Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the studentsPlace Your Order
Introduction of the company
The report aims at applying the concepts and theories to maximize knowledge exploration and exploitation on IT Innovation of P&G. it is necessary to do this because these concepts are gaining importance in the IT world today and an assessment of them will help in building an effective organisation, or it will help to increase the effectiveness of an already established organisation like P&G.
All the categories except wisdom are present in IT or computers. They have data; they can process it, have knowledge; can understand things but computers cannot analyse things. Wisdom is possessed only by humans. Also, understanding cannot be regarded as a separate stage in this hierarchy; it helps in the transition from one category to other (Choi, 2012).
According to Ackoff, the first four categories i.e. data, information, knowledge, and understanding related to the past. In the Greek period, only three categories were regarded- data, information, and knowledge but Ackoff’s Apex modified it and gave the theory that knowledge can again be developed, and understanding and wisdom come above the level of knowledge (Davis & Grove, 1986). The first four categories in this talk about what has been or what is known. But the fifth category i.e. wisdom that talks about the future as vision and design is incorporated into it. People who attain wisdom can create the future rather than just grasping the past and present. For achieving the wisdom, people have to move through the other categories successfully. By gaining knowledge on relevant subjects, one can create a pool of information in his mind, and this data can be stored to be applied in the future. When one does it successfully, he is said to achieve the wisdom. The wisdom can be implemented by sharing the thoughts and ideas with other so that if others have something valuable to offer, it can be integrated with one’s own wisdom. But for sharing the valuable knowledge that owns possess, there must be trust between the sender and receiver.
The Greek period
Rothwell’s 5 Models of the Innovation Process
The five generations of this model are:
2. Market pull: the focus of companies shifted to ‘need pull’ in the mid-1960's to early 1970. This was a battle for market shares. All the companies were focussed towards responding to the needs of the market. Individual research projects did a cost-benefit analysis, and stronger connections were made between operating units and R&D.
3. Coupling model: due to inflation and stagflation, rationalisation efforts arose from the mid-1970's to the mid-1980. The focus of companies was on corporate consolidation, and it resulted in ‘product portfolios'. The individual R&D projects were given up, and marketing was tightly coupled with R&D through the structured innovation processes. The central driver of this model was a reduction in operational cost.
4. Integrated model: the theme of this model was ‘time-based struggle' when the recovery of western economy happened from the early 1980’s to the mid-90’s. Companies developed integrated processes and products to form ‘total concepts’. Strong linkages with suppliers were established, and close coupling happened with leading customers.
5. Network model: resource constraints became central from the 1990’s onwards. The systems integration and networking became central so that flexibility and development speed can be guaranteed. Automation of business processes happened with the help of ERP and manufacturing information systems. Business ecosystems were also focussed upon, and advanced strategic partnerships happened with collaborative marketing and research arrangements.
Innovation in the supply chain process of P&G
Thus, it can be said that P&G has followed the ‘Rothwell's 5 Models of the Innovation Process.' This model is applicable to manufacturing companies, and P&G is a manufacturing company. The second stage of this model says that companies focussed on meeting the needs of consumers and this company also keeps on trying to do that. Then the coupling model demands that successful product portfolios need to be created which is also achieved by P&G as it has a range of products in its portfolio and all of them are successful. In the integrated model, strong linkages with suppliers were established, and close coupling happened with leading customers and in P&G, the company knows that it cannot operate in isolation, so it has synchronised the operations and integrated it with suppliers and customers too. Then following the integrated model, the company has invested hugely in marketing and R&D to develop their products, differentiate them with the products of competitors and has done extensive market research (Rothwell, Townsend, Teubal, & Spiller, 1977).
P&G has successfully synchronised its supply chain from end to end, and they have opted for a business model that is totally different from the way companies used to interact with suppliers traditionally, and the company has also delivered the required value of innovation. It has developed an ability to replenish 80% of its orders in less than 24 hours and has redesigned its distribution network to help achieve this in the Singapore as well as in other countries ("Procter & Gamble raises profit", 2003). The visibility of this company has improved throughout the supply chain.
Thus, it can be said that P&G is highly innovative.
Nonaka’s framework 1994
B. Externalization is from tactic to explicit knowledge. It happens when an individual translates his tactic knowledge into the comprehensible forms and others can understand and express it. Successful transfer of knowledge happens when tactic knowledge or the management wisdom becomes explicitly stated through exchange mechanisms like two-way dialogue, visual depiction of ideas, etc. The gap in the transfer of knowledge is most evident when the conversion of tactic knowledge happens to explicit knowledge. In P&G, all the wisdom of senior management and junior management is shred without any hassle and constraints. If anyone comes up with an innovative idea or thought, he is given a chance to speak his mind without any constraint (Jessup, 2008). Also, two-way dialogues happen in the company which is very important in a process like supply chain management as if people will not talk to each other; this process cannot be managed as it is an ongoing process and any problem at any end can cause disturbances in the entire process.
C. The combination is from explicit to explicit knowledge. It happens when people or groups exchange and combines the various bodies of explicit knowledge by interacting socially and thus amplifying the explicit knowledge. The reliability of this conversion is on three processes: collecting and combining externalized knowledge; disseminating this knowledge; and, revising and reconceptualising the explicit knowledge to make it more usable and understandable. The examples include face to face meetings, audio and web-based conversations, etc. P&G encourages people and groups to exchange and combines the various bodies of explicit knowledge that they possess by interacting socially and thus explicit knowledge is amplified in the organisation. It makes sure that the conversation is reliable (Jessup, 2008).
D. Internalization is from explicit to tactic knowledge. It happens when the newly generated explicit knowledge is transformed into the tactic knowledge of the company. This process can occur at any level: individual, group or organisational. The companies need to embody the explicit knowledge in action and practice and internalized through "learning by doing". For example on the job training, simulations, etc. At all levels, the company P&G internalises the knowledge. The supply chain is managed by all people in the company who learn new things by putting them into practice i.e. they learn by doing (Faucher, 2008).
Application of Rothwell 5 models of Innovation and Nonaka Framework to link a business relationship in supply chain management at P&G
By following the appropriate models mentioned above the company has gone beyond $1.2 billion in cost savings in a year, and expects that number to rise to $1.6 billion by the end of 2016 (Review Editor, 2006). Also, The Company has got a 5% year-over-year productivity improvement at the sites that it had already believed to be lean and establishes a goal of 5% annual productivity improvements in the coming years ("Procter & Gamble raises profit", 2003). The company senior management has said that they will continue to play the role of leaders in the supply chain by continuous innovations and knowledge management processes, and they will keep on evolving at the speed of light. The success of the company is hardwired to its business, and the business cannot be separated from product supply and supply chain. Three of them are embedded into the system and are driven together ("Procter & Gamble raises profit", 2003).
This company has assessed the solutions required in the supply chain so that retail customers could be given most value and faster than ever response time could be achieved. It has almost 73,000 team member who runs the supply network over 130 manufacturing sites and across 200 distribution centres. The brand equity of P&G is measured on the terms that how well it touches the lives of end customers (Awad, 2004). Customers place much importance on the fact that whether the company is able to deliver products on time or not and this company has understood these measurements very well and has also understood that what service excellence is all about. The company has built six mega-distribution centres in strategic locations across North America because it wants to achieve the goal of being within one day's transit to 80 percent of retailers. The manufacturing base is also reconfigured in North America so that a demand-driven model for replenishment can be established. For speeding up the response time, the company has created supplier villages on the line of a just-in-time model which will help the suppliers of a company to respond more quickly.
Awad, M. A., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2004). Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bellinger, G. (2004). Knowledge management—Emerging perspectives. Systems Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations. An overview and interpretation. Organizational Studies, 16, 1021–1046.
Boland, R. J. (1987). The in-formation of information systems. In R. L. Boland & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.),
Buckland, M. (1991). Information and information systems. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Faucher, J. B., Everette, A. M., & Lawson, R. (2008). Reconstituting knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 3–16.
Fricke, M. (2009). The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 35, 131–142.
Gackowski, Z. J. (2012b). Informing for operations: Framework, model, and the first principles. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.
Jessup, L., & Valacich, J. (2008). Information systems today. Managing in the digital world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
McLeod, R., & Schell, G. (2001). Management information systems (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Neill, S. D. (1992). Dilemmas in the study of information: Exploring the boundaries of information science. New York: Greenwood Press.
Perspectivism. (2010). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica
Review Editor, B. (2006). Procter and Gamble: Inspiring Success. Pharmadeals Review, 2006(69). http://dx.doi.org/10.3833/pdr.v2006i69.544
Procter & Gamble raises profit. (2003). Focus On Surfactants, 2003(6), 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1351-4210(03)00639-5
Rothwell, R. (1993). The changing nature of the innovation process. Technovation, 13(1), 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(93)90009-k
Rothwell, R., Townsend, J., Teubal, M., & Spiller, P. (1977). Some methodological aspects of innovation research. Omega, 5(4), 415-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(77)90005-6
Rothwell, R. (1986). Innovation and re?innovation: A role for the user. Journal Of Marketing Management, 2(2), 109-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.1986.9964004
Freeze, R. & Kulkarni, U. (2007). Knowledge management capability: defining knowledge assets. J Of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 94-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710832190
Bailey, C. & Clarke, M. (2000). How do managers use knowledge about knowledge management?. J Of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 235-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270010350039