1576
n
Myths in management
However, I really think these things are useless (if not dangerous)
if done in isolation; the documents and models make little sense
without the explanation or (even better) involvement of the
individuals who created the knowledge in the rst place.
They can even be dangerous because they may create a false sense
of security, because every acquisition is unique, and you may
be following steps that, if taken out of context, do more harm
than good, and because it prevents you from really tailoring and
thinking things through. In such cases – when it concerns the
transfer of abstract, complex knowledge – unless you accompany
a database with a system to organize for human interaction, you
may actually be better off without it.
R&D – it’s a steal
One last question about knowledge in organizations, and that is
about these knowledge-generation units called R&D departments:
can you have a useful R&D department that is perfectly useless?
Perhaps I should explain the question . . . Most R&D departments
are supposed to generate new technologies, products, processes,
etc. But not all do. Some R&D departments seem to never come
up with anything that makes it to market. Clearly a waste of
money, these lab-rats, right?
Well, maybe not.
For a long time, economists and other folks studying organiza-
tions assumed that R&D departments are supposed to come up
with stuff. And only if they come up with good stuff – which
eventually makes it into a sellable product and reaps a prot – is
an R&D department worth the investment. Clearly, if they never
come up with anything at all, that’s money down the drain – or
at least, that’s what everybody assumed.
Then, two professors of strategy (note, not economists!), Wesley
Cohen and Daniel Levinthal, discovered an interesting insight.
To put it in a nutshell: sometimes, rms with R&D departments
that never come up with anything at all still seemed to benet