This handbook looks to provide academics and students with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. Innovation spans a number of fields within the social sciences and humanities: Management, Economics, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Psychology, and History. Consequently, the rapidly increasing body of literature on innovation is characterized by a multitude of perspectives based on, or cutting across, existing disciplines and specializations. Scholars of innovation can come from such diverse starting points that much of this literature can be missed, and so constructive dialogues missed. The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Innovation have carefully selected and designed twenty-one contributions from leading academic experts within their particular field, each focusing on a specific aspect of innovation. These have been organized into four main sections, the first of which looks at the creation of innovations, with particular focus on firms and networks. Section Two provides an account of the wider systematic setting influencing innovation and the role of institutions and organizations in this context. Section Three explores some of the diversity in the working of innovation over time and across different sectors of the economy, and Section Four focuses on the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment. An introductory overview, concluding remarks, and guide to further reading for each chapter, make this handbook a key introduction and vital reference work for researchers, academics, and advanced students of innovation. Contributors to this volume - Jan Fagerberg, University of Oslo William Lazonick, INSEAD Walter W. Powell, Stanford University Keith Pavitt, SPRU Alice Lam, Brunel University Keith Smith, INTECH Charles Edquist, Linkoping David Mowery, University of California, Berkeley Mary O'Sullivan, INSEAD Ove Granstrand, Chalmers Bjorn Asheim, University of Lund Rajneesh Narula, Copenhagen Business School Antonello Zanfei, Urbino Kristine Bruland, University of Oslo Franco Malerba, University of Bocconi Nick Von Tunzelmann, SPRU Ian Miles, University of Manchester Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley Bart Verspagen , ECIS Francisco Louca, ISEG Manuel M. Godinho, ISEG Richard R. Nelson, Mario Pianta, Urbino Bengt-Ake Lundvall, Aalborg

The Oxford Handbook of Innovation

Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice

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)

This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.

Management innovation

THE NEED FOR QUALITY The first thing that we need to consider, in any organization, is that quality is the most important thing. The quality of your work defines you.  Whoever you are,  Whatever you do,  I can find the same products and services cheaper somewhere else. But your quality is your signature. Developing and delivering high quality products and services means that you are doing things correctly from the beginning. As a consequence, you are reducing the need for additional services, from verification to warranty.

Total quality management.

Purpose – History is full of companies that were once innovative leaders but lost their innovative ability. The purpose of this paper is to explore, from a firm‐level perspective, organizational characteristics for continuous innovation in rapidly changing industries.Design/methodology/approach – Findings from 28 interviews at Google Inc., are compared to previous research on organizational characteristics for continuous innovation.Findings – Google's organization can be viewed as a dynamic and open corporate system for continuous innovation, involving the entire organization and supported by an innovation‐oriented and change‐prone top management and board. The relative importance of eight organizational characteristics in this corporate system is elaborated upon.Research limitations/implications – There is a need for empirical research contributing to the development of a more comprehensive analytical framework for continuous innovation, including the role of culture and selection/facilitation of self‐or...

A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of Google Inc.

The objective of this paper is to explore the extent to which the more recent literature on innovation and diffusion, with a prime focus on technical innovations, can contribute to a useful analytical framework for studying the diffusion of organizational innovations. We review that literature, compare the intrinsic features of technical and organizational innovations, and explore what these differences may mean for an eventual analytical framework specifically developed for studying organizational innovations. We conclude that the received 'innovation' literature has a great deal to offer but that some modifications are required. In particular, we suggest that the role of factors 'inside' the firm and of non-market mechanisms for transfer of organizational innovations needs special emphasis.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09537329808524301

Some aspects of an analytical framework for studying the diffusion of organizational innovations

This paper analyzes the evolution and role of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry, particularly for the 1945–1980 period, based on data on the 100 economically most important innovations during this period. Privately owned large corporations (Schumpeter Mark II) dominated in launching innovations in almost all industrial sectors and in all subperiods but decreasingly so. 20% of the innovations were launched by new firms (Schumpeter Mark I) but most of these new firms were spun-off and/or acquired by large corporations. State entrepreneurship was marginal. Universities played an important role, although sector-specific. New firms and existing firms had similar growth rates and almost identical and short gestation times to international markets for their innovations. 80% of the corporate innovations were product renewals rather than product diversifications or process innovations. No evidence of an evolution from autonomous over corporate to state entrepreneurship, as hypothesized by Schumpeter, was found. Evolution of a dynamic coexistence of. these forms of entrepreneurship is hypothesized in this paper. The paper finally presents a model, synthesizing Schumpeter Mark I and II, for analyzing technological change and entrepreneurship.

The evolution of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry - was Schumpeter wrong?

Total Quality Management (TQM) is recognised for emphasising customer needs and contributing to organisations’ efficiency and effectiveness through process orientation and continuous improvement. Previous research has highlighted the risk that TQM might impede firms’ ability to innovate and quickly adapt to changes, especially in rapidly changing environments. However, other researchers have concluded that
some of the best practices of innovation management could be recognised as TQM elements. A recurring issue concerns the conceptualisation of TQM that is contributing to ambiguity, as there are various definitions. The question of whether
TQM supports innovation or not is, therefore, unsettled. The purpose of this paper was to compare Organisational Characteristics for Continuous Innovation (OCCI) in rapidly changing industries with key TQM Principles in order to discuss the relationship between TQM and continuous innovation. The OCCI used for the comparison have been generated through an empirical study of Google in combination with a literature review of research on continuous innovation in fastchanging environments. A comparison with the OCCI reveals that there are many
similarities with TQM principles but also some distinct differences, for example, in terms of orientation towards innovation. While TQM has become closely related to process orientation, OCCI are more related to semi-structure and ambidexterity. The conclusion is that TQM needs to change in order to also support continuous innovation. In order for TQM to contribute both to continuous improvement and continuous innovations, a partly new management paradigm is needed. However, even if TQM is changed, the brand ‘TQM’ is still associated with ‘quality’ and ‘continuous improvement’. A re-branding strategy might, therefore, be necessary.

https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/165414/local_165414.pdf

Do TQM principles need to change? Learning from a comparison to Google Inc.

The importance of top management commitment for the success of major change initiatives has been emphasized in the literature, while the role of boards of directors (the board) has been in less focus. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the boards affect the sustainability of
major organizational change.
This paper is based on three case studies of the diffusion of total quality management (TQM), Toyota production system (TPS), and lean production (LP). Findings from these case studies are then compared to literature on management and organization and corporate governance.
It was found that a TQM/TPS/LP transformation is a long-term process. In the case studies, top management commitment is crucial for the sustainability of the implemented change programs. However, a committed top management does not “last forever.” The issue of sustaining change therefore falls back on the governance structure. If the board does not understand the essence of an
organizational change, the risk is that top management is replaced with new leaders, who are given new directions by the board. Issues identified as important in order to create board commitment for sustainability of major organizational change are: board competence and experience, board meeting dynamics, board as a provider of critical resources, and the process of replacement of chief executive
officers. The dominating agency theory within corporate governance also needs to be questioned and complemented by more recent theories such as the stewardship and the resource-dependence theories. This paper makes an orginal contribution by providing insights into the board’s role in sustaining major organizational change.

Sverker Alänge

Papers

A corporate system for continuous innovation: the case of Google Inc.

Some aspects of an analytical framework for studying the diffusion of organizational innovations

The evolution of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry - was Schumpeter wrong?

Do TQM principles need to change? Learning from a comparison to Google Inc.

The board's role in sustaining major organizational change: An empirical analysis of three change programs