IOE Flashcards
(26 cards)
Abernathy, W. and Utterback, J. (1978)
Patterns of industrial innovation
Shows a model with patterns of innovation
- Technological push = radical
- Market pull = incremental
Phases:
- Fluid = competing design (functional)
- Transitional = selection dominant design (product)
- Specific = exploitation dominant design (process)
Concl: Stage of the evolution of a firm determines the capacity and methods of innovation
Tushman, M. and Anderson, Ph. (1986)
Technological discontinuities and organizational environments
Technological discontinuities = massive breakthrough, major improvement of product performance
- Competence enhancing = build on existing knowledge (smaller improvement)
- Competence destroying = existing knowledge becomes obsolete (rich get poor = new entrants benefit)
Concl: Patterned changes in technology dramatically affect environmental conditions
Hargadon, A. (2003)
Recombinant innovation and the sources of invention
Technology = The arrangement of people, ideas and objects for the accomplishment of a particular goal
Innovation is a process of reassembling:
- People
- Ideas
- Objects
Concl: Learn how to structure the process of innovation by building from existing ideas
Schoenmakers, W. and Duysters, G. (2010)
The Technological Origins Of Radical Inventions
The difference between invention and innovation is in commercials; inventions require more effort to develop and market than innovation
Hypotheses:
H1 = Radical inventions are to a higher degree based on existing knowledge, as non-radical inventions
NOT SUPPORTED: Inventions are only radical when they are new, unique and have impact on future technology
H2 = Radical inventions are to a higher degree based on emergent technologies, as non-radical inventions
H3 = Radical inventions are to a higher degree based on a combination of mature and emergent technologies than non-radical inventions
H4 = Radical inventions are based on a relatively large number of knowledge domains compared to non-radical inventions
Nohria, N. and Gulati, R. (1996)
Is slack good or bad for innovation?
Inverted U-shape relationship:
- Too little slack discourages experimentation
- Too much slack causes a non-efficient way of working
H1: The relationship between organization slack and innovation is inverse U-shaped
What amount of slack is optimal? Determined by the industry and the firm or subunit culture
McKendrick D and Wade JB (2009)
Frequent incremental change, organizational size, and mortality in high-technology competition
Is too much incremental change also risky?
Problems with incremental change:
Overestimation of advantages and underestimation of organizational disruptions
H1 = The more frequent incremental technological changes a firm makes, the more likely it is to fail
Advantage large firms:
- Routines (reliability)
- Scale economies
- More resources
- Market and political power buffer
H2 = Frequent incremental change will have a positive effect on the failure rate of small firms but a negative effect on the hazard state of large firms
Competitors actions prompt other firms to innovate and adapt as well
- Large firms are more damaging
H3 = The greater the number of incremental changes is, the greater the failure of local firms
Concl: Large firms have more benefit and get less harmed
Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009)
Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation
Exploitation (incremental) = building from existing knowledge
Exploration (radical) = looking to new domains and new areas
The goal is to combine these two, this is the key to survive
Ambidexterity = firms that are able to balance between exploitation and exploration
- Architectural = propose using structures and strategies to enable differentiation, segregated effort target on either exploitative or exploratory innovation
- Contextual = emphasizes behavioral and social means of integrating exploitation and exploration
Three paradox of ambidexterity:
- Strategic intent = tension between business and creative sides
- Customer orientation = tension between tight and loose (future) coupling
- Personal drives = tension between discipline and passion
Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda H.W. (2009)
Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms, Organization Science
How to develop and maintain their ambidexterity?
Structural differentiation = establishes the differences across organizational units in terms of mindset, time orientations, functions, and product/market domains
Elements that mediate the relation between structural differentiation and ambidexterity: X H1: Senior team contingency rewards H2: Senior team social integration H3: Cross-functional interfaces H4: Connectedness
Anand, N., Gardner, H.K., and Morris, T. (2007)
Knowledge-based innovation: emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting
How does the process of creating and embedding innovations in professional service firms unfold?
Pathways:
- Expertise (internal network) = creation of clear expertise
- Turf (external-internal network) = initial experiment and success with a client
- Support (top-down hierarchy) = top management
H1: A new practice area emerges when socialized agency combined with one other element of the three pathways
H2: A new practice area is embedded when the socialized agency and the three pathways are all linked in a sequence
Gardner, H.K. Anand, N. and Morris. T. (2008)
Chartering new territory: Diversification, legitimacy and practice area creation in professional service firms
Knowledge-based innovation: emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting
Legitimacy = acceptance of authority
- Cognitive = shared understanding about innovations with costumers
- Socio-political = accept a venture as normatively appropriate and right
Failed innovations:
- Radical: Lack of external cognitive and internal socio-political legitimacy
- Incremental: Lack of internal cognitive and external socio-political legitimacy
Concl: Innovation in PFS (professional service firms) requires a combination of these
Chesbrough, H. (2003)
The era of open innovation
Modes in open innovation:
- Funding (Investors & Benefactors)
- Generating (Explorers, merchants, architects, missionaries)
- Commercializing (marketers, one-stop centers)
Companies that focus on all three are called fully integrated innovators
What challenges do firm encounter in open innovation?
- Not invented here syndrome
- Investing in ideas that someone else benefits from
- Tacit knowledge
The degree of openness = the ability to exploit external knowledge is a critical component of innovative performance
Laursen, & Salter, A. (2006)
Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms
Going open is beneficial for your innovation output up to a certain point, and then it becomes negative (Inverted U-shape)
External search breadth = different search sources that a firm draws
External search depth = extent to which a firm draw intensively from different search sources
H1: External search breath -> Innovative performance
H2: External search depth -> Innovative performance
H3-4: External search breadth/depth -> Innovative performance
With Innovation novelty or Radicalness as a moderator
H5: External search breadth/depth -> Innovative performance
With R&D intensity as a moderator
Rao, H., and Drazin, R., (2002)
Overcoming resource constraints on product innovation by recruiting talent from rivals
Young and poorly connected firms benefit from recruitment
- Liability of newness; lack of routines
- Liability of poor connectedness; lack of knowledge
H1-2: Age and external linkages have an increasing effect on the probability of product innovation
H3-8: Age and external linkages have a decreasing effect on the probability of recruiting
H9-12: Recruitment has an increasing effect on the probability of product innovation
- Age and external linkages = decreasing
Song, J., Almeida, P., Wu, G. (2003)
Learning by hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate inter-firm knowledge transfer?
Learning by hiring = acquisition of knowledge from other firms through the hiring of experts
H1: The level of knowledge sources from a hired engineer’s previous firm is lower when the hiring firm exhibits greater path dependence.
Path dependence has a decreasing effect on the level of knowledge sourced
H1: The level of knowledge sources from a hired engineer’s previous firm is lower when the engineer’s area of technological expertise matches the hiring firms are of technological expertise.
Expertise fit of engineer-organization has a decreasing effect on the level of knowledge sourced
Tzabbar, D. (2009)
When does scientist recruitment affect technological repositioning?
Why social and technological structures?
- Knowledge-based view of the firm
- Absorptive capacity of organizations
Path dependency
H1: Hiring distance scientist increase the likelihood of significant technological repositioning by a firm
H2: The positive effect of recruiting distance scientists on significant technological repositioning decreases with asymmetric in a firm innovative productivity
H3: The positive effect of recruiting distance scientists on significant technological reposting first increases and then decreases with increases a firms technological breath.
Tzabbar D. and Kehoe, R. R. (2013)
Can opportunity emerge from disarray? An examination of exploration and exploitation following star scientist turnover.
Align human capital with firm-internal resources and structures
Exploitation = doing what you have already done in the past
Exploration = going into uncharted territory
H1: Star scientists turnover decreases firm technological exploitation & Star scientist turnover increases a firms technological exploration.
H2: Star scientists turnover decreases firm technological exploitation & Star scientist turnover increases a firms technological exploration. Where innovative involvement decreases the effect even more as a moderator.
H3: Star scientists turnover decreases firm technological exploitation & Star scientist turnover increases a firms technological exploration. Where collaborative involvement increases the effect even more as a moderator.
Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2014)
Structural micro-foundations of innovation: the role of relational stars
The focus is on star scientists
Productivity stars = deeply embedded in social and knowledge networks within the company
Relational stars = actors with extreme patterns of collaborative behavior and superior individual productivity
- Integrators = large, extensive and dense network of intrafirm collaborates
- Connectors = collaborate with previously unconnected alters and recombine knowledge
H1: The higher the number of integrators, the higher the innovation quantity and quality
H2: The higher the number of connectors, the higher the innovation quantity and quality
H3: The positive effect of connectors on firm-level innovation output is stronger if the connector is also a star inventor
Guler, I., & Nerkar, A. (2012)
The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
Network cohesion = when individuals have mutual third party contacts
H1: The higher the level of local cohesion in the intraorganizational network, the higher will be the organizations’ innovation performance
H2: The higher the level of global cohesion in the intraorganizational network, the lower will the organizations’ performance
When the size increases, the connectedness goes down. Diversity and density strengthen each other
Almeida, P., Hohberger, J., & Parada, P. (2011)
Individual scientific collaborations and firm-level innovation.
Role of academia (universities) for innovation; scientific collaboration
H1: The patented innovative output of biotechnology firms increases with the total number of individual-level collaborations of the firm
X H2: The impact of individual-level collaborations on patented innovative output of the firm increases with the number of technological alliances of the firm
H3: The impact of individual-level collaborations on the patented innovative output of the firm increases with the strength of the regional knowledge
H4: The patented innovative output of biotechnology firms increases with the total number of individual-level collaborations between scientists in the focal firm and those in universities
Both informal alliances and informal collaboration have independent effects
Phelps, C. C. (2010)
A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network Structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation
Interfirm alliance (formal arrangements) network perspective on the likelihood to go into unchartered territory
H1: The technological diversity in a firm’s alliance network has an inverted U-shape relationship with the firm’s subsequent degree of exploration
H2: The density of alliance network positively moderates the curvilinear relationship between network diversity and exploratory innovation
Grant, R. (1996)
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Knowledge based view = creating competitive advantage from knowledge
Idiosyncratic = particular circumstances of time and place
Knowledge creation is an individual activity. The primary role of firms is in the application of existing knowledge to the production of goods and services.
The key to efficiency is to achieve effective integration while minimizing knowledge transfer through cross-learning by organizational members.
Nonaka, I. (1994)
A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation
Tacit knowledge (top to low) = cognitive and technical of a person. People need some kind of shared experience to transfer tacit to tacit Explicit knowledge (low to top) = transmittible in formal, systematic language. Using social processes to transfer explicit to explicit Specific knowledge = costly to transfer
Five organizational conditions of individual commitment:
- Intention (approach to the world)
- Autonomy (motivation)
- Fluctuation and creative chaos
- Redundancy (=overtolligheid)
- Requisite variety (diversity internal and external)
Management models:
- Top-Down (vertical) = efficiency, routine, knowledge creation = Bureaucracy
- Bottom-Up (horizontal) = flexibility, creativity, knowledge on the work floor = Task groups
- Middle-Up-Down (middle managers) = combine tacit and explicit knowledge = Hypertext organization
Butler, R., Price, D., Coates, P., and Pike, R. (1998)
Organizing for innovation: Tight or loose control?
Errors of tightness (focus): the existing structure does not allow sufficient decision-making capacity and unduly constrains choice
Errors of looseness (adaptability): the problem of losing efficiency, overall control and coordination
Balancing tightness and looseness for structure/ direction and for creativity/ problem- solving
Gebert. D., Boerner, S. and Kearny, E. (2010)
Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies?
Knowledge generation and knowledge integration both necessary for knowledge creation
Openness strategies: delegation of leadership, increases team autonomy for task-related diversity
Closed strategies: directive leadership, curtails team autonomy, homogenizes team composition
Combining strategies: the effects of one strategy do not offset the positive effects of the other strategy – both strategies reinforce one another (cf. Nonaka).
