Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

The Social Psychology of Organizations.

Social Psychology of Organizations

Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

Models that depict innovation as a smooth, well-behaved linear process badly misspecify the nature and direction of the causal factors at work. Innovation is complex, uncertain, somewhat disorderly, and subject to changes of many sorts. Innovation is also difficult to measure and demands close coordination of adequate technical knowledge and excellent market judgment in order to satisfy economic, technological, and other types of constraints—all simultaneously. The process of innovation must be viewed as a series of changes in a complete system not only of hardware, but also of market environment, production facilities and knowledge, and the social contexts of the innovation organization.

An Overview of Innovation

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature suggests CSR initiatives extend beyond meeting the immediate interests of stakeholders of for-profit enterprises, offering the potential to also enhance performance. Growing disillusionment of for-profit business models has drawn attention to social entrepreneurship and social innovation to ease social issues. Adopting a systematic review of relevant research, the article provides collective insights into research linking social innovation with social entrepreneurship, demonstrating growing interest in the area over the last decade. The past 5 years have seen a surge in attention with particular focus on the role of the entrepreneur, networks, systems, institutions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. Based on the findings of the review, the authors synthesize formerly dispersed fields of research into an analytical framework, signposting a “systems of innovation” approach for future studies of social innovation and social entrepreneurship.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: : A systematic review

Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing SMEs

This paper re‐visits the perennial question “Why do some firms perform better than others?” by focusing on the resource‐based view of strategy and in particular the role of generic organisational capabilities in the achievement of overall performance and competitive advantage. Presents findings based on data collected from 194 manufacturing small to medium‐sized enterprises. The analysis confirms the authors’ contention that generic organisational capabilities have a positive impact on strategy deployment and on the achievement of overall performance. The findings indicate that generic capabilities enable firms to manage for the future by focussing on customer’s needs and requirements, while at the same time managing crises and problems arising in their operating environment. A further analysis comparing the emphasis on generic capabilities by both high and low performing firms found that high‐performing firms emphasised capabilities to a far greater extent than low‐performing firms. This implies that generic capability is one of the main drivers of performance. The analysis suggests that firms seeking high overall performance would be well advised to ensure that they actively consider their generic capabilities as the basis of their strategic direction. In short, alignment of the generic capabilities and strategic planning is a prerequisite for high performance.

The importance of capabilities for strategic direction and performance

https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1309/1/DriversSMEs06.pdf

In search of the drivers of high growth in manufacturing SMEs

Purpose – To investigate the role and impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions on innovation and supporting mechanisms such as process technologies and management practices, in SMEs.Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative approach based on a random sampling methodology of 1,000 SMEs. Construct validity was tested in the qualitative phase of the research.Findings – SMEs can be categorised as either prospectors or defenders. This polarisation was confirmed in this study. For example, prospectors are more likely to engage in new product development, whereas defenders are five times more likely to modify an existing product than introduce a newly patented product. Prospector‐type firms tend to deploy more new process technologies and leading management practices compared with defender type firms, particularly in a turbulent operating environment. Defenders recognise the need to “catch up” and indicate that they intend to introduce process technologies over the next two years. Firms t...

Nicholas O'Regan

Papers

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: : A systematic review

Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing SMEs

The importance of capabilities for strategic direction and performance

In search of the drivers of high growth in manufacturing SMEs

Innovation in SMEs: the impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions