자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

We develop a contingency view of process management's influence on both technological innovation and organizational adaptation. We argue that while process management activities are beneficial for organizations in stable contexts, they are fundamentally inconsistent with all but incremental innovation and change. But dynamic capabilities are rooted in both exploitative and exploratory activities. We argue that process management activities must be buffered from exploratory activities and that ambidextrous organizational forms provide the complex contexts for these inconsistent activities to coexist.

Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited

We examined how aspects of intellectual capital influenced various innovative capabilities in organizations. In a longitudinal, multiple-informant study of 93 organizations, we found that human, organizational, and social capital and their interrelationships selectively influenced incremental and radical innovative capabilities. As anticipated, organizational capital positively influenced incremental innovative capability, while human capital interacted with social capital to positively influence radical innovative capability. Counter to our expectations, however, human capital by itself was negatively associated with radical innovative capability. Interestingly, social capital played a significant role in both types of innovation, as it positively influenced incremental and radical innovative capabilities. It is widely accepted that an organization’s capability to innovate is closely tied to its intellectual capital, or its ability to utilize its knowledge resources. Several studies have underscored how new products embody organizational knowledge (e.g., Stewart, 1997), described innovation as a

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/csom_sites/faculty/pdf/intellectualcapitalamj2005paper.pdf

The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Pp. viii, 282. £3·50, paperback £1. 1970. (Cambridge University Press.)

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

http://professor-murmann.net/publications/murmann_frenken_rp_2006.pdf

Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change

This issue of JIBS offers reviews of two books that analyse the dynamic interaction between the business environments and business strategies in very different ways. The institutional underpinnings for business strategies are a major research topic for comparative management, aiming to explain why in different contexts firms pursue different strategies, and with different implications for performance. J Peter Murman in ‘Knowledge and Competitive Advantage’ takes a historical perspective focusing on the co-evolutionary processes between national innovation systems, business strategies, and performance. This books thus adds to the industry-level longitudinal research reviewed in JIBS no. 4/2003, Tom Murtha et al.'s ‘Managing New Industry Creation’ and David McKendrick et al.'s ‘From Silicon Valley to Singapore’.

/pdf/knowledge-and-competitive-advantage-the-coevolution-of-firms-5cam72t2xv.pdf

Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions

The concept of dominant designs has been used in very different ways. Confusions exist over the concept, its underlying causal mechanisms, and its level of analysis. To remove these confusions, we ...

Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organization Outcomes.

As the rate of innovation increases, organizational environments are becoming faster and more complex, posing greater challenges for organizations to adapt. This study argues that the concept of coevolution offers a bridge between the prescient adaptationist and ex post selectionist perspectives of organizational change to account for the increasing rates of change. The mutual causal influences in a coevolutionary relationship help explain why competing sets of firms or individual firms can capture dominant shares in product markets. Using a comparative historical method and drawing on evidence from five countries over a 60-year period, this paper inquires how precisely coevolutionary processes work in shaping the evolution of industries and important features of their environments. It identifies—in the context of the synthetic dye industry—three causal mechanisms exchange of personnel, commercial ties, and lobbying and suggests how they acted as levers on the fundamental mechanisms of evolution. Understanding the levers is important for managing change in a world that is increasingly becoming coevolutionary, requiring managers to focus more on the emergent, system-level properties of their environments.

http://professor-murmann.net/publications/Murmann_2013_Coevolution.pdf

The Coevolution of Industries and Important Features of Their Environments

The concept of a dominant design has taken on a quasi-paradigmatic status in analyses of the link between technological and industrial dynamics. A review of the empirical literature reveals a variety of interpretations about some aspects of the phenomenon such as its underlying causal mechanisms and its level of analysis. To stimulate further progress in empirical research on dominant designs, we advocate a standardization of terminology by conceptualizing products as complex artifacts that evolve in the form of a nested hierarchy of technology cycles. Such a nested complex system perspective provides both unambiguous definitions of dominant designs (stable core components that can be stable interfaces) and inclusion of multiple levels of analysis (system, subsystems, components). We introduce the concept of an operational principle and offer a systematic definition of core and peripheral subsystems based on the concept of pleiotropy. We also discuss how the proposed terminological standardization can stimulate cumulative research on dominant designs.

/pdf/toward-a-systematic-framework-for-research-on-dominant-11v6uobk8c.pdf

Johann Peter Murmann

Papers

Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change

Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions

Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organization Outcomes.

The Coevolution of Industries and Important Features of Their Environments

Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change