Search results

This paper aims to suggest a procedure for successfully transforming a firm’s innovation processes in a systematic way.

This is a conceptual paper, which draws on prior academic and practitioner papers.

Changes in a firm’s environment, such as new technological trends or customer needs, regularly call for the dynamic renewal of a firm’s innovation processes. Nonetheless, most firms proceed in a surprisingly unsystematic way if they transform their innovation processes. This approach contrasts with the systematic innovation processes that many firms have established to manage their product development from initial idea to final market launch.

To overcome this discrepancy, this paper distinguishes reconfiguration and realignment challenges in the transformation of a firm’s innovation processes. These different activities are illustrated with the example of transforming firms’ innovation processes towards open innovation. Furthermore, a five-step procedure is suggested to ease implementation. On this basis, implications for managers are discussed with respect to proficiently adapting their firms’ innovation processes over time.

In a session of the Strategos Innovation Academy, participants considered how a number of core management processes – for example, strategic planning, capital budgeting, performance assessment and product and process development – inhibit innovation. Working in groups, the participants identified problems with existing practices and then suggested a number of ways to make the process less toxic to innovation. Today’s strategic‐planning processes rarely emphasize radical innovation – the new business concepts and operational models that are necessary to keep corporations at the head of the pack – either implicitly or explicitly. Another failure that participants identified is the linkage between strategy planning and the annual budgetary cycle. To improve strategic planning, participants made a number of other suggestions, many of which derive from the toxicities and failures of the existing strategic‐planning process. Companies should first ensure that their business definition and associated mission statement are broad. Narrow definitions are likely to reduce a company’s identity to its current business model, thereby impeding the possibility of renewal. Companies should also explicitly include innovation in the strategic‐planning process. A chief innovation officer – a new senior‐level appointee in the company – can help ensure that innovation remains central to the strategic‐planning process. Greater scrutiny of strategic plans can also help. For example, CEOs can reject strategic plans that do not include a substantial amount of innovation. The introduction of new metrics for innovation would help formalize this commitment to innovation. Participants also recommended that companies find ways to dissociate the strategic‐planning process from an annual schedule. Instead, the process needs to become continuous. To this end, some participants advocated renaming the process strategic evolution instead of strategic planning.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss process philosophy’s potential contributions to understanding and investigation of innovation processes associated with organizational contexts.

The paper is a theoretical piece that examines the concept of process philosophy by relating it to the relevant literature and use of examples.

In particular, the authors develop some ideas and encourage future discussion around two aspects: process philosophy-oriented conceptualizations of innovation processes and process philosophy-oriented methods of investigation about innovation processes. The authors conclude that more process philosophy-oriented research of innovation processes must be conceptually multidimensional and methodologically performative.

There is a recent claim about a “process turn” within organization studies, which is partly represented by attempts to develop and apply a deeper meaning of process. The presentation of the concept is novel, and does add to the literature. These aspects provide clarification regarding implications of thinking and enquiring procedurally into innovation processes.

Given the important role of knowledge sharing (KS) processes for organizational innovation, the purpose of this study is to investigate the mediating roles of tacit and explicit KS in bridging the relationship between high-involvement human resource management (HRM) practices and specific aspects of innovation capability, namely, product and process innovation.

Analysis of moment structures and structural equation modeling are applied to examine the correlation among the constructs based on the survey data collected from 111 manufacturing and service firms.

The empirical findings reveal that KS processes positively mediate the relationship between high-involvement HRM practices and innovation capability. It highlights the important role of explicit KS in fostering aspects of innovation capability compared to the effects of tacit KS on aspect of innovation capability.

Vietnamese firms should pay much attention to high-involvement HRM practices to improve their innovation capabilities. In addition, fostering the willingness of employees for sharing tacit knowledge (e.g. experiences, uncommon understandings and insights) and explicit knowledge (e.g. formal information, official documents and reports and procedures and policies) is one of the most optimal solutions for firms to pursuit product and process innovation capability.

This paper significantly contributes to increasing knowledge and insights on the correlation between high-involvement HRM practices and specific forms of innovation. The understanding on mediating role of KS processes contributes to advancing the body of knowledge of HRM practices and innovation theory.

There is a lack of empirical-based models derived from practice to explain the digital innovation process. The authors investigate how the digital innovation process unfolds in practice.

The authors undertake an exploratory and phenomenological study of 21 Malaysian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector.

The findings show that the delineation between digital innovation process and outcome is blurred in practice, due to the process' iterative nature. Under this process, customers' role has changed from being passive receivers of innovative products to active reviewers, testers, influential decision-makers, initiators and co-creators at different review points in the innovation process. Enterprises' role has expanded from being the initiator of the innovation process to being a cogitative actor by seeking and absorbing knowledge from customer reviews into the digital innovation process. Market analysis is often the initiator of the digital innovation process, and the findings shed light on the underlying causative mechanisms of the initiation stage, which are understudied and not well understood in the existing literature.

The study contributes to academic knowledge by answering scholars' call for developing third-generation practice-based innovation models, which accounts for enterprises' context-specificities and internal and external environments, and for exploring the suitability of the need–solution fit approach for the digital innovation process. Such models have only been conceptually advocated in the literature. The study also informs practitioners on the organizational and operational activities involved in managing and strategizing for the digital innovation process.

This paper aims to analyze the adoption process of human resource information systems (HRIS) from a supply-side perspective emphasizing the practices of HRIS vendors and consultants. It aims to counterbalance the existing literature on HRIS, which has overwhelmingly studied HRIS adoption from the customer organization's viewpoint, hence systematically downplaying the active role of vendors and consultants in adoption processes.

The research has been conducted on the HRIS market of the Benelux (Belgium–The Netherlands–Luxemburg) from a constructionist and exploratory perspective. The structure and dynamics underlying the market are gradually unveiled through open interviews with HRIS vendors and consulting firms (n = 22).

The paper reveals how the social shaping of HR innovations takes place and identifies nine types of pressures exerted by HRIS vendors and consultants on customer organizations: assessing, advising, advertising, case-building, demonstrating, configuring, accompanying, sustaining and supporting. Taken together, these pressures demonstrate the systematic presence and active role of external actors throughout the adoption process of HRIS within firms.

It is suggested that further supply-side studies of innovation diffusion processes of HRIS should be conducted to complement the existing, demand-side literature. In this view, emphasis should be set on technology providers and their ongoing interactions with customer firms.

The analytical precedence given to supply-side actors allows to conceptualize HRIS adoption as the dynamic result of negotiations between three groups of actors (HRIS vendors, HRIS consultants and customer firms), hence resulting in a more comprehensive and holistic view of HRIS adoption processes.

Existing innovation frameworks suggest that manufacturing firms have traditionally developed a complementary model of technological innovations comprising process and product innovations (e.g. Oslo Manual). This article presents digital service innovation as a novel form of technological innovation that is capable of enhancing the performance of firms in certain manufacturing industries.

Drawing on technological innovation and digital servitization fields of research, this study argues that digital service innovation, in manufacturing contexts, complements traditional sources of technological innovation, so increasing the profit margins of firms. This effect is significant in industries characterized by business-to-business contexts, high presence of link channels and long product life spans (e.g. manufacturing and computer-based industries). Predictions are tested on a unique sample of 423 Spanish manufacturing firms using parametric (t-test) and nonparametric (fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, fsQCA) approaches.

The results of this analysis show that a necessary condition so that manufacturing firms can increase profits is the deployment of simultaneous process and product innovations. It also reveals that optimal configuration requires that digital service innovation be undertaken, particularly in machinery and computer-based manufacturing industries. Hence, all three sources of technological innovation are brought together in order to reach the highest levels of company performance. The evidence suggests that technological innovation and digital servitization are closely interrelated in highly innovative manufacturing contexts.

This study's originality and value reside in the fact that it reveals the existence of firms incorporating digital service innovation – a new, technological innovation dimension that challenges existing innovation frameworks – to complement traditional technological innovation sources, namely process and product innovation. Moreover, the study conceptualizes and empirically tests the value-adding role of digital services in firms' technological innovation portfolio.

The purpose of this paper is to study the organizational processes in co-creation with multiple stakeholders within the scope of innovation networks. It consists of analyzing the necessary adaptation of organizational processes and to structure a proposal of an integrated process.

This paper is a review article, an analysis of relevant articles in the areas of co-creation with multiple stakeholders, innovation networks, dynamic capabilities and organizational aspects linked to network organization which reflect on the main differences by relating them to the relevant literature.

Identification of related processes: Innovation development, knowledge integration/sharing, Co-evolution, Value Co-creation, Value Capture, Stakeholders capabilities, and elements of an integrated process in an innovation network.

Proposition of an integrated co-creation process with multiple stakeholders in an innovation network based on dynamic capabilities with the elements of literature and an analysis of the model variables. This process makes it possible, before reconfiguring the network itself, to create and to define the Project in an integrated manner. They also promote an evolution in the commitment, in the relationship and in the sharing of knowledge among the stakeholders and in the anticipation and evaluation by the stakeholders.

The aim of the applied systems analysis of scientific‐technological innovation is to identify the most effective innovation fields and to develop innovation strategies. This cannot be achieved without the development of theoretical foundations, practical methods and principles, a heuristic algorithm and a computer‐aided decision system. Such a system is described in this article, and represents, it is claimed, the first steps towards a computer‐aided decision system for innovation strategies.

This article seeks to clarify the role of knowledge management in innovation as an aid to addressing this complexity. The article seeks to identify the drivers for application of knowledge management in innovation. It also details the nature of the role of knowledge management in innovation as well as its value proposition.

The methodology used was literature research and some personal experiences and interpretations.

In the fast changing business world of today, innovation has become the mainstay of organizations. The nature of global economic growth has been changed by the speed of innovation, which has been made possible by rapidly evolving technology, shorter product lifecycles and a higher rate of new product development. The complexity of innovation has been increased by growth in the amount of knowledge available to organizations.

Innovation is extremely dependent on the availability of knowledge and therefore the complexity created by the explosion of richness and reach of knowledge has to be recognized and managed to ensure successful innovation.