. Instead I have made efforts to add retrospectivereflections afterwards as footnotes. Nevertheless, the narrative does tosome extent suffer from 'hindsight bias' and 'narrative smoothing'(Shotter, 1993).

My first official presentation took place at a quarterly meeting ofabout 80 persons at a Health Care Discovery department in October1995. I remember how difficult it was to judge the reaction to mypresentation, but it seemed that at least some people were interested.I was told later, that it had been well received. Shortly afterwards I hadmeetings with the director and with his manager group, and it wasdecided that I should conduct a two-day workshop for a group of 12people, introducing them to frameworks4 and methods for workingwith the preject phase of innovation. This took place in December1995 and the outcome of the workshop was very satisfactory. Thegroup came up with four new areas they wanted to examine by usingthe new framework (Kubus). I enjoyed working with the groups. Theywere professional, knowledgeable and open. Evidently, it was a way ofworking that differed from what they were used to, e.g. they were notused to any procedures of sharing knowledge.

The pilot study

Czarniawska-}oerges1 writes about the narrative form: "In orderto understand our own lives we put them in narrative form andwe do the same when we try to understand the lives of otherpeople. Thus, every action acquires meaning by acquiring aplace in the narrative of lives."

My first contact with Novo Nordisk was due to an interview to a Dan­ish weekly business news1etter. 2 Someone from one of Novo NordiskHealth Care Human Resources departments was interested in whatwe were doing regarding systematic development of innovation in theCenter for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Copenhagen BusinessSchool, and we had a couple of meetings. As I was, at that time, look­ing for an organization that would be interested in sponsoring an In­dustrial Ph.D., I was told to go ahead with this opportunity by my col­leagues. I hoped that if! did a good job, Novo Nordisk would want anIndustrial Ph.D. 3 in that area.

23°

At the first status meeting, after sixweeks, all groups had found anddeveloped substantial knowledgein the new areas, and two of thegroups had come up with newconcepts and ways to test thesethat made them potential pre-pro­jects. I could, of course, not evalu­ate the quality or novelty, but twoprejects were presented at the fol­lowing Health Care DiscoveryManagement meeting. One wasaccepted as a 'formal' pre-project,which meant allocation ofresourc­es.The otherwas recommended tocontinue working with the ideas,to test them, and then to comeback. As illustrated, the groupswere preject groups searching fornew knowledge, i.e. in the diver­gent phase.

PREJECT - PROJECT

VI

<>I

I

Covered 'space' of Pilot study (0)

23 1

In retrospect I learnt that the timing of my entrance had been perfect.The director of the function had a fairly new organization due to arecent re-organization, and people were spread geographically inmany areas) which meant that people did not know each other well.Thus, sharing knowledge in groups was a constructive way ofstrengthening cooperation. Furthermore) the Corporate Vice Presi­dent of Health Care Discovery had asked all directors to come up withinnovative pre-projects as the project portfolio was 'thin' in the enter­ing stages with few pre-projects.

By the second status meeting, however, a lot of the previous condi­tions had changed. By now, management had enough pre-projects anddid not have the same vivid interest anymore. Some central scientistsleft the function (and the preject groups)) and ongoing projects calledfor all resources (and more). The pilot project ended with a highlyfavorable5 evaluation in November 1996, but also pointed out somedrawbacks6 to the framework (Dars0, 1997a). By then I had alreadystarted my Industrial Ph.D. in the organization.

The pilot study differed in many ways from the present study. The pri­mary task of the pilot study was classical clinical work done by anexternal consultant, trying to help solve a problem of feeding new pre­projects into the project portfolio. The secondary task was for theresearcher to test some methods and frameworks, and find out if andhow they fit the organization. This was done by conducting an evalu­ation with questionnaires, followed by a presentation of the findings tothe participants and a discussion about these (Dars0, 1997a). Thusthe pilot was a way to test out a tentative case study design, as recom­mended byYin (1994:52).

The pilot study was based on the Kubus framework, which was devel­oped from empirical studies of conversations in groups (Herlau, 1995)into a normative prospective method. In the present study some of theKubus methods? have been applied, since I had practical experiencewith these, but not the main Kubus model (except once in the medi­ator group, case study 6). The advantage of that decision was that themodel could be used deductively for coding the topical content of theconversations, as discussed in chapter 7.

232

From External to Internal (Excerpts from diary 1998)

"I started working in Novo N ordisk Health Care Discovery & De­velopment Human Resources unit on September 1, 1996. The firstthing that struck me was the difference from being a visitor (a con­sultant) to becoming a 'Novo Nordisk person'. Suddenly all thethings I had not previously been able to get hold of were easily avail­able. A strange mix of confidential and trivial information kept com­ing in, both through my e-mail and through conversations and meet­ings. I was overwhelmed with the loads of information that keptflowing in.

I remember how I kept saying 'you in Novo Nordisk' in the begin­ning when talking to people in the organization) and I remember howthey looked a little surprised, like saying 'are you not part of NovoNordisk?' So then I decided, after a month or so, to say 'we in NovoN ordisk'. This was, however, noticed by people outside the organiza­tion and interpreted as if I had been absorbed and had quickly tak­en over the Novo Nordisk culture."

During the four years I worked in the organization I tried to main­tain a critical perspective. I managed to understand the culture a lotbetter, bur cultural clashes still happened.

First cultural clash

During the pilot project, some time after the first pre-project hadbeen accepted, I asked the director what would now happen with thepre-project? He said that it would have resources allocated, but that)in fact, he wondered why he had not heard any news about it.Through a phone call he found out that the pre-project was 'stuck'in the administrative system) because there was no appointed projectmanager. The system had no 'category' for shifting leadership (theKubus method). In order for the pre-project to get resources, thedirector finally had to point out an official project leader (in agree­ment with the group). In my reflective diary I described this event as"a clash between individual versus collective thinking". "They talk'teams' (espoused theory) and act 'individuals' (theory-in-use8)."

233

This is a good example of how systems influence what is possibleand how systems can block novel initiatives (systemic thinking, asSenge, et al, 1994).

Chasing the 'beginnings'

The first thing I was told was to network. "You can't survive withoutit," my advisor said. I had no idea then how right he was. He startedby introducing me and my project via the internal e-mail system, butthe news had few reactions. This could be due to many things. Peoplewere busy (as usual) and suffering from information overload. It wasin the middle of the MAX process, where 20% of the Staff and Ser­vice functions would be cut down. The project was maybe seen as aca­demic (i.e. too theoretical) coming from a Business School or it wasclassified as a HR project (i.e. process oriented).

I was introduced to a lot of people, among others to a director ofDiscovery, for whom I carried out a climate survey in his department(40 people) in order to get to know the scientists. It seemed thatworking with people and earning their trust and respect was the onlyway to get what I wanted: starting preject groups in order to studyinnovative processes and innovative crystallization. Thus, when myadvisor spotted tasks that could generate opportunities for my pro­ject, he asked me if I wanted to take them. In this way I soon becameinvolved with three parties: a director, a manager and a group ofmanagers. Only one case study (base-line study 2) came out of thesecontacts. I also generated data with the manager's group, primarilyon processes of cooperation and strategy, but the objective was notinnovation. It is therefore not included. The group of managers lostinterest in the project on organizational innovation before the prob­lem was identified. I think it was due to prioritization and time pres­sure.

During the first six months I socialized with a lot of NovoNordisk people, and I introduced my project to many people andgroups. I always explained very carefully how important it was formy research to join a pre-project group right from the beginning. Itoften happened that I heard of a group that had just started, but it

234

seemed impossible to catch projects right at the starting point. Itbecame more and more mysterious how projects actually started. Idid some interviews with directors and project leaders, and theyexplained how some people were very good at getting ideas by doing'skunk-work', and that all pre-projects were started by these 5-10 keypersons. I explained that there was a different way of doing this, thatthese competencies could be developed in groups, that this had beendone both inside Novo Nordisk and outside Novo Nordisk withgood results, but they were not convinced, and it seemed as if theywere not even interested in finding out if this could, indeed, be a bet­ter method and add quality to the early pre-projects. Thus, the prev­alent view was that bottom-up pre-projects were started throughinformal networks and skunk-work - and by individuals. Pre-projectswould develop and grow and at some point they would be presentedfor management. This meant that some pre-projects took ages todevelop, depending on the time available and the drive and networksof the individual researchers. Others came about quite fast, as anindividual or two would be working day and night on something thatlooked promising.

How does a reorganization feel?(Excerpts from research diary, 1998)

"You hear stories, during lunch for instance, or at the Friday morningcoffee sessions. One story I heard a couple of times was that organiza­tional change would usually take place right before Christmas. Appar­ently this had happened a few times. The large reorganization in 1994was said to have happened like this. 'You are fired, but we'll of coursetry to replace you, Merry Christmas'.

This brings about a certain cynicism. It took time before I under­stood. I think I really understood when a reorganization hit our ownunit of Discovery & Development Human Resources. For some timeI did not know where I would be in the future, as my advisor wasnegotiating his new position. It provoked some anxiety about my pro­ject and future. But when that was over with, it meant that we werenow 25 people instead of 6 in the Health Care Human Resources

235

department under a different director. After having been here for 20months, I have realized that reorganizations happen all the time9

,

small and large. Actually every time a new person changes job and isput in charge of a different unit, a reorganization is expected. I foundout that one person uses 1/3 working time for changing the organiza­tion charts. I wonder if reorganizations are a way of keeping the organ­ization on the move away from stability, from equilibrium and whetherit is done consciously?"

Base-line case study 1: Values In Action

The first time I heard of a starting project before it actually started wasthe "Values In Action" project. I heard of it the day before it started,through two channels. One was a professor at my institute at the Busi­ness School, who told me that he was going to do a presentation inNovo Nordisk about a project that was just starting. The other was adirector at Novo Nordisk that I knew well, who was going to partici­pate in the project. I contacted the person in charge, and more or lesstold him that he had to invite me to participate, which he then did. SoI literally threw myself into the project, which became base-line study1. I hoped this way to find out how project groups would normallytackle complex problems and to be a participant-observer in casesome kind of crystallization happened. This study has been describedin a paper written for the Conference of Uncertainty, Knowledge &Skill, in Limburg, Belgium, 1997, and the following will, to someextent, consist of excerpts from that paper. First a short description ofthe project (Dars0, 1997c:6):

"In May of 1997, a large trans-organizational project waslaunched by corporate management. The purpose was to ensurethat company values would be embedded in the daily handlingof issues related to social, ethical and environmental matters andthe objective was to form a proactive strategy and action plan.The scope of the project was global, as it involved the wholeorganisation, including the subsidiaries in various countries.

That made the project not only cross-organisational but alsocross-cultural. The project dealt with knowledge creation underuncertainty, complexity and change.

The project involved 30 - 35 persons from all over the organisa­tion. The decision was thus top-down, but the work consisted ofa bottom-up co-operation. A project organisation was estab­lished, consisting of a project leader, a steering group and 5working groups. The time frame was set to four months, and theproject was divided into three phases, concluding with recom­mendations and action plans to be presented for corporate man­agement."

"As the main area of interest in this study (the Ph.D.) was thepoint of departure and management of the start-up process, Iattended the first meetings of all the working groups as well asthose of the steering group. All in all, I have attended 15 meet­ings and 2 all-day workshops."(Dars0, 1997c:7)

I was happy that I had managed to get involved in the Values-In­Action project because I learned a lot about the Novo Nordisk way ofproject work - and, through that, about Novo Nordisk culture. (Thiswill be discussed at the end of the chapter.)

"All in all, in the present case study, as in most project work, thedivergent phase was mostly ignored (therefore: the dotted line),and 'the usual way' of doing project work was applied. It can beseen in the data from the meetings that these have to a very largeextent been in the area of uncertainty, e.g. lots of questions andclarifications. This is symbolised by the loops back into thedivergent phase. However, this was to some extent relieved bythe project leader as guidance was provided in the templatesgiven to the groups to be filled in." (Dars0, 1997c: 9)

237

Illustration of base-line case~study 1

I had many deliberations re­garding how to illustrate thefirst base-line study. Howcould I demonstrate that themajority of the groups skip­ped the preject phase? Andhow could I plot in a time line?I finally decided to illustrateit by starting a time line inthe middle of the figure, indi­cating that the groups startedas if it was a project, but thenevidently had to back-loopinto the preject phase in or­der to clarify things.

In the writing process Imade several models.

divergent prejeet phase

start

················.~...I

time

convergent project phase

target

)

Second clash: Don't ask if you don't have the answer!

At a meeting in the steering group (of the Values in Action project) Ihad pointed out that the term 'ethics' was problematic, as peopleunderstood it in multiple ways (without realizing it). Some thought itmight be a problem, others didn't. We rushed on to keep within thetime and the agenda. At a meeting afterwards with one from thesteering group I raised the issue again. He asked if I could provide aclarification. (I had just had a Ph.D. course in ethics and had triedto make a simple table for clarification, but had given it up as I wasvery short of time and as I generally took on only tasks that wouldgenerate data for my Ph.D.). I explained that I unfortunately did nothave the time. He got furious and shouted: Don't ever bring some­thing up in a group if you cannot provide the answer! I was literallyshocked. It was the only time anybody shouted at me in NovoNordisk. But if you come to think about it, it is a frightening remark.It demonstrates a clinging to certainty, and no curiosity or interest inuncertainties. I wondered if that was a personal attitude or if it waspart of the culture?

JlIustration of base-line case study 1A different version is fig. 5.6,indicating that the scope ofmost projects was limited.The following excerpt is fromthe conclusion: "Certainty oruncertainty, the ways of pro­ject management have notchanged. We continue withold routines without realisingthat the world around us haschanged and that conse­quently new methods areneeded."

start

divergent prejcet phase

time

COQ\'ergent project phase

Base-line case study 2

As explained above I began to cooperate with a director in Discoverythrough a climate surveylO. Later I met with him and his managementgroup, presented my project and my ideas and started to follow themeetings of two project groups. I wanted to find out what went on inthese meetings, what kind of interaction took place and how the com­munication functioned in such a group. I was also interested in theproject management style.

239

I invested a lot of time and energy in the people from that particulardepartment to establish a relationship of trust and to step in and starta new group (a case study). I even carried out one more climate sur­vey and was negotiating with the director about a new approach toteam-work aiming at getting a better use of the expertise and know­ledge in the unit. From one day to the next, however, the situationchanged when, unfortunately, due to the second re-organization ofHealth Care Discovery in December 1997, this function was split upand the director went back to work with his area of expertise. I believethat it was hard on the director and on the unit, which was function­ing well. For me it meant a lot of work, a lost opportunity, but alsosome gained experience and data.

My general impression from themeetings that I attended wasthat project meetings were rath­er formal and goal directed,scheduled beforehand with peo­ple presenting their findings.This is illustrated by the arrowsin the project area. There wasnot much spontaneity, butsometimes a great deal oflaugh­ter. The meetings included bothscientists and technicians. Inone of the groups there weretwo people who posed somesharp questions that led to aninteresting discussion, but thesetraces were not followed. Maybeit was outside scope, maybe itwas not interesting enough. Myknowledge of Diabetes was notsufficient to judge this.

PREJECT - PROJECT

Covered 'space' of base-line case study 2

Case study 3

The situation would probably have been unbearable if I had not,already then, been involved in some enterprises in Enzyme Business.During the summer of 1997 I was contacted by two people (separate­ly) regarding a workshop that was to take place in October 1997. En­zyme Business management had selected some business processes forinvestigation, and one of these was the 'From Idea to Sales' process.One of the persons who contacted me was responsible for the first partof that process and had planned a two-day session regarding 'IdeaGeneration and Evaluation'. People were joining the workshop fromUSA, China, Singapore, Paris, so I was asked if I could help him planthe session. I explained to him about some of the 'traps' that I saw insuch a session, the trap of looking for solutions before the problemhad been identified, the trap of believing to start from commonground, when the ground had not been covered, and the trap of forc­ing closure before enough data and knowledge had been generated.He could easily see my points and seemed content when I offered toplan and chair the workshop - on the conditions that I could tape allthe conversations, as it would be part of my Ph.D. study.

During the fall of 1997 I was contacted by many different peoplefrom Enzyme Business in relation to other innovative activities and Ihad several meetings regarding how to encourage innovation in En­zyme Business Research and Enzyme Development & Application.

The workshop started on a sunny October morning in Hvid0re ina room facing the sea II. People were generally kind and open towardsme, the program, and even to the video camera on the table. One per­son from a high managerial level, however, was not content. He want­ed to do 'business as usual', because it worked well, and he could seeno use for all this sophistication. Luckily I have had experience withall sorts of people, and I had decided that no matter what happened(almost!) it would always be interesting from a research point of view.On the other hand, I have also seen sessions being ruined by one verynegative person, so I was on guard. This person did not change hismind (about the usual way being the best way) throughout the work­shop, but despite that he thought it was successful.

I had told the participants from the start that this was more or lesswhat would happen. I had shown them the preject-project model andexplained that after the first day we would be close to the middle ofthe window, either on the left side or in the middle or, if we workedreally well, through the window. By the end of the first day, the groupwas (figuratively) still on the left side of the window. People did notfeel good about this confusion, which they were evidently not used to,but at the time I did not think it could be any different. The advan­tage, I thought, was that confusion urges the brain to keep on think­ing, even if we are unaware of it.

The next morning, however, about 35 minutes into the session,crystallization happened. I recall the great thrill when everybody wasbent towards each other, talking eagerly about the new concept. Theblackboard was used, concepts were outlined. It was as if everything

I had asked everybody beforehandto prepare a Success/FailureVisu­alization12 for the session andmost people had done so.Thus theopening session was positive andan open and participative climatedeveloped. In the afternoon themain task was to identify barriersagainst what the group was aboutto invent. The beginning wentfine, but towards the end of theday, some confusion roamed. A lotof barriers, ideas, stories, exam­ples, thoughts had been aired andwere still in the air (actually onflip-over papers and white boards)when we closed the session.

On the illustration the arrowsare meant to demonstrate thatboth the preject and (part of)theproject space were covered.

PREJECT - PROJECT

¢I

Q<>Qo

I

Covered 'space' of case study 3

that had been in the air from the day before fell down again right intoits place. All the data and knowledge was used, and everybody contrib­uted. This took all day, but it was a happy ending, and the evaluationof the two days and the results were positive.

Third clash: 'Our' world versus 'your' world

I met a particular attitude in the organization several times during mywork. In my research diary I wrote: "The typical Novo Nordisk per­son is extremely kind, but also very skeptical. I do not know whetherthis is a general cultural value, or whether it is because I am somehowperceived as representing Human Resources, or as coming fromCopenhagen Business School. I have heard that Human Resources isa waste of time (particularly when I arrived in 1996). I have also beenaccused many times of being too theoretical or too abstract. I try tospeak the same language, but it is perceived as being different."

A similar clash happened in the mediator group, when one of themediators and I had been assigned the task of producing a draft aboutthe mediator work for the internal newspaper 'Dialogue'. We mailedthis to the group and immediately received an answer from anothermediator that this was not meant to be an academic exercise aboutprocess, but concerned a goal-oriented project about developing thebusiness. The issue was debated at the next mediator meeting, whereclarifications, strong opinions and disagreements were aired. When thearticle came out in the internal paper (Dialogue) the description of thework process was more or less left out with focus on the results.

Case study 4

The 'flow maker'13 of another business process project contacted mebecause he had heard about the results of the above workshop. He hadexperienced a rather frustrating and unsuccessful workshop when try­ing to create a strategy for one of the five business processes that wasbeing dealt with in Enzyme Business during 1997. We had a couple of

243

This was clearly expressed by a participant in the written evaluation:

244 245

Covered 'space' of case study 5

PREJECT - PROJECT

Case study 5: Creative Problem Solving

A project group was stuck with a com­plex problem, the causes of whichthey could not identify as the processinvolved many elements that couldmutually affect each other. As I hadposed the question many times to

myself regarding what role creativitycould play in innovation I agreed towork with this group. I undertook thetask and designed a workshop, hopingthat something useful would comeout of it, both regarding some practi­cal results for the group and regardingsome data for my Ph.D.The process isillustrated by arrows in the prejectspace, as we tried to frame the prob­lem in multiple ways, and then gener­ated a lot of ideas. f

This case study was conducted to find out what could be accom­plished through creative problem-solving techniques.

Two things stand out (in my memory) from that seminar: The 'fire­wheel' exercise l4 and some political tensions between two units. I willdedicate a few explanatory words to the former. The idea was to defineand clarify the central concept by trying to identify a common core andallowing different perspectives to connect to the core. This exerciseturned out in a very positive way and became common ground for therest of the discussion. The perspectives were found to fit as strategicelements, and these were minutely examined for 'flow-stoppers' (bar­riers) and 'flow-enhancers' before creating an action plan and assign­ing action owners. Several gaps were identified in relation to activitiesthat had no action owner at the time. The results of the workshop wereconsidered satisfactory by the participants, and later by management,and actions were assigned in order to fill the identified gaps.

Covered 'space' of case study 4

PREJECT - PROJECT

"Given that none of us really felt strongly about the success ofthe seminar (except that this should be the last one), I think theattitude was positive, cooperative and dedicated."

meetings examining what went wrong in the previous workshop. Hedescribed the unsuccessful half-day workshop as one big brainstorm­ing without anybody being able to agree on anything. He and anotherperson were trying to investigate what actually happened by interview­ing some of the people involved. I suggested that the problem couldbe that the participants had completely different perceptions regard­ing the central concept. This brought about an 'AHA' experience,because the difference in perspectives was clearly seen in the inter­views. I also suggested that the amount of time (1/2 day) and people(approx. 20) had not favored a good result.

It did not take much to talk meinto planning and chairing thenext workshop. Here I had achance to try to 'redo' a beginningand find out if that would make adifference. This is illustrated bythe arrows to the left. Once thedifferent perspectives of the con­cept had been clarified, however,the rest of the workshop was spentin a more focused project space,indicated by the arrows there.

It was explained to the peopleinvited to the workshop that wewanted to do the workshop allover again, trying out a differentmethodology and approach. Still,the attitude of the participantswas not very positive at the out­set, but it changed for the better.

Unfortunately my tape recorder did not tape the conversation becaus@of some technical difficulty. I would afterwards have liked to be ableto listen to the first session, where we used some time to discuss theproblem from different angles trying not to close it or frame it too rig­orously. I do, of course, have my own notes and the group's summaryfrom the meeting.

After having worked out an open formulation of the problem, theparticipants were divided into three groups and a creative techniqueapplied I5 . This way many good ideas, tests and solutions were found 16,

classified and evaluated, which the project group could bring back andapply to solve the problem.

Case study 6: The Mediator Group

The last case study is an embedded longitudinal case study, consistingof monthly meetings during more than a year. Case study 6 had awider scope than the focus of the research and concerned the devel­opment and implementation of one particular innovative crystalliza­tion. Here the MIRP process model was applied and used as a guid­ing structure for the analysis. It was found to be constructive forunderstanding and discussing the implementation of innovation andafforded a holistic process perspective.

This case study is interesting in many ways. Firstly, it concerns theimplementation of the 'crystallizations' from case study 3. Secondly, itincludes several small sessions of trying to develop and evaluate themore 'wild' or 'off' ideas towards innovative crystallization. Thirdly, itdisplays culture, management and political issues when the groupmeets the constraints of introducing a new organizational approach.

The mediator group, a name that was developed after the work­shop of case study 3, met for the first time in April 1998. Since thenI have attended approx. 10 meetings, which have been taped. Theoriginal idea of the mediator group concerned connecting people withgood ideas to people with knowledge about the area. In order to

ensure interest and commitment from the people appointed to the

mediator task, people had to send in applications (instead of beingappointed). Out of 28 applications, seven mediators were selected,who could cover all the different lines of business and who had net­works throughout the organization. They were given 25 % of theirtime for this work, or rather they were supposed to be given 25%. Inreality only one or two people were allocated the resources. The inputto the mediators came primarily from the new Opportunity web pagethat had crystallized at the workshop (case study 3). This 'New Op­portunity Page' was launched in April 1997. The challenge was howto evaluate, develop and apply the ideas and opportunities that camestreaming in.

Another reason for following the implementation of the mediatorconcept was that it was new and had not been tried before. Andbecause I had been involved in the making, I 'caught' the beginning.At the first meeting I introduced myself, presented some of the ideasof my Ph.D. and stressed the importance of creating common groundas a point of departure.

I suggested that everybody should make a Success/Failure Visual­ization in order to create some of that common grounding. I urgedthem to discuss individual ambitions and desires, expectationsregarding how the group should work and cooperate, and visionsabout what kind of results or successes the group should aim at.Most of the participants filled in the S/F template, but there was notmuch discussion. Some participants would rather 'get started'. SinceI had decided to be mainly participant-observer and step in only if Ifound that frameworks or methods were needed, I left it to the groupto decide how to get on with the task. They decided to start work­ing and then take up principles and process along the way. Thismeant, in my interpretation, to do things the usual way: by Trial­and-Error.

247

At the time of writing l ? it is hard to tell whether the mediator groupis a success. Their work is not very visible, even though the Oppor­tunity Web Page has been described in the internal monthly papertwice, and wine have been given for the three best ideas so far. To meit looks like they have become trapped in administration, as the ideaskept coming in. The group is not given enough resources to put intoinnovation activities and have difficulties getting hold of the necessaryknowledge about market potential.

It has been interesting to follow the development from having nosystem or model for evaluating incoming ideas till the opportunity'score card' crystallized. It had to be adjusted a little when put to use,but has, since then, worked well. After the score card was developed itwas 'tested' on some 'new lead' projects from 1995. The score cardwas applied to check out which ideas would have been started if thescore card had existed then, and afterwards this was compared towhich 'new lead' projects had actually made it. Only one project thatwould have been stopped by the score card had made it, and this pro­ject was special in relation to a network connection, so in a way it didnot really count. More importantly, some new lead projects from 1995

I have tried to illustrate the processof the mediator formation and pro­gression. There is a small arrow (tothe left) indicating some work withcreating common ground, but thenmoving over to the project side. Thebacklooping circle illustrates that attimes the process was stopped andprocess matters were taken up whennecessary. The small puncturedcubes indicate new prejects in themaking and the crystallization wasthe New Opportunity Score Card.The long arrows to the right aremeant to illustrate that some ideascould be implemented right away.

PREJECT - PROJECT

<>

to Ii I~.......:~

< > .

Covered 'space' of case study 6

had occupied resources for a considerable amount of time before theywere closed, and these would not have been started, if the score card

had been in use.Another interesting session was when an idea came in through the

Web Page and a problem was formulated. In order to evaluate the ideaa specialist was invited to do a presentation on the subject. Afterwardsthe problem was reformulated with a completely different focus. Thiswas an example of framing and reframing the problem.

All in all, case study 6 has a richness and abundance of data, ofwhich only a small part has been used. I think that most researchersare afraid of not having enough data, but I also wonder whether it is

not most often the other way around.

Identifying Novo Nordisk cultural values

The last account from the study is about a session of approx. threehours, where I was involved as a 'catalyst' for a group process. It con­cerned the crystallizing of Novo Nordisk cultural values in a so­called Better Practice Group of directors from across the organiza­tion. The group had been working for some months on values andvalue based leadership and was at a point where they needed a per­son and a method for this process of (forced) crystallization. My gainwas that the process generated valuable data that could be used in

my Ph.D.I started with an introduction of Schein's model of organizational

culture l8 (artifacts, values, and assumptions), McGregor's theory Xand Y regarding human nature (control versus trust), and three typesof basic orientation (being, developing, doing). After this we did a'tracking' exercise, first looking 10 years back and then looking 10years ahead, in order to find some general trends and some specificevents, which had influenced Novo Nordisk (see table below). Theidea was, through this exercise, to anticipate in which ways the gener­al trends of the present could influence the future values of the com­pany. Looking back, it was agreed that the most significant andinfluential event for the company was the American Food & Drug Ad-

249

I have tried to illustrate the processof the mediator formation and pro­gression. There is a small arrow (tothe left) indicating some work withcreating common ground, but thenmoving over to the project side. Thebacklooping circle illustrates that attimes the process was stopped andprocess matters were taken up whennecessary. The small puncturedcubes indicate new prejects in themaking and the crystallization wasthe New Opportunity Score Card.The long arrows to the right aremeant to illustrate that some ideascould be implemented right away.

PREJECT - PROJECT

Covered 'space' of case study 6

had occupied resources for a considerable amount of time before theywere closed, and these would not have been started, if the score cardhad been in use.

Another interesting session was when an idea came in through theWeb Page and a problem was formulated. In order to evaluate the ideaa specialist was invited to do a presentation on the subject. Afterwardsthe problem was reformulated with a completely different focus. Thiswas an example of framing and reframing the problem.

All in all, case study 6 has a richness and abundance of data, ofwhich only a small part has been used. I think that most researchersare afraid of not having enough data, but I also wonder whether it isnot most often the other way around.

Identifying Novo Nordisk cultural values

At the time of writing l ? it is hard to tell whether the mediator groupis a success. Their work is not very visible, even though the Oppor­tunity Web Page has been described in the internal monthly papertwice, and wine have been given for the three best ideas so far. To meit looks like they have become trapped in administration, as the ideaskept coming in. The group is not given enough resources to put intoinnovation activities and have difficulties getting hold of the necessaryknowledge about market potential.

It has been interesting to follow the development from having nosystem or model for evaluating incoming ideas till the opportunity'score card' crystallized. It had to be adjusted a little when put to use,but has, since then, worked well. After the score card was developed itwas 'tested' on some 'new lead' projects from 1995. The score cardwas applied to check out which ideas would have been started if thescore card had existed then, and afterwards this was compared towhich 'new lead' projects had actually made it. Only one project thatwould have been stopped by the score card had made it, and this pro­ject was special in relation to a network connection, so in a way it didnot really count. More importantly, some new lead projects from 1995

The last account from the study is about a session of approx. threehours, where I was involved as a 'catalyst' for a group process. It con­cerned the crystallizing of Novo Nordisk cultural values in a so­called Better Practice Group of directors from across the organiza­tion. The group had been working for some months on values andvalue based leadership and was at a point where they needed a per­son and a method for this process of (forced) crystallization. My gainwas that the process generated valuable data that could be used inmy Ph.D.

I started with an introduction of Schein's model of organizationalculturel8 (artifacts, values, and assumptions), McGregor's theory Xand Y regarding human nature (control versus trust), and three typesof basic orientation (being, developing, doing). After this we did a'tracking' exercise, first looking 10 years back and then looking 10years ahead, in order to find some general trends and some specificevents, which had influenced Novo Nordisk (see table below). Theidea was, through this exercise, to anticipate in which ways the gener­al trends of the present could influence the future values of the com­pany. Looking back, it was agreed that the most significant andinfluential event for the company was the American Food & Drug Ad-

249

ministration inspection of 1994 of the insulin production. The Amer- .ican Food & Drug Administration found an unacceptable amount oferrors, which if not corrected immediately would mean that the USmarket could be lost. The company was in a state of chock and anarmy of consultants was called in to assist. This crisis was found tohave major impact on the change in values. The table below was madeby the Novo N ordisk managers.

Values before FDA in 1994 Values after FDA/Current values

Values before FDA in 1994 Values after FDA/Current values

anti-bureaucracy accept of bureaucracy (tapping energy, over-systematized)

each person knows how to behave control/motivation is necessary (theory X)(theoryY)

acting (free, acting person) systems make it more difficult to act. Partial paralysis/ lack ofdecisions. Can we act, or do we not dare to? Empowerment isnot only delegation. Management must set frames and addclarity for the empowered group

improvise/be creative/ have courage internal stakeholders are sworn in. CMA (cover my ass)attitude. Less risk willingness

flexibility: the orientation of the flexibility demanded by the organization (external to theindividual individual) a readiness for change - internally or externally

forced?

ambitious, professional ambitious, business-oriented and professional. Novo Nordiskwants to be best, but are we, do we really try?

respect for the individual the individual can be replaced (succession planning)

'family' (connectedness) - both lack of ceremoniespositive and negative value

automatic salary increase, based on performance evaluation, job classes, bonuseducation and seniority

trust in people - not systems more trust in systems (theory X)

no measuring/directing directing/measuring everything incl. people; links to salarysystem

freedom encapsulated in rules, freedom within boundaries

conflict avoidance (links to respect for continued conflict avoidancethe individual)

unorganized anarchy necessary managing. Organized anarchy (people do not doquite as they like). Future organization: Systematizednerworks?

25°

The crisis forced Novo Nordisk to change values from the values of a'professional' organization ('we know best', 'we do not need anyprocedures', 'we can improvise and make anything happen') towardsthe values of a 'machine' organization, building on systems, proced­ures, rules, control, and measurement (Mintzberg, 1989). At the sametime there was a shift from values of 'theoryY' to values of 'theory X',from total freedom and respect for the individual to freedom withinboundaries and seeing the individual as an economical resource oreven expense that could be controlled and measured.

Regarding the question of which trends the group foresaw as going toinfluence the development of future values, the following were men­tioned: acquisitions/mergers, satellites, partnerships, globalisation/Internet/changed doctor-patient relation, experience/perceived value(the Diabetes Care concept), decreasing prices on drugs (local author­ities), individualization.

Regarding the desired future for Novo Nordisk, the group built its visionon the following trends: Satellites (partnerships, niches, specialistareas), environments that enhance cultural diversity and people whocan manage it, innovative products, encouraging difference, individu­alization. Individualization was not understood as putting the individ­ual above the group, but rather as individual development as part ofthe whole.

Out of all the listed values the group selected the values that they feltwere essential for the organization to remain a market leader and achallenging place to work. These were:1) ambitions2) flexibility/readiness to change3) cross-disciplinary cooperation with respect, trust and skilled com­

munication4) freedom, safety, power to act, risk willingness, creativity, and Im­

provisation.

Of these values, the first two have influenced the organization formany years and still do. Flexibility had, however, changed from being

251

an internal capability towards being something that was demandedexternally. The last category of values (4) had been part of the priororganization, but had been lost in the recent machine bureaucracy.These values were needed and should be reinvented in order for theorganization to have creative power for action and for learning. Thethird category was partly new and was added because cross-discipli­nary cooperation would be essential in the future for managing cul­tural diversity, creating innovative products and working in satellitesand with partnerships.

Analysis of Novo Nordisk culture

Summarizing the data from the two base-line studies and the cultureworkshop Novo Nordisk's culture can best be understood as a 'pro­fessional' configuration that has been forced into a 'machine' form bynecessity (the American Food & Drug Administration crisis). Accord­ing to Mintzberg (1989) a professional organization is characterizedby autonomy, proficiency and ambition along with arrogance and ananarchistic attitude. The 'machine' configuration or bureaucracy is,however, prevalent in all the systems, evaluation boards, Key Perform­ance Indicators, measurements, Standard Operating Procedures, con­trols, etc. The result is an aversion to or fatigue in the face of newsystems, no matter whether these are good or bad.

According to Mintzberg, the machine form is most apt for a stableenvironment, which is hardly the case in the pharmaceutical industryor in industrial enzymes. The environment is more one of uncertain­ty, ambiguity and flux. Together with all the internal changes of thelast few years resulting in a large amount of reorganizations and insome necessary downsizing, this has made many employees insecureand has made them cling to old routines and not want change orinnovation. People prefer to work with what is known and certaininstead of inquiring into new areas and experimenting with risk anduncertainty. This attitude was seen in both base-line studies, but mostapparent in the Values in Action project, which concerned the creationof new knowledge. Putnam (1986: 181) mentions the concept 'trained

incapacity', which concerns the well-known psychological feature offalling back on past work habits when experiencing conflict or whenexposed to a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. A quote fromcase study 3 compares 'before', where you could make mistakes if youcould explain how and why, with 'now':

"N0, no, no we didn't need to go and argue for it, as long as yourargument holds, but that means that you can go out and make amistake and say I did it because of that and that and that, and thearguments were logical and you showed that you had actuallythought it through ... then you don't get blamed for making amistake. Now most people tend to argue before they even do it inorder to get permission. People are more scared, more insecure"

As in most middle-sized and large organizations, this means that manyforces are at play and many tensions exist. Forces of cooperation ver­sus forces of competition, individualistic forces versus collectiveendeavors. These forces become apparent in the organization throughnetworks. Novo Nordisk is a network-based organization ("you can'tsurvive without them"). The legitimate networks consist of projectgroups, boards and committees, and task forces who have mandates tocarry out. But underneath is a large informal 'shadow network'(Stacey, 1996) of cooperation and competition, of alliances and pol­itics. At times novel ideas or approaches emerge from the shadow net­works and become part of the legitimate networks, as described byStacey. At times, people are maneuvered in or out of positions throughalliances and politics. After the demerger was announced (in 1999),negotiations and alliances were formed in the 'shadow networks', eventhough the official message was not to negotiate and that everyonewould have jobs after the demerger. This is not said to criticize NovoNordisk. Politics appears to be (an inevitable) part of large organiza­tions.

Thus, there is no uniform picture of the Novo Nordisk culture, buta dynamic mosaic of interacting forces. The main impression is thatthe company is more in the mode of 'doing things right' (efficiency) ­than doing the 'right things' (effectiveness). Often when people sumup their percentages of allocation on different projects, the total adds

253

,ill a hundred percent, which means that they will need,a time if they are to fulfil their tasks. This does not leave

,ce for creativity, experimentation and innovation. 19

.l'eneral work practice

Regarding a general work practice there are some differences regard­ing professional subcultures that can most easily be seen as a differ­ence between Health Care and Enzyme Business. The organization isa dynamic mosaic of subcultures: The academic subculture is charac­terized by 'competitive debates' and competitive attitudes of hoardingknowledge or ideas in order to get credit for it (publish or take pat­ents). The Engineering culture is very result oriented and technologyfixated, and prefers 'solution cycles' (i.e. finding solutions before ana­lyzing the problem), sometimes resulting in Type III errors: solving thewrong problem (Mitroff & Featheringham, 1974).

I have asked many people if there is a difference between HealthCare and Enzyme Business, and all have confirmed that this is so. Incase study 3, the following was said: "There is a big difference betweenHealth Care and Enzymes, because in enzymes it is the results thatcount no matter how you got them. In Health Care you have to followthe rules and do such and such, so it matters how you get the results."This difference could be related to the difference in product develop­ment time. Enzyme Business has a development cycle of 3-5 years,whereas pharmaceutical cycles take 10-12 years. People working inEnzyme Business are generally said to be more informal, more open,more market oriented (though far from enough), whereas peopleworking in Health Care are generally more reserved, formal and notmarket oriented. There are more engineers in Enzyme Business andmore academics (e.g. medical doctors) in Health Care.

One of the participants from case study 3 expressed the differencethis way:

"At the University you learn how to go by the rules, this is a typ­ical example of a Ph.D. thing ... but this is not the way of realwork, you go for the solution and afterwards you define things."

254

The Ph.D. thing was, of course, aimed at me, but the solution cyclewas probably a rather accurate way of describing the general practiceof Enzyme Business in particular. But if judging from the base-linestudies, which involved people from all over the organization, thedescription illustrated the work practice of the Novo Nordisk organ­ization in general. Fear of failure, lack of experimentation and bureau­cracy are stifling for innovative activities, aspects which have beendescribed in the case studies, in informal discussions and in 10 inter­nal reports20 on innovation. With the demerger, however, both HealthCare and Enzyme Business have announced that more focus andeffort will be aimed at innovation. The findings and recommendationsin this book point out new ways and directions.

Innovation Coach

From October 1999 to December 2000 I worked as innovation coachin Enzyme Business. Since I started many people have asked me whatit means to be an innovation coach. Coaching is a new supportiveleadership style. A coach asks questions that make people reflect ontheir work, on their attitudes and on the interaction that goes on in theorganization. As innovation coach, my job was basically to initiate andsupport innovation - and in particular projects related to new business

development.At first I became part of an international group working with the

New Idea Database and the mediator set-up that had been movedfrom Research & Development to Enzyme Business Operations. Atthat time most ideas came from Research & Development in Head­quarters, Denmark. Together we developed a pre-screening facility forthe ideas that came into the idea database: a 'Quick and Creative Op­portunity Assessment' .The purpose was to make a quick and intensiveevaluation of the ideas and find the key issues that had to be investi­gated before allocating resources for further examination. We invitedscientists from all over the organization to take part in these sessions,and worked in parallel in mixed teams for two days in a row. At the endof the second day we all met with a team of managers to share our

255

results and to give recommendations for each idea - whether it shouldbe trashed or continued. These sessions were good in several respects.A lot of work was achieved in a short time. The participants were intro­duced to new methods and tools for idea generation and idea evalua­tion. The energy was high because we worked in parallel, and goodnetworks were created between marketing people and researchers.

Enzyme Business has subsidiaries on all the major continents, and itbecame evident that, if new business were to develop according to thestrategies and goals, a better understanding of the necessity for newproduct development and stronger links to the subsidiaries wereneeded. Consequently in 2000 we arranged creativity and innovationsessions in North and South America, Europe, and in the Far EastGapan, China and Malaysia). Before travelling, however, I developeda 'Creativity and Innovation Toolbox' to bring as a hand-out. This wasa small manual with methods, frameworks and tools based on thefindings from my research (chapter 9).

Each session was developed according to the specific needs of theregions, and in each country we worked on their own concrete localideas. It was illuminating to work with people in their proper sur­roundings and to learn about their problems and desires. I learnt a lotabout how people in the subsidiaries saw the Danish 'Headquarters',and what made them want to work for Novo Nordisk. The workshopparticipants also learnt a lot and were satisfied with the toolbox andwith the concrete results they had achieved, which they continued towork on. There were, of course, some interesting cultural differences,e.g. in relation to how free and wild people would get during idea gen­eration, but all the methods worked and people generally found thesessions worthwhile and constructive.

As innovation coach I also planned and conducted the 'InnovationCafes' with a partner I had met earlier from Research & Development.The idea emerged from my literature studies on creativity and innova­tion, where I had seen examples of innovation happening as a result ofcrossing professions, technologies and sectors that would normallynot be linked in any way. I thought that organizations needed provo­cation from different and preferably totally 'irrelevant' industriesbecause this could spark or inspire novel combinations.

256

We presented the idea for top management who agreed that itwould be worth trying and each manager agreed to host an InnovationCafe. The first Cafe was with a very experienced producer of children'stelevision. His story was a tale about how he had had to innovate inorder to produce an entire month of children's television - on a lowbudget and with a mixed group of staff that was too small. He illustrat­ed his story with vivid video clips from the takes. Afterwards we hadCafe discussions sitting around tables using some creativity methodsfor idea generation and development. A lot of interesting conversationstook place, ideas were generated, and new relations were formed. Inmy opinion it was an important innovation culture-building event.

We continued with three other Innovation Cafes. The next was onthe theme 'a swinging organization' and here we had a 9-person swingband entertain us about management, teamwork and cross-organiza­tional cooperation. All of this was illustrated by the musicians and itwas a hilarious and energetic session, where everybody was snappingtheir fingers to the music.

The third was on storytelling. Here we were told an Irish legend,which we interpreted and related to our own organization. We got intosome very deep conversations about innovation and what values areneeded for an organization to be innovative.

The fourth was on entrepreneurship. Here we had invited the CEOfrom a very successful entrepreneurial company. We discussed thequalities of entrepreneurship and the special talents, energy and per­severance it takes to work with high stakes and high risk.

Each Innovation Cafe was special and distinct from the others.They all, however, contributed to the creation of an innovation cultureand stimulated a continuous focus on innovation and entrepreneur­ship. The evaluation from the participants after four Cafes was that In­novation Cafes were worthwhile and should be continued.

On November 14, 2000, the planned demerger took place. Thiswas the start of a new Novo Nordisk NS and Novozymes NS. Ienjoyed being part of the celebrations and felt that the circle had beenconcluded. It was the right time for me to pass on to new challenges

in a new job.

257

Concluding remarks

This chapter was based on experience from praxis with stories of whathappened and how it felt. It included some of the difficulties, problems,struggles, deliberations and cultural clashes that are inevitable in real­life situations where things do not always proceed as planned. We pro­vided the flesh and bone of the case studies and brought them to life.

A workshop on cultural values provided valuable insight into the cul­ture and the general work practice of the organization. The analysisdid not result in a homogeneous picture, but rather in a heterogeneousmultifaceted picture of forces pulling in different directions. Stacey's(1996) concepts of 'legitimate' and 'shadow' networks provided a re­alistic picture of Novo N ordisk, including both mechanistic and an­archistic features. The general work practice involved 'academic' aswell as 'engineering' subcultures, and demonstrated a very result­oriented approach to problems, which is alarming if it results in solv­ing the wrong problem.

I will conclude the chapter and narrative with a brief reflection onfieldwork. Before I started on my fieldwork, one of my professors said:"Remember that you are delivered to the field on its terms".21 It madesense to me then, but in retrospect this sentence reflects the essenceof my fieldwork.

Mter this narrative we move on to analysis. In the next chapters (6 and7) we will develop construct validity and start pattern matching andanalysis

Notes1 Quotation from an overhead from a Ph.D. course at the Institute of Manage­

ment, Politics and Philospphy, Copenhagen Business School, in Oct. 19972 Ugebrevet Mandag Morgen, 20.02.95: 'Globale koncerner vii bruge dansk

iva:rksa:ttermodel' (Global companies want to apply Danish Entrepreneurialmodel)

3 An Industrial Ph.D. is a co-operation between an organization and a univer­sitylbusiness school, partly sponsored by ATV (the Academy of the TechnichalSciences)

4 Kubus, as described in Herlau, 1995, see also in chapter 7: Developing con­struct validity

5 E.g. from written evaluation: "It focuses and speeds up the difficult job ofevaluating new research efforts and it facilitates greatly the interactive-infor­mation gathering process needed"

6 E.g. from written evaluation: "It may seem somewhat rigid"7 E.g. the Success/Failure Visualization (see Appendix C) and the Barrier exer­

cise (see chapter 9)8 Argyris & Schon, 19969 From 010998 to 011099 776 organizational changes were registered in Novo

Nordisk (i.e. change of structure, or name of unit/area, or managementchange)

10 From 1996 climate surveys were obligatory.11 Hvid0fe used to be a diabetes hospital, but is presently used as an internation­

al course mansion and small hotel, owned by the company. The reader mayrecognize the setting from the beginning of this book. The story from chapter1 builds on data from case study 3.

12 See Appendix C13 People responsible for the five business process projects started by Ensyme

Business management were called flow makers, probably in order to indicatethe cross-organizational aspect of these processes.

14 See Appendix D15 A technique called 'Analogue with Nature', which I had picked up at a course

in creativity in Brussels, 199616 Of the many ideas 16 were considered feasible and original17 This was written in February 1999. It is a good example of things in a state

of openness. Six months later things looked different - and better. The medi­ator group was merged with the New Business Unit from Enzyme BusinessMarketing and Sales, and thereby got the market information and theresources they needed.

18 Schein (1994:121-138)19 Data from 10 CIMI (Copenhagen International Management Institute)

reports on Entrepreneurial behavior in Novo Nordisk, 199720 Data from 10 CIMI (Copenhagen International Management Institute)

reports on Entrepreneurial behavior in Novo Nordisk, 199721 Erik Maaloe said this on a Ph.D. course in Oct. 1997: "Man er udleveret til

feltet pa dets betingelser"

259