A class exercise on business opportunity recognition (in the subject of entrepreneurship):
Question: Siu Ming was offered to choose one of two gift options: a fish or US$500. Siu Ming finally chose the fish instead of US$500. Why?
Answer: because Siu Ming is a cat.
Lesson learned: business opportunity is not an objective phenomenon independent of the cognitive condition of the decision-maker.
Sunday 28 April 2019
Monday 15 April 2019
Teaching plan - Geographical Imagination 2019
Teaching plan - Geographical Imagination 2019
Friday 12 April 2019
One useful way to conduct literature literature - teaching note
The following is a useful way to conduct literature literature for doing MBA assignments and dissertation projects. It can be described as a funneling way {reference 1}:
The initial literature review (LR) effort [broad-based] covers the overall intellectual landscape of a topic area, e.g., innovation capability. Academic ideas {reference 2} gathered can be grouped into four categories:
1. Definitions
2. Research interests and gaps
3. Analytical concepts and viewpoints
4. Implementation barriers and approaches
[In one of my lectures, I mentioned that the technology curve is an example of an analytical academic idea in the subject of innovation management.]
[In one of my lectures, I mentioned that the technology curve is an example of an analytical academic idea in the subject of innovation management.]
The next literature review (LR) effort [narrow-based] is more specific research objective-directed. The specific research concern of a particular researcher might be related to a few academic ideas from the broad-based academic set dealt with in the initial LR effort. The concern could be related to a particular place, e.g. Hong Kong, and a particular business sector, e.g. hotel or banking sector. It can be associated to a particular management concern in specific setting, e.g. implementation barriers to strengthen innovation capability in a family business in Hong Kong.
I suggest that the content of the initial LR effort [broad-based] makes up 70-80% of the whole literature review content while the next LR effort [narrow-based] makes up 20-30%.
I suggest that the content of the initial LR effort [broad-based] makes up 70-80% of the whole literature review content while the next LR effort [narrow-based] makes up 20-30%.
This funneling way to do literature review are mainly employed to (i) do an assignment with literature review on a specific topic, e.g. innovation capability, and (ii) present literature review findings on a high-level research task (of a core-focused domain item) in a dissertation project using the ALRA.
Thursday 11 April 2019
Study note for literature review note on innovation capability in ALRA
Study note for literature
review note on innovation capability,
with academic ideas and low-level research tasks in the subject of agile literature review approach (ALRA)
This study note is for literature review on the topic of innovation capability; it also provides examples on academic ideas and low-level research tasks which are utilized for the construction of the theoretical framework set in the ALRA.
I. Definitions
""Innovation
capability has been the subject of several studies in innovation management. According
to Lawson and Samson (2001), innovation capability is a theoretical
framework that describes the actions that can improve the success of innovation
activities. Thus, the definitions of innovation capability often
concentrate on defining factors
shared by innovative organizations. These factors are the dimensions that form an organization’s capability to innovate"
[Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila,
Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti
Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods,
Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
"According to Siggelkow (2002), the
capabilities of the organisation are the configuration of activities, policies,
structural elements and resources";
Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015.
"The development of innovation capability in services: research
propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.
"Innovation is, according to Lawson and
Samson (2001), a key mechanism to achieve organisational growth and renewal. In
the context of service, Bharadwaj et al. (1993) suggest that service companies
achieve competitive advantage by being innovative. More particularly, service innovation, “introduces something
new into the way of life, organization, timing and placement of what can
generally be described as the individual
and collective processes that relate to
consumers” (Barcet 2010, p. 51). Innovation capability, defined as the resource and assets that
enable a firm to engage in activities needed for innovation (O’Connor et al. 2007) is critical to the development and commercialisation
of new services that create value for the company and its customers. Lawson and
Samson (2001) contend that an organisation’s innovation capability arises
from the skills and abilities that enable the application of resources and
reflect an, “ability to continuously transform knowledge
and ideas into new products, processes and systems for the benefit of the firm
and its stakeholders” (Lawson and Samson 2001, p. 384). Service innovation
capability is therefore the ability of an organisation to adapt the service
process to the changing environment";
Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015.
"The development of innovation capability in services: research
propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.
"... the resource-based theory of the
firm underpins the notion of capabilities for a firm’s marketing and
technological functions. The resource-based theory focuses on a firm’s
bundle of resources and capabilities that are heterogeneous, scarce, durable,
not easily traded and difficult to imitate as sources for the development of
sustainable competitive advantage (Penrose 1959;Wernerfelt 1984; Barney
1991; Peteraf 1993). It emphasises the identification and mobilisation of a
firm’s unique resources and capabilities as a basis for developing competitive
advantage. Capabilities refer to an organisation’s ability to assemble,
integrate, and deploy valued resources, usually, in combination or co-existence
with a firm’s assets, knowledge, functional capabilities (e.g. marketing), and
organisational processes (Grant 1991; Amit and Schoemaker 1993). Marketing and technological capabilities
are part of organisational capabilities, which generate competencies rooted in
processes and business routines. The positive relationship between these capabilities
(marketing and technological) and firm performance requires a capability
perspective to differentiate organisational routines and dynamic capabilities
by understanding how the processes of exploration and exploitation learning
support innovative capability";
[Teck-Yong Eng & Duygu Okten (2011)
Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical
integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.]
"Innovative
capability is concerned with the ability to develop and apply existing
resources (e.g. technologies) and capabilities (e.g., know-how, skills) that
support innovation strategies (Kim 1997; Burgelman, Christensen, and
Wheelwright 2004). While a firm’s innovative capability may generate many
different types of innovations (see Garcia and Calantone 2002), the degree of
innovative capability can be examined on a continuum between incremental and
radical innovation (Dewar and Dutton 1986).A key construct for understanding
the degree of innovative capability is creativity, which is a core antecedent
of innovation for the generation of novel and meaningful ideas (Amabile et al.
1996). Within the capability
perspective, creativity can be treated as capabilities fundamental to a firm’s
competitive advantage. Creativity can also be seen in terms of innovative
capability as it encompasses adoption and implementation of new ideas
(Luecke and Katz 2003). Yet, despite the key role of creativity in innovation
(e.g. Im and Workman 2004), no theoretical framework of innovation has
explicitly considered creativity particularly for enhancing innovative capability";
[Teck-Yong Eng & Duygu Okten (2011)
Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical
integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.]
"Innovation
is a key managerial process because it is linked to business performance (Sanchez
1995) and to means of survival in the face of competition and environmental uncertainty
(Gronhaug & Kaufmann 1988). Organizational innovation has been described as
the fundamental reconceptualization of business models and the reshaping of
existing markets by breaking the rules and changing the nature of rivalry
(Schlegelmilch, Diamantopoulos & Kreutz 2003). Indeed, innovation has
been posited as providing a firm with an indirect approach to avoid competition
and thereby achieve a differential advantage over its competitors
(Varadarajan & Jayachandran 1999). Innovation is also at the core of
dynamic organizational capabilities (Teece, Pisano & Shuen 1997; Durand
1997), and, thus, innovators not only focus on rivals and their own competitive
position within the marketing channel, but they also look across substitute
channels (Kim & Mauborgne 1999; Rigby & Zook 2002)"; [Matti Tuominen & Saara Hyvönen (2004)
Organizational Innovation Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in
Marketing Channels, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 14:3, 277-293, DOI: 10.1080/09593960410001678417.]
II. Research interests and gaps
"... recent strategic management
thinking has focused on the premise that a firm’s success lies in its ability to find or create capabilities that are
distinctive, with competitive advantage derived from how a firm develops and
exploits those capabilities and its resource-based development path. Researchers
have pointed to the importance for service organisations of possessing
innovation capability given its role in the development and commercialisation
of new services that create value for the company and its customers. However, the
intangible nature of services means that service innovation, usually the
responsibility of the operations function has been the subject of only limited
investigation. Researchers have recognised that identifying how an organisation’s capability to innovate develops is also under-researched";
Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015.
"The development of innovation capability in services: research
propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.
"Conceptually,
innovation is a broad construct that can be examined internally in a firm,
at the strategic business unit as its level of analysis or at the market as its
outcome (Im and Workman 2004). Schumpeter’s (1934) pioneering work on
theory of creative destruction has long identified technological change as a
major source for discontinuous innovation. However, research about innovation
is often confounded by inconsistency in defining and measuring innovation types
(Wind and Mahajan 1997; Garcia and Calantone 2002). In particular, the
influence of technological capabilities on innovative capability has largely
remained underdeveloped";
[Teck-Yong Eng & Duygu Okten (2011)
Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical
integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.]
"Innovation
capability has been defined in several ways in the current literature. The
categories used in the area of innovation capability often adopt a certain type
of innovation, instead of the overall innovation capability. Innovation
capability has also been divided into radical and incremental innovation capability
(Sen and Egelhoff 2000). Also the effects of innovation capability on firm
performance have usually been studied by using the above-mentioned categories.
A majority of these studies has concentrated on large companies and
relationship between their innovation capability and performance"; [Minna Saunila (2017) Innovation capability in
achieving higher performance: perspectives of management and employees,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI:
10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.]
III. Analytical concepts and
viewpoints
"... innovation capability is divided
into seven dimensions (Saunila, 2014;
Saunila & Ukko, 2013, 2014). The dimensions are: participatory leadership
culture, ideation and organizing structures,
work climate and well-being, know-how development, regeneration, external
knowledge, and individual activity. This division was chosen because it broadly
covers the important dimensions of innovation capability. The seven dimensions
that form innovation capability are presented below.
• The
participatory leadership culture dimension is related to an organizational culture that supports
innovation. The dimension reflects the overall atmosphere of the organization
that supports and motivates innovation and a leadership culture that facilitates
innovation.
• The
ideation and organizing structures dimension includes the structures and systems that successful
innovation requires. This includes the generation, development, and
implementation of innovations, and the ways in which the organization’s
work tasks are organized.
• The
work climate and well-being dimension includes employee well-being, and the work climate for
innovation development, including collaboration and values.
• The
know-how development dimension points out that employee expertise plays an important
role in the development of the organization’s innovation capability. This
includes knowledge as well as improvement in employee skills.
• The
regeneration dimension reflects the organization’s
ability to learn from experience and to
use that experience to create and develop innovations.
• The
external knowledge dimension emphasizes the importance of exploiting external networks
and knowledge for the overall organizational innovation capability. Thus, the
dimension reflects the organization’s
internal capability to exploit external information in developing innovation
capability.
• The
individual activity dimension expresses that employees’ individual
innovation capability and activity are needed to form the organization’s
overall innovation capability. This factor includes the characteristics
associated with higher innovation capability and employee motivation to foster
innovations"
[Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen,
Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016)
Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4,
513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
Academic idea: innovation capability dimensions;
A low-level
research task: To learn evaluative opinions of
a few chosen managers on the quality (e.g., strengths and weaknesses) of the
seven innovation capability dimensions, by unstructured interview.
"Innovation capability has been
suggested to be a multi-faceted construct. Lawson and Samson (2001) consider innovation capability as actions that can
be taken to improve the success of innovation activities. Perdomo-Ortiz,
González-Benitoa, and Galende (2006) use the term business innovation
capability to describe the critical success factors of innovation processes.
These critical factors can be interpreted as business innovation capability dimensions, and the capability can be
measured with the factors. Thus, one viewpoint is to specify the
organisational aspects of innovation. A body of literature has identified the
common factors shared by innovative organisations and the factors that impact
on the ability to manage innovation (Smith et al. 2008). According to earlier
literature, these factors include for example leadership practices, employees’ skills
and innovativeness, processes and tools for idea management, supporting
culture, external sources for information, development of individual knowledge,
and employees’ welfare (e.g. Romijn and Albaladejo 2002;
Perdomo-Ortiz, González-Benitoa, and Galende 2006; Martensen et al. 2007; Smith
et al. 2008; Laforet 2011; Martínez-Román, Gamero, and Tamayo 2011; Saunila and
Ukko 2014; Saunila 2016). In this paper, innovation capability is divided into
seven dimensions, following Saunila and Ukko’s (2014) study. The dimensions
are participatory leadership culture, ideation and organising structures, work
climate and well-being, know-how development, regeneration, external knowledge,
and individual
activity";
[Minna Saunila (2017) Innovation capability in achieving higher
performance: perspectives of management and employees, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.]
Academic idea: innovation capability dimensions
"The
ability to innovate is a critical success factor for the growth and future
performance of firms, and is seen as the only means by which
companies can sustain competitive advantage (Carayannis & Provance, 2008;
Muller, Välikangas, & Merlyn, 2005). Linking
strategy with innovation activities, together with a shared vision of
innovation, is essential when creating innovation capability (e.g., Davila,
Epstein, & Shelton, 2006; Lawson & Samson, 2001; Saunila, 2016;
Skarzynski & Gibson, 2008). Previous literature has presented elements that
make up innovation capability (e.g., Kallio, Kujansivu, & Parjanen, 2012;
Lawson & Samson, 2001; Perunović, Mefford, Christoffersen, McIvor,
& Falls, 2016; Saunila, 2014, 2016; Saunila & Ukko, 2012; Skarzynski &
Gibson, 2008). Skarzynski and Gibson (2008) emphasize the sharing of a common vision
of innovation among the leaders and the organization, a disciplined approach to
building innovation capabilities across the organization, support tools to
enable an idea-generating pipeline and portfolio management, a collaborative
open culture, and incentives that reward the challenging of current
actions"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila,
Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti
Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods,
Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
Academic idea: innovation capability linkage with corporate
strategy and vision
A low-level
research task: To evaluate the perceived
quality of innovation capability linkage with the company's strategy and vision
by structured interview with a few chosen managers.
"... not all organizations are the same,
and different organizations have different issues and approaches regarding innovation
activities. Thus, different solutions are needed (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007).
Kaltoft et al. (2007) studied different approaches to collaborative improvement
– namely,
the bottom-up learning-by-doing
approach, the top-down directed approach, and the non-directed approach – paying
equal attention to concept building and experience gained from practice.
According to that study, successful implementation of the collaborative
improvement process requires elements of all three approaches: understanding and
direction (the top-down approach), activity and learning (the bottom-up approach),
and a genuine willingness to collaborate, based on trust and commitment (the
key values of the third approach)";
[Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila,
Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti
Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods,
Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
Academic idea: innovation capability improvement approaches
A low-level
research task: To learn perceptions on the
current usage and relative importance of the three innovation capability
improvement approaches in the company by structured interviews with a few
chosen managers.
"Development methods for innovation capability Handbook of Innovation
In employee-driven
innovation, the employees contribute actively and systematically to the
innovation process (Kallio, 2012). Innovations can emerge from any part of the organization
and any employee group (Kesting & Ulhoi, 2010). A typical hindrance to employees’ innovativeness
is that individual employees do not see it as part of their job. Feeling responsible for generating ideas
increases the activity compared with ‘it is someone else’s
job’ (Axtell et al., 2000; Kallio, 2012)...";
[Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen,
Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016)
Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4,
513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
Academic ideas: employee-driven innovation; employees' sense
of responsibility to generate innovation-related ideas
A low-level
research task: To evaluate perception of the
quality and importance of employee-driven innovation, and the quality and
importance of employees' sense of responsibility to generate innovation-related
ideas, by structured interview with a few managers and non-managerial staff.
"Theatre-based methods According
to Lester and Piore (2004), innovation is often studied only as a
decisionmaking and problem-solving process. From this perspective, innovation
is defined as an analytical linear project with a
well-defined beginning and end, aimed at solving
existing problems. What if the issue does not exist yet but is more a result of
incompleteness.... (Heikkinen, 2002)
and illustrates the logic of drama and learning through the aesthetics of
incompleteness and co-construction (Weick, 1995)? Innovation processes must
also be affected by issues that cannot be ‘solved’ or
unified in a logical, linear, and analytical fashion.
The goal of interpretative innovation is to discover new definitions.
This process of sense making is
understood to be a fragmented, ongoing,
open-ended (and multi-voiced) process of dialogue that emphasizes interaction
and communication (Lester & Piore, 2004; Pässilä, 2012). Understanding
the dynamics that support innovation involves understanding the dynamics that
get in the way of innovation"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen,
Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation
capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI:
10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
Academic idea: Innovation process as fragmented, ongoing,
open-ended and communication-interactive.
A low-level
research task: To find out the perceived
extent that the innovation process in the company is fragmented, ongoing,
open-ended and communication-interactive by unstructured interviews with a few
managerial and non-managerial staff.
"Innovation session Open
innovation is a phenomenon that has become increasingly important for practice and
theory over the last few years (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Enkel, Gassmann,
& Chesbrough, 2009; Huizingh, 2011). The innovation processes of an
organization also need to be adapted to the changing characteristics of
innovation activities, where external knowledge and actors are an increasing
part of the processes. One example of an open innovation tool that draws on
input from outside parties is the innovation session method. The purpose of the
innovation session is to combine regional and inter-regional expertise to benefit
the organizations’ innovation measures"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen,
Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016)
Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4,
513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]
Academic idea: Open innovation
A low-level
research task: To learn perception on whether
(a) the innovation process in the company is becoming more open and (b) the
innovation process in the company needs to increasingly become more open, by
unstructured interview with a few managerial and non-managerial staff.
"Resource-based
theorists advocate that a business should compete by developing, exploiting and
renewing its resources and using these to develop competencies that the
competition finds hard to imitate (Barney 1991; Peteraf 1993; Teece et al. 1997).
These competencies and capabilities can
then form the basis of a business strategy, creating value and enabling
differentiation in the organisation’s chosen markets";
Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015.
"The development of innovation capability in services: research
propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.
Academic idea: Organizational competencies and capability
as the basis of a business strategy
A low-level
research task: To learn the managerial
perception that the existing organizational capability, notably innovation
capability, makes up the basis of the business strategy of the company by
unstructured interview of a few chosen managers.
"The management of service innovation
involves dealing with new services that have differing degrees of newness. They
range from a totally new innovation (radical innovation) to those innovations
that involve only minor adjustment that is more evolutionary or incremental in
nature (Droege et al. 2009). Thus radical
innovations are characterised as either novel or unique technological
solutions which may include the development or application of new technologies
or that encompass state-of-the art breakthrough in a service category (Booz et
al. 1982; de Brentani 2001). Incremental
or evolutionary services are typically described as new services that only
involve minor changes in technology, simple service improvements, imitations or
line extensions (Booz et al. 1982; de Brentani 2001)";
Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015.
"The development of innovation capability in services: research
propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.
Academic idea: Radical service innovation and incremental
service innovation
A low-level
research task: To learn the perception from
managerial and non-managerial staff whether the company is good at radical and
incremental service innovation and why, by unstructured interview.
"Rather than focusing only on
developing innovations, it has been argued that mature firms searching to be
inventive should adopt a capabilities perspective on innovation (Hatchuel et
al., 2003; Colarelli O’Connor, 2008). A capabilities perspective encourages a systems view which facilitates
innovativeness in firms (Colarelli O’Connor, 2008; Bo¨ rjesson and Elmquist,
2011). The few studies of innovation capabilities tend to be rather general
(e.g. Burgelman et al., 1988; Francis and Bessant, 2005; Assink, 2006). An
important exception is the work of Colarelli O’Connor and colleagues on
‘‘major/radical innovation capabilities’’ (Colarelli O’Connor, 2008; Colarelli
O’Connor et al., 2008; Colarelli O’Connor and DeMartino, 2006; Colarelli
O’Connor and McDermott, 2004), which suggests that innovation systems should be founded on the three pillars of Discovery,
Incubation, and Acceleration. Also Danneels (2011) highlights resource
cognition as a central management capability required to build innovation
capability. Work on developing the
capabilities for innovation in mature firms, i.e. the efforts undertaken to
build new, complementary capabilities in the firm is very scant (O’Connor et
al., 2008). Kelley et al. (2011) argue that the individual is a key contributor
to the realization of innovation. Individuals are also critical for building
the organizational capability for innovation (O’Connor et al., 2008; Bo¨
rjesson and Elmquist, 2011), through their role of ‘‘orchestrators’’ (O’Connor
et al., 2008). Our research considers that building capabilities in mature
firms is a long-term, complex effort that involves many challenges. Building
the capability for innovation is strongly related to managing change
(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Zollo and Winter, 2002), and therefore to overcoming
organizational resistance and barriers such as mindset barriers (Assink,
2006; Moss-Kanter, 2006; Dougherty and Heller, 1994)"; [Börjesson, S.,
Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation capability
building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault
and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management" J. Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140,
Elsevier.]
Academic ideas: The three innovation system pillars of
discovery, incubation and acceleration; organizational barriers on innovation,
such as mindset barriers
A low-level
research task: To learn from managerial and
non-managerial staff if there are organizational barriers to innovation
activities on discover, incubation and acceleration.
"Development of innovation capabilities
requires changes to activities such as refining processes and use of available
resources, and examining how organizational decisions are taken which is
strongly related to the firm’s existing knowledge and learning. The process of
knowledge acquisition or learning involves processes to capture and internalize
external knowledge and experimentation to create distinctive knowledge for
specific situations (Hitt et al., 2000). Learning is critical to the
development of innovation capabilities (Madhavan and Grover, 1998; Lynn et al.,
1998). It includes effective internal
knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer (e.g. Kogut and Zander, 1992), learning from experience (e.g. Maidique
and Zirger, 1985; Rothwell and Gardiner, 1989; Colarelli O’Connor and
DeMartino, 2006), development of dynamic
routines for creative technological learning (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Lei
et al., 1996) and collaboration with
external actors (e.g. Kogut, 1988; Powell et al., 1996; Bosch-Sijtsema and
Postma, 2009). Building the capabilities for innovation is about creating
sustainable learning systems (Maurer and Githens, 2009; Adler and Shani, 2001)
in the firm. Working with new knowledge is challenging because it requires
shifts in firm values and associated power structures (Francis and Bessant,
2005)"; [Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The
challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal
studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management" J.
Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]
Academic idea:
innovation
capability development activities of internal knowledge sharing and
transfer, learning from experience, development of dynamic routines for
creative technological learning and collaboration with external actors.
A low-level
research task: To what out actual examples of
the company doing innovation capability development activities and perceived
effectiveness of these activities, by unstructured interview and/or survey
questionnaires with company staff.
"In
a review of the inhibitors to
disruptive (radical) innovation the main barriers identified include
adoption barriers, mindset barriers, risk barriers (mainly financial), nascent
barriers (i.e. lack of creativity and foresight), and infrastructure barriers
(Assink, 2006). Henderson (2008) refers to the ‘‘inertia of organizational
competence’’ to explain why established firms fail in contexts of disruptive
innovation. Bell and Pavitt (1995) underline that scale-intensive firms
such as automotive firms accumulate capabilities in core technologies and their
underlying knowledge bases through historical learning processes. Likewise,
Christensen (1997) argues that as organizations mature, the most difficult
capabilities to change are those tied to processes and values. These are
aspects that must be addressed by firms with ambitions to develop innovation
capability"; [Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The
challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal
studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management" J.
Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]
Academic idea:
Inhibitors
to radical innovation, such as adoption barriers, mindset barriers,
risk barriers (mainly financial), nascent barriers (i.e. lack of creativity and
foresight), and infrastructure barriers.
A low-level
research task: To learn perception from
company staff whether inhibitors to radical innovation exist in the company and
what have been done and should be done about these inhibitors.
"Research
in sociology highlights the importance of individual behaviours, arguing that
managers involved in supporting innovation require two critical skills: an
ability to engender interest in the intrinsic value of innovation activity in
order to increase the number of its supporters in the firm (Akrich et al.,
2002a) and the ability to be an innovation
spokesman to translate an economic strategy into research activity (Akrich
et al., 2002b). The first skill is most often associated with intrapreneurship
and can be linked to effective management of emotional capability, i.e. the
‘‘capacity to instill or control the emotions of people through organizational
processes to achieve a desired end or to perform a particular function or value
activity’’ (Akgu¨n et al., 2009: p. 105). It requires the innovation administrator to have conceptual skills (Katz, 1974),
i.e. the ability to develop a cognitive representation of the organization’s
components and their interdependencies which in turn requires facility to
anticipate those internal stakeholders that will be affected by or might be
able to influence the progress of an innovation activity. It identifies those
stakeholders whose support should be encouraged. The second facility is aligned
with the role of knowledge broker (Hargadon and Sutton, 2000; Hargadon, 2002)
and innovation ‘‘intermediary’’...";
[Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of
innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of
innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management" J. Eng.
Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]
Academic idea:
Innovation
supportive role-players of innovation spokesman, innovation
administrator and innovation intermediary
A low-level research task: To
learn from company staff if there are any staff playing the innovation
supportive roles in the company and how effectively they have been performing
these roles.
"From a capability perspective,
organisational learning processes of exploration and exploitation influence
acquisition and development of marketing capabilities to enhance innovative
capability. Organisational learning processes also include information
acquisition, information dissemination, and shared interpretation (Sinkula
1994). These organisational learning processes support a market-oriented
culture of organisation-wide generation of market intelligence across
departments, and organisation-wide responsiveness (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Using
March’s (1991) exploration-exploitation framework, exploitation cannot by definition
take place without prior exploration (March 1991) and the extent of innovation
is the result of the two interrelated organisational learning processes (Hurley
and Hult 1998). Exploitation learning
is analogous to the learning curve (or experience curve) with its internally
focused experience from the effect of cumulative production and user experience
on productivity in manufacturing (March 1991). Exploration learning is motivated by externally focused experience
from experimentation with new alternatives and search for new opportunities
(March 1991)";
[Teck-Yong Eng & Duygu Okten (2011)
Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical
integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.]
Academic idea:
Exploitation learning and
exploration learning
A low-level research
task: To find out via semi-structured
interview and questionnaire survey how well exploitation learning and
exploration learning with regard to innovation have been done in the company.
"A firm’s
innovativeness is positively related to a firm’s
economic performance in terms of higher levels of productivity and economic growth
(Cainelli, Evangelista, and
Savona 2004). The studies on organisational innovation and performance (e.g.
Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle 2011) also found that innovation and
organisational performance are overall positively correlated. Also in the
context of SMEs, a firm’s innovativeness improves firm performance
(Keskin 2006). On the basis of earlier literature, Armbruster et al. (2008)
show that organisational innovations act as prerequisites and facilitators of
an efficient use of technical product and process innovations, and therefore
they are sources of competitive advantage. Organisational innovations
themselves have an impact on business performance with regard to productivity, lead times, quality, and
flexibility (Armbruster et
al. 2008)";
[Minna Saunila (2017) Innovation capability in achieving higher
performance: perspectives of management and employees, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.]
Academic idea: business performance impacts of organizational
innovations
A low-level
research task: To learn via unstructured
interview, questionnaire survey and document study (e.g. annual reports)
whether and to what extent the organizational innovation capability of the
company contributes to the company's business performance in productivity, lead
times, quality, and flexibility.
"Several attempts have been made to enhance firm capabilities to accelerate the
innovation process, for example, by introducing systematic ways of
screening ideas (Lynn & Heintz 1992) followed by a stage-gate model of overhauling
the innovation process (Cooper & Kleinschmidt 1993). A number of studies
have also pointed out that interfunctional co-ordination is a prerequisite for
a successful innovation process (Mukhopadhyay & Gupta 1998). Therefore, we
suggest that the notion of organizational innovation capability should be split
into two separate aspects or entities: managerial
innovation and technological innovation";
[Matti Tuominen & Saara Hyvönen (2004) Organizational Innovation
Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in Marketing Channels, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14:3,
277-293, DOI: 10.1080/09593960410001678417.]
Academic idea: measures to accelerate the innovation
process, e.g. ideas screening, the stage-gate model of the innovation
process and interfunctional coordination.
A low-level
research task: To learn via unstructured
interview with a few chosen managers whether the innovation acceleration
measures have been performed effectively in the company.
"Managerial innovation involves new strategies and new
organizational forms, which are indirectly related to basic business activities
within an organization, whereas technological
innovation pertains to product, service and process technology interrelated
with these business activities (Damanpour 1991)";
[Matti Tuominen & Saara Hyvönen (2004) Organizational Innovation
Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in Marketing Channels, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14:3, 277-293,
DOI: 10.1080/09593960410001678417.]
Key words: managerial innovation and technological
innovation
Research
tasks: To find out via unstructured
interview and/or questionnaire survey with company staff on perceptions of how
well managerial and technological innovation have been performed in the
company.
References
Börjesson,
S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation
capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts
at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management" J. Eng. Technol.
Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.
Eng, T.Y. and Okten, D. 2011. Exploring a
dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical integration of
technological and marketing capabilities, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.
Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015.
"The development of innovation capability in services: research
propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.
Saunila, M. 2017. Innovation capability in
achieving higher performance: perspectives of management and employees, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.
Tuominen, M. and Hyvönen, S. 2004.
Organizational Innovation Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in
Marketing Channels, The International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14:3, 277-293, DOI:
10.1080/09593960410001678417.
Ukko, J., Saunila, M., Parjanen, S., Rantala,
T., Salminen, J., Pekkola, S. and Mäkimattila, M. 2016. Effectiveness of
innovation capability development methods, Innovation,
18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.
________________
Reference
Three types of research tasks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)