Services to support knowledge creation

Again, PATI's team is working remotely and is always trying new things, services and places where knowledge is or can be created. Today this post is being uploaded in quite a crowded airport lounge in Oslo. Luckily, a table in a quiet corner, wi-fi and a cup of coffee is available! This time I would like to have a little different post here and introduce a part of paper that's going to get public next spring. All comments if you have any are welcome and appreciated as it allows us go develop further. So, here it goes:
Nowadays organizations’ main competitive advantage has become the knowledge that it holds. Thus, all the efforts must go to empower and maintain the knowledge creation. According to Nonaka and Toyama (2003), the knowledge creation is a process of interactions and problem solving happening between individuals, organization and environment. Through different steps knowledge is transformed from tacit to explicit and it is time, space, and relationship specific because it needs a place where information gets a meaning through interpretation. In knowledge theory, a “Ba” concept is used which originally means place and is considered as factor, connecting time, place, and relationships with others (Senoo et al., 2007). The “Ba” might mean physical space (e.g. office) but it can also be virtual (e.g. email) or mental (e.g. ideas) as the interaction is more important factor in the knowledge creation process that the space itself (Huhtelin and Nenonen, 2015).
An understanding of the workplace as a support for knowledge creation process is important. Therefore, it needs to be seen not only as a physical space to work but also including virtual and social dimensions. This wider approach helps to better understand the needs of knowledge workers and provide support in order to meet their needs. In 2004, Nenonen introduced the concept of four workplaces that vary based on the type of work that is performed and if the space used to perform work is external or internal. Later, the study on learning environments in university campuses by Huhtelin and Nenonen (2015) identified four aspects of spaces and services for knowledge creation corresponding to four knowledge creation processes and “Ba”:

• Spaces and services that support informal interaction and idea creation;
• Spaces and services that support formal meetings;
• Digital platforms;
• Spaces that support learning-by-doing.

Based on the theory of knowledge creation and changed perception of a workplace, PATI team studied 103 services and service providers in order to understand the trends and directions where services are moving and how various services can support the knowledge creation processes. After some initial analysis, services were grouped based on the resources they are connecting and steps they are promoting in knowledge processes:

• Services that support collaboration and businesses are driven by connecting physical space and community. For example, mobile applications that allow users to know where people are, what they are doing, and who they are near, this way allowing serendipitous encounters.
• Services that enable knowledge sharing and businesses are driven by connecting community with technology. Organizations can create networks through different platforms such as LinkedIn or Facebook that allows organizations to understand how the inside community inside works. Such examples could be tags that are worn by employees to track their social behaviours online and within the organization, create possibilities to collect data and monitor team interactions and styles of communication.
• Services that provide access to knowledge. Service providers create businesses by connecting physical spaces with technology or virtual platforms. Technologies that also connect people to the Internet of Things (IoT), facilitating marketplaces based on the intelligence of physical proximity like Venuu or LiquidSpace.

The analysis of services and results of clusters indicate that services for informal interactions, formal meetings and virtual work need to be provided and cover both physical and virtual spaces as well stimulate community creation. This way, formed communities enable sharing of the tacit knowledge, socializing and creating explicit knowledge.
Service providers are adopting service-dominant logic and are combining own resources with others through established interactions between the suppliers and customers for the value creation (Saarijärvi et al., 2013). Technology allows creating new platforms that not only provide personalised experience but also enable users to design services themselves. New companies are coming into the game by providing the user with that it wants, wherever it wants and at the press of a button.
In order to stay competitive, traditional service providers need to reconsider their offerings in terms of customers, the needs of an end-user and other players providing resources for the same group of customers and end-users. Because of the wide possibilities, service providers can only compete by offering an experience for the customer and end-user because the traditional place and service for a fee is not sufficient anymore.

Have a blissful holiday season everybody!
Vitalija

References:
Huhtelin, M., Nenonen, S., (2015) “A co-creation centre for university-industry collaboration – a framework for concept development”, 8th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization. Procedia Economics and Finance 21 (2015) 137-145
Nenonen, S., (2004) “Analysing the intangible benefits of work space”, Facilities, Vol. 22 Iss 9/10 pp. 233 -239
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003) “The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 1 No.1 pp 2-10
Saarijärvi, H., Kannan, P.K., Kuusela, H. (2013) "Value co‐creation: theoretical approaches and practical implications", European Business Review, Vol. 25 Iss: 1, pp.6 - 19
Senoo, D., Magnier-Watanabe, R., Salmador, M.P. (2007) "Workplace reformation, active ba and knowledge creation", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 Iss 3 pp. 296 – 31