Search results

Innovation challenges are increasingly complex, cutting across distributed actors from different disciplines, organizations, and fields. Solving such challenges requires creating the capacities of opening up for innovation to access and develop a greater amount and variety of knowledge and resources. Perspectives on open source, open innovation, and interorganizational collaboration have explored such capacities, but from different origins and scopes of analysis. Our practice-based integrative framework of “opening innovation” helps highlight these differences and connect their relative strengths. Through a critical literature review paired with an analysis of different empirical cases from Hacking Health, a non-profit organization helping drive digital health innovation, the authors reveal the user-centric, firm-centric, and field-centric approaches to opening innovation that progressively connect a greater variety of actors and resources. The authors show how specific new relational practices they produce address the new relational dynamics these connections bring to accumulate more resources for innovation to keep progressing.

The purpose of this paper is to present a review of literature that establishes the factors affecting the ability of an organisation to absorb and apply knowledge. The review aims to draw from literature on the resource‐based view of the firm, dynamic capabilities, organisational learning, knowledge management and technological innovation. The paper then seeks to present a model of knowledge translation capability synthesised from the literature review.

The model that is synthesised from the literature review draws on three streams of work. First, the work of Dorothy Leonard on technological capability; second, the I‐space model of knowledge assets developed by Max Boisot; and third, other work based in the organisational learning and innovation management literature. The model is illustrated using a case study of an innovation project.

The effective development of a knowledge translation capability requires attention to a network of both formal and informal structures/activities across an organisation. Together these activities constitute a dynamic capability that operates iteratively throughout the whole organisation and are an example of triple‐loop learning processes.

The paper will prove useful to other academics in the area of technological innovation and practising managers who can use the model to evaluate their own organisation's knowledge translation capability.

The advantage of the model presented is that, unlike other discussions of dynamic capability, the link between conceptual level description and real world activities has been made more distinct. By recognising relevant organisational structures and relationships, it becomes possible to takes steps to assess their performance and then manage their improvement.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the emergence of innovation in smart service systems to conceptualize how actor’s relationships through technology-enabled interactions can give birth to novel technologies, processes, strategies and value. The objectives of the study are: to detect the different enablers that activate innovation in smart service systems; and to explore how these can lead dynamically to the emergence of different innovation patterns.

The empirical research adopts an approach based on constructivist grounded theory, performed through observation and semi-structured interviews to investigate the development of innovation in the Italian CTNA (Italian acronym of National Cluster for Aerospace Technology).

The identification and re-elaboration of the novelties that emerged from the analysis of the Cluster allow the elaboration of a diagram that classifies five different shades of innovation, introduced through some related theoretical propositions: technological; process; business model and data-driven; social and eco-sustainable; and practice-based.

The paper embraces a synthesis view that detects the enabling structural and systems dimensions for innovation (the “what”) and the way in which these can be combined to create new technologies, resources, values and social rules (the “how” dimension). The classification of five different kinds of innovation can contribute to enrich extant research on value co-creation and innovation and can shed light on how given technologies and relational strategies can produce varied innovation outcomes according to the diverse stakeholders engaged.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of intermediate knowledge mechanisms on the participative leadership–employee exploratory innovation relationship using a distal mediation model.

Deploying a time-lagged questionnaire method implemented over four business quarters, data are generated from 1,600 responses in R&D units of Taiwanese technology firms.

The structural equation modeling results reveal that participative leadership is positively related to employee exploratory innovation; coworker knowledge and absorptive capacity partially mediate the relationship between participative leadership and employee exploratory innovation independently; and coworker knowledge sharing in combination with absorptive capacity partially mediates this relationship.

The findings contribute new knowledge on the relationship between participative leadership and employee exploratory innovation by uncovering intermediate knowledge mechanisms that augment this relationship.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the idea of practice‐based innovation and to propose a framework that can be used to conceptualize and analyze practice‐based innovation processes in organizations.

The argument is driven by conceptual analysis and theoretical synthesis based on theory and research on innovation, organizational change, individual and organizational learning.

The proposed framework portrays practice‐based innovation as a cyclical process of adaptive and developmental learning driven by contradictions and tensions between explicit and implicit dimensions of work processes.

The paper adds to previous research through its focus on practice‐based innovation and the conceptualization of this notion in terms of learning in and through everyday work. It thus creates connections between innovation research and research on workplace learning.

The objective of this paper is to develop practice and theory from Augusto Boal's dialogue technique (Image Theatre) for organisational use. The paper aims to examine how the members in an organisation create dialogue together by using a dramaturgical storytelling framework where the dialogue emerges from storytelling facilitated by symbolic representations of still images.

The study follows the lines of participatory action and art‐based research. The data are collected from 13 dramaturgical work story storytelling sessions in four different organisations. The research design belongs to the tradition of research‐based theatre, which implies artful inquiry, scripting and performance in research.

The paper presents a model for organisational dialogue. The model illustrates the dramaturgical storytelling of work story which influences problem shifting in a positive way.

The limitations of this study are related to the scope of the research. The Scandinavian cultural context facilitates an open, bottom up process. More case studies in different kinds of environments should be conducted. In the future it might be advantageous to conduct more longitudinal studies on how organisations can nurture continuous dialogue.

Work story as a dialogue practice facilitated members from the same occupational groups to share experiences with each other and construct common interests by investigating unstructured and uncertain social situations at work.

The paper combines research fields that explore art‐based initiatives within organisations, workplace learning and innovation research.

This paper aims to examine employee-driven innovation (EDI) intertwined with learning, creating a new description combining these two concepts: employee-driven learning and innovation (EDLI). This paper provides insights into the nature of EDLI based on the existing theories and perspectives. It seeks to elaborate EDLI as an ongoing process in and through work.

The paper draws on Jaakkola’s (2020) guidance for structuring a conceptual article. The authors first describe the theoretical starting points related to EDI and then elaborate its relationship with learning at work, with the aim of structuring the key elements involved, drawing on and interpreting existing theory and knowledge.

In summary, advanced here are five premises for describing EDLI at work: (1) EDI and workplace learning are strongly intertwined phenomena, (2) learning in the EDI process occurs simultaneously at the intra-personal and inter-personal levels as a reciprocal process of adaptive and innovative learning, (3) innovations are only manifested in and are relevant to the specific cultural-historical and social context of particular enterprises, (4) the continuity of innovations and learning processes is enabled by participation and (5) triggers from outside the workplace, behind the innovation and the specific consequences (that transcend workplace boundaries) of the innovation anchor aspects of the process outside the workplace or work practice.

The paper advances a description and justification of EDLI. As such, it extends, connects and updates previously established theoretical models and explanations of this about EDIs. Based on the premises advanced here, the theoretical and practical contributions are discussed and the research gaps and needs for further research identified.

This study aims to investigate service modularization in a manufacturing firm, identifies service modularization processes and examines how these processes change the service module characteristics.

The study is based on a longitudinal case study (2008-2017) of a manufacturing firm. The development of six service modules was analyzed using data from interviews with key informants, informal meetings and internal documentation.

This study suggests five service modularization processes, and that service module characteristics, such as standardization and interconnectedness, change in different ways depending on the service modularization processes used. It further identifies two service modularization routes that each combine the service modularization processes in unique ways with replication as a key process to improve both standardization and customization.

This study elaborates a framework for service modularization, which can serve as a guideline for developing service modules. It also highlights the differences between product and service modularization, suggesting that the role of service module characteristics such as standardization and customization is specific for services.

This longitudinal case study (2008-2017) provides empirical evidence on service modularization and extends existing knowledge on service modularization processes and how they influence service module characteristics.

This study aims to explore the use of specific innovations in primary care practices. The research seeks to examine whether a relationship exists between environmental factors and organizational characteristics and the level of innovation in primary care practices in Virginia.

The study utilized multiple secondary data sets and an organizational survey of primary care practices to define the external environment and the level of innovation. Institutional theory was used to explain the connection between innovations in primary care practices and institutional forces within the environment. Resource dependency theory was used to explain motivators for change based on a dependence on scarce financial, human, and information resources.

Results show a positive association between organizational size, organizational relationships, and stakeholder expectations on the level of innovation. A negative association was found between competition and the level of innovation. No relationship was found between degree of Medicare and managed care penetration and innovation, nor between knowledge of, and difficulty complying with, payer organization requirements and innovation.

Primary care physician practices exist in a market‐driven environment characterized by high pressure from regulatory sources, decreasing reimbursement levels, increasing rate of change in technologies, and increasing patient and community expectations. This study contributes new information on the relationship between organizational characteristics, the external environment and specific innovations in primary care practices. Information on the contributing factors to innovation in primary care is important for improving delivery of health care services and the ability of these practices to survive.

The purpose of this paper is to frame innovation as a process of co‐creation according to a practice‐based view.

The paper focuses on the innovation practices that occurred within the web contexts of ten companies. In accordance with netnography research, data include preliminary studies of the web‐based context, naturalistic observations of the community and the activities of its members, and direct interactions with the members of the innovating community.

This work proposes the integration of innovation, practice and the emerging co‐creation research. The paper develops the five “Co‐s” model including: co‐ideation, co‐valuation, co‐design, co‐test and co‐launch. Each “Co‐“ represents a phase of the innovation process resulting from dynamic and on‐going interactions among resources, actions, and a group of actors who are interrelated via a dense network. Within each “Co‐“, the authors identify practices and elements of practices.

A firm's managers should influence co‐creation opportunities by contributing to script practices. These managers should be able to consider more clearly the full options of co‐creation activities and be involved in designing and responding to co‐creation initiatives. They should also understand that each phase could provide an opportunity for collaboration that enhances the value of co‐creation. In this manner, managers could orchestrate multiple resources (e.g., actors, actions tools and output language).

This work brings innovation into the realm of practice by moving the focus from the outcome to the process –, i.e. from innovation as a new artefact to the act of innovating. In this context, innovating is the system of on‐going co‐creation practices performed by people who merge knowledge, actions, tools, languages and artefacts to create something new and better. In this view, innovators are carriers of practices.