The Concepts of Obligatory Points of Passage and Interessment - Essay Example

Lecturer: Introduction Innovation is an erratic force that can be equally valuable and at the same time frustrating. It is necessary for organizations to engage in effective innovations to promote accomplishment of organizational goals. This can be achieved by managers creating an enabling environment for innovation. It is also necessary for organization leaders to distinguish between swallow-holes and productive ground in determining resource allocation for innovative work. The complexity nature of innovation is due to the fact that it is not a straightforward process. The interaction between variation, choice and reproduction are the three forces that need to be understood for organizations to effectively strategize for innovation. The interplay between these forces differs in different organizations. This paper uses the concepts of obligatory points of passage and interessment to reflect on the role of unintended consequences in the process of innovation. Obligatory Points of Passage Innovation can be considered as new knowledge that involves an amalgamation of age-old ideologies resulting in a system that contests the current order. It is a method or unique strategy that is considered to be new by the players involved. The innovation process comprises more than the mere generation or discovery of an innovative idea. Rather, it also includes the actions involved in its development and application (Preece & Dawson, 2000). According to Harrisson & Laberge (2002), the innovation process can be described as development and application of novel ideas by individuals who are involved over time in dealings with their counter parts within varying institutional and managerial contexts thereby emphasizing the inherent dependency and its socio-political shared and progressive nature. The origin and advancement of innovation is a complex, repetitive and self-motivated process that cannot be separated from its wider context. Innovation is therefore viewed as a process that must undergo various challenges. Obligatory points of passage are significant in the innovation process as they help in the categorization of the interplay between human and non-human players in a network of relationships in new product development. The management is considered to be an obligatory point of passage since all inventions and the relevant network of players and pieces must meet certain criterions that have been set (Latour, 2005). The management has power to control the actions of all the subordinate components and players in the network. For any innovation program to progress, certain conditions have to be fulfilled. This includes presenting the findings in the form of a report, supporting the findings with scientific evidence, presenting data and describing as well as redefining processes and outcomes. The mandatory check points increase the complexity of innovation programs (Santer & Bruno, 2004). Obligatory points of passage do not naturally occur. Rather, they are engineered with intent in an active commitment in the assessment, selection and regulation of several activities through group consultations whereby data is presented and decisions that control the innovation progress from a distance are made (Attar, 2010). This is a conventional approach whereby the consultation meetings are considered to be significant obligatory point of passage. In a network process perspective of innovation management acts as a substitute to the normative direct view and enables the explanation of the manner in which the innovation programs essentially comprise numerous actions, consultations and micro-decisions in a bid to strengthen the resulting networks. Players in the network strive to accomplish stability of the networks so as to engage various human and non-human actors. This stability also allows them to encourage more players in to the network. When stable networks exist and prototypes successfully filled for the innovation projects, minimal interventions are required and little room is left for decision makers in the consultative summits. Decisions are not reached in these summits but rather endorsements are sought after (Harrisson & Laberge, 2002). According to Dany (2013) the obligatory points of passage represent a segmentation of the transformation of social dynamics in to various mutually dependent phases that overlap. Through these phases, social movement occurs through space. The obligatory points of passage comprise irreversible phases that are accomplished with powerful dynamism and disquiet. Nevertheless, the stages are important as the fundamental means to steer the innovation process safely. The points of passage are therefore integral to the progression from one stage to the other while persevering intense stress and disquiet (Latour, 2005). Through innovation, ideas and applications are changed from their current status to a different location or time. The process of transferring ideas requires intermediaries that support the metamorphosis from the current context. Such intermediaries include written texts, demonstration or trial product (Attar, 2010). Points of passage are established, ensuring that each stage in the movement of ideas is controlled and in line with the expectations of the network. Within the process, the intermediaries applied to communicate the innovation are evaluated to check if they adhere to the set guidelines. If not, they cannot pass the initial phase and therefore good ideas may get lost early in the inception stage. The trial product must prove that it has the potential to benefit the network so as to be allowed in to the stage whereby it moves through time and space to the point where it is re-interpreted in a different location on the basis of the new background and prevailing practices (Brown, 2009). The idea can be considered to have endured the requirements of the many checkpoints that exist. Nevertheless, it cannot be functional unless it is institutionalised, in most cases its inception remaining a secret. According to Mehdi (2001), there are numerous ideas that are always in circulation and they do not land on the new adopter by chance. Distribution of a new idea is itself not sufficient and hence the motivation for simulation needs to originate from the adopters. The practicality or futility of new ideas depends on the reaction of the receiver. Different people react in various ways, which may include adopting them the way they are, modify them, repel, let them down, enhance or ignore them. The obligatory points of passage ensure that the translation processes of new ideas are fixed to the localised contexts. They have to reverberate with the home-grown interests for them to be assimilated. This affects the manner in which the ideas will be adopted, mainly being reliant on the locally prevailing conditions (Attar, 2010). In the TSR2 Aircraft Project, there existed an obligatory point between the local and global networks whereby a centralized control was created to act as a single locus that shaped and mobilised the local network while on the other hand controlling all the dealings between the two networks. This meant the global network decisions could affect the local network. While the global network was interested in Olympus Engines for the purpose of pursuing business agenda, the local network settled on Rolls Royce engines as the best, which slowed the decision making process and increased cost of the project from the initial projections of £250m to £1000m. Eventually the aircraft project failed after 9 years when it was abandoned. As the idea moves within space and time, translation continues over continuous chains which are an indicator of the necessity of new energy sources if the idea is to move effectively. Each step the idea moves is associated with possible re-interpretation and modification for it to match the interest of the adopter. According to Harrisson and Laberge, 2002) the translation process is characterised by uncertainty and open-endedness and hence is rather a continuous revolution process rather than transmission. If the innovation is awesomely accepted by many entities, it becomes a phenomenon of adoption. Telecommunication, software and mobile telephone companies engage in networks that have numerous points of passage whereby it is impossible to succeed unless a company belongs to this network (Mehdi, 2001). Interessement In the model of interessement, the success or failure of the innovation is dependent on the participation of all the parties involved in its development. It provides a basis for understanding the manner in which an innovation is adopted, the stages through which it moves and how it increasingly spreads to be converted in to a success (Brown, 2009). The progressive adoption is an indication of adaptation, being modified to fit to the point where it is applied. Interressement can be explained by the manner in which the innovation is generally being adopted. The constructivist theory of knowledge production emphasizes that knowledge is the consequence of understanding interceded by an individual’s previous knowledge and the skills of other people. According to the theory, the single reality that can be known by humans is only that which is characterized by their thoughts (Dany, 2013). In other words, every emerging idea is facilitated by preceding constructed realities that are assumed. Innovation is considered to be a persistently adaptive process of absorption, internalization and modification. According to this approach, innovations emerge from humans interacting with machines and understanding the necessary improvements and hence the continuous evolution of machines is in rejoinder to their continuous use by man (Santer & Bruno, 2004). The rate of adoption has seen many companies part with potential market share to emerging competitors due to lack of consideration of the concept of interressement. For example, after maintaining leadership in the software field of CAD, MacDonnell’s policy was focused on preventing other players in the industry from benefiting through the company’s age-old innovations. However, with the entry of Lockheed with a clearly defined interressement approach, a strong network was established as the company sold its software to 200 users who quickly made significant improvements on it. Lockheed overtook MacDonnell in a period of 2 years (Santer & Bruno, 2004). The players in the innovation process assemble around a particular aspect to reinforce their resolve towards satisfying all the obligatory points of passage while suppressing any discouragement from external forces or uncooperative voices from within the network. The process involves persuading actors to agree to the clarification of the macro-actor by applying instruments to disengage them from other detractors to a central viewpoint. It also encompasses interpretation, strategic conciliation and encouragement to ensure that allies are fixed in to the anticipated roles. It is imperative that only the interested actors are registered in the network. The actors are supposed to be people who are directly involved in applying the innovation or who understands its operation. People who do not understand the environment in which the operation is to be applied may not be interested and hence they may not add value to the network (Nina, 2013). Horizontal user networks can be useful since it is possible to customise innovations to suit the user requirements and hence avoid innovations under constrained market conditions. A user network is advantageous to individual users since there is a possibility of mutual benefits through relying on the innovations of others (Santer & Bruno, 2004). The different actors have different interests and getting the right actor requires effort. It is also important to keep in mind that different interests among actors last over varying period of time and therefore it is necessary to understand the interest curve of each actor. Some actors are focused on selling the innovation for profits while other actors are users who expect to increase productivity through applying the innovations. Effective communication between the networks enhances the accomplishment of the goals of innovation for the different actors. The most important aspect of Lockheed’s success was to identify the users who possessed the capacity to develop the innovation making it possible to satisfy the needs of many more users (Preece & Dawson, 2000). It is important to understand the interplay between stimulating users and transforming the innovation. Actors may consist of a mutual relationship whereby innovative products are developed for own use but the information is revealed to other members of the network who make improvements on the innovations and reveal the details so that the developers may also benefit from the improvements. On the other hand, the improvements may be customised to function in a different way. This strategy of mutual benefits keeps the actors interested thereby promoting the success of innovations (Latour, 2005). It is important that the incentives to innovations are present for circulation and consumption networks to be successful. On the other hand, incentives can motivate user networks to reveal their innovations. Low cost of innovation diffusion is important in promoting innovation sharing through effectively competing with other commercial producers and suppliers (Nina, 2013). Disinterest may arise from imbalanced caused by failure to meet expectations. It is important to assess how each actor benefits so as to avoid apathy and regrets. High costs may discourage some actors from the network. Alliances are necessary to enhance innovations even though they are achieved with a cost. Every actor must sacrifice time that may otherwise be used for profitable engagements. It is therefore highly necessary to ensure that actors are carefully selected while forming the alliance. The goals of the alliance need to be based on the desire for greater benefits in terms of innovations and hence it is necessary to ensure that the status quo changes. Maintaining the current status may not justify the efforts to establish an alliance. If not for greater innovation capacity, the time spent for the activities of the alliance need to be utilised in a different way. It is also important to take long term considerations when forming alliances (Preece & Dawson, 2000). Conclusion Obligatory points of passage are applied in the categorization of human and non-human actors. Innovative products may be developed for own use or for use by others in the network. Some actors further develop the innovations of others in the network to suit their needs in a mutual relationship. Players within a network strive to accomplish a common goal by strengthening the network. Rate of adoption is significant for successful innovations by companies. As an innovative idea moves within space and time, new energy sources emerge to strengthen the applicability. New ideas do not fall on the adopter by chance and adopting is equivalent to adapting the innovation. Alliances are important in promoting successful innovations and it is important to select the right actors. Disinterest may emerge among the actors in a network and should be avoided through establishment of a balance with regards to the mutual benefits from the alliance. References Attar, H. 2010. The Dance on the Feet of Chance: Handling Uncertainty and Managing Risk In the Fuzzy Front-End of Innovation, Xlibris Corporation, Brown, M. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation, MIT Press Dany, J. 2013. The Cultural Side of Innovation: Adding Values, Routledge Harrisson, D. & Laberge, M. 2002. Innovation, identities and resistance: the social construction of an innovation network, Journal of Management Studies, 39, 4 pp.497-521 Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Mehdi, K. 2001. Managing Information Technology in a Global Economy, Idea Group Inc (IGI) Preece, D. & Dawson, P. 2000. Technology, Organizations and Innovation: Towards real virtuality?. Taylor & Francis Nina, T. 2013. Innovation in General Purpose Technologies : How Knowledge Gains when It Is, KIT Scientific Publishing Santer, M & Bruno R. 2004. The management of innovation and its role for the accomplishment of leadership excellence in SMEs, Diplomarbeiten Agentur Read More