Innovation processes: Which process for which project?
Introduction
Research and practice in innovation management have been deeply influenced by certain reference models that play different roles simultaneously, such as setting an objective to be achieved, establishing a mindset, influencing decisions (even if implicitly), and indicating good management practices. Utterback (1971) was a pioneer in modeling innovation processes as a single managerial process that consists of a set of the following primary activities: idea generation; problem solving, from which the output is an original technological solution or an invention; implementation, from which the output is market introduction; and diffusion, which aims to make a significant economic impact. Several researchers have derived particular sets of activities for their models. Focusing on the auto industry, Clark and Fujimoto (1991) proposed an organizational framework (heavyweight manager and other contributions) for innovation processes. Wheelwright and Clark (1992) introduced the idea of the development funnel. Cooper, 1990, Cooper, 1993, Cooper, 2008 and Cooper et al., 1997, Cooper et al., 2002 proposed that the product development process might be represented as a stage-gates sequence, which later became an influential model in innovation management.
These models and their followers were originally proposed for new product development (NPD), and they consider the innovation process to be a linear sequential flow of predefined phases: idea generation, idea selection (screening), development, and launch to the market. For instance, the titles of Cooper, 1993, Cooper, 2008 papers explicitly use the words “from idea-to-launch”, which suggests that “idea generation” starts the process and “launch” ends it.
However, several authors have demonstrated their disillusionment with this one-size-fits-all approach, primarily from the project management field (Shenhar, 2001, Andres and Zmud, 2001, Shenhar and Dvir, 2007, Kok and Biemans, 2009, Sauser et al., 2009). For instance, Shenhar (2001) argued that there is no single approach for project management that fits all cases. Additionally, studies of the initial planning for academic spin offs (Vohora et al., 2004, Gomes and Salerno, 2010) and exploratory studies conducted in other companies have suggested that many companies successfully employ different types of innovation processes. This preliminary research indicated to us that Shenhar׳s perspective may be applied to the management of innovation processes, which would indicate that arrangements other than “idea generation – selection/development – launch” are possible and desirable.
These previous insights from real cases inspired us to conduct a research project that focused on the following question: Which innovation processes best fit different types of projects? More specifically, what would be a typology of innovation processes, and what would be the rationale for each type of process?
The traditional models have focused on large companies with established R&D departments and time-consuming projects that require significant resources to be developed over months or years and that typically produce durable goods. These models do not adhere to other types of important projects, such as those with a high degree of uncertainty and complexity, which are typical of radical innovation that involves new technological breakthroughs and/or new markets. Pich et al. (2002) and Rice et al. (2008) argued that this environment calls for new models, tools, and management techniques. In this way, our contribution consists of proposing a set of pertinent processes that depend on the specific characteristics of the innovation project.
To respond to our research question, we incorporate the contingency theory proposed by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) and Thompson (1967)—with roots in Woodward (1965)—as the anchor for our scientific inquiry. This theory holds that the way to organize a business depends on the nature of the environment in which the organization is situated. We interpret the contingency approach as a way to cope with uncertainty; in classical terms, this primarily indicates technological and market uncertainties. Employing this theory with process(es) of innovation, we conducted case studies using 132 real innovation projects and analyzed the flows, characteristics, and contingencies that explain the rationale of each project. Our primary goal is to improve the current literature on innovation management by proposing a categorization of innovation processes and contingencies that explain their rationale. We move a step ahead of mere criticism of the rigidity of mainstream models by identifying alternative innovation processes from large-scale empirical research and thereby add to the knowledge about innovation management.
Section snippets
Literature review
Traditional models for managing innovation have focused on new product development (NPD) activities. Developing products involves engaging in a bundle of activities, including managing and transforming resources, gathering information and expertise on specifications and creating products that meet (or create) market demand (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).
The literature in the field is vast: a search in the Web of Knowledge database on December 22, 2013, showed 7510 records for the topic “product
Research design
The purpose of this research is to identify new configurations of innovation processes other than the traditional one (largely recognized by the literature) and the rationale of each type of process. The research aims to develop the theory of innovation processes. In that sense, following Eisenhardt (1989), Yin (1994), Voss et al. (2002), and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) recommendations, we employed the multiple-case-studies approach. There is a tradition on multiple-case-studies approach in
Main findings and discussion – which process for which innovation project?
From our empirical research, we identified eight types of innovation processes. Table 2 shows the occurrence of each type in our sample. Initially, we will discuss certain general considerations and findings subjacent to the logic that drove the taxonomy we are proposing; further below, we will discuss each process. In the next section we will focus on implications for theory, practice and public policies.
These eight types of innovation processes are categorized based on four aggregated initial
Implications for theory, practice and public policies
Our empirical results provide a series of insights concerning the contingency approach for innovation process management. We have identified the different ways in which successful firms organize their innovation processes. Firms tend to have different innovation processes according to different innovation projects. Our research has highlighted eight different innovation processes. These processes are different in terms of structure and content, by contrast with the dominant literature based on
Conclusions
The literature on innovation project management models has been dominated by the one-size-fits-all approach for modeling and interpreting the innovation process. This approach tends to ignore important contingencies related to real innovation projects. Many scholars and practitioners have built their mindset on this approach and ignore that a number of important factors may shape an innovation process and demand new management approaches and ways to organize innovation. Although several authors
Acknowledgments
The research was funded by FAPESP; the grants for post-graduate students were provided by CAPES and CNPq. Adriana Marotti Mello, Ana Valéria Carneiro Dias and Leo Teobaldo Kroth assisted in field research.
References (61)
- et al.
Managing innovation beyond the steady state
Technovation
(2005) Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products
Bus. Horiz.
(1990)Perspective – third generation new product processes
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
(1994)- et al.
Shedding new light on the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and firm performance: an investigation of internal contingencies
Technovation
(2013) - et al.
Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented policy
Res. Policy
(2012) - et al.
Relationships among functional units and new product performance: the moderating effect of technological turbulence
Technovation
(2010) - et al.
The impact of technological learning on NPD outcomes: the moderating effect of project complexity
Technovation
(2012) - et al.
Towards holistic “front ends” in new product development
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
(1998) - et al.
Understanding project interdependencies: the role of visual representation, culture and process
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
(2012) - et al.
Creating a market-oriented product innovation process: a contingency approach
Technovation
(2009)
Where process development begins: a multiple case study of front end activities in process firms
Technovation
Innovation risks of outsourcing in pharmaceutical new product development
Technovation
Listen to the market: do its complexity and signals make companies more innovative?
Technovation
Mobilising differential visions for new product innovation
Technovation
Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights: a comparative analysis of NASA׳s Mars Climate Orbiter Loss
Int. J. Proj. Manag.
Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies
Res. Policy
When does inward technology licensing facilitate firms׳ NPD performance? A contingency perspective
Technovation
Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability in product development projects
R&D Manag.
A contingency approach to software project coordination
J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions
Acad. Manag. Rev.
Consequences of new product development speed: a meta-analysis
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organisation and Management in the World Auto Industry
Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch
Perspective: the stage-gate idea-to-launch process – update, what׳s new, and NexGen System
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders – I
Res. Technol. Manag.
Optimizing the stage-gate process: what best practice companies do
Res. Technol. Manag.
Building theory from case study research
Acad. Manag. Rev.
Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges
Acad. Manag. J.
A stage-wise approach to exploring performance effects of cycle time reduction
J. Prod. Innov. Manag.
Cited by (177)
Factors for innovation ecosystem frameworks: Comprehensive organizational aspects for evolution
2024, Technological Forecasting and Social Change