![](bg6.png)
The Mind-of-the-Product is a provocative concept
generated from integrating knowledge for managing
and innovating. To put it into practice is demanding
technologically but increasingly possible. It is not
strictly organisation-centric since it requires
substantial information from external sources,
crucially an answer to the basic question ‘who wants
to buy me? and the underlying sources of value for
which customers are willing to pay. It also demands
information and system-integration internal to
organisations so that, for example, systems for
managing Customer Relationships and Product Life-
Cycle Management speak to each other. MotP has
the potential to facilitate the visible integration of
information to track conformity levels and impacts
enabling strategic growth and directly supporting
those delivering on leadership functions.
The product that knows itself is the
‘embodiment’ of integrated knowledge. A key
purpose of MotP lies in allowing organisations’ to
drill into current (and future) sources of consumer
value embodied in that knowledge. The
virtualisation arising from separating the material
product from its embodied knowledge generates
possibilities for re-combining some of the
knowledge in new and innovative products. Early
visibility on the fit of a product with future
production, regulation, and consumer trends
challenges an organisation’s means for generating
value.
While technology is one limiting factor in novel
resource mobilization and value creation, the role of
imagination is also central. In Compliance terms,
applying MotP implicates coordinating and
integrating organizational routines in new ways.
Substantial changes in habits may be required to
refocus leadership attention on balancing the pursuit
of business opportunities with the management of
risk so central to many compliance domain experts.
In terms of consumers, businesses are limited in
their ability to inform on whether, or the extent to
which, they conform to product attributes that
consumers demand. MotP addresses this information
asymmetry offering transparency on e.g. supply
chain partners, local community impacts, animal
welfare, treatment of employees (own and partners)
etc.. Whatever feature consumers identify as related
to sustainability can be accounted for within MotP
so consumers can identify those producers that
supply ‘sustainable’ products.
It is entirely conceivable that hand-held mobile
devices could be used to scan a product’s codebar
communicating product attribute information,
exploiting MotP. ‘Buyer power’ would take on a
qualitatively different meaning with implications far
beyond price into the myriad non-price attributes
that consumers target in their purchasing – enabling
comprehensive consumer choice.
Central to the interests of Boards is the need to
attend to three fast-moving business targets i.e. (i)
new regulations (policy, law, standards) (ii) product
evolution (new and improved) and (iii) evolving
intra-organisational strategic and operational
imperatives. Suitably developed platforms have the
potential to serve as a critical system supporting
organizations in commercially exploiting
knowledge, through a central repository of data
appropriately structured for needs and which is
accessible to any business actor with conferred
permission.
By developing a central CKMS incorporating
GRC and Innovation activities, and building on
MotP, it follows that a company’s knowledge
workers are better facilitated to acquire, assimilate,
transform and exploit knowledge for commercial
gain. The scale of the impact cannot be predicted
although we contend the potential is substantial.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E., 2001. Review: Knowledge
Management and Knowledge Management Systems:
Conceptual Foundation and Research Issues. MIS
Quarterly 25(1) 107–3.
Belloc, F., 2011. Corporate Governance and Innovation: A
Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 26(5) 835–64.
Barki, H., Pinsonneault, A., 2005. A model of
organizational integration, implementation effort, and
performance. Organization Science 16(2), 165-79.
Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management
17(1) 99–120.
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive
Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1)
128–52.
Crosby, P.B., 1979. Quality is Free: the Art of Making
Quality Certain, McGrawHill New York.
Doyle, E., McGovern, D., McCarthy, S. (2014)
Compliance–innovation: Integrating Quality and
Compliance Knowledge and Practice, Total Quality
Management, forthcoming. doi.org/10.1080/14783363.
2014.914641.
Doyle, E., 2007. Compliance Obstacles to Competitiveness.
Corporate Governance 7(5) 612–22.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic
capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management
Journal 21(10-11) 1105–21.
Freeman, C., 1997. The Economics of Industrial
Innovation, The MIT Press. Boston, 3
rd
edition.
Mind-of-the-Product-AttheHeartofGRCKnowledgeIntegration
311