Search results

As organizations have become increasingly effective at reducing costs and improving efficiency in their operations, their attention has shifted to revenue growth. Tapping the collective creativity and know‐how of employees is emerging as one of the best ways to anticipate customer needs and grow new markets. Typically, when companies set out to create knowledge bases, the first issue that they tackle is technology. In many cases, resources and patience are exhausted by the time they have resolved technology issues. This paper reviews Arthur Andersen’s experiences in developing knowledge bases ‐ focusing on content; knowledge sharing; and culture change.

This case aims to describe what innovation looks like and how it works in Fidelity Investments, a financial services organization that is large and decentralized.

The case looks at how the firm's internal consultants introduced idea‐management systems, idea‐management contests, design thinking, open innovation, innovation tools, coaching and mentoring and new innovation processes

The study show that internal consultants made progress by demonstrating that different ways of thinking through business problems could lead to better solutions without making a huge investment of resources – people, time, and budget.

The implementation results findings are based on first‐hand reporting by the author.

The combination of internal consultants and business unit champions learned to create a home for innovation that focuses and leverages impact.

This case explains how the internal consulting unit charged with disseminating innovation processes developed the trust and cooperation of the company business units.

This paper will explore the emerging trend of business methods patenting by posing the following question: “Is the growing emphasis on asserting ownership over some forms of intellectual capital inimical to the organization’s ability to realize value from innovation?”. The legal landscape for patenting in both the USA and Europe will be reviewed, focusing on how the law has expanded protection over time to include intangibles such as business methods and software. The authors will depict how awareness of these changes has made its way into the general business discussion, examining arguments for and against business methods patenting from both a public policy and a business perspective. They will then explore how the emerging requirements for fast‐paced innovation may impact an organization’s decision to pursue an aggressive patenting strategy. Finally, the authors will outline a set of considerations for organizations considering the plunge into business methods patenting.

This article is based on the results of a benchmarking study of knowledge management that was initiated at the Knowledge Imperative Symposium in Houston, Tex., in September 1995. The symposium was co‐sponsored by Arthur Andersen and the Houston‐based American Productivity & Quality Center.