Innovation Management - Strategies, Implementation, and Profits - Essay Example

?Innovating Assessment Introduction Different from different disciplinary backgrounds such as economics, law, business, policy and research have tried to define what innovation is, explore how it comes about, and how we can manage, encourage and facilitate it. According to a journal of the Nature Publishing Group (NPG, 2013), innovation is considered as the product of an entire ecology including both basic and applied research as well as the venture capital system and external motivating forces brought together in the right force. Innovation is the use of new knowledge to offer new products and services that are required by the customer in the market. To say that innovation has a complex nature is to refer to the process of innovation not only as a creation or invention of a novel idea, but to refer to innovation as to comprise of the activities involved in its implementation and development. According to Van de Ven, (1986, p. 591), innovation has been defined as the ‘’development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within changing institutional and organizational context.’’ This thus makes it accentuate its context dependency and also its social, political, collective and temporal nature. It has been observed therefore that, scholars who aspire to understand the emergence and development of innovation have always recognized that innovation is a complex, iterative and a dynamic process which cannot be separated from its broader concept, (Barrett & Walsham, 1999). Over the years, researchers have observed innovation to move from less complex models which do not capture its complexity to more complex and in-depth inductive studies that show the development of innovation over time, (Edwards, 2000). An example of such development in complexity is seen in the stage models depicted by Rodgers’ (1995) and Zaltman’s (1973) that describe the innovation process in organizations as a sequence of five stages including agenda setting, matching, redefining/restructuring, classifying and routinizing, and as a three stage process including initiation, implementation and continued/sustained implementation, respectively. The stage and more fluid models which portray the innovative process is distinguished by Wolfe (1994) in a review of the organization innovation literature, and importantly noting that linear models of innovations were not followed by the innovations which develop within the organizations, but instead, the innovations originated through an ‘’iterative process with many feedback together with feed forward cycles (p. 411). Following the results of a very recent research that was published between 1997 and 2002, it was confirmed unequivocally that non-linearity of innovation in an organization is likened to a form of social structuring having attendant intricate and interactive effects, (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004). Within the social system, theories of innovation are fundamentally considered as theories of change. Innovation can take two models; the linear and the non-linear models of innovation. The linear model is always considered to be a simpler model of innovation. This model has received recognition since the 1940s and claims that, ‘’innovation originates from the nursery of basic research.’’ It tries to compare innovation with a growing child, who goes through school and to the university to full time employment (Chia, 1996). Innovation on the other hand begins from the basic research to development, and finally to the marketplace. This linear model of innovation contains some elements of truth, but misses the fact that innovation may come from the other way round. This is to say, the linear model takes it that innovation may only come from researchers and neglects the fact that it might also result from consumers, users and efforts to solve certain practical problems (Czarniawska, 2005). The model also overstates the contribution the basic research makes to the final outcome and do not recognize the roles that design, manufacturing and business processes play. Policy makers are also misguided by the linear model by the fact that they get the wrong impression that innovation is more predictable and controllable, than it actually is. For this fact, innovation is more accurately displayed as an ‘ecosystem’ where several players, forces and feedback loops working simultaneously are responsible for driving innovation. In such a case, the ecosystem cannot easily be managed through the conventional sense of the top-down (linear) control (Harrisson D. and Laplante N., 2001). Instead, innovation can be cultivated as a gardener tries to create the required conditions that suit a plant’s growth, while accepting that the unforeseen elements are actually responsible in dictating the outcome. Given the complex nature of innovations, investments normally do not turn out as expected. However, with careful forethought, good policies can always prepare the soil (NPG, A Case for Nurture, 2008). The normative approach of innovation looks at innovation positively. The innovation researcher never looks at innovation negatively. On the other hand, constructivist theory of innovation involves looking at the constructive rather than the destructive side of innovation. It looks at innovation as a concept of constructing a problem. Realism on the other hand focuses on the problem perception view of innovation (Helms-Mills, 2003). It is considered problem oriented. This paper is aimed at comparing a normative model of innovation and the constructivist theory of innovation, looking at the complex nature of innovation and as well as evaluating the approaches of innovation as product and process, as discussed herein. Economists have classified innovation into two major types: process and product innovation. To begin with, product innovation is the act of availing to the market, a something new in order to improve both the quality and the range of the products offered in the market place. Using an example, the Samsung iPod is an innovation compared with the Sony Walkman which was the only device used as a portable device for playing music. On the other hand, a process innovation is the new way of offering, making or delivering goods and services (Latour, 2005). A very good example is where one may have an appointment with a doctor. In most circumstances, one would go the normal way of informing the receptionist on his arrival for the appointment. However, due to innovation, one would instead tap a screen to notify the doctor on his arrival for the appointment. Product innovations may include tangible manufactured goods, intangible services or it can be a combination of the two. In this case, tangible products may include computer, mobile phones, microwaves and ovens (J. & J., 1999). These are some of the examples of recent innovations that have had direct impact on people. On the other hand, some of the recent intangible innovations that complement these pieces of physical equipment include the computer software which is required to control the flow of information in these types of devices hence leading to delivery of information, supply of communication services and the arrival of dinner heated with the correct amount of heat in the microwave. Similarly, process innovation, being new ways of making or doing things, may arise from a combination of both tangible and intangible inputs. A good example being a robotic machine used to assemble cars which may deliver welding services with a greater precision than a human welder, though; it is just as good as its computer control. In the above definition, it is a novelty that stands out in the products supplied to the market. There should be an adequate novelty in innovation to enable the identification of new product or service in the market. If a product or a process is new to the firm, new to both domestic and world markets, then the product or process qualifies to be classified as an innovation (Morgan, 1997). Within the concept of normative innovation, there are four types of normativity that can be identified. These include normativity with regard to society and theories of society, to objects of innovation, to the process of innovation, and to ethics. Beginning with society and its theories, there are normative assumptions that are intermingled with innovation research which some are presented as follows; term and its conation: the term innovation is regarded as positive. Normativity considers the fact that the researcher has never viewed innovative with any negativity. Progress and advancement: this takes the position that there is a technological optimism which is shared by all the innovation researchers. Leaving alone the term, normative innovation regards innovation as a central element of progress and prosperity. Power and relevance: considering the history and the future development of the modern society, the driving force and most influential factor in achieving this remains innovation (Tsoukas, 1996). It is true that, without innovation, this world where we live could look totally different from what it is right now. This shows that the extent of innovation so far has been speeded by constructivist innovation which has contributed to a lot of constructive innovation to make the world a better place to live in. Stimulating and shaping: it can be very possible to stimulate and shape innovation since the innovation stakeholders such as the desirable consequences, policy makers and business leaders are all for the fostering of innovation. By doing so, constructivist innovation leans on the constructive side of it to bringing constructive novelty to the market. Market and Economy: when innovation has successfully diffused into the market to fulfill consumer demands, it is a normative innovation. On the other hand, when the innovation is able to lead the consumer through the constructive progress, it is said to be a constructive innovation (C. Freeman, 1982). Moving to the object concept of innovation, here we are concerned with the object being innovated, the object or phenomenon that shows novelty, what is included and what is excluded from innovation and the definition of innovation according to the object concept. To begin with, the ontological type of innovation considers artifacts, products, material systems, objects as well as systems. The innovation in this field shows a techno-object oriented view of innovation. The process, production and method type of innovation would then refer to certain procedures, practices and actions. Process innovation has always been used to refer to the improvement in the production of goods and services (Watson & Harris, 1999). The knowledge or conceptual type of innovation refers to the theories of knowledge and concepts of innovation. Therefore, knowledge innovation refers to the theoretical dimension of the innovation. Innovation begins with innovation the knowledge which then becomes a concept before it is put into action as a tangible or intangible product. On top of the three types of innovation, the fourth type would be contentious depending on whether it exists. This is the type that is concerned about the initial points, goals, problems and purpose. One can also say it is the problem framing, setting and perception, type. This type of innovation which is problem oriented refers to the progress in how the problem is perceived (realism), or how the problem is constructed, (constructivism) (Afuah, 2003). The extension of the word ‘innovation’ is based on the normative decisions about the kind of objects or phenomenon that should be included. To see innovation in a complex perspective, the definition of innovation is considered in a broader perspective where it is considered to encompass knowledge and problem innovation rather than its narrow perspective which only considers processes and material artifacts. The third concept is viewing innovation as a process. Innovation process considers six sequential steps which logically follow as science, invention, innovation, production construction, diffusion and the consequences of innovation. As it follows that innovation is the creation of a qualitatively new thing, the fundamental issue in this definition concerns what is meant by novelty. Novelty, though, has for a long time remained a very hard term to define according to the self-organizational theory in physics. This definition is still a matter of an ongoing dispute. For the normative innovation to qualify and quantify novelty are indispensible. This is because the problems of comparability, incomparability, commensurability and incommensurability would begin to emerge. Just as novelty has been described as a multidimensional property and a process phenomenon, innovation has also been described as a multidimensional process which has nothing clearly measurable about the several aspects of the said underlying process. For the concept of ethics, being the fourth concept, innovation theories are considered relevant for ethics, and particularly for engineering ethics (Weick, 2001). This concept depicts innovation as both constructive as well as being realist. In many instances, innovations have kept in mind the ethical side of the product being invented with an exception of just a few cases of innovation which bring forth products or/ and processes which do not consider at all the constructive or the ethical side of an invention. Innovations such as for the atomic bomb are also innovations, and very good ones. The only debate that emerges is whether this innovation is an ethical one being that the bomb is used in wars and attacks where bloods are shed and lives are lost. Most of the innovations however, keep the ethical side of it such as the innovation of idea of money transfer through the mobile phones. This is a new innovation which has come with most of its effects being positive as people are able to transfer money from one place to another just by the dial of the phones. When referring to the theory of ethics, there are four positions that concerns innovation engineering ethics intersection which can be distinguished. The first being technological determination is presupposed, ethics will then not have a chance impact on the process of innovation. Secondly, science ethics becomes most important when we argue for a push view innovation. Thirdly, social and political ethics becomes most relevant if we assume a demand pull understanding of innovation. Lastly, engineering ethics can be found in between. This is majorly to mediate and to reflect on the other extreme position so that realistic approach to engineering action can be found. Bibliography Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation and Profits. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B. (2004). The Routinization of Innovation Research: A constructively critical review of the state. Journal of Organizational Behavior (25), 147 173. Barrett, M., & Walsham, G. (1999). Electronic Trading and Work Transformation in the London Insurance Market. Information Systems Research , 1 (10), 1-23. C. Freeman, T. E. (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London:. London: Printer. Chia, R. (1996). Organisational Analysis as Deconstructive, Practice, de Gruyter. Practice, de Gruyter , 23-25. Czarniawska, B. (2005). Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Edwards, T. (2000). Innovation and Organizational Change:Developments Towards an Interactive Process Perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management , 12 (4), 445. Harrisson D. and Laplante N., S.-C. L. (2001). ‘Cooperation and resistance in work innovation’, . Human Relations , 54 (2), 215-255. Helms-Mills, J. (2003). Making Sense of Organisational Change, Blackwell. Bkackwell , 1-2. J., L., & J., H. (1999). Actor Network Theory and after, Blackwell. Blackwell , 1. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Clarendon Lectures in Management Studies), Oxford University Press. New York: Oxford University Press. Morgan, G. (1997). Imaginization : New Mindsets of Seeing, Organizing and Managing. Sage , 1-2. NPG. (2008). A Case for Nurture. Innovation is a Carefull Ecosystem that Requires Cultivation , 454 (918), 1-2. NPG. (2013). Innovation: Web Focus: Nature. A Journal of the Nature Publishing Group , 1. Rogers, E. M. (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition ed.). New York: Free Press. Tsoukas, H. (1996). New Thinking in Organisational Behaviour. Butterworth Heinemann , 1. Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science , 5 (32), 590-607. Watson, T., & Harris, P. (1999). The Emergent Manager. New York: Sage. Weick, K. (2001). Making Sense of the Organisation, Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press. Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational Innovation: Review Critique and Suggested Research Directions. Journal of Mnagement Studies (31), 405-431. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley. Read More