Meaningful Mentoring Makes a Difference

I’ve spent over 35 years in Quality…..

Not only am I a woman, but I am also a Caribbean-born woman of color. My African ancestry stems through the veins of Jamaica. I come from a family who believed in the power of education. My parents instilled in me from a young age that receiving high marks through schooling would ultimately shape my destiny. I started in quality by a quirk of fate. Taking advanced classes in high school allowed me an opportunity to work for a reputable company, Colgate Palmolive. At the end of high school, the company offered me a job as a quality control (QC) analyst because of my work in chemistry and math. I worked in the QC lab and put myself through college. I earned a medical technology degree and another in applied science and technology. The medical technology degree taught me patient safety and proper documentation. I'll never forget how one professors stressed that our data were admissible in court and patients’ lives were in our hands. During these internships, I realized I fit easily in the quality world.

When I started out in quality many years ago, I was the only female for a long time in the lab. From the beginning, I always have been comfortable working along-side men and others who don’t look like me. When I think about the state of quality for women, I feel that all women—no matter their heritage—can have the opportunity to be in quality. Throughout my 35 years within the industry, I have seen a lot of changes, with more women pur-suing careers in STEM. I have seen a shift now more than ever where there are more women than men in labs. However, the number of women pursuing quality is smaller. What’s somewhat dishearten-ing is the lack of women in senior leadership roles, particularly women of color, within the realm of quality in the executive suite. Part of my analysis over the past 15 years is recognizing that a new generation of quality folks will replace my generation. As a result, I started mentoring women who showed interest in quality. I never had a mentor, and I felt my life would have gone differently if I had one. Mentoring has allowed me the privilege to help young women interested in sciences across continents. I've felt obligated to give back to the community of women interested in science and, most importantly, quality. I want to impart wisdom to the next generation and realize now that what I share is a part of my legacy that I leave in the realm of quality.

The more women who have leadership roles, the better. I want to see more women reaching back into the community and bring-ing others with them to succeed. What blocks more women leaders in quality is the attitude that we can’t all have a seat at the table. We have seen often in our history that this simply is not true. As I impart my knowledge of quality standards and excellence, I want every woman that I mentor and interact with to remember that where they started got them to where they are today. Where they are today is because of another woman in quality who took the courage to push beyond the barriers to create a space for her. We must adopt the motto, “Each one, teach one.”

This blog entry is a part of an article entitled ‘We ARE Doing It! Diverse experiences, united purpose strengthen the women of quality’. You can find the link here where Heather and 11 other dynamic women in Quality share their experiences in the Quality sphere.

Innovation Management – Merging each concept into one

The complexity of this research topic has brought to the forefront the opportunities for future research as well as implications for the future. When thinking of future and innovation one cannot separate the topic of sustainability, protection of the environment, and natural resources. This is an aspect of innovation management that I came across in the research for my Manuscript. It is imperative that innovation management and all associated with it to take responsibility and understand the impact to environment and natural resources. This is part of the ethical responsibility, consumer responsibility, and corporate responsibility that must be presented when tackling this complex topic of innovation. These responsibilities lay at the feet of corporations both large and small as well as at the feet of the consumers. We are all accountable in one form or the other.

In the pharmaceutical biotech industry, the entity that gets to market first ensures a larger market share and can keep that market share due to Intellectual Property Protection. The dynamic capability of the leader and organization are critical but are not the only elements in the organization that needs to be nurtured and supported for innovation management to succeed.

Implications

The value of both radical and incremental innovation also known as ambidextrous innovation was borne out in the research data. However, this requires a balancing act by managers to know when to exploit or explore. Therefore, managers must be sensitive to radical innovation or incremental innovation needs of teams. A question that seems quite logical is, how does one successfully do this simultaneously and still perform and deliver at a high rate in the innovation space? It may simply lie in the fact that it may be necessary to have separate teams to ensure success at innovation. For some organizations it may not be that simple in the pharmaceutical biotechnology industry. Many organizations are trying to operate “lean machines” hence when the suggestion for creating yet another team is presented many will cringe at the very thought.

The research clearly shows that investment into several areas will pay back huge dividends. One of the areas to invest in is learning. Many organizations and managers are not buying into the notion that investing in their workforce reaps big dividends. The data shows that for $1 invested it comes back 4-fold because that learning promotes the opportunity to look at current innovative products or services. Teams must be given autonomy to fail to succeed at innovation. If failure is not built into the business strategy, then the organization should not be involved in innovation management.

The management of knowledge including the subsets of tacit knowledge and learning must be nurtured and supported during transactional relationships between organizations. Since tacit knowledge cannot be written down it will take creativity to get this knowledge codified and successfully transmitted across organizations particularly in open innovation spaces in the pharma biotech industry. On the other hand, knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer must be managed in a systematic way to retain authenticity of information. Data integrity is at the forefront of the knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer to ensure remaining compliant with regulatory requirements, it is the bigger challenge in the pharma biotech industry. Therefore, the question that looms large ahead is, how does one remain compliant yet pursue innovation at a rapid pace particularly in the disruptive innovation and radical innovation environments of the pharma biotech industry?

Opportunities for future study comes in several different forms:

• Conducting a longitudinal study in the pharmaceutical biotech industry of ambidextrous teams looking at the effects of dynamic capability

• A study of other high technology industries may yield a different result.

• The depth and magnitude of dynamic capability were not measured.

• The study focused on only one industry because of the timeline allowed for the research to be conducted. Adding other high technology companies to the research discussion will add another layer of complexity to any subsequent future study.

Reflections

Nearing the end of this blog journey, I can appreciate the magnitude of my research efforts in a short time. This journey has allowed me to reflect on the value of this research and what is to come for the future. I am humbled by the opportunity to share my journey with my various networks, people whom I will meet soon (either at conferences or speaking engagements) and others who are just genuinely excited and interested in supporting someone on their doctoral journey.

This is not the end of my blogging on this topic. I will be submitting my Manuscript for publication in the first week of December. I will keep you posted on developments in that area. I will also begin to write my Dissertation shortly and will continue to blog on my area of research as well as other relevant topics. My Dissertation is the capstone to my doctoral degree and will be a year long journey. See you around the block!

Innovation Management – “We have arrived”

There are several layers to conducting good research. For my Manuscript I depended on 4 critical elements which makes up the Evidence Based Management process (Briner, Denyer, & Rousseau, 2009):

1.       Practitioner expertise and judgment

2.       Locally contextual evidence

3.       Critical evaluation of the best available research evidence

4.       Perceptions of stakeholders who may be affected by the decision

As mentioned in my Blog #2, I wanted to expand my dialogue on the theory applied for my Manuscript research. I initially took a deeper dive into Social Cognitive theory. Even though Social Cognitive theory addresses the fact that teams in the pharma biotech arena utilize their cognitive abilities to a very high level as well as the socio (behavioral) aspects, there was no tie into my research of the technology piece. My current professor suggested that I should look at Socio-Technical theory and make the decision if I thought it was a better fit or not. The exploration of Socio-Technical theory was a game changer for my research. This theory was the ultimate fit for my research. This theory explores how the technical aspects impacts the socio or behavioral aspects of teams. I took a deep dive into understanding the elements of Socio-Technical theory to expound why this theory could underpin my research from several different vantage points.

The problem statement formulated in my Blog #1 was the biggest driver in exploring Socio-Technical theory. It was critical for me to understand what happens to teams during the “game of changing spaces” in the pharma biotech industry. Socio-Technical theory not only supports “people”, the behavioral piece, but it supports the “skills” piece of the research. One of the most profound finding during this research was that much of the socio-technical connection happens early in the research and development phase of technology. Several questions now popped up during this stage of my research. How does the people affect the technology? How does technology affect the people?

In parallel to making the discoveries during exploration of the theory underpinning the study, I took a dive into dynamic capability as the framework for my Manuscript. The dynamic capability framework examination showcased how innovation is impacted by this phenomenon. Therefore, for my research I was looking intently at the effects of this framework on radical innovation and incremental innovation (ambidextrous innovation). Teece (2007) work of “seizing, sensing and managing threats” showed that Knowledge Management, Governance, Decentralization, Cospecializations were key constructs. After much deliberation, the decision was made not to look at Governance because that had been exhausted in the literature. Knowledge management was a key area because the pharma biotech industry is a knowledge intensive arena, even though much had been written about knowledge management, the literature had not fully explored the area I am researching for my Manuscript. Further justification was made to look at Decentralization which according to Teece is associated with Open Innovation, a strategic area of radical innovation.

The research was full of twists and turns with detailed research in the area of knowledge management. The literature showed the deep connection of knowledge management to innovation. The literature had widespread data and research on organizations and leadership. But again, please reference my first 2 blogs to see where the gap still exists in the literature.

One aspect of the literature mentioned tacit knowledge. That is the knowledge that cannot be written down. This observation is critical in the pharma biotech industry which is constantly playing the game of “trading spaces”. Ultimately, what does this observation mean for pharma biotech organizations, leaders and teams existing in this environment? How can anyone codify this type of knowledge in the pharma biotech industry?

After an exhaustive literature review, synthesis of the literature and analysis; several items came to the surface. It was as if I had gone into the deep as a scuba diver and I was beginning to come to the surface.

Discoveries

Interestingly, the conceptual framework highlights learning, knowledge transfer, and knowledge sharing but one key area of knowledge management was not explicitly called out in the framework. It does not appear in the conceptual framework utilized for this study. This area of knowledge management is key to the survival and competitive edge of pharma biotech companies who grapple for position on a daily basis with a race towards market share. This is an area I will research in the future and hope to publish about this critical construct shortly in my Manuscript.

The research was also full of confirmation of the effects of dynamic capability on ambidextrous innovation but not necessarily highlighting the role of teams in the pharma biotech industry. The literature confirmed that dynamic capability had a positive effect on radical innovation. It was also confirmed that learning had a positive effect on incremental innovation (Sheng, 2016). Open Innovation had a positive effect on radical innovation (Cheng, 2016).

Notice how deliberate these discoveries are as related to ambidextrous innovation. What does this mean for managers of teams who potentially have to manage both radical and incremental innovation at the same time in the pharma biotech industry? My next blog will expound on the implications and the limitations of the study.

Innovation Management – “Diving into the deep”

My research started to take shape after reading hundreds of articles. One of the things that has been a distinctive part of my journey in the doctoral program is that I have learnt to move into the realm of critical thinking. This is what fundamentally differentiates a doctoral student from a masters student - you learn how to utilize critical thinking skills.

Having the critical thinking aspect upper most in mind, I kept thinking about all that I read and re-read in the literature related to disruptive innovation, radical innovation and incremental innovation. Then I started asking myself the pivotal question, again and again, so what?

On my journey into the research, I noticed that very little was examined or researched from the team vantage point. Most of the research I found centered around organizations and leaders. As a project management professional, I certainly understood the value of teams and what high performing teams could accomplish from a practitioner point of view but did the research data corroborate the existing knowledge? Why is understanding this important to the research topic?

It was imperative by this part into the journey to start formulating the research question. I used the PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Context, and CIMO (Context, Intervention, Mechanisms and Outcomes) methods to decide what research question was needed to address the problem noted in my first blog. The PICOC and CIMO are critical to formulating the research question in evidence-based management research (Barends & Rousseau, 2018; Denyer. & Tranfield, 2009). The PICOC method helps to identify the population being researched and the CIMO method helps to flush out the mechanisms associated with the research. The research data being explored would play a large role in determining the mechanism which would play a crucial role in determining the trajectory of my research for my Manuscript.

After much deliberation, I made the determination based on the evidence that I had already explored that dynamic capability (mechanism) of teams in high technology industries (narrowed down to pharm biotech after recommendations) was the main framework to build my research. This is where my research mushroomed to another level of complexity. I added “dynamic capability” as a search criterion to understand what was already researched in the area of radical innovation and incremental innovation. The addition of dynamic capability as a mechanism or framework to build my Manuscript radically changed my research efforts. It catapulted me into an area which caused great excitement. My research expanded substantially with the volume of literature available and tied in nicely with the amount of research associated with innovation management. But again, the gap was evident.

Dynamic capability has several meanings in the management arena but one of the most popular is by Teece, a renowned scholar and author of hundreds of research articles on the topic. Teece (2007) defined dynamic capability as “sensing, seizing and managing threats”. This seemed like a perfect fit to analyze the issues associated with my research problem identified in my first blog.

In the meantime, I was seeking advice over the summer from a professor at my institution (University of Maryland Global Campus), when I mentioned that I wanted to use dynamic capability as mechanism for my research. It was recommended that I should read Dora (2015) which was a literature review of 10 years of dynamic capability literature. The article by Dora helped to solidify the choice of dynamic capability to understand the constructs which influence teams in the pharmaceutical biotechnology arena.

I subsequently started to think of what theory could underpin my research because during my research for the Manuscript I had come across several theories: Stakeholder theory, Absorptive Capacity theory and Innovation Theory. One of the most popular theories being researched was Absorptive Capacity theory. However, because I was looking at teams, I wanted to look at behavior, so I started exploring Social Cognitive Theory. I added this to my search criterion and again my research expanded even further.

In parallel to the activity of figuring out the theory I would utilize for the research study, I wanted to research what Christensen had written on the topic. I was introduced to Christensen early in my doctoral journal as an innovation expert and the fact that Christensen had produced groundbreaking work of great reputation in the change management world, it was imperative for me to analyze his work and see the connection to my research. I therefore ended up buying the book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” by Clayton Christensen to add to my library. This book played a critical and crucial role in my journey at this stage. It lent credibility to my early discoveries around the gap in the literature. Christensen confirmed that “heavy weight teams” are critical to innovation. Keep this in mind because I will go deeper with this observation in my next blog.

At this point with all this research behind me I started to formulate a research question. The research question centered around the effects of dynamic capability on ambidextrous innovation teams in the pharma biotech industry. I also wanted to understand the constructs which would help to drive innovation and sustain innovation.

For my next blog I will dive into the constructs that were utilized for the rest of my research. These constructs will take us to the long-awaited findings. I will also discuss which theory I ultimately applied to support my study.

Innovation Management - the journey into an exciting world

I started my doctoral journey with my heart set on Technology Management as my area of research. Technology Management is a big part of my professional life. To the chagrin of many who were in my program when asked what was I interested in? The answer was always the same - Technology Management. I started examining Technology Management for a year, but my research was starting to take me into Innovation Management. As a change management agent, I have led change in a variety of organizations hence why this was a natural fit and natural progression.

This was a perfect storm that was beginning to brew because innovation management is intertwined with technology management. I was deeply interested in disruptive innovation prior to my doctoral journey and started thinking hard about that aspect of innovation. Disruptive innovation was always at the fore front as a research area because of things such as CAR T-cell therapy, IoT, Uber, 5G and Airbnb. In my first class of the doctoral program we took a deep dive into theories and conceptual frameworks. I was eager to understand if there were management theories and conceptual frameworks associated with disruptive innovation. This eventually mushroomed into a reality when I discovered several theories and conceptual frameworks which potentially could fit into my area of research.

Last semester Spring of 2019 during my research I stumbled up on the idea of Ambidextrous Leadership. In parallel with this, I was introduced by my mentor from Carnegie-Mellon to Frese, a researcher out of Germany who wrote extensively on change management and ambidextrous organizations. This caught my attention and I kept promoting the idea to my team for us to expand our research into that area. The more I explored this area the more I realized that this is an area that could fit into my Manuscript and Dissertation.

Prior to this, the only thing I knew about being ambidextrous was the ability to use both hands, which my father perfected because he was born left-handed but my grandfather forced him to use his right hand (there were no tools for left-handed folks born in the 1920s and 1930s). I loved to watch my father, Ellis Johnson, write with both hands and swing a cricket bat from both sides. For management research purposes, “ambidexterity” is about being able to explore and exploit simultaneously in the innovation space.

For my Manuscript I knew I wanted to stay close to Disruptive innovation. The research literature took me down a multifaceted path. I explored high technology industries such as digital technology, information technology, and pharma biotechnology. I had delved into a deluge of articles and realized quite quickly that I needed to narrow down my area of focus. I decided to look at the pharma biotech industry. Even though I had over 30 years of experience as a practitioner in pharma biotech I went into my research with no preconceived idea of where my research would take me.

My research consumed many months of poring over empirical data, case studies and conceptual papers including conference papers. I did not look at grey literature at all. This is where my bias showed up because as a positivist, I love the data, the data and the data. I felt like it was too risky to look at grey literature because innovation management is rapidly evolving at the speed of light. I knew going into my research that I would not go back further than the last 5 years to look in depth at the literature for gaps in the research. I started off looking at articles from the past 10 years beginning from 2009 through to 2019. I then narrowed down to the last 4 years to understand the limitations which were presented in research conducted in the area of radical innovation and incremental innovation.

Quite instinctively the area in Innovation Management that piqued my curiosity was Ambidextrous Innovation. This type of innovation is best described or defined as follows:

·         Radical (exploratory) Innovation, as involving “the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of new products for new customers or emerging markets” (Sheng, 2016).

·         Incremental (exploitative)Innovation, as “to enhance the firm's existing knowledge and improve existing products” (Sheng, 2016).

This form of innovation has been researched extensively from an organizational vantage point and a leadership vantage point for the past 20 years. Ultimately the question is: what is the management problem? If I wanted to research this area, I needed to understand the problem before I could conduct good research. As a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt I fundamentally understood the power of a good problem statement.

So here goes my shot at the problem. Problem Statement: “It is a known fact that mergers and acquisitions have grown exponentially in the pharma biotech arena (US Governmental Accountability Office). This has been the case because pharma biotech companies face the daunting task of staying competitive and sustaining their product pipeline while seeking cutting edge technology. Many have been faced with drugs falling off patent and losing market share. Some have become extinct or have been surpassed by their competitors” (Visscher,2006; Hannachi, 2016).

I read over 250 articles over the summer of 2019 and narrowed down to 66 articles for my Manuscript research. I was living, breathing and dreaming about innovation management and ambidextrous innovation. The initial keywords I used were “radical innovation”, “incremental innovation”, and “disruptive innovation”. I will share in my upcoming blog posts where the initial research took me, what other key words I included in my search strings, and about the evolution of my research question.