The Capacity for Innovation in Large, Complex Organizations - Joseph R. Cerami - 2001 Propositions

The Capacity for Innovation in Large, Complex Organizations
Joseph R. Cerami
The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 6(1), 2001,



Propositions in the paper

General Proposition:

Large, complex organizations can be more effectively innovative by developing capacities for innovation.

Propositions, by Capacity:
Proposition 1:

Large, complex organizations can be more effectively innovative by developing a capacity to promote a values-based, environment-oriented identity.
1A: The capacity to promote a values-based, environment-oriented identity requires a strategy that includes innovation in the vision, mission, values and purpose statements.

1B: The capacity to promote a values-based, environment-oriented identity requires core values that encourage innovation and can be embodied in achievable and measurable goals.

1C: The capacity to promote a values-based, environment-oriented identity requires constant environmental scanning (for current and future competitive threats and cooperative opportunities) and the capability to change values to support both incremental and discontinuous change.

Proposition 2:

Large, complex organizations can be more effectively innovative by developing a capacity for flexible work processes.

2A: The capacity to develop flexible work processes requires the capability to assemble powerful, flexible, creative, multifunctional, and boundary-spanning teams.

2B: The capacity to develop flexible work processes requires a culture and climate that supports innovation and change.

2C: The capacity to develop flexible work processes requires ambidextrous approaches for managing existing technology while simultaneously developing new technologies (this includes the capability to align all organizational subsystems to support both incremental and discontinuous change).

Proposition 3:

Large, complex organizations can be more effectively innovative by developing a capacity for individual and collective situated judgment.

3A: The capacity for individual and collective situated judgment can be developed by promoting creativity in individual and group attributes, conceptual skills, behavior, and processes.

3B: The capacity for individual and collective situated judgment can be developed by improving the organization's decision making, knowledge-base and technological mastery (including the capacity to experiment, conduct pilot tests, and manage technology cycles).

3C: The capacity for individual and collective situated judgment can be developed through environmentally-oriented, flexible and adaptable team and management styles, and project-oriented, horizontal work processes.

3D: The capacity for individual and collective situated judgment can be developed by improving the ability of top management to identify and overcome barriers to innovation and change.

Proposition 4:

Large, complex organizations can be more effectively innovative by developing a capacity for individual and collective accountability.

4A: The capacity for individual and collective accountability can be developed through structures and management that encourage horizontal, boundary-spanning, open communications and the interaction (and conflict management) of independent, small, multifunctional teams.

4B: The capacity for individual and collective accountability can be developed by a top management that performs the roles of architects, network builders, jugglers and buffers.

4C: The capacity for individual and collective accountability can be developed by improving the metrics used to measure continuous improvements (through methods, such as CMM).

4D: The capacity for individual and collective accountability can be developed by a top management that can identify the most important problems and performance gaps, then align organizational subsystems to enable rapid organizational change and develop new technologies faster than environmental competitors.


http://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/organizational-design.htm

Innovation Theory and Innovation Management Theory - Literature Reviews

Strategic Innovation - Literature Review - 2013
Essay - Part of a thesis
http://essay.utwente.nl/62857/1/Thesis_Strategic_Innovation_S_Kataria.pdf

Innovation Theory: A review of the literature
ICEPT Working Paper
May 2012
Ref: ICEPT/WP/2012/011
Philip Greenacre (philip.greenacre06 @ imperial.ac.uk)
Dr Robert Gross (robert.gross @ imperial.ac.uk)
Jamie Speirs (jamie.speirs06 @ imperial.ac.uk)
Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/icept/Public/Innovation%20review%20-%20ICEPT%20working%20paper%20version%20(16.05.12).pdf

Innovation Management - Google Books Bibliography

Perspectives on Supplier Innovation: Theories, Concepts and Empirical Insights on Open Innovation and the Integration of Suppliers


Alexander Brem, Joseph Tidd
World Scientific, 2012 -  550 pages


Hardly anybody outside a company knows its products and processes better than its suppliers. Research confirms that intensive integration of suppliers in the value creation process positively influences the success of the company, particularly in highly competitive industries. This is a result of the progressing reduction in the depth of value creation of manufacturers and the increasing transfer of know-how towards suppliers. In multilevel business-to-business relationships, suppliers often have the best or the only access and comprehensive knowledge about the end users. Therefore, suppliers determine the scope of possible innovations, which most companies do not actively use.
This unique volume provides a comprehensive overview of theories, concepts and especially empirical results on open innovation and the integration of suppliers. For this, authors from all over the world present their latest research results offering fascinating insights into collaborative approaches with suppliers.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Txsmc5NLs1kC

Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 

Greece, 16-17 September 2010


Academic Conferences Limited, 2010 - 779 pages
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=UJ4g3vtNVTYC

Innovation in Japan: Emerging Patterns, Enduring Myths 

Keith Jackson, Phillipe Debroux
Routledge, 2009  - 200 pages


The Japanese economy has made a remarkable recovery from the so-called ‘Lost Decade’ of the 1990s. This said, demographic trends suggest that Japan will have to show remarkable powers of innovation if it is to continue to prosper in the global economy. For, around the turn of the last century texts published by prominent strategy analysts such as Michael Porter and colleagues were asking whether Japan could continue to compete at all, and in answering this question they not only gained significant global attention, they also appeared to sound the death knell for strategic innovation in Japan.

This collection helps put the record straight. It invites authors and editors of previous (Routledge) titles on the topic of ‘Innovation in Japan’ to reflect on how things have moved on – prominent scholars on Japanese innovation such as Martin Hemmert, Cornelia Storz, and Ruth Taplin, all of whom appear in this collection. It brings together fresh perspectives on Japanese-style innovation, from insiders and from outsiders, from scholars and from practitioners, all of whose combined contributions to this book update our understanding of how patterns of innovation in Japan are evolving and thus provide inspiration and guidance for managers and innovators worldwide.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=6UGOAQAAQBAJ

Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation

James M. Utterback
Harvard Business Press, 1996 - 253 pages


The author presents a compelling look at how innovation transforms industries, raising the fortunes of some firms while destroying others. The book draws on the rich history of innovation by inventors and entrepreneurs--ranging from the birth of typewriters to the emergence of personal computers, gas lamps to fluorescent lighting, George Eastman's amateur photography to electronic imaging--to develop a practical model for how innovation enters an industry, how mainstream firms typically respond, and how--over time--new and old players wrestle for dominance. Utterback asserts that existing organizations must consistently abandon past success and embrace innovation--even when it undermines their traditional strengths. He sets forth a strategy to do so, and identifies the responsibilities of managers to lead and focus that effort.

Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation offers a pioneering model for how innovation unsettles industries and firms, and features fascinating histories of new product developments and strategies for nurturing innovation.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aaJhas3bnN8C

Management Innovation Capabilities - Propositions - Mie Harder - 2011

Management Innovation Capabilities:
A Typology and Propositions for Management Innovation Research
Mie Harder
78-87-91815-12-6 SMG Working Paper No. 2/2011
January, 2011
ISBN: 978-87-91815-64-5
Department of Strategic Management and Globalization
Copenhagen Business School
Porcelænshaven 24
2000 Frederiksberg
Denmark
www.cbs.dk/smg


Proposition 1: The cognitive capabilities of managers, i.e. their abilities to perform mental
activities related to sensing opportunities, positively influence the diagnostic capability and the
management innovation capabilities of an organization and, hence,    increases the likelihood of
implementing management innovations.


Proposition 2: Organizational resources (e.g. workforce characteristics, knowledge sources,
knowledge sharing practices and organizational structures promoting experimentation and knowledge
sharing) positively influence the diagnostic capability and the management innovation capabilities of an
organization and, hence,  increases the likelihood of implementing management innovations.

Proposition 3: Organizational resources (e.g. employee and middle‐manager support of change,
workforce characteristics, prior experience and centralized decision making) positively influence the
implementation capability and the management innovation capabilities of an organization and, hence,
increase the likelihood of implementing management innovations.

Proposition 4: The cognitive capabilities of managers, i.e. their abilities to perform mental
activities related to seizing opportunities and reconfiguring assets, positively influence the
implementation capability and the management innovation capabilities of an organization and, hence,
increases the likelihood of implementing management innovations.


Proposition 5: A performance shortfall, either in the form of a perceived problem or unexploited
opportunity, positively moderates the relationship between management innovation capabilities and the
implementation of actual management innovations

Proposition 6: Management innovation characteristics (e.g. radicalness, complexity,
complementarity etc.) moderate the relationship between management innovation capabilities and the
implementation of actual management innovations.




REFERENCES
Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology review, 80(7): 40.
Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. 1985. Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1): 3‐22.
Abrahamson, E. 1991. Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and refection of innovations.
Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 586‐612.
Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 254‐285.
Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. 1999. Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning
processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 708‐740.
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal, 24(10): 1011‐1025.

Afuah, A. 1998. Innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Agócs, C. 1997. Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and repression.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9): 917‐931.
Aiken, M., Bacharach, S. B., & French, J. L. 1980. Organizational structure, work process, and proposal
making in administrative bureaucracies. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(4): 631‐652.
Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. P. 1993. Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1): 51‐73.
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2004. The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(1): 15‐39.
Ansari, S., Fiss, P., & Zajac, E. 2010. Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of
Management Review, 35(1): 67.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1): 150‐169.
Argyris, C. 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5): 115‐125.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Mossholder, K. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human
Relations, 46(6): 681.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3): 293‐315.
Bandura, A. 1982. Self‐efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2): 122.
Barney , J. 1991. The resource‐based model of the firm ‐ origins, implications, and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1): 97.
Barney, J. B. 1996. The resource‐based theory of the firm. Organization Science, 7(5): 469‐469.
Becker, M. C. 2004. Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 13(4): 643‐678.
Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 2005. Applying organizational routines in
understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 775‐791.
Benders, J., & van Veen, K. 2001. What's in a fashion? interpretative viability and management fashions. Organization The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organizationory and Society, 8(1): 33.

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. 2008. Management innovation. Academy of Management.The
Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 825.

Blau, J. R., & McKinley, W. 1979. Ideas, complexity, and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,  24(2): 200‐219.
Blau, P. M. 1970. A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review,
35(2): 201.
Boer, H., & During, W. 2001. Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organizational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1‐3): 83.
Chandler, A.D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the american enterprise.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clark, T. 2004. The fashion of management fashion: A surge too far? Organization The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organizationory and Society, 11(2): 297.
Cole, R. 1986. The macropolitics of organizational change: A comparative analysis of the spread of small‐
group activities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4): 560.
Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Coleman, J. S. 1993. The design of organizations and the right to act. Sociological Forum, 8(4): 527‐546.
Colman, A.M. 2006. A dictionary of psychology (2nd ed. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. 2002. The determinants of organizational change and structural
inertia: Technological and organizational factors. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
11(4): 595‐635.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall.

Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. 2006. Product and process innovations: A review of organizational and environmental determinants. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Ed.), Innovation, science, and institutional change: 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. 2009. Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of public administration research and
theory, 19(3): 495‐522.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R., & Avellaneda, C. 2009. Combinative effects of innovation types and
organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. The Journal of
management studies, 46(4): 650.
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta‐analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 555‐590.
Damanpour, F. 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple
contingency models. Management Science, 42(5): 693.

Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. 1984. Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of
"organizational lag". Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3): 392‐409.
Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. 1989. The relationship between types of innovation and
organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6): 587‐601.
 
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422‐1433.
Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. 2001. Innovation and employment: Process versus product innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Eggers, J., & Kaplan, S. 2009. Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational effects on
incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organization Science, 20(2): 461‐477.
Ehigie, B. O., & McAndrew, E. B. 2005. Innovation, diffusion and adoption of total quality management (TQM). Management Decision, 43(6): 925‐940.
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they?. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Sons.
 
Ettlie, J., Bridges, W., & OKeefe, R. 1984. Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6): 682.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. 2005. Strategic organization: A field in search of micro‐foundations. Strategic
Organization, 3(4): 441‐455.
Fligstein, N. 1985. The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919‐1979. American
Sociological Review, 50(3): 377‐391.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. 2002. Resistance and the background conversations of
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2): 105‐121.
Foss, N. 2007. The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges and characteristics.
Organization The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organizationory and Society, 14(1): 29.
Foss, N. J. 2003. Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the oticon spaghetti organization. Organization Science, 14(3): 331‐349.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. 2002. A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: A literature reviewNo longer published by Elsevier.
Gavetti, G. 2005. Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities'
development. Organization Science, 16(6): 599‐617.
Giangreco, A., & Peccei, R. 2005. The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to change: Evidence from an italian context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(10):
1812‐1829.
Gill, J., & Whittle, S. 1993. Management by panacea: Accounting for transience. The Journal of
management studies, 30(2): 281.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together
the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022‐1054.
Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. 2002. Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of
organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47(2): 207‐232.
Hall, R.H. 1977. Organizations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193‐206.

Hamel, G. 2006. The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard business review, 84(2):
72‐84.
Hamel, G. 2007. The future of management, Harvard Business School Press.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J., & Winter, S.G. 2007.
Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA.: Blackwell
Publishing.
Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M.A. (Eds.). 2010. Cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic
managerial capabilitesConference Paper, August 2010, Academy of Management Conference,
Montreal, Canada.
Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. 2009. Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental
path. Strategic organization, 7(1): 91‐102.
Imai, K., Ikujiro, N., & Takeuchi, H. 1985. Managing the new product development process: How
japanese companies learn and unlearn. In R.H. Hayes, K. Clark, & C. Lorenz (Ed.), The uneasy
alliance: Managing the productivity‐technology dilemma: 337‐375. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Jackson, B. 1996. Re‐engineering the sense of self: The manager and the management guru. The Journal of management studies, 33(5): 571.
James, H.S.J., Klein, P.G., & Sykuta, M.E. (Eds.). 20th February 2010. The adoption, diffusion, and
evolution of organizational form: Insights from the agrifood sectorWorking Paper, University of
Missouri.
Kieser, A. 1997. Rhetoric and myth in management fashion. Organization The Interdisciplinary Journal
of Organizationory and Society, 4(1): 49.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. 1981. Organizational innovation: The influence of individual,
organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative
innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4): 689‐713.
Knudsen, T., & Levinthal, D. A. 2007. Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative
evaluation. Organization Science, 18(1): 39‐54.
Kossek, E. E. 1987. Human resources management innovation. Human resource management, 26(1): 71‐ 92.
Lazonick, W. 2010. The chandlerian corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(2): 317‐349.
Levinthal, D. A. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7): 934‐950.
Light, P.C. 1998. Sustaining innovation: Creating nonprofit and government organizations that
innovate naturally. San Fransisco: Jossey‐Bass.
March, J. G. 1996. Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2): 278‐287.
Massini, S., Lewin, A. Y., & Greve, H. R. 2005. Innovators and imitators: Organizational reference groups and adoption of organizational routines. Research Policy, 34(10): 1550‐1569.
Meeus, M., & Edquist, C. 2006. Introduction to part I. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Ed.), Innovation, science, and institutional change: 23. New York: Oxford University Press.
 
Meyer, A.G., Goes, J.B., & Brooks, G.G. 1993. Organizational reacting to hyperturbulence. In G.P. Huber
& W. Glick (Ed.), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving
performance: 66‐111. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, C. B., & Stensaker, I. G. 2006. Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change Management, 6(2): 217‐231.
Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L. 2007. Employee commitment and support for an
organizational change: Test of the three‐component model in two cultures. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80(2): 185‐211.
Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. 1992. Cycles of organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 39‐59.
Mol, M., & Birkinshaw, J. 2009. The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new
management practices. Journal of business research, 62(12): 1269.
Mol, M., & Birkinshaw, J. 2007. Giant steps in management: Innovations that change the way you
work. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap
Press.
Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. 2004. A knowledge‐based theory of the firm‐‐the problem‐solving
perspective. Organization Science, 15(6): 617‐632.
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187.
Oreg, S. 2003. Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measuer. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4): 680‐693.
Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. 2008. Organizational change and the importance of embedded assumptions. British Journal of Management, 19: S20‐S32.

Pelz, D., & Munson, F. 1982. Originality level and the innovating process in organizations. Human
Systems Management, 3(3): 173‐187.

Penrose, E.T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. 2001. Studying organizational change and
development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 697‐713.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. 1992. Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 34(2): 29‐50.
Pierce, J.L., Boerner, C.S., & Teece, D.J. 2008. Dynamic capabilities, competence and the behavioral
theory of the firm. In D.J. Teece (Ed.), Technological know‐how, organizational capabilities, and
strategic management: 53‐68. New Jersey: World Scientific.
Pitelis, C. N. 2007. A behavioral resource‐based view of the firm: The synergy of cyert and march (1963) and penrose (1959). Organization Science, 18(3): 478‐490.

Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (Eds.). 2004a. Handbook of organizational change and innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. 2004b. Theories of organizational change and innovation processes. In M.S. Poole & A.H. Van de Ven (Ed.), Handbook of organizational change and innovatoin: 374‐
398Oxford University Press.
Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., Demarie, S. M., & Mullane, J. V. 1994. Reframing the organization: Why implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management Review, 19(3): 565‐
584.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. 1997. Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1): 48‐59.
Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. 1971. Communication of innovations: A cross‐cultural approach. New York: Macmillan.

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). London: Simon & Schuster.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1977. Who gets power ‐ and how they hold on to it. Organizational
Dynamics, 5(3): 3‐21.
Sanchez, R. 2000. Modular architectures, knowledge assets and organizational learning: New
management processes for product creation. International Journal of Technology Management,
19(6): 610‐629.
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 63‐76.
Santos, M. V., & Garcia, M. T. 2006. Organizational change: The role of managers' mental models.
Journal of Change Management, 6(3): 305‐320.
Scott, W.R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Simon, H.A. 1947. Administrative behavior: A study of decision‐making processes in administrative
organizations. Chicago: Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
106(6): 467‐482.

Stieglitz, N., & Heine, K. 2007. Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1): 1‐15.
Strebel, P. 1996. Why do employees resist change? Harvard business review, 74(3): 86‐92.
Suddaby, R. 2010. Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. The Academy of
Management Review, 35(3): 346‐357.

Teece, D. J. 1980. The diffusion of an administrative innovation. Management Science, 26(5): 464‐470.

Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 1319‐1350.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7): 509‐533.
Teece, D., & Pisano, G. 1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial & Corporate
Change, 3(3): 537‐556.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. 2001. Managing innovation, integrating technological, market and
organizational change. Chichester: J. Wiley and Sons.

Tornatzky, L., & Klein, K. 1982. Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption‐implementation: A
meta‐analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1): 28.
Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3): 439.

Urabe, K., Child, J., & Kagono, T. 1988. Innovation and management: International comparisons. Berlin:
de Gruyter.

Utterback, J., & Abernathy, W. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. The
International Journal of Management Science, 3(6): 639.

Vise, D.A., & Malseed, M. 2005. The google story. New York: Delacorte Press.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1): 361.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight
decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3): 357‐381.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171‐180.
Winter, S. G. 2000. The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal,
21(10): 981.
Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 991‐
995.

Wolfe, R. 1994. Organizational innovation ‐ review, critique and suggested research directions. The
Journal of management studies, 31(3): 405.

Zbaracki, M. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University, Johnson Graduate School.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organization Science, 13(3): 339‐351.

 
 

 

Basic Propositions - Technological Innovation Process in the Firm - Mariano Nieto

Basic propositions for the study of the technological innovation process in the firm
Mariano Nieto
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 7 · Number 4 · 2004 · pp. 314-324

The innovation process in the firm could be defined as follows:

P1. Technological innovation in companies is a learning process through which a flow of

new knowledge competencies and capabilities is generated

Technology at the company level can be defined as follows:

P2. Technology is the output and the principal input of the innovation process and reflects

the volume of knowledge, competencies and capabilities that the company possesses at a

given moment in time.

The following proposition can be established regarding the

nature of the technological innovation process:

P1a. The technological innovation process is essentially continuous in nature.

P1b. The technological innovation process is path-dependent.

P1c. The technological innovation process is partially irreversible.

P1d. The technological innovation process is affected by different types of uncertainty.

P2a. All technology is made up of two types of knowledge, codified (information) and tacit.

P2b. The transmission of technologies is imperfect due to multiple factors such as

certain characteristics of knowledge, the existence of causal ambiguity or transaction

costs.

P2c. The assimilation of a new technology is not instant and depends on the level of

technological knowledge previously accumulated by the company, that is to say,

its absorption capacity.

P2d. The profits generated by a technology are not perfectly appropriable, but rather

depend of the effectiveness of the protection mechanisms used by the firms.

Lean Product Development - Engineering - Bibliography

Lean Product Development Point of View to Current Challenges of Engineering Change Management in Traditional Manufacturing Industries
Katrine Mahlamäki1 , Mikael Ström2 , Taneli Eisto1 , Venlakaisa Hölttä1
1Helsinki University of Technology,P.O.Box 9210, 02015 TKK, Finland
http://www.ami-communities.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/d494273/37_MahlamakiICE09_final.pdf


Lean Engineering - Best Practice in the Automotive Industry
Lean engineering practice at Tenneco
Working Paper n°6, Projet Lean Entreprise
Dr. Patrick Garcia, Tenneco Inc., Germany
Dr. John Drogosz, Optiprise-University of Michigan
http://www.lean.enst.fr/wiki/pub/Lean/LesPublications/LeanEngineeringWorkingPaper.pdf

New Product Development

Minimum Criteria in the New Product Development of Capital Goods from Concept to the Product Development Phase
http://webhotel2.tut.fi/cmc/pdf/MinimumCriteria.pdf

Enablers of Frugal Innovation: Propositions - Rajnish Tiwari and Cornelius Herstatt - 2012 Working Paper

Open Global Innovation Networks as Enablers of Frugal Innovation: Propositions Based on Evidence from India
Rajnish Tiwari
Cornelius Herstatt
December 2012

Working Paper No. 72


An edited & peer-reviewed version of this paper has been published as “Frugal Innovation: A Global Networks’ Perspective” in: Die Unternehmung, 66(3): 245-274.

Hamburg University of Technology
Schwarzenbergstr. 95, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany

http://www.global-innovation.net/publications/PDF/Working_Paper_72.pdf


“Low-income markets present a prodigious opportunity for the world’s wealthiest companies – to seek their fortunes and bring prosperity to the aspiring poor.”
(Prahalad and Hart, 2002, 2)



P1

Frugal innovations have a greater chance of commercial success if their value proposition
incorporates the twin objectives of reducing the cost-of-ownership while matching
customer aspirations for quality and image.


P2
Companies can increase the probability of offering an attractive value proposition for successful frugal innovations if they are able to successfully connect their product development process with global innovation networks.


P3
Setting up innovation capabilities in product-specific “lead markets” increases the
probability to identify and access suitable global innovation networks.