Knowledge Management - Literature Review

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 466
  • Published : March 11, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
I. Introduction

Creativity is regarded as the major contributor to an organization’s competitiveness. However important creativity is, there has been a general problem in the management of creativity. Amabile (1998) claimed that most management impeded creativity in the name of evaluation, control and productivity. Managers often referred creativity to the imaginative approach people adopt in problem solving but ignored the importance of expertise and motivation. It is especially significant that managers have been placing too much emphasis on extrinsic motivation, mostly money, which in fact not an effective motivator to creativity. The utilization of quantitative survey instrument, KEYS, which consists of 78 questions to measure the work place conditions enhanced the validity of Amabile’s findings. The suggestion of challenge, resources, supportive and diverse work-group, supervisory encouragement and organizational support provided a sound foundation for latter researches on creativity and innovation management.

Kanter’s work discussed the types, characteristics and conditions of innovation. Her assertions had quoted some concepts from Amabile. She further identified the four major tasks of innovation, namely, idea generation and innovation activation, coalition building, implementation and diffusion, which helped other authors or practitioners construct the innovation management plan. In addition to the facilitation measures she suggested, which somehow align with Amabile’s ideas, Kanter took into consideration the practical side of management and aimed at enhancing the efficiency and productivity of innovation tasks.

Gibb and Waight tried to integrate the previous findings, including Amabile’s assertion of intrinsic motivation, into the HRD. They recognized the negative impact of management in ‘killing’ creativity and their assertion of meaning, strategies and values framework was in fact, an attempt to align creativity and HRD function in a constructive way.

McLean’s work was an application of the KEYS method as proposed by Amabile to evaluate whether the innovation aligned with the organization goals and the adaptation of implementation and diffusion process put forth by Kanter and the other authors. The result was then translated into suggestions to HRD in understanding of creativity team interfaces and the implementation of innovation.

Finally, Mahmoud-Jouini & Charue-Duboc concentrated their effort on knowledge combination and discontinuous innovation. They put stress on the criteria of creative managers and suggested ways to motivate these people besides monetary rewards.

|Article Reference |Amabile, T. M. 1998, "How to kill creativity", Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, no. | | |5, p. 76 | |Purpose |To define the three main components of creativity and explore the traits of creative | | |managers. The author further elaborated the ways to foster, motivate, reward | | |creativity and how to organize people for a higher creativity. | |Author Type |1 academic (Teresa M. Amabile) but wrote in a practical style | |Type of Article |Business and management journal | |Methodology/ Approach |Exact methodology not clearly identified (as is common in HBR articles) but with | | |evidences from previous quantitative survey (KEYS) and practical cases in several | | |companies such as National and Chemical Central. | |Findings/Interpretations...
tracking img