Journals / İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Implementation of Innovation Management Systems in Large Companies of Different Typologies

Pages
189–201
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings – The results demonstrate that while the IMS roadmap proposed by the InoSuit project is a useful starting point, how it is actually being implemented is driven by company typology where bureaucrats run this system in a slow, cautious and centralized manner where action steps are planned in advance, incremental ideas are selected, and innovation projects are funded and implemented internally.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose – While established companies try to renew themselves and upgrade to innovation organizations through the implementation of innovation management systems, academic literature is scarce regarding how they actually do it and if different approaches are required in different firm typologies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this paper is to fill this research gap by presenting a 10- step innovation management system that is proposed by the InoSuit project, and compare the actual implementation processes of this roadmap in large and mature organizations of different typologies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings – The results demonstrate that while the IMS roadmap proposed by the InoSuit project is a useful starting point, how it is actually being implemented is driven by company typology where bureaucrats run this system in a slow, cautious and centralized manner where action steps are planned in advance, incremental ideas are selected, and innovation projects are funded and implemented internally.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Purpose – While established companies try to renew themselves and upgrade to innovation organizations through the implementation of innovation management systems, academic literature is scarce regarding how they actually do it and if different approaches are required in different firm typologies. The purpose of this paper is to fill this research gap by presenting a 10- step innovation management system that is proposed by the InoSuit project, and compare the actual implementation processes of this roadmap in large and mature organizations of different typologies. Design/methodology/approach – This paper employs an inductive action research approach which uses qualitative methods of data collection to produce a form of grounded theory that does not test formal research hypotheses but guides subsequent interventions in the organizations. Authors of this paper, as mentors and researchers, spent at least half a day every week for eleven months between October, 2017 and September 2018 in the focal companies, and did several individual interviews and groups meetings in an iterative process of planning, acting and observing of the processes and consequences of establishing an appropriate innovation management system in two large organizations. Findings – The results demonstrate that while the IMS roadmap proposed by the InoSuit project is a useful starting point, how it is actually being implemented is driven by company typology where bureaucrats run this system in a slow, cautious and centralized manner where action steps are planned in advance, incremental ideas are selected, and innovation projects are funded and implemented internally. Dynamic movers, on the other hand, implement the system much faster and in a decentralized way where employees at every level are empowered to make decisions in an iterative manner. Radical ideas are welcomed as well as incremental ideas and external cooperation is searched for both in funding and implementing the innovation projects. Discussion – Implementing an IMS is a complex task with company specific requirements. It was observed that different approaches were required in different companies. The paper discusses the observed implementation methods, associated enablers and challenges in a comparative manner and suggests direction for future research.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜÇLER, Ç., YAVUZ, R. I. (2019). Implementation of Innovation Management Systems in Large Companies of Different Typologies. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 189–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/214751

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. The American Economic Review, 678-690.
  2. Ahmed, P. K. 1998. Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 30-43.
  3. Albors-Garrisos, J., Ignacio, J. & Peiro, A. 2018. Innovation management techniques and tools: Its impact on firm innovation performance, International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(6):1-31
  4. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1991. Participatory action research and action science compared, in W.F. Whyte (ed.), Participatory Action Research, pp. 85-96.,
  5. Sage-London. Bear, D. J. 2006. The quest for innovation: a global study of innovation management, 2006-2016. American Management Association. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. 2008. Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 825-845.
  6. Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. 1995. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review 73(1): 43–53.
  7. Cassell, C., Watkins, K. 1999. Action research: Explaining the diversity, Human Relations, 59 (6): 783-814. CEN 2013. CEN/TC 389 Innovation Management, Part 1: Innovation Management System. Technical Specification (TS) of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Nr. CEN/TS, 16555-1:2013.
  8. Chao, R. O., & Kavadias, S. 2008. A theoretical framework for managing the new product development portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Science, 54(5): 907-921.
  9. Christensen, C. M. 2013. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Reprint Edition.
  10. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
  11. Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. 2014. Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development? Project Management Journal, 45(3): 21-34. Cooper R. G. 1990. Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3): 44-54.
  12. Cooper, R. G. 2008. Perspective: The stage‐gate® idea‐to‐launch process—update, what's new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3): 213-232.
  13. Cooper, R. G. 2011. “Perspective: The innovation dilemma: how to innovate when the market is mature” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1): 2-27.
  14. Dickens, L., Watkins, K. 1999. Action research: Rethinking Lewin, Management Learning, 30(2): 127-140.
  15. Eden, C., Huxman, C. 1996. “Action research for management research” British Journal of Management, 7:75-86. Ekm