Stephen E. Cross

Bio: Stephen E. Cross is an academic researcher from Georgia Institute of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Open innovation & Strategic leadership. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 14 publications receiving 51 citations.

The Evolution of the Incubator: Past, Present, and Future

Abstract: The evolution of the incubator is retraced from the foundational research in the 1950s and 1960s of Research-on-Research —that explored the R&D process in a number of contexts to derive and test theories of organizational behavior. In this paper, we review the next phase of this evolution, starting with seminal incubation research in the early 1970s and, we reflect on the prolific growth of incubation research and practice, as well as new challenges that lie ahead for the next phase of incubation. The incubation field has expanded to include a wide range of models and a plethora of spin-off terminology that have been used interchangeably, with the emergence of the most recent model— the accelerator. Our historical critical review of the evolution of the incubation field is used to ask: in this current era of technological change, what can we learn from the past? We reflect on this question in an attempt to help direct researchers in their endeavors to contribute to the next generation of incubation research. This paper presents lessons learned from prior research and provides a range of indicative areas for further empirical studies at four levels of analysis.

A model to guide organizational adaptation

Abstract: Successful organizations anticipate the need to change. They do so with minimal effort and a focus on improving outcomes. This paper describes a systems-based approach by which organizations can become more adaptive and thus more agile, proactive, and innovative. The key idea is the alignment of vision and strategy, culture and beliefs, processes, plans, people, and desired outcomes. Such organizations have senior leadership that consistently and effectively communicate the vision and strategy (i.e., why the organization does what it does). The organization has a shared set of beliefs about why the vision and strategy are important. The organizational culture embraces innovative thought rather than rejecting such behavior. The resultant model is a codification of best practices based on a thorough review of the innovation, strategic management, leadership, and adaptive organization literature. The model was applied successfully in the transformation of a large, applied research organization.

Realizing the Value of Industry-University Innovation Alliances

Abstract: In response to increasing market pressures over the past decade, corporate expectations for measurable results from engagement with universities have climbed. The trend has developed away from one-...

A systems engineering approach to systematic innovation in an industry-university collaboration

Abstract: This paper introduces a disciplined, system-focused approach to systematic innovation and product enhancement. This approach addresses a paradox facing multinational companies that must quickly adapt to new market opportunities and enhance products to sustain market competitiveness but must also assure their products perform as specified with predictable development and support cost. Thus, the engineering process must be able to incorporate innovative concepts that may be high risk while ensuring such concepts translate into product enhancements with low risk. The approach described in this paper is based on a visionary system description that suggests possible enhancements to an existing system. The system is decomposed into subsystem components. Opportunities to enhance each component are explored and each is assessed based on the technical risk of the proposed enhancement. Each risk is then reduced to an acceptable level through a combination of prototyping, experimentation, and/or open innovation methods. The work described is based on a collaboration between thyssenkrupp AG, a multinational company headquartered in Essen (Germany) and its innovation centre at a leading U.S. research university, the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia (USA). This collaboration is an example of how corporations are increasingly seeking strategic university partners to augment their own technical expertise, to search for and acquire new technologies, to influence university research programmes, and to explore potential game changing innovations. The source for the visionary system description in this work is the Industry 4.0 vision for advanced manufacturing as first articulated in Germany. A case study is provided to illustrate the systems-focused innovation approach. Based on the case study, observations are made about lessons learned as well as future areas of research.

Strategic Considerations in Leading an Innovation Ecosystem

Abstract: The Georgia Institute of Technology has been a catalyst for economic growth in the Southeast United States since its founding in 1885. Over the past 30 years, it has become known as one of the top technological universities in the world. As part of a strategic planning effort commenced in mid-2009, it sought to strengthen its thought leadership and impact through the development and implementation of an innovation ecosystem strategy. The Institute serves as the integrating focus within its region to promote (and provoke) disruptive thought, use-inspired research, experimentation, and accelerated implementation through novel educational, research, and industry partnership programs. Since 2009, there has been a marked increase in economic development impact. This paper describes the guiding principles, strategy, innovative programs, benefits, and lessons learned associated with a regional innovation ecosystem.

The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience

Abstract: Purpose This paper aims to conceptualize what it means to be resilient in the face of our current reality of indisputable turbulence and uncertainty, suggest that continual metamorphosis is key to resilience, demonstrate the role of unlearning in that metamorphosis and suggest that problem formulation is a key deliberate mechanism of driving continual cycles of learning and unlearning. Design/methodology/approach The paper entails a conceptual analysis. Findings It is found that both the unlearning and resilience literature streams are stuck in a paradigm whereby organizational behavior entails adaptation to the external environment and reaction to crisis. This paper suggests that, given a world of turbulence and uncertainty, a more useful paradigm is one where organizations take action before action is desperately needed, and that they proactively contribute to enacting their environment via their own continual metamorphosis. Research limitations/implications Future research should explore further the factors that can facilitate sensing the early warning signs, and facilitate the cyclical learning–unlearning process of metamorphosis. Practical implications The primary practical implication is that to ensure strategic resilience, managers must be able to identify early warning signs and initiate metamorphosis. This means understanding the processes needed to support unlearning, namely, problem formulation. Originality/value The originality and value of the present paper lies in that it suggests a shift in paradigm from adaptation and reaction, to action and enactment. Further, it proposes a cyclical process of learning and unlearning that together define periods of metamorphosis, and suggests problem formulation, whereby the mission statement is assessed and revised, as a mechanism in that endeavor.

The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy

Abstract: In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession, the conventional paradigms of political leadership in the U.S. have been increasingly challenged. America’s post-New Deal hierarchical policymaking pyramid with the Federal government at the top, followed by State governments setting the direction and leading innovation in the public and private sectors seem increasingly mired in partisan rancor and incapable of responding to new challenges.