Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

Rodpol®: Open Innovation and
Technology Scouting
Ivan F Rodriguez
ORG711 21st Century Organizational Behavior
June 9, 2013

About this Presentation
• Objective: Apply learned theory to design a new organization in the 21st Century.
• Methodology: This presentation was developed using two sources, (1) Organization Theory
Taxonomy (week two assignment of this course), and (2) Peer-reviewed research. Each strategic
decision is supported in theoretical foundations, and structures described in the Organization Theory
Taxonomy Assignment. The presentation includes the following.
o Overview of the hypothetical enterprise developed.
o Organizational structure.
o Roles and responsibilities.
o Metrics and performance measurement.
o Incentives and reward programs.
o Leadership strategy.
o Detailed speaker notes.
o Proper APA in-text citations on the slides and in the speaker notes.
o An APA reference slide.
2Ivan F Rodriguez | ORG711 University of Phoenix

Rodpol®: Center of
Excellence for
Collaborative Innovation
The New Approach Of Innovation!

Rodpol® Overview
• Vision
To become the recognized world leader productivity
enhancer (n.) that creates core competencies in
underdeveloped countries and minimize poverty.
• Mission
To optimize human’s life quality in a sustainable manner
using internet based external crowd-sourcing platforms to
identify sources of poverty and connect the collective
knowledge of individuals to innovate products and
processes.
4 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711

Rodpol® Overview (cont.)
• Rodpol® Business Model Justification
The production of scientific knowledge is shifting from individuals
to groups, from single to multiple institutions, and from a national
to an international scope (West, 2012). Researchers are
increasingly networked across national and organizational
borders.
Rodpol® business model assumes that greater scientific
specialization and cross-border collaboration can result in
increased innovation. Because they draw on a larger pool of
expertise, international research collaborations can be expected
to have a bigger impact in terms of citations of scientific
publications.
Differences across countries suggest a positive relationship
between measures of research openness and scientific impact,
the latter proxied by the average normalized citation index.

• Rodpol® Business Model Execution
The objective of Rodpol®’ business model is to connect
expert contributors from multiple locations with a common
vision, minimize poverty though innovation, technology
development, and technology deployment.
In so doing, a three step approach has been defined: (1)
Using advanced quantitative and qualitative
methods, assess the competitiveness level of an
underdeveloped economy, (2) Apply the Rodpol®
Engagement Model to allocate resources to implement
qualified projects/innovations, and (3) Monitor
competitiveness and human development index to
measure projects’ effectiveness.

• Rodpol® Business Model Execution (cont.)
Rodpol® business model requires to expand routes for
open communication and create additional opportunities
for experts involvement, consequently, the concept of
Open Innovation Service Provider (OISP) platforms has
been incorporated as a tool within Rodpol®’ problem
solving strategy.
The goal of utilizing open innovation techniques, such as
crowd-sourcing, takes advantage of the power of groups of
people/experts outside one’s organization to help solve
problems or bring in new and novel ideas (West, 2012).
The goal is not to replace valued internal expertise, but to
add to the problem-solving capabilities of the global
specialized cohort.

Rodpol® Organizational Structure
• Organizational Structure
According to Rassenfosse and Potterie (2009), operating in the information
era implies a shift in ―traditional strategies and philosophies for any
organization’s research and technology development efforts.‖ (p. 783)
Rodpol® organizational structure is designed to remained flat and flexible as
much as possible. It includes three layers:
1.Agency Leaders
2.Program Management
3. Resource Management
Rodpol® network of experts is designed to encompass as much of the world’s
expertise as possible. It is acknowledged harnessing the power, and
expertise of underdeveloped communities challenges long-standing cultural
barriers such as the not invented here philosophy, and opening the problem
solving space to diverse and talented individuals outside of the selected
country (see Appendix A).

Rodpol® Engagement Model
Create IAA
Develop Game
Plan
Approve
IAA
Authorize
Start
Post
(challenge.gov,
etc)
Review
Funding
Order
Resource
Management
Program
Management
Agency
Leaders
DevelopPlan
Establish
Scope
Time
Project
Execution
Figure 1. Rodpol® Engagement Model (Executing the Business Model)
Figure 1. This flow diagram describes the interactions between the three core functions within Rodpol®. It indicates the
actions, sequence, and interdependency between the areas to evaluate a project and define if it will be executed
(implemented or not). IAA stands for Initial Analysis Approval.

Rodpol® Organizational Supportive
Theory
• Global Organizational Theory: Knowledge Base Theory
Rodpol® organization structured is supported by this global
theory. Knowledge management research needs a consistent
and cohesive theory supported by empirical evidence to
provide sound and stable foundations for the field (Edwards et
al., 2003).
Knowledge management is an increasing concern in the
design of organizations. Knowledge generation, transfer, and
sharing are becoming increasingly important for scholars
attempting to explain dynamic flows of knowledge that enable
workflow processes (and hence organizational
performance, e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi,1995; Mason, 2007).

Rodpol® Organizational Supportive
Theory (cont.)
• Global Organizational Theory: Knowledge Base Theory
Rodpol® organization structured is based on the knowledge
base theory and attempts to devise mechanisms for integrating
individuals’ specialized knowledge. Grant (1996) proposes four
mechanisms to coordinate the integration of knowledge within
an enterprise: (a) possessing rules and directives to enable the
conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge; (b)
sequencing of workflow processes that minimize
communication but ensure the input of expertise at different
times; (c) creating routines to support complex patterns of
interactions between individuals in the absence of rules,
directives, or even significant verbal communication; and (d)
establishing group problem-solving and decision-making
routines (see Appendix B).

Rodpol® Roles and Responsibilities
• Resource Manager
Responsible for defining the amount, allocating budget to
projects, and controlling it (e.g., do not exceed the
allocated resources).
• Program Manager
Responsible for defining the scope of the project,
assigning priorities, and executing the project throughout
established phases.
• Agency Leader
Responsible for evaluating the Initial Analysis Approval
(IAA), assessing project viability, and approving the
project execution.

Rodpol® Core Metrics and Performance
Measurement
• Knowledge based organizations
Knowledge flows enable workflows, and workflows drive
performance, theory suggests the organization of knowledge—
particularly tacit knowledge—is critical for competitive advantage
(Nonaka, 1994).
The knowledge-based organizational performance model takes into
consideration the practical aspects of knowledge transfer among
temporal members. It has implications on future methods of
transferring knowledge in temporal organizations (Mason, 2007).
The extension of transactive memory theory to include knowledge
access to another member who is not present in the current team
can help improve how organizations manage and train their
knowledge resources (see Appendix B).

Rodpol® Core Metrics and Performance
Measurement (cont.)
• Resource Manager
Budget Accuracy (BA) measured by the ratio between
Expend Amount (EA) and Defined Budget (DB)
[BA=EA/DB]
• Program Manager
On Time Delivery (OTD) measured by the ratio between
Actions Closed on Time (AC) and Total Actions Opened (TA)
[OTD=AC/TA]
• Agency Leader
Project Effectiveness (PE) measured by the ratio between
Actual Patents Registered (AP) and Planned Patents (PP)
[PE=AP/PP]

Rodpol® Incentives and Reward
Programs
• Rodpol® Incentive program
In the context of executive compensation, the optimal contract
that motivates innovation can be implemented via a
combination of (1) stock options with long vesting periods, (2)
option re-pricing, (3) golden parachutes, and (4) managerial
entrenchment (Mason, 2007).
Stock options with long vesting periods combined with option
re-pricing and golden parachutes bring on tolerance for early
failure and reward for long-term success, so that compensation
depends not only on total performance but also on the path of
performance as described above. Managerial entrenchment
gives the manager job security, since an entrenched manager
may keep his job even if it is ex-post efficient for the
shareholders of the firm to fire him (Mason , 2007).

Rodpol® Incentives and Reward
Programs (cont.)
• Rodpol® Incentive program
The bulk of the compensation of the general partner is in the
form of carried interest, which is effectively a call option on the
projects being financed. This provides incentives for the
general partner to keep projects alive beyond the point under
which it would be efficient to terminate them.
Francis, Hasan, and Sharma (2009) show that golden
parachutes as well as long-term incentives in the form of
vested and unvested options have a positive and significant
effect on patents and citations to patents.
Rodpol® will rely extensively on explicit long-term contracts to
overcome the commitment problem and induce exploration.
Knowing that they will not lose their jobs, researchers are
wiling to explore new research directions that are likely to fail
but may lead to breakthroughs (Sutton, 2009).

Appendix A
Rodpol® The 21st Century Innovation
Approach

Approach
Figure 2. Scientific articles and co-authorship in 1998
Figure 2. The size of the bubble reflects the number of scientific publications. The thickness of the link reflects the
intensity of collaboration, i.e. co-authorships (OECD, 2010).

Approach
Figure 3. Scientific articles and co-authorship in 2009
Figure 3. The size of the bubble reflects the number of scientific publications. The thickness of the link reflects the
intensity of collaboration, i.e. co-authorships (OECD, 2010).

Appendix B
Rodpol® Virtual Teams Approach

Effectiveness of Virtual Teams
• Definition of Virtual Teams
Virtual Teams (n.) are a group or collaboration of online
students working toward a common goal or
assignment.
• Overcoming the Environment
According to Lipnack & Stamps (2000), ―Virtual teams
can use computer-mediated communication
technologies to work interdependently across
space, time and organization boundaries‖ (p.18).

Effectiveness of Virtual Teams (cont.)
• Purpose of Virtual Teams:
1. Teams are created to fulfill a need.
2. Collaboration of team members is key in responding
to customer needs.
3. Using virtual teams creates fair competition in and
outside the classroom.

• Advantages of Virtual Teams in Business:
1. Promotes a Cost-Effective Strategy
• Saves travel time & costs (DeRosa, 2011).
• Increases employment of foreign-based
subcontractors.
• Allows maximization of companies’ investments.
• Improves time consumption in the development of
products.
• Conveniently accessible from anywhere.

• Advantages of Virtual Teams in Business (cont.):
2. Performance measurement & Sharing of information
• Varied Opinions
• Diversified backgrounds
• Geographic influences
• Easy to trace talent & document participation
3. Disadvantages of Virtual Teams
• Multiple Time zone differences
• Cultural differences & Language barriers
• A weak link can contribute to team conflict.
• Exclusion of tone and mannerisms.

• Conclusion:
• Are virtual teams effective?
Virtual team’s advantages vastly outweigh their disadvantages and been
proven effective in all geographic regions worldwide (Berry , 2011). With
the constant increases in the development technology virtual teams are
the future of learning.
• Can virtual teams yield success?
Virtual teams have been clinically proven to yield success and are
currently being adopted in classrooms worldwide. Their advantages of
being cost-effective and performance based contribute greatly to their
worldwide success.

Conflict Management
Definition of Conflict
• Conflict (n.) - is when a disagreement occurs between
values, perspectives, or opinions that are contradictory
and a agreement cannot be reached among cohorts
(Jetly 2003).
Disagreement Models
• Displaying avoidance or withdrawal.
• Exercising accommodation or smoothing over.
• Exerting a authoritative command.
• Engaging in collaboration or problem solving (Berry
2011).

Conflict Management (cont.)
According to Ellis and Abbott (2012),
“There are a number of reasons to take a proactive stance in the
management of conflict” (p.138).
Recognizing Types of Conflict
• Substantive Conflict
Disagreement over
goals, resources, rewards, policies, procedures and
assignments.
• Emotional Conflict
Results from feelings of anger, distrust, dislike, fear, and
resentment.
• Dysfunctional Conflict
Destructive actions that hurt task performance.27 University of PhoenixIvan F Rodriguez | ORG711

Outcomes of Conflict
• Win-Win
The conflict is resolved to benefit the entire team.
• Win-Lose
One party achieves its desires and the other team members do not.
• Compromise
Occurs when each team member in the conflict gives up something of value
to the other.
• Collaboration
Involves working through conflict differences and solving problems so the
entire team wins (Berry, 2011; Ma, Lee, & Yu, 2008).

Conflict Resolution
• Encourage
Embracing the other team member to share his or her issues as fully as possible. Clarify the real
issues, rather than making assumptions. Ask questions that allow team members to gain from the
information, and let the other team member know the team trying to understand them.
• Restate
Reiterate what was stated, so the team is able to see what has been understood so far - it may be that
the other team member will then realize that additional information is needed.
• Reflect
Think about other team members feelings - be as clear as possible.
• Validate
Corroborate the concerns of the other team member, even if a solution is elusive at this time.
Expressing appreciation can be a very powerful message if it is conveyed with integrity and respect.
***Disclaimer: In addressing conflict management to UPOX standards any and all strategies should be exercised to foster a solution. In the event a solution cannot
occur UPOX personnel should be contacted to appropriately to discuss possible solutions to the problem and how to handle it.

References
Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (2011). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.
Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group and Organization
Management, 27(0), 14-49.
Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932), The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan
Press
Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams. Group and Organization
Management, 27(0), 14-49.
Bergie, B.J., Bergiel, E.B., & Balsmeier, P.W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of their
advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99-110.
doi:10.1108/01409170810846821
Berry, G. (2011). Enhancing effectiveness on virtual teams. Journal Of Business
Communication, 48(2), 186-206. doi:10.1177/0021943610397270

References (cont.)
DeRosa, D., & Lepsinger, R. (2011, July). Five ways to create successful virtual teams
509128. Baseline. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA262760468&v=2.1&u=
uphoenix&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
Davis, J.R., & Richard, E.E. (2011). Advancing innovation through collaboration: Implementation of
the NASA space life science strategy. International Astronautical Federation, 1(11), 16-32.
Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649978main_IAC-11E612x9614AdvInnov.pdf
Edwards, J., Handzic, H., Carlsson, S., & Nissen. M. (2003). Knowledge management research and
practice: Visions and directions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1(1): 49-60.
Ellis, P., & Abbott, J. (2012). Strategies for managing conflict within the team. British Journal of
Cardiac Nursing, 7(3), 138-140.
Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002). Whoever makes the most mistakes wins: The paradox of innovation.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Francis, B., Hasan, I., & Sharma, Z. (2009). Do incentives create innovation? Evidence from CEO
compensation contracts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2(1), 2-20.

References (cont.)
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 109-122.
Jetly, R. (2003). Conflict management strategies in ASEAN: Perspectives for SAARC. Pacific Review
, 16(1), 53-76. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=99fd285d-
cebe-4f6b-bdc2-f34e4e80524d%40sessionmgr15&vid=7&hid=10.
Jungalwalla, R. (2000). Transforming groups into teams. Executive Excellence, 17(2), 8-23.
Lipnack, J.S., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with
technology . New York, NY: John Wiley.
Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Yu, K. (2008). Ten years of conflict management studies: Themes, concepts and
relationships. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3), 234-248. doi:
10.1108/10444060810875796
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mason, R. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management and strategy. A complexity
theory approach. Management Decision, 45(1), 10-28.

References (cont.)
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science
5(1), 14-37.
OECD (2012), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. Paris: OECD Publications.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2012-en
Rassenfosse, G., & Potterie, B.P. (2009). A policy insight into the R&D–patent relationship. Res
Policy, 38, 779–792.
Simonen, J., McCann, P. (2008). Firm innovation− The influence of R&D cooperation and the
geography of human capital inputs, Journal of Urban Economics, 64 1): 146-154.
Sutton, R. (2002). Weird ideas that work: 11 1/2 practices for promoting, managing, and sustaining
Innovation. New York, NY):The Free Press.
University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). Having problems with your learning team? [Video file].
Retrieved from University of Phoenix website:
https://portal.phoenix.edu/medialibrary/videodetails.01V110821214428871.html

References (cont.)
University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). How’s it going with your learning team? [Video file]. Retrieved
from University of Phoenix website:
University of Phoenix (2012, August 1). New to University of Phoenix learning teams? [Video file].
Retrieved from University of Phoenix website:
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–386.

Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Similar a Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

Similar a Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation (20)

Más de Ivan F Rodriguez

Más de Ivan F Rodriguez (17)

Último

Último (20)

Ivan f rodriguez theory in action collaborative innovation

Notas del editor