Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Innovation Literature (innovation + literature)
Selected AbstractsManaging innovation through social architecture, learning, and competencies: a new conceptual approachKNOWLEDGE AND PROCESS MANAGEMENT: THE JOURNAL OF CORPORATE TRANSFORMATION, Issue 3 2006Peter Murray Traditional innovative narratives are presented in a structured, almost prescribed, fashion in the innovation literature. This structural approach treats knowledge as a commodity that can be easily developed and shared. In this paper we argue the opposite, suggesting that developing competencies is fundamentally linked to socially constructed innovative practices and processes developed over time as the organisation evolves and learns new ways. We suggest that the latter is better reflected by a processual view of knowledge management; how it evolves, how it leads to innovation. While the innovation literature is familiar with the importance of learning and knowledge practices, we contend that the learning routines themselves are not practised in a systematic fashion. We argue that innovation is seldom of a breakthrough type. Instead, we call for an integrative approach that combines social processes with learning and innovation. Socially crafted routines we suggest lead to greater innovative outcomes and effectiveness. This paper explores and investigates these ideas by matching different contexts to processes. The paper develops a theoretical framework which indicates the integrative and interactive forces required for successful innovation implementation. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Building dynamic capabilities for innovation: an exploratory study of key management practicesR & D MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2008Hyunsuk Lee While both the innovation literature and the dynamic capabilities perspective identify loose processes as most appropriate for high uncertainty domains, this produces little reassurance to organizations seeking to improve their ability to commercialize innovations. This paper takes the position that practices for managing innovation project leaders are a key component of an organization's dynamic capabilities for innovation. Our comparative case analysis of divisions of two established Korean organizations suggests that managerial practices include the deployment of entrepreneurial resources having particular skills, characteristics, and motivation. In addition, we identify the relational and decision support roles of managers. [source] Adaptation and Organizational Connectedness in Corporate Radical Innovation Programs,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 5 2009Donna Kelley This research examines how established companies organize programs for fostering technology-based radical innovation. It addresses conflicts revealed in the innovation literature concerning the appropriate design of the strategic, structural, and process components of these programs. In developing innovation strategies, managers must balance the desire for strategic clarity with the need to allow for creativity and exploration. They must structure programs that ensure innovations benefit from the organization's resources while minimizing the numerous constraints that can impede these unconventional activities. Additionally, though they may favor management processes that provide accountability and effective resource allocation, managers must also ensure these do not restrict the flexibility required for successful innovation. The study is a longitudinal, comparative case analysis of interviews with managers involved in innovation programs in 12 industry-leading multinational corporations. Site visits at each company were followed by biannual interviews with key managers in each company. A total of 81 follow-up interviews were conducted over a three-year period. These interviews were aimed at identifying the changes and progress in the programs over time and internal and external impacts on the organization's innovation activity. The analysis reveals (1) distinct but evolving objectives that maintain a logical strategic connection, (2) adaptive structures that shift and transform but preserve relationships with the broader organization, and (3) flexible processes that are understandable beyond the innovation program and are modifiable, both for the context and in response to learning over time. This suggests that programs introducing high uncertainty and risk into mature corporate environments are highly flexible systems that maintain organizational connectedness as they evolve. For academics, this implies a need to understand the evolution of innovation programs as an adaptive learning process that, regardless of form and purpose, preserves its connection to the traditional organization. For practitioners, it highlights the importance of considering the process, strategic, and structural connections to the broader organization when designing innovation programs and suggests the need for feedback mechanisms to help adapt these elements over time. [source] Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2008Gina Colarelli O'Connor Major innovation (MI), composed of both radical and really new innovation, is an important mechanism for enabling the growth and renewal of an enterprise. Yet it is poorly managed in most established firms, and success stories are rare. This conceptual article draws on systems theory, recent advances in dynamic capabilities theory, and the management of innovation literature to offer a framework for building an MI dynamic capability. The framework is composed of seven elements that together form a management system rather than a process-based approach to nurturing radical innovation. These system elements are (1) an identifiable organization structure; (2) interface mechanisms with the mainstream organization, some of which are tightly coupled and others of which are loose; (3) exploratory processes; (4) requisite skills and talent development, given that entrepreneurial talent is not present in most organizations; (5) governance and decision-making mechanisms at the project, MI portfolio, and MI system levels; (6) appropriate performance metrics; and (7) an appropriate culture and leadership context. It is argued that dynamic capabilities for phenomena as complex as MI must be considered in a systems fashion rather than as operating routines and repeatable processes as the literature currently suggests. A set of propositions is offered regarding how each element should play out in this parallel management system. Finally, each element's role in the major innovation system is justified in terms of four criteria required by systems theory: (1) The system is identifiable, and its elements are interdependent; (2) the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; (3) homeostasis is achieved through interaction and networking with the larger organization; and (4) there is a clear purpose in the larger system in which the MI management system is embedded. Examples are given to demonstrate these criteria. Systems theory offers a new way of thinking about dynamic capability development and management. [source] The Performance Impact of Content and Process in Product Innovation ChartersTHE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 1 2007Chris Bart The significance of product innovation charters (PICs) cannot be overemphasized, as they provide understanding and a tool for setting organizational goals, charting strategic direction, and allocating resources for new product portfolios. In a unique way, a PIC represents a sort of mission statement mutation for new products. With the backdrop of strategy formulation and product innovation literatures, this article investigates the impact of both content specificity within PICs and satisfaction with the PIC formulation process on new product performance in North American corporations. A survey was undertaken among executives knowledgeable about their organization's new product development process. The respondents included chief executive officers, vice presidents, directors, and managers. The findings demonstrate that significant differences exist both in PIC content specificity and process satisfaction between highly innovative and low innovative firms. The study also shows that PIC specificity in terms of the factors mission content and strategic directives positively influences new product performance. Further, the study demonstrates that satisfaction with the process of formulating PICs plays a positive and powerful mediating role in the PIC specificity,performance relationship. The results suggest that product innovation charters, like their mission statement cousins, may be of more value than most managers realize. The study shows that achieving a state of organizational satisfaction with a PIC's formulation process is critical for obtaining better new product performance. Directions for future research also are suggested. [source] | ||||||||||