Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal Tushman, Michael L. and O'Reilly, Charles A., 256 pp., Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Reviewed by Subodh P. Kulkarni, Assistant Professor in School of Business at Howard University, Washington, D.C. Professors Tushman and O'Reilly are well known for their research on innovation and organizational culture. In this book, the authors address a fundamental and interesting issue underlying organizational change and innovation: that of how firms can achieve a balance between stability and change. Businesses are not likely to prosper or survive in the long run without this balance. One of the book's key premises is that short-term success may constrain a firm's ability to change. Short term successes often occur in larger, older, more structured organizations, the source of structural and cultural inertia, which yields success in stable environments and failure when environments change. Therefore, a company's culture holds the key to success (or failure) in the long run. To create and sustain a competitive edge in the long run, companies must learn how to manage incremental and revolutionary change. The key, according to the authors, is to develop an "ambidextrous organization." Tushman and O'Reilly define ambidextrous organizations as those having internally consistent structures and an internal operating culture that provides for excelling today, while also planning for the future. The ambidextrous organizations are, thus, engaged in a balancing act between the management of incremental and revolutionary technologies. Further, these organizations have very different cultures within a company (or even a business unit, for that matter). Vision is vital to ambidextrous organizations, often displaying one vision that hosts multiple cultures in the unit. Of course, a firm can have multiple cultures under one roof by spinning off different business units and managing them independently. This is unacceptable to the authors. It is important to manage them as a whole, or as a system. The thing that holds the system components together is the overarching vision for the technology firm. That is why the book emphasizes strategic intent or competitive vision; because without a common, overarching purpose and set of values, the ambidextrous company just does not hold together. So it is not only different cultures, but different structures, systems, rewards, and competencies that need to be managed together. Drawing on their extensive research, consulting practice, as well as the experiences of managers from several "ambidextrous companies," the authors develop a model that can be used by executives to understand the dynamics of change necessary for long-term success. Toward this end, the book provides several tools for identifying and diagnosing the causes of performance gaps and for developing action plans to attain, and maintain, industry leadership. The book is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 1 is introductory, and it outlines the concepts underlying the authors' model. Chapter 2 highlights the significance of the concepts introduced earlier in the context of global change and innovation. Chapters 3 through 6 focus on the building of capabilities, competencies, and cultures that can generate a sustainable competitive advantage. Chapter 4 develops a model that highlights the congruence among an organization's strategies and four distinct factors: critical tasks, culture, structure, and people. A lack of congruence often results in performance gaps. Chapter 5 outlines how organizational culture-the selecting, socializing, and rewarding of workers consistent with the company's goals-promotes this congruence. It also illustrates how to assesses an organization's culture. Chapters 7 and 8 stand out in particular because in these chapters the authors introduce techniques for building an ambidextrous organization. …

Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal

Growing intensity of university-industry ties has generated an intense debate about the changing norms and practices of academic scientific work. This study challenges the protagonists’ views on the emergence of a dominant market ethos in academic science and growing influence of the ‘new school’ entrepreneurial scientists. It argues that academic scientists are active agents seeking to shape the relationships between science and business, and shows continued diversity in their work orientations. Drawing on neo-institutional theory and the notion of ‘boundary work’, the study examines how scientists seek to protect and negotiate their positions, and also make sense of their professional role identities. It identifies four different orientations, the ‘traditional’ and ‘entrepreneurial’, with two hybrid types in between. The hybrids are the dominant category and are particularly adept at exploiting the ambiguities of ‘boundary work’ between academia and industry. The study is based on 36 interviews and a survey sample of 734 academic scientists from five UK research universities.

From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries

The purpose of this article is to analyze the organizational behavior of public research organizations based on their human resources development and management. The study here focuses on the largest Italian public research body. The pyramid of R&D people shows the irregular spatial structure of the research personnel per macro regions and the index of seniority indicates older research personnel in the North and Central Part of Italy than in the South Italy. The analysis of human resources displays organizational weaknesses and threats for public research labs generated by research policy based on shrinking public research lab budgets and downsizing of research personnel. Some critical human resource management implications are discussed in order to improve the strategic change and research performances of public research institutions in turbulent and fast-changing markets.

Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior of Public Research Institutions

The efficient organisation of public research bodies is important to increase the production of scientific research, which is more and more necessary for competitiveness in modern economies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the new project-based organisation of the biggest public research body in Italy. The analysis shows that unless project management is properly designed and implemented within Public Research Bodies (PRBs), it tends to become unmanageable over time, creating conflicts, confusion and the proliferation of communication channels, which lead to information log jams. The reality is that the Italian National Research Council (CNR) has never really implemented project management rules; as a matter of fact, because of coordination and area problems as well as the public structure of CNR, it hybridises project management rules with the old organisation since this is the only way to cope with a turbulent and uncertain domestic context.

Project management in public research organisations: strategic change in complex scenarios

http://hal.grenoble-em.com/docs/00/65/80/34/PDF/future_of_Nanotechnologies.pdf

The future of nanotechnologies

https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/bitstream/10197/11383/1/Learning%20signaling%20and%20convincing-%20The%20role%20of%20experimentation%20in%20the%20business%20modeling%20process.pdf

Learning, signaling, and convincing: The role of experimentation in the business modeling process

http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00749152/document

Which model of technology transfer for nanotechnology? A comparison with biotech and microelectronics

Although principal investigators are key actors in scientific fields, there is little focus on what they actually do in shaping new scientific directions. This paper studies PIs practices to better understand their roles. Our central contribution is to identify the different ways in which PIs engage themselves in science, in implementing four main practices: ‘focusing in scientific discipline’, ‘innovating and problem solving’, ‘shaping new paradigms and models’ and ‘brokering science’. While ‘focusing’ and ‘innovating’ remain close to project management, ‘shaping’ and ‘brokering’ look more like entrepreneurial activities, shaping new horizons, reshaping boundaries between subfields and among organizations. External orientations to how they engage in different practices shapes PIs roles to articulate different worlds and to reshape the boundaries of organizations, knowledge and markets. Studying PIs’ practices and their combinations advances our knowledge about their roles in managing the interplay between science policies and scientific agendas more effectively highlighting their role as scientific entrepreneurs.

/pdf/principal-investigators-as-scientific-entrepreneurs-454xbhnzbx.pdf

Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs

Although Principal Investigators are key actors in scientific fields, there is little focus on what they actually do in shaping new scientific directions. This paper studies PIs practices to better understand their roles. Our central contribution is to identify the different ways in which PIs engage themselves in science, in implementing four main practices: 'focusing in scientific discipline', 'innovating and problem solving', 'shaping new paradigms and models' and 'brokering science'. While 'focusing' and 'innovating' remain close to project management, 'shaping' and 'brokering' look more like entrepreneurial activities, shaping new horizons, reshaping boundaries between subfields and among organizations. External orientations to how they engage in different practices shapes PIs roles to articulate different worlds and to reshape the boundaries of organizations, knowledge and markets. Studying PIs' practices and their combinations advances our knowledge about their roles in managing the interplay between science policies and scientific agendas more effectively highlighting their role as scientific entrepreneurs.

By exploring whether nanotechnologies have the potential to generate green innovations, we consider the paradox between the negative and positive side-effects that could come with the development of nanotechnologies. Starting from the conceptual framework of green product innovation, the potential green innovation activity of more than 14,000 firms of the nanotech sector is investigated. Using a query-search method, their patenting activity is explored. Results first show that there is an increasing trend toward the creation of fundamental green knowledge by firms involved in nanotechnologies; second, they demonstrate that energy efficiency is the main driver of green knowledge creation in the sector and third they reveal the main characteristics of nanotech firms creating green knowledge. Beyond their contribution to the debate between positive and negative outcomes of nanotechnology developments, these results also enrich the conceptual framework of green product innovation—a key route to achieving sustainability at the same time as growth.

Corine Genet

Papers

Learning, signaling, and convincing: The role of experimentation in the business modeling process

Which model of technology transfer for nanotechnology? A comparison with biotech and microelectronics

Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs

Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs

Nanotechnologies and Green Knowledge Creation: Paradox or Enhancer of Sustainable Solutions?