Read this document about the models of innovation. Models of Innovation.pdf? 1.? Using the examples provided, Christensen product examples.docx find 5 similar
Read this document about the models of innovation. Models of Innovation.pdf
1. Using the examples provided, Christensen product examples.docx find 5 similar products/technologies and determine whether they are disruptive or sustaining technology? First state sustaining or disruptive (today) then explain your choice. (minimum of one paragraph of 3-8 sentences for each product).
Include references in APA format and grammar checks. One example is medical testing. What other kinds of medical testing can you find? the second one is related to medical treatments, the third to construction innovations, the fourth to alternative energy products, The fifth and last is Poo-Pourri has many competitors in the bathroom fragrance space, you need to find one that is similar. Optional: select a product or technology that you have learned about in this course or are passionate about as one of the 5 required. State that this is the optional product/technology.
2. Under each similar product you found above, identify what other models (other than Christensen's) describe each product innovation? (such as Abernathy-Clark or Value chain) Explain.
Here is an optional article that may help in defining the terms:
Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovation _ Deloitte Israel.pdf
For a deeper dive in a more recent article from Christensen, et. al.
What Is Disruptive Innovation_HBR.pdf
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0268-4012/$ – se
doi:10.1016/j.iji
� Correspond
E-mail addr
International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related?
Silvio Popadiuk a,�
, Chun Wei Choo b
a Management Post-graduation Program, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie [Mackenzie Presbyterian University],
Rua da Consolac-ão, 896, Conjunto 76, São Paulo 01302-907, Brazil b Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto, 140 St. George Street, Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S 3G6
Abstract
Innovation and knowledge creation—these two concepts have a strong relationship but this relationship has not been
examined systematically. This paper reviews the important theoretical work in both streams of research, highlighting the
fundamental similarities and differences. Four major models of innovation are compared, and the distinction between
radical and incremental innovation is examined. The nature of organizational knowledge and the process of knowledge
creation are presented. We then compare the principal findings of the research on innovation and knowledge creation, and
conclude with a new framework that differentiates types of innovation based on a knowledge creation perspective.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Radical innovation; Incremental innovation; Knowledge management; Knowledge creation
1. Introduction
Since the beginning of the last decade when the competitive environment went through a major transformation due to globalization, business organizations have intensified their search for strategies that will give them a sustainable competitive advantage. Such strategies generally require that the firm continuously differentiates its products and services, that is, firms must constantly be innovative. This continuous innovation requires a well-planned system of knowledge management that enables the firm to excel in technological, market and administrative knowledge creation. Innovation and knowledge creation are two concepts that have a strong but complex relationship that is not often examined. This article reviews both concepts in an attempt to show how they are fundamentally different yet deeply connected.
The next two sections of the paper discuss the theory of innovation and knowledge creation. The following section analyzes the relationship between innovation and knowledge creation, and concludes with a theoretical synthesis.
e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
nfomgt.2006.03.011
ing author. Tel.: +55 11 211 48597; fax: +55 11 211 48600.
esses: [email protected] (S. Popadiuk), [email protected] (C.W. Choo).
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Popadiuk, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312 303
2. Innovation: concepts and models
In the research literature, the definition of innovation includes the concepts of novelty, commercialization and/or implementation. In other words, if an idea has not been developed and transformed into a product, process or service, or it has not been commercialized, then it would not be classified as an innovation.
Definitions of innovation can be found in Rowe and Boise (1974), Dewar and Dutton (1986), Rogers (1983), Utterback (1994), Afuah (1998), Fischer (2001), Garcia and Calantone (2002), McDermott and O’Connor (2002), Pedersen and Dalum (2004), Frascati Manual (2004). We suggest that the definition proposed by Urabe (1988) is appropriate for our discussion here:
‘‘Innovation consists of the generation of a new idea and its implementation into a new product, process or service, leading to the dynamic growth of the national economy and the increase of employment as well as to a creation of pure profit for the innovative business enterprise. Innovation is never a one-time phenomenon, but a long and cumulative process of a great number of organizational decision-making process, ranging from the phase of generation of a new idea to its implementation phase. New idea refers to the perception of a new customer need or a new way to produce. It is generated in the cumulative process of information-gathering, coupled with an ever-challenging entrepreneurial vision. Through the implementa- tion process the new idea is developed and commercialized into a new marketable product or a new process with attendant cost reduction and increased productivity’’ (Urabe, 1988, p. 3).
Afuah (1998) refers to innovation as new knowledge incorporated in products, processes, and services. He classifies innovations according to technological, market, and administrative/organizational characteristics, as shown in Table 1 below.
Technological innovation is the knowledge of components, linkages between components, methods, processes and techniques that go into a product or service. It may or may not require administrative innovation. It can be a product, a process, or a service. Product or service innovations should be new products or services aiming at satisfying some market needs. Process innovation is concerned with introducing new elements into an organization’s operations such as input materials, task specifications, work and information flow mechanisms, and equipment used to produce a product or render a service (Afuah, 1998).
The OECD’s Frascati Manual (2004) and Oslo Manual (2004) present a set of activities in technological innovation. These manuals consider R&D as only one activity that may be carried out at different phases of the innovation process, acting not only as the original source of inventive ideas but also as a form of problem- solving that can be called on at any point up to implementation.
Market innovation refers to the new knowledge embodied in distribution channels, product, applications, as well as customer expectations, preferences, needs, and wants (Afuah,1998). The main idea is the improvement of the components of the marketing-mix, that is, product, price, promotion and place (Kotler & Armstrong, 1993). The Frascati Manual (2004) specifies that market innovation concerns marketing of new products and covers activities in connection with the launching of a new product. These activities may include market tests, adaptation of the product for different markets and launch advertising, but exclude the building of distribution networks for market innovations.
Administrative innovation involves innovations that pertain to the organizational structure and administrative processes. In this case it can be specifically related to strategies, structure, systems, or people in the organization.
Table 1
Generic classification of innovation (adapted from Afuah, 1998)
Generic classification of innovation
Technological Market Administrative
Product Product Strategy
Process Price Structure
Service Place Systems
Promotion People
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Popadiuk, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312304
2.1. Technology and market perspectives
A number of authors have combined technology and market perspectives in their development of theoretical models of innovation. We compare four influential models by Abernathy and Clark (1985), Henderson and Clark (1990), Tushman, Anderson, and O’Reilly (1997), and Chandy and Tellis (1998). These models are outlined in Fig. 1.
(1) Abernathy and Clark’s model (1985) classifies innovations according to their impact on the market knowledge and technological capabilities of the firm: differentiating between the preservation or destruction of this knowledge and capability. A firm’s technological capabilities could become obsolete while its market capabilities remain intact. Even if the technological capabilities have been destroyed, a firm can use its market knowledge to take advantage over a new entrant. From the combination between market knowledge and technological capabilities four kinds of innovation arise: (a) Regular innovation when it builds on the manufacturer’s existing technological capabilities and the market knowledge; (b) Niche innovation if it preserves technological capabilities but market knowledge is rendered obsolete; (c) Revolutionary innovation if it turns technological capabilities obsolete but preserves market knowledge; (d) Architectural innovation if both technological and market capabilities become obsolete.
(2) Henderson and Clark’s model (1990) argue that to build products demands two kinds of knowledge: knowledge of a product’s components and knowledge of the linkages between components. They call the latter architectural knowledge, ‘‘that change the way in which the components of a product are linked together, while leaving the core design concepts (and thus the basic knowledge underlying the components) untouched.’’ (p. 10). They explain that the distinction between the product as a whole—the system—and the product in its parts—the components, have a long history in literature. A component is defined as a physically distinct portion of the product that embodies a core design concept and performs a well-defined function. According to them a successful product development requires both types of knowledge. The combination of component and architectural knowledge produces four kinds of innovation: (a) Incremental innovation, where both architectural and component knowledge are enhanced simultaneously; (b) Radical innovation, where both types of knowledge are ‘‘destroyed’’; (c) Architectural innovation, where component knowledge is enhanced but architectural knowledge is destroyed;(d) Modular innovation, where component knowledge is destroyed but architectural knowledge is enhanced.
(3) Tushman et al.’s model (1997), while discussing technology cycles and innovations streams, also considers types of innovation according to impact on market knowledge and technology. Market knowledge is considered as ‘‘new’’ or ‘‘existing’’ which are not so different from the two levels of ‘‘destroyed’’ and ‘‘existing’’ proposed by Abernathy and Clark above. The second dimension is also concerned with technology
(1) ABERNATHY and CLARK MODEL (1985) (2) HENDERSON and CLARK MODEL (1990)
Technical capabilities Architectural knowledgeMarket knowledge Preserved Destroyed
Component knowledge Enhanced Destroyed
Preserved Regular innovation
Revolutionary Innovation
Enhanced Incremental innovation
Architectural innovation
Destroyed Niche
innovation Architectural Innovation
Destroyed Modular
innovation Radical
innovation
(3) TUSHMAN et Al. MODEL (1997) (4) CHANDY and TELLIS MODEL (1998) Technology – (R & D) Customer need fulfillment
per dollarMarket Incremental Radical
Newness of
technology Low High
New Architectural innovation
Major product, service innovation
Low Incremental innovation
Market breakthrough
Existing Incremental
product, service, process
Major process innovation
High Technological breakthrough
Radical innovation
Fig. 1. Four models of innovation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Popadiuk, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312 305
but here, it is classified as ‘‘incremental’’ or ‘‘radical’’. Using these dimensions, four kinds of innovation are identified: (a) Architectural innovation—new markets are created but with an incremental improvement in technology (Canon’s small copier, Sony’s portable radio); (b) Incremental products, service or process innovation—the markets are the same, based on incremental improvement in technology; (c) Major product or service innovation—a radical change in technology and the creation of new markets (DOS to Windows; Analog to Digital); (d) Major process innovation—a radical change in technology but the market remains the same. The authors also suggest a fifth kind of innovation, generational innovation, (indicated by a circle in Fig. 1, model 3) which represents an intermediate phase, where both market and technology are going through continuous changes.
(4) Chandy and Tellis’ model (1998) again suggest that two common dimensions underlie most definitions of innovations: technology and markets. The first dimension determines the extent to which the technology involved in a product is new or different from previous technologies. The second dimension determines the extent to which the new product fulfills key customer needs better than existing ones. Combining these two dimensions leads to four types of product innovations, as shown in Fig. 1 above: (a) if the newness of technology is low and the customer need fulfillment per dollar is low, we see an incremental innovation; (b) low newness of technology and high customer fulfillment per dollar means a market breakthrough; (c) high newness of technology and low customer need fulfillment per dollar is a technological breakthrough; and (d) radical innovation is associated with the combination between high newness of technology and high customer need fulfillment per dollar.
2.2. Radical and incremental innovations
In the models presented above, a common thread is the distinction between incremental and radical innovation. We examine this distinction in greater detail in this section.
Radical innovations are fundamental changes that represent revolutionary changes in technology. They represent clear departures from existing practice (Ettlie, 1983; Ettlie, Bridges, & O’Keefe, 1984). Dewar and Dutton (1986) argue that a theoretical model of innovation should consider three kinds of variables: (a) the distribution of knowledge: the depth and diversity of knowledge and extent of exposure to information obtained from external sources; (b) attitudes of the organization’s management: the value they place on change; (c) organizational structure: effects of the centralization upon adoption behavior.
For Urabe, (1988, p. 3) ‘‘innovation includes both major and minor changes. Extremely major change is called a radical innovation, although it is interpreted as radical in a technological sense. [y] It is usually the case that in the early stages of a new industry radical product innovation is the prevalent mode of innovation, but it has little if any economic impact, because product design is still in flux and the market is uncertain’’.
For Pedersen and Dalum (2004), radical innovation is a major change that represents a new technological paradigm. It implies that the codes developed to communicate changing technology will become inadequate. Radical change creates a high degree of uncertainty in organizations and industry. It also sweeps away significant parts of previous investments in technical skills and knowledge, designs, production techniques, plants and equipment. The change is not necessarily delimited by the supply side. It comes from a change on the demand side and in the organizational or institutional structure.
Incremental innovations. The OECD’s Oslo Manual (2004) classifies incremental innovation as other changes in products and processes like changes which are ‘‘insignificant,’’ minor, or do not involve a sufficient degree of novelty. Novelty refers to the aesthetic or other subjective qualities of the product. For example, the introduction of drip-dry shirts, or ‘‘breathable’’ waterproof mountain gear, is an incremental product innovation. In the travel industry, on-line booking and information services, or a telephone service in trains would also be incremental innovations.
Stamm (2003) details differences between incremental and radical innovation according to nine perspectives, summarized in Table 2 below.
Since innovation can be understood as a result of knowledge creation and application, we next discuss major concepts in the management of organizational knowledge creation and use.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Difference between incremental and radical innovation (Stamm, 2003)
Focus Incremental Radical
Time frame Short term—6 to 24 months Long term—usually 10 year plus
Development trajectory Step after step from conception to
commercialization, high levels of certainty
Discontinuous, iterative, set-backs, high levels of
uncertainty
Idea generation and
opportunity recognition
Continuous stream of incremental improvement;
critical events large anticipated
Ideas often pop up unexpectedly, and from
unexpected sources, slack tends to be required;
focus and purpose might change over the course
of the development
Process Formal, established, generally with stages and
gates
A formal, structured process might hinder
Business case A complete business case can be produced at the
outset, customer reaction can be anticipated
The business case evolves throughout the
development, and might change; predicting
customer reaction is difficult
Players Can be assigned to a cross-functional team with
clearly assigned and understood roles; skill
emphasis is on making things happen
Skill areas required; key players may come and
go; finding the right skills often relies on informal
networks; flexibility, persistence and willingness
to experiment are required
Development structure Typically, a cross-functional team operates within
an existing business unit
Tends to originate in R&D; tends to be driven by
the determination of one individual who pursues
it wherever he or she is
Resource and skill
requirements
All skills and competences necessary tend to be
within the project team; resource allocation
follows a standardized process
It is difficult to predict skill and competence
requirements; additional expertise from outside
might be required; informal networks; flexibility
is required
Operating unit involvement Operating units are involved from the beginning Involving operating units too early can again lead
to great ideas becoming small
S. Popadiuk, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312306
3. Knowledge creation in organizations: concepts and models
3.1. Categories of organizational knowledge
Knowledge has been defined as ‘‘justified true belief’’ that increases an organization’s capacity for effective action (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995). Knowledge relevant to business organizations would include facts, opinions, ideas, theories, principles, models, experience, values, contextual information, expert insight, and intuition (Mitri, 2003). Davenport and Prusak (1998) describe knowledge as a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, context information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information.
Nonaka and Takeushi (1995) view knowledge as composed of two dimensions: tacit and explicit, based on the work of Polanyi (1967). The tacit dimension is based on experience, thinking, and feelings in a specific context, and is comprised of both cognitive and technical components. The cognitive component refers to an individual’s mental models, maps, beliefs, paradigms, and viewpoints. The technical component refers to concrete know-how and skills that apply to a specific context. The explicit dimension of knowledge is articulated, codified, and communicated using symbols (Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995). The explicit dimension may also be classified as object based or rule-based. Knowledge is object based when it is codified in words, numbers, formulas, or made tangible as equipment, documents, or models. It is rule based when the knowledge is encoded as rules, routines, or standard operating procedures (Choo, 1998). Cyert and March (1992) discuss four types of rule-based procedures (a) task performance rules that specify methods for accomplishing organizational tasks and are important because they embody and facilitate the transfer of learning; (b) record-keeping rules on what records and how such records should be maintained by the organization; (c) information-handling rules that define the organization’s communication system, including
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Popadiuk, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312 307
how to distribute and summarize internal and external information; and (d) planning rules that guide the planning process and the allocation of resources among the activities of the organization.
Choo (1998) also discusses a third kind of knowledge: cultural knowledge. This refers to the ‘‘assumptions and beliefs that are used to describe, and explain reality, as well as the conventions and expectations that are used to assign value and significance to new information’’ (p.112). Cultural knowledge is not codified but is diffused over the ties and relationships that connect a group. Although Nonaka and Takeushi (1995) do not mention cultural knowledge, they distinguish between knowledge of the individual and the collective. Individual knowledge is created by and exists in the individual according to her beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and the factors that influence her personality formation. Social knowledge is created by and resides in the collective actions of a group. It involves the norms that guide intra-group communication and coordination. Considering a particular context, collective knowledge could be related to cultural knowledge.
Alavi and Leidner (2001) suggest different classification of knowledge depending on its use or usefulness. For example, according to Zack (1998), knowledge could be classified as procedural (know-how), causal (know-why), conditional (know-when), and relational (know-with). A more pragmatic approach classifies knowledge according to its usefulness to organizations. In this case, knowledge refers to the understanding of customers, products, processes, and competitors, that is, the components of the organization’s value chain (Porter, 1985). These approaches are compared in Fig. 2.
3.2. Knowledge creation
One of the most influential theories of organizational knowledge creation is that developed by Nonaka and Takeushi (1995). In their analysis, an organization creates new knowledge through the conversion and interaction between its tacit and explicit knowledge. Understanding the reciprocal relationship between these two kinds of knowledge would be the key to understand the knowledge-creating process. The conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge is a social process between individuals and is not confined to a single person. Knowledge conversion occurs in four modes: socialization—from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, externalization—from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, combination—from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge, and internalization—from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, whence the acronym SECI. Table 3 shows these four modes of knowledge conversion and Table 4 lists their main features.
According to Nonaka and Nishiguchi (2001) knowledge is often in the eye of the beholder, and one gives meaning to a concept through the way one uses it. As justified true belief, knowledge is a construction of reality rather than something that is true in an objective or universal way. Knowledge is both explicit and tacit and effective knowledge creation depends on an enabling context. Such context can be physical, virtual, mental, or—more likely—all three. Knowledge is dynamic, relational, and based on human action; it depends upon the situation and people involved rather than on absolute truth or artifacts.
INDIVIDUAL
COLLECTIVE
INTERNAL AND/OR EXTERNAL VALUE CHAIN
PROCEDURAL: Know how CAUSAL: Know why CONDITIONAL: Know when RELATIONAL: Know with
TACIT
Cognitive Technical
EXPLICIT
Object based
Rule based
Task performance rules Record keeping rules
Information handling rules Planning rules
CULTURAL
Beliefs about the identity and business of the firm Beliefs about what knowledge is valuable to firm
SELECTED KNOWLEDGE CLASSIFICATION
Fig. 2. Categories of organizational knowledge.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Knowledge conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995)
Knowledge conversion modes
To Tacit knowledge To Explicit knowledge
From Tacit knowledge Socialization Externalization
From Explicit knowledge Internalization Combination
Table 4
Features of each knowledge conversion mode (Nonaka and Takeushi, 1995)
Knowledge conversion mode Main features
Socialization Joint activities—shared experiences—spending time, living in the same environment—
apprenticeship—observing, imitating, practicing the works—informal meetings outside the
workspace—worldview, mutual trust, pure experience. It involves capturing knowledge
through direct interactions with suppliers and customers and walking around inside the
organization, dialogues with competitors, interaction with external experts, and creation of
a work environment that allows peers.
Externalization Knowledge is crystallized and can be shared by others by using metaphors, concepts,
hypothesis, diagrams, models, or prototypes. Discrepancies and gaps between images and
expressions while using these kinds of language’s resources can help promote "reflection"
and interaction between individuals.
Combination Documents, meetings, telephone conversations, or computerized communication networks.
Reconfiguration of existing knowledge through sorting, adding, combining, and
categorizing knowledge. Diffusion, and systematization are the keys. Collection,
combination, dissemination of knowledge among the organizational members through
presentations or meetings; edition or processing of knowledge in the organization to make it
more usable.
Internalization Learning by doing. Knowledge created is shared throughout organization. Knowledge
internalized into individuals’ tacit knowledge in the form of share mental models or
technical know-how becomes valuable assets. Activities: training programs, simulations or
experiments, cross functional development teams; search and sharing of new values and
thoughts; facilitation of prototyping and benchmarking; facilitation of challenging spirit;
results shared with the entire department.
S. Popadiuk, C.W. Choo / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 302–312308
Nonaka and Takeushi (1995) stress that the role of the organization in knowledge creation is to develop the conditions that would enable knowledge creation at the individual, group, organizational, or inter-organizational levels. One enabling condition is to articulate an organizational intention. This may be expressed as a knowledge vision which allows the organization to assess the relevance and usefulness of new knowledge. Another condition is to foster individual and group autonomy, encouraging indivi- duals and groups to share information and act on their own as far as circumstances permit. Fluctuation and creative chaos is a deliberate ‘‘breaking down’’ of routines, habits, or cognitive frameworks, to create a chaotic situation. Individuals then have to reconsider their basic perspectives and may need to engage in dialogue with people inside and outside the organization. Yet another condition is based on the prin- ciple of requisite variety which suggests that the internal diversity of an organization (in terms of its information, operations, and mental models) should match the external variety of the environment for effective adaptation.
4. Innovation and knowledge creation
Table 5 summarizes our discussion of innovation and knowledge creation and juxtaposes the key concepts that characterize the research in these two areas. Our review of the literature suggests a number of ways that innovation depends on knowledge creation. Innovation consists of new ideas that have
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 5
Comparison of innovation and knowledge creation
Innovation Knowledge creation
Definition Generating ideas and implementing them to produce value for the
organization, suppliers and consumers
Sharing mental, emotional and active
knowledge in such a way that the results lead
to aggregated value
Generic
classification
Technological: product, process, service; Market: product, price,
promotion, place; Administrative: strategy, structure, systems, culture
Tacit
Explicit
Cultural
Specific selected
classification
Two dimensions Market knowledge + technical capabilities Individual – collective
Component + architectural knowledge Based on value chain
Market orientation + Change in technology Procedural, causal, conditional, relational
Radical, incremental, architectural, regular, niche
Perspective Technological—Market—Administrative Individual, group, organizational, inter-
organizational
Principles Combination of resources and capabilities aiming at the generation of
sustainable competitive advantage
Sharing experiences, learning
Process Idea phase, feasibility phase, capability phase, launch phase SECI Model: Socialization, externalization,
combination, and internalization—creating
concepts, justifying concepts, building
prototype, cross-leveling knowledge
Time frame Continuous or ad hoc—short or long term Continuous
Drivers Competitive
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.