Strength and Weaknesses of Innovation Implementation

1,058 views
712 views

Published on

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=51

Published in: Science, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,058
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strength and Weaknesses of Innovation Implementation

  1. 1. Strength and Weaknesses of Innovation Implementation Silvana Marques dos Santos Pereira - FGV Jeovan de Carvalho - UFMS Luiz Carlos Di Sério - FGV POMS 25th CONFERENCE
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Research Question • What are the factors present in the Innovation process that generated the loss of strength of the innovation it self? 4
  5. 5. Types/Scope of Innovations Scope of the Innovation Typesof Innovation Disruptive Radical Improvement Focus on this type of innovation
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. The Internal Mecanism 8 ROUTINE SURVIV AL 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
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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.
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. ISRAEL and its Context 19 GOVERNO Universities Private Sector Angels Investors Army International Policies Dealing with Failure Risk takingBreakthrough thinking Disruptive innovation Startups
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Any further contact: silvana.pereira@fgv.br 22

×