Encouraging and enabling action research in innovation management

Although action research offers great advantages of connecting academia and practice, it is surprisingly underutilised in innovation management. This paper, therefore, focuses on how innovation management research and researchers can more effectively and efficiently apply action research to their domain. The analysis commences with the rationale for aligning action research and innovation management before assessing the strengths and limitations of existing interdisciplinary action research approaches from an innovation management perspective. Combining and enhancing the strengths of these approaches, a new Action Innovation Management Research (AIM-R) framework is developed to assist in resolving the increasing demand for action-orientation in innovation management. AIM-R offers a structured research process for systematically applying action research as a way of encouraging rigorous research processes, while also importantly stimulating relevant practical outcomes. AIM-R specifically considers different change levels (individual, team, organisational) and objects (e.g. outcome, process, capability) critical for the multi-faceted character of innovation management. A real-world example towards the end of the article illustrates how AIM-R has been applied to a complex problem-solution space. This example adds important insights for readers wanting to apply this more engaged, but currently underutilised, innovation management research technique.     

Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction

“Design thinking” has generated significant attention in the business press and has been heralded as a novel problem‐solving methodology well suited to the often‐cited challenges business organizations face in encouraging innovation and growth. Yet the specific mechanisms through which the use of design, approached as a thought process, might improve innovation outcomes have not received significant attention from business scholars. In particular, its utility has only rarely been linked to the academic literature on individual cognition and decision‐making. This perspective piece advocates addressing this omission by examining “design thinking” as a practice potentially valuable for improving innovation outcomes by helping decision‐makers reduce their individual level cognitive biases. In this essay, I first review the assumptions, principles, and key process tools associated with design thinking. I then establish its foundation in the decision‐making literature, drawing on an extensive body of research on cognitive biases and their impact. The essay concludes by advancing a set of propositions and research implications, aiming to demonstrate one particular path that future research might take in assessing the utility of design thinking as a method for improving organizational outcomes related to innovation. In doing so, it seeks to address the challenge of conducting academic research on a practice that is obviously popular in management circles but appears resistant to rigorous empirical inquiry because of the multifaceted nature of its “basket” of tools and processes and the complexity of measuring the outcomes it produces.     

Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon

There is currently a broad awareness of open innovation and its relevance to corporate R&D. The implications and trends that underpin open innovation are actively discussed in terms of strategic, organizational, behavioral, knowledge, legal and business perspectives, and its economic implications. This special issue aims to advance the R&D, innovation, and technology management perspective by building on past and present studies in the field and providing future directions. Recent research, including the papers in this special issue, demonstrates an increasing range of situations where the concept is regarded as applicable. Most research to date has followed the outside-in process of open innovation, while the inside-out process remains less explored. A third coupled process of open innovation is also attracting significant research attention. These different processes show why it is necessary to have a full understanding of how and where open innovation can add value in knowledge-intensive processes. There may be a need for a creative interpretation and adaptation of the value propositions, or business models, in each situation. In other words, there are important implications for new and emerging methods of R&D management.     

Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation

This paper reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside‐in” and “coupled” modes of open innovation. From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four‐phase model in which a linear process—(1) obtaining, (2) integrating, and (3) commercializing external innovations—is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals, complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation‐related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front‐loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations. Research on obtaining innovations includes searching, enabling, filtering, and acquiring—each category with its own specific set of mechanisms and conditions. Integrating innovations has been mostly studied from an absorptive capacity perspective, with less attention given to the impact of competencies and culture (including “not invented here”). Commercializing innovations puts the most emphasis on how external innovations create value rather than how firms capture value from those innovations. Finally, the interaction phase considers both feedback for the linear process and reciprocal innovation processes such as cocreation, network collaboration, and community innovation. This review and synthesis suggests several gaps in prior research. One is a tendency to ignore the importance of business models, despite their central role in distinguishing open innovation from earlier research on interorganizational collaboration in innovation. Another gap is a tendency in open innovation to use “innovation” in a way inconsistent with earlier definitions in innovation management. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research that include examining the end‐to‐end innovation commercialization process, and studying the moderators and limits of leveraging external sources of innovation.     

Business models: Impact on business markets and opportunities for marketing research

Business models have evolved in the context of new venture creation. By offering an entrepreneurial perspective to established marketing elements such as value propositions, value capturing and value networks, business models provide marketing discipline with both challenges and opportunities to engage with entrepreneurial environments. In particular, business models call for approaches that elucidate value-in-use of marketing offerings, reveal the performance of contracts in orchestrating value networks and identify the performance of network configurations. In this article we present some implications of and opportunities for business models for marketing research.     

Action research for innovation management: three benefits,three challenges,and three spaces

Given that the innovation landscape is changing, and new forms of organization and management are emerging, this study discusses the potential benefits of action research for innovation management (IM) as it provides closeness to living emergent systems, generates rich insights as well as knowledge for both rigorous theory development and change in practice. Drawing from a large-scale action research study involving a complex collaborative organizational construct, we outline three challenges from employing action research: the process is both reflexive and progressive, the researcher is both an outsider and an insider, and the outcome is both general and specific. A model of three social spaces (the action research space, the academic space, and the practitioner space) is proposed to address the challenges and assist in navigating the multitude of processes, roles, and outcomes associated with action research. The study argues that action research for IM is well suited to exploring tacit aspects of practices and processes in the emergent or shifting study contexts to transform practices through interventions. Thus, if implemented carefully by experienced researchers, it can provide valuable data that are indispensable for theory development in the field of IM.     

Design Research in Innovation Management: a pragmatic and human-centered approach

This article outlines a pragmatic and human-centered Design Research approach in Innovation Management. This research approach is of particular relevance when investigating Innovation Management under conditions of high uncertainty associated with changing environments and the complexity of transforming organizational architectures and business models. Under conditions of high uncertainty and complexity, research approaches that reduce complexity to specific factors are unsuitable. In contrast, Design Research in Innovation Management permits investigating Innovation Management under these conditions as it enables examining Innovation Management interventions and their impact within real-world messiness. Design Research in Innovation Management empirically examines if the designed intervention provides a satisfactory and meaningful Innovation Management solution. This article provides a guide on how to examine Innovation Management interventions and how to generate practical knowledge. This practical knowledge enables practitioners to take action to facilitate innovation, and the approach allows viewing Innovation Management as a design practice. The outlined approach provides a new way to investigate and expand the discourse in the Innovation Management literature by developing practical knowledge in addition to theories and conceptual models.     

Practical application of a parallel research–business innovation process to accelerate the deployment of research results

Both society and customers pose many new challenges for public research and technology organisations. Making the right long‐term technological choices, generating and maintaining an appropriate research portfolio, speeding‐up innovation processes and integrating customer and market needs into science‐based research are among the major expectations. We describe how a multidisciplinary research organisation has implemented new processes and practises to rise to these challenges. The paper points out the benefits of using a parallel research approach to the business innovation process, where the different phases – the development of new technology, applications and business models – are carried out interactively and concurrently. Furthermore, we show how foresighting acitivities, research portfolio management and use of business plans for long‐term research programmes contribute to the parallel research process.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

Towards an integrated framework for managing the process of innovation

Innovation has become a major driving force for business growth and success. However, successful and sustained innovation represents challenges rooted in technological uncertainties, ambiguous market signals and embryonic competitive structures. Notably, in the management of innovation, many challenges still remain in both theory and practice, which demand improved managerial approaches. In this context, the development of a practical and explicit management framework for the process of innovation could be beneficial. This research sets out to develop the concept of ‘Innovation Readiness Levels’ (IRL), an explicit model for managing the process of incremental innovation. Basically, IRL is a framework depicting the development of an innovation over its lifecycle. Within the emerging framework proposed in this paper, five key aspects that determine the effective implementation of innovation are identified. The lifecycle of innovation is then divided into six phases, and for each phase, associated assessment aspects and criteria are identified. By providing better monitoring and control, IRL is intended to help implement innovation over the lifecycle more effectively. It is also expected to apply as a management tool, for which guidance of use is suggested.     

Managing academic R&D as a business at K.U. Leuven: context, structure and process

In this paper, we elaborate on how academic R&D can be managed as a business. Based on the case of K.U. Leuven Research and Development, it is shown how an academic institution can develop the context, structure and processes conducive to managing academic R&D as a business. It is argued that universities that intend to take advantage of the economic opportunities of their R&D programmes, should leverage their innovation potential through appropriate strategies, organizational structures and management processes that allow them to manage part of their R&D portfolio as a business without hampering though the fundamental academic values and activities of research and teaching. This balancing act has been the responsibility of K.U. Leuven Research and Development for the last 28 years. It is the subject of the case study reported in this paper.     

Normative Models and Practical Applications of Segmentation in Business Markets

This article attempts to add to the debate surrounding the application of existing normative and rational segmentation models within a business environment. The main theme of the research stems from current concern over the apparent gap between academic research that, until very recently, has followed normative and rational pathways and actual business practices of business segmentation. More specifically, we provide an empirical investigation into the extent that segmentation is applied within the UK pharmaceutical sector, and the bases employed at different stage of the process. The findings support current research that indicates that business markets are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the way that they apply segmentation practices. Furthermore, the results indicate that the adopted approaches are, to a large extent, consistent with normative models proposed by academics.     

Business model innovation processes of average market players: a qualitative-empirical analysis

Business model innovation is by now mainly understood as a strategic option for firms to enhance competitiveness. As a result, business model innovation research usually focuses on outperforming firms that deliberately innovate their business models. We enhance this rather narrow perspective by analysing business model innovation processes of average market players against the background of a multiple-case study. Our findings show that average market players do at least initially not deliberately pursue business model innovation. Instead, they experience business model innovation as a highly emergent and very often unintended process. We identify four phases of this process and describe them in detail. Furthermore, we highlight factors that determine whether a firm is able to complete the process step or not. The results of our study are reflected in a newly developed process model that considerably enhances the understanding of business model innovation processes with regard to average market players and may serve as framework for future research.     

Using R&D portfolio management to deal with dynamic risk

We develop a theoretical framework for understanding why firms adopt specific approaches for the management of innovation project portfolios. Our theory focuses on a key contingency factor for innovation, namely the dynamics of competitive environments. We use four dimensions to characterize the patterns of environmental dynamics: velocity, turbulence, growth and instability. The paper then proposes the concept of dynamic risk as a determinant of portfolio management processes. Dynamic risk results from second‐order learning by a firm confronted with a specific dynamic pattern in its environment. This learning concerns the likely nature of threats and the required updating of cognitive frameworks in such environments. Attempts to deal with dynamic risk enable various actors inside the firm to understand what kind of dynamic capabilities are needed in their innovation portfolio management processes. As a result of this diffuse learning, firms tend to favor certain common characteristics in their concrete portfolio management activities. To advance the theorizing of these characteristics, the paper also proposes four dimensions of portfolio management: structure, commitment, emergence and integration. Based on arguments inspired by the dynamic capability and related literatures, we advance a series of hypotheses, that relate environmental dynamics dimensions and portfolio management dimensions. These hypotheses are tested based on a survey of 795 firms in a variety of sectors and on four continents, using original scales and structural equation modeling methods. The results show, among other findings, that high‐velocity environments favor structured as well as integrated portfolio management approaches, while high‐growth environments favor approaches that are structured but commit significant resources to each project as well. Turbulent environments favor approaches that are emergent, but also, contrary to our expectations, have high resource commitment levels. Finally, firms in unstable environments have a marginal preference for emergent approaches. Results could help advance the dynamic contingency theoretical perspective on dynamic capabilities, as well as improve the practice of innovation portfolio management.     

Passion for Work,Nonwork‐Related Excitement,and Innovation Managers’ Decision to Exploit New Product Opportunities

This article investigates the role of affect in innovation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities—a decision central to the innovation process. The model proposes that different types of passion can trigger managers’ exploitation decisions but that this effect is contingent on experiencing excitement from events outside their work environment. A field experiment with 90 owner–managers of young firms located in an innovation context (business incubators) shows that passion for work and nonwork‐related excitement levels interdependently impact innovation managers’ decision to exploit new product opportunities. Specifically, harmonious passion has a general positive effect on managers’ propensity to exploit. In contrast, the effect of obsessive passion is more complex and contingent on the additional excitement managers experience such that the positive relationship between obsessive passion and the decision to exploit is more positive with higher levels of excitement. These findings extend the product innovation management literature by acknowledging that decision‐makers’ affective experiences influence innovation decisions and provide a first step toward understanding the role of affect and passion in the product innovation context. Second, the finding that obsessive passion and nonwork‐related excitement interact in explaining opportunity exploitation decisions highlights the need to incorporate contingency relationships in models of innovation decision‐making. Third, in drawing on a field experiment and the experimental manipulation of managerial affect during the decision‐making task, this article answers a recent call in the project management literature to pursue less common methodological approaches and develop “broader theoretical schema” in order to enhance our understanding of innovation management. Finally, this study also has implications for practitioners because it can help innovation managers understand their own decision policies. To the extent that innovation managers are able to regulate their affective experiences, this improved understanding might prevent them from premature and faulty decision‐making.     

Managing innovation for sustainability

‘Sustainability’ is a major and growing driver of business change. Its implications for innovation are clear – living and working in a world of up to 9 billion people with rising expectations, providing energy, food and resource security, dealing with climate change, ecosystem degradation, a widening economic divide and a host of other interdependent issues will require massive change in products, services, processes, marketing approaches and the underlying business models which frame them. The focus of this paper is to develop an understanding of new approaches to innovation management required to take account of the growing pressures and emerging opportunities in the ‘sustainability’ agenda. In particular, it draws on case studies of a variety of organisations to help answer the question of what practical actions might be taken beyond the rhetoric of moving towards greater sustainability or ‘greening’ of business.     

How Ideation Portfolio Management Influences Front‐End Success

The front end of innovation is recognized as an important driver for successful new products and business prosperity. On the one hand, companies must generate a sufficient number and variety of high‐quality ideas to obtain a well‐balanced portfolio of potentially successful innovation projects. On the other hand, companies must strictly select and prioritize promising ideas and concepts because resource constraints do not allow for the pursuit of every idea. Therefore, companies must practice ideation portfolio management to simultaneously support the variety and selection of ideas and concepts before they enter the innovation project portfolio. To date, there is no research on how ideation portfolio management affects the performance of the front end and of the eventual project portfolio. The current study addresses this research gap in an empirical cross‐industry investigation of 175 medium‐sized and large firms in Germany using a double‐informant design. Ideation portfolio management is conceptualized with three elements: ideation strategy, process formalization, and creative encouragement. We find that all three elements independently and significantly contribute to front‐end success. The results also show that front‐end success mediates the relationship between the elements of ideation portfolio management and project portfolio success. More importantly, we find significant interaction effects between creative encouragement and process formalization and between creative encouragement and ideation strategy. The findings suggest that these elements of ideation portfolio management are complementary and should be balanced to maximize the performance of the front end and the eventual innovation project portfolio.     

Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome-Based Business Models

Industrial manufacturers are innovating their business models by shifting from selling products to selling outcome-based services, where the provider (manufacturer) guarantees to deliver the performance outcomes of the products and services. This form of business model innovation requires a profound yet little understood shift in how value is created, delivered, and captured. To address this research gap, our study examines two successful and four unsuccessful cases of this shift. We find that effectiveness in business model innovation hinges on the three process phases that unfold in collaboration with the customers: value proposition definition, value provision design, and value-in-use delivery. We also find that that success is determined by the alignment of specific value creation and value capture activities in each phase: identifying value creation opportunities—agreeing on value distribution in value proposition definition, designing the value offering—deciding on the profit formula in the value provision design, and finally refining value creation processes—regulating incentive structures in the value-in-use delivery. Our process model contributes to the literature and practice on business model innovation by providing a thorough understanding of how alignment of value creation and value capture processes is ensured, whilst paying special attention to their interdependence and the interactions between provider and customer.     

Business model innovation in strategic alliances: a multi‐layer perspective

Business model innovation (BMI) has recently become a topic of interest for research as well as corporate practice. However, we lack specific insights into actors, drivers, and different forms of BMI as the concept is by now mainly addressed in a very general way. In this paper, we analyze how BMI takes place in strategic alliances with the focus of enhancing the recent knowledge about BMI by developing a concept that links firm‐level BMI with alliance‐driven innovation of business models. Against the background of an in‐depth explorative qualitative study, we shed light on the basic nature business model innovation alliances (BMIA) and their effects on both, alliance level and firm level. We develop a process model of BMIA that is the first model providing a holistic picture of this particular type of BMI. Our findings allow for deep insights into BMI processes in incumbent companies and uncover in detail the importance of boundary spanning activities in this realm. By providing these insights, we pave the ground for a new stream of BMI research that focuses on the in‐depth understanding of the role of collaboration and network effects in recent BMI processes. In addition, we show practical benefits for partners in BMI alliances. These insights may help to overcome the traditional fear of negative effects that is still very often prevalent in companies when it comes to issues of partnering with firm external players in strategic issues.     

A fast method for analysing and improving complex software processes

This paper presents a simple, fast method (or management tool) for the analysis and improvement of software-intensive complex products and systems (CoPS) called software analysis-software improvement (SA-SI). The tool relies on outside intervention, rapid data collection and structured in-company workshops. The distinctive feature of the method is that it focuses on the 'soft', human side of the software development process and examines and compares formal (or rational) processes ('what should be') with real, actual practices ('what is'), in order to identify problems, their causes and strategies for improvement. The tool complements existing formal approaches by delivering a 'bottom up', grass roots, practitioner view of real processes in action. The purpose of SA-SI is to help overcome the severe problems of measuring, analysing and improving performance in large scale, complex software projects. An illustrative case example (Company X) is used to show how the tool is applied and how it confronts the problem of actual/real processes differing from ideal/formal processes. It also shows how SA-SI is used to identify process 'hot spots'(severe problems), analyse their causes and identify solutions. The paper provides guidance on typical problems encountered in running SA-SI and how to overcome them. It also shows how the tool has been modified and extended to deal with other complex domains and innovation management issues. Although SA-SI cannot be a substitute for a change programme, it can play a useful part in complementing ongoing improvement activities. From a research perspective, the method helps link up studies from the organisational development and software fields and assists in 'closing the loop' between innovation research and business practice.