Maximizing the results of federally-funded research and development through knowledge management: A strategic imperative for improving U.S. competitiveness

Maximizing the Results of Federally-funded Research and Development through Knowledge Management: A Strategic Imperative for Improving U.S. Competitiveness

Thomas E. Pinelii* Rebecca 0. Barclay

Federally-funded investment

research

and development

(approximately

$79 billion

Based on the results of a IO-year industry,

the authors

knowledge technology R&D.

policy

In making

based definition knowledge

policy

affect

for diffusing

advantage

technology of

the

they propose

for diffusing

within

results

annual

of

associated

“the

learning

as talc

approaches

U.S. public policy the

of a dissemination R&D.

To

need

for

model-

address

management

The article

with implementing

to

organization.”

creation.

of a knowledge

the results of federally-funded

it

U.S.

of knowledge

in existing

knowledge

federally-funded

R&D.

aerospace

be enhanced

Next. they offer a practice-

and discuss three current

and the prevalence

the development

will

the results of federally-funded

three weaknesses

of

in the U.S.

a capability-enhancing

global economy.

dominance

the results of federally-funded

of some issues and challenges framework

diffusion

to diffusing

management

policy.

a significant

competitiveness

stress the importance

in today’s

The authors then examine

diffusion

represents

implementation-mechanistic,

implementation-the

shortcomings,

employed

are applied

of knowledge

diffusion-oriented that

that U.S.

case, the authors

management

and systemic. and

strategies,

framework. their

source of competitive

study of knowledge

take the position

management

(R&D)

in fiscal year 1996) on the part of U.S. taxpayers.

these

framework

closes with a discussion

a knowledge

R&D.

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 15, Number 2, pages 157-172. Copyright 0 1998 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X

management

I i8

C;OVEKNMENT

INFOKMATION

QUAKTEKLY

Vol. I iNo.

L!lW8

Economists. management theorists, and business strategists alike recognize knowledge ax single most important resource in today’s global economy. Information and knowledge have replaced financial capital as the main producers of wealth. A new “information capitalism” now dominates the world economy; industries that have moved into the center of the economy in the last 40 years have as their business the production and distribution of knowledge and information.’ Knowledge yucl capital represents a new and vital factor that must be added to the three factors of production-land, labor, and financial capitaltraditionally studied by economists.’ However, knowledge 4~4~4 capital. or production asset. defies easy definition: therefore, existing economic theories cannot be applied to explain its behavior.’ Schmookler’ points out that knowledge may be valued for its own sake. as a “public good.” or for its application, through which it becomes a “private” or “capital good.” Theorists posit a positive relationship between knowledge accumulation/utilization and economic growth.’ To develop a theory of the economics of knowledge. Romer.” Schwartz.’ Scott.X and others have begun to investigate the economic behavior of knowledge and its role in innovation. The inrernational business community has come to view knowledge. particularly specialized knowledge. as an essential ingredient for competitive success.” Management theorists expect improvements in knowledge-based work to contribute significantly to industrial growth and gains in productivity in the United States and abroad. Furthermore. they anticipate that “[mjore of an organization’s core competencies will center around managing knowledge and knowledge workers. ““’ Thus, effectively managing the creation. transfer. and use of knowledge resources is becoming a critical factor for the survival and success of organizations and societies alike.’ ’ Firms in such diverse industries as chemicals. pharmaceuticals. financial services. and telecommunications already considel the strategic management of knowledge-the “intellectual assets” of an organization”-a key corporate activity and have implemented knowledge management programs. These programs emphasize the critical nature of knowledge as a competitive asset and seek to maximize the ability of an organization to integrate and use various kinds of knowledge. Many firms have appointed individuals at the executive level to manage and direct the utilization of the organization’s intellectual assets. These individuals are known by a variety of titles-chief knowledge officer (CKO). chief learning officer (CLO), director of intellectual capital. and other labels that describe the scope and direction of an organization‘s knowledge management initiatives. 13 The federal government is perhaps the single largest investor in knowledge production in the United States, having spent approximately $79 billion on research and development (R&D) in fiscal year 1996. With knowledge considered the single most important inno\.ation. international contributor to technological economic growth. and annual competitiveness. is the United States reapin g the benefits of its significant in\,estment in knowledge creation’? The results of our IO-year investigation of the diffusion of federally-funded knowledge to the U.S. aerospace industry suggest not.” We believe that the return on investment in knowledge production can be improved if U.S. policymakers recognize the value of knowledge as a competitive resource in today’s global technology policy with a economy. and replace or modify existing mission-oriented diffusion-oriented, capability-enhancing technology policy, and if the federal government adopts a system and methods for effectively and strategically managing knowledge. thr

Mdx,miz,ng Federally-funded

KNOWLEDGE

159

R&D

MANAGEMENT-AN

OPERATIONAL

DEFINITION

Recognition of the importance of knowledge as an asset and a source of competitive advantage is driving organizations to find ways of optimizing and managing this resource. Under the general rubric of “knowledge management,” organizations in the private and public sectors have begun exploring methods for creating and deriving value from existing explicit and tacit organizational knowledge resources. Although there is no single, agreedupon approach to the practice. knowledge management, in general, encompasses a variety of strategies, methods, and technologies for leveraging the intellectual capital and knowhow of organizations for competitive advantage. In brief, the practices associated with knowledge management include identifying and mapping both the tacit (unarticulated and informal) and explicit (articulated and formal) knowledge of organizations; importing potentially useful knowledge from the external environment; making relevant knowledge available to users in forms that best meet their knowledge requirements; winnowing and filtering out unnecessary or irrelevant information; creating new knowledge that can provide competitive advantage; sharing the best methods and practices for completing knowledge-based work; and applying strategies, techniques, and tools that support the foregoing activities.15 Three approaches to knowledge management-a mechanistic focus, “the learning organization,” and a systemic focus-currently dominate. The first, a mechanistic approach, relies almost exclusively on information technology for managing explicit knowledge. Tools like computerized knowledge bases and internal and external (technology-based) networks that enable the use of e-mail and groupware applications figure prominently in improving access to knowledge within an organization. Closely related to a dissemination model, this approach assumes that increased availability and access will improve the use of organizational knowledge resources. This approach largely ignores tacit knowledge. A second approach, which has roots in process reengineering and change management, deals with managing knowledge from the perspective of altering organizational culture and behavior. The “learning organization” approach, derived from the systems-theory work of Senge,16 attempts to change rigidified and frequently dysfunctional behaviors and cultures that may result in knowledge hoarding. A “peopleoriented’ approach, it stresses collaboration and the sharing of knowledge through what Badaracco” terms developing “knowledge links.” A learning organization encourages creative approaches to problem-solving; computer and information technology play only a secondary role in managing existing explicit knowledge. A third, systemic approach draws on theories and practices from a variety of disciplines (e.g., library and information science, organization science, and computer-supported collaborative work) and technologies (e.g., decision support systems, relational and object databases, and semantic networks) to examine the nature of knowledge-based work and model, elucidate, and manage both explicit and tacit knowledge resources. This approach acknowledges the importance of cultural and behavioral factors while seeking to maximize the value of internal (explicit and tacit) knowledge resources through the application of computer and information technology. The systemic approach also has a “competitive intelligence” element in that it recognizes the value of and seeks out the best sources of external knowledge. l8

Because

the practices

of disciplines, Regardless

of

kno\vledge

the

approach

to maximize

cull for making tacit

associated

taken.

knowledge.

and fostering

knowledge

and inventory

diffused technology

who

with

intern;tl

objectives

knowledge

through

lli~In~~~]~ieiit

and services.“‘The

(2) compiling

an organi~ationul

and knowledge-sharing

culture

activities

that supports

is fundamental

alidate.

hrlowlcdge that

of computer

use

;I

and transforming

that recons\truct.

(3) diffusing

wi\e

both

( I ) creating

include

assets. ii~~l~(~i-tiil~ external

methods

of knowledge:

forms

of knowledge

assets of an organiration.

knowledge:

new

in a variety

i~~~ln~~eilic~~t is to leverage

the intellectual The

roots

has yet to emerge.

can put it to use; and (4) applyin, G knowledge

to products

coupled

knowledge

result\.“’

of

have their

management

The objectives

and re-ube

and explicit

and teams

to add value

creating

the creation

tacit

of

and capturing

for application

both

i~~di~idu~~s

between business

base by identifying

existing

goal

the

knowledge

of knowledge

advantage.

connection

and positive

managing

theory

competitive

a direct

and explicit,

knowledge

with

an all-encompassing

among berms

ha

and information

and reu ards knowledge-

for mcoting

these ob.jccti\a.

KNOWLEDGE, U.S. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, AND COMPETITIVENESS The U.S. government technological past

SO years.

tcchnolopy)

policy

research

would

yield

Critics

process

new

of

find

technology

importance

and the process

In the immediate of

security

former

enemies

counter

the threat

routinely

alike

in

technology-related U.S.

effort

transfer

little

of

to

seek

oovernments. as part of their domestic 2 regarded U.S. technology a condition national

security

and

particularly

to nations

term.

policies

Europe

these

and Japan

foreign that proved

and

policies served

Liltim~~tely

Vannevar

would

simply

mo1.e

and

science

the

scientific

from

of

the

R&D

(3)

to

innovation view

creation

and

the (and

Stkm~t~,

Bush‘s

( I ) it takes an Liiire~listic

~;IUK\

over

science

of ha\ic

view

;I “pipeline”

mudrl: it

II period,

science

and technology

foreign

policies.

focused

on rebuilding

As

art

During

of the

of

(new)

it ignore<

elemettt

of

and

Because

defense carisen

was

free

market

War

the

strategic era.

dominated

the transfer

and atwJ

the United

to “friendly”

needs

lJ.S.

of allies

democracies

these policie\. technology

to

became

the Cold

the economic<

succrssf~~l

knowledge

States nation\

science

and

and LIW of knowledge

purposes. investment

opportunities

economic of

foreign

actively

as a buffer

succecsful

IJ.S.

knowledge.

rrttention

commercial

began

that

to establish

reconstruction,

fbr civilian firms

and

expansion.

policies.

and technology As

811

the

economic

War

policie\

of Soviet

encouraged

engaged

of diffusing

security

in

dominates

from

and rate of

ha\,e shifted

the use of existin, ~7 knowledge;

and

and foreign

that

derives

takes

this (3)

the direction

and emphasis

to mean that the \;upport

model in

fiawh

p[)st-W~~rld

national

model

idea

this

innovation:

o\‘er

national

technological

several

knowledge

components

The

was interpreted

In effect.

technological

focus

(7 the model

underlyin,

which

role in determining

the policy

htt\,e not changed.

products.

process.13

important

Although

the assumptions

t/w Emllcss Ftmtirr.‘z commercial

art

has played

innovation.”

policies.

abroad,

made

in~/estinent.

encouraged against

in \z innin, *T the Cold

In many

War.

expansion.

the economies However.

with

foreign of highly

instances.

and promoted

communist

in helpin, ~7 to rebuild

many

the transfer

such

U.S.

transfers,

In the short of post-war the collapse

ot

bhxrmuing

161

federally-funded R&D

the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States found itself engaged in a different kind of conflict-a global economic one that is, at least in large part, an unintended consequence of the success of Cold War era security and foreign policies. In helping to rebuild the economic and technological infrastructures of allies and former enemies through the deliberate transfer of knowledge and technology, the United States has enabled these nations to become economic competitors on an equal footing with the United States in several industriesZ4 The International

Competitive

Landscape

The economic strength of the United States relative to the rest of the world has changed dramatically in the past 45 years. In 1950. the United States contributed nearly 40% of the developed world’s gross domestic product (GDP); by 1994, the United States contribution had fallen to just over 24% of the world’s GDP.‘” With respect to R&D, the shift is even greater. In 1950, the United States conducted more than twice as much R&D as the rest of the world; by 1994, the rest of the world was conducting almost twice as much R&D as the following World War II, most of the United States.16 In the 2.5 years immediately significant technological developments occurred in U.S research establishments and laboratories. Since 1970, the balance has shifted considerably, with the result that knowledge and technology created outside the United States are increasingly important to the growth and competitiveness of U.S. industry. Other nations have developed sophisticated technical infrastructures, alliances, and partnerships that enable them to use the results of domestic and foreign R&D. A number of foreign nations now have the capability for rapid commercialization of new and emerging knowledge and technology and “prosper in an environment of shorter product, process, and service life cycles.“” U.S. technological superiority during the immediate post-World War II era was gradually replaced during the 1970s and 1980s by a dominant triad composed of the United States. Europe, and Japan. The triad is now giving way to a global economy that includes a range of rapidly industrializing nations that offer potentially powerful economic competition as well as markets for U.S.-developed products and services. Many economic rivals consider knowledge and technology the weapons of choice in a global economic war.” Other nations, particularly those of Western Europe and Japan, now enjoy technological parity with the United States and have become highly competitive rivals. Given the development of such competition, the emergence of a global economy, and the importance of knowledge and technology as key economic drivers, the United States needs to reevaluate its science and technology policies as they affect innovation and economic competitiveness. Since 1945, U.S. science and technology policies have focused on basic research as the primary vehicle for stimulating innovation, 29 with science policy emphasizing university-conducted research performed without thought of practical ends, and technology policy focusing on Department of Defense “mission-oriented.” dual-use, spin-off applications. These policies reflect the dominant political-social view that (I) the route to successful innovation is through basic research, (2) the knowledge necessary for successful innovation comes from basic research, (3) technology is little more than applied science, and (4) apart from basic research, the remaining components of product and process innovation (e.g., design, development, and production) are not the purview of government and. therefore, should be left to the private sector. Increasingly, the importance

(i( )VEKNMENT

I f,L

of the

linkage

innovation

between

has come

the

of a linkage.

Study

the

of incremental

product

breakthrough

points

results

Critics

out. “some

pre-existing ignoring

the

misdirected

successful

innovation

from

inappropriate

U.S.

From focused

for a nation

assumes

a myth.”

that basic

As Kealeyjj

development

as biomedicine

technology

stru ggling

many

of

we do not advocate

fields

and

that

and

policies

to maintain

seems

its ability

to

economy.

of Knowledge

the end

of World

War

leader

in science

and technology-until

on creating

in such

science

is frequently

rather than basic

which

Although

commercial the existence

and

from the industrial

science.”

(particularly

of current

model,

is essentially

arises

academic

The Dominance

undisputed

technologies3”

or trial and error learning.

development,

research

focus

and simply in the global

in existing

of new technology

of basic the

and

that economically

agree that the linear research

90 percent

research

to question

leads to product

value

by basic

Vol. 1 S;‘No. L/l W8

have begun

stem from invention

technology-not

pharmaceuticals),

generated

IN QUAKTEKLY

In fact. critics

improvements

generally

automatically

compete

indicate

innovations

research.j’ research

knowledge

under challenge.

INFOKMATI(

knowledge

II-when

the linited

as a source

Creation States

emerged

the early

of military

1980s.

advantage

as the world’s

U.S. public and a hedge

policy against

uncertainty? Conventional wisdom held that the United States would continue to lead the world in major discoveries. inventions, and innovations. The prevailing philosophy underlying

the “product-cycle

States would always innovation effort

is complicated,

required

development

across-the-board innovative policy

and the generation

continues

to

process

and

that meet genuine

consumer

needs.“37

Federal

superiority.

results.

rarely

has direct

foundation

is an inherently

resources products.

crovernment

has

because “patient.

moderately

and technology

outcomes

at least in the sense --3x and does not

for competitiveness.

uncertain

undertaking

coupled with knowledge processes. and services.

at two basic levels.

de\,elop

science

New knowledge,

bearin g on conipetiti1.e

The Need for Diffusion-Oriented Innovation

to

innovation

knowledge comes from

of

of the

X/~/MYCY/,~P cwtrtior~, which cannot. in and of itself, ensure depends hea\,ily on existing As Alit points out. “inno\,ation

often more so than on new knowledge

financial existing

success

processes

knowledge.

an adequate

in which

product

the process

only S-10%

technological

than wlith usin, ~7existing

of research provide

represents

Furthermore,

in the United

However.

impro\,e

to emphasize

U.S. technological

innovation

imitators.35

of knowledge

a new product.j6 new knowledge

is an incremental

efforts

products

was that technological

a step ahead of would-be

to introduce

less to do with generating product

theory”

remain

Technology that invol\.es

and technology As a system.

The first relates

to harnessing

Policy the use of human

and

to create new or improve innovation interacts with knowledge

and technology

For public purposes. The second arises from the reliance of innovation on social context: that is, education and training to create a skilled workforce: a legal framework for defining and enforcing intellectual property rights. laws and regulations conducive to innovation as an essential engine of growth: and a \,ariety of public policies that support the production, U.S. technology policy is considered transfer. and use of knowledge and technology.‘”

“mission-oriented” because it focuses on radical innovation to achieve clearly established goals (e.g., military) of national importance. Ergas states that “the provision of innovatedrelated public goods is only a secondary concern of U.S. technology policy.” In contrast, as Germany, “diffusion-oriented” technology policy, utilized by such countries Switzerland, Sweden. and, to a great extent. Japan, is bound up in the provision of public goods. and “has as its principal purpose the diffusion of technological capabilities throughout the industrial structure, and facilitates the ongoing and mainly incremental adaptation to change.“‘” With its emphasis on mission-oriented R&D, current U.S. science and technology policy emphasizes the supply or the creation of knowledge rather than its transfer and use. Mission-oriented science and technology policy may have been effective when the United States enjoyed undisputed economic hegemony, but it may not be advantageous in today’s environment in which U.S. firms are challenged by foreign competitors in some fields, and are struggling to regain their former positions in others.“’ Indeed. Branscomb”’ posits that the U.S. loss of competitiveness in various industries and technologies has rendered obsolete many of the assumptions that drive existing U.S. science and technology policy. According to Branscomb.43 the U.S. needs a diffusion-oriented or capability-enhancing technology policy that includes, among other things, managing the transfer and use of knowledge and technology. Alic4” notes that the process of diffusion, which results in individuals and organizations learning from each other and thereby extending knowledge. is less effective in the United States than in countries like Japan that have diffusionoriented science and technology policies. Although federal policy touches on many of the elements required for successful innov!ation (e.g., availability of capital. antitrust regulations, and intellectual property protection), the diffusion of existing knowledge “has yet to be invited to the technology policy ball.““” The Prevailing

Dissemination

Model

The dissemination model recognizes that the results of federally-funded R&D will not necessarily be sought after, the supply (production) of data, information, and knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its utilization, and intervention at the producer level is required to provide potential users with the access linkages. (Linkage mechanisms include various information products and services. as well as intermediaries.) This onr-n’cry. producrr-to~c.srrapproach assumes that these linkage mechanisms, in and of themselves, are sufficient to ensure that the results of federally-funded science and technology will be utilized because they provide opportunities for users to determine what knowledge is available, acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that transfer and use (in addition to production) are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that the one-way, producer-to-user approach is passive in that users are considered only when they interact with or contact the system for assistance. The existing federal system is based on a dissemination model and employs one-way, producer-to-user procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements and behaviors are not known or considered in the design of linkage mechanisms. This model does not take into account the process of technological innovation at the level of the firm, nor does it acknowledge that small, medium, and large firms interact differently with the external environment. Lastly, this model fails to

(X JVEKNMENT

1 f,-l

recognize research

that

the

willingness

and

results vary from industry

Effective

knowledge

Ik’F( JKMATk

ability

of

firms

transfer

is hindered

research

to the user. *“” The system for disseminating

from agency

to agency

between

agencies

moct important, and technical

designed

because

or systematically

fragmented.

and have changed

(i.e..

legislati\.e

they

undertaken

without

activities.

interviewed

with [knowledge] of what

has been

activities

designed

about

federal

to transferring

how agencies

Quint.

knowledge

the results

“has

interpret

and Johnson

reflect their

found

activities

apcncies

vary

differences

missions,

~fte~h~u~hts, concerns

and use;” therefore.

has not heen

of fed~~~~~~ly-fu~~~iedR&D

and,

scientific

that tnany of the

were

whose primary

transfer

diffttsion

no

R&D

knowledge

In their study of federal

that ‘.di~s~~niI~~ti~ll by federal

government

over time. They

and not with knowledge

to transfer

produced

the results of federally-funded

si~ni~c~~~tly

Bikson.

serious commitment

learned

extramurally

the results of feder~tty-fullde~i

Approaches

and constraints.

believed

production

the

to transferring

mandates).

opportunities

information

ilidi~idLl~ts

approach

and unfocused.“47

budgetary

to absorb

Vol. 1 ‘,/No. L:‘l’J’Jti

to industry.

coherent

ia “passive,

)N ()UAKTEKLY

were “much

incorporated from

into

producers

to

u\erk.“3X By and large. the programs results

innovation

R&D

and in transferring

programs

are the “highest

to few documented only

undertaken

of government-funded

after

the

been

technology.“’

in frequency

successe\:”

research

by the federal

have

According

and expense

furthermore,

results

have

of the innovation

procesx.

Ro\enberg53

conclude

that successful

technological

ofdata.

information.

and an informal

contacts.

the

and

information from

formal

evidence

supports the claim

research

in his or her area(s) and scientists

knowledge

to know

becoming

of interest.

“supply ”

side”

r~qLiireInerlts

transfer these

are retrofitted.”

that interactive,

two-way

appear

knowledge

effectively

from producers

Second,

the formal

part of the system

complete

the

producer-TV-user

other members

information

and

R&D

on collegial

producers.

and

not seem with

of the scientific data.

Ample

community,

itlf~~rrn~tiorl,

Furthermore.

in scope. Two

to be responsive

from

to transfer

into

to the

which

empirical

is

problems one-

is that such formal

a system

and

information

part of the system employs

of the findings

are required

to know.

about or keep up with all the

with this approach

to start

R&D

is that knowledge

happen

of too much

and to screen.

The consensus

communications

relies

of the xyhtem

can know

First. the formal do

idea

of the results of government-funded

The problem

procedures

efforts

the

rests more with the transfet

in nature and more international

part of the system.

utilization

during

and Mowery

component

on surrogates.

the problem

to keep up with.

transmission.

Rather,

informal

~7?~~~7.777~/~ part

Like

knowledge

Mowery.”

only what those contacts

are faced with

more interdisciplinary

way. source-to-user way.

contacts

”

these

they “have led

than with their production.

that no one researcher

about.

exist with the,fi)r/zttfl

contexts.-

retie5

to user. Pl-~~bleln~tic to the

and Frohman,

than

the

technological

the results of governmertt-funded

The

to effect the transfer

users can learn from collegiai

engineers

component.

to dissetninate

in impact:”

rather

innovation

and knowledge

component

intermediaries

producer

David,

systems for di~~elnin~titl~

have a formal

to Roberts

yet lowest

generated. *‘w

phase

The federal agencies‘

ngencie\

in stimulating

they “start to encourage

been

development

and utilization

R&D

ineffective

the

oneusers‘ users’

research

data, information,

is and

to users.‘”

process.

relies

heavily

However.

on information

a strong

intertnediaries

lnetht~d~~t~)~ical

base

to for

measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking.“7 In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context.” In the case of the NASA system, information intermediaries report that (I) they do not view NASA as a proactive partner in diffusing the results of federally-funded R&D, (2) NASA lacks a good understanding of the user community and the needs of users, (3) little communication occurs between the intermediaries and NASA, and (4) NASA devotes little effort to involving information intermediaries in the knowledge transfer process.“” A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE FEDERAL SYSTEM A knowledge management program for the federal R&D agencies presumes a proactive, collaborative relationship (partnership) between U.S. industry and the federal government with respect to knowledge diffusion. It also presupposes that U.S. industry and the federal R&D agencies recognize the value of knowledge as a competitive asset and possess a capacity to absorb external knowledge. To enhance their core capabilities, both will actively seek to identify, import. and integrate external knowledge and technology into their internal organizational and agency knowledgebases.‘” U.S. industry will then focus on channeling knowledge and technology resulting from federally-funded R&D to individuals and teams that can make the best use of them. Developing a knowledge management framework requires that the federal R&D agencies do the following: ” I. ?_.

3. 4. 5.

6.

Design a plan that identifies agency objectives and needs for managing knowledge; Audit agency knowledge bases to ascertain what knowledge currently exists, where it resides. if duplication or redundancy is warranted, and what additional knowledge may be needed: Identify and assign responsibilities for knowledge management activities: Design and implement specific policies and methods that include measurement (of effectiveness) criteria; Create a technological infrastructure that provides a repository of explicit knowledge and pointers to tacit knowledge, permits collaboration and sharing, and facilitates the diffusion of new and existing knowledge: and Promulgate standards. practices, and rules of interaction.

Establishing such a framework requires a shared vision, effective leadership that champions such a program, and a collaborative approach to development that relies heavily on input from users and prospective users.62 In light of today’s global economy, the new mission of the federal R&D agencies should be to promote and improve U.S. competitiveness. The existing federal system for disseminating the results of federally-funded R&D should be reconfigured to support and enable knowledge management to maximize the “return on investment” in federallyfunded R&D by meeting industry needs for external knowledge, technology, and expertise. An effective knowledge management framework would stimulate the diffusion and

(A WkKNMENT

100

utilization

of the results

knowledge

to consumers

crafting

a coherent

INFOK,Ql,\TI(

of federally-funded in LJS.

R&D

industry.“j

U.S. technology

methods.

and information

hnowledge become

and tools to ad\ ante

throughout highly

such policy

and

and distributors.

To remain

and adaptive.

forgin g strategic

offering

customized

participation

in design.

at the level

of the federal

R&D

implications

of the changed

nature of business

a basic knowledge funded I.

management

R&D would Model

require

structure

(i.e.. categorize

elicitation

of tacit

specified

needs

mats to ensure 3.

Array

(according

Monitor

(i.e., acquire).

screen,

(explicit)

knowledge

originatin

and integrate

structure

and heed

U.S. firms.

the

Developing of federally-

in a problem-solution

context

but also supports

should

in standard.

be based

the

on user-

non-proprietary

standards

and formats)

so that users can easily

it into their internal interpret.

g outside

the

to industries

knowledge

for-

the knowl-

identify,

acquire.

bases.

and integrate United

relevant

States

that can integrate

the two-way informal

flow of explicit

technical

discussions:

non-contract

and tacit knowledge conferences,

cooperati\.e

programs; and government-academia-industry Develop mechanisms that help knowledge sources

of tacit knowledge

creation

of such information

Develop mechanisms of explicit knowledge and on-going

contracts). Establish

into

published

the

agencies‘

and apply it for com-

guidelines

programs:

R&D

and federally-sponsored and mechanisms

do not benefit

unduly

exchanged

and institutions

technology

con-

demonstration

personnel exchange programs. seekers identify and locate relevant products

activities

experts) as online

through

yellow

the

pages.

member\ of industry sectors and updates of recently ini(e.g..

research

research

and technol-

grants

and research

(e.g..

for knowledge

diffusion

from receiving

the results

as a result of bilateral

to ensure

and sup-

and workshops;

(i.e.. subject-matter

technology-enabled

federally-funded

funded R&D. Evaluate the knowledge governments

and expertise

by sponsoring

symposia.

that facilitate awareness among and that include announcements

plans)

eign competitors

qualit>.

customer

management

advantage.

ogy operating

8.

upon

evaluate.

bases for diffusion

Optimize

tiated

7.

to agreed

from such R&D activities

tracts with industry:

6.

firms have had to

of the results

model

the

LISL’ 01

suppliers.

knowledge

knowledge

and

and longevity.

interpret.

porting

5.

represent

e\.aluate.

petitive 3.

and should

knowledge

The knowledge

provide

that represent

among

diffusion actions: 64

of explicit

would

to recognize

to optimize

and represent)

knowledge.

consistently

knowledge

relationships

and

with customers.

A knowledge also have

require

values.

transfer,

succesd’~~I

and services

would

the diffusion

its reusability

edge resulting 3.

agencies

taking the following

that not only promotes

R&D. R&D agencies

alliances

distribution.

will

that recognizes.

competitive.

products

and

manul‘;lcture.

of “user-friendly”

a framework

and culti\ ate the production.

U.S. industry.

llexihle

Vol. 1 ~‘NcI. ‘:l’Fii+

by speedin, (7 flows

Creating

leverages the knowledge resulting from federally-funded A knowledge management framework for the federal strategies.

)N ()CJ.4KTEKLY

to ensure

agreements

ylrirl pru) y~co on the basis

that for-

of U.S. federallywith foreign of quantity

and

9.

IO.

Develop mechanisms for identifyin g and tracking the activities and expertise of foreign research and R&D programs, facilities, and personnel (i.e.. competitive intelligence) and diffuse it to interested parties within U.S. industry. Develop evaluation components with metrics that rely on user input and feedback for determining the knowledge needs of U.S. industry sectors and assessing the efficacy

I 1.

I?.

of the federal

agencies’

knowledge

management

programs.

Recognize knowledge management as a legitimate element of the research process. and identify and assign responsibilities for managing knowledge at all levels of federal R&D agencies. Budget and allocate funding for knowledge management activities through the federal R&D budget and programs to ensure that knowledge diffusion becomes an integral part of the R&D process.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FOR KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management programs at both the industry and federal levels should focus on the management of knowledge as an intellectual asset. Whatever focus and techniques are used (e.g., best practices, decision-making, learning organization, accounting, or the critical nature of knowledge and of managing it effectively should be technology),h5 demonstrated in the organization’s mission and vision, and knowledge management practices should be implemented and rewarded at all levels of an organization. Programs for managing knowledge must be adequately funded and staffed, lest we find ourselves paying the price for ignorance. Components of the existing information infrastructure, such as libraries, must rethink their purpose and refocus their activities to support knowledge management. The theoretical bases underlying knowledge management programs should also incorporate what is known about technological innovation, including how knowledge and technology diffuse at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. Knowledge voids (i.e., what is not known about technological innovation) should inspire further investigation, the results of which can be applied to managing knowledge for competitive advantage. For knowledge management to be successful at both industry and federal levels, certain challenges must be addressed. Some priority tasks are discussed below. At the federal level, within the federal system, and at the agency level, knowledge diffusion must become part of the R&D process in both word and deed. Federal information policy, where absent, must be formulated and directly tied (linked) to technology policy. In today’s competitive environment, diffusing the results of federallyfunded R&D cannot continue to be considered an overhead (burden) expense. Adequate funding must be provided and such federal agencies as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that have a legislative mandate to (1) promote the transfer and utilization of federal scientific and technical information (STI) for civilian needs; (2) consider the potential role of information technology in the transfer process; and (3) coordinate federal ST1 policy and practices, must be held accountable by the Congress for apparently having abdicated their responsibilities. Finally, a coherent, systematicallydesigned approach to knowledge diffusion is needed at the federal level. The largely

I(18

’ ,’ WFIINMFNT

passive,

one-way.

two-way.

producer-to-user

collaborative

Although dif‘l‘usion,

IT

distribution

“enterprivz”

information

(IT)

will

play

initiati\,e.

Diffusing

equation.

Re\eurch concerned with technological

human

interaction.

under\tunding the results pat

human

;I

behavioral

hchacior

and ambiguous.

bode of know ledge that can be LM~

into the information

method of linhing

research

of information as

Du\,enport

and

organi/.ation largely

Prusuk”’

with

function\.

uith

A\ ;I result.

by both

either

that

librarich and

should

R&D

&die\

they

technological

of information

to innovation.

the firm,

and the value

of’ importin, 0 information

con\iderrd ohGous intensive to 80%

understood. lea

~ulnerablc role

candidates

t’or knowledge

nature of their work of their

for the effective

work

of every

the pro\,ision

(3)

muat look

transfer.

engineers

that resides

Librarian\

to and build

level

are upon

demonstrate

external

Within

be proficient

and use of data. information.

the

within l’ol

and knouledge is increasingly

R&D.

ywn

llows

to the firm

these resmma

re.sponsibilities. should

in

at way\ of adding

advantage.

and the time they devote to workin g with

weeks. “’ Thus.

production.

management

(2)

and s;torage model. Lu\tlq.

at the firm

01‘ a firm.

ih

01’ information

to contribute

in fact, managing member

than uhal

in hnowledge

the importance of smooth information

importance;

the responsibility

L~SLLII~~

to co+cutting

competiti\,e advantage. The need to manage data. information,

et’fecti\,ely is of par;unount

the hale

int~rmation-ori~~~~~~~

play ;I miljor

lor competitive

innmation

Lvithin

( I ) proacti\;ity over passivity:

the firm

criticality

maintaining

and

manage

diffusion.

information.

unclear and often

classil’ication,

within

and

because the\, art: based

are poorly

and librarians

to help manage knowledge with

positioned

\t’r\.c‘ or other

To

10 help

ho\v people use and \:alue information.

than many other groups

concerned

uniquely

stir\ ices remain

acquisition.

suited

in knowledge

most likely

i\ often

organi/.ation\.

\,alue that go beyond the information

role

Libraries

rather than documents:

there i\ ;I great need to understand

Ah

creation of

and

and to distribute

empha\i/e the following: lihraria

is well

LI major

re\,olution,

and library

population.

concerned v, ith the design

while

provision.

this

agt3ida

and hemices.

requirement\

the businrs\

context. “’ Both

this understanding

and the)

inno\ ation ha\ not

to service

the library

libraries.

the \,alue they deliver

the pro\ ision 01‘ information

better poGtioned

an

manuger~. On the other

ol‘a research

the individuals

;I firm.

information

managers

libraries

;I l”-oblem-solution

prol~essionals.

for R&D

designed

and to play

model o!‘ inl’ormation

Consequently.

management.

of‘

Clearly.

conducted o\cr the

and technological

products.

within

aaet

claim

to understand

integrated

pmsible. effort\

systems

been left behind by the intormation

well

by information

decelopment

policy.

units

intellectual

an

on an obsolete not

result\

systems.

Of all the organizational hnouledgr

the importance

OLIN

and exchange.

and use stud&

of’ thumb“

engaged in R&D

notes. two actions are required:

pro\,ision

points

use

e\,idence that what ha\ been Iearncd about the inl’(~rmution-~~~hirig

ample

and LISCS of‘ engineers

been incorporated

a

hnowleclgc management

The rcxulth have not accumulated to form ;I

in the way of guidance or “rules

Pinelli”’

in

and org~uni/.ational context is needed. However.

ofi’e~- little beha\,iors

role

of any knowledge

innovation

significant

hand. there is

model.“”

and inl’ormation

inl’ormation-s~~kill~

30 years are fragmented

2 IO’Jli

I ;NII.

ttl’l’ectively has I‘ar more to do with the human side of the

behavior.

of the user in

01‘ numerous

Vol.

\i’

an important

cannot guarantee the success

knowledge

‘)UAIITFKI

model must be replaced with ;I pro;lctive,

knowlf2dge diffusion

technology

in and of itself

lK\‘r’)IZiQlATI’)N

rn~inrers

are

the informationinformation-up

in the skills

required

and knowledge.

Such

MdxlmLzing federally-funded

R&L>

169

skills include (1) the ability to communicate effectively in writing, orally, and visually; (2) a knowledge and understanding of the nature and use of engineering and science resources and materials; (3) competence in using a library and a variety of other information repositories and resources; (4) computer, communication. and information technology use capabilities: (5) the ability to work collaboratively and to share and elicit information; and (6) competence in one or more foreign languages. Knowledge is becoming a key resource in the global economy. It has replaced financial capital as the main producer of wealth. If nations and firms are to compete on the basis of knowledge, they must learn to treat knowledge as a capital asset, not as the by-product of a process, design, service, or product development. To ensure the competitiveness of the nation and the firm. traditional approaches to management have concentrated on minimizing overhead. cutting staff. and decreasing material costs as a means of maximizing sales and increasin, 0 market share. However, these measures are largely ineffective for a knowledge-based economy. To compete in a global, knowledge-based economy. the nation and firms have to learn to value and manage intellectual capital. which requires a different approach from the one used to manage financial capital. Today’s global economy is characterized by (1) the rapid internationalization of markets and technology, (2) the spread of innovative activity, (3) fierce competition among firms and nations fol markets and market share. (4) multiple numbers of strategic alliances and partnerships among firms to improve competitive position, and (5) the consequent transfer of knowledge and technology among allied firms and nations. Maintaining competitiveness in such an environment makes the astute management of knowledge by the nation and the firm not only desirable but also imperative. Failure to manage knowledge and technology, considered by some to be the weapons of choice in a global economic war. could spell disaster for the nation and U.S. firms.

This article is an adaptation of chapter I9 in Knmdedgr LXfi~.sion in the U.S. Acrospucr Inclust~~: Mrrncrging Knmrddgr ,for Comprtiti\~r Achwntrrgr (Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing, 1997). pp. 891-947. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Acknowledgments:

NOTES

AND REFERENCES

I.

Peter F. Drucker. “From Capitalism to Knowledge Society.” in ~~‘r,.st-Crr/,it[r/i.st Swic~tv (New York: Harper

2.

W.B. Zhanp. “Government’s

Busines.

1993). pp. 19-47.

Structure,” Rrsrcrrch foliq 3. 4.

Research Policy and Economic Growth: Capital, Knowledge, and Economic ‘2 (August 1994): 327-336.

Peter F. Drucker, “The Age of Social Transformation.” Athrtic Mmrhl~: 274 (November 1994): 53-X0. Joseph Schmookler, /rworrio,r
R~t~iew, 35

( 194%:

5

Frederick A. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” Amrr-km

6.

Paul M. Romer. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Jorfrxtrl ofPo/itictr/ Ewrror~r?: 9X ( 1990): S7 I -SIO?.

7.

Jacob T. Schwartz, “America’s Economic-Technological

S 19-530.

Agenda for the I9YOs.” ZIrrer/o/~r.\. I21 (Winter

1993): 139-165. X.

Maurice Fitzgerald Scott, A New

9.

Frank Blackler, “Knowledge and the Theory of Organizations: Organirations

Vkw

of G~~~rowri~ Growrl~

(New

York: Oxford University Press. 19X9).

Reframing of Management.” Jorrwrrl /jfMrrflo,~ar,re,it Strrdie.c. 30 (November

as Activity System\ and the 1993): 863-X84.

170

IO. I I.

12. 1.3. I-1.

IS. IO. Il. IS.

I Y. 70. 21.

‘2. 2.;. 21. 3. 20. 71.

28. 2’) io.

il. >7. ;i. 34.

(,( )VEKNMENT

INF( )KMhTI(

IN QLJAIITEKLY

Vet. I :.No.

“tOY)11

35. 36. 37.

ix. 39.

Thorna\ E. Plnelli, Madeleine M. Henderwn,

crrrtlrw. Rcporf\,

Ann P. Bishop_ & Philip M. Dots. C/l,rwo/o,~\ of Sc~/~~~wr/ Lit-

f+diqx I,i.\tl-fcf,lr,rtc. orrd Sigtrffic~trrrtEwrrt.5 .-\fiWJtr,y F&ml

.S&wl(fic turd Twlwkc~/

/r~/rwwtrtio~r(ST/j itr r/w U~ritctl Srtrtrcc IYJS- /YYO. NASA TM- IO1661 (Washington, D.C.: National Aeron;umc\ and Space Admlnlstration. 40.

H. Ergns, “Doa

i~r t/w Wdd

lYY71 (Available NTIS: Y2N 17001 ). Matter?’ ’ in T~~~~/~rrr~/og~ rud Gld~~rl Irrd~trtt-v: C~~t?rpo~~ic~\ trd Nrrtiom

Technology Poliq

Ecorrwu~. edited by B.C. Guile and H. Broohs (Wnshlngon.

D.C.: National Academ!, Pre\\.

IYX7). p, 102.

31.

Nathan Rosenberg. Ralph Landau. Kr Da\ id C. Mawr) (Stanford. CA: Stanford Uni\ersq

42.

(Ed\.).

7?c~/1rr~j/~~,qv orrtl t/w Wcwlth of ~Vc,fiorrc

Press. 1992).

Lewis M. Branscomb. “Does America Need a Technology Policy ‘)” Htrmr~l BI~\~WLY R~LGw, 68 (March/ .Aprll. 1991): 24-31,

43.

Lewis M. Branscomh. ” U.S. Scientific and Technical Information Policy in the Context of a Diffusion-Orientrd National Technolog) Policy.” Go~vr-rrrncvrtPuhlic~trtim.~ Ru\+cw IY

44.

4s.

( I YY?): 4hY-4X2.

Alit. “Policy Issues in Collaborative Research and Development.” Paul A. Da\ id. “Technology Policy. Public Policy. and Industrial Competiti\rnesa.”

Srrcctr,yr: Ho,-w.\.\r/r~q 7?ho/o,q~

,for- Ecowmr~

G‘rmd~

editedbq

in 77w fcniriw

Sum

Ralph Landau Rr Nathan Rosenhers

(Washington. D.C.: National Academy Press. 19X61. p. 377.

3h.

Tom K. Bihson. Barbara E. Quint. & Leland L. Johnson Scicwti/i<. tr~rrl ~~~~h!ric~r//r!/owr&o~r /.\.\w.c cr,~tlOprirm.\ (Washington. D.C.: Nutwnal Science Foundation. lY87). p. \. (A\ailahle

I SO357. 47.

also aailable

Twl$>r:

NTIS: PB-XS-

as Rand Note 7 I3 I 1.

Steven Ballard. T. E. James. Jr., T. 1. Adams. M. D. De\ine.

L. L. Mal)a

& Mark Mea. Iwr~wtriwr

771mrc,q/1Td~~ricrt/ md Scierrtific~ Cor,~,rrlr,~ic,trtion(New York: Quorum Books. I YXY1. p. 37.

4x. 49.

Blkaon. Quint. & Johnson. Sr~irrrtific trd

Tcdwic~trl Irrfomtrtirm Trtrmsf+r: I.UIIP.~trd Opfiom. p. 23.

LOUI\ G. Tornatrky & D. Luria. “Technolog

Policies and Programmer in Manufacturing: Toward Coher-

ence and Impact.” I,ltrr-rftrtio,~tr/ J0rrvrtrl of %~~/rw~/o,q Mtr~rtr,~~~w,rr,7 ( I YY2 ): I4 I -I S7. SO.

Edward B. Roberts & Alan L. Frohmun. “Strntegiea for ImproL ing Research Utilization,”

Rcwru, 80 (March/April.

Tr<.lrrrr~/r~,sq

lY78): 36.

51.

Daid,

52.

David C. Mowerq. “The Relationship Between Intrafirm and Contractual Form:, of lndurtrial Research in

“Technology Polic), Public Policy. and Industrial Competitiveness.”

American Manufacturing,

I YOO-1040.” E.xp/ortrtim.\ irr Ecorror~~icHicror~ 20

( 198%:

35 l-374.

53.

David C. Mowwy

53.

Bikson. Quint, & Johnson. Sr~ierrrificnd

ss.

Ralph Adam. “Pulling the Minds of Soaal Scientists Together: Towards a Science InformatIon System.”

& Nathan Rosenberg, “The lntluence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical

Re\ iew of Some Recent Empirical Studies.” Rr’scwd~ /‘o/ic~y.8 ( I Y7Y): I (I?- 153.

Tdvric~rl Ir!fiwmrtiot~ Trtrmfir: Iwws

ord 0pfiwr.s.

/IIfC)7l~lriOllN/Swirrl ScirM? Jour,ltr/. 77 (197s): 5 I Y-53 I.

56.

Bikhon. Quint. & Johnson. Scierlt$c

57.

Janice M. Beyer & Harrison M. Trite. “The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of

58.

Thomas E. Pinrlli, Rebecca 0. Barclay. Stan Hannah, Barbara Lawrence. and John M. Kennedy. “Know’l-

curd Td~r~iccd I~for-rrfct~io~~ Tron.\fcr: /.c.tur~.~ crntf 0prion.s.

Empirical Findings.” Arfministrcrriw Scimce

Q~~orfcr/x 27, ( lY81): 591.621.

edge Diffusion and U.S. Government Technology Policy: Issues and Opportunities for SciiTech Librarians,” Scirnce md T~hnology

59.

f5brurie.v. 13 ( 1992): 33-55.

Ann P. Bishop & Thomas E. Pinelli. “Information

Intermediaries and Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion-

The Role of U.S. Academic and Industry Libraries and Librarians.”

m Kwrr~lrdge Difmim

Arrmpace

(Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Industy;

1997). pp. 653-705.

Managing K~w/dge,for

Computifivr Advmtnge

in tk

U.S.