Conventional wisdom argues that appropriating returns from innovation requires protection mechanisms. However, there will be limits to the effectiveness of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms for innovation performance. Their effectiveness will be contingent on the nature of the knowledge that firms are trying to protect and the openness of their innovation strategy (sharing knowledge while attempting to protect knowledge is known as the ‘paradox of openness’). Do these boundary conditions apply to both manufacturing and service firms equally though? Analyzing data from the UK Community Innovation Survey, this study provides evidence for a continuum – from discrete product manufacturing firms, whose products rely heavily on codified, explicit knowledge and for which formal methods are strongly associated with innovation performance, to knowledge‐intensive service firms, which tend to rely more on complex tacit knowledge and for which innovation is linked to informal, not formal, appropriability. The findings show that the paradox of openness is a limited problem for service firms. The benefits of collaboration for innovation performance outweigh any reduction in the effectiveness of appropriability. For manufacturers, the benefits of collaboration disappear with high formal appropriability, and thus, discrete product manufacturers, contrary to conventional wisdom, may find it beneficial to reduce collaboration breadth and invest in informal appropriability mechanisms. Knowledge‐intensive servitized manufacturers find formal methods effective but only with no or minimal collaboration.
{"title":"Appropriability Mechanisms for Manufacturing and Service Firms: The Contingencies of Openness and Knowledge Intensity","authors":"G. Yacoub, C. Storey, Stefan Haefliger","doi":"10.1111/radm.12411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12411","url":null,"abstract":"Conventional wisdom argues that appropriating returns from innovation requires protection mechanisms. However, there will be limits to the effectiveness of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms for innovation performance. Their effectiveness will be contingent on the nature of the knowledge that firms are trying to protect and the openness of their innovation strategy (sharing knowledge while attempting to protect knowledge is known as the ‘paradox of openness’). Do these boundary conditions apply to both manufacturing and service firms equally though? Analyzing data from the UK Community Innovation Survey, this study provides evidence for a continuum – from discrete product manufacturing firms, whose products rely heavily on codified, explicit knowledge and for which formal methods are strongly associated with innovation performance, to knowledge‐intensive service firms, which tend to rely more on complex tacit knowledge and for which innovation is linked to informal, not formal, appropriability. The findings show that the paradox of openness is a limited problem for service firms. The benefits of collaboration for innovation performance outweigh any reduction in the effectiveness of appropriability. For manufacturers, the benefits of collaboration disappear with high formal appropriability, and thus, discrete product manufacturers, contrary to conventional wisdom, may find it beneficial to reduce collaboration breadth and invest in informal appropriability mechanisms. Knowledge‐intensive servitized manufacturers find formal methods effective but only with no or minimal collaboration.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"196 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124359332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper offers an alternative perspective on achieving contextual ambidexterity in organizations. Building on a collaborative research project within Renault’s Innovation Department, we identified that the corporate Fab Lab acted as a parallel structure in support of contextual ambidexterity. These findings provide three main contributions. First, we locate a source of contextual ambidexterity outside of the traditional business unit. In doing so, we challenge the dominant focus on managers, and show that, despite non‐supportive contexts, employees can demonstrate ambidextrous skills through individual autonomous initiatives and bootlegging behaviors. Second, we delineate four key functions and related features – spatial, technical, methodological, and cultural – of parallel structures that nurture contextual ambidexterity. Finally, we recommend that the facilitation of a parallel structure should combine both flexibility and stability.
{"title":"Rethinking Contextual Ambidexterity Through Parallel Structures","authors":"Amadou Lô, Pauline Fatien Diochon","doi":"10.1111/radm.12402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12402","url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers an alternative perspective on achieving contextual ambidexterity in organizations. Building on a collaborative research project within Renault’s Innovation Department, we identified that the corporate Fab Lab acted as a parallel structure in support of contextual ambidexterity. These findings provide three main contributions. First, we locate a source of contextual ambidexterity outside of the traditional business unit. In doing so, we challenge the dominant focus on managers, and show that, despite non‐supportive contexts, employees can demonstrate ambidextrous skills through individual autonomous initiatives and bootlegging behaviors. Second, we delineate four key functions and related features – spatial, technical, methodological, and cultural – of parallel structures that nurture contextual ambidexterity. Finally, we recommend that the facilitation of a parallel structure should combine both flexibility and stability.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"54 7 Suppl 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122219639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we consider the value of knowledge in an innovation context and deliberate a contrary perspective from existing empiricisms to bring about better innovation efficiency within multi-agent arenas. To do this, we consider why, if innovation is key for developmental trajectories in a healthcare environment, and despite the resource utilised to examine its characteristics, the transfer of knowledge within healthcare, practitioner or organisational innovation domains remains a problematic event. We reflect on this duality with a doxastic attitude and draw on modal maps as underpinning structures to present a critique. Furthermore, we draw from these qualitative descriptions of conditional maps as a natural extension of contemporary KBF (Knowledge Belief Frame) models. Thus, from an innovation context, we can deliberate the parallelism between an agent who establishes belief in real time propositions, and a formal system from which they derive the proposition and reality. Uniquely, in doing so we build a legitimate frame of reference by highlighting managerial parallelisms, which synthesise key epistemic doyennes and, efficaciously underpin the plausibility of logical associations and decision-making drawn from a first-person architype of belief.
{"title":"Innovation as a Singular Enabler","authors":"M. Fascia","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3337757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3337757","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we consider the value of knowledge in an innovation context and deliberate a contrary perspective from existing empiricisms to bring about better innovation efficiency within multi-agent arenas. To do this, we consider why, if innovation is key for developmental trajectories in a healthcare environment, and despite the resource utilised to examine its characteristics, the transfer of knowledge within healthcare, practitioner or organisational innovation domains remains a problematic event. \u0000 \u0000We reflect on this duality with a doxastic attitude and draw on modal maps as underpinning structures to present a critique. Furthermore, we draw from these qualitative descriptions of conditional maps as a natural extension of contemporary KBF (Knowledge Belief Frame) models. Thus, from an innovation context, we can deliberate the parallelism between an agent who establishes belief in real time propositions, and a formal system from which they derive the proposition and reality. Uniquely, in doing so we build a legitimate frame of reference by highlighting managerial parallelisms, which synthesise key epistemic doyennes and, efficaciously underpin the plausibility of logical associations and decision-making drawn from a first-person architype of belief.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"14 7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124912740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The strategic use of intellectual property (IP) is crucial for technology‐based companies to gain competitive advantage. The recent transformation of the US patent system brings new challenges and opportunities in this arena. In this regard, this study attempts to identify techniques which can help with IP evaluation and selection in the fuzzy front end (FFE) of new product development (NPD) process. This study combines data collection methods such as mining the literature, conducting in‐depth interviews, surveying questionnaires, and analyzing cases. This research serves as an analysis of modern literature and identifies a multicriteria weighted scoring model that can be employed to help with the patent decision process. The criterion to discern patent eligibility is a contended discussion. For this survey administration, 300 companies, as the targeted sample, were randomly selected to be reached from LexisNexis database. Consequently, this paper identifies the key decision criteria to incorporate into this model and obtains weights gathered from surveying IP professionals and R&D managers in US‐based electronics manufacturing firms (SIC code: 36). This study proposes a structured approach to identify ideas that should be patented in the FFE of NPD process by way of an analysis of pertaining literature and case studies. The technique we present in this paper could be essential for many firms to achieve IP success as their strategic means. Moreover, this tool can help R&D managers not only speed up the FFE of NPD process but also make more informed and target‐worthy decisions for IP filing.
{"title":"Managing Strategic Intellectual Property Assets in the Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development Process","authors":"Joseph Cho, Sema Kirkewoog, T. Daim","doi":"10.1111/radm.12312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12312","url":null,"abstract":"The strategic use of intellectual property (IP) is crucial for technology‐based companies to gain competitive advantage. The recent transformation of the US patent system brings new challenges and opportunities in this arena. In this regard, this study attempts to identify techniques which can help with IP evaluation and selection in the fuzzy front end (FFE) of new product development (NPD) process. This study combines data collection methods such as mining the literature, conducting in‐depth interviews, surveying questionnaires, and analyzing cases. This research serves as an analysis of modern literature and identifies a multicriteria weighted scoring model that can be employed to help with the patent decision process. The criterion to discern patent eligibility is a contended discussion. For this survey administration, 300 companies, as the targeted sample, were randomly selected to be reached from LexisNexis database. Consequently, this paper identifies the key decision criteria to incorporate into this model and obtains weights gathered from surveying IP professionals and R&D managers in US‐based electronics manufacturing firms (SIC code: 36). This study proposes a structured approach to identify ideas that should be patented in the FFE of NPD process by way of an analysis of pertaining literature and case studies. The technique we present in this paper could be essential for many firms to achieve IP success as their strategic means. Moreover, this tool can help R&D managers not only speed up the FFE of NPD process but also make more informed and target‐worthy decisions for IP filing.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130728791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research Summary: This study explores the role of knowledge interdependencies on the termination of patented inventions. Termination refers to the abandonment of inventive efforts that are no longer deemed promising. We argue that high interdependencies between an inventive effort and the other inventions in the same research program will increase the cognitive burden on managers and decrease the likelihood of termination. Further, in the presence of interdependencies, managers are likely to rely on heuristics for termination decisions. We focus on two such heuristics: interdependencies of an invention with those in other research programs and the level of external competition in the research program. We test our hypotheses with longitudinal data on patent terminations through non‐payment of renewal fees in the pharmaceutical industry. Managerial Summary: Effective management of innovation portfolios requires termination of opportunities that are no longer promising. Most current tools on termination assume that opportunities to be evaluated are independent from one another. This assumption may limit their usefulness in increasingly complex research domains, such as pharmaceutical R&D. In this study, we investigate how interdependencies among inventions influence firms' tendency to terminate those inventions. Our results on patent terminations show that a patent that is more interdependent with other patents in the same research program is less likely to be terminated. This suggests that managers may have difficulty in evaluating the inherent value of interdependent opportunities. This result is stronger when the patent is less interdependent with those in other research programs or in a more competitive area.
{"title":"Entangled Decisions: Knowledge Interdependencies and Terminations of Patented Inventions in the Pharmaceutical Industry","authors":"R. Khanna, Isin Guler, Atul Nerkar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3158013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3158013","url":null,"abstract":"Research Summary: This study explores the role of knowledge interdependencies on the termination of patented inventions. Termination refers to the abandonment of inventive efforts that are no longer deemed promising. We argue that high interdependencies between an inventive effort and the other inventions in the same research program will increase the cognitive burden on managers and decrease the likelihood of termination. Further, in the presence of interdependencies, managers are likely to rely on heuristics for termination decisions. We focus on two such heuristics: interdependencies of an invention with those in other research programs and the level of external competition in the research program. We test our hypotheses with longitudinal data on patent terminations through non‐payment of renewal fees in the pharmaceutical industry. Managerial Summary: Effective management of innovation portfolios requires termination of opportunities that are no longer promising. Most current tools on termination assume that opportunities to be evaluated are independent from one another. This assumption may limit their usefulness in increasingly complex research domains, such as pharmaceutical R&D. In this study, we investigate how interdependencies among inventions influence firms' tendency to terminate those inventions. Our results on patent terminations show that a patent that is more interdependent with other patents in the same research program is less likely to be terminated. This suggests that managers may have difficulty in evaluating the inherent value of interdependent opportunities. This result is stronger when the patent is less interdependent with those in other research programs or in a more competitive area.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116105199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores Robotdalen, a smart specialization initiative in the region of Malardalen, Sweden, and its impact on regional innovation systems (RIS). The Robotdaleninitiative, with the goal ...
{"title":"Smart Specialization in Regional Innovation Systems: A Quadruple Helix Perspective","authors":"Linda Höglund, Gabriel Linton","doi":"10.1111/radm.12306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12306","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores Robotdalen, a smart specialization initiative in the region of Malardalen, Sweden, and its impact on regional innovation systems (RIS). The Robotdaleninitiative, with the goal ...","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116952007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Burns and Stalker's theory of organic/mechanistic structures (1961, The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock) has been widely used. However, review of the empirical literature revealed inconsistencies in how the concepts have been operationalized. These inconsistencies may interfere with the ability to consolidate knowledge. This paper reviews the various ways in which researchers have operationalized the concepts, and summarizes the empirical findings derived from these operationalizations. In doing so, it highlights gaps and opportunities for future empirical and methodological work, suggesting the need to further our theoretical conceptualization of the concepts and to draw attention to Burns and Stalker's (1961) largely neglected corollary of the employee experience. As such, this review provides a road map for future exploration of the wide-ranging implications associated with organic and mechanistic structures.
{"title":"Examining Organic and Mechanistic Structures: Do We Know as Much as We Thought?","authors":"Stacey R. Kessler, A. Nixon, W. Nord","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12109","url":null,"abstract":"Burns and Stalker's theory of organic/mechanistic structures (1961, The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock) has been widely used. However, review of the empirical literature revealed inconsistencies in how the concepts have been operationalized. These inconsistencies may interfere with the ability to consolidate knowledge. This paper reviews the various ways in which researchers have operationalized the concepts, and summarizes the empirical findings derived from these operationalizations. In doing so, it highlights gaps and opportunities for future empirical and methodological work, suggesting the need to further our theoretical conceptualization of the concepts and to draw attention to Burns and Stalker's (1961) largely neglected corollary of the employee experience. As such, this review provides a road map for future exploration of the wide-ranging implications associated with organic and mechanistic structures.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130449448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elias Kyriazis, G. Massey, P. Couchman, L. Johnson
Much existing work on new product development (NPD) team integration takes an economically rational perspective, specifying appropriate systems, structures and interactions. Few studies however have explored the effects of politics on working relationships between technically trained managers (TTMs; e.g., research and development managers) and marketing managers (MMs) during NPD. Our results reveal that intra‐team politics has positive and negative effects on TTM/MM communication. This is important because communication positively influences collaboration and NPD success. Moreover, the effects of communication variables on these two outcome variables differ depending on whether one is a TTM or MM.
{"title":"Friend or Foe? The Effects of Managerial Politics on NPD Team Communication, Collaboration and Project Success","authors":"Elias Kyriazis, G. Massey, P. Couchman, L. Johnson","doi":"10.1111/radm.12150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12150","url":null,"abstract":"Much existing work on new product development (NPD) team integration takes an economically rational perspective, specifying appropriate systems, structures and interactions. Few studies however have explored the effects of politics on working relationships between technically trained managers (TTMs; e.g., research and development managers) and marketing managers (MMs) during NPD. Our results reveal that intra‐team politics has positive and negative effects on TTM/MM communication. This is important because communication positively influences collaboration and NPD success. Moreover, the effects of communication variables on these two outcome variables differ depending on whether one is a TTM or MM.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"209 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132182892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is now well established in the Strategy literature that firms grow successfully and survive if they are able to alter their resource base on an ongoing basis (Teece, 2007; Helfat, Finkelstein, Mitchell, Peteraf, Teece and Winter, 2007; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Capron and Mitchell, 2009; Helfat and Peteraf, 2014). In examining the challenges involved in changing the firm’s resource base, research on reconfiguration refers to the activities in which firms engage when adding, redeploying, recombining, or divesting resources or business units.This Virtual Special Issue brings together seminal studies published in the Strategic Management Society Journal over the last 35 years which collectively advance our understanding of the reconfiguration phenomenon. While it by no means offers an exhaustive review of this increasingly active stream of research, it highlights a number of key contributions that have shaped our knowledge of reconfiguration. Although the papers here vary in their approach (some are empirical, others develop logical arguments), methods (qualitative vs. quantitative), and level of analysis (individuals, intra-firm units, inter organizational relationships), they have in common a shared understanding of reconfiguration as a crucial process underlying firms’ expansion, contraction and innovation as they seek to improve performance and secure competitive advantage.Most of the papers included in this issue are frequently cited and have had a major impact on the reconfiguration stream of research, and more generally the field of strategy. Some of the more recent ones are less well cited but have been chosen because we expect them to be influential in the near future. By pulling this work together into a cohesive collection (see Figure 1 for the organizing framework), we hope to expand their influence and to encourage scholars in the field to tackle issues that are crucial for both academics and practitioners.
现在，在战略文献中，如果企业能够持续地改变其资源基础，那么企业就会成功成长并生存下来(Teece, 2007;Helfat, Finkelstein, Mitchell, Peteraf, Teece and Winter, 2007;Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;Capron and Mitchell, 2009;Helfat and Peteraf, 2014)。在考察改变企业资源基础所涉及的挑战时，对重新配置的研究指的是企业在增加、重新部署、重组或剥离资源或业务单位时所从事的活动。本期虚拟特刊汇集了过去35年来发表在《战略管理学会杂志》上的开创性研究，这些研究共同促进了我们对重构现象的理解。虽然它绝不是对这一日益活跃的研究流的详尽回顾，但它强调了一些重要的贡献，这些贡献塑造了我们对重构的认识。尽管这些论文在方法(一些是经验主义的，另一些则是逻辑论证)、方法(定性vs定量)和分析水平(个人、公司内部单位、组织间关系)上各不相同，但它们都有一个共同的理解，即重组是企业在寻求提高绩效和确保竞争优势时扩张、收缩和创新的关键过程。本刊收录的大多数论文都被频繁引用，并对重新配置研究流产生了重大影响，更广泛地说，对战略领域产生了重大影响。一些最近的论文被引用的次数较少，但我们选择它们是因为我们预计它们在不久的将来会有影响力。通过将这些工作整合成一个有凝聚力的集合(见图1的组织框架)，我们希望扩大他们的影响力，并鼓励该领域的学者解决对学术界和实践者都至关重要的问题。
{"title":"Reconfiguration: Adding, Redeploying, Recombining, and Divesting Resources and Business Units","authors":"S. Karim, L. Capron","doi":"10.1002/SMJ.2537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.2537","url":null,"abstract":"It is now well established in the Strategy literature that firms grow successfully and survive if they are able to alter their resource base on an ongoing basis (Teece, 2007; Helfat, Finkelstein, Mitchell, Peteraf, Teece and Winter, 2007; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Capron and Mitchell, 2009; Helfat and Peteraf, 2014). In examining the challenges involved in changing the firm’s resource base, research on reconfiguration refers to the activities in which firms engage when adding, redeploying, recombining, or divesting resources or business units.This Virtual Special Issue brings together seminal studies published in the Strategic Management Society Journal over the last 35 years which collectively advance our understanding of the reconfiguration phenomenon. While it by no means offers an exhaustive review of this increasingly active stream of research, it highlights a number of key contributions that have shaped our knowledge of reconfiguration. Although the papers here vary in their approach (some are empirical, others develop logical arguments), methods (qualitative vs. quantitative), and level of analysis (individuals, intra-firm units, inter organizational relationships), they have in common a shared understanding of reconfiguration as a crucial process underlying firms’ expansion, contraction and innovation as they seek to improve performance and secure competitive advantage.Most of the papers included in this issue are frequently cited and have had a major impact on the reconfiguration stream of research, and more generally the field of strategy. Some of the more recent ones are less well cited but have been chosen because we expect them to be influential in the near future. By pulling this work together into a cohesive collection (see Figure 1 for the organizing framework), we hope to expand their influence and to encourage scholars in the field to tackle issues that are crucial for both academics and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130532590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prior innovation audits consist of scorecards that firms use to assess their innovation processes and capabilities. The multifaceted nature of innovation means that this approach does not contextualize the audit for the audited firms. This paper proposes an innovation audit method that identifies and formulates valuable innovation-related problems. It comprises four sequentially dependent modules which follow a structured process that allows the firm's innovation processes and capabilities to be audited. The audit was developed based on performing innovation audits with five multinational companies in the manufacturing and hygiene sectors, and nine pulp and paper companies. The paper discusses the pros and cons of different innovation audits. We suggest that the innovation audit process may be a means for changing a firm's strategic innovation orientation, and contribute to the development of innovation capabilities.
{"title":"Innovation Audits by Means of Formulating Problems","authors":"Joakim Björkdahl, Magnus Holmén","doi":"10.1111/radm.12133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12133","url":null,"abstract":"Prior innovation audits consist of scorecards that firms use to assess their innovation processes and capabilities. The multifaceted nature of innovation means that this approach does not contextualize the audit for the audited firms. This paper proposes an innovation audit method that identifies and formulates valuable innovation-related problems. It comprises four sequentially dependent modules which follow a structured process that allows the firm's innovation processes and capabilities to be audited. The audit was developed based on performing innovation audits with five multinational companies in the manufacturing and hygiene sectors, and nine pulp and paper companies. The paper discusses the pros and cons of different innovation audits. We suggest that the innovation audit process may be a means for changing a firm's strategic innovation orientation, and contribute to the development of innovation capabilities.","PeriodicalId":318694,"journal":{"name":"POL: Innovation & Strategy (Topic)","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128691101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：