Search results

This study deals with the processes of innovation in the medium technology industrial sectors. First, it illustrates the differences between the linear model of innovation and the systemic and cognitive model of knowledge creation. Then, it focuses on the concepts of connectivity, creativity, and speed of change, which characterize the processes of interactive learning in the industrial clusters. Finally, it illustrates a typology of regions, where problems and policy fields are different, and it indicates the guidelines of a governance of interregional knowledge and innovation networks.

The literature on organizational learning is very rich and complex. Although most research on learning suggests that it involves individual cognitive, cultural, social, and institutional changes and development, there are slight variations in terms of the number of factors various authors associate with these changes. We discuss the work of several authors as providing a contextual framework for viewing learning as involving both the adoption and diffusion of innovations.

Accounting for quality and improved organizational performance has recently received attention in management control research. However, the extent to which process innovation changes have been integrated into management control research is limited. This paper contributes to that integration by drawing from institutional adaptive theory of organizational change and process innovation strategies. The paper utilizes a 2 by 2 contingency table that uses two factors: environmental conditions and organizational change/learning strategies, to build a process innovation framework. A combination of these two factors yields four process innovation strategies: mechanistic, organic, organizational development (OD) and organizational transformation (OT).

The four process innovation typologies are applied to characterize innovations in accounting such as activity based costing (ABC). ABC has been discussed as a multi-phased innovation process that provides an environment where both the initiation and the implementation of accounting change can occur. Technical innovation can be successfully initiated as organic innovation that unfolds in a decentralized organization and requires radical change and double loop learning. Implementation occurs best as a mechanistic innovation in a hierarchical organization and involving incremental change and single loop learning. The paper concludes that if ABC is integrated into an OD or OT intervention strategy, the technical and administrative innovation aspects of ABC can be utilized to manage the organization’s operating activities.

Many corporations have annual expenditures in research and development in the range of billions of U.S. dollars. Senior managers have often been frustrated by the lack of innovation in their organizations and have been looking for better ways to implement an innovation strategy. To provide initial evidence on this significant topic, we conduct an empirical examination and contribute to the existing literature in two important areas. First, we examine how managers choose what measures to pay attention to in managing the innovation process – defined as the process of creative definition, development, and commercialization of substantially new products, services or businesses. We find that managers use measures about specific phases of the innovation process together. For example, measures that inform about the execution stage of the innovation process are grouped together rather than being grouped with measures informative about other phases of the innovation process, such as market performance. This pattern “focused” around specific phases is in contrast to the alternative “balanced” pattern where managers would use measures from various phases of the process together. This result provides the first empirical test of how managers combine measures to filter information about business processes. It also provides important new evidence on the use of measures and provides guidance to the design of measurement systems. Second, this paper provides empirical evidence on the relationship between innovation strategy and the use of measures. Though previous studies have linked innovation strategy and the use of management control systems in general, there is little empirical data on the relationship of strategy and the use of measures and on the innovation process. We find that different dimensions of strategy are positively associated with how managers use different types of measures.

The paper extends the organizational learning framework: Structural-Functional (SF)-single-loop or Conflictual-Radical (CR)-double-loop learning to the management accounting literature. The sociological approach of organizational learning is utilized to understand those contingent factors that can explain why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

We view learning as enhancing an organization’s strategic competitive advantage by making it better able to adopt and diffuse innovation in respond to changes in its environment in order to manage improved performance. The success of management accounting innovations is contingent upon whether its learning process involves SF-single-loop or CR-double-loop learning to adopt and diffuse process innovation.

The paper suggests that the learning strategy that the organization chooses is the reason why some management accounting innovations are more successfully adopted than others and why some innovations are easily diffused in some organizations but not in others. We propose that the sociological approaches to learning provide an alternative framework with which to better understand the adoption and diffusion of process innovations in management accounting systems.

It has become evident that management accounting researchers need to pay particular attention to an organization’s approach to adoption and diffusion of innovation strategies, particularly when they are designing and implementing process innovation programs for an organization. According to Schulz (2001), there are two interrelated stages of the learning that can shape the outcome of the innovation process in an organization. The first stage is related to the acquisition/production (adoption) of knowledge that results in gathering information, codification, and exploration. This is followed by the second stage which is the distribution or dissemination (diffusion) processes. When these two stages – adoption and diffusion – are applied within an accounting context, they address issues that are commonly associated with the successes and/or failures of management accounting innovations.

Although innovation involves learning, the nature of the learning process does not completely describe the manner in which an innovation affects the organization. Accordingly, we suggest that the two interrelated organizational sociological dimensions of innovations processes, namely, (1) the adoption and diffusion theories of Rogers (1971 and 1995), to approach organizational learning, and (2) the SF (single loop) and CR (double loop) approaches to learning be used simultaneously to describe management accounting innovations.

When an innovation is implemented, it initially can be introduced as an incremental change, one that can be limited in both in its scope and its breadth of administrative changes. This means that situations which are most likely to benefit from its initiation can serve as the prototype for its adoption by the organization. If successful, this can be followed by systemic accounting innovations to instituting broader administrative changes within the existing accounting reporting and control systems.

Purpose – To investigate the effects of headquarters (HQ) involvement in innovation development and transfer at unit level.

Methodology/approach – We develop a theoretical model that we test on a sample of 71 innovations belonging to 52 business units located throughout Europe, Asia, and the USA. The data were collected by personal interviews and analyzed using the partial least squares (PLS) technique.

Findings – While HQ involvement in innovation development enhances the effects on the unit engaged in the development, it is detrimental to performance of the innovation transfer process. We also find higher HQ involvement in the innovation development process and stronger innovation impact on the subsidiary to be associated with higher HQ involvement in the transfer process.

Research limitations/implications – There is a significant beneficial effect of HQ involvement in the development process in terms of the increased impact of the innovation in the unit, and a harmful influence on the specific performance associated to the transfer process.

Practical implications – HQs will benefit from improved performance if they become more involved in important innovations while limiting their direct engagement in the transfer of “marginal” innovations. It might also be wise for the HQs to rethink their involvement at unit level by separating the development process from the transfer process in their decision framework.

Originality/value of the paper – This is one of the first attempts to empirically connect the processes of innovation development and transfer at unit level in MNCs and to show the implications of HQ involvement in innovation projects at subsidiary level.

As proposed by Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996), the concept of coopetition which highlights the coexistence of both collaborative and competitive forces in interorganizational settings aims to provide a new way of thinking for accelerating the innovation process and generating greater value. However, despite such recognitions, our understanding about how coopetition can help facilitate the innovation process in small and medium enterprises is rather limited. This should warrant a separate stream of research on this issue. Drawing on the concept of effectuation, we will explore the coopetitive innovation process in entrepreneurial firms. Sarasvathy (2001) proposed five principles embedded in the effectuation decision-making process of entrepreneurship. This process starts with a given set of means and controllable goals, followed by interactions with other stakeholders until they are all committed. The final stage leads to the creation of new products and services. The first two stages, means and goals, are the preparation stage in which an entrepreneurial firm distinguishes itself from large established corporations and establishes a base to leverage its contingency according to existing means and acceptable losses. After that, the effectuation process enters into the interaction and commitment stage during which the firm seeks relationships with stakeholders. We argue that the coopetitive forces can appear in the interaction and commitment stages to enlarge and capture value for the entrepreneurial firm involved.

In this paper, we examine the roles of innovation experts in organizations as part of a new and evolving field of knowledge. In our examination, we integrate two fields of study: the rise of new experts in organizations and the development of role identity. Our main goal is to map the epistemological processes these new experts go through coupled with their perceived identity, roles, and duties. Based on interviews with 33 innovation experts in profit and nonprofit organizations, we analyze the role expectations, the complexities associated with this role, and the unfolding identity processes. The analysis is based on three analytical lenses for understanding the identity processes of innovation experts in organizations: “becoming,” “doing,” and “relating.” Our findings are that identity work is needed to facilitate adaptation and reduce ambiguity in the work of innovation experts.

This volume brings together empirical and conceptual papers that investigate the challenges of organizing creativity in the innovation journey in and across different empirical contexts. Seen as the basis for innovating new products, processes or services, organizing creativity is studied as intentional efforts that occur in teams, organizations, and fields. What creativity is, how it is defined, negotiated and recognized is hereby co-constructed with different audiences and in different economic and societal spheres. The papers in this volume extend our understanding of these contextualized social dynamics of organizing creativity in four directions. The first direction sheds light on the temporal dynamics of organizing creativity in artistic fields. The second direction compares creative processes in arts and science, thereby examining tensions and uncertainties in the creative process unfolding in two distinctive contexts of creativity. The third direction examines identity struggles of creative agents in organizations with clashing roles, professional norms, and ambiguities in creativity assessment. The fourth and final direction unravels the communicative journey of ideas from pitching to feedback, revealing how ideas are challenged, enriched, and acquire meaning in communicative interaction. Overall, the papers in this volume contribute to a situated view of creative processes in innovation which goes beyond questions of idea generation to account for dynamics of idea development, judgment, and dissemination which involve identity struggles, evaluation, and communication – processes which are at the heart of organizing for innovation.