strength and weaknesses of innovation implementation
DESCRIPTION
Apresentação de artigo submetido e aprovado na 25th Annual Conference of POMS (Atlanta, USA, 2014). Artigo completo disponível em http://www.pomsmeetings.org/EventsNet/?pr=1&ev=51TRANSCRIPT
Strength and Weaknesses of Innovation Implementation
Silvana Marques dos Santos Pereira - FGV
Jeovan de Carvalho - UFMS
Luiz Carlos Di Sério - FGV
POMS 25th CONFERENCE
Motivations
• Observations that innovations initiated with a certain strength
and by the time of launching it had lost the innovative
characteristic, a mimetic solution
• Observing literature on innovation, very little tapped on
aspects of the innovation's host: the organization
• Innovation discourse very open in a fashion way – looks good
to be innovative, but action not corresponding
2
Objectives
• Understand innovation process within organizations
• Comprehend the connection / disconnection between the
initial intent and the final result – the translation process into
business operation
• Case study to observe what happened during implementation
process
3
Research Question
• What are the factors present in the Innovation process that generated the loss of strength of the innovation it self?
4
Types/Scope of Innovations
Scope of the Innovation
Typ
es o
f In
no
vati
on
Disruptive
Radical
Improvement
Focus on this type of
innovation
The Process Dynamics
6
CREATION DEVELOPMENT IMPEMENTATION
Creation period in a startup: • bold, • creative, • multiple skills, • searching for
money
Investors appear • Professionalization • Team Leader replaced by start up expert • Creation replaced by management • Risk avoidance • Financial viability, • Entering in the production process
The source of effectiveness in the different stages are totally different paradigms
Innovation in Organization
• The process by which innovation is internalized in companies
may be COMPLEX and PARADOXICAL:
– Organizations need to COMPETE and to do so they
innovate in many aspects.
– Organizations INTERNAL DYNAMICS, may impose
restrictions on implementation of the innovation: change
may bring a new language, a new habit or a new set of
values and underlying beliefs.
The Internal Mecanism
8
ROUTINE
SURVIVAL
STABILITY
Values and organizational rules start creating a way of doing things that, over time, leads to STABILITY. The stability is related to a
customary way that deals with SURVIVAL
On a day-to-day basis activities become ROUTINES
Repetition of this process ensures that the group constitutes its own ETHOS, standards, beliefs and rules of conduct
Stability and Survival in a Complex Environment
• Search for stability in organizational routines might generate:
– Fear of FAILURE of the innovation
– Difficulty to OVERCOME STABILITY
– RISK avoidance
• Tendency to seek innovation - a modern compulsion in the search for answers in a increasingly complex world.
The Survival in a Complex Environment
• Establishes a continuous effort to decodify the elements of
innovation into established codes minimizing the impact and
adjusting the innovation to fit into already known codes.
• The greater the impact, the greater the repercussion it will
have on the environment and the greater will be the reaction
and adaptation mechanisms.
Reactions to Innovation Process
11
Power
Innovation submitted to economic power , minimize risks ensure viability and financial return.
Cultural
Occurs when an innovation is outside the scope of understanding, comprehension and habit of how that community deals with reality
Creating Routine
Mechanism that “CHEWS OVER INNOVATION” by creating routine, systematization accommodation
Creating routine ensures stability
Case Study Methodology
Chosen Case:
• A startup company in the IT sector
• Boosted by investments from a multinational group in the sector.
• Type of development: between radical and disruptive
Methodology
• Individual and group interviews , using a semi-structured script.
• The interviewees were the following groups:
– The new product/service development team
– Professionals from the purchasing organization who interfaced with the development team
– The company’s management.
• The interviews were recorded, transcribed and subsequently analyzed.
Case Description
• A startup Team that developed a breakthrough idea on IT
• Looking for invertor, they end up being bought by a large IT corporation that have
a business on IT solutions in a more conservative manner
• The paradigm differences led to the hiring of a experienced professional on
startups to be the head of the project
• Started analysis of potential profitability
• Product being developed, there were instabilities on the process
• Low tolerance and decisions that could harm the project – short term financial
results expectations
• No understanding of time required for development
Case Description
• The Corporate Management had two nature of discourses:
1. Publicly praised the new product, thus seeking to portray an image of
modernity and innovation;
2. Privately, the discourse at the organization – ironic, contemptuous,
impatience
• The Project Team was anxious by the pressure for results/loosing face on the
success of initial intention - stress
Case Description
• In this context the idea is decodified for the production and commercial processes,
using the organization’s structure:
– Conflicts become more obvious
– Areas wanted to fit the project into routine and procedures
– Establish standards for repetition and production
Analysis of the Results
• First phase: creation
– is fluid and creative, having a multi-skilled team that has no discipline or
method.
– they look for partners and struggle to survive.
– “Angels” may appear in this phase.
• Second phase: development
– continuous struggle for investment for business is viable.
– Search to control product quality, operation standards, to be repeated.
– Various product versions and ‘debugs’ are made to prepare it for the first
contracts.
– People with professional profile, discipline and specialization are boarding in
the team
Typology - Interface
17
Why do they do it?
Profile
Emotional involvement
Propensity for risk/
uncertainty
Passion Ambition
Visionary committed to
the idea
High
High
Dreamer
To share the Dream, to
make money
Partner up to a certain point
Medium
Medium
Angel
To earn money
Conservative doesn't’t go in
it to loose, control
Weak
Low
Imitation
Conservative, follower, seeks comfort zone
Weak
Low
Investor
Parrot
Table 1 – The Dynamics between Dreamers, Investors, Parrot
Conclusion
• This work allowed some important points for reflection:
– Innovation seems to be important and necessary for the growth and
competitive capacity of modern organizations;
– Innovating is a growth path, but requires organization ability to deal with what
is new
– The strength or weakness here highlighted refers to the adaptation role of the
“dreamers” into the standards of the organization
– This path through which the innovation process goes through, might weaken
the innovation itself
ISRAEL and its Context
19
GOVERNO
Universities
Private Sector
Angels
Investors
Army
International
Policies
Dealing with Failure
Risk taking Breakthrough thinking
Disruptive innovation
Startups
Further Steps
• Identify:
– The factors that are present in the context that enables innovation to appear with strength, as in Israel, Silicon Valley etc.
– The ingredients that constitute this “ecology”.
20
References
• Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 254-285. • Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovator´s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.
Boston: HBS Press. • Gundling, E. 2000. The 3M way to innovation: balancing people and profit. Tokyo: Kodansha
International. • Lampel, J. 2000. Product demonstrations and path creation of technological change. United
Kingdom: University of Nottingham. • March, J, 1999. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. In The Pursuit of
Organizational Intelligence. Oxford, Blackwell. • Schein, E. H. 1984. Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management
Review, 25(2): 3-16. • Schumpeter, J. 2000. Entrepreneurship as innovation. In: SWEDBERG, Richard (Ed.).
Entrepreneurship: the social science view. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Smircich, L. 1983. Organizacional culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 339-358. • Weber, M. 1999. Economia e Sociedade. Brasília: UNB. • Wood Junior, T. Organizações Espetaculares. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2001.
21