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

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. 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. 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. Research Question
• What are the factors present in the Innovation
process that generated the loss of strength of
the innovation it self?
4

5. Types/Scope of
Innovations
Scope of the Innovation
Typesof
Innovation
Disruptive
Radical
Improvement
Focus on this
type of
innovation

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ISRAEL and its Context
19
GOVERNO
Universities
Private
Sector
Angels
Investors
Army
International
Policies
Dealing with
Failure
Risk takingBreakthrough
thinking
Disruptive innovation
Startups

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. 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. Any further contact:
silvana.pereira@fgv.br
22