Investigacion Desarrollo e Innovacion

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/301624936
Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Empresarial
Technical Report · February 2013

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3665.4481
CITATIONS READS
0 2,566
1 author:
Guillermo Diaz Villavicencio

Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana
36 PUBLICATIONS 85 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
PRÁTICAS DE INOVAÇÃO AGROECOLÓGICA: ANÁLISE DA AGRICULTURA FAMILIAR NO PARANÁ/BRASIL View project
Analysis of financial variables in the generation of sustainable energy from animal waste. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Guillermo Diaz Villavicencio on 25 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA
La Universidad Católica de Loja
MODALIDAD ABIERTA Y A DISTANCIA
MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL
I nvestigación, Desarrollo
e Innovación Empresarial
Texto-guía
Ph.D. Guillermo Javier Díaz Villavicencio

Loja-Ecuador
INVESTIGACIÓN, DESARROLLO E INNOVACIÓN EMPRESARIAL
Texto-guía
Guillermo Javier Díaz Villavicencio
UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA
CC Ecuador 3.0 By NC ND
Diagramación, diseño e impresión:
EDILOJA Cía. Ltda.
Telefax: 593-7-2611418
San Cayetano Alto s/n
www.ediloja.com.ec
edilojainfo@ediloja.com.ec
Loja-Ecuador
Segunda edición
ISBN-978-9942-08-494-1
Esta versión impresa ha sido acreditada bajo la licencia Creative Commons Ecuador 3.0 de
reconocimiento -no comercial- sin obras derivadas; la cual permite copiar, distribuir y comunicar
públicamente la obra, mientras se reconozca la autoría original, no se utilice con fines comerciales
ni se realicen obras derivadas. http://www.creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-nd/3.0/ec/
Mayo, 2013
ÍNDICE
1. INTRODUCCIÓN.................................................................... 5
2. OBJETIVOS............................................................................... 7
3. CONTENIDOS......................................................................... 8
4. BIBLIOGRAFÍA........................................................................ 10
5. ORIENTACIONES GENERALES PARA EL ESTUDIO... 12
6. DESARROLLO DEL APRENDIZAJE.................................. 14
Unidad I. Innovación y Principales Líneas de Investigación 15
1.1 Fundamentos de innovación................................................ 15

1.2 Tipos de innovación............................................................. 17
1.3 Las Cuatro Ps. de la Innovación.......................................... 19
1.4 Innovación y las Ventajas Competitivas............................. 20
1.5 La innovación como proceso basado en conocimiento .... 22
1.6 Desafío de la innovación discontinua................................ 25
1.7 La teoría de “Innovación de ruptura” de Christensen...... 28
1.8 Proceso de gerenciamiento de la innovación...................... 29
1.9 Desafíos de la innovación en la investigación científica.... 30
Unidad II. La Innovación como Proceso de Gestión........... 38
2.1 Innovación como proceso de Gestión................................. 38

2.2 Organización basada en proyectos...................................... 40
2.3 La innovación como proceso de gestión según la Unión
Europea.................................................................................. 42
Unidad III. Abordaje Estratégico de la Innovación.............. 48
3.1 La innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas....... 48

3.2 Estrategias racionalistas o incrementales............................. 54
3.3 Tecnología y análisis competitivo........................................ 58
Unidad IV. Desempeño en la gestión de innovación........... 64
4.1 El desempeño en la gestión de innovación......................... 64

4.2 Aprendiendo a gerencial la Innovación............................... 66
4.3 Auditoria de la Gestión de innovación............................... 68
4.4 Que buscar en la auditoria de innovación.......................... 69
4.5 Qué tipo de innovación caracteriza su organización......... 70
7. SOLUCIONARIO..................................................................... 80
8. GLOSARIO TÉCNICO............................................................ 84
9. ANEXOS...................................................................................... 88
1. INTRODUCCIÓN
El presente Texto-Guía (guía didáctica) de investigación, desarrollo

e innovación empresarial, se enmarca dentro del programa de Maestría de
Gestión de Empresas de la UTPL.
El texto-guía busca despertar el interés de los candidatos a Master para

desarrollar políticas y acciones dentro de las organizaciones, desde el punto de
vista de la gestión de innovación. Por lo tanto, es un material que se puede
considerar como básico y práctico y tiene como propósito fundamental el
introducirnos en la temática de investigar, desarrollar e innovar en nuevas
técnicas y métodos de generación de ideas que son esenciales en la gestión de
empresas.
El texto-guía ha sido escrito, pensando dentro de un contexto de la

investigación, dando orientaciones básicas de lo que se está estudiando
y/o investigando en la línea de innovación empresarial y/o organizacional,
entregando distintas visiones sobre el particular, entregando conceptos e
incentivando a que los candidatos a Master focalicen sus estudios en la
temática.
Desde una perspectiva de desarrollo del tema, el texto-guía intenta

desplegar una serie de metodologías que pueden ser empleadas dentro del
contexto empresarial y/o organizacional, entregando herramientas que pueden
ser usadas en el día a día de las organizaciones, permitiendo la medición de la
innovación al interior de la organización, incentivando al alumno a ver a la
innovación con ojos de consultor de empresas, pensando en el futuro tanto de
la organización como de la comunidad que la rodea.
La primera unidad habla de la innovación sus principales Líneas de

Investigación, encontraremos por tanto, los fundamentos de innovación, la
gestión de la innovación, los tipos de innovación, la innovación y las ventajas
competitivas, la innovación como proceso basado en conocimiento, el
desafío de la innovación discontinua, la teoría de “Innovación de ruptura”
de Christensen, el proceso de gerenciamiento de la innovación y los desafíos
de la innovación en la investigación científica, todo dentro del contexto
investigativo.
UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL 5

La segunda unidad está orientada a la innovación como proceso de

gestión, donde profundizaremos en los temas del proceso de innovación, de la
organización basada en proyectos, de la innovación como proceso de gestión
según la Unión Europea y los alcance del manual de Oslo. La idea de la unidad
es reflexionar sobre la temática general del cómo los distintos sistemas de
medición y operación son tratados por otros países y/o sistemas económicos
(empresariales u organizacionales) en la temática de la innovación.
La tercera unidad trata del abordaje estratégico de la innovación, viendo

la temática de la innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas, estrategias
racionalistas o incrementales, tecnología y análisis competitivo. La idea de la
unidad es despertar en el alumno su interés por las distintas herramientas que
existen y ver que la estrategia de innovación es en parte, un pilar dentro de la
competitividad de las organizaciones.
La cuarta unidad aborda el desempeño en la gestión de innovación,

viendo los temas de aprendiendo a gerencial la innovación, auditoria de la
gestión de innovación, el que buscar en la auditoria de innovación y el qué
tipo de innovación caracteriza su organización. También, se entregan dos
cuestionarios en los cuales respondemos a las preguntas ¿Cuán bien gerenciamos
la innovación? y ¿Cuán bien gerenciamos la innovación discontinua?, desde
esta perspectiva podemos apuntar a que la unidad está basada en la práctica de
la innovación, siendo una unidad práctica para el alumno.
6 UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL

2. OBJETIVOS
Al finalizar el modulo el Candidato a Master podrá:
General:
Diferenciar los tipos de innovación y sus distintas aplicaciones en la

organización.
Específicos:
• Distinguir conceptos, herramientas y prácticas de la innovación.
• Analizar el proceso creativo de la innovación.
• Aplicar los conceptos a la práctica empresarial.
• Participar de dos encuesta prácticas para ver la realidad innovadora

de sus empresas.

3. CONTENIDOS
Unidad 1
Innovación y Principales Líneas de Investigación
1.1 Fundamentos de innovación
1.2 Tipos de innovación
1.3 Las Cuatro Ps. de la Innovación
1.4 Innovación y las Ventajas Competitivas
1.5 La innovación como proceso basado en conocimiento
1.6 Desafíos de la innovación discontinua
1.7 La teoría de “Innovación de ruptura” de Christensen
1.8 Proceso de gerenciamiento de la innovación
1.9 Desafíos de la innovación en la investigación científica
Unidad 2
La Innovación como Proceso de Gestión
2.1 Innovación como proceso de gestión
2.2 Organización basada en proyectos
2.3 La innovación como proceso de gestión según la Unión Europea

Unidad 3
Abordaje Estratégico de la Innovación
3.1La innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas
3.2 Estrategias racionalistas o incrementales
3.3 Tecnología y análisis competitivo
Unidad 4
Desempeño en la Gestión de Innovación
4.1 El desempeño de la gestión de innovación
4.2 Aprendiendo a gerencial la innovación
4.3 Auditoria de la gestión de innovación
4.4 Qué buscar en la auditoria de innovación
4.5 Qué tipo de innovación caracteriza su organización

4. BIBLIOGRAFÍA
4.1 Básica
PhD. Guillermo Díaz Villavicencio (2013) Guía Didáctica de la

Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Empresarial, Loja – Ecuador: Ed.
UTPL.
Este texto guía, está didácticamente elaborada para que estudie las
unidades respectivas, de manera que, con facilidad pueda adquirir el dominio
teórico necesario para el logro de la investigación, desarrollo e innovación
empresarial. El documento sintetiza el criterio de varios investigadores en
el ámbito, permitiendo con ello ofrecer un material importante consultado
adecuadamente, de manera especial que conjugue la teoría con la práctica.
4.2 Complementaria (de lectura obligatoria)
Los siguientes textos, se encuentran en la biblioteca de la UTPL (bases

de datos) de manera gratuita y en línea, también están al final de este texto-
guía y serán enviados a todos los alumnos vía email, tanto en formato original
(inglés) como en formato “ejecutivo” (español).
De igual manera, al final del texto-guía entregaremos las bibliografías

generales que se han utilizado en los distintos capítulos.
Papers:
1 Joe Tidd and Frank M. Hull (2006) Managing service innovation: the
need for selectivity rather tan ‘best practice’. New Technology, Work
and Employment. 21:2 ISSN 0268-1072.
2 Mike Hales and Joe Tidd (2009) The practice of routines and
representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate
Change, Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 551–574

3 Michael M. Hopkins, Joe Tidd, Paul Nightingale and Roger Miller

(2011) Generative and degenerative interactions: positive and
negative dynamics of open, user-centric innovation in technology
and engineering consultancies. R&D Management. 44. 41, 1.
Casos:
1 Corning Glass (2005) Joe Tidd, John Bessant, Keith Pavitt.
2 Exploring Innovation in Action: Sewing up the Competition -

Innovation in the Textile and Clothing Industry. (2005) Joe Tidd,
John Bessant, Keith Pavitt.
3 Continuous Improvement: Specific Techniques (2005) Joe Tidd, John

Bessant, Keith Pavitt. (Herramienta)

5. ORIENTACIONES GENERALES PARA EL ESTUDIO
El aprendizaje efectivo de las principales temáticas relacionadas con los

aspectos de innovación (investigación y desarrollo) requerirá de la atención y
dedicación en el estudio del candidato a master.
El estudio de esta materia se orientará a través del texto guía elaborado

sobre investigación, desarrollo e innovación empresarial.
El aprendizaje a distancia es un proceso que debe realizarse de manera

responsable, ordenada y secuencial, es por ello, que se propone algunas
orientaciones con la finalidad de que aprovechen al máximo los contenidos
del módulo, por ello:
• Organice su tiempo, de manera que pueda dedicar por lo menos dos

horas diarias al estudio de este módulo.
• Tenga en cuenta que existen muchos materiales bibliográficos, con

la finalidad de avanzar en los temas del módulo, sugerimos utilizar la
bibliografía recomendada y explorar los temas relaciones utilizando la
biblioteca de la UTPL.
• Si en algunos de los temas necesita profundizar, le sugiero recurrir a las

direcciones de internet que se recomiendan en el texto.
• Las unidades incluyen actividades recomendadas (aplicación de

encuestas, leer papers y realizar tareas).
• Resuelva los ejercicios de autoevaluación que se encuentran al final de

cada unidad, es un recurso válido para lograr una mayor comprensión y
aclarar dudas.
• Para el desarrollo de las evaluaciones a distancia, lea y analice esta guía

didáctica, con ello pretendemos facilitar su estudio.

• Si tiene la oportunidad, comparta con sus compañeros las inquietudes y

comentarios sobre la materia.
• En caso de surgir inquietudes sobre algún tema o dificultades sobre el

avance de la materia, no dude en acudir al profesor, recuerde que puede
hacerlo a través del entorno virtual de aprendizaje (EVA), vía correo
electrónico o por vía telefónica.
El lenguaje que mantendremos será de palabras claras y concisas que

satisfagan directamente las ideas que se quieren expresar. Este texto-guía refleja
las metodologías de las mejores clases impartidas presencialmente.
A los candidatos a Master, les doy una cordial bienvenida a este módulo.
Suerte en sus estudios…
Phd. Guillermo Díaz Villavicencio1
1 A nombre del Dept. de Ciencias Administrativas, agradezco la participación de Alex Dodd y Laura
Pacheco por sus traducciones de inglés y portuguez al español.

6. DESARROLLO DEL APRENDIZAJE
SEMANA UNIDAD 1 UNIDAD 2 UNIDAD 3 UNIDAD 4 TRABAJO A

DISTANCIA
1 Innovación
y principales
Líneas de
Investigación
2 Innovación
y principales
Líneas de
Investigación
3 Innovación Desarrollo en
como el transcurso
proceso de de las 8
gestión semanas.
4 Innovación
como
proceso de
gestión
5 Abordaje
Estratégico
de la
Innovación
6 Abordaje
Estratégico
de la
Innovación
7 desempeño
en la
gestión de
innovación
8 desempeño
en la
gestión de
innovación

Unidad I. Innovación y Principales Líneas de

Investigación
Objetivo
 Distinguir los conceptos de innovación y sus distintas aceptaciones

para proyectar a la organización dentro de un contexto competitivo.
Contenidos
1.2 Tipos de innovación
1.3 Las Cuatro Ps. de la Innovación
1.4 Innovación y las Ventajas Competitivas
1.6 Desafíos de la innovación discontinua
1.7 La teoría de “Innovación de ruptura” de Christensen
1.9 Desafíos de la innovación en la investigación científica
Dentro de los distintos procesos/acciones que vive una organización,

aparece hoy en día el término “Innovar”. Que se asemeja mucho a inventar o
crear, que se cree que tiene relación con ser los primeros o los más avanzados
en algo (competitivos), principalmente en tecnología, equipamientos y/o
simplemente aplicativos nuevos en la cadena productiva de un bien o un
servicio. Pues bien, la verdad es que no es lo uno ni lo otro, sino más bien,
en términos formales y para el entendimiento de nuestro MBA – UTPL, la
innovación es:
“algo nuevo que agrega valor social o riqueza”.
(Tidd, 2008).

Por tanto, La innovación es un proceso (una cronología) que envuelve

conocimiento, información, creatividad y acciones. Además se puede gestionar
como lo hacemos con las finanzas, la comercialización, el recurso humano, etc.
La gestión de la innovación, es la gestión integrada de alternativas

lucrativas con un mayor valor agregado (nuevas tecnologías) a partir de
conocimiento, información, creatividad y acciones concretas (Tidd, 2008).
De esta manera la empresa toma información del ambiente competitivo en el
cual está inserta para con sus conocimientos, tecnologías previas, creatividad
y acciones, desarrollar nuevos valores (soluciones tecnológicas) de manera de
mantener o ampliar su posición en el mercado (de manera lucrativa).
En tal sentido, la innovación solo existe después del éxito del producto o
servicio creado, no antes. Si no tiene éxito, solo es un invento o acciones que se
puede clasificar como una gestión más de la organización, pero no innovación.
Por ello, podemos decir que la gestión de innovación es interdisciplinaria y
multifuncional por naturaleza. Ya que, persigue un objetivo, que es el buscar
la lucratividad.
Las organizaciones sean públicas o privadas ven en la innovación un gran

salvavidas a largo plazo, la verdad que hoy por hoy, una empresa que se aprecie
de sobrevivir en el mercado, debe tener políticas de innovación claras. Por
ello, la mejor manera de gestionar la innovación es entendiendo que debemos
focalizar nuestro accionar con miras a obtener ventajas competitivas.
Las ventajas competitivas en la innovación desempeña un papel

estratégico importante (tanto en procesos como productos), la empresa debe
ser capaz de hacer algo que nadie más puede hacer, o hacerlo mejor que la
competencia (eso es una ventaja competitiva).
Por ejemplo: tener la capacidad de prestar mejores servicios, más rápidos,

más barato y de mejor calidad ya es una ventaja considerable y competitiva
en el mercado donde actuamos. Las ventajas competitivas pierden su poder
en la medida que la competencia nos imita y copia nuestras innovaciones. Por
ello, el estar siempre innovando (como ventaja competitiva) es el verdadero
salvavidas de las organizaciones modernas.

Las primeras iniciativas y estudios sobre innovación viene de Joseph

Schumpeter (1950) padre de los estudios de innovación, él argumenta: “los
empresarios necesitan generar innovación en tecnología, un nuevo producto o
servicio o un nuevo proceso para producirlo, a fin de obtener ventajas estratégicas”.
Por cierto tiempo, ese era el único ejemplo de innovación. Siguiendo esta lógica
Schumpeter llama a este pequeño modelo económico de “lucro monopólico”.
Más, es claro que otros empresarios intentaran imitar a las empresas innovadoras
(empresas con buenas ideas), de esto surgirán otras innovaciones y aumentaran
las nuevas ideas, amortizaran los lucros del monopolio hasta que un nuevo
equilibrio en el mercado se alcanzará. En este punto, el siclo se repite, que por
su vez, reescribirá las reglas del juego y vamos otra vez repitiendo el modelo. A
esto Schumpeter llama de “destrucción creativa”, donde hay una constante
búsqueda para la creación de algo nuevo, que simultáneamente destruye las
viejas reglas y establece nuevas, todo orientado hacia la búsqueda del lucro.
1.2 Tipos de innovación.
A saber la Innovación se divide en incremental y radical, ambas

tienen fortalezas y debilidades y a la vez ambas pueden ser inclusivas o
complementarias. Vale decir, una organización puede dirigir sus esfuerzos a
mantener un nivel de innovación radical en ciertas áreas productivas y a la vez
mantener esfuerzos en innovación incremental. Esto dependerá en muchos
casos del tamaño de la empresa (situación que se verá en las unidades de más
adelante).
La innovación incremental, se relaciona con aquello que sabemos

hacer mejor (mejorías en componentes) ejemplo; nueva versión de motores,
nuevos modelos de TV, nuevas aplicaciones en los Backberry, etc. Es el tipo
de innovación más común de encontrar en las empresas. Según Ettlie (1999),
sólo entre 6% y 10% de los proyectos de innovación son verdaderamente
innovadores.
La innovación Radical, es la que genera el cambio completo, sustituye o

genera un bien o servicio nuevo para el mercado; ejemplo: materias avanzadas
para mejoría de desempeño de componentes (algo nuevo para el mundo),
cambio de energía a vapor por energía mecánica y/o eléctrica en el transporte,
introducción del PC en el mercado de análisis de datos, introducción de la

biotecnología en los fármacos, cambio de sistema comunicacional analógico

por celular, etc.
Los cambios radicales (innovación radical) tienen como ventaja que

generan un monopolio en sus inicios (en la introducción del producto o
servicio), por tanto, el empresario tendrá la ventaja de la alta lucratividad
mientras no lo imiten. Ya luego, una vez introducido el producto/servicio
al mercado, continúa una etapa de gestión de la innovación que podrá ir
mejorando el producto/servicio en el tiempo (innovación incremental) que
mantenga el liderazgo estratégica de la empresa.
La dimensión de la innovación, dependerá del porte de la empresa en

que medimos la innovación, si la empresa es grande, un sistema de nuevos
procesos de red informática puede es una innovación incremental, pero para
una empresa pequeña el comprar un PC para organizar la lista de clientes,
ventas, insumos, etc. Es un cambio de innovación radical. Siguiendo la figura
1, podemos observar las distintas dimensiones, según el grado de innovación.
Figura 1. Dimensiones de la innovación.

1.3 Las Cuatro Ps. de la Innovación.
De lo anterior podemos dividir nuestra materia en cuatro tipos de

innovaciones, a saber las cuatro Ps.
Innovación de productos; cambios en las cosas (productos/servicios)

que una organización ofrece al mercado.
Innovación de Proceso; cambio en la forma que los productos/servicios

son creados y entregados al mercado.
Innovación de Posición; cambios en el contexto en que productos/

servicios son introducidos en el mercado. (Bebida energizante “Lucozade”
para niños con debilidades física hoy terminó siendo energizante para
Fitness)
Innovación de Paradigma; cambio en los modelos mentales subyacentes

que orientan a la empresa a hacer los cambios. (Introducción de las líneas
aéreas de bajo costo, oferta de seguros y otros servicios financieros por
internet, etc.).
Dentro de las 4Ps. Las innovaciones más comunes son las de productos
y procesos, en el primer caso por lo general se materializa con el invento de
un nuevo producto (un nuevo medicamento, un nuevo tipo de lácteo, etc.)
que luego es éxito en el mercado. En caso de la innovación por proceso vemos
ejemplos en la nueva manera de hacer las cosas en una línea de producción
(cambiando los procesos de introducir los insumos productivos) como ejemplo
podemos citar los cambios en el sistema de almacenamiento de partes y piezas
en el método de ingresos de insumos automotrices.
En caso de la innovación de posición podemos observar en el mercado

una fuerte presencia de las actividades de marketing dentro de este accionar.
Vale decir, la búsqueda y adecuación de los productos/servicios a distintos
mercados, responde muchas veces a un exhaustivo análisis mercadológico.
Ejemplo; Que un producto X sirve para varios mercados y/o cambiamos el
destino del mercado en favor de una mayor lucratividad.

El caso de la Innovación de Paradigma, lo vemos en grandes empresas,

que son capaces de combinar distintos servicios/ productos en favor de
generar uno nuevo, así vemos una alta especialización del recurso humano
dentro de la organización, ya que el mantener nuevo sistema contemplará
grandes inversiones en los nuevos mapas mentales, como ejemplo podemos
ver los nuevos instrumentos estadísticos (modelos matemáticos logísticos) que
la empresa Zara ha introducido en su producción, que hoy los mantiene como
líderes mundiales en venta de ropa.
Cada una de nuestras 4 Ps. de la innovación pude ocurrir dentro de

un largo trecho, desde los cambios incrementales hasta los cambios radicales.
Podemos observar en la figura 2. Que el espacio potencial para la innovación
puede darse en cualquier punto donde la organización puede operar.
Figura 2. Espacio de la innovación.
1.4 Innovación y las Ventajas Competitivas.
Qué es lo que las empresas tienen en común y cuál es el incuestionable

éxito? gran parte la respuesta es, gracias a las políticas de innovación. Por

tanto, las ventajas competitivas pasan a tener un papel clave en el desarrollo

del tamaño o patrimonio, entre otros factores. El escenario está cambiando
en favor de aquellas organizaciones que consiguen movilizar conocimiento
y avances tecnológicos y consiguen novedades en la oferta de sus productos/
servicios y en la forma como lanzar esas ofertas.
Este cambio es percibido no apenas en los emprendimientos individuales,

más bien como una fuerte tendencia para el crecimiento económico en
proporciones nacionales. El Servicio Británico de Ciencia y Tecnología,
por ejemplo, avala este factor como “el motor de la economía moderna,
transformando ideas en productos y servicios”.
La innovación contribuye de diversas formas a modelas la estrategia de la

empresa respecto a fortalecer una/as ventajas competitivas, las investigaciones
actuales sugieren que existe una fuerte correlación entre el desempeño
mercadológico y la inserción de nuevos productos (Sourder y Sherman,
1994), (Tid, 2000). Productos nuevos permiten retener las necesidades del
mercado, además de aumentar las ganancias en tales mercados. En el caso de
productos más maduros y establecidos el crecimiento de la competitividad
en las ventas es el resultado no apenas de la capacidad de ofrecer precios más
bajos, sino también de una infinidad de factores no económicos como los
modelos, customización (el cliente “customer” participa activamente en el
resultado final de aquello que va a consumir) y la calidad.
En un mundo en el que el siclo de vida de los productos es cada vez

menor, por ejemplo, la vida útil de una radio o de un notebook es medida en
meses, o donde los productos más complejos como el motor de un avión llevan
pocos años en ser desarrollados, la capacidad de sustitución del producto por
versiones más modernas es cada vez más frecuente e importante (Stalk y Hout,
1990), (Walsh, 1992). Competir contra el tiempo, es una enorme presión a
las organizaciones, no solamente para introducir nuevos productos/servicios
al mercado, sino que hacerlo más rápidamente que sus competidores (Stalk y
Hout, 1990), (Rosenau, 1996).
Al mismo tiempo el desarrollar de nuevos productos es una capacidad

importante, toda vez que, el medio ambiente está cambiando constantemente
y la alternancia con el campo socioeconómico (aquello que las personas

creen, esperan, quieren y ganan) crean oportunidades y restricciones. La

legislación puede abrir nuevo campos y cerrar otros. Como por ejemplo,
aumentar las exigencias para productos ecológicamente orientados a satisfacer
distintas necesidades. La competencia puede introducir en el mercado nuevos
productos que representen grandes amenazas a la posición en el mercado
existente, en todos esos casos, las organizaciones deben estar preparadas para
responder con nuevos productos/servicios. Por ello, el saber cuál es la ventaja
competitiva que nuestra organización tendrá o desarrollará, será fundamental
para la sobrevivencia de nuestra empresa.
Ventajas Competitivas de la Innovación.
Mecanismo Ventajas Estratégicas Ejemplos.

Novedades en Ofrecer algo que nadie Introducción primero
la oferta de más consigue. del Walkman, cámara
productos y fotográfica, lavadora de
servicios. platos, atendimiento bancario
por internet, sistema de venta
online.
Novedades de Ofrecer algo que los otros La venta de libros por
proceso. no consiguen imitar, más internet, el proceso de vidrio-
rápido, más barato, más laminado de Pikington, el
personalizados. proceso de servicios bancarios
por internet.
complejidad Ofrecer algo que la Motores de avión de la Rolls-
competencia tiene Royce. Sistema complejo de
dificultad para dominar. materiales e ingeniería.
Otros ejemplos se pueden observar en Tidd (2008)
La base del conocimiento en innovación va de la mano con un recurso

humano altamente preparado, lo que redundará en el potenciamiento de
nuestros productos/servicios que ponemos en el mercado. Lo más usual
(desde el punto de vista estratégico) y como conocemos nuestros procesos
productivos, es comenzar nuestra estrategia con innovaciones incrementales,
potenciando nuestros recursos humanos en búsqueda de la innovación Radical,

de esta manera podremos generar una ventaja competitiva en el mercado. Así

iremos controlando la incerteza (convirtiendo la incerteza en conocimiento) y
comprometiendo a nuestro recurso humano, ver Figura 3.
Figura 3. Innovación, incerteza y comprometimiento del Recurso Humano.

Adaptado de Tidd (2012)
La gestión de la innovación comprende nuestras capacidades de

transformar esas incertidumbres en conocimiento, pero solo podemos
conseguirlo por medio de la movilización de recursos en el sentido de
disminuir la incerteza – efectivamente una acción de equilibrio. Por lo tanto,
un aumento del conocimiento del recurso humano resultará en una reducción
de la incerteza.
Visto de esta manera la innovación incremental, más allá que sea

arriesgada, es una estrategia gerencial de gran potencial, porque se inicia a
partir de algo conocido, que estamos priorizando. Entretanto, a medida que
avanzamos para opciones más radicales, la incerteza tiende a aumentar hasta
el punto en que no tenemos idea de lo que realmente estamos desarrollando o
en vías de desarrollo. Esto demuestra que la innovación discontinua es difícil
de ser controlada.

Henderson y Clark (1990), afirman que la innovación difícilmente está

asociado a una tecnología en particular o al mercado, y si a una gama de
conocimientos que son arrancados de una matriz de experiencias.
De lo anterior podemos señalar que existen cuatro factores claves para la

gestión de innovación divididos en zonas de acción, figura 4.
Zona 1, (Innovación Incremental – no alterados) reglas claras (en el mercado,

consumidores, sistemas, relaciones sociales, tecnología, regulaciones, etc.)
consiste en un incremento estable de productos o procesos en el uso del
conocimiento acumulado acerca del componente central de la innovación.
Zona 2, (Innovación Modular – no alterados) cambios significativos en un

elemento, la arquitectura permanece constante, ejemplo: adquirir un nuevo
conocimiento para procesamiento de datos en el sector financiero.
Zona 3, (Innovación discontinua - alterados) donde los productos fanales ni

los medios para los cuales puede ser obtenido los productos, son plenamente
conocidos. Básicamente todo el conjunto de reglas del juego es alterado y
abre espacios para nuevos competidores. Surgen condiciones de “haga algo
diferente”. Ejemplo, ampolleta normal por ampolleta alógena.
Zona 4, (Innovación de Arquitectura - alterados) en respuesta a nuevos y

diferentes grupos de usuarios o clientes, surge la innovación de arquitectura
(como en el caso de innovación de ruptura) en este caso, el desafío consiste
en remodelar las fuentes de conocimientos y las configuraciones. Podemos
combinar el conocimiento existente con los nuevos conocimientos y
recombinarlos de diferentes formas o combinar lo nuevo con lo viejo. Ejemplo:
líneas aéreas de bajo costo, venta de seguros por internet, etc.

Figura 4. Innovación de componentes y de arquitectura.
1.6 Desafío de la innovación discontinua
En la mayoría de los casos la innovación ocurre dentro de un conjunto

de reglas del juego que son claramente entendidas y que envuelven a jugadores
intentando innovar en la búsqueda para la mejora de aquello que ya vienen
haciendo (producto, servicio, proceso, posición, etc.) algunos competidores
alcanzan el éxito más que otros pero lo importante es que las reglas del juego
no cambian (Francis y Bessant, 2005).
En tal sentido encontramos a Utterback y Abernathy (1975) quienes

desarrollan un modelo describiendo un padrón en que determinan tres fases
distintivas de la innovación:
Fase fluida (Condiciones discontinuas) donde ocurren grandes incertezas y

tocan dos dimensiones.
• El cliente ¿Cómo será la nueva configuración y quien la desechara?
• La técnica ¿Cómo manipular la nueva tecnología para crearla y

distribuirla?
Nadie sabe la configuración cierta de necesidades de medios tecnológicos

y de mercado, por tanto, todo se enmarca dentro de muchos ensayos llamados
hoy emprendimientos, que pueden ofrecer oportunidades para aquellos que

son rápidos para ver las ventajas de las nuevas condiciones o simplemente
fracasar en el intente.
Fase dominante (experiencia acumulada) comienzan a establecerse las reglas

del juego, converge soluciones populares, no necesariamente soluciones
sofisticadas tecnológicamente ni elegantes, así comienza una configuración de
desarrollo inicial.
Fase de desarrollo (comienza a andar el tren) y las opciones de innovación

comienzan a canalizarse en torno a un conjunto de posibilidades, lo que Dosi
(1982) llama “trayectoria tecnológica” donde se hace más difícil la exploración
fuera del territorio, ya que, los intereses empresariales y los recursos movilizados
se concentran cada vez más en las posibilidades que se ha adquirido en la
fase dominante. Ejemplo, la concentración de recursos para la generación de
una cámara fotográfica “a prueba de idiotas”, donde durante siglos fueron
convergiendo distintos métodos, materiales y soluciones de ingeniería (de
mescla de químicos con papel hasta digitalización computacional) que
generaron economías de escala que concibió que el producto final “fotografía”
sea popular, altamente tecnificado, simple de usar y aun precio asequible.
La relación entre la tasa de innovación y el desarrollo de productos y

procesos, se representa en la figura 5. En donde podemos observar que la
innovación productiva alcanza en el tiempo una economía de escala en la
medida que estimulamos las necesidades dentro del área o región en la que
nos desenvolvemos, de rendimientos máximos de productos a una baja real
de los costos. Por su parte, la innovación en proceso alcanza su máximo nivel
dentro de un entorno sistémico (habilidades, actitudes y acciones en la propia
producción) pasando de un proceso no coordinado a una estimulación
del proceso sistémico. Ambas etapas nos llevarán a una estimulación en la
reducción de los costos.

Figura 5. Innovación y tasas de desarrollo.
Siguiendo los planteamientos y esquemas anteriores, podemos observar

distintos estadios en el ciclo de vida de la innovación (figura 6) donde
observamos que distintas características de la innovación pueden reflejar
padrones de fluidez dentro de una faces de transición y especifica del estado
de vida de la innovación que queremos alcanzar.
Características Padrón de Fase de

Fase específica.
de la innovación fluidez transición
Énfasis Desempeño Variaciones de Reducción de
competitivo funcional de productos costos.
orientado para… productos
Innovación Información Oportunidades Presión para
estimulada por… sobre necesidades creadas por la reducir costos,
del consumidor expansión de aumentando
potencial capacidades calidad, etc.
internas

Tipo Frecuentes Innovación Incremento de

predominante de cambios de procesos productos e
innovación significativos de significativos, innovación de
productos resultados de procesos.
aumento de
volúmenes
Línea de Diversificada, Incluir por En su mayoría
producto normalmente lo menos un productos
incluyendo modelo estable o padrones no
modelos predominante diferenciados.
personalizados
Proceso de Flexible e Se torna más Eficiente,
producción ineficiente, rígida y definida normalmente de
el objetivo es capital intensivo
experimental y relativamente
y opera con rígido.
cambios
frecuentes
Traducido de Tidd (2009)
Figura 6. Estado del ciclo de vida de la innovación.
1.7 La teoría de “Innovación de ruptura” de Christensen.
La teoría apunta a que la ruptura se da, por que las empresas Xs están
preocupadas de innovar por sobre lo que demanda el mercado emergente. O
sea, Se quedan compitiendo en un nicho que rápidamente es copiado y genera
muchos competidores. Que, “las empresas” aunque inviertan en I+D queda
sometida al mercado en el que actúa. Por tanto, cuando el mercado cae, la
empresa quiebra. La ruptura es porque la empresa no alcanza a ver el potencial
a largo plazo de los nuevos mercados emergentes y tampoco son capaces de
generar nuevos mercados (generar nuevas necesidades en el mercado) con
productos más útiles, pequeños y de bajo costo.
Así el ejemplo del conocido empresario Steve Jobs de Apple, que

apuntaba a un nuevo mercado “el mercado de baja renta” para el ingreso de
microcomputadores, no fue tomado en cuenta por las grandes empresas de
computación de la época, él entregó el mismo producto y funcionalidad de un

PC empresarial, pero para un mercado no empresarial de baja renta. El éxito

innovador ya es conocido por todos.
Un ejemplo típico de la ruptura de Christensen (1997), lo podemos

observar en el resumen que el mimo autor ha generado, donde observamos que
el tamaño de empresas en pulgadas de medición y los principales participantes
dentro del mercado.
Figura 7. La forma cambiante de la industria norteamericana de unidades de

discos.
Periodo de 1970 1975 1980 1984 1990

tiempo
Tamaño 14 8 5,25 3,5 2,5
dominante
en pulgadas
Principales mainframes minicomputadores desktops laptops Laptops
aplicaciones avanzados
de mercado.
Principales IBM, Shugart, priam Seagete, Rodime, Seagate,
fabricantes fabricantes Quantum, computer, conner, quantum,
compatibles micropolis, ampex. memories, perifericos. wester
con plug international digital.
CDC memories.
Extraído de Christensen (1997)
El proceso básico que se muestra en el diagrama Figura 8. Es el mínimo

necesario para garantizar que la innovación tenga lugar, pero: ¿Se puede hacer
en diferentes tipos de empresas? ¿Qué factores puede ayudar - o dificultar
- su operación? Estas son dos preguntas que el lector tendrá que ver dentro
del contexto de su propia empresa. Ya que, en cada etapa de “Generar”,
“Seleccionar” e “Implementar”, cada administrador de empresas o gestionador
de la innovación deberá resolver viendo sus recursos y capacidades propias.

Figura 8. Proceso de innovación gerencial. Adaptado de Tidd (2012).
1.9 Desafíos de la innovación en la investigación científica.
En la actualidad los estudios teóricos y empíricos encasillan a la innovación

dentro de dos líneas de investigación, la estrategia de la empresa y los factores de
desarrollo de una nación, también es común ver a la temática de la innovación
dentro de los parámetros del emprendedorismo (Entrepreneurship) ya que,
distintos estudios juntan innovación y emprendimiento como elementos
claves del desarrollo organizacional.
Dentro de la temática de la estrategia de empresas, existen tres

componentes en estudio; la posición de la empresa, los cambios tecnológicos
y los procesos organizacionales:

La posición de la empresa dentro de un “sistema nacional”: lo que

dice respecto a sus productos, procesos, tecnología y sistemas de innovación
nacional en que están encerradas. Aunque, una estrategia tecnológica de
una empresa pueda ser influenciada por un sistema de innovación nacional
específico, la empresa no queda determinada por el sistema (posicionamiento)
mismo impuesto a nivel nacional.
Los cambios tecnológicos: Los cambios tecnológicos que se abren

a las empresas, dadas sus competencias acumuladas. Las empresas siguen
trayectorias tecnológicas, cada una tiene fuentes y direcciones de cambios
tecnológico distintos y definen sus tareas fundamentales para la estrategia.
Los procesos organizacionales: los procesos seguidos por la empresa a

fin de integrar lo aprendido estratégicamente más allá de los límites divisionales
y funcionales.
La innovación como factor de desarrollo económico incremental y/o

Radical, de estos factores rescatamos los temas para los estudios de:
• Aprendizaje y adaptación para un futuro eminentemente incierto – así la

innovación es un imperativo.
• La innovación tiene que ver con interacción de tecnología, mercado y

organización.
• La innovación puede ser relacionada a un proceso genérico, donde la

empresa deberá encontrar el camino propio.
• Las diferentes empresas utilizan diferentes rutinas con mayor o menor

grado de suceso. Existen recetas generales, donde podemos generar
rutinas eficaces, más estas, deben ser adecuadas a la organización de
manera específica y relacionadas tecnológicamente a los productos/
servicios.
• Las rutinas, son padrones de comportamiento aprendidos que se

concretizan en estructuras y procedimientos a largo plazo. Como
tales, son difíciles de copiar y son altamente especializados de cada
organización.

 La innovación en el escenario global.
En el inicio del siglo XX, el desarrollo tecnológico estuvo concentrado en

unos pocos países, en el día de hoy, el tema está dentro de todos los países del
mundo moderno (países en desarrollo y en vías de desarrollo) hoy hablamos
de innovaciones globales. Estas innovaciones globales han sido siempre
materias de las empresas multinacionales (bancos, empresas de seguro, etc.)
pero actualmente la temática se posiciona en la academia y en las medianas
y pequeñas empresa, que gracias a la tecnología, son capaces de dialogar con
grandes distribuidores y/o proveedores y llegar a mercados internacionales,
siendo innovadores en temas como procesos de producción altamente
efectivos y rentables como la venta por internet, creación de páginas web,
etc. Por lo tanto, ya una empresa local puede tener relaciones en la cadena
productiva de una gran empresa en otro país, como es el caso de las empresas
brasileñas y africanas que envían partes y piezas automotrices para los mercados
europeos. De igual manera, en el sector de aviación civil la mayor parte de
los procesamientos de información necesarios para administrar reservas y
cobranzas son fabricados en el Oriente.
Estos escenarios exigen una revalidación de posicionamiento en términos

económicos globales, sea para las empresas individuales dentro de las cadenas
de valor global Morris (2001). Gran Bretaña está pasando por una transición
importante dentro de la política de innovación, cambiando de una posición
que compete a los bajos costos operacionales en la realización de los negocios
para una inversión en valor e innovación empresarial sin precedente. Esta
transición, exige inversiones en elementos diferentes del escenario comercial,
actualizando las estrategias de las empresas y creación y ampliación de nuevos
tipos de instituciones DIT (2003).
 Innovación en el mundo digital.
Sin duda, después del gran avance tecnológico y logístico que trajo la
invención de la locomotora a vapor, hoy el invento y alto desarrollo tecnológico
de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación TIC, es sin duda una
revolución en todo el sistema de vida de la humanidad. La penetración de
los teléfonos celulares en el mundo ha revolucionado la manera y forma de
comunicarnos, hoy existen más de 5 mil millones de celulares en el mundo

y tenemos más 555 millones de sitios web en el mundo. Hoy no se concibe

una empresa sin conexión a internet, hoy no se concibe una familia de clase
media y alta sin conexión, tenemos más de 2.100 millones de usuarios en todo
el mundo conectados. Si consideramos que las primeras ideas de conexión
fueron gestadas en los inicios de los años 50´, podemos asegurar con certeza,
que todo el desarrollo de alta tecnología tiene apenas 50 años. Por lo tanto, la
e-revolution lleva consigo el factor “estrategia de innovación” que es sin duda,
el pilar de todo este gran movimiento de avance tecnológico o de alcance de
fronteras productivas que la humana a tenido. Debido a lo anterior y viendo
el tema desde el punto de vista de investigación, es claro que se puede abordar
el tema de distintos puntos de vistas, principalmente del punto de vista de la
demanda de servicios TIC sean estos a niveles empresariales (macro y/o micro
empresas) o sean a niveles de consumidor final (individuales o colectivos).
Las temáticas presentes de innovación en el mundo digital, están

orientadas hacia:
• La interacción de alta velocidad entre usuarios,
• La gran variedad de conectividades potenciales (administraciones

y uso de base de datos) con diferentes actores en distintos escenarios
productivos,
• La orientación global del mundo digital, donde la distancia se hace

irrelevante.
 Innovación y sustentabilidad.
A partir de los años 70él mundo comienza a tomar acciones sobre lo ya

conocido y criticado desde el mundo académico, “el cambio global del planeta”
el trabajo de Meadows, D. (1972) más el bullado informe Bruntland (1987)
puesto en la ONU, fueron los catalizadores para que la humanidad tomara
conciencia que había que hacer algo “inteligente” para generar el cambio que el
planeta necesita. Desde esta perspectiva, se han creado diferentes herramientas
que han servido para el desarrollo positivo de la innovación dentro de los
distintos factores productivos que hoy, tanto las organizaciones públicas como
privadas han implementado en favor del medio ambiente.

Las herramientas que hoy se conocen y estudian desde el punto de vista

investigativo inherentes a innovación, son las referentes a:
• Ecoeficiencia, donde las organizaciones aplicando distintas herramientas

de innovación pensando en la eficiencia productiva, que son capaces de
reducir los “factores productivos negativos” al medio ambiente. En este
tema el World business council for sustainable development WBCSD
(2000) lleva la delantera en todo tipo de estudios, recomendaciones y
acciones.
• Ecoinnovación, La innovación y la sostenibilidad son dos conceptos

que por separado impactan en la posición competitiva de las empresas
(Hitchens, 2005) y que juntos, actúan de forma sinérgica (Esty,
2006) generando por un lado, nuevos mercados para los productos
ambientalmente benignos (Beise, 2005) y un nuevo campo de estudio
académico (Segarra, 2011). Por tanto, los estudios en ecoinnovación han
pasado a ser la última frontera en la temática investigativa en pro de
favorecer el crecimiento de las naciones y el cuidado del medio ambiente.
Lo anterior va de la mano en pensar cómo podemos producir más sin

generar un daño significativo al medio ambiente, como también, de cómo
hacemos que las políticas ambientalmente correctas, que aplicamos en
nuestras organizaciones, sean a la larga un buen negocio para la organización.
Por ello, es también destacable que dentro de las investigaciones en esta
materia, cobra relevancia el estudiar las acciones, visiones y objetivos que se
pueden implementar en las pequeñas empresas, toda vez, que la temática del
medioambiente comienza a quedar enclaustrado dentro de las decisiones de
las grandes empresas, quedando rezagadas las Pymes.
Podemos observar que las naciones implementan políticas de

sustentabilidad (charlas, foros, capacitaciones, etc.) para bajar este tema
a las Pymes, pero también vemos, que muchas veces los esfuerzos de los
gobiernos comienzan a verse limitados por los agentes locales que actúan
en estas materias, vale decir, el tema termina limitado a las decisiones de los
gobernantes locales (alcaldes, concejales, etc.) Que si bien, pueden como no
pueden, tener conciencia ambiental, como si quieren o no quieren, invertir
recursos económicos en temas de desarrollo sustentable, toda vez que la

priorización de un gobernante local dependerá de las necesidades demandadas

en su propio lugar geográfico. Más allá, de las políticas nacionales, la temática
de la innovación ambiental pasa por un revisión local de inversión directa, de
leyes específicas y de fiscalizaciones directas.
Resumen unidad I.
Desde hace algún tiempo le termino de innovación ha abordado todos

los aspectos técnicos y teóricos de las organizaciones, se asocia a la innovación
a la competitividad de las empresas. Pero esta innovación es fuente de
competitividad en la medida en que va asociada a la obtención de algún tipo de
ventaja respecto de los competidores en prestaciones, calidad, diferenciación,
etc. Que debe revertir en incrementos de ventas y de beneficios Valls, et.al.
(2007) por tanto, el concepto y las líneas de investigación asociados a
innovación siguen un patrón conocido dentro de las ciencias sociales aplicadas
y de la economía de las empresas, que nos orienta a buscar de mejor manera el
poder generar un bienestar global tanto de las empresas como de la sociedad,
que redunda en buenas prácticas y técnicas organizacionales que traen consigo
el beneficio esperado.

AUTOEVALUACIÓN 1
Es importante recomendar que usted ejecute las actividades

de auto aprendizaje, ellas serán el punto de apoyo para el logro de aprendizajes
significativos, que le permitan teorizar, contextualizar y plantear alternativas
de creatividad e innovación. Una vez usted haya contestado, consulte el
solucionario que consta al final de este texto guía.
Lea cada una de estas preguntas y conteste verdadero o falso, dentro

de la línea punteada.
1. ______ La innovación incremental es la relacionada con los procesos

internos de una organización (mejorías en los componentes).
2. ______ La innovación radical es el que genera los cambios completos

de un producto o proceso.
3. ______ Un nuevo invento es una innovación en si misma (según

nuestros conceptos)
4. ______ Innovación es lo que agrega valor económico y/o social a la

organización.
5. ______ La dimensión de la innovación dependerá del porte de la

empresa.
6. ______ La innovación en producto, son los cambios en el contexto en

que los productos/servicios son introducidos en el mercado.
7. ______ La innovación de paradigma representa los cambios en los

modelos mentales subyacentes que orientan a la empresa a
hacer los cambios.
8. ______ El espacio de la innovación está formada por 4 elementos

claves (Paradigma, Proceso, Producto, Posición)

9. ______ La innovación va de la mano con un recurso humano

altamente preparado.
10. ______ La tasa de Innovación de productos es descendente (genera

economías de escalas)

Unidad II. La Innovación como Proceso de Gestión
Objetivo
 Aprender los distintos procesos de la gestión innovativa, así el

alumno podrá diferenciar y observar que la gestión innovativa tiene
elementos diferentes de la gestión normal de una organización.
Contenidos
2.1 Innovación como proceso de gestión
2.3 La innovación como proceso de gestión según la Unión Europea
2.1 Innovación como proceso de Gestión.
Uno de los más grandes inventores del siglo XX fue el norteamericano

Thomas Alva Edison, con más de 1000 patentes registradas, lo principal de
Edison no fueron sus inventos sino su capacidad de entender que sus ideas
debían responder a una función técnica y comercial, de ahí que podemos
asegurar que Edison fue un verdadero innovador (lámpara eléctrica, estaciones
eléctricas, films 35 mm., sistema telefónico, fonógrafo, etc.) su empresa creo
uno de los primeros laboratorios de I&D del mundo.
Pero nada de esto, hubiera sido posible si Edison no implementara un

sistema gerencial que diera sustento al desarrollo innovador, sistema o proceso
en el cual se deben incluir los temas de desarrollo mercadológico y financiero,
acciones corporativas, control, etc.
Por lo tanto, siendo la innovación una actividad genérica (asociada a

sobrevivencia y crecimiento), en este nivel de abstracción podemos observar un
proceso subyacente común a las empresas (Figura 9) ya que, fundamentalmente
el proceso envuelve:

• Búsqueda: analizar el escenario (interno y externo) observando los

procesos y señales relevantes sobre las amenazas y oportunidades para el
cambio.
• Selección: decisión y consideración de una visión estratégica por parte

de la empresa para desarrollarse mejor.
• Implementación: traducir el potencial de la idea inicial en algo nuevo y

lanzara (producto/servicio) en el mercado interno o externo.
• Adquisición de conocimiento: Para potenciar la innovación (crear

algo nuevo a través de I&D, investigación de mercado, etc.) adquirir
conocimientos a través de otras fuentes como la transferencia tecnológica,
alianzas estratégicas, etc.
• Ejecución de proyectos: sobre condiciones de incredibilidad que exigen

grandes capacidades de resolución de problemas.
• Lanzamiento: de innovación en el mercado y gerenciamiento de sus

procesos iniciales de adopción.
• Sustentabilidad: de adopción de uso de la innovación a largo plazo

– o retomando y revisando las ideas originales, modificándolas, re-
innovando.
• Aprendizaje: las empresas tienen (más no siempre aprovechan) la

oportunidad de aprender con la progresión de este espacio, de manera
que puedan contribuir con su base de conocimiento y mejorar las formas
de como los procesos son generados.

Figura 9. Representación simplificada del proceso de innovación.
Lo central en la visión del proceso de innovación es la “capacidad

aprendida”, por que encontramos factores comunes que podemos
confrontamos. Por lo tanto, cada empresa debe encontrar su propia solución
a los procesos de innovación dentro de su propio contexto. Ya que, el apenas
copiar una idea de otros, no parece ser suficiente. Las ideas deben ser adaptadas
y moldeadas para adecuarse a las circunstancias específicas del mercado en el
que actuamos.
Para muchas empresas el desafío consisten en avanzar para el

gerenciamiento de proyectos – sea para la ejecución de un proyecto específico
(tal como la construcción de un gran edificio, puentes, etc.) o sea para el
gerenciamiento de diseño y fabricación de sistemas de producción complejos
(motores de avión, simuladores de vuelos, etc.) por tanto, el sistema de
organización basado en proyectos, aglutina muchos elementos diferentes en
un todo integrado, normalmente incluye varias empresas, largos periodos y
altos niveles de riesgos tecnológicos Gann y Salter (2000).
Las empresas cada vez más asocian innovación y gerenciamiento de

proyectos y toman iniciativas como “hacer mejor” o “hacer de manera diferente”,
por ejemplo; en el área de financiamiento de proyectos y el compartir riesgos
(bancos y empresas) en la construcción de un Shopping, donde el inmueble

queda en manos del banco y la administración de las empresas del rubro.

Ahora quizás, algunos proyectos pueden parecer muy diferentes del proceso
de innovación central mencionado en temas anteriores, como por ejemplo el
innovar con una nueva línea de jabones para el mercado de masas (innovar en
procesos de manera incremental) pero aun así, es necesario profundizar en el
primer ejemplo, en los conocimientos y las necesidades de los consumidores
de alto padrón de exigencia (donde debemos conjugar distintos recursos) para
hacer algo de manera diferente, que nos lleven a generar proyectos donde
todos ganen.
Para las empresas ya establecidas, el desafío consiste en desarrollar la

capacidad de gerenciar los dos tipos de innovación (de hacer mejor y de hacer
de manera diferente) dependiendo del proyecto en que se esté, la decisión
muchas veces pasa por hacer las dos innovaciones a la vez.
En gran parte del tiempo las empresas necesitan de robustos sistemas

para lidiar con la innovación de tipo “hacer mejor”, pero se tendrá el temor de
ser imitados por nuevos competidores (riesgo alto) ya que toda empresa cae
en la discontinuidad en la innovación “nos quedamos dormidos”, por tanto
el consejo es aplicar simultáneamente la innovación de “hacer de manera
diferente” siendo continuos en la innovación “no quedarnos dormidos” así,
aminoramos el riesgo.
El desafío es, por tanto, el desarrollar una capacidad ambidiestra, como

ilustra la Figura 10, para poder gerenciar proyectos donde se encuentran los
dos tipos de innovación, dentro de la misma organización.

Figura 10. Proceso de innovación de tipo “hacer mejor” (incremental) y de

tipo “hacer de manera diferente” (condición estable).
2.3 La innovación como proceso de gestión según la Unión

Europea.
La Unión Europea materializa la temática de la innovación en el

Manual de Oslo que es desarrollado por Euroestat y la OCDE, éste forma
parte de una serie de manuales evolutivos que se consagran a la medida y a la
interpretación de los datos relativos a la ciencia, tecnología e innovación. Esta
serie incluye manuales, directrices y recopilaciones referente a I+D (manual de
Frascati), a los indicadores de la globalización, a las patentes, a la sociedad de
la información, a los recursos humanos en C&T (Manual de Camberra) y las
estadísticas de biotecnología.
Para la medición de la innovación, El Manual de Oslo ha definido

cuatro tipos de innovación: innovación de productos, innovación de procesos,
innovación de mercadotecnia e innovación organizacional.
Estas innovaciones pueden ser nuevas para la organización, nuevas para

el mercado o nuevas para el mundo.

Innovación de Corresponde a la introducción de un bien o de un servicio

productos nuevo o significativamente mejorado, en cuanto a sus
características o en cuanto al uso al que se destina. Incluye
mejoras significativas en las especificaciones técnicas,
componentes y materiales, de la informática integrada, de
la facilidad de uso u otras características funcionales. En
el sector educativo, una innovación de producto puede ser
un nuevo currículum o uno significativamente mejorado,
un nuevo software educativo, etc.
Innovación de Es la introducción de un nuevo, o significativamente
Procesos mejorado, proceso de producción o de distribución. Ello
implica cambios significativos en las técnicas, los materiales
y/o los programas informáticos. En educación puedes ser
por ejemplo una pedagogía nueva o significativamente
mejorada.
Innovación de Es la aplicación de un nuevo método de comercialización
Mercadotecnia que implique cambios significativos de diseño o del
envasado de un producto, su posicionamiento, su
promoción o su costo. En educación puede ser por
ejemplo una nueva estrategia de admisión.
Innovación Es la introducción de un nuevo método de organización
Organizacional en las prácticas, la organización del lugar de trabajo o las
relaciones exteriores de la organización. En educación
puede ser por ejemplo, una nueva forma de organizar el
trabajo de los profesores o cambios en la administración
de la organización.
Fuente: Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos
(OCDE).
Por tanto, en la UE podemos observar que la OCDE maneja el tema

de innovación desde la perspectiva de un proceso de gestión, ya que, entrega
los lineamientos básicos, los conceptos, encuestas y cuestionarios que los
países que lo conforman deben seguir. Este manual es un referente de muchas
investigaciones y publicaciones, siendo una guía comparativa para trabajos
científicos y base de programas para países no OCDE.

¿Qué es medible? Según el Manual de Oslo: La innovación es un

proceso continuo, las empresas de manera continua efectúan cambios en los
productos, servicios, procesos, captan nuevos conocimientos, etc. Ahora bien,
es más difícil medir un proceso dinámico que una actividad estática, con el
fin de mostrar este proceso, el Manual aporta unas directrices para la recogida
de datos sobre el proceso general de innovación (por ejemplo; las actividades
innovadoras, los gastos y los vínculos), la aplicación de cambios significativos
en la empresa (es decir, las innovaciones), los factores que influyen en la
actividades innovadoras y los resultados de la innovación.
 Alcance del manual de Oslo.
Cualquier sector de la economía puede innovar, incluyendo los servicios

gubernamentales como Sanidad o Educación2. Todo dentro del marco de
medición de la innovación (Figura 11) Sin embargo, las directrices de este
Manual están pensadas, esencialmente, para analizar las innovaciones en el
sector privado, incluyendo sector primario, secundario (industrial) y terciario
(servicios), por tanto el Manual aborda:
• Sólo la innovación que realiza el sector privado.
• Trata la innovación al nivel de la empresa.
• Cubre los cuatro tipos de innovación: de producto, de proceso,

organizativa y comercial.
• Incluye la innovación que es, al menos, “nueva para la empresa”.
2 OCDE: Manual de Oslo: http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/oslomanualguidelinesforcollectingan

dinterpretinginnovationdata3rdedition.htm

Figura 11. El marco de la medición de la innovación según el Manual de Oslo.
Resumen Unidad II.
En la práctica la innovación es un proceso combinado en que la interacción

es el elemento crítico (Freeman y Soeto, 1997) algunas veces el “empuje”
hacia el desarrollo de un modelo de innovación será el tema dominante en
la organización y otras veces el “tirar” de la innovación de manera ocasional
podrá ser una opción.
Pero la innovación eficaz exigirá el de empujar a la organización a

mantener un modelo de proceso de innovativo constante, que muchas veces
se materializa en oficinas o departamentos de I&D dentro de la organización.
Estos departamentos y/o oficinas de I&D dentro de las empresas, tienen

el objetivo común de generar una verdadera articulación entre los diferentes
departamentos de la organización para poder tener una clara visión de la
empresa y ser capaz de generar líneas de innovación interna que posibiliten
la creación de nuevos productos/servicios con miras a optimizar los recursos
económicos de la empresa.

Un ejemplo claro, es caso de ZARA empresa española de vestuario, que

ha innovado en el sistema de logística interna, implementando un sistema
único de control de stock que utiliza algoritmos matemáticos (ciencias exactas)
para el mantenimiento de los stock en todas sus tiendas a nivel mundial. El
algoritmo y método científico implementado demoró 2 años en ponerse en
práctica y hoy genera entre un 2% a 4% de aumento de utilidades para la
empresa. Esto representa un aumento de varios millones de dólares extras a
los accionistas. La “innovación incremental de proceso” de ZARA hoy es un
modelo de negocio al interior del mismo negocio Caro et.al. (2010).
AUTOEVALUACIÓN 2
V/F
1. ______ La innovación es una actividad genérica (asociada a

sobrevivencia y crecimiento).
2. ______ La idea general es que las empresas organicen la temática de la

innovación como procesos basados en proyectos.
3. ______ La adquisición, ejecución, lanzamiento y sustentabilidad son

parte del proceso de “selección” dentro de la gestión de la
innovación.
4. ______ analizar el escenario (interno y externo) es parte del proceso

de “ejecución de proyectos”.
5. ______ el aprendizaje continuo, ordenado e incentivado, generará a la

larga resultados positivos en los procesos de innovación.
6. ______ Cualquier organización puede innovar (según el Manual de

Oslo)
7. ______ el Manual de Oslo, se basa en 4 tipos de innovación

(productos, procesos, mercadotecnia, organización)

8. ______ podemos “tirar” de la innovación de manera ocasional para

poder sobrevivir.
9. ______ Debemos tener una política de “empuje” hacia el desarrollo

innovativo para ser eficaces en el mercado en que actuamos.
10. ______ La innovación es un proceso continuo en que las organizaciones

efectúan cambios en productos, procesos, etc.

Unidad III. Abordaje Estratégico de la Innovación
Objetivo
 Diferenciar las distintas estrategias competitivas que existen para

gestionar la innovación.
Contenidos
3.1 La innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas
3.2 Estrategias racionalistas o incrementales
3.3 Tecnología y análisis competitivo
3.1 La innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas
La innovación en la actualidad es una de las estrategias empresariales

más ciertas para obtener un valor añadido y garantizar la supervivencia y la
competitividad en los mercados que cada vez son más severos y globalizados.
El concepto de estrategia irrumpe una posición fundamental dentro de

la gestión de la empresa, ya que contiene entre otros elementos, la adherencia
de objetivos a mediano y largo plazo y las acciones necesarias para alcanzarlos.
Las organizaciones tienen recursos limitados y la decisión sobre un curso

de acción a seguir nos señala que no se pueden seguir distintos cursos de acción
de forma simultánea. Como ponen de manifiesto numerosos estudios, son
aquellas organizaciones que diseñan una estrategia coherente y la persiguen,
las que tienen mayores chances de tener conquistas palpables y mantener
ventajas competitivas de forma sostenida a largo plazo.
En contraparte, las empresas que no tienen delimitada una estrategia,

pueden tener éxito a corto plazo, pero serán incapaces de mantener la
estrategia en el largo plazo. Este concepto de estrategia estuvo centrado
desde sus inicios y hasta principios de la década de los 80´ en el examen
del binomio producto-mercado (Ansoff, 1976), lo esencial era determinar

qué productos se debían fabricar y en qué mercados se debían comercializar,

y las decisiones se tomaban atendiendo a consideraciones de marketing o
financieras, esencialmente, sin considerar de mayor manera a la tecnología
como parte de la estrategia de la empresa, aunque las organizaciones hacían
fuertes inversiones en equipamiento.
El análisis estratégico quedaba centrado en la tipificación de acciones

de carácter genérico, como ser la organización líder del mercado, o ser una
empresa discípula, o bien ser eficiente en costos logrando significativas
economías de escala. Las principales herramientas que aprovechaban de soporte
a estos análisis, partían de los mismos principios esenciales y tenían como fin
el facilitar la gestión estratégica de las organizaciones, con un portafolio de
productos/negocios diferentes. Entre estas herramientas se pueden destacar:
 La matriz del Boston Consulting Group (BCG) o matriz crecimiento-

cuota de mercado (Figura 12), descompone las acciones de la empresa en
distintas piezas estratégicos.
Figura 12. Gráfica de la matriz BCG.

El método utiliza una matriz de 2x2 para agrupar distintos tipos de

negocios que una empresa en particular posee. El eje vertical de la matriz
define el crecimiento en el mercado, y el horizontal la cuota de mercado. Así,
las unidades de negocio se situarán en uno de los cuatro cuadrantes en función
de su valor estratégico, tales cuadrantes son:
a) ESTRELLA. Gran crecimiento y Gran participación de mercado. Se

recomienda potenciar al máximo dicha área de negocio hasta que el
mercado se vuelva maduro y la unidad estratégica de negocio UEN se
convierta en vaca lechera.
b) INCÓGNITA. Gran crecimiento y Poca participación de mercado. Hay

que reevaluar la estrategia en dicha área, que eventualmente se puede
convertir en una estrella o en un perro.
c) VACA. Bajo crecimiento y alta participación de mercado. Se trata de un

área de negocio que servirá para generar efectivos necesario para crear
nuevas estrellas.
d) PERRO. No hay crecimiento y la participación de mercado es baja.

Áreas de negocio con baja rentabilidad o incluso negativa. Se recomienda
deshacerse de ella cuando sea posible. Generalmente son negocios /
productos en su última etapa de vida. Raras veces conviene mantenerlos
en el portafolio de la empresa.
 La matriz de McKinsey o matriz de atractivo del sector industrial-

posición competitiva de la empresa (Figura 13) que altera las actividades
de la empresa en distintas unidades de negocios estratégicos.

Figura 13. Matriz de McKinsey.
Existen tres áreas de distintos colores. Las áreas de negocio o UEA con
mayor fortaleza y situadas en sectores más atractivos invest/grow, requieren
enfocar la mayor inversión posible para alcanzar un rápido crecimiento. Las
áreas de negocio o UEA con menor fortaleza y en sectores menos rentables
harvest/divest, aconsejan su venta o desinversiones progresivas. En un
término medio selectivity/earnings se hallan las UEA en las que merece la
pena invertir, aunque de manera selectiva.
 La matriz de Arthur D. Little (ADL) o matriz de madurez del sector

industrial-posición (Figura 14) competitiva de la empresa, que altera las
actividades de la empresa en distintos centros de estrategias.

Figura 14 Matriz de Arthur D. Little (ADL).
El ADL tiene dos dimensiones principales: la posición competitiva y la

madurez de la industria.
La posición competitiva es impulsada por los sectores o segmentos en

los que una Unidad Estratégica de Negocios (UEN) opera. El producto o
servicio que se comercializa y los accesos que tiene hacia una amplia gama de
mercados geográficamente dispersos, que son los que componen una posición
competitiva de la organización, es decir la plaza y el producto.
La Madurez de la industria es muy similar a la del Ciclo de Vida del

Producto (CVP) y casi podría llamarse un “Ciclo de Vida Industrial”.
Podemos afirmar que estas matrices, si bien pueden proporcionar

indicaciones de utilidad sobre las estrategias más ordenadas para cada empresa
(producto/servicio), no se encuentran exentas de insuficiencias, ya que,
ninguna de ellas hace referencia a la tecnología de forma concreta.
En la década de los 80´, Michael Porter implanta el concepto de que

existen tres estrategias (que denominó genéricas) y estas pueden conseguir
el éxito para las organizaciones (Figura 15), aunque más tarde incrementó
el concepto de cadena de valor, para ayudar a configurar mejor la estrategia
organizacional.

Las tres estrategias genéricas de Porter se resumen en:
• El liderazgo en costos, que requiere de fuertes medios para producir

grandes series productivas de manera eficiente.
• La diferenciación, que necesita de crear productos que sean percibidos

como únicos en el mercado.
• La alta segmentación, que exige la especialización en un determinado

segmento de la línea de productos o en un mercado geográfico específico.
Figura 15 Estrategias genéricas de Porter.
En los inicios de los años 90´ se entabló la percepción de un sentimiento

generalizado de insatisfacción con relación al paradigma estratégico existente
hasta entonces. Fundamentado en que los conceptos y herramientas utilizadas
dejaban de perder efectividad en un entorno caracterizado por fuertes niveles
de cambio e incertidumbre y en los que adquieren especial relevancia factores
como la globalización, la liberalización de los mercados, la mayor sensibilidad
a los problemas medioambientales o las discontinuidades tecnológicas cada vez
más frecuentes. Mintzberg (1991) es uno de los principales autores que pone
en cuestión el proceso de planificación estratégica. Hoy por hoy, no se concibe
una empresa que plantee una estrategia sin considerar los puntos anteriores.
En la actualidad, la importancia de la estrategia para la organización se pone

de manifiesto al comprobar que es compatible con el conjunto de elementos

que caracterizan tanto a su entorno genérico como a su entorno específico, lo
que se avala mediante el siguiente conjunto de planteamientos:
• Primero, el proceso de convergencia económica que se está desenvolviendo

a nivel global permite concluir que las ventajas y desventajas asociadas a
las dimensiones de coste y de productividad en la competitividad llevan
camino de desaparecer, mientras que las capacidades específicas de la
organización, en particular las de aprendizaje y desarrollo tecnológico,
van a desenvolver un papel más decisivo.
• Segundo, la competitividad en el corto plazo de una organización,

proviene de las propiedades del precio-prestaciones de sus productos/
servicios actuales, mientras que a largo plazo la competitividad se
deriva del evento de crear, a menor costo y más rápidamente que los
competidores, generando nuevas tecnologías (competencias y aptitudes
esenciales que generen productos innovadores) según Hamel y Prahalad
(1991).
Toda empresa, tanto productiva como de servicios (privadas o pública),

precisa esbozar con rigor su posición competitiva dentro de su entorno y de
cada uno de sus sectores estratégicos de acción o de actividad. La determinación
de esta posición competitiva se debe fundamentar en las reseñas empresariales
que se deriven de la evolución del entorno general, de las características de
los entornos sectoriales y competitivos, de la conducta de consumo de sus
mercados o fracciones sociales específicas y de sus ventajas competitivas
sostenibles.
3.2 Estrategias racionalistas o incrementales.
Existe un largo debate entre las estrategias “racionales” y las “incrementales”

que son de gran importancia para la movilización de tecnología y para los
objetivos estratégicos de la empresa.
La estrategia racionalista; se inicia con la influencia de la experiencia

militar, donde la estrategia consistía en los siguientes pasos:

1. Describir, comprender y analizar escenarios.
2. Determinar un plano de acción basado en análisis.
3. Ejecutar el plan de acción escogido.
Estos son parte de un modelo lineal de acciones racionales (evalúa,

determina y encuentra) o genera un estudio equivalente al FODA (SWOT)
análisis de fuerzas y debilidades empresariales a la luz de oportunidades y
amenazas externas. Estos abordajes tienen por finalidad auxiliar a empresas en
varias cuestiones tales como:
• Ser conscientes de las transacciones comerciales en un escenario

competitivo.
• Prepararse para un cambio futuro.
• Certificarse de la atención a largo plazo, dadas los presiones del día

a día.
• Garantizar coherencia en objetivos y acciones de grandes empresas,

funcionalmente especializadas y geográficamente dispersas.
La metáfora militar puede ser engañadora (Kay, 1993) ya que los

objetivos empresariales son diferentes de los militares, o sea, establecer una
competencia distintiva que les permita satisfacer al consumidor mejor que la
competencia y no movilizar recursos suficientes para destruir al enemigo. El
problema que se presenta es que la empresa comienza a concentrar recursos
para aplastar al “enemigo” (la competencia) y termina generando monopolios
que a la larga no traen beneficios a los consumidores no al sistema económico
que envuelve a todo el mercado en el que se actúa.
En la misma línea podemos señalar que los administradores y especialistas

tienen dificultades en medir con precisión su situación actual en el mercado.
Básicamente por dos razones. Primero porque su escenario externo es complejo,
envolviendo competencia, consumidores, reguladores y otros. Y el mercado
cambia constantemente y con mucha rapidez. Incluyendo cambios técnicos,

económicos, sociales y políticos. Por lo tanto, es bastante difícil entender

las características esenciales del presente como para predecir el futuro. En
segundo lugar, los administradores de grandes empresas divergen sobre las
fuerzas y flaquezas de sus organizaciones, en parte porque su conocimiento de
lo que acurre dentro de sus empresas es impreciso.
Consecuentemente, fuerzas y flaquezas empresariales internas son

normalmente difíciles de identificar ante el beneficio de la experiencia práctica,
especialmente en áreas tecnológicas nuevas y de cambio rápido.
La Estrategia Incrementalista; los Incrementalistas alegan que el total

de conocimiento es siempre limitado y cuesta alcanzar un nivel óptimo como
para poder hacer predicciones del mercado. Por lo tanto, técnicos, ingenieros,
médicos y políticos, no ven como optimas las reglas de los racionalistas,
por tanto ven en las estrategias incrementales una manera de atraer nueva
información y tecnología a la organización, debido a esto los procedimientos
más efectivos son:
• Tomar medidas deliberadas (o cambios) rumbo a un objetivo

propuesto.
• Medir y evaluar los efectos de tales medidas (o cambios)
• Ajustar (si es necesario) los objetivos y decidir sobre el próximo

paso (cambio).
La secuencia anterior es conocida por varios nombres como; incremento

tentativo y error, prueba y no aprueba, viviendo y aprendiendo. Desde otro
punto de vista podemos citar lo que hace un médico; Síntoma, diagnóstico,
tratamiento, diagnóstico, tratamiento de ajuste, cura.
Estrategias empresariales que no reconocen las complejidades del

presente, bien como las incertezas asociadas con los cambios de futuro. Serán
ciertamente rígidas, estarán probablemente erradas y serán potencialmente
desastrosas. Por tanto, se puede decir que las estrategias Incrementalistas son
más racionales, más eficientes que las estrategias racionalistas, por tanto, “las
oportunidades favorecen a las mentas abiertas”.

 Implicaciones para ambas estrategias
El debate sobre abordar una estrategia Racionalista o Incrementalista

posee dos conjuntos de implicancias.
El primero dice relación a las prácticas de las estrategias empresariales,

que deben ser vistos como una forma de aprendizaje corporativo, de análisis y
experiencia, de cómo lidiar de forma eficaz con las complejidades y cambios.
Las implicancias para los procesos de formación de estrategia son:
• Debido a las incertezas, explore las implicancias de una serie de

posibles futuros negocios.
• Permita la ampliación y participación de los canales de información

y comunicación.
• Incentive el uso de múltiples fuentes de información, debate y

escepticismo.
• Este preparado para cambios de estrategias en nuevas fases del

mercado (normalmente inesperadas)
La segunda implicancia es que las prácticas gerenciales jamás serán

totalmente reproducibles. En un mundo complejo, ni un administrador
por lo más escrupuloso en los detalles o con los estándares más avanzados
en investigación, será capaz de observar todos los ingredientes necesarios
en ejemplos reales de prácticas gerenciales eficaces. Además de esto las
condiciones de cualquier reproducción (inevitablemente imperfecta) de
prácticas gerenciales eficaces serán diferentes del original. Sea esto en términos
de países, empresas, sector, condiciones físicas, estado de conocimiento técnico
o habilidades organizacionales.
Por lo tanto, en condiciones complejas de cambios (condiciones para

la gestión de innovación), no hay recetas fáciles para implementar en la
práctica gerencial eficaz. Por tanto, para poder tener un aprendizaje basado en
experiencia debemos:

1. Tener una lectura crítica de las evidencias subyacentes a cualquier

alegación de haber identificado factores asociados a una exitosa gestión.
2. Una comparación cuidadosa entre el contexto de práctica gerencial eficaz

y el contexto de la empresa, sector, tecnología o país evaluado, en que la
practica seria reutilizada.
3.3 Tecnología y análisis competitivo.
Michael Portes, hace un aporte para el análisis de la innovación en

estrategias corporativas o explícitamente relacionadas las tecnologías a las
“cinco fuerzas” que orientan a la competencia industrial a escoger que debe ser
hecho por la empresa (Figura 16), entre un número de estrategias genéricas. Su
abordaje sitúa las actividades tecnológicas de la empresa en un contexto más
amplio de competencia industrial y desarrolla un análisis sistemático conocido
como SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities y threats), basado en las
fuerzas competitivas y análisis interno de las empresas. El aborda SWOT
es muy potente e ilustra tanto las fortalezas como las flaquezas del abordaje
racionalista hacia una estrategia tecnológica. A pesar de ser un esquema muy
criticado por el mundo académico, hoy por hoy, es la herramienta más usada
por las empresas y la difundida en aulas.
Las 5 fuerzas que dirigen la competición industrial tienen relación con:
1. Relacionamiento con los proveedores.
2. Relacionamiento con los compradores.
3. Nuevos competidores.
4. Productos sustitutos.
5. Rivalidad entre empresas establecidas.

Figura 16 Fuerzas competitivas de Porter.
Según Porter (1980), “el objetivo de las estrategias competitivas… es

hallar una posición en un sector en que la empresa pueda defenderse mejor de
las fuerzas competitivas o pueda influenciarlas a su favor”.
Lo anterior nos lleva a hacer un rápido análisis del liderazgo en innovación

v/s el acompañamiento de innovación. De acuerdo con Porter, las empresas
debe decidir entre una de esas dos estrategias de mercado:
El liderazgo de innovación, es cuando las empresas buscan ser las

primeras en negociar, basadas en el liderazgo tecnológico, esto exige un fuerte
compromiso organizacional con relación a la creatividad y acciones de riesgos
y vínculos estrechos tanto con fuentes relevantes de conocimiento nuevo,
cuanto con las necesidades tener buenas relaciones con los consumidores.
El acompañamiento de innovación, es cuando las empresas buscan

entrar más tarde al mercado, basadas en la limitación (aprendizaje) a partir
de la experiencia de líderes tecnológicos. Esto exige una gran inversión y
compromiso con los análisis e investigación de la competencia, a fin de saber
cómo funciona el mercado donde actuaremos.

Una de las dos estrategias será que debe implementar la empresa para
alcanzar alguna ventaja competitiva.
Las Estrategias según Henry Mintzberg
Mintzberg, plantea al estrategia desde cinco ángulos similares a los de Porter

con una visión más tecnológica y socializante.
La estructura de estrategia de diferenciación de Mintzberg se divide en:
Diseño del producto: productos con características diferentes I+D.
Imagen: Diferencial del producto que sea percibido por el consumidor.
Soporte: promover un “clúster” de productos alrededor del producto central,

para satisfacer todas las necesidades de los clientes de un segmento del mercado.
Calidad: fabricar productos únicos y confiables.
Precio: énfasis en la economía de escala.
In_diferenciación: estrategia de imitación de otros productos.

Mintbertz plantea que la estructura de liderazgo en costes es una

estrategia de diferenciación por precios.
Calidad Diseño
Soporte
Imagen
In_diferenciación
Precio
Mintzberg (1988),Advances in Strategic

Management. Vol 5. p.1-67
Diferencia entre las estrategias de Porter y Mintbertz
ESTRATEGIAS
Nota: Enfoque,
COSTES DIFERENCIACIÓN ENFOQUE no es una
estrategia en si,
Segmentación ya que
Porter
Especialización representa el
segmento donde
se implanta la
estrategia. Navas
& Guerras.2002.
Dif. Por precios Dominio del

Mintzberg
Dif. De Imagen mercado

Dif. Diseño Produc.
Dif. Calidad
Dif. Soporte
In_diferenciación
Coste & Diferenciación Enfoque
ESTRATEGIAS

Resumen Unidad III.
La innovación envuelva complejos cambios, sea de tecnología en la

organización o en el escenario económico donde actúa. Por consiguiente,
las oportunidades y amenazas tecnológicas son normalmente difíciles de
identificar, las estrategias de innovación son difíciles de definir y los resultados
son difíciles de prever. Por tanto, no existe una herramienta o receta de gestión
por lo tanto el análisis es imprescindible. Por ello, los investigadores apuntan a
los tres ingredientes esenciales de la estrategia de innovación que son:
1. La posición de la empresa, comparando con sus competidores directos,

en términos de tecnología, producción y en términos del sistema nacional
en el que se encuentran.
2. Los cambios tecnológicos abiertos a la empresa, considerando sus

competencias adquiridas y las oportunidades emergentes que la misma
permite explorar.
3. Los procesos organizacionales adoptados por la empresa, a fin de integrar

aprendizajes estratégicos a través de límites funcionales y departamentales.
4. La estrategia de Mintberz posee un mayor poder explicativo a la hora

de comparar estudios usando soportes de ecuaciones estructurales,
aportando más al ambiente corporativo actual.
Para ser más claros, no podemos echar mano de una estrategia en

particular, sino que debemos estar atentos a las distintas estrategias que se están
desarrollando. Por lo tanto, debemos “innovar en la búsqueda” y adopción de
una estrategia organizacional para nuestra empresa.

AUTOEVALUACIÓN 3
V/F
1. ______ La innovación como estrategia a largo plazo es lo más certero

para que una organización pueda competir en los mercados
actuales.
2. ______ El fijar objetivos a mediano y largo plazo es fundamental para

mantener una estrategia competitiva innovadora.
3. ______ Las empresas que no tienen una estrategia desde el punto de

vista innovativa, no sobrevivan en el mercado.
4. ______ En los 80´ el concepto de estrategia estaba centrado en

producto/mercado.
5. ______ En la actualidad el concepto de estrategia no puede desmarcase

de una buena cuota de tecnología y alto conocimiento.
6. ______ La matriz del BCG es una herramienta útil de planificación

estratégica, pero carece del elemento de inyección en
tecnologías.
7. ______ Las estrategias genéricas de Porter se orientan al liderazgo en

costos, diferenciación y segmentación de mercado.
8. ______ Las lógicas militares, tuvieron alguna influencia en la

conformación de las estrategias racionalistas.
9. ______ Las estrategias Incrementalistas se contraponen a las estrategias

racionalistas por que las primeras señalan que nunca se sabrá
cómo funciona el mercado y siempre hay que traer nuevos
conocimientos y tecnologías.
10. ______ El liderazgo en innovación, se basa en el liderazgo tecnológico

que la empresa pueda alcanzar.

Unidad IV. Desempeño en la gestión de innovación
Objetivo
 Determinar las mejores prácticas para generar autoevaluaciones al

interior de las organizaciones (auditorias)
Contenidos
4.1 El desempeño de la gestión de innovación
4.2 Aprendiendo a gerencial la innovación
4.3 Auditoria de la gestión de innovación
4.4 Qué buscar en la auditoria de innovación
4.5 Qué tipo de innovación caracteriza su organización
4.1 El desempeño en la gestión de innovación
La gestión de la innovación no se mide haciendo algunas cosas bien, sino

que tiene que ver con el desempeño de todas las direcciones y/o departamento
al interior de la organización. No existe una única fórmula mágica, sino que
existe un conjunto de comportamientos aprendidos.
En especial se identifican cuatro grupos (Figura 17) de comportamientos

que representan rutinas especiales importantes.
• Innovación de éxito, basado en estrategia.
• Innovación de éxito, depende de relacionamiento interno y externo

eficaz.
• Innovación de éxito, exige mecanismos que posibiliten que ocurran los

cambios.

• Innovación de éxito, solamente ocurre dentro de un contexto

organizacional con altos índices de apoyo interno.
Figura 17 Rutinas esenciales.
A partir de la alianzas estratégicas y del manejo de perspectivas alternativas

entre las organizaciones, ha estado avanzado la temática de la “innovación
abierta”, que está pasando a tener un papel preponderante y cada vez más
reconocida para nuestra época en que los trabajos en red y el comportamiento
interorganizacional son los modelos dominantes de operación.
A fin de obtener éxito, las organizaciones necesitan de mecanismos de

implementación eficaces, para llevar a la innovación del campo de las ideas
al campo de las oportunidades reales. Este proceso, envuelve soluciones
sistemáticas de problemas y funciona mejor dentro de una estructura clara de
toma de decisiones, que debería ayudar a la organización a avanzar o parar,
según las cosas fueran saliendo mal. Existen por tanto, varias habilidades en
gestión de proyectos, control en situaciones de incerteza y desarrollo paralelo
de ambas técnicas que ayudan a salvar estas situaciones. Necesitamos también,
estar atentos a la gestión de los propios procesos de cambio, incluyendo

anticipadamente la preocupación de aquellos factores que pueden ser afectados

por los cambios.
Finalmente, la innovación depende de que exista un contexto

organizacional sustentador, en el cual las ideas creativas puedan emerger y
ser efectivamente implementadas. La construcción y mantención de tales
condiciones organizacionales es una pieza fundamental de la gestión de
innovación y envuelve trabajos con estructuras, acuerdos de organización del
trabajo, entrenamiento y desarrollo, sistemas de recompensas y reconocimientos
y ajustes de comunicación. Encima de todo, la exigencia es crear condiciones
dentro de las cuales una organización que aprende, pueda comenzar a operar
con planteamientos de identificación y solución de problemas y con la
capacidad para capturar y acumular el aprendizaje sobre tecnología y gestión
de procesos de innovación.
4.2 Aprendiendo a gerencial la Innovación
El desarrollo de la gestión de innovación envuelve un proceso de

aprendizaje procurando una construcción e integración de comportamientos
claves en rutinas eficaces. Tal proceso de aprendizaje puede ser auxiliado por
inputs o ciclos de aprendizajes, por medio de:
• Compartir experiencias, aprendiendo con y por medio de las experiencias

de éxitos y fracasos de otros.
• Introducción de nuevos conceptos e ideas respecto a herramientas y

técnicas.
• Experimentación, combinando diferentes sistemas en relación a

problemas básicos de gestión de innovación.
• Reflexión estructurada, examinando y reevaluando como la innovación

es gerenciada actualmente.
El benchmarking que es el proceso sistemático y continuo para

evaluar comparativamente los productos, servicios y procesos de trabajo en
organizaciones, nos puede ayudar en el proceso de aprendizaje de diversas

maneras, ofreciendo un poderoso motivador para el cambio, ya que, las

comparaciones desfavorables son difíciles de olvidar. Mas pueden ofrecer
indicaciones valiosas sobre como gerenciar procesos claves en diferentes
modelos.
Tal aprendizaje puede venir no solamente a partir de comparaciones

directas entre empresas semejantes, sino también entre empresas de diferentes
sectores, que realizan de manera amplia, procesos similares.
Por tal motivo, para analizar el desempeño innovador, podemos

considerar varias mediciones e indicadores tales como:
• Mediciones de resultado (output) específicos de varios tipos, por

ejemplo: patentes, trabajos científicos como indicadores de conocimiento
producidos o número de nuevos productos presentados (porcentajes
de venta o lucro derivado de las ventas) como indicador de éxito en
innovación de productos.
• Medición de resultados operacionales o de proceso, tal como investigación

de satisfacción de clientes para medir y rastrear mejorías en calidad o
flexibilidad.
• Medición de resultados, que puedan ser comparadas a través de sectores o

empresas, por ejemplo: costo de producción, participación de mercado,
desempeño de calidad, etc.
• Medición de resultados de éxito estratégico, cuando el desempeño global

del negocio es mejorado de alguna forma y cuando algunos beneficios
pueden ser atribuidos directa o indirectamente a la innovación, por
ejemplo: crecimiento en ingresos o participación de mercado, lucratividad
mejorada, valor agregado más alto.
A parte de las medidas mencionadas anteriormente, podemos considerar

una serie de mediciones específicas de trabajo interno del proceso de innovación
o elementos específicos en su interior. Por ejemplo:

• Número de nuevas ideas (producto/proceso/servicios) generadas en el

inicio del sistema innovativo.
• Tasas de fallas en el proceso de desarrollo productivo.
• Número o porcentaje de extrapolación en tiempo de desarrollo y costos.
• Medición de índice de satisfacción del clientes (lo que el cliente desea).
• Tiempo medio de actuación en el mercado (comparado con las normas

industriales).
• Desarrollo de personal/hora por innovación realizada.
• Tiempo medio de procesos de innovación para el lanzamiento.
• Medición de mejoría continua, número de equipos de solución de

problemas, acumulación de economías por trabajador, economías
acumulativas, etc.
4.3 Auditoria de la Gestión de innovación
Muchas investigaciones se dedican a investigar, el qué y el cómo, auditar la

innovación. El riesgo es quedar tan concentrados en este tema, que quedamos
fuera del objetivo práctico de la auditoria que es, el reflejar la mejora en la
gestión del proceso de innovación.
Podríamos elaborar una lista simple de “factores” que influyen en

la innovación y generar una puntuación para cada uno de ellos, a fin de
desarrollar un perfil de desempeño de innovación. Esto, no es muy claro
en una organización que no tenga una estrategia definida, con recursos
tecnológicos limitados y sin planes de adquirir más, con una débil gestión de
proyectos, con poco relacionamiento externo y con una organización rígida
y no sustentadora. En contraste, aquella organización que se centra en metas
estratégicas claras, desarrolla relaciones de largo plazo para sustentarlas y
desenvuelve tecnologías, tendrá más chance de tener éxito.

4.4 Que buscar en la auditoria de innovación
En la realización de una auditoria de naturaleza innovativa, no existe

algo claro como una puntuación exacta o un indicador macizo al respecto,
que nos sirva de referencia. Por tanto, viendo la oportunidad, aún podemos
desarrollar distintos indicadores que sirvan de base para que de una manera
u otra, sean un referente a estudiar, como la capacidad innovadora de una
empresa. Por ejemplo: es posible que una empresa que gasta el 10% de su
facturamiento en actividades de I&D sea mejor en ofrecer recursos para
innovación que una empresa que no genera ninguna acción de I&D. Por
tanto, podemos señalar que para cierto nivel industrial el invertir un 10% en
I&D es altamente positivo.
El cuestionario de auto-evaluación adjunto (cuestionario n°1) de

nuestro manual, es un ejemplo de un esquema de “auditoria de innovación”
que puede ser utilizado para concentrar la atención sobre algunos temas que
hemos visto en el presente manual. Este cuestionario nos ayudará a iniciar el
proceso de auditoría de capacidades de gestión de innovación. Las respuestas
al cuestionario describen “la forma de hacer las cosas ahora”. El padrón de
comportamiento que describe como la organización lidia con las cuestiones de
innovación, esto representa solo la punta de un Iceberg, pero nos puede ayudar
a centrar la atención en áreas donde hay espacios para un mayor desarrollo de
las empresas encuestadas.
Frente a lo anterior el cuestionario nos entrega una lista breve de

preguntas que posibilitan una evaluación de la gestión de la innovación en
una organización. No es una encuesta exhaustiva, pero nos da un equilibrio de
factores y juzgamientos subjetivos que necesitarían ser considerados a fin de
alcanzar una respuesta realista para la pregunta ¿Cuán bien está la organización
en la gestión de la innovación?
El formato específico de la encuesta no es tan importante, como si es

necesario la capacidad de utilizarlo, a fin de obtener una amplia investigación
que afectan los éxitos y fracasos de la innovación y de cómo la gestión de
procesos será mejorada, algunos usos que la herramienta podría tener son.

• Un modelo de auditoria para verificar que usted está cierto o errado, en

casos de innovaciones específicas, o como forma de comprender porque
las cosas suceden de determinada manera.
• Una lista para la verificación si usted está haciendo las cosas correctamente.
• Benchmarking, para verificar si usted está haciendo cosas tan bien como
la competencia.
• Una guía para el mejoramiento continuo de la gestión de la innovación.
• Un recurso de aprendizaje para ayudar a adquirir conocimiento y

entregar inspiración para hacer nuevas cosas.
• Una forma de concentrarse en subsistemas con problemas específicos y

trabajar con los responsables por esos procesos.
4.5 Qué tipo de innovación caracteriza su organización.
Podríamos representar diferentes posiciones resultantes de una simple

auditoria en una forma de diagrama, conforme la (Figura 18), podemos ver
diferentes arquetipos de capacidades de innovación.
De esta perspectiva podemos ofrecer la posibilidad de una rápida

“visión”, a fin de llamar la atención y crear un comportamiento a futuro con
mejorías alcanzables. La cuestión no es saber cuánto usted punteo en la auto-
evaluación, en vez de eso, como uso la información para ayudar al proceso de
aprendizaje visando a una mejor gestión de innovación.

Figura 18. Distribución de capacidades de innovación.
A continuación se presentan tres cuestionarios que responden preguntas

básicas sobre innovación dentro de las empresas. Los cuestionarios fueron
obtenidos y traducidos al español del libro: Managing innovation: integrating
technological, market and organizational change, de Tidd, J., Bessant, j., Pavitt,
K. (2005).
La idea, es que usted llene estos cuestionarios y los envié al profesor, estos
cuestionarios generarán una nota en su rendimiento final como alumno. Por
tanto, sea claro y objetivo.
Los dos cuestionarios le serán enviados en formato Excel a su email,

deberá tomarse el tiempo suficiente para responderlos y además deberá
procurar contestarlos desde el punto de vista de un trabajar más de una
empresa. Por lo tanto, deberá pensar que está rellenando el cuestionario como
si su empresa si lo pidiera.
Si usted no está trabajando formalmente en una empresa o es consultor

de empresas o es empleado público (gobierno nacional, gobierno municipal,
juntas parroquiales, etc.) deberá buscar y aplicar la encuesta a una “empresa
amiga”, idealmente de gran tamaño y del sector de producción (privada),

también la empresa amiga, puede ser una empresa productora del Estado,
toda vez que tenga administración autónoma (TAME, PETROAMAZONAS,
Etc.)
Por ello, antes de contestar el cuestionario n°1 y n°2. Deberá ingresar los
siguientes datos en hoja aparte:
Nombre del alumno que aplica la encuesta:………………………………
Profesión del alumno: ………………………………………....................
Nombre de la empresa encuestada: ………………………………………
Dirección de la empresa encuestada: …………………………………….
Nombre de la persona encuestada: ………………………………………
Educación de la persona encuestada (post-grado, Profesional, técnico,

enseñanza media, enseñanza básica) . ……………………………………
Sector en el que opera la empresa (Producción, Servicio, comercio, señalar

sólo uno de los tres)………………………………………......................
Número de trabajadores de la empresa: …………………………………
Especificar Sector industrial: ejemplo; construcción, agrícola lechero, agrícola de

frutas, educación superior, banco, petróleo, minero de cobre, etc. (si tiene dudas
del rubro, consulte al profesor vía email)………………………………………




 Resultados de los cuestionarios.
Rellene los cambios señalados para poder determinar cuál es su nivel de

gestión innovativa.
Cuestionario n°1
Cuando haya terminado, sume los totales, como sigue:
Número de
pregunta Puntos
1 2 3 5 4
6 7 8 10 9
11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35
36 37 38 39 40
Total Dividida
por 8
Su puntuación
para Estrategia Procesos Organización Relaciones Aprendizaje
Cuestionario n°2
Cuando haya terminado, sume los totales, como sigue:
Número de
pregunta Puntos
1 2 3 5 4
6 7 8 10 9
11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35
36 37 38 39 40
Total Dividida
por 8
Su puntuación
para Estrategia Procesos Organización Relaciones Aprendizaje

Casos:
Los casos originales son en inglés pero para este texto-guía han sido
traducidos al español en un formato “ejecutivo” (se anexan), aún así, usted
debe hacer el esfuerzo en leer los casos originales, porque existen 3 preguntas
por casos y papers que están directamente relación con los textos originales.
Los casos fueron extraidos del libro Managing innovation: integrating

technological, market and organizational change, de Tidd, J., Bessant, j., Pavitt,
K. (2005). También los pueden bajar los casos de internet gratuitamente de la
pag. Web: http://www.managing-innovation.com/
Caso n°1
Corning Glass (2005) Joe Tidd, John Bessant, Keith Pavitt.
Caso n°2
Exploring Innovation in Action: Sewing up the Competition - Innovation

in the Textile and Clothing Industry. (2005) Joe Tidd, John Bessant, Keith
Pavitt.
Caso n°3
Continuous Improvement: Specific Techniques (2005) Joe Tidd, John

Bessant, Keith Pavitt. (Herramienta)
Papers:
Los papers (en Anexo) han sido traducidos al español de manera

ejecutiva, es importante el leer la versión original.
1 Joe Tidd and Frank M. Hull (2006) Managing service innovation: the
need for selectivity rather tan ‘best practice’. New Technology, Work
and Employment. 21:2 ISSN 0268-1072.

2 Mike Hales and Joe Tidd (2009) The practice of routines and
representations in design and development. Industrial and Corporate
Change, Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 551–574
3 Michael M. Hopkins, Joe Tidd, Paul Nightingale and Roger Miller

(2011) Generative and degenerative interactions: positive and
negative dynamics of open, user-centric innovation in technology
and engineering consultancies. R&D Management. 44. 41, 1.
Resumen de la Unidad IV
La innovación desde cualquiera de sus múltiples perspectivas es fuente de

competitividad, en la medida en que va asociada a la obtención de algún tipo
de ventaja respecto a los competidores en prestaciones, calidad, diferenciación,
etc. Todo orientado a obtener incremento en ventas y beneficios (Valls, et.al.,
2007)
Por tanto, el tener medidas de control o evaluación es parte de la simbiosis

natural de las organizaciones, lo que nos lleva a plantear para este texto-guía el
aplicar los dos cuestionarios propuestos que nos darán un prisma más asertivo
de los es medir la gestión de la innovación en una determinada empresa.
Los modelos de evaluación de la innovación aún no han sido

completamente consensuados desde una perspectiva global, por tanto, nos
queda el echar mano de modelos exitosos que se pueden replicar en otras
sociedades, el ejemplo del manual de Oslo es una de ellos, ya que generaliza
la temática innovadora con índices que se pueden medir y consensuar para la
Unión Europea, pero que en su aplicación en otras naciones, aún puede ser un
instrumento muy avanzado y/o arbitrario.
El aterrizar la temática de las evaluaciones de la innovación, es algo que

se persigue en distintos estudios, los cuales siempre apuntarán a dar respuesta
a un modelo general de evaluación.

AUTOEVALUACIÓN 4
V/F
1. ______ El relacionamiento externo eficaz, es parte esencial de las

rutunas de la gestión de innovación.
2. ______ La innovación abierta, es parte de un nuevo escenario de

intercambio de información en red y del comportamiento
interorganizacional (de empresa a empresa)
3. ______ Un contexto sustentador, habla de potenciar el que las ideas

creativas emerjan y sean implementadas por la organización.
4. ______ Una manera de aprender a gerenciar la innovación es cerrando

nuestras malas experiencias (no compartiéndolas) con los
grupos internos de la organización.
5. ______ Compartir experiencias con empresas de nuestro sector

y de otros sectores ayuda a gerenciar el aprendizaje en la
innovación.
6. ______ Manejar la tasa de fallas de los productos/procesos nos orienta

mejor para gerenciar los conocimientos innovativos que
debemos emplear en el futuro.
7. ______ La auditoría en la gestión de innovación apunta a “reflejar la

mejora en la gestión de procesos de innovación”.
8. ______ La auditoría en la gestión de innovación apunta a “determinar

si estamos teniendo más utilidades”.
9. ______ Existen varias maneras de auditar la innovación, no siendo

ningún indicador exacto o universalmente aceptado.
10. ______ De lo anterior, podemos decir que una empresa puede auto-
auditarse y ponerse sus propias metas.

7. SOLUCIONARIO
Autoevaluación 1
No. Respuesta
1 V
2 V
3 F
4 V
5 V
6 F
7 V
8 V
9 V
10 V

Autoevaluación 2
No. Respuesta
1 V
2 V
3 F
4 F
5 V
6 V
7 V
8 V
9 V
10 V

Autoevaluación 3
No. Respuesta
1 V
2 V
3 V
4 V
5 V
6 V
7 V
8 V
9 V
10 V

Autoevaluación 4
No. Respuesta
1 V
2 V
3 V
4 F
5 V
6 V
7 V
8 F
9 V
10 V

8. GLOSARIO TÉCNICO
Innovación.- Proceso de traducción de ideas en productos, procesos o

servicios útiles, utilizables y rentables.
Innovación de arquitectura.- Cambios en todo un sistema; por ejemplo,

cambiar de una arquitectura dada computacionalmente, por una forma
completamente diferente de procesamiento de información.
Innovación de componente.- Cambios en términos de componentes de un

sistema mayor; por ejemplo, un receptor más rápido por un microchip de un
computador.
Innovación de paradigma.- Cambios en modelos mentales subyacentes que

orientan lo que la empresa hace.
Innovación de posición.- Cambios en el contexto en el cual los productos/

servicios se introducen.
Innovación de proceso.- Cambios en la forma en la cual los productos/

servicios son creados y disponibilizados en el mercado.
Innovación de producto.- Cambios en las cosas (productos/servicios) que

una empresa oferta.
Innovación discontinua.- Innovaciones radicales que cambian las “reglas del

juego” y establecen otras reglas, en el cual, nuevos participantes normalmente
toman ventaja.
Innovación incremental.- Pequeñas mejoras en los productos, servicios o

procesos existentes – “hacer lo que ya se ha hecho, sólo que mejor”.
Innovación radical.- Cambios significativamente diferentes en productos,

servicios o procesos – “hacer lo que hacemos de una forma diferente y/o
nueva”.
Invención.- Surgimiento de una nueva idea.

Bibliografía
Ansoff, H.I. (1976): La Estrategia en la Empresa. EUNSA. Navarra.
Beise, M., Rennings, K. (2005) “Lead markets and regulation: a framework

for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 52, pp. 5-17.
Bruntland, G. (ED.) (1987). “Our common future: The World Commission on

Environment and Development”, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Caro, F. et.al. (2010) Zara Uses Operations Research to Reengineer Its Global
Distribution Process, Interfaces, Vol. 40, No. 1, January–February 2010,
pp. 71–84
Christensen, C. (1997) The innovator´s dilemma. Harvard Business School

Press, Cambridge, Mass.
DIT (2003) Competing in the global economy: the innovation challenge.

Department of trade and Industry, London.
Dosi (1982)Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Research

policy, 11, 147-162.
Esty, D., Winston, A. (2006). “Green to Gold, How smart companies use
environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive
advantage”, John Wiley and Sons, Hokoben, New Jersey.
Ettlie (1999) Managing Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Francis, D., Bessant, J. (2005) Targeting innovation and implications for

capability development, Technovation, 25 (3), 171-183.
Freeman, C., Soeto, L. (1997) The Economics of industrial innovation. 3rd.

edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Gann y Salter (2000) Innovation in Project-based, servce-enhanced firms: the

construction of complex product and systems, Research Policy, 29, 955-
972.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1991) ‘Corporate Imagination and

Expeditionary Marketing’ Harvard Business Review, July-August 1991,
pp. 81-92
Henderson, R., Clark K. (1990) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration

of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9-30.
Hitchens, D., Thankappan, S., Trainor, M., Clausen, J., De Marchi, B. (2005)
“Environmental performance, competitiveness and management of
small businesses in Europe”. Royal Dutch Geographical Society, KNAG.
Vol. 96,No. 5, pp. 541–557.
Kay. J. (1993) Foundations of corporate success: How business strategies add value.
Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Meadows, D. (1972). Los límites del crecimiento: informe al Club de Roma sobre
el predicamento de la humanidad. México: colección popular, fondo de
cultura económica.
Mintzberg, H. (1991): La Estructuración de las Organizaciones. Ariel.

Barcelona.
Morris, M. (2001) Creating value chain co-operation, IDS Special Bulletin,

The Value of Value Chains, 32 (3).
OCDE (2005) European Comunities, Manual de Oslo. http://www.oecd.

org/innovation/inno/
lomanualguidelinesforcollectingandinterpretinginnovationdata3rdedition.
htm
Porter, M. (1980) Competitive strategy. Free Press, New York.

Rosenau, M. et.al.(1996) the PDMA handbook of New product development.

John Wiley&Sons, Inc. New York.
Schumpeter, J. (1950) Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy, 3 ed.

Harper&Row, New York.
Segarra, M., Peiró, A., Mire, L., Albors, J. (2011) ¿Eco-innovación, una
evolución de la innovación? Análisis empírico en la industria cerámica
española. Boletin de la sociedad española de cerámica y vidrio.
Sourder y Sherman (1994) Managing new technology development. McGraw-

Hill, New York.
Stalk, G., Hout, T. (1990) Competing against time: How time-based competition
is reshaping global markets. Free press, New York.
Tidd, J., Bessant, j., Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing innovation: integrating

technological, market and organizational change. 3rd. Third Edition, John
Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Tidd. J. (org.) (2000) From knowledge management to strategic competence:

measuring technological, market and organizational innovation. London:
Imperial College Press.
Utterback, J., Abernathy, W. (1975) A dynamic model of process and product

innovation, Omega, Vol. 3, n°6.
Valls, J., Guitart, L.,Nuñez, a. (2007) La innovación en la empresa, el concepto

y su medida, Revista de contabilidad y dirección, vol.6, pp.37-54.
Walsh (1992) Winning by design: technology, product desing and international

competitiveness. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
WBCSD (World business council for sustainable development) (2000).

inform. Ecoefficiency. Creating more value with less impact. c/o E&Y
Direct, PO BOX 6012, Fairfax House, Southfield Lane Tockwith, North
Yorkshire YO26 7YU, UK.

9. ANEXOS
• Casos Practicos traducidos al español y original en inglés.
• Papers (resúmenes ejecutivos en español) originales en

inglés.

Caso de Estudio n°1
Corning Glass
Resumen Ejecutivo
(Recomendamos leer el original para despejar dudas)
Historial:
Corning Glass es una gran organización (multinacional) que está

involucrada en el sector de vidrios y productos relacionados en ese rublo,
posee un alto valor agregado, ya que tiene productos tecnológicamente
especializados, muchos de los cuales son ahora parte del programas y desarrollo
de un “joint-venture” (empresa conjunta).
Innovación ‘Claim to Fame’ (demanda del éxito)
Esta firma está dentro de las ‘100 empresas del club’ habiendo sido
fundada a mediados del siglo XIX. Fue una pionera en la innovación de
procesos que permitió grandes volúmenes de fabricación de vidrio, pero en
el siglo XX se trasladó al desarrollo de “vidrios especiales” que la llevaron a
través de una variedad de enlaces de innovación de producto / proceso. Ha
gestionado con éxito las innovaciones, para evitar la mercantilización (copia)
de sus productos principales, repetidamente ha subido la escalera tecnológica
para entrar en nuevos campos, más difíciles y en los que puede conservar una
ventaja competitiva.
Su constante inversión en I + D ha significado que tiene una “tecnología”

en el que ha sido capaz de sumergirse, cada vez que la compañía ha enfrentado
una crisis. Al principio, tal vez por accidente, pero en tiempos más recientes,
como una función del diseño estratégico, han construido una capacidad para
reinventarse a sí mismos - pasando de un fabricante de vidrio a uno de los
pioneros de fibra de vidrio, a un jugador clave en la fotónica, la fibra óptica y
ahora pasar a los servicios de Internet.

¿Cómo manejan la innovación?
La historia de Corning es una de continuas innovaciones, mucho de esto

es sobre procesos, pero que también está marcada por cambios innovadores
en áreas nuevas y claves. Ellos han llegado a utilizar cada vez más a los socios
externos que traen nuevos conocimientos y han aprendido a dejar de lado su
dependencia anterior de hacerlo todo en casa. Del mismo modo, comenzó
como una empresa de empuje de tecnología, pero con algunos grandes errores,
como su costoso fracaso en el intento de crear un mercado basado en la
tecnología de vidrio de seguridad automotriz.
Lo anterior, los llevó a repensar y cambiar a una organización mucho más

pegada al mercado. Una etapa clave se produjo en la década de los 80´, cuando
se dieron cuenta de que la diversificación y el crecimiento de opciones de
innovación, requería sistematizar su enfoque de gestión. Antes de ese cambio,
todo había sido una cultura clásica de los ganadores individuales empujando
un sistema de tecnología.
Identificaron su capacidad de «adaptarse» como clave para su éxito de la

innovación - es decir, obtener conocimientos diferentes y complementarios, a
unirse en torno a un nuevo concepto de producto y convertirlo en realidad a
gran velocidad, una vez que el principio básico ha sido articulado.
Estrategia de Innovación y Liderazgo
La compañía siempre ha tenido la innovación como un valor estratégico

central, y se vinculan fuertemente a esta generación y gestión en la propiedad
intelectual (su banco de conocimientos) «Lo que importa realmente para
la innovación… es la generación continua de la gestión y el despliegue de
la propiedad intelectual como un activo estratégico”. Este tema ha sido un
problema algunas veces de la “junta de accionistas” en varias ocasiones en
las que la empresa ha enfrentado una crisis, por ejemplo: cuando el mercado
de tubos de televisión disminuyó y estaban obligados a realizar cambios y
recortes significativos – pero por otro lado (la crisis) les ha ayudado a avanzar
cada vez más en campos de nueva tecnología. Su estrategia hasta hace poco
tiempo, puede ser descrita como fuertemente impulsada por la tecnología. Ya
que, ha habido un cambio notable a finales del siglo XX, primero hacia un

enfoque orientado al mercado y más recientemente a un modelo basado en la

red (TICs) donde se ven alianzas estratégicas claves como un camino a seguir.
Algunos de los principales habilitadores estratégicos de la empresa son:
• El apoyo constante (por 150 años) de los valores fundamentales de la

innovación a través de la generación y aplicación de conocimiento.
• La voluntad de “dejar ir”, a reinventarse por cambiar su orgulloso

patrimonial y entrar en nuevos campos de negocios.
• El compromiso constante de invertir en I + D, por lo general se ha

invertido entre el 8 y el 10% de su prepuesto, desde la fundación de la
empresa y fue una de las primeras empresas a establecer un laboratorio
de I + D.
• El uso de sesiones de “inmersión profunda”, esencialmente las

reuniones de revisión estratégicas empresarial, donde se explora el papel
y la dirección de I + D dentro de la organización y por el cual, una
integración estrecha entre este recurso y los otros departamentos genera
varias claves de aplicación. Estas sesiones ayudaron a cambiar el enfoque
dando una gran respuesta, del negocio dirigido por el mercado a uno
que estaba tratando de marcar el ritmo a través de implementación de las
tecnologías estratégicas claves.
Activación del Proceso
La compañía tiene un proceso bastante “estándar” para la innovación -

usando una versión de un modelo de “puerta abiertas” para canalizar las ideas
de desarrollo a través de un sistema dotado de recursos, diseñado para generar
soluciones personalizadas a las necesidades particulares del mercado. Esto, ha
funcionado bien para ellos, en sus mercados tradicionales donde el ritmo de
cambio es relativamente lento y donde podemos observar que el desarrollo de
productos está definido claramente.
Tienen vínculos especialmente buenos entre el desarrollo y fabricación

de productos con “feedback” en el proceso de diseño - un tema clave que surge

de su presencia como un actor fuerte en el proceso de innovación tecnológica.
Su traslado a nuevos mercados y productos menos conocidos (definiciones

de nuevos mercado) ha significado que ahora están experimentando con
diferentes rutas en la gestión de hacer algo nuevo en el proceso de innovación.
Esto incluye:
• Aprender con los demás - en lugar de tratar de poseer todos los recursos,
ha habido una tendencia creciente al “networking” y el desarrollo de
productos basada en alianzas. Su habilidad existente de poder configurar
equipos inter-funcionales les ha ayudado a dar una respuesta rápida en
este proceso.
• Aprender de las nuevos “networks”, aliado a esto, ha habido una expansión

significativa del ambiente de selección en el que trabajan, para que
exploren un territorio mucho menos familiar a través de su colaboración
con un amplio grupo de agencias externas en empresas asociadas y otras
colaboraciones.
• En relación a esto, ha sido el uso extendido de las asociaciones para

compartir tecnología con los actores principales que también tenían
grande capacidades de I + D. Trabajando con grandes actores en
proyectos complementarios ayuda a ambas partes a mover la frontera
hacia adelante con rapidez, al ser capaces de concentrar los recursos.
La construcción de una organización innovadora
• Hacer hincapié en los flujos de conocimiento dentro de la organización

y la creación de estructuras que permitan intercambios creativos entre
ellos.
• fuerte valor de la calidad y mejoramiento constante.
• El intento deliberado de crear comunidades de práctica - permitir la

creación de mescla de equipos diferente que traigan un poco de variedad
en conocimiento a la “reserva genética”.

• El uso de “contar historias” como un mecanismo para construir y

comunicar la memoria compartida y el “ingenio colectivo”.
• Desarrollo de una “masa crítica flexible”, la habilidad de concentrarse

rápidamente en recursos humanos claves de proyectos de alta prioridad.
Esto se basa en la narración, ya que, este se comunica con rapidez y
eficacia y comparte las “buenas prácticas” y cómo las acciones de estos
equipos se pueden formar rápidamente.
Alianzas y “Networks”
Corning ha estado involucrado en muchos “proyectos conjuntos” de

bastante escala y su aprendizaje a partir de ellos ha dado lugar a un creciente
énfasis en la construcción de vínculos como una estrategia de innovación. Ellos
tienen una gran tradición de I + D formada por el networking y cooperación.
Por ejemplo; una gran parte de su base de competencia en fotónica, vino de las
networks cercanas y de colaboraciones realizadas con los institutos educativos
de la antigua Unión Soviética, que contenía la excelencia científica, pero con
falta de recursos y el acceso a las instalaciones de desarrollo. La reflexión sobre
las causas de su éxito de la innovación, ha llevado a extender su laboratorio
“virtual” y han desarrollado sofisticadas formas de aprovechamiento de la
propiedad intelectual de este tipo de colaboración, sin tomar el control o
comprometer la autonomía e independencia de los laboratorios e institutos
con los cuales trabajan.
Aprendizaje y Desarrollo de Capacidades
Un desarrollo clave ha estado en el uso de la narración y otros enfoques

para tratar de recuperar los puntos fuertes anteriores que tenía de la compañía
que en cierta medida, se había perdido en la última parte del siglo XX.
Proporcionando un mecanismo aceptado y ampliamente utilizado para
“recuperar la experiencia basada en la propia experiencia de la empresa”,
en lugar de tener confianza en las “mejores prácticas” u otras recetas entregadas
desde el exterior.

Para más información sobre Corning:
• Lea el Paper anexado a este texto-guía.
• Véase, M. Graham y Shuldiner A., Corning and the Craft of Innovation

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)

Zara
Explorando la Innovación en Acción:

Competencia en la Costura - Innovación en la
Industria Textil y de la Confección.
Resumen Ejecutivo
La industria textil y de prendas de vestir no es más antigua que los

procesos industriales conocidos convencionalmente, desde los primeros días,
cuando los seres humanos vivían en cuevas, ya había una demanda constante
de algo para envolver alrededor de nosotros, para mantener el calor y proteger
las partes más sensibles de nuestra anatomía. Lo que comenzó con pieles de
animales, gradualmente se ha convertido en una actividad más sofisticada,
con telas tejidas de lino o de lana, lo que ha llevado a que las personas han ido
incrementando y especializándose mucho más en este negocio.
En sus inicios se constituyó como una industria artesanal - literalmente

la gente hilaba lana obtenida de las ovejas y tejían telas simples, en telares
caseros. Pero, la base de los conocimientos y de la tecnología comenzaron
a desarrollarse y muchos de los “nombres” de las familias que hoy en día
tenemos evolucionaron empresarialmente, por ejemplo: Weaver, Dyer, Tailor.
Ellos, nos recuerdan la importancia de este sector.
Además, se podía observar grandes concentraciones de fabricación textil,

donde existían suficientes artesanos y grupos de personas con tal habilidad,
por ejemplo, los tejedores Flemish o los fabricantes de cordones en las English
Midlands. Estos lograron que su reputación, y la calidad de sus productos,
crecieran hacia la base del comercio internacional y que el sector textil y de la
confección se estableciera globalmente.
El estilo artesanal de la industria cambió radicalmente durante la

Revolución Industrial. El crecimiento masivo de la población conllevó a que
los mercados sean cada vez mucho más grandes, y al mismo tiempo permitió
avances significativos en la tecnología (la ciencia que apoya la tecnología) la

fabricación de textiles y prendas de vestir, se convirtió en un proceso cada vez

más industrializado. Una gran parte de la Revolución Industrial se enfocó en
las industrias del algodón y la lana (en Inglaterra) y muchas de las grandes
innovaciones y maquinaria fueron desarrolladas en Inglaterra; como: The
Spinning Jenny (la primera hiladora) - fueron esencialmente innovaciones para
apoyar a una industria en crecimiento internacional. El crecimiento de la
industria junto con la investigación científica conllevo a una serie de avances,
como la invención de colorantes sintéticos (que permitió una gama mucho
más amplia de colores en los textiles) y el desarrollo de agentes blanqueadores.
Hay un patrón en esto; en el que ciertas trayectorias de fabricación e

innovación tienen una parte clave. Por ejemplo, la creciente mecanización
de operaciones, su vinculación junto a los sistemas de producción y los
crecientes intentos para llevar a cabo la intervención humana a través de la
automatización. Por supuesto, esto era más fácil de hacer en algunos casos
que otros, por ejemplo: una de las primeras formas de control programable,
mucho antes de la invención de la computadora, fue el Jacquard sistema de
tarjetas perforadas, que podía controlar el tejido de diferentes hilos a través de
un telar. Pero realmente el convertir este material en varios artículos de ropa
era muy difícil; simplemente porque el material no tiene una forma fija ni
controlable, por tanto, se quedó como un proceso de trabajo intensivo.
En el siglo XX, la industria textil llego a convertirse en una de la más

grande y bien establecida del planeta esto gracias al crecimiento del comercio
internacional, de materias primas como el algodón y de productos acabados.
La función del diseño, llego a ser cada vez más importante para la demanda
básica, que exigía sentirse satisfecha como también para algunas regiones que
imponían una moda o estilo de vestir, por ejemplo, Francia e Italia, empezaron
a adquirir una sólida reputación para el diseño. El “Branding” se hizo cada
vez más importante, en un mundo donde las comunicaciones en masas
empezaron a hacer la narración de historias y la vinculación de las imágenes
y otros elementos en la publicidad, lo cual permitió que la demanda en ropa
sea mucho más que una compra de necesidad básica.
Los métodos de producción masiva y gestión científica (enfoques

difundidos rápidamente) hicieron su contribución, tal es el caso del ensamblaje
de ropa, que mantuvo un proceso de trabajo intensivo, dirigido a la búsqueda

de localizaciones de menor coste salarial. Así, comenzó la migración de

confección de ropa en todo el mundo, visitando y estableciéndose en lugares
cada vez más baratos de todo el Lejano Oriente europeo, gran parte de África,
América Latina y ahora su actual hogar en China.
Hoy, esta es una industria global que abarca las actividades de diseño,
corte y operaciones de procesamiento, ensamblaje, distribución y ventas - todo
impulsado por una enorme demanda de diferenciación y personalización.
Este, es un sector en el que el precio es sólo uno de los elementos – factores
distintos al precio, tales como variedad, velocidad, marca y calidad. También,
es una industria dominada por la necesidad en innovación de productos de alta
frecuencia - las colecciones de moda, ya no siguen la rutina antigua estacional
con colecciones de invierno y verano. En algunos casos, las colecciones
cambian cada mes, junto con la innovación en tecnología de la información y
comunicación; significa que el ciclo es cada vez más corto.
Todo ello, ha dado forma a una industria que se conecta altamente entre
redes a través de “cadenas de valor globales” que están coordinadas por los
jugadores más grandes dentro de este negocio. Una gran parte del “frente” de
la industria está bajo las grandes marcas y cadenas de distribución, mientras
que las operaciones de la ‘trastienda’ son a menudo realizadas por los pequeños
subcontratistas, con frecuencia en países de bajos costos salariales.
Al igual que muchas industrias, se ha convertido en algo sin trabas y sin

desvíos de sus orígenes - dejando sólo, un pequeño recordatorio de su dominio
original. En comparación con países como India y China, la industria actual
de la ropa europea es un jugador pequeño en el escenario global. Hay algunas
excepciones a esto – y lo demuestran con el poder de la innovación y el
espíritu empresarial.
El hecho de que, las tendencias dominantes se dirijan en una sola

dirección, no significa que no hay posibilidad de que alguien pueda detectar
e implementar formas de cambiar esta tendencia. Uno de esos jugadores era
un joven empleado que trabajaba en un pequeño negocio de ropa en el norte
de España. Frustrado con sus oportunidades de carrera el señor Amancio
Ortega Gaona decidió actuar por sí mismo y en 1963 invirtió sus ahorros - la
principesca suma US $ 25 - en una pequeña operación de fabricación, donde

se confeccionaba pijamas y ropa interior. Con el clásico estilo que vendía sus
productos en toda la región; construyó su empresa durante los próximos 10
años y luego decidió incursionar en la venta al por menor; de esta forma logró
abrir su primer tienda en la noroeste ciudad de La Coruña en 1975.
Las cosas han cambiado un poco desde esa época. La industria de Diseño
Textil - Inditex - compañía que él estableció – en la actualidad pose un valor
estimado entre los $ 8 mil millones y acaba de abrir su tienda número dos mil
en Hong Kong. Este negocio textil se encuentra activo en casi 70 países y la
confección de ropa cuenta con 8 grupos de marcas claves, cada uno dirigido
a segmentos particulares o tipos de producto - por ejemplo: ‘Pull and Bear’
para los niños, ‘Massimo Dutti’ para hombres y mujeres mayores - ‘Oysho’ en
ropa interior. El más conocido de ellos es ‘Zara’ - una marca global con un
diseño fuerte y la identidad de la moda que atraviesa tanto la ropa y las tiendas
en las que se venden. Su ropa combina diseños elegantes con un fuerte vínculo
con las últimas tendencias de la moda y sobre todo con precios moderados.
Lotte Freddie, editora de moda del diario danés periódico Berlingske Tidende,
comentó: “Si quieres un look clásico, estilo italiano a tono con los estilos
actuales y a un precio razonable tienes que ir a Zara.” El crecimiento exitoso
de Zara no es simplemente una cuestión de bajo costo o de estandarización,
sino más bien de mucha innovación.
La compañía de Amancio Ortega se ha convertido en líder bajo la

premisa en tendencia de precios y la constante evolución en la industria - la
innovación y variedad de productos son la base. Por ejemplo, más de 10.000
modelos diferentes de ropa se crean y se venden cada año – esto, sin duda
no es un caso de “una talla para todos” o de tipos de “productos de larga
duración”. Ortega, tomó todo el sistema para la creación de ropa y construyó
un negocio - y originalmente lo hizo en una zona que antes no tenía ninguna
tradición textil.
En una primera etapa, el desarrollo del negocio de fabricación se trasladó

de nuevo a las operaciones de acabado textil, para asegurarse de que los colores
y la calidad del material que utiliza para hacer la ropa estaba a la altura. Esto,
no sólo dio un mejor control de calidad, sino que también abrió el camino
para ofrecer diseños de emocionantes y de diferentes texturas.

Una parte importante del éxito de la compañía proviene de un fuerte

compromiso con el diseño - ellos emplean más de 200 diseñadores. Es un
tema que no se detiene solo con la presentación de la ropa; también se
extiende a la presentación de las tiendas, sus escaparates, sus catálogos,
publicidad en Internet, etc. Parte del edificio de la sede en Arteixo en Coruña
– España, contiene 25 escaparates de tamaño completo con las plataformas de
visualización e iluminación que permiten al equipo de Zara visualizar como se
verían las ventanas de tiendas reales - no sólo en condiciones normales, sino
también en días de lluvia, por la noche y así sucesivamente. Otro aspecto clave
del éxito de Zara es la flexibilidad que proviene de tener un modelo diferente
para la fabricación. Alrededor de 2.500 empleados trabajan directamente en
las operaciones de fabricación - pero detrás de ellos, existe una mano de obra
mucho más grande en el canal de distribución y logística, como los repartidores
que van a pueblos y pequeñas comunidades de España y norte de Portugal.
Cuando el nuevo diseño ha estado aprobado, la tela se corta y luego se

distribuye a esta red de pequeños talleres - y estos representan una capacidad
de externalizar la entrega de un alto grado de flexibilidad. El pre-corte de
piezas e instrucciones fáciles de seguir se dan a los trabajadores, en lo que
es todavía en gran medida una economía informal - y su salida luego fluye
hacia el centro de distribución masiva de Zara, como afluentes de un río de
corriente rápida. Esto no es una operación pequeña - el centro cuenta con unos
200 kilómetros de carriles de movimiento, en el que fluyen los productos,
altamente automatizado y con control extenso de calidad, el proceso traslada
las piezas recibidas en lotes de producción que se asignan a una flota de
camiones para el traslado rápido, más que nada por avión desde el aeropuerto
cercano a Santiago de Compostela.
Ni que decir, tienen ellos que imponer grandes exigencias a un sistema

de coordinación altamente flexible e innovador que Zara ha desarrollado
de forma interna. De esta manera, hacen uso de un modelo que data de
hace cientos de años (la idea de los distritos industriales y los “clústeres”),
sin embargo utilizan tecnología del siglo XXI para dar flexibilidad tanto en
el volumen y la variedad de las cosas que hacen. Mientras los competidores
como H & M y Gap, tienen que comenzar a planificar y producir sus nuevas
líneas de tres a cinco meses antes de que el producto finalmente llegar a las
tiendas, Zara gestiona todo el proceso en menos de tres semanas.

Su flexibilidad también se basa en una respuesta rápida y un amplio

uso de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Al final del día,
cuando los clientes dejan sus 950 tiendas en todo el mundo, el personal de
ventas utiliza teléfonos móviles para comunicar los niveles de inventario a
la gerente de la tienda, que después transmite esta información de vuelta a
España. Esto, da una idea al minuto de lo que se está vendiendo y lo que no
se vende. Así que, las tiendas pueden ser muy sensibles a las preferencias del
cliente – cual colores ‘funcionan’, qué temas son populares, los diseños que no
son tan populares. Pero, no es apenas solo seguir el mercado - Zara también
empuja el juego, asegurándose de que ningún modelo se mantiene a la venta
por más de cuatro semanas - no importa lo bien que se está vendiendo. Esto
tiene un fuerte impacto en su marca - son vistos como muy original y de
diseño dirigido - pero le pone aún más presión sobre su capacidad de ser ágil
en el diseño y fabricación.
Preguntas de casos prácticos
1. Es el modelo de Zara sostenible? ¿Qué haría usted para conservar su

ventaja sobre los próximos 5-10 años, dado que muchos jugadores
están buscando ahora a seguir su ejemplo? Si usted no cree que puede
sobrevivir, de sus razones de por qué, cree que el modelo es insostenible
y no funcionará.
2. Usted ha sido contratado como consultor para un fabricante de ropa

pequeña que quiere emular el éxito de Zara y Benetton. Ella, quiere
consejos sobre una estrategia de innovación que toma las lecciones claves
de estas empresas exitosas. ¿Qué le ofrecería?
3. “Zara Home” ha abierto una empresa, utilizando el mismo modelo de

negocio básico y desplegando el mismo enfoque innovador que el resto
de la empresa, pero en el campo de bienes raíces. ¿Crees que podría tener
éxito y por qué?

Mejoramiento Continuo – MC
Técnicas Específicas
(Herramientas)
Resumen Ejecutivo
Mejoramiento continuo MC, consiste en un largo viaje, en una

progresiva consolidación de las habilidades y capacidades dentro de la
organización para encontrar y resolver problemas. No es sorprendente que
haya muchas técnicas diferentes que puedan ayudar en el proceso de MC.
Lo que sigue es una breve explicación de las herramientas básicas.
Específicamente examinaremos:
• El ciclo de resolución de problemas;
• Lluvia de ideas (Brainstorming);
• Diagramas de causa y efecto;
• Hojas de verificación;
• Diagramas de flujo;
• y un resumen de implementación de políticas.

El ciclo de resolución de problemas
En la primera etapa de identificar, la organización reconoce que

existe un problema a resolver. Esto puede ser una emergencia o puede ser una
dificultad menor, que ha sido persistente por algún tiempo, puede que no sea
ni un “problema” pero si un experimento, un intento de encontrar una nueva
manera de hacer algo.
Cualquiera que sea el estímulo inicial, encontrar un problema,

empieza con la etapa, de realizar una definición clara del particular. Aquí la
dificultad a menudo es, separar el problema en partes (lo que sólo puede ser
un síntoma o no) para ver el problema principal a resolver. Definir y pone
algunos límites en torno al problema, ya que puede ser necesario dividir
un problema grande en pequeños sub-problemas que se pueden abordar –
“comer un elefante de una cucharada a la vez”. También se puede aclarar quien
“posee” el problema - y por lo tanto, quien debe involucrarse en su solución,
si la solución puede mantenerse a largo plazo o no.
Después de que la naturaleza del problema sea analizada, el siguiente

paso es explorar maneras de resolverlo. Puede haber una única respuesta
correcta, como en los crucigramas o aritmética simple - pero es mucho más

probable que sea un problema abierto, para los que pueden haber un número
de soluciones posibles. El desafío en esta etapa es explorar el problema a fondo
- quizás a través del uso de herramientas de “brainstorming” de grupo o de otro
método - para generar la mayor cantidad de posibles soluciones.
A continuación viene la selección de las soluciones más prometedoras

a probar - esencialmente lo inverso de la etapa anterior, ya que esto implica
que el intentar cerrar y centrarse en un amplio rango de opciones. La opción
seleccionada se pone en práctica - y los resultados exitosos o no, son revisados.
Desde la base de esta evaluación, el problema puede ser resuelto, o puede
necesitar otra revisión. Puede ser también el caso de que la solución de un
problema lleve a otro a la luz.
En términos de aprendizaje, se trata fundamentalmente de un

modelo para la experimentación y la evaluación. Recibimos conocimiento en
diversas etapas del proceso - por ejemplo, acerca de los límites del problema
en la definición, o acerca de las soluciones potenciales en su exploración o
sobre lo que funciona y lo que no funciona en su aplicación. El punto es
que si captamos este aprendizaje nos coloca en una posición mucho mejor
para cumplir con el siguiente problema, si es que se repite, ya sabemos cómo
resolverlo. Si es similar, tenemos un conjunto de soluciones posibles que
valdría la pena intentarlos. Y si es completamente nuevo, todavía tenemos la
experiencia de un enfoque estructurado para la solución de problemas.
Brainstorming (Lluvia de ideas)
Brainstorming es la rápida puesta en escena (en común) de todos y

todas las ideas que un grupo de gente puede reunir antes de que cualquier
debate o juicio se lleve a cabo. Cada idea se usa sin importar cuan extraño o
irracional sea.

Como generar el Brainstorm
1. Mantenga un ambiente relajado. Las reuniones deben ser

disciplinadas pero informales. Si es posible, elija un lugar informal.
2. Obtenga el tamaño adecuado del equipo. La técnica parece funcionar
mejor con grupos de 5 a 7 personas.
3. Elija un líder. El líder comprueba que todo el mundo entienda lo que

está sucediendo y por qué.
4. Defina el problema claramente.
5. Genere cuantas ideas sean posibles.
6. No permita cualquier evaluación y discusión a priori.
7. De a todos la misma oportunidad para participar.
8. Anote todas las ideas - de forma clara y donde todos puedan verla.
9. Cuando todas las ideas estén en la lista, haga revisión y aclaración,

asegurándose de que todos entienden cada elemento. En este punto,
usted puede eliminar duplicaciones y eliminar las ideas que el grupo se
siente que no son apropiadas.
10. Permita ideas para incubar (con tiempo) Brainstorm en las sesiones con tal
vez un par de días en el medio. Esto da tiempo para que el equipo deje
las ideas reposar en su mente, lo cual a menudo da lugar a nuevas ideas
en una sesión posterior.
Enfoques para Brainstorming
• Uno-a-la-vez
Un miembro del grupo ofrece una idea y la sesión continua de esta

manera hasta que todos hayan tenido la oportunidad de añadir alguna
idea a la lista.

• Puerta Abierta o “Freewheeling”
Cualquier persona que tenga una contribución habla cuando sea

necesario.
• Anotarlo
Las ideas se deben anotar y no ser dichas en voz alta, pero cada uno debe
ser capaz de ver cada idea en la lista.
El Diagrama de causa y efecto
También llamado el “Diagrama de espina de pescado”, este ejercicio

participativo explora los vínculos entre los efectos y las posibles causas de un
problema. Esta herramienta fomenta un ambiente de grupo para la resolución
de problemas y demuestra que los problemas pueden tener una serie de causas.
¿Qué es?
El análisis de causa y efecto es una técnica para identificar las posibles causas
de un problema o efecto. La técnica utiliza un diagrama de causa y efecto para
registrar las posibles causas, como sean sugeridas.
¿Cuándo se debe usar?
Utilice esta herramienta cuando desee establecer la causa de un efecto. El

efecto puede ser un problema o un efecto deseable - cuando algo deseable
ha sucedido es útil averiguar cuál fue la causa que pueda hacer que suceda de
nuevo.
Para la construcción de un Diagrama de Causa y Efecto
1. Establecer cuál es el problema o el efecto. Debe ser indicado de una

manera clara y concisa, acordada por todos.
2. Escribir el efecto (problema) en un cuadro a la derecha y trace una línea

larga apuntando a la caja.

3. Decidir las categorías principales de causas. Esto puede hacerse de varias

maneras:
• Brainstorming.
• El uso de categorías estándar, tales como la 4ms (Máquinas,

Materiales, Métodos, Mano de Obra) o PEMPAM (planta, equipo,
materiales, Personas, Ambiente, Métodos).
• Cuando tenemos los resultados de los efectos de un proceso

reconocible o conjunto de actividades, los pasos principales en el
proceso puede ser utilizado.
4. Escribir las categorías principales en cajas paralelas y a cierta distancia de

la línea principal. Conectar a la línea principal con flechas inclinadas.
5. Brainstorm las posibles causas.
• Añadir las causas al diagrama agrupados en torno a las principales

causas que influyen. Dividir y subdividir las causas para mostrar
cómo interactúan y establecer vínculos entre las causas que
están relacionadas. Si el diagrama se vuelve demasiado lleno de
inquietudes, mover una o más categorías a una nueva hoja de papel.
6. Evaluar y analizar las posibles causas.
7. Decidir y actuar.
• Esto probablemente implicará el uso de otras herramientas. Por

ejemplo, con el fin de verificar algunas de las posibles causas
identificadas puede que tenga que recoger datos (mediante las hojas
de verificación) y analizarla (Análisis de Pareto, gráficos, etc.)

Ejemplo de un Diagrama de la cause y efecto
Checksheets (hojas de verificación)
¿Qué es?
Una hoja de verificación es una herramienta para el registro y la organización

de datos.
Hay tres tipos de hojas de verificación:
1. Recording Checksheet (Grabación de hoja de verificación):
• Cuenta las veces que algo sucede en categorías pre-especificadas.
2. Checklist Checksheet (Lista de verificación de hoja de verificación):
• Una lista de temas que se abordan en alguna manera predeterminada,

por ejemplo: una secuencia de control que impide que los pasos o
procedimientos sean dejados de lado.

3. Location Checksheet (Ubicación hoja de verificación):
• Registra la ubicación relativa o específica de los defectos, lesiones,

accidentes, etc. Por lo general, se trata de una imagen o mapa del
artículo / área bajo consideración en la ubicación del defecto, etc.
Se encuentra marcado con un punto o una cruz.
¿Por qué usarlo?
Las hojas de verificación le ayudarán a reunir y clasificar los datos. Las hojas
de verificación se aseguran de que todo el mundo recoja datos comparables en
la misma forma, y en un formato que permita un fácil análisis.
La construcción de una hoja de verificación
1. Decida qué datos son necesarios recoger.
2. Decida la frecuencia en la que los eventos serán observados (la frecuencia)

y sobre qué periodo total (la duración).
3. Diseñe una hoja de verificación preliminar. Ponga los artículos que serán
monitoreados por la izquierda y los períodos de tiempo en la parte arriba.
Deje espacio para los totales a la derecha de cada elemento que se observa
a lo largo de la parte inferior y en los períodos de observación. Etiquetar
las hojas de verificación con claridad.
4. Pruebe la hoja de comprobación del proyecto con una persona que no

ayudo a su diseño.
5. Realice las revisiones que sean necesarias como consecuencia del paso 4.
6. Distribuya las hojas de verificación a las personas que recolectan los

datos y explicar cómo usarlos.
7. Actúe sobre los datos recogidos.

Flow Charting (Flujo de gráficos)
¿Qué es?
Un diagrama de flujo es un diagrama que ilustra las actividades de un proceso.
¿Por qué usarlo?
Un diagrama de flujo puede decir mucho acerca de un proceso y de las

actividades involucradas, ejemplo: ¿Están todas las actividades realmente
necesarias? ¿Qué controles existen?
Los diagramas de flujo son una herramienta útil para usar a la hora de
mejorar un proceso, especialmente cuando usted está planeando recoger datos
o implementar una solución. También se puede utilizar para documentar
un proceso nuevo o para comparar un proceso existente con un “ideal” del
proceso.
Los diagramas de flujo son una buena herramienta de comunicación

- mediante el uso de símbolos estándar, todos los actores tendrán la misma
comprensión del proceso.
La construcción de un diagrama de flujo
1. Decida qué nivel de detalle del diagrama de flujo se representa.

Esto dependerá de la finalidad para la construcción del diagrama de flujo.
En un diagrama de flujo de alto nivel, varias tareas que constituyen una
actividad se muestran como una actividad, mientras que en un diagrama
de flujo de nivel inferior cada tarea se muestran por separado.
2. Enumere las actividades en el proceso.
3. Dibuje el diagrama de flujo (a veces esto se hace usando símbolos

estándar, por ejemplo:

círculo estirado inicio o final de proceso

rectángulo paso o actividad en el proceso
diamante punto de decisión
flecha dirección del flujo
Este diagrama de flujo, examina el proceso de mantenimiento de un

automóvil:
Hacer una Obtener Diagnosticar Identificar

reservación coche Coche Necesidade
s
Valet Prueba Encajar las Procurar

Piezas Piezas
Contactar Entregar Departamento

Cliente de Piezas
Proveedores
Política de despliegue
Como su nombre lo sugiere, el concepto básico en el despliegue de la

política es el desarrollo de mecanismos para romper los objetivos estratégicos
generales de la empresa en unidades pequeñas, cada una de las cuales puede
proporcionar el target de grupos o individuos en sus actividades de MC
durante un período sostenido.
Por ejemplo, en los coches Nissan el objetivo estratégico general,

es de caída de cascada por toda la organización a través del proceso de
evaluación en donde todos tengan la oportunidad de discutir y ponerse de

acuerdo con los objetivos determinados para el próximo año, incluyendo una
serie de objetivos para sus propias actividades de MC. Este proceso - que
es esencialmente la “gestión por objetivos” – es una de las vías que mejor
resultado obtienen y genera un compromiso por parte del empleado para su
realización, el reconocimiento de que esto es lo que se utiliza para evaluar el
rendimiento en el próximo año, y la comprensión de que el logro se relaciona
con recompensas.
Su valor en el MC, es proporcionar un enfoque y un proceso de

focalización que se mueva desde simplemente mejorar las cosas entre un
proyecto y otro. La política de los destinos de despliegue están vinculados a los
objetivos estratégicos y las actividades locales encajan juntos para contribuir al
cumplimiento de los mismos.
Por ejemplo, si el objetivo general incluye el objetivo de ser competitivo

mediante la reducción de tiempo de entrega al cliente en un 25%, entonces
el despliegue de políticas pediría, para cada área, cómo se podría reducir 25%
del tiempo de sus operaciones globales. A su vez, esta “cascada” a las unidades
individuales dentro de la zona, y hasta los equipos individuales, con la misma
pregunta. Cada equipo individual usará herramientas de MC para explorar las
fuentes de la pérdida de tiempo, y el tipo de cosas que podría reducir - y sobre
una base de proyecto por proyecto, en el que sería socavar a los plazos dentro
de su área. En forma agregada, esto se traduciría en un ahorro importante.
Dos características clave son importantes - el uso de “estiramiento”

objetivos que dan impulso, y el uso de seguimiento y medición en contra
de estos objetivos como una manera de guiar el proceso y mantener el
impulso. Además, existe un fuerte componente de “saber por qué”, así como
conocimientos técnicos - en otras palabras, no es un intento de explicar la razón
de ser de la estrategia y cómo las mejoras en un área en particular contribuyen
en la misma. Por ejemplo: en una planta química de trabajo hacia el objetivo de
“cero averías” en cada máquina se detallan la operación y el mantenimiento de
las instrucciones adjuntas. Estos han sido desarrollados a través de la actividad
de MC e incluyen no sólo los nuevos procedimientos operativos, sino también
una sección sobre por la cual, estos pasos son importantes. Existe pues, un
elemento de aprendizaje organizacional, de convertir el conocimiento tácito
en formal. Funciones similares se llevan a cabo por los guiones gráficos que

caracterizan el progreso en el camino de cumplir con los objetivos estratégicos.
La implementación de la política tiene que ver con los objetivos

estratégicos de modo que los plazos de campañas “típicas” sean largas. Por
ejemplo, en Japón el “plan de mediano plazo, es el factor clave en las empresas,
lo que representa una declaración clara de los objetivos y metas en los próximos
3 años.

Papers Traducidos
Papers: n°1 (resumen ejecutivo)
New Technology, Work and Employment 21:2, (2006)

Gestión de la innovación de servicios: la necesidad de
selectividad en vez de “Mejores prácticas”
Joe Tidd and Frank M. Hull
Tidd y Hull afirman que sabemos mucho sobre la organización y la

gestión del desarrollo de nuevos productos en los sectores de fabricación, pero
comparativamente, sabemos poco acerca de cómo aplicar esto en el sector
de servicios. Con este fin, el objetivo del paper fue determinar si algunas
configuraciones de la práctica predicen mejor los resultados de desempeño
en los datos del Reino Unido que el modelo de “mejores prácticas” basadas
principalmente en los datos de Los Estados Unidos. Una tipología de diseño
de la organización se ha desarrollado para clasificar las configuraciones
observadas en los datos del Reino Unido.
La tipología proporciona un marco teórico para la siguiente hipótesis:

que tipos de configuraciones probablemente tendrían efectos sobre qué tipo
de resultados de rendimiento.
Utilizar la tipología para clasificar estos datos de servicio es un reto, porque

la teoría de la contingencia y la noción relacionada con las configuraciones, se
derivan en gran parte de los estudios industriales realizados con anterioridad
en la aparición de grandes empresas de servicios, y los avances recientes en la
tecnología de la información. El estudio ofrece la oportunidad de actualizar
y ampliar las nociones de contingencia y la configuración para incluir las
empresas de servicios, así como identificar los roles de IT en el desarrollo de
nuevos servicios y la entrega de estos.
La metodología de la investigación, involucró una lista detallada de las

prácticas que se utilizan en las entrevistas formales para desarrollar y adecuar
un cuestionario postal a uno más apropiado para los servicios.

Después del reajuste en el cuestionario se utilizaron dos muestras , una

en los EE.UU. y otra en el Reino Unido. El análisis de regresión múltiple, se
utilizó para predecir la variación en las medidas de desempeño. El método
paso a paso, se utilizó para maximizar la variación explicada. De este modo,
la variable dependiente fue el rendimiento y las variables independientes
fueron las distintas prácticas.
Los resultados muestran que los indicadores de resultados no difieren

significativamente entre las muestras del Reino Unido y las de Estados Unidos.
Sin embargo, tres de las cuatro configuraciones son más bajas en el Reino
Unido, es decir; es un índice que suma las mejores prácticas. Este contraste
nos adentra en una especie de dilema, por ejemplo: ¿Cómo se obtiene niveles
similares de rendimiento con diferentes niveles de prácticas? La resolución de
esta contradicción aparente se produce cuando las configuraciones del sistema
en el Reino Unido son más parsimoniosas en las prácticas, ya que, su estrategia
se concentró básicamente en los resultados de desempeño seleccionados en
lugar de múltiples tipos de ventaja, al mismo tiempo que en los EE.UU. Un
enfoque de la configuración del sistema puede ser más eficiente para dirigir
determinados tipos de resultados de desempeño, el paradigma de las mejores
prácticas más eficaces para abordar múltiples resultados.
Por lo tanto, los autores realizan una tipología con los resultados
obtenidos:
Tipo A - orientación al cliente del proyecto (utiliza a los líderes del

proyecto para organizar la participación de todo el mundo desde el principio
en el desarrollo de productos)
Tipo B - personalización mecanicista (utiliza la participación de los

clientes externos en el desarrollo de productos y las decisiones de proceso de
entrega)
Tipo C - compartir el conocimiento híbrido (personas están entrenados,

incentivadas grupalmente y organizados en grupos, lo que refuerza su
identidad celular)

Tipo D - Innovación integrada (organiza localizaciones, equipos multi-

funcionales en una jerarquía aplanada)
Resumen:
Las cuatro configuraciones, tuvieron uno o más efectos significativos en

los indicadores de desempeño específicos. Además, las cuatro configuraciones
de sistemas parecen ajustarse a los datos del Reino Unido que el más genérico
“mejor práctica” estructura de desarrollo de nuevos servicios. Sin embargo,
el hallazgo más importante es la multi-dimensionalidad de las prácticas y
representaciones. El tradicional “orgánico-mecanicista-continuo” se diferencia
en una serie de dimensiones casi independientes, incluyendo la organización
del proyecto, el intercambio de conocimientos, la gratificante colaboración y
los equipos multi-funcionales.
Del mismo modo, el rendimiento es multi-dimensional, y la simple

elección entre eficiencia e innovación se reemplaza por al menos cuatro
elementos: costo, tiempo de entrega y la innovación.

R & D Management 41, 1. (2011)
Interacciones generativas y degenerativas: dinámicas

positivas y negativas de la innovación abierta y
centrada en el usuario de consultorías tecnológicas y de
ingeniería.
Michael M. Hopkins, Joe Tidd, Paul Nightingale and Roger Miller
En este papel los autores tratan de abordar las deficiencias de la aplicación

práctica de la innovación abierta y centrada en el usuario, las cuales son
actualmente muy populares en la literatura sobre la tecnología y la gestión de
la innovación. La primera deficiencia se relaciona con los mecanismos precisos
de apoyo a la innovación abierta y centrada en el usuario en distintos contextos
industriales que están mal especificados. La segunda limitación se centra en no
ser clara en cuanto a las circunstancias en que podría llegar a ser disfuncional.
Los autores identifican, cómo la interacción de meso y micro-mecanismos de
nivel, contribuyen al proyecto basado en la innovación centrada en el usuario.
Esto se basa en una caracterización detallada de las actividades comerciales
de las ocho consultorías de tecnología y de ingeniería analizadas que trabajan
en una amplia gama de sectores. A partir de esto, los autores son capaces de
desarrollar e ilustrar la noción de interacción generativa, que describe una
serie de mecanismos que producen un esfuerzo en la ecología, lo que favorece
la innovación y la rentabilidad. Al mismo tiempo se hace una observación
de la dinámica de opuestos de auto-refuerzo, interacción degenerativa, que
reivindica las probabilidades de producir un ciclo de innovación en declive y en
la rentabilidad. En el contexto específico de las empresas basadas en proyectos,
los autores muestran que centrado en el usuario, la innovación abierta, puede
afectar negativamente al rendimiento, y se discuten las consecuencias (positivas
y negativas) de los diferentes patrones de interacción con los clientes.
Una parte importante de la metodología de la investigación en este

documento, incluyó la extracción de datos de una gran encuesta en la web,
diseñada para capturar una amplia gama de dinámicas de innovación en
diferentes sectores industriales. Una vez recogidos los datos mediante “Análisis

de Clúster”, el cual fue utilizado para permitir la identificación de los siete

grupos estables y estadísticamente diferentes de un mínimo de 100 empresas
que utilizan la innovación para crear y capturar valor en forma similar.
Después de haber aplicado el análisis de agrupamiento basado en la

dinámica de la innovación, los autores llevaron a cabo una serie de estudios
de casos para investigar la innovación dentro de cada grupo. Sin embargo, el
documento fue dedicado a un enfoque en la dinámica de uno de estos grupos:
“la ingeniería de sistemas y consultoría”, que se conoce como TEC. Desde
entonces se construye la teoría de cómo la innovación se produce dentro de
un grupo de empresas que forman parte de un grupo mayor, sin embargo esta
teoría no es la prueba de generalización a otros sub-grupos.
Un estudio inductivo se llevó a cabo con el fin de capturar la meso-y

micro-mecanismos en los niveles involucrados en la innovación, basado
en amplias entrevistas que van con las empresas. Las entrevistas incluyeron
preguntas sobre la creación de valor y captura, las empresas y las estrategias de
innovación y las influencias externas sobre la innovación.
Los autores llevaron a cabo 23 entrevistas semi-estructuradas en ocho

unidades de negocios TEC en las siete empresas. Fueron identificados
individuos que se dedican a la innovación y las estrategias empresariales de
aprendizaje.
El primer objetivo fue identificar los mecanismos de micro y meso-

nivel asociado con la creación de valor y captura de valor. Se utilizó lógica de
replicación para apoyar la teoría básica presentada y para garantizar que sus
resultados no estaban relacionados con un caso peculiar.
Conclusiones:
Las principales conclusiones son que la interacción generativa se produce

a través de una serie de mecanismos interrelacionados que permiten a las TEC
establecer y trabajar en proyectos innovadores “El proceso da seguimiento
a la innovación que agrega valor al negocio del cliente”. Luego el aumento
del valor añadido para el cliente que se beneficia de la reputación a través de
TEC y la repetición de los negocios. La reputación, la repetición de negocios

y la acumulación de conocimientos se alimentan mutuamente. El ciclo de la

reputación, la repetición de negocios y la acumulación de experiencia, beneficia
al TEC a través de una mayor rentabilidad. Los TECs (incluso aquellos con
los presupuestos de I + D) se basan en los clientes de oportunidades para
innovar. Las instituciones, las estructuras y la cultura restringir la innovación
de los clientes y de las TEC. En cambio, la interacción degenerativa puede
ver los esfuerzos de los clientes a reducir los costos de riesgo o empujar a
los contratistas, pueden expulsar a la innovación y disminuir la calidad
de las salidas de las interacciones en la ecología empresarial. Además las
interacciones generativas y degenerativas involucran ambos niveles; el micro
y macro a través de equipos especializados individuales en la empresa y de
los clientes, competidores, contratistas, proveedores y reguladores con quien
interactúan. Por otra parte, la comprensión de las contribuciones relativas de
las capacidades internas y redes externas, y cómo se combinan para crear y
capturar valor en la innovación, es probable que implique adoptar diferentes
mecanismos en diferentes sectores empresariales.

Industrial and Corporate Change, (2009) Volume 18, Number 4 pp 551-574
La práctica de rutinas y representaciones en diseño y

desarrollo.
Mike Hales and Joe Tidd
En este papel, Hales y Tidd examinan el trabajo realizado por las rutinas
y representaciones en el diseño y desarrollo de un nuevo producto, con el fin
de observar los mecanismos implicados en la innovación. Ellos, se basan en el
análisis significativo de los aspectos de las rutinas “ ostensiva y de performance”.
Estas han surgido en los últimos años, con especial énfasis dentro de papel
principal de las distintas representaciones en juego de la creación de un
“producto”. Por lo tanto, los productos y las actuaciones reales de trabajo, son
los focos claves de la investigación. Su objetivo era aclarar las formas en que
las representaciones (en particular los productos de representación, tal como
documentos), las rutinas formales (en particular un proceso estándar para el
desarrollo de un producto global), y actuaciones de interacción en el trabajo,
contribuyan a la labor estratégica del diseño conceptual y el desarrollo de un
bien de capital complejo.
La metodología, consiste en que los autores utilicen datos de observación

de un estudio de campo longitudinal en tiempo real para contribuir teóricamente
y empíricamente en el papel que cumplen las rutinas en el desarrollo y diseño
de nuevos productos. Hales y Tidd realizan un estudio de casos de una división
de una compañía global que diseña, construye y apoya a las instalaciones de
la planta de proceso para la fabricación de semiconductores. Utilizaron la
“observación participante” en un nuevo lanzamiento mundial de un producto
de ingeniería existente. Ellos, estuvieron presentes en las instalaciones de la
compañía aproximadamente 2 días a la semana, con un total de más de 50
días de observación a los directores de programas y otro personal directivo.
También, tenían acceso completo a los servidores de archivos, en el que se
archivan la documentación de los proyectos actuales y pasados. Los datos
incluyen 15 horas de grabación de audio, 850 fotos digitales y un libro de
200 páginas de notas de campo. Ninguna investigación cuantitativa se llevó

a cabo y sólo una investigación en forma cualitativa se realizó con un estudio

de caso único.
La diferencia de este trabajo en comparación con las investigaciones

anteriores es que los autores prestan atención no sólo a las representaciones
de las rutinas, sino también a otros tipos de representaciones y productos de
representación que se observaron al ser movilizados en el ámbito laboral.
De tal forma se formulan las siguientes preguntas:
1) ¿Qué contribuciones de las rutinas formales pueden ser identificadas

en nuestro medio de observación?
2) ¿Qué contribuciones de las representaciones formales pueden ser

identificados en nuestro medio de observación?
De tal forma, las dos variables independientes que se investigan son los efectos
de las rutinas formales y representaciones formales sobre la innovación (siendo
la variable dependiente).
Resumen:
Las principales conclusiones del estudio son: la diferencia del énfasis en

la mayor parte de la literatura, las rutinas formales, las representaciones, los
contenidos en los productos que juegan una parte de importancia limitada.
Más bien, de mayor influencia son las representaciones no formales utilizadas
para apoyar la interacción y la comunicación: como representaciones de
rutinas (y otras acciones) en lugar de la representación formal de las rutinas.
Hales y Tidd proponen un reequilibrio de las relaciones entre las rutinas y
representaciones, una dialéctica y mediación - en contraste con una relación
lineal y genética. Los autores, encuentran que en diferentes rutinas hacen
cosas diferentes. En particular, el trabajo realizado a partir de representaciones
de rutinas (por ejemplo, presentaciones en powerpoint y dibujos) en otros
lugares, dentro de una arquitectura de múltiples y concurrentes prácticas en
curso, fue altamente significativa, lo mismo “contar historias” fue clave para
la innovación.

CASOS ORIGINALES
Caso n°1
Case Studies
Exploring Innovation in Action:

Sewing up the Competition - Innovation in the
Textile and Clothing Industry
Manufacturing doesn’t get much older than the textile and clothing
industry. Since the earliest days when we lived in caves there’s been a steady
demand for something to wrap around us to keep warm and to protect the
more sensitive bits of our anatomy from the worst of the elements. What
began with animal hides and furs gradually moved into a more sophisticated
activity with fabrics woven from flax or wool – and with people increasingly
specializing in the business.
In its early days this was very much a cottage industry – quite literally
people would spin wool gathered from sheep and weave simple cloths on
home-made looms. But the skill base – and the technology – began to develop
and many of the family names we still have today – Weaver, Dyer, Tailor,
for example – remind us of the importance of this sector. And where there
were sufficient cottages and groups of people with such skill we began to see
concentrations of manufacturing – for example the Flemish weavers or the
lace-makers in the English Midlands. As their reputation – and the quality
of their goods – grew so the basis of trading internationally in textiles and
clothing was established.
The small-scale nature of the industry changed dramatically during the

Industrial Revolution. Massive growth in population meant that markets

were becoming much bigger while at the same time significant developments
in technology (and the science underpinning the technology) meant that
making textiles and clothing became an increasingly industrialized process.
Much of the early Industrial Revolution was around the cotton and wool
industries in England and many of the great innovations and machinery –
such as the spinning jenny – were essentially innovations to support a growing
international industry. And the growth of the industry fuelled scientific
research and led to developments like the invention of synthetic dyes (which
allowed a much broader range of colour) and the development of bleaching
agents.
There’s a pattern in this in which certain manufacturing innovation

trajectories play a key role. For example, the growing mechanization of
operations, their linking together into systems of production and the increasing
attempts to take human intervention out through automation. Of course this
was easier to do in some cases than others – for example one of the earliest
forms of programmable control, long before the invention of the computer,
was the Jacquard punched-card system which could control the weaving of
different threads across a loom. But actually making material into various
items of clothing is more difficult simply because material doesn’t have a fixed
and controllable shape – so this remained increasingly a labour-intensive
process.
By the twentieth century, the industries had become huge and well
established, with growing international trade in raw materials such as cotton
and in finished goods. The role of design became increasingly important as
basic demand was satisfied and certain regions – for example, France and Italy
– began to assume strong reputations for design. Branding became increasingly
important in a world where mass communications began to make the telling
of stories and the linking of images and other elements into advertising, which
fuelled demand for clothing as much more than a basic necessity purchase.
Mass production methods and the scientific management approaches

underpinning them diffused rapidly and, in the case of clothing assembly
which remained a labour-intensive process, led to the quest for lower-wage-
cost locations. So began the migration of clothing manufacture around the
world, visiting and settling in ever cheaper locations across the Far East,

through much of Africa and Latin America to its present home in China.
Today this is a global industry embracing design activities, cutting and

processing operations, assembly, distribution and sales – all fuelled by a huge
demand for differentiation and personalization. This is an industry in which
price is only one element – non-price factors such as variety, speed, brand and
quality matter. And it’s an industry dominated by the need for high-frequency
product innovation – fashion collections no longer run along the old seasonal
track with winter and summer collections. In some cases the range is changed
every month and innovation in information and communications technology
means that this cycle is getting shorter still.
All of this has shaped an industry which is highly networked across

global ‘value chains’ and coordinated by a few major players. Much of the
‘front’ end of the industry is about major brands and retail chains while the
‘backroom’ operations are often small-scale subcontractors often in low-wage-
cost areas of the world.
Like so many industries it has become somewhat footloose and

wandered from its origins – leaving behind only a small reminder of its
original dominance. Compared with countries like India and China today’s
European clothing industry is a small player on the global stage. There are
some exceptions to this – and they underline the power of innovation and
entrepreneurship.
Just because the dominant trends lead in one direction doesn’t mean
that there isn’t scope for someone to spot and deploy ways of bucking this
trend. One such player was a young clerk working in a small clothing retailing
business in northern Spain. Frustrated with his career prospects Amancio
Ortega Gaona decided to strike out on his own and in 1963 invested his
savings – the princely sum of US$25 – into a small manufacturing operation
making pyjamas and lingerie. In classic fashion he peddled (and pedalled –
his earliest transport was a bicycle!) his wares around the region and built the
business over the next 10 years and then decided to move into retailing as
well, opening his first shop in the north- western town of La Coruna in 1975.

Things have moved on somewhat since then. Industria de Diseno Textil

– Inditex – the holding company which he established – is now worth around
US$8 billion and has just opened its two-thousandth store in Hong Kong.
Active in nearly 70 countries this textile and clothing business has 8 key brand
groups, each targeted at particular segments or product types – for example,
‘Pull and Bear’ for children, ‘Massimo Dutti’ for older men and women or
‘Oysho’ in lingerie. Best known of these is ‘Zara’ – a global brand with strong
design and fashion identity running through both the clothes and the stores
in which they are sold.
Its clothes combine stylish designs with a strong link to current high
fashion themes with moderate prices. As Lotte Freddie, fashion editor of
the Danish daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende, commented, ‘If you want a
classic, Italianate look in tune with current styles and at a reasonable price
go to Zara.’ Zara’s successful growth is not simply a matter of low cost or of
standardization but rather of innovation.
The company have become leaders by exploiting some of the key non-
price trends in the industry – for example, variety and product innovation.
For example, over 10 000 different clothing models are created and sold every
year – this is most certainly not a case of ‘one size fits all’ or of long-lasting
product types! Ortega has taken the entire system for creating clothes and
built a business – and originally did so in an area which did not previously
have any textile tradition.
At an early stage in the development of the manufacturing business he

moved back into textile-finishing operations to make sure that the colours
and quality of the material he used to make the clothes were up to scratch.
Not only did this give better quality control but it also opened up the road to
offering exciting and different fabric designs and textures. There are now 18
textile-designing and -finishing operations in the group as well as the clothing
manufacturing.
A major part of the company’s success comes from a strong commitment

to design – they employ over 200 designers and make extensive play of this
commitment. It’s a theme which doesn’t stop with the clothes themselves but
also extends to the presentation of the stores, their window displays, their

catalogues, Internet advertising and so on. Part of the headquarters building

in Arteixo La Coruna, Spain contains 25 full-size shop windows with display
platforms and lighting which allow the team to see what real store windows
would look like – not only under normal conditions but also on rainy days,
at night and so on. Another key aspect of Zara’s success is the flexibility which
comes from having a very different model for manufacturing. Around 2500
employees work directly in manufacturing operations – but behind them is a
much larger workforce spread across villages and small communities in Spain
and northern Portugal.
Once the new design has been approved the fabric is cut and then
distributed to this network of small workshops – and these represent an
outsource capability delivering a high degree of flexibility. Pre-cut pieces
and easy-to-follow instructions are given to workers in what is still largely an
informal economy – and their output then flows back into the massive Zara
distribution centre like tributaries to a fast-flowing river. (This is not a small
operation – the centre has around 200 kilometres of moving rails on which the
products flow. Highly automated and with extensive in-line quality checking,
the process transfers the incoming pieces into production lots which are then
allocated to a fleet of trucks for fast shipment, mostly by air from the nearby
airport at Santiago de Compostella.)
Needless to say this places significant demands on a highly flexible and

innovative coordination system which Zara have developed in-house. In this
way they make use of a model which dates back hundreds of years (the idea
of industrial districts and clusters) but use twenty-first-century technologies
to make it work to give them huge flexibility in both the volume and variety
of the things they make. Where competitors such as H&M and Gap have
to start planning and producing their new lines three to five months before
goods finally make it to the stores, Zara manages the whole process in less
than three weeks!
Their flexibility is also based on rapid response and extensive use of

information and communication technologies. At the end of the day as the
customers leave their 950 stores around the world the sales staff use wireless
handsets to communicate inventory levels to the store manager who then
transmits this intelligence back to Spain as a feed into the design order and

distribution system. This gives an up-to-the- minute idea of what is selling –

and what isn’t, so the stores can be highly responsive to customer preferences
– which colours ‘work’, which themes are popular, which designs aren’t hitting
the spot. But it’s not just following the market – Zara also push the game by
making sure that no model is kept on sale for more than four weeks – no
matter how well it is selling. This has a strong impact on their brand – they are
seen as very original and design-led – but it puts even more pressure on their
ability to be agile in design and manufacture.
Case Study Questions
1. Is the Zara model sustainable? What would you do to preserve their

edge over the next 5–10 years, given that many other players are now looking
to follow their example? If you don’t think it can survive, give your reasons for
why you think the model is unsustainable and will fail.
2. You have been hired as a consultant to a small clothing manufacturer

who wants to emulate the success of Zara and Benetton. She wants advice on
an innovation strategy which takes the key lessons from these successful firms.
What would you offer?
3. Zara Home has just opened using the same basic business model and
deploying the same innovative approach as the rest of the business but in the
home goods field. Do you think it might succeed and why?

Caso n°2
Corning Glass
Background
Corning Glass is a large, multinational organization involved in glass and

related products with an increasing emphasis on high-value, technologically-
specialized products, many of which are now part of joint-venture programmes
and developments.
Innovation ‘Claim to Fame’
This firm is another of the ‘100 club’, having been founded back in
the mid-nineteenth century. It was a pioneer in process innovation enabling
high-volume manufacture of glass, but in the twentieth century moved
into developments of specialized glasses which led through to a variety of
product/process innovation links. It has successfully managed to avoid
the commoditization of its core products by repeatedly climbing up the
technological ladder to enter new and more difficult fields in which it can
preserve competitive advantage. Its consistent investment in R&D has meant
it has a ‘technology till’ into which it has been able to dip each time the
company has faced crisis. At first perhaps by accident but in more recent times
as a function of strategic design, they have built a capability for reinventing
themselves – moving from a glassmaker to a fibreglass pioneer to a key player
in photonics, fibre optics and moving into Internet services.

How Do They Manage Innovation?
Corning’s history is one of continuous innovation, much of it around

process, but one which is also punctuated by breakthrough shifts into new
and key areas. They have increasingly come to use external partners bringing
new and often very different knowledge sets and have learnt to let go of their
earlier reliance on doing it all in-house. Similarly they began life as a technology
push company but some big mistakes, such as their expensive failure in trying
to create a technology-driven market for automotive safety glass, led them
to rethink and shift to a much more market-linked organization. A key
stage came in the 1980s when they recognized that growth and increasing
diversification of innovation options required that they systematize their
approach to its management – prior to that it had been a classic culture of
individual champions driving a technology system. They identified their
ability to ‘dance’ as being key to their innovation success – that is, getting
different and complementary knowledge sets to come together around a new
product concept and turn it into reality at high speed once the core principle
had been articulated.
Innovation Strategy and Leadership
The company has always held innovation as a core strategic value, and
they ink this strongly to generating and managing intellectual property –
their knowledge bank.
‘What really matters for innovation … is continuous generation,

management and deployment of intellectual property as a strategic asset’. This
has been a boardroom issue on a number of occasions when the company has
faced crisis – for example, when the market for television tubes declined and
they were forced to make significant cutbacks and changes – but it has helped
them move forward each time into new technological and market fields .
Their strategy until recently can be described as strongly technology- led but
there has been a marked shift in the late-twentieth century, first to a market-
oriented approach and most recently to a network-based model which sees
key alliances as the way forward. A number of key strategic enablers are worth
flagging:

• Consistent support for 150 years for the core values of innovation
through knowledge generation and application
• Willingness to let go – to reinvent themselves by moving on from their

proud heritage and into new fields
• Consistent commitment to R&D funding – typically it has run between

8 and 10% ever since the founding of the company when it was one of
the first to set up an R&D lab .
• The use of ‘deep dive’ sessions – essentially strategic review meetings

where the role as well as direction of R&D within the organization is
explored and through which a close integration between this strong
resource and key application domains can be achieved. These sessions
helped shift the focus from a largely responsive, market-led business to
one which was trying to set the pace through deploying key strategic
technologies.
Enabling the Process
The company has a fairly ‘standard’ process for steady state innovation
– using a version of a stage gate model to funnel development ideas through a
well-resourced system designed to generate customized solutions to particular
market needs. This has worked well for them in their traditional markets where
the pace of change is relatively slow and where the envelope within which
product development takes place is clearly defined. They have particularly
good links between product development and manufacturing with feedback
into the design process – a key theme emerging out of their early presence as
a strong player in process technology innovation.
Their move into new markets and less certain product/market definitions
has meant that they are now experimenting with different routes to managing
the ‘do different’ innovation process. These include:
• Learning with others – rather than trying to own all the resources,
there has been a growing trend to network- and alliance-based product

development. Their existing skill of being able to configure rapid

response cross-functional teams has helped them in this process.
• Learning from new networks – allied to this has been a significant

expansion of the selection environment in which they work, so that they
explore much less familiar territory through their co-operation with a
wide group of outside agencies in joint ventures and other collaborations.
• Related to this has been their extended use of technology sharing

partnerships with major players which also had large but complementary
R&D capabilities. Working with big players on complementary projects
helps both partners move the frontier forward quickly by being able to
focus resources.
Building an Innovative Organization
• Emphasizing knowledge flows across the organization and creating

structures to enable creative interchanges amongst them.
• Strong core value of quality and continuous improvement.
• Deliberate attempt to create communities of practice – enable setting up

of different- mix teams to bring some variety into the knowledge ‘gene
pool’.
• Use of ‘storytelling’ as a mechanism to build and communicate shared

memory and ‘collective ingenuity’.
• Development of ‘flexible critical mass’ – the ability to quickly concentrate

key human resources on high priority projects. This is underpinned by
the storytelling since this quickly and effectively communicates and
shares ‘good practice’ around how such teams can quickly form and
perform.

Linkages and Networking
Corning has been involved in many joint ventures of a significant scale

and their learning from these has led to a growing emphasis on actively
building links as a key innovation strategy. They have a long tradition of R&D
networking and co-operation – for example, much of their competence base in
photonics arose out of close networks and collaborations made with institutes
in the former Soviet Union which contained excellent science but lacked
resources and access to development facilities. Reflection on the sources of their
innovation success have led them to extend their ‘virtual’ global laboratory
and they have developed sophisticated ways of harvesting intellectual property
from such collaborations without taking over or compromising the autonomy
and independence of the laboratories and institutes with which they work.
Learning and Capability Development
A key development has been in the use of storytelling and other

approaches to try and recapture the earlier strengths of the company which
had, to some extent, been lost in the later part of the twentieth century. It
provides an accepted and widely-used mechanism to ‘recapture grounded
experience in the company itself ’ – rather than have reliance on ‘best practice’
or other prescriptions delivered from outside.
For more on Corning and the ways in which it manages innovation see
M. Graham and A. Shuldiner, Corning and the Craft of Innovation (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001).

Caso n°3
Tools
Continuous Improvement: Specific Techniques
CI involves an extended journey, gradually building up skills and

capabilities within the organisation to find and solve problems. Not surprisingly
there are many different techniques which can help enable the process, and
for a full account of them you should look at the further information sources.
What follows here are some brief explanations of basic tools.
Specifically we will look at:
• problem-solving cycle;
• brainstorming;
• cause and effect diagrams;
• checksheets;
• flow diagrams;
• and an outline of policy deployment.
Problem-Solving Cycle
At its simplest, we can see continuous improvement as involving a cycle of

problem-finding and solving, like this:

Identify
Review Define
Implement Explore
Select
In the first stage — identify — the organization recognizes that there is

a problem to solve. This may be an emergency or it may be a minor difficulty
which has been nagging away for some time; it may not even be a ‘problem’
but an experiment, an attempt to find out a new way of doing something.
Whatever the initial stimulus, finding a problem then triggers the next
stage which is to define it more clearly. Here the issue is often to separate out
the apparent problem (which may only be a symptom) from the underlying
problem to be solved. Defining it also puts some boundaries around the
problem; it may be necessary to break a big problem down into smaller sub-
problems which can be tackled — ‘eating the elephant a spoonful at a time’. It
can also clarify who ‘owns’ the problem — and thus who ought to be involved
in its solution, if the solution is to stick for the longer-term.
Having analysed the nature of the problem, the next stage is to explore
ways of solving it. There may be a single correct answer, as in crossword
puzzles or simple arithmetic — but it is much more likely to be an open-
ended problem for which there may be a number of possible solutions. The
challenge at this stage is to explore as widely as possible — perhaps through
the use of brainstorming or other group tools — to generate as many potential
solutions as possible.

Next comes the selection of the most promising solutions to try out —
essentially the reverse of the previous stage since this involves trying to close
down and focus from a wide range of options. The selected option is then
put into practice — and the results, successful or otherwise, reviewed. On the
basis of this evaluation, the problem may be solved, or it may need another
trip around the loop. It may even be the case that solving one problem brings
another to light.
In terms of learning, this is essentially a model for experimenting and

evaluating. We gain knowledge at various steps in the process — for example,
about the boundaries of the problem in defining it, or about potential solutions
in exploring it or about what works and what doesn’t work in implementing
it. The point is that if we capture this learning it puts us in a much better
position to meet the next problem; if it is a repeat, we already know how to
solve it. If it is similar, we have a set of possible solutions which would be
worth trying. And if it is completely new, we still have the experience of a
structured approach to problem solving.
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is the rapid pooling of all and any ideas that a group of
people can come up with before any discussion or judgement takes place.
Every idea is recorded no matter how bizarre or irrational.
How to Brainstorm
1. Keep a relaxed atmosphere. Meetings should be disciplined but informal.

If possible, choose an informal venue.
2. Get the right size of team. The technique seems to work best with groups
of 5 to 7 people.
3. Choose a leader. The leader checks that everyone understands what is

going on and why.
4. Define the problem clearly.

5. Generate as many ideas as possible.
6. Do not allow any evaluation and discussion.
7. Give everyone equal opportunity to contribute.
8. Write down EVERY idea — clearly and where everyone can see them.
9. When all the ideas are listed, review them for clarification, making
sure everyone understands each item. At this point you can eliminate
duplications and remove ide the group feels are no longer appropriate.
10.Allow ideas to incubate. Brainstorm in sessions with perhaps a few

days in between.
This gives time for the team to let the ideas turn over in their mind,
which often
results in new ideas at a later session.
Approaches to Brainstorming
One-at-a-time
A member of the group offers one idea and the session continues this
way until everyone has had a chance to add to the list.
Open Door or Freewheeling
Anyone who has a contribution speaks whenever he or she wants.
Write-it down
Ideas are written down rather than stated out loud, but everyone must
be able to see each idea listed.
Cause and effect diagram

Also called the ‘Fishbone Diagram’, this participatory exercise explores

the links between the effects and the possible causes of an issue. This tool
encourages a group setting for problem —solving and demonstrates that
problems can have a number of causes.
What is it?
Cause and effect analysis is a technique for identifying the possible

causes of a problem or effect. The technique uses a Cause and Effect Diagram
to record the possible causes as they are suggested.
When should you use it?
Use this tool when you want to establish the cause of an effect. The effect
may be either a problem or a desirable effect — when something desirable has
happened it is useful to find out what caused it so you can make it happen
again.
Constructing a Cause and Effect Diagram
1. Establish what the problem, or effect, is. It must be stated in clear and
concise terms, agreed by everyone.
2. Write the effect (problem) in a box on the right and draw a long line
pointing to the box.
3. Decide the major categories of causes. This may be done in several ways:
• Brainstorming.
• Using standard categories such as the 4Ms (Machines, Materials,

Methods, Manpower) or PEMPEM (Plant, Equipment, Materials,
People, Environment, Methods).
• When the effect results from a recognisable process or set of

activities, the major steps in the process can be used.

4. Write the major categories in boxes parallel to, and some distance from,
the main line. Connect them to the main line with slanting arrows.
5. Brainstorm for possible causes.
• Add the causes to the diagram clustered around the major causes
they influence. Divide and sub-divide the causes to show how they
interact, and draw links between causes that are related. If the
diagram becomes too crowded, move one or more categories to a
new sheet of paper.
6. Evaluate and analyse the possible causes.
7. Decide and act.
• This will probably involve using other tools. For example, in order to
verify some of the possible causes identified you may need to collect data
(using checksheets) and analyse it (Pareto Analysis, graphs, etc.).

Checksheets
What is it?
A Checksheet is a tool for recording and organising data.
There are three kinds of Checksheets:
1. Recording Checksheet :
• Counts how many times something happens in pre-specified

categories
2. Checklist Checksheet:
• A list of items to be addressed in some predetermined manner

e.g. an inspection sequence that prevents steps or procedures from
being left out.
3. Location Checksheet:
• Records the relative or specific locations of defects, injuries,

accidents etc … Usually it is a picture or map of the item/area
under consideration on which the location of the defect etc. is
marked with a dot or a cross.
Why use it?
Checksheets will help you to gather and classify data. Checksheets

ensures that everyone collects comparable data in the same form, and in a
format that allows easy analysis.
Constructing a Checksheet
1. Decide what data you need to collect.

2. Decide how often the events will be observed (the frequency) and
over what total period (the duration).
3. Design a draft Checksheet. Put the items to be monitored on the

left and the time periods across the top. Allow space for totals on
the right for each item being observed and along the bottom for
the observation periods. Label the Checksheets clearly.
4. Test the draft Checksheet by getting someone who did not help
design it to use it.
5. Make any revisions that are necessary as a result of step 4.
6. Distribute the Checksheets to the people collecting the data and

explain how to use them.
7. Act on the data collected.
Flow Charting
What is it?
A flowchart is a diagram illustrating the activities in a process.
Why use it?
A flowchart can tell you a lot about a process and the activities involved
eg Are all the activities really necessary? What controls are in place?
Flowcharts are a useful tool to use when improving a process, especially

when you are planning to collect data or to implement a solution. They can
also be used to document a new process or to compare an existing process
with an ‘ideal’ process.
Flowcharts are a good communication tool — by using standard symbols

everyone will have the same understanding of the process.

Constructing a flowchart
1. Decide what level of detail the flowchart is to represent.
This will depend on the purpose for constructing the flowchart. On a

higher level flowchart several tasks which make up an activity will be
shown as one activity whereas on a lower level flowchart each task will
be shown separately.
2. List the activities in the process.
3. Draw the flowchart (sometimes this is done using standard symbols —

for example:
Stretched circle Start or end of process

Rectangle Step or activity in the process
Diamond Decision point
Arrow Direction of flow

Policy deployment
As the name suggests the basic concept in policy deployment is the

development of mechanisms for breaking overall strategic objectives of
the business down into small units, each of which can provide the target
for groups or individuals in their CI activities over a sustained period. For
example, in Nissan Cars the overall strategic target is cascaded down through
the organisation via the appraisal process, where everyone has the chance
to discuss and agree to certain objectives over the coming year, including a
range of targets for their own CI activities. This process — which is essentially
‘management by objectives’ — is a two- way one but the outcome is agreed
targets and a commitment on the part of the employee to achieving them, a
recognition that this is what will be used to assess performance over the coming
year, and an understanding that achievement will be related to rewards.
Its value in CI is to provide a focus and targeting process which moves

on from simply improving things on a project by project basis. In policy
deployment targets are linked to strategic objectives and local activities mesh
together to contribute to meeting these. For example, if the overall target
includes an objective to become competitive by reducing customer lead-time
by 25%, then policy deployment would ask, for each area, how they could
cut 25% of time out of their overall operations. In turn this would cascade
down to the individual units within the area, and down to the individual
teams, with the same question. Each individual team will then use CI tools to
explore the sources of wasted time, and the kinds of thing which might cut it
down — and on a project by project basis they would chip away at the time
taken within their area. In aggregate form this would result in major savings.
Two key features are important here — the use of ‘stretch’ targets which
give impetus, and the use of monitoring and measurement against these targets
as a way of guiding the process and maintaining momentum. In addition
there is a strong component of ‘know why’ as well as know-how — in other
words, there is an attempt to explain the rationale behind the strategy and
how improvements in a particular area contribute to it. For example, in a
chemical plant working towards the target of ‘zero breakdowns’ each machine
has detailed operating and maintaining instructions attached. These have
been developed through CI activity and include not only the new operating

procedures but also a section on why these steps are important. There is thus
an element of organisational learning, of turning tacit into formal knowledge.
Similar functions are performed by the storyboards which characterise progress
along the road to meeting strategic targets.
Policy deployment is concerned with strategic objectives so the timescales

for typical ‘campaigns’ are long. For example, in Japan the ‘mid-term plan is
the key driver in firms, and this represents a clear statement of objectives and
targets over the next 3 years.

Tools
Continuous Improvement: Specific Techniques
CI involves an extended journey, gradually building up skills and capabilities within the
organisation to find and solve problems. Not surprisingly there are many different
techniques which can help enable the process, and for a full account of them you should look
at the further information sources. What follows here are some brief explanations of basic
tools.
Specifically we will look at:

• problem-solving cycle;
• brainstorming;
• cause and effect diagrams;
• checksheets;
• flow diagrams;
• and an outline of policy deployment.
Problem-Solving Cycle
At its simplest, we can see continuous improvement as involving a cycle of problem-finding
and solving, like this:
In the first stage — identify — the organization recognizes that there is a problem to solve.
This may be an emergency or it may be a minor difficulty which has been nagging away for
some time; it may not even be a ‘problem’ but an experiment, an attempt to find out a new
way of doing something.
Whatever the initial stimulus, finding a problem then triggers the next stage which is to
define it more clearly. Here the issue is often to separate out the apparent problem (which
may only be a symptom) from the underlying problem to be solved. Defining it also puts
©2005 Joe Tidd, John Bessant, Keith Pavitt

www.wileyeurope.com/college/tidd
1

Tools
some boundaries around the problem; it may be necessary to break a big problem down into
smaller sub-problems which can be tackled — ‘eating the elephant a spoonful at a time’. It
can also clarify who ‘owns’ the problem — and thus who ought to be involved in its solution,
if the solution is to stick for the longer-term.
Having analysed the nature of the problem, the next stage is to explore ways of solving it.
There may be a single correct answer, as in crossword puzzles or simple arithmetic — but it is
much more likely to be an open-ended problem for which there may be a number of possible
solutions. The challenge at this stage is to explore as widely as possible — perhaps through
the use of brainstorming or other group tools — to generate as many potential solutions as
possible.
Next comes the selection of the most promising solutions to try out — essentially the reverse
of the previous stage since this involves trying to close down and focus from a wide range of
options. The selected option is then put into practice — and the results, successful or
otherwise, reviewed. On the basis of this evaluation, the problem may be solved, or it may
need another trip around the loop. It may even be the case that solving one problem brings
another to light.
In terms of learning, this is essentially a model for experimenting and evaluating. We gain
knowledge at various steps in the process — for example, about the boundaries of the
problem in defining it, or about potential solutions in exploring it or about what works and
what doesn’t work in implementing it. The point is that if we capture this learning it puts us
in a much better position to meet the next problem; if it is a repeat, we already know how to
solve it. If it is similar, we have a set of possible solutions which would be worth trying. And
if it is completely new, we still have the experience of a structured approach to problem
solving.
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is the rapid pooling of all and any ideas that a group of people can come up
with before any discussion or judgement takes place. Every idea is recorded no matter how
bizarre or irrational.
How to Brainstorm
1. Keep a relaxed atmosphere. Meetings should be disciplined but informal. If possible,
choose an informal venue.
2. Get the right size of team. The technique seems to work best with groups of 5 to 7
people.
3. Choose a leader. The leader checks that everyone understands what is going on and
why.
4. Define the problem clearly.
5. Generate as many ideas as possible.
6. Do not allow any evaluation and discussion.
7. Give everyone equal opportunity to contribute.
8. Write down EVERY idea — clearly and where everyone can see them.
9. When all the ideas are listed, review them for clarification, making sure everyone
understands each item. At this point you can eliminate duplications and remove ideas
the group feels are no longer appropriate.

2

Tools
10.Allow ideas to incubate. Brainstorm in sessions with perhaps a few days in between.
This gives time for the team to let the ideas turn over in their mind, which often
results in new ideas at a later session.
Approaches to Brainstorming
One-at-a-time
A member of the group offers one idea and the session continues this way until everyone
has had a chance to add to the list.
Open Door or Freewheeling

Anyone who has a contribution speaks whenever he or she wants.
Write-it down
Ideas are written down rather than stated out loud, but everyone must be able to see
each idea listed.
Cause and effect diagram
Also called the ‘Fishbone Diagram’, this participatory exercise explores the links between
the effects and the possible causes of an issue. This tool encourages a group setting for
problem —solving and demonstrates that problems can have a number of causes.
What is it?
Cause and effect analysis is a technique for identifying the possible causes of a problem
or effect. The technique uses a Cause and Effect Diagram to record the possible causes as
they are suggested.
When should you use it?

Use this tool when you want to establish the cause of an effect. The effect may be either a
problem or a desirable effect — when something desirable has happened it is useful to
find out what caused it so you can make it happen again.
Constructing a Cause and Effect Diagram

1. Establish what the problem, or effect, is. It must be stated in clear and concise terms,
agreed by everyone.
2. Write the effect (problem) in a box on the right and draw a long line pointing to the
box.
3. Decide the major categories of causes. This may be done in several ways:
• Brainstorming.
• Using standard categories such as the 4Ms (Machines, Materials, Methods,
Manpower) or PEMPEM (Plant, Equipment, Materials, People, Environment,
Methods).
• When the effect results from a recognisable process or set of activities, the
major steps in the process can be used.
4. Write the major categories in boxes parallel to, and some distance from, the main
line. Connect them to the main line with slanting arrows.
5. Brainstorm for possible causes.
• Add the causes to the diagram clustered around the major causes they
influence. Divide and sub-divide the causes to show how they interact, and

3

Tools
draw links between causes that are related. If the diagram becomes too
crowded, move one or more categories to a new sheet of paper.
6. Evaluate and analyse the possible causes.
7. Decide and act.
• This will probably involve using other tools. For example, in order to verify
some of the possible causes identified you may need to collect data (using
checksheets) and analyse it (Pareto Analysis, graphs, etc.).
Example of a cause and effect diagram
Checksheets
What is it?
A Checksheet is a tool for recording and organising data.
There are three kinds of Checksheets:

1. Recording Checksheet :
• Counts how many times something happens in pre-specified categories
2. Checklist Checksheet:
• A list of items to be addressed in some predetermined manner e.g. an
inspection sequence that prevents steps or procedures from being left out.
3. Location Checksheet:
• Records the relative or specific locations of defects, injuries, accidents etc …
Usually it is a picture or map of the item/area under consideration on which
the location of the defect etc. is marked with a dot or a cross.
Why use it?

Checksheets will help you to gather and classify data. Checksheets ensures that everyone
collects comparable data in the same form, and in a format that allows easy analysis.
Constructing a Checksheet
1. Decide what data you need to collect.
2. Decide how often the events will be observed (the frequency) and over what total
period (the duration).
3. Design a draft Checksheet. Put the items to be monitored on the left and the time
periods across the top. Allow space for totals on the right for each item being
observed and along the bottom for the observation periods. Label the Checksheets
clearly.

4

Tools
4. Test the draft Checksheet by getting someone who did not help design it to use it.
5. Make any revisions that are necessary as a result of step 4.
6. Distribute the Checksheets to the people collecting the data and explain how to use
them.
7. Act on the data collected.
Flow Charting
What is it?
A flowchart is a diagram illustrating the activities in a process.
Why use it?

A flowchart can tell you a lot about a process and the activities involved eg Are all the
activities really necessary? What controls are in place?
Flowcharts are a useful tool to use when improving a process, especially when you are
planning to collect data or to implement a solution. They can also be used to document a new
process or to compare an existing process with an ‘ideal’ process.
Flowcharts are a good communication tool — by using standard symbols everyone will have
the same understanding of the process.
Constructing a flowchart
1. Decide what level of detail the flowchart is to represent.
This will depend on the purpose for constructing the flowchart. On a higher level
flowchart several tasks which make up an activity will be shown as one activity
whereas on a lower level flowchart each task will be shown separately.
2. List the activities in the process.
3. Draw the flowchart (sometimes this is done using standard symbols — for example:
Stretched circle Start or end of process
Rectangle Step or activity in the process
Diamond Decision point
Arrow Direction of flow
This flow chart looks at the process of servicing a car:

5

Tools
Policy deployment
As the name suggests the basic concept in policy deployment is the development of
mechanisms for breaking overall strategic objectives of the business down into small units,
each of which can provide the target for groups or individuals in their CI activities over a
sustained period. For example, in Nissan Cars the overall strategic target is cascaded down
through the organisation via the appraisal process, where everyone has the chance to discuss
and agree to certain objectives over the coming year, including a range of targets for their
own CI activities. This process — which is essentially ‘management by objectives’ — is a two-
way one but the outcome is agreed targets and a commitment on the part of the employee to
achieving them, a recognition that this is what will be used to assess performance over the
coming year, and an understanding that achievement will be related to rewards.
Its value in CI is to provide a focus and targeting process which moves on from simply
improving things on a project by project basis. In policy deployment targets are linked to
strategic objectives and local activities mesh together to contribute to meeting these. For
example, if the overall target includes an objective to become competitive by reducing
customer lead-time by 25%, then policy deployment would ask, for each area, how they
could cut 25% of time out of their overall operations. In turn this would cascade down to
the individual units within the area, and down to the individual teams, with the same
question. Each individual team will then use CI tools to explore the sources of wasted
time, and the kinds of thing which might cut it down — and on a project by project basis
they would chip away at the time taken within their area. In aggregate form this would
result in major savings.
Two key features are important here — the use of ‘stretch’ targets which give impetus,
and the use of monitoring and measurement against these targets as a way of guiding the
process and maintaining momentum. In addition there is a strong component of ‘know
why’ as well as know-how — in other words, there is an attempt to explain the rationale
behind the strategy and how improvements in a particular area contribute to it. For
example, in a chemical plant working towards the target of ‘zero breakdowns’ each
machine has detailed operating and maintaining instructions attached. These have been
developed through CI activity and include not only the new operating procedures but
also a section on why these steps are important. There is thus an element of
organisational learning, of turning tacit into formal knowledge. Similar functions are
performed by the storyboards which characterise progress along the road to meeting
strategic targets.
Policy deployment is concerned with strategic objectives so the timescales for typical
‘campaigns’ are long. For example, in Japan the ‘mid-term plan is the key driver in firms,
and this represents a clear statement of objectives and targets over the next 3 years.

6

New Technology, Work and Employment 21:2

ISSN 0268-1072
Managing service innovation: the

need for selectivity rather than
‘best practice’
Joe Tidd and Frank M. Hull
In this paper we contrast the notions of best practice and
configurations contingent on environmental conditions. The
analysis draws upon our study of 38 UK and 70 US service
firms. Four system configurations are identified, and the
results provide an opportunity for updating the typologies
of services, and suggest that practices and performance are
multi-dimensional.
Introduction
We know a great deal about the organisation and management of new product devel-
opment in the manufacturing sectors, but comparatively little about how applicable
this is to the service sector (Miles, 2000; Tidd et al., 2005). In this paper we identify
product development practices that explain variation in performance in a sample of
38 service firms in the UK. These practices, which were derived from good manage-
ment practice in manufacturing industries, were found to explain significant variance
in performance indicators in the UK sample, a matching one in the USA of 70 firms,
and a dataset combining the two (Tidd and Hull, 2003). However, scales measuring
sets of ‘best management practices’ constructed from the combined data better fit the
USA than UK sample. Therefore, this paper builds new scales from analysis of only
the UK data. The objective is to see whether some configurations of practice better
predict performance outcomes in the UK data than the model of ‘best practice’ based
principally on the US data.
A typology of organisation design is developed to classify the configurations
observed in the UK data. The typology provides a theoretical context for hypothesis-
❒ Joe Tidd (j.tidd@sussex.ac.uk) is Professor of Technology and Innovation Management and Deputy
Director of SPRU (Science and Technology Research), University of Sussex, UK. He has worked as
policy adviser to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), and was the academic member of the
Steering Committee for the DTI Innovation Review. Frank Hull is Professor in the Department of
Management at the Arizona State University. He was previously Professor at the Graduate Business
School at Fordham University, New York.
© 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA
Managing service innovation 139

ing which kinds of configurations are likely to have effects on which kind of perfor-
mance outcome. Using the typology to classify these service data is challenging
because contingency theory and the related notion of configurations were derived
largely from industrial studies conducted prior to the emergence of large service firms
and recent advances in information technology (IT) (Miozzo and Soete, 2001). Our
study provides an opportunity to update and extend the notions of contingency and
configuration to include service enterprises, and to identify the roles of IT in new
service development and delivery.
Theoretical framework
The dominant management research and literature on new product and service devel-
opment seeks to identify and to promote the notion of ‘best practice’ management and
organisation (e.g. Clark and Wheelwright, 1993; Cooper and Edgett, 1999). Much of
the best practice new product development today has been derived from the ‘lean’
approach to product development (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Womack and Jones,
1996), based entirely on practices in the manufacturing sector, principally the car
industry. However, the notion that different types of organisational structures and
management processes are appropriate for different kinds of tasks dates back to the
pioneering work of Burns and Stalker (1961) and Woodward (1965), and the develop-
ment of contingency theory. Central to contingency theory is the concept that no single
organisational structure is effective in all circumstances. Instead there is an optimal
organisational structure that best fits a given contingency, such as size, strategy, task
uncertainty or technology (Donaldson, 1996). Therefore, the better the fit between
organisation and contingency, the higher the organisational performance (Donaldson,
1999). This relationship between contingency, structure and performance has been
supported by a substantial body of research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, includ-
ing qualitative comparative case studies (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Chandler, 1966;
Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) and quantitative analysis of large samples (Child, 1972).
Contingency theory is strongly positivist, and has been much criticised, as it appears
to leave little scope for other influences, such as managerial choice or institutional pres-
sures (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Tidd, 2001). However, Child (1972) offers some
accommodation of the competing theories by allowing some ‘strategic choice’ within
boundaries determined by contingencies, an approach developed by Chandler (1990).
A significant body of research on the environment-strategy and strategy-structure
linkages supports this view (Dess et al., 1993; Miller, 1996). Specifically, the notion of
a ‘configuration’ is an internally consistent combination of strategy, organisation and
technology that provides superior performance in a given environment. For example,
the success of the multidivisional structure, or M-form, is associated with a strategy
of diversification into related product areas because the volume and complexity of
information strained the traditional functional structure (Chandler, 1966; 1990). Most
recently, a number of studies have begun to challenge the notion of a single ‘best prac-
tice’ and have re-examined the relationships between strategy, organisational struc-
ture and management processes (Thomas and Ramaswamy, 1996; Atuahene-Gima and
Ko, 2001; Kald et al., 2001). We adopt a similar position here, and argue that contin-
gencies influence the strategic configuration of management, organisation and tech-
nology, and that they constrain rather than fully determine ‘best practice’ (Tidd, 2001;
Tidd et al., 2005), what we have referred to as ‘strategic degrees of freedom’ (Tidd,
1993).
According to a large number of seminal studies, three contingencies appear to be
associated consistently with organisational structure: size, technological complexity
and task uncertainty. Much of the early research examined the relationship between
formalisation, specialisation and firm size, the Aston Group (Pugh et al., 1969; Pugh
and Hickson, 1976) being the most influential work on this subject. Woodward (1965)
identified technology as a contingency, and Perrow (1970) developed a finer grain
typology of technology, based on task analysability and variability. Similarly,
140 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) proposed that the rate of environmental change affected
the need for differentiation and integration within an organisation, and found
support for this in their comparative study of organisational structures in three
different sectors. Galbraith (1977) argued that as task uncertainty increases, more
information must be processed, which in turn influences the control and communica-
tion structures.
The basis of these early theoretical typologies and empirical taxonomies are
anchored on the dichotomy of the ‘mechanistic’ bureaucracy and the ‘organic’ type of
organisation design (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Organic designs are claimed to be best
for innovation, and mechanistic ones for cost efficiency (Hage, 1980; Hull and Hage,
1982). The organic type is claimed to be optimal for competition in complex, dynamic
environments; the mechanistic is optimal for stable, predictable environments
(Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). One reason the dichotomy is so fundamental is because
the strengths of each design correspond with the generic types of competitive advan-
tage, cost versus innovative differentiation respectively (Porter, 1990). Finer typologies
have been proposed, and more recently management researchers have developed
these ideas into more prescriptive management frameworks, which attempt to match
organisational structural templates to specific task environments (Mintzberg, 1979;
1983; 1994; Galbraith and Lawler, 1993; Galbraith, 1994). A common theme of such
work is that activities that are unpredictable or uncertain require relatively more inter-
personal methods of coordination and control than mechanistic-bureaucratic methods.
A review of 21 innovation research projects concludes ‘environmental uncertainty
influences both the magnitude and the nature of innovation . . . (which) suggests that
future research should adopt environmentally sensitive theories of organisational
innovation by explicitly controlling for the degree and the nature of environmental
uncertainty’ (Damanpour, 1991). In particular, perceptions of environmental uncer-
tainty appear to affect the organisation and management of new product development
(Souder et al., 1998; Hauptman and Hirji, 1999; Tidd and Bodley, 2002).
We can use these critical contingencies to develop a four-cell typology as shown in
Figure 1. On one axis we have complexity and uncertainty, and on the other size or
D. Organic technical-batch C. Hybrid mechanistic-organic

High
(a) Technical-batch (a) Continuous process

(b) Organic (b) Mixed organic-mechanistic
Complexity and dynamism
(c) Ad Hocracy (c) Professional bureaucracy
Performance Performance
Innovation Cost reduction and
innovation
A. Simple craft-batch B. Mechanistic bureaucracy
(a) Customized batch (a) Mass production

(b) Traditional-craft (b) Mechanistic
(c) Simple structure (c) Machine bureaucracy
Low
Customised service Cost reduction
Low Scale High

Sources: (a) Woodward, 1961; Collins and Hull, 1986; Hull and Collins, 1987; (b) Burns and
Stalker, 1961; Hage, 1980; Hull and Hage, 1982; Hull 1988; (c) Mintzberg, 1979;
Mintzberg and Quinn, 1996.
Figure 1: Typology of organisation design
© 2006 The Authors Managing service innovation 141


scale. This creates four broad organisation types: (A) simple craft-batch, (B) mecha-
nistic bureaucracy, (C) hybrid mechanistic-organic and (D) organic technical-batch.
The simple craft-batch type offers highly adaptive, customised services as its perfor-
mance advantage. Its relative simplicity enables it to be flexible and direct in devel-
opment and delivery, but it is relatively inefficient and has little incentive to innovate.
The mechanistic bureaucracy is the most efficient organisation, and is most appropri-
ate for high scale production, in stable environments. The hybrid type combines some
of the advantages of mechanistic efficiencies and organic organisation of professional
knowledge to achieve both cost and innovation advantages simultaneously (Duncan,
1976; Daft, 1978; Hage, 1980), what we refer to elsewhere as the ‘Janusian’ organisa-
tion (Isaksen and Tidd, 2006). For example, professional bureaucracies employ highly
skilled people to perform complex work that is partially regulated by mechanistic
standards required for control in large-scale settings (Mintzberg, 1979; Mintzberg and
Quinn, 1996). Finally, the organic technical-batch organisation is fully organic and
highly innovative, but at a lower scale of activity.
Type A—Simple craft-batch

In many simple services, production and consumption are more closely coupled than
for manufactured goods, in terms of time (when) and space (where). This character-
istic raises the issue of the appropriate degree of user interaction and service cus-
tomisation, and the necessary level of integration between ‘back office’ and ‘front
office’ operations. The near simultaneous production and consumption of services is
likely to influence the organisation of the development process. For example, both the
front (e.g. sales) and back office (e.g. logistics) functions in services are more likely to
have direct contact with customers, and to be exposed to customer problems and ideas
for potential improvement and innovation. Front office personnel produce the service
in close interaction with the customer, but production processes (e.g. supportive soft-
ware in the financial sector) are often equally important in the execution of the service.
For these reasons, Easingwood and Mahajan (1989) and Edgett and Parkinson (1994)
argue that both front and back office personnel should be closely involved in the
service development process, argue for closer integration of these groups in new
service development. However, fully integrated product development (cf. Clark and
Fujimoto, 1991) may not be possible in services due to the very high degree of
specialisation of different groups.
Type B—Mechanistic bureaucracy

In mechanistic, high volume service environments performance is often principally
process focused. The intangibility of many service offerings may make it more impor-
tant to use structured processes and tools to help create a shared understanding of the
service requirements within the organisation (Vermeulen and van der Aa, 2003).
For example, communication between functional groups and the development of a
shared understanding of a potential new service may be more difficult because the
people involved cannot see, feel or touch the product being developed (Ennew et al.,
1990).
Common approaches include: Total Quality Management (TQM), Quality standards
(ISO 9000 certification) and Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Process approaches
to performance improvement represent a viable alternative to product-focused stra-
tegies because service delivery is sometimes tantamount to the product itself. TQM is
being increasingly deployed in the service sector (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; McCabe,
2000), most recently in the guise of six sigma (derived from statistical process control
in high-volume manufacturing). The approach to, and benefits of TQM varies greatly
in the service sector, but in most cases the efforts have been applied to processes rather
than product offerings. For similar reasons, ISO 9000 has also increasing found appli-
cation in the service sector (Yearout, 1996). BPR achieved considerable popularity
during the 1990s (Davenport, 1995), but today is often part of broader initiatives to


adopt Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) or similar integrated systems (Trott and
Hoecht, 2004). The adoption of BPR has often focused on processes and their auto-
mation without including the (re)organisation of groups or (re)design of products
(Darnton and Darnton, 1997). Therefore, the main benefits associated with these formal
approaches to process improvement are savings in cost and time, rather than quality
or innovation (CSC Index, 1994; Braganza and Myers, 1997).
Significant improvements in Information and Communications Technologies (ITC)
have increased capabilities for Managing processes (Rayport and Sviokla, 1995). There
has been a great deal of interest in the application of IT to services (McCabe, 2000;
Miles, 2000), but the influence of ITC on the organisation of new product development
in service firms has received relatively little attention in the literature (notable excep-
tions include: Drew, 1995; Sundbo, 1997; Lievens and Moenaert, 2000). ITC are hypoth-
esised as having a positive impact on system integration because of the speed and
scope of data distribution, improving performance in terms of costs and time.
However, ITC are presumed to be more effective to the extent that it supports mature
processes and cross-functional organisation (Tidd and Bodley, 2002), and therefore
may have a negative effect on innovation. Similarly, ITC could represent a bottleneck
in new product development in services. Many of ‘legacy’ ITC systems date from the
1980s and 1990s, and are not easily adapted, or integrated with other systems. Fur-
thermore, the complexity of the systems may not allow people outside IT departments
to judge whether adjustments to the system are possible or not (Nightingale, 2003). In
addition, many firms have outsourced parts of their IT, resulting in increased com-
munication problems. As a result, potential new services may be constrained by IT
systems and tools.
Type C—Hybrid mechanistic-organic

Although innovation sometimes involves a discontinuous shift—something com-
pletely new or a response to dramatically changed conditions, most of the time it takes
place in incremental fashion. Studies of incremental process development suggest that
the cumulative gains in efficiency are often much greater over time than those that
come from occasional radical changes. Examples include continuous improvement,
and the ‘learning curve’ effect where productivity improves with increases in pro-
duction over time. In services a new addition to the range of financial services may
represent an incremental product innovation, but its impacts are likely to be less far-
reaching (and the attendant risks of its introduction lower) than a complete shift in
the nature of the service package—for example, the shift to direct-line systems instead
of offering financial services through intermediaries.
The particular mode of innovation strategy hypothesised as most congruent for this
type of service businesses is one of incremental process and product innovation, what
we refer to as RRR (Rapid, Reiterative, Redevelopment). This approach to product dif-
ferentiation accumulates numerous incremental innovations instead of striving for less
frequent, but more radical and risky innovations (Dewar and Dutton, 1986; Mintzberg
and Quinn, 1996). Short, repeated development cycles are hypothesised as making it
easier for systems to maintain closely integrated relationships while making con-
tinual adjustments, and allow different functional groups to have more frequent op-
portunities for inputs to process and product development. In addition, where firms
have made large infrastructure investments and/or face tight regulatory requirements
for new services, as is common in financial services, utilities and transportation, they
are more likely to adapt and extend existing services, rather than pursue more
radical innovations (Nightingale, 2003). Service firms are also more likely to have to
develop the capability to respond quickly to new services introduced by competitors
through imitation (Vermeulen and van der Aa, 2003). The strategy of RRR is also
hypothesised as improving innovation performance because its focus on reducing time
to market by reusing and recombing knowledge. This approach to innovation aims to
achieve both kinds of generic competitive advantage simultaneously, low cost and
innovation.


Type D—Organic technical-batch

Innovation is about generating, capturing, sharing and exploiting knowledge—
creating new possibilities through combining different knowledge sets (Tidd, 2006).
Research in manufacturing confirms the benefits of cross-functional teaming (Meyer,
1994; Kahn, 1996), especially to the extent that products are novel (Tidd, 1995; Liker
et al., 1999; Collins and Hull, 2002; Tidd and Bodley, 2002). One reason for its benefits
is that the group exerts some degree of control over individual behaviours, thereby
melding some of the equivalents of mechanistic design elements with organic ones
(Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986; Hull et al., 1996; Isaksen and Tidd, 2006). Concurrent
product development involves multiple functions simultaneously at early steps of
decision-making to maximise opportunities and preclude downstream problems, such
as difficulties with production, marketability and serviceability (Hartley, 1992; Susman
and Dean, 1992; Collins and Hull, 2002). Heterogeneous input typically results in
better solutions to complex, dynamic problems. Given the widespread availability of
ITC systems, and the relative ease of imitation of many new service offerings, it is
necessary to differentiate and compete in other ways, including the organisation of
tacit and systemic knowledge within the organisation, which is less visible and more
difficult for competitors to replicate (Tidd, 2006). Studies by de Brentani (1991) and
Edgett and Parkinson (1994) suggest that such organisational issues are one of the most
significant factors contributing to the success (or failure) of new service development.
Our intention here is not to develop yet another general typology of service organ-
isations (Hipp et al., 2000; Vermeulen and van der Aa, 2003), but rather to develop and
test a very specific taxonomy of organisation of service innovation and its influence
on performance. In a recent review of the literature on innovation in services Miles
(2000) argued that ‘the typical structures of service innovation do not follow those
depicted for manufacturing . . . despite some recent studies examining these themes,
we have very limited knowledge of the strategies pursued, and the structural and
other factors that are behind these . . . we need to establish and validate taxonomies
of service innovators and innovations . . . and we would suggest that it is also impor-
tant to examine non-IT technological innovations and the more organizational inno-
vations’. We and others have argued for some time that whilst generic good practices
do exist in the organisation of innovation, different organisational configurations will
be appropriate in different innovation contexts (Tidd, 1993; Tidd et al., 1997; Tidd,
2001).
Research methods
Samples and methodology
Based on a review of the literatures on new product and new service development,
and discussions with a small group of executives from prominent service companies,
we developed a detailed checklist of practices. This checklist was used in formal inter-
views and workshops to help us to develop and refine our postal questionnaire into
one that was appropriate for services. Many of the items had to be reconstructed at a
more abstract, general level because of the intangibility and diversity of service pro-
ducts. We discussed the initial case studies and questionnaire at two workshops for
those involved in new service development, one in London and the other in New York.
The 130 participants from 75 organisations provided further feedback on our proposed
framework and questionnaire. A user group of 18 service organisations was formed
from these events, and a total of 27 case studies were created from these 18 organisa-
tions. This user group and the more detailed case studies helped us to ground the for-
mulation of hypotheses and to better interpret the statistical results from the postal
surveys.
US sample
Participants in the survey were companies in the New York metropolitan area. Large
companies were targeted because they were more likely to have a broad experience


of process and product innovation, and structural differentiation increases the need
for integration provided by cross-functional organisation and process tools. From a
list of the 100 largest employers in Crain’s New York Directory, 58 service companies
were identified. Accounting, consulting, legal and non-profit organisations were not
pursued. A total of 120 questionnaires were mailed, and the preferred respondent was
someone in the service product development function, or alternatively persons in busi-
ness development, quality management or productivity improvement. Respondents
from 70 businesses in 51 corporations returned questionnaires. These included 11 of
the 12 largest publicly held corporations, and all but four employed more than 500
people. The distribution of categories of the US service sector sample is shown in the
Appendix A.
UK sample
Respondents were drawn from the alumni network of contacts of a business school.
The sample was one of convenience, and no claim is made for it being representative.
As shown in Appendix A, the UK sample reflects the composition of service in London
and the south-east of the UK, with a bias for financial services and consulting, similar
to the sample in New York. In total, 100 questionnaires were mailed, and after a
reminder 38 usable questionnaires were returned.
Analysis procedures
The scales were constructed using factor analyses only of the UK data (Varimax
method). The sets of practice items included in each scale are shown in Appendix B
along with Alpha coefficients. Factor loadings and Alphas for the USA and combined
samples are available (Tidd and Hull, 2003). Multiple regression analysis is used to
predict variation in performance measures. The step-wise method was used to maxi-
mise variance explained.
Measures
The measures were adapted from a 200-page inventory of best practices based on 16
case studies and analysis of 100 companies. Many of the items had to be reconstructed
at a more abstract, general level because of the intangibility and diversity of service
products. The questionnaire consisted of 150 questions using seven point Likert scales.
Pilot surveys were conducted in the USA and UK, and subsequent workshops in New
York and London were used to help to refine the questions for the service context.
Performance measures
Twelve items loaded in four factors in the UK data. The four scales are labelled: (1)
product innovation and quality; (2) improvements in service delivery process; (3) time
compression in development and delivery; and (4) cost reduction in development and
delivery.
Factor analysis of the questionnaire items within each of the OPTS (Organisation,
Processes, Tools and Technologies and Systems) categories resulted in five organisa-
tion loadings, three for process, three for tools and three for system. Factor analysis of
these 14 sets of practice resulted five loadings. Four of these included three practice
sets and are described below as configurations. A fifth factor contained only two. Each
of the 14 practice sets is tagged in Appendix B with the number of its factor within
each of the OPTS categories.
Best practice summary index, the sum of all 39 items in the 14 sets of practice, is
calculated to assess the overall relationship between practices and performance
outcomes.
As respondents were asked to self-report their own company’s performance (depen-
dent variables) there is a potential for ‘over-reporting’ performance. In postal surveys
such as these that rely on respondents to report both the independent and dependent
variables, there is a possibility that respondents’ implicit theories and beliefs might


shape their ratings of performance, to create an ‘halo effect’. Ideally, we would have
preferred to use other more objective sources to determine the dependent variables,
but this proved to be impractical, as many of the businesses examined were divisions
or subsidiaries of larger organisations, and did not publish separate performance data.
However, we are confident that these effects are not significant in this study because
we asked a wide range of questions relating to different aspects of service performance
(cost, time, quality, innovation and delivery), and these resulted in a wide variation is
responses, with no obvious consistent bias. In addition, our experiences with the user
group, and our interviews for the case studies provided further verification of the
survey findings.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Means and standard deviations are shown for the UK and US samples in Table 1.
Performance indicators do not differ significantly between the two samples. However,
three of the four configurations are lower in the UK as is an index summing best
practices. This contrast suggests a kind of dilemma. How can roughly similar levels
of performance be achieved with differing levels of practice? A resolution of this
seeming contradiction occurs if system configurations in the UK are more parsi-
monious in practices because their strategy narrowly focused on selected performance
outcomes instead of multiple kinds of advantage simultaneously as in the USA. A
system configuration approach might be more efficient for targeting specific kinds of
performance outcomes; the best practice paradigm approach more effective for
multiple outcomes.
Performance inter-relationships
Performance indicators are less strongly correlated with one another in the UK than
US data. The index of innovation and quality is significantly correlated with service
delivery, but not time compression and cost reduction. The correlation between time
compression and cost reduction falls short of significance. By contrast, all four of these
performance indicators are significantly inter-correlated in the US data. This suggests
companies in the UK sample may pursue niche strategies that do not require achiev-
ing multiple kinds of performance advantages simultaneously.
Practice inter-relationships
Sets of practice are less strongly correlated with one another in the UK than US data.
In the UK sample, 42 of 91 possible correlations among the 14 sets of practice are
insignificant and three are negative as shown in Table 2. Variation in the strength of
these relationships suggests the possibility of polymorphism. By contrast, only nine
of 91 possible correlations are insignificant in the US data and only one is negative
(not shown). This contrast suggests that the UK data may conform less closely to a
best practice paradigm.
System configurations
The notion of system configurations is explored as an alternative to an all-
encompassing best practice approach to performance improvement in the UK data.
Analysis of the 14 sets of practice loaded in five factors. Four of these had loadings
with three components and are deemed configurations for the purpose of exploratory
research. The fifth, with only two components, is designated as a subsystem. Inter-
estingly, each of the five organisation factors loaded in a configuration/subsystem.
This result supports the prospect that varied configuration may be represented in the
UK data.


Table 1: Correlations and descriptive statistics: UK (bold) and USA (italic)
Total I and Q Time Cost Service Configuration Configuration Configuration Configuration Subsystem OPTS
A B C D E
© 2006 The Authors

Total performance 1.00
1.00
Innovation and 0.54** 1.00
quality 0.81** 1.00
Time compression 0.46** -0.12 1.00
0.77** 0.71** 1.00
Cost reduction 0.48** -0.16 0.31 1.00
0.78** 0.62** 0.62** 1.00
Service delivery 0.87** 0.36* 0.25 0.25 1.00
0.91** 0.56** 0.51* 0.62** 1.00

Configuration A 0.58** 0.29 0.40* 0.28 0.40* 1.00
Project-based 0.60** 0.57** 0.52** 0.57** 0.50** 1.00
Configuration B 0.44** 0.44** -0.03 0.31 0.31 0.45** 1.00
Mass customization 0.56** 0.64** 0.61** 0.49** 0.39** 0.75** 1.00
Configuration C 0.54** 0.39* 0.43** 0.12 0.37* 0.48** 0.21 1.00
Cellular 0.61** 0.61** 0.57** 0.59** 0.50** 0.81** 0.66** 1.00
Configuration D 0.39* 0.55** -0.03 -0.10 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.36* 1.00
Organic-technical 0.60** 0.56** 0.56** 0.61** 0.48** 0.73** 0.62** 0.78** 1.00
Subsystem E 0.40* 0.30 -0.01 0.21 0.40* 0.44** 0.47** 0.24 0.24 1.00
Partnership process 0.54** 0.58** 0.54** 0.52** 0.39** 0.80** 0.69** 0.64** 0.57** 1.00
OPTS sum 0.66** 0.55** 0.26 0.19 0.50** 0.76** 0.65** 0.70** 0.69** 0.60** 1.00
0.66** 0.67** 0.62** 0.63** 0.53** 0.93** 0.82** 0.91** 0.86** 0.81** 1.00
UK mean 2.56 2.86 2.31 2.26 2.56 2.51* 2.49 2.48* 2.67* 2.60 2.55**
UK SD 0.51 0.83 0.78 0.97 0.68 0.64 0.72 0.65 0.75 0.69 0.49
USA mean 2.70 3.09 2.20 2.38 2.73 2.81 2.72 2.75 3.06 2.66 2.83
USA SD 0.74 0.71 0.98 1.00 0.86 0.73 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.81 0.58
**p = 0.01; *p = 0.05; t = p.10 (two-tailed significance).

OPTS, Organisation, Processes, Tools and Technologies and Systems.
UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL

Managing service innovation 147
157
158
148
Table 2: Correlation matrix of factors of performance and practices for the UK data
Total I and Q Time Cost Service O O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 P P1 P2 P3 T T1 T2 T3 S X1 X2 X3 OPTS
Total 1.00
performance
Innovation 0.54 1.00
and quality
Time 0.46 −0.12 1.00
Cost 0.47 −0.16 0.31 1.00
Service 0.87 0.36 0.25 0.25 1.00
Delivery
Organisation 0.52 0.46 0.25 0.31 0.35 1.00
Factor O1 0.20 0.13 −0.08 0.25 0.20 0.61 1.00
Factor O2 0.34 0.23 0.40 0.11 0.15 0.67 0.31 1.00
Factor O3 0.47 0.23 0.46 0.37 0.26 0.60 0.13 0.43 1.00
Factor O4 0.29 0.46 0.06 −0.06 0.15 0.68 0.12 0.16 0.12 1.00
New Technology, Work and Employment

Factor O5 0.33 0.50 −0.14 0.17 0.25 0.69 0.44 0.05 0.27 0.36 1.00

Process 0.64 0.41 0.13 0.33 0.53 0.59 0.60 0.37 0.14 0.28 0.49 1.00
Factor P1 0.48 0.39 0.07 0.08 0.48 0.42 0.52 0.20 0.12 0.26 0.33 0.78 1.00
Factor P2 0.52 0.20 0.27 0.37 0.39 0.58 0.57 0.55 0.20 0.19 0.34 0.87 0.49 1.00
Factor P3 0.54 0.47 −0.12 0.29 0.42 0.32 0.24 0.01 −0.04 0.19 0.50 0.73 0.40 0.46 1.00
Tools 0.47 0.40 0.29 0.08 0.30 0.45 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.46 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.35 0.21 1.00
Factor T1 0.34 0.16 0.37 0.04 0.26 0.21 −0.13 0.06 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.24 0.29 0.23 0.00 0.75 1.00
Factor T2 0.38 0.51 −0.02 −0.06 0.22 0.41 0.03 0.10 −0.11 0.66 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.67 0.13 1.00
Factor T3 0.16 0.06 0.18 0.30 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.02 0.14 0.45 0.42 0.15 0.45 0.37 0.50 0.16 0.12 1.00
System 0.55 0.54 0.16 -0.09 0.44 0.56 0.08 0.47 0.22 0.48 0.41 0.51 0.44 0.45 0.30 0.63 0.36 0.61 0.21 1.00
Factor S1 0.37 0.23 0.29 −0.02 0.28 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.16 −0.08 0.32 0.46 0.22 0.55 0.25 0.26 0.13 0.07 0.37 0.70 1.00
Factor S2 0.42 0.51 0.18 −0.19 0.29 0.56 0.05 0.43 0.35 0.54 0.31 0.33 0.40 0.25 0.13 0.58 0.48 0.51 0.02 0.83 0.32 1.00
Factor S3 0.39 0.50 −0.12 −0.16 0.38 0.37 0.10 0.26 −0.01 0.49 0.25 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.24 0.47 0.09 0.70 0.12 0.80 0.35 0.52 1.00
OPTS 0.66 0.55 0.26 0.19 0.50 0.82 0.45 0.52 0.35 0.59 0.60 0.78 0.62 0.71 0.49 0.75 0.47 0.57 0.45 0.84 0.56 0.72 0.62 1.00
Mean 2.56 2.86 2.31 2.26 2.56 2.48 2.43 2.45 2.36 2.63 2.54 2.60 2.76 2.47 2.64 2.49 2.42 2.73 2.28 2.64 2.60 2.65 2.68 2.55
SD 0.51 0.83 0.78 0.97 0.68 0.62 0.87 0.77 0.83 0.90 0.90 0.64 0.73 0.74 0.96 0.58 0.83 0.96 0.89 0.61 0.71 0.83 0.75 0.49
**p = 0.01 for coefficients greater than 0.41/*p = 0.05 for coefficients greater than 0.32 (two-tailed significance).
OPTS, Organisation, Processes, Tools and Technologies and Systems.
© 2006 The Authors

Best practice summary index

A best practice index, the sum of all practices, has an identical coefficient with total
performance in both the UK and the US data (r = 0.66). However, the coefficients are
weaker with each of the four components of performance in the UK data and insig-
nificantly so in the instances of time compression and cost reduction. By contrast, the
sum of best practices is strongly correlated with all four of the performance compo-
nents in the US data. This variation is consistent with the speculation that the UK data
conforms less closely to a best practices paradigm than the US data. Also, the mean
of the best practice summary index is lower in the UK than the USA.
As shown in Table 2, factors in the UK data have correlations that are as strong or
stronger than the best practice summary index for three of the four components of
performance: quality and innovation, time compression and cost reduction. By con-
trast, none of the factors in the US data have correlations that are as strong as the best
practice summary index. This contrast is consistent with the possibility that factors of
practice in the UK are characterised by more selective, parsimonious sets of practices
than in the US data.
To assess the relative contribution of each of the factors to performance in the UK,
all four were entered simultaneously into multiple regression analysis. System factors
explain significant amounts of variation in total performance and its four components
as shown in Table 3. Subsystem E is omitted because it has no significant main effects
if entered additionally. The greatest amounts of variance explained are for total per-
formance and innovation and quality.
Each factor has somewhat distinctive relationships with the four components of per-
formance. These relationships are summarised by type of factor in Figure 2. Also
shown is their rank order in terms of variance explained in each of the performance
measures.
Overall, the results are generally consistent with the four-cell typology developed
in Figure 1. Type D (integrated-innovative) is the most innovative; Type B (mechanis-
tic customisation) is the most cost-efficient. Type C (hybrid knowledge sharing) is best
for total performance. Type A (client project-orientated) is best at service delivery.
However, each of the types has nuances in practice and nomenclature that go beyond
the original formulation.
A. Client project orientation

Factor A uses project leaders to organise the involvement of everyone early on to
reduce handovers (O-2), the essence of concurrent product development (Collins and
Hull, 2002). Structured processes, such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD), are
used to identify and influence customer requirements. Processes are mapped and con-
tinuously improved (P-2). The system is integrated by the voice of the customer and
early involvement of the customer in need fulfilment (S-1). In terms of the OPTS frame-
work, Factor A is strong in Organisation, Tools and System constructs. The main gap
in Factor A is in tools/technology as none of the measures suggest technological
sophistication in either knowledge or ITC. However, the art and craft of project man-
agement, which is somewhat analogous to batch production in goods industries, may
provide a strong yet flexible type of enabling control over the development and de-
livery of customer-focused services.
To the extent Factor A corresponds with a craft-batch category in the typology, it is
hypothesised to achieve high levels of service delivery. This hypothesis is supported
by its significant effect in regression on service delivery. In addition, the organisation
component of this factor has an unanticipated significant effect on time compression
and cost reduction. These effects on performance are consistent with the inherent
flexibility of project-based systems, and the fact that Factor A is the only one having
a significant correlation with an index of environmental dynamism.1 This configura-
tion of the project-based organisation creates value in a way that has received rela-
tively little attention in mainstream management research, particularly in the service
sector (Gann and Salter, 1998; Hobday et al., 2000).


160
150
Table 3: Regression of performance measures on best practice and configurations
Total performance Innovation and quality Time compression Cost reduction Service delivery
Configuration Best Configuration Best Configuration Best Configuration Best Configuration Best
practice practice practice practice practice
New Technology, Work and Employment

Configuration A Project-based 0.30* — 0.25 t — 0.29*

Configuration B Mass customisation 0.24* 0.29* — 0.28 t —
Configuration C Cellular 0.35** 19 t 0.37* — 0.24 t.
Configuration D Organic-technological — 0.40** −0.23 t −0.25 t —
OPTS Σ Best practice — 0.66** — 0.55** — 0.22 t — 0.19 — 0.50**
R2 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.31 0.24 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.20 0.25
R2 adj. 0.42 0.43 0.37 0.29 0.17 0.02 0.10 0.01 16 0.23
F-ratio 9.9** 28.4** 8.3** 15.9** 3.6* 1.7 t 2.4* 1.3 4.5** 12.0**
**p = 0.01; *p = 0.05; t = p.10 (one-tailed significance).
© 2006 The Authors

(#) = Factor Loading, See Appendix B

D. Integrated innovative C. Hybrid knowledge sharing
O— Cross-functional collocation (4) O— Cellular grouping (3)
P— P—
T—Shared technology (2) T—Shared technology (1)
S— Reciprocal integration (3) S—Knowledge integration (2)
1. Innovation and quality (+) 1. Total performance (+)
4. Total performance 1. Time compression (+)
4. Service delivery 2. Service delivery (+)
4.Cost reduction (–) 3. Innovation and quality (+)
4.Time compression (–) 3.Cost reduction
A. Client project-oriented B. mechanistic customization
O— Project-based management (2) O—Customer involvement (5)
P—Customer focus (2) P—Standardization (3)
T— T—External linkages (3)
S—Holistic voice of customer (1) S—
1. Service delivery (+) 1. Cost reduction (+)
2. Total performance (+) 2. Innovation and quality (+)
2. Time compression (+) 3. Total performance (+)
2.Cost reduction (+) 3. Time compression
4. Innovation and quality 3. Service delivery
Figure 2: Configurations of organisation, process, tools, system and performance in

UK services3
Type A: case example

Many engineering consultancies fit this profile (Tidd and Hopkins, 2006). For example,
Arup is an international engineering consultancy firm that provides planning, design-
ing, engineering and project management services. The business demands the simul-
taneous achievement of innovative solutions and significant time compression
imposed by client and regulatory requirements. The organisation has established a
wide range of knowledge management initiatives to encourage sharing of know-how
and experience across projects. These initiatives range from organisational processes
and mechanisms, such as cross-functional communications meetings and skills net-
works, to technology-based approaches such as a project database and expert intranet.
To date, the former have been more successful than the latter. This may be due to the
difficulty of codifying tacit knowledge, which is difficult to store and retrieve elec-
tronically, and the unique environmental context of each project limiting the scope for
the reuse of standardised knowledge and experience.
B. Mechanistic customisation
Factor B is organised by the involvement of external customers in product develop-
ment and delivery process decisions (O-5). Standardisation is a key factor in control-
ling the relationship (P-3). Electronic links are used to exchange data with customers
and suppliers (T-3). To the extent it corresponds to a mechanistic bureaucracy in the
typology, it is hypothesised as achieving high levels cost leadership, which is sup-
ported by its significant regression on cost reduction.
In terms of the OPTS framework, product development and delivery is organised
around customers in Factor B. Setting standards for projects and products is a key
method of process control. Presumably customers help set these standards in confor-
mance with their requirements. The electronic interchange between Factor B and its
customers provides the capability for routinely adapting them to market demand.
In addition, this type also has a significant effect on product innovation and quality
that was unanticipated in the typology. One may speculate that mass customisation


with ITC has improved the capability of mechanistic firms to innovate. To the extent
the locus of innovation is external, the operations of Factor B differs appreciably from
a stereotypical mechanistic bureaucracy functioning as a closed system.
Type B: case example

For example, in British Gas Trading (BGT) standardised documentation and processes
are used as an instrument of management control, and yet many different types of
contract exist. Within BGT, there are formal procedures for assessing the financial per-
formance of projects, and all projects over a certain threshold require the business
owner to prepare a completion report within three months of completion. A project is
complete when all physical work is completed, all costs relating to the work have been
incurred, and all benefits have been delivered.
C. Hybrid knowledge sharing

In Factor C people are cross-trained and co-rewarded and organised in groups, which
reinforces their cellular identity (O-3). Electronic tools are distributed to all and enable
cell members to map processes, share best practices, and communicate lessons learned
online (T-1). Cellular systems are typically rather self-contained which may be one
reason companies in this factor are more likely to value knowledge, reuse it and share
it for achieving a balanced portfolio of performance advantages (S-2).
In terms of the OPTS framework, Factor C is strong in dimensions of organisation,
tools and system integration. Its lack of formal processes may be compensated by the
fact that tools/technologies may serve as surrogates, for example, common software
for project mapping and process mapping. It is perhaps the most well rounded of the
configurations in terms of the OPTS framework.
Factor C seems to correspond in some respects to a professional bureaucracy.
However, the extent to which knowledge is professionally based in a way analogous
to that held by scientists and engineers in industrial firms is unclear. Perhaps the cel-
lular group holds a kind of knowledge certification capability somewhat analogous to
professional standards. For example, its use of tools focuses principally on knowledge
management, for example, distributed databases, templates for process mapping, etc.
In any case, knowledge management seems to be a particular strength and is managed
as part of a continuous process, for example, online lessons learned databases, and
transfer of lessons learned.
To the extent Factor C corresponds to a hybrid system, it is hypothesised as achiev-
ing multiple kinds of performance advantage simultaneously. This hypothesis is sup-
ported because this configuration ranks highest in overall performance. It has weak
but statistically significant effects on product innovation and quality, time compres-
sion and service delivery (Table 1, r = 0.37–0.39, significant at five per cent level). The
organisational component of this configuration is also weakly, but significantly corre-
lated with cost reduction.2
Type C: case example

Cable and Wireless Global Markets (CWGM), a division of the UK telecom operator
Cable and Wireless, is a systems integrator and service provider, which designs, inte-
grates and operates telecommunications networks for multinational clients. CWGM
was established in 1996 to deal with the increasing number of non-standard and highly
complex outsourcing projects. The common processes and standards developed by the
parent company were found to be inappropriate for this type of business. In contrast
to the formal business processes and matrix structure used for simpler management
network services, CWGM has adopted a more flexible teaming approach, which
includes a ‘war room’ to help build relationships and promote communication
between team members and customers (Davies and Brady, 2000). In this way teams
can more easily work closely with customers to develop innovative service packages
of standardised products and customised applications to achieve the required service
level agreements for outsourcing.


D. Integrated innovative
Factor D organises co-located, cross-functional teams in a flattened hierarchy (O-4).
Communications are open regardless of rank, both face-to-face and via email (T-2). Its
technical base utilises expert systems and management information systems. Respon-
sibility for work is shared and partnering is practiced throughout the value chain
(S-2).
The organic design has many advantages for creativity and innovation (Damanpour,
1991; Isaksen and Tidd, 2006). They have dense communications facilitated by cross-
functional teams and physical collocation (Hull et al., 1996; Collins and Hull, 2002).
Cross-functional teaming, whereby different specialists are assigned to work on the
same project simultaneously, has been advocated and widely adopted in many com-
panies as a strategy to improve their product development process. Collaboration
among diverse functions typically provides better solutions to complex design prob-
lems (Gatenby, 1994). Physical co-location involves aggregating project team members
in common space to enhance rich communications among group members (Daft and
Lengel, 1986). Accordingly, Type D ranks significantly higher than other configuration
in innovation, but lowest in all other performance measures (Table 1, overall perfor-
mance index r = 0.39).
Type D: case example
For example, in BBC Worldwide (BBCW) speed/timeliness is essential to the processes
given its strategic nature. Processes are strongly time-driven—indeed, diagrammati-
cally they are captured in a timeline. A series of defined steps is defined, beginning
with the initial receipt of programme treatment, to the final sign-off by a senior
management committee. The process documentation at BBCW has inbuilt financial
measures as well as benchmarks against the success of previous programmes. The
quality of a bid is dependent on individuals and departments providing the required
information on a timely basis, together with robust ROI analyses and sales projections.
However, processes are able to evolve reactively to emergent business needs. For
example, if a new means of exploiting programmes arises (Video on demand, broad-
band video) these additional media can be included in the necessary documentation.
In the case of an emergency item that requires urgent approval, informal contacts are
exploited to minimise timescales, which is indicative of flexibility and the use of
networking.
Discussion
All four configurations had one or more significant effects on specific performance
indicators. Each configuration appears to have parsimoniously evolved or acquired
sufficient good practices to be viable at least in niche markets. Factor A compresses
time and improves service delivery by focusing on customer requirements and project
management; Factor B reduces costs by setting standards and through the involve-
ment of suppliers and customers; Factor C provides a combination of innovation and
efficiency by promoting team work and knowledge sharing; and Factor D raises inno-
vation and quality by means of cross functional groups supported by groupware and
other ITC, but this increased coordination raises the time and cost of service devel-
opment. Our findings suggest that each organisation type and the relationships with
performance indicators are multi-dimensional. Innovation and quality are improved
by cross-functional teams and sharing information (Factor D), raised by involvement
with customers and suppliers (Factor B), and by encouraging collaboration in teams
(Factor C). Service delivery is improved by customer focus and project management
(Factor A), and by knowledge sharing and collaboration in teams (Factor C). Time is
compressed by knowledge sharing and collaboration (Factor C), and customer focus
and project organisation (A), but cross-functional teams can prolong the process
(Factor D). Costs are reduced by setting standards for projects and products, and by
involvement of customers and suppliers (B), and increased by cross-functional teams
(D).


The viability of these configurations in the UK data argues for updating the stan-
dard contingency typologies to encompass advances in technology and making such
typologies more generic to better accommodate service as well as manufacturing
sectors. Examination of the actual measures suggests that each of the four system con-
figurations provide several common elements, including:
• organisational mode of bringing people together;
• control mechanisms, either impersonal (standards, documentation, common soft-
ware) or interpersonal (collocated teams);
• shared knowledge and/or technical information base;
• external linkages, for example, customers and/or partners/suppliers.
The traditional notion of simple craft-batch organisation needs rethinking in light
of the project-based organisation. Although lacking in tools, the project-based config-
uration was rather sophisticated in organisation and process. For example, its organ-
isation involved downstream functions early on. The processes deployed by Factor A
to incorporate the voice of the customer in their products were advanced, for example,
QFD, which is consistent with the fact that Factor A made more use of TQM and BPR
than any other (r = 0.39 and 0.53, respectively, not shown in Tables). Clearly then
service companies increasingly deploy project-based organisations to integrate
resources more quickly to serve their customers (Gann and Salter, 1998), which may
help to overcome some of the problems associated with the co-production of service
innovations between providers and their customers (Dolfsma, 2004). In sum, com-
panies in this niche may compensate for a lack of advanced technology with prowess
in organisational and process.
The mechanistic customised configuration differs from a traditional machine
bureaucracy in two important ways. First, the limitations of dedicated assembly-line
equipment during the period when Woodward’s mass production type was first
described have been largely surmounted by flexible, programmable automation (Tidd,
1991; Collins and Hull, 2002). Second, the openness of Factor B to customers contrasts
with the closed systems of the past that produced large quantities of standard units
to stock (Mintzberg, 1979). Its programmable capabilities enable a degree of mass cus-
tomisation that was impractical in earlier era of dedicated equipment for specialised
production. Trott and Hoecht (2004) have argued that ERP systems may increase
control and efficiency through increased standardisation of process and products, but
are likely to limit innovation, but our findings suggest that there is still some scope
for new service development within such environments. Developments in ITC have
enabled mass producers to customise products more easily through platform products
(Meyer and DeTore, 2001), and to respond to the voice of customers in new ways.
Professional bureaucracies have often been burdened by conflicting masters, the
knowledge-based codes of professional conduct and large-scale administrative
requirements. However, the growing volume and specialisation of knowledge chal-
lenges the boundaries of traditional professions and has weakened external control
over internal activities within corporations. A growing number of loosely regulated
communities of practice have emerged both within and across different subject-based
disciplines. The hybrid knowledge-sharing configuration enables a relatively self-
contained group of people to become experts in developing and delivering products
as quasi professionals. This type of organisation thereby provides some of the advan-
tages of codified knowledge with far less hierarchical control by bureaucratic forms,
consistent with the view that most service innovations demand greater knowledge
sharing than in conventional product development (den Hertog, 2000).
An organic organisational design originally meant little more than the absence of
bureaucratic constraints. Today the integrated innovative type of configuration has a
more active agenda. Relatively more influence and resources are given to project teams
instead of functional departments. Open communications are not left to chance
encounters, but structured by collocated, cross-functional teams deployed in flat hier-
archies so that communications are more horizontal than vertical. Therefore, in a
service environment, even the most organic structures may require more structured


elements to help overcome the intangible nature of new service development (de
Brentani, 2001; Dolfsma, 2004).
Summary and conclusions

The four system configurations identified and described above seem to fit the UK data
better than the more generic ‘best practice’ framework of new service development.
The four configurations feature different combinations of components of the OPTS
model, and appear to confer performance advantages for different environmental
niches. The four types of organisation identified are associated with different types of
service performance, which confirms the general validity of extending the contingency
approach to services. However, the more important finding is the multi-dimensionality
of both practices and performance. The traditional organic-mechanistic continuum
differentiates into a number of almost independent dimensions, including project
organisation, knowledge sharing and rewarding collaboration, and cross-functional
teams. Similarly, performance is multi-dimensional, and the simple efficiency-
innovation trade-off is replaced with at least four elements: cost, time, delivery and
innovation. For researchers, this indicates that empirically informed taxonomies of
service organisation can be used to extend theoretically derived typologies based on
ideal types. For example, one widely used typology of services is based on two simple
dimensions: labour intensity, and degree of customisation or direct contact with cus-
tomers (Schmenner, 1996). This would also suggest four distinct service configura-
tions, but does not take into account the finer-level granularity of the linkages between
practices and performance revealed by our study. For example, financial services are
typically characterised as an example of a ‘service factory’ or ‘mass services’, based
only on the scale of output. Our approach is more consistent with other taxonomic
approaches that have attempted to link the application of specific technological inno-
vations with changes in the nature of services (Miozzo and Soete, 2001; Nightingale,
2003). For practicing managers, this suggests that pursuing a long list of ‘good prac-
tices’ in new service development is likely to be inferior to being more selective of
specific practices, which are likely to lead to an improvement in particular aspects
of service performance.
Limitations of the study include heterogeneity in the sample, which is partly due to
the diversity of the service sector. No small service organisations were represented in
the two samples, so the effects of scale were not captured. A particular gap in the
applying the best practice paradigm derived from industry to services is its weaker
capability of explaining service delivery performance. Variance explained in service
delivery was less than half that for product innovation and quality. One reason is
because much of the value customers perceive in service product may be closely tied
to delivery processes; especially to the extent interpersonal exchanges are involved
(Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Storey and Barnett, 2000). To be more predictive of overall
service performance, future research needs to be more inclusive of delivery process.
Also, replication in a wider range of service environments is necessary, including engi-
neering services (Tidd and Hopkins, 2006) and the public sector.
Notes
1. The index of environmental dynamism sums six factors (Technological complexity of service
products, Rate of service product introduction, Compatibility of service products with other
products, Customisation, Globalisation, and Quality) in terms of increased challenge in
market requirements and turbulence.
2. The organizational factor of Configuration C, Cellular grouping, is significantly correlated
with cost reduction (r = 0.38, not shown in Tables).
3. Partnership process subsystem:
O—Partner involvement (1).
P—Documentation (1).


References
Atuahene-Gima, K. and A. Ko (2001), ‘An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Market Ori-
entation Alignment on Product Innovation’, Organization Science 12, 1, 54–74.
Braganza, A. and A. Myers (eds) (1997), Business Process Redesign: A View from the Inside (London:
International Thomson Business Press).
de Brentani, U. (1991), ‘Success Factors in Developing New Business Services’, European Journal
of Marketing 25, 2, 33–59.
de Brentani, U. (2001), ‘Innovative versus Incremental New Business Services: Different Keys for
Achieving Success’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 18, 169–187.
Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker (1961), The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock).
CSC Index (1994), The State of Re-Engineering (London: CSC Index).
Chandler, A.D. (1966), Strategy and Structure (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Chandler, A.D. (1990), Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Child, J. (1972), ‘Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic
Choice’, Sociology 6, 1–22.
Clark, K.B. and S.C. Wheelwright (1993), Managing New Product and Process Development: Text and
Cases (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School).
Clark, K.B. and T. Fujimoto (1991), Product Development Performance (Boston, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press).
Collins, P. and F.M. Hull (2002), ‘Early Simultaneous Involvement in New Product Develop-
ment’, International Journal of Innovation Management 6, 1, 1–24.
Cooper, R.G. and S. Edgett (1999), ‘Critical Success Factors for New Financial Services’, Market-
ing Management 5, 3, 26–37.
Daft, R.L. (1978), ‘A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation’, Academy of Management
Journal 24, 68–82.
Daft, R.L. and R.H. Lengel (1986), ‘Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness,
and Structural Design’, Management Science 32, 5, 554–571.
Damanpour, F. (1991), ‘Structure Correlates of Innovation: A Meta-analysis’, Academy of
Management Journal 34, 555–590.
Darnton, G. and M. Darnton (1997), Business Process Analysis (London: International Thomson
Business Press).
Davenport, T.H. (1995), ‘Business Process Reengineering: Its Past, Present, and Possible Future’,
Harvard Business Review November, 59–70.
Davies, A. and T. Brady (2000), ‘Organisational Capabilities and Learning in Complex Product
Systems: Towards Repeatable Solutions’, Research Policy 29, 7–8, 931–953.
den Hertog, P. (2000), ‘Knowledge-Intensive Business Services as Co-producers of Innovation’,
International Journal of Innovation Management 4, 4, 491–528.
Dess, G.G., S. Newport and A.M.A. Rasheed (1993), ‘Configuration Research in Strategic
Management: Key Issues and Suggestions’, Journal of Management 19, 4, 775–795.
Dewar, D. and J.E. Dutton (1986), ‘The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An
Empirical Analysis’, Management Science 32, 11, 1422–1433.
Dolfsma, W. (2004), ‘The Process of New Service Development: Issues of Formalization and
Appropriability’, International Journal of Innovation Management 8, 3, 319–337.
Donaldson, L. (1996), For Positivist Organization Theory (London: Sage).
Donaldson, L. (1999), Performance Driven Organizational Change (London: Sage).
Drew, S. (1995), ‘Accelerating Innovation in Financial Services’, Long Range Planning 28, 4,
11–21.
Duncan, R.B. (1976), ‘The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures For Innova-
tion’, in R.H. Killman, L.R. Pondy and D. Slevin (eds), The Management of Organization Design
(New York: North-Holland), pp. 167–188.
Easingwood, C. and V. Mahajan (1989), ‘Positioning of Financial Services for Competitive Advan-
tage’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 6, 207–219.
Edgett, S. and S. Parkinson (1994), ‘The Development of New Financial Services. Identifying
Determinants of Success and Failure’, International Journal of Service Industry Management 5, 4,
24–38.
Ennew, C.T., M. Wright and T. Watkins (1990), ‘New Competition in Financial Services’, Long
Range Planning 23, 6, 80–90.
Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organization Design (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Galbraith, J.R. (1994), Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations (Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley).
Galbraith, J.R. and E.E. Lawler (1993), Organizing for the Future (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss).


Gann, D. and A. Salter (1998), ‘Learning and Innovation Management in Project-Based, Service-
Enhanced Firms’, International Journal of Innovation Management 2, 4, 431–543.
Gatenby, D.A. (1994), ‘Concurrent Engineering: An Enabler for Fast, High-Quality Product Real-
ization’, Bell Technical Journal VII, 34–47.
Hage, G. (1980), Theories of Organization (New York: Wiley).
Hartley, J.R. (1992), Concurrent Engineering: Shortening Lead Times, Raising Quality, and Lowering
Costs (Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press).
Hauptman, O. and K.K. Hirji (1999), ‘Managing Integration and Co-Ordination in Cross-
Functional Teams’, R&D Management 29, 2, 179–191.
Hipp, C., B.S. Tether and I. Miles (2000), ‘The Incidence and Effects of Innovation in Services:
Evidence from Germany’, International Journal of Innovation Management 4, 4, 417–454.
Hobday, M., H. Rush and J. Tidd (2000), ‘Innovation in Complex Products and Systems’, Research
Policy 29, 7–8, 793–804.
Hull, F. and J. Hage (1982), ‘Organizing for Innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker’s Organic
Type’, Sociology 16, 546–547.
Hull, F., P. Collins and J. Liker (1996), ‘Composite Forms of Organization as a Strategy for
Concurrent Engineering Effectiveness’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 43, 2,
133–142.
Isaksen, S. and J. Tidd (2006), Meeting the Innovation Challenge: Leadership for Transformation and
Growth (Chichester: Wiley).
Kahn, K.B. (1996), ‘Inter-departmental Integration: Implications for Product Development Per-
formance’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 13, 137–151.
Kald, M., F. Nilsson and B. Rapp (2001), ‘On Strategy and Management Control: The
Importance of Classifying the Strategy of the Business’, British Journal of Management 11, 3,
197–212.
Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and
Integration (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Lievens, A. and R.K. Moenaert (2000), ‘Project Team Communication in Financial Service Inno-
vation’, Journal of Management Studies 5, 37, 733–766.
Liker, J., P. Collins and F. Hull (1999), ‘Flexibility and Standardization: Test of a Contingency
Model of Product Design-Manufacturing Integration’, Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 16, 248–267.
McCabe, D. (2000), ‘The Swings and Roundabouts of Innovating for Quality in UK Financial
Services’, The Service Industries Journal 20, 4, 1–20.
Meyer, C. (1994), ‘How the Right Measures Help Teams Excel’, Harvard Business Review 72, 3,
95–104.
Meyer, M.H. and A. DeTore (2000), ‘Perspective: Creating a Platform-Based Approach for Devel-
oping New Services’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 18, 188–204.
Miles, I. (2000), ‘Services Innovation: Coming of Age in the Knowledge-Based Economy’, Inter-
national Journal of Innovation Management 4, 4, 371–389.
Miller, D. (1996), ‘Configurations Revisited’, Strategic Management Journal 17, 505–512.
Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Mintzberg, H. (1983), The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper & Row).
Mintzberg, H. (1994), ‘Rethinking Strategic Planning’, Long Range Planning 27, 3, 12–30.
Mintzberg, H. and B. Quinn (1996), The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Miozzo, M. and L. Soete (2001), ‘Internationalization of Services: A Technological Perspective’,
Technology Forecasting and Social Change 67, 2–3, 115–328.
Nightingale, P. (2003), ‘Of Barnacles and Banking: Innovation in Financial Services’, in J. Tidd
and F.M. Hull (eds), 2003 Service Innovation: Organizational Responses to Market Imperatives and
Technological Opportunities (London: Imperial College Press), pp. 271–299.
Perrow, C. (1970), Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View (London: Tavistock).
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York, NY: Free Press).
Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Pugh, D.S. and D.J. Hickson (1976), Organizational Structure in Its Context: The Aston Programme
I (Hants: Saxon House).
Pugh, D.S., D.J. Hickson, C.R. Hinings and C. Turner (1969), ‘The Context of Organization Struc-
ture’, Administrative Science Quarterly 14, 1, 91–114.
Rayport, J. and J. Sviokla (1995), ‘Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain’, Harvard Business Review
November/December, 75–87.
Reichheld, F. and W. Earl Sasser (1990), ‘Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services’, Harvard
Business Review 68, 105–111.


Schmenner, R.W. (1996), ‘How Can Service Businesses Survive and Prosper?’ Sloan Management
Review 27, 3, 21–32.
Souder, W.E., J.D. Sherman and R. Davies-Cooper (1998), ‘Environmental Uncertainty, Organ-
izational Integration, and New Product Development Effectiveness: A Test of Contingency
Theory’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 15, 520–533.
Storey, J. and Barnett, E. (2000), ‘Knowledge Management Initiatives: Learning from Failure’,
Journal of Knowledge Management 4, 2, 145–156.
Sundbo, J. (1997), ‘Management of Innovation In Services’, The Service Industries Journal 17, 3,
432–455.
Susman, G.I. and J.W. Dean Jr (1992), ‘Development of a Model for Predicting Design for
Manufacturability Effectiveness’, in G.I. Susman (ed.), Integrating Design and Manufacturing for
Competitive Advantage (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 207–227.
Takeuchi, H. and I. Nonaka (1986), ‘The New Product Development Game’, Harvard Business
Review January–February, 137–146.
Thomas, A.S. and K. Ramaswamy (1996), ‘Matching Managers to Strategy: Further Tests of the
Miles and Snow Typology’, British Journal of Management 7, 3, 247–261.
Tidd, J. (1991), Flexible Manufacturing Systems and International Competitiveness (London: Cassell).
Tidd, J. (1993), ‘Technological Innovation, Organisational Linkages and Strategic Degrees of
Freedom’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 5, 3, 273–285.
Tidd, J. (1995), ‘The Development of Novel Products through Intra- & Inter-organizational
Networks: The Case of Home Automation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 12, 4,
307–322.
Tidd, J. (2001), ‘Innovation Management in Context: Environment, Organization and Perfor-
mance’, International Journal of Management Reviews 3, 3, 169–197.
Tidd, J. (2006), From Knowledge Management to Strategic Competence, 2nd edn (London: Imperial
College Press).
Tidd, J. and F. Hull (2003), Service Innovation: Organizational Responses to Market Imperatives and
Technological Opportunities (London: Imperial College Press).
Tidd, J. and K. Bodley (2002), ‘The Influence of Project Novelty on the New Product Develop-
ment Process’, R&D Management 32, 2, 127–138.
Tidd, J. and M. Hopkins (2006), ‘Managing Project Knowledge to Capture Value in Technology
and Engineering Consultancies’, 15th International Association of Management of Technology
(IAMOT 15) Conference, Beijing, May 2006.
Tidd, J., J. Bessant and K. Pavitt (1997), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market &
Organisational Change (Chichester: Wiley).
Tidd, J., J. Bessant and K. Pavitt (2005), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market &
Organisational Change, 3rd edn (Chichester: Wiley).
Trott, P. and A. Hoecht (2004), ‘Enterprise Resource Planning and its Impact in the Innovative
Capability of the Firm’, International Journal of Innovation Management 8, 4, 381–198.
Vermeulen, P. and W. van der Aa (2003), ‘Organizing Innovation in Services’, in J. Tidd and F.M.
Hull (eds), Service Innovation: Organizational Responses to Technological Opportunities and Market
Imperatives (London: Imperial College Press), pp. 35–54.
Womack, J.P. and D.T. Jones (1996), Lean Thinking (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster).
Woodward, J. (1965), Industrial Organizational: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Yearout, S. (1996), ‘The Secrets of Improvement-Driven Organizations’, Quality Progress January,
22–38.


Appendix A: Types of companies in samples
Category UK US
Financial services 13 18
Retail banking 1 5
Credit card — 3
Lending 2 2
Private banking — 1
Investment services 10 7
Insurance 2 8
Consulting services 5 4
Construction — 1
Distribution/logistics (*) 2 6
Education/training 0 1
Healthcare 4 8
Diagnostic services 2 4
Hospital 1 1
Pharmaceutical services 1 2
Manufacturing related services (**) — 4
Non-profit 1 3
Publishing 1 2
Retail 2 3
Travel/hotel 3 2
Telecommunications 2 5
Transportation 3 5
Total 38 70
*Utilities, Engineering Services, Distribution of Product, etc.

**Credit, Risk, etc.
Appendix B: Measures
# Factor a UK a USA
Performance improvement 0.77 0.94

Product innovation and quality 1 0.88 0.85
New features
Upgraded features
Higher quality
Time compression 3 0.59 0.95
a. Shorter time from concept to test market of service
product
b. Shorter time from test market to full-scale delivery of
the service product
Cost reduction 4 0.74 0.87
a. Reduced cost of service product development
b. Reduced cost of service product delivery
Service delivery improvement 2 0.75 0.91
a. Shorter response time to order for existing service
products
b. Shorter time for adjustments to complaints
c. Better after sales support services
d. Higher quality of delivery process, e.g. fewer
customer complaints


Appendix B: Continued
# Factor a UK a USA
e. Conformance with service product development

process and procedures
Configuration A—Project-based batches 0.74 0.95
Organisation—Project-based management O2 0.62 0.85
Strengthening the role of project managers
Reorganisation of jobs to reduce hand-offs
Increasing the influence of downstream functions in
upstream decisions, e.g. customer service input in
product development
Process—Customer focus P2 0.74 0.78
a. Using structured processes for identifying customer
needs and translating into requirements (QFD)
b. Institutionalising systematic reviews for development
projects
c. Mapping processes to reduce non-value activities
d. Institutionalising continuous improvement processes
System—Holistic voice of customer S1 0.79 0.70
a. Align competing product requirements by focusing
on ‘Voice of the Customer’.
b. Cultivate staff to provide holistic, system-wide
thinking as well as specialised knowledge
c. Involve customers early in the service product
development process, pulling the product design in
the direction of customer needs
Configuration B—Mechanistic customization 0.81 0.88
Organisation—Customer involvement O5 0.69 0.79
a. Involvement of customers in decisions about service
product development
b. Involvement of customers in decisions about delivery
processes
Process—Standardisation P3 0.62 0.64
a. Setting performance criteria for projects
b. Setting standards for the performance of products
Tools—External linkages: T3 0.59 0.71
Electronic Data Interchange with customers
Electronic data interchange with suppliers
Configuration C—Cellular hybrid 0.62 0.83
Organisation—Cellular grouping O3 0.70 0.69
a. Cross-training specialists
b. Rewarding project teams/groups
Tools—Shared technology T1 0.71 0.80
Building online databases with lessons learned and
best practice templates
Distributed databases online to multiple functions
Common software for project management
Common software for process mapping
System—Knowledge integration S2 0.75 0.64
View knowledge as a paramount competitive
advantage to be gained from outside as well as
inside the company


Appendix B: Continued
# Factor a UK a USA
Transfer lessons learned from previous activities to

succeeding people so that they build upon an
existing base to reach ever higher future targets
Focus on achieving a balanced portfolio of competitive
advantages for which customers are willing to pay,
e.g. cost with novelty
Configuration D—Organic technical-batch 0.78 0.89
Organisation—Cross-functional collocation O4 0.69 0.74
a. Cross-functional teaming
b. Collocation
c. Flatter hierarchy in the organisation chart
T2. Internal technology T2 0.74 0.65
a. Expert Systems
b. Management Information Systems
c. Email
S3. Reciprocal integration S3 0.67 0.67
a. Involve all functions throughout the development
and delivery process with few hand-offs so that every
works together reciprocally—sharing responsibility
for the service product
b. Act as a good partner with others, such as suppliers,
external service providers, alliance partners and
customers, in creating and maintaining mutual
win/win scenarios
c. Open communication channels to all functions and
ranks in the organization
E. Subsystem—Partnership process 0.78 0.89
Organisation—Partner involvement O1 0.86 0.84
Involvement of external partners/suppliers in
decisions about service product development
Involvement of external partners/suppliers in
decisions about changes in service delivery processes
Process—Documentation P1 0.73 0.70
a. Benchmarking best-in-class companies
b. Improving documentation of processes
c. Measuring conformance with processes


Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 18, Number 4, pp. 551–574

doi:10.1093/icc/dtp019
Advance Access published July 1, 2009
The practice of routines and

representations in design and
development
Mike Hales and Joe Tidd
Downloaded from http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidade Federal do ParanÃ¡ on March 3, 2013

Using observational data from a longitudinal real-time field study, we contribute
theoretically, empirically, and methodologically to the role of routines in new
product design and development. We focus on the work being done by formal
representations and formal routines in the design and development of a complex
capital good. We find that, contrary to the emphasis in much of the literature,
formal routines and representations, in particular those embodied in artifacts,
while pervasive, play only a limited role. Rather, of greater influence are the
various non-formal representations used to support interaction and communi-
cation: representations from routines (and elsewhere), instead of formal represen-
tation of routines. We propose a rebalancing of the relationships between
routines and representations, a dialectical and mediating—in contrast to a linear
and genetic—relationship.
1. Introduction
In this article, we examine the work done by routines and representations in the
design and development of a new product, building upon the significant discussion
of “ostensive and performative” aspects of routines which has emerged in recent
years (Feldman and Pentland, 2003), with a particular focus on the role of various
representations and “artefacts” play (Pentland and Feldman, 2005). Thus, artifacts
and actual performances of work are the key foci of our study, and our goal is to
clarify the ways in which representations (notably representational artifacts, such
as documents), formal routines (notably a standard process for global product devel-
opment), and performances of workplace interaction contribute to the strategic work
of conceptual design and development of a complex capital good.
In the field of routines research in innovation, theorization of representations
is under-developed, although scholars in a number of fields are now beginning
to draw attention to the importance of such practices (e.g., Whyte and Ewenstein,
2007; Whyte et al., 2008). It is common to mistake the representation for the routine,
The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved.

552 M. Hales and J. Tidd
especially, where information technology is used to codify these representations

and enforce them in the workplace, for example, ERP—Enterprise Resource
Planning (Trott and Hoecht, 2004). However, contrary to this view, we find
that formal routines and representations of this kind play a very narrow role in
practice, and instead much of the real work in design and development is done
by non-formal representations and artifacts, which support interaction and
communication.
We argue that many of the conceptualizations of representations that have
appeared in the routines literature are not consistent with the recent work,

namely, observational fieldwork approaches on one hand and “performance”-
oriented theorization on the other, most notably Feldman and Pentland’s (2003,
2005) development of the distinction between ostensive and performative aspects
of routines. In our study, we pay attention not only to representations of routines but
also to many other kinds of representations and representational artifacts that were
observed to be mobilized in the work setting. Paying attention to representations
necessarily draws attention to their diversity. We adopt routines with formal
representations as the central analytical thread in the present analysis; we refer to
these as formal routines. This is not because we underestimate the significance
of non-formal representations, or informal practices which might be theorized as
routines. To enable greater precision and discrimination within this diversity, in
this article we adopt two research questions formulated in terms of formal
representations and formal routines:
1. What contributions by formal routines can be identified in our observational

setting? In contrast, what significant contributions are made by other forms of
practice, for example forms of activity that are informal, mundane, not subject
to formal specification, management, and monitoring, that are not deploying
formalized representational codes?
2. What contributions by formal representations can be observed? What are
the relative contributions of different kinds of artifact, and representations of
routines versus representations from routines? What significant contributions
are made by other forms of representations, for example non-formal lexicons
at workplace level, storytelling, and more or less durable stories in communities
of practice, regarding “what we’re doing here and why?”
In our study, we focus on the design and development of a complex capital good.
This is a significant locale of innovation and evolution, in which the upstream
history of “exploration” (e.g., lab studies) is translated, for the duration of a product
cycle, into the downstream history of “exploitation” within a dynamic commercial
setting, via the committing of hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets. This phase
of the innovation process is critical because it consists of a transition between
domains of work that are primarily representational (analysis of market and

The practice of routines and representations in design and development 553
laboratory data, promulgation of strategies and plans, evaluation of products and

investments, and so on) and other domains where physical aspects are more
prominent, such as complex engineered artifacts.
2. Theoretical orientation
Our main theoretical context is the debate that has developed around Nelson and
Winter’s (1982) central concept of routines, as regular and predictable behavioral

patterns that are important in the evolution of firms and their ability to compete and
innovate. We develop this through two particular emphases. We align with
a “performance turn” that has emerged in routines theory and draw on literatures
that are specifically concerned with the sociology of practice and on “work practice”
studies of knowledge work. Also, building on recent developments of the “ostensive/
performative” distinction in routines theory, we extend the focus to draw on more
highly developed accounts of representational artifacts and work that is performed
with such artifacts.
2.1 Performative aspects of routines

In a competence-based perspective on the dynamism and strategic capability of firms
(e.g., Teece and Pisano, 1994; Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000),
the firm is presented as a complex of routines, including meta-level routines for
co-ordinating among routines and for changing or creating routines.
Recent work acknowledges a dual reality, of ostensive and performative
aspects of routines (Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Becker et al., 2005; Pentland
and Feldman, 2005). The ostensive aspects of a routine are restricted to the
abstract, understanding schema or stories people have in their minds as a guide
to their behavior and practice. The performative aspects comprise multiple
concrete performances of work that are understood as instances of the routine in
getting things done (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Like Feldman et al. (2005),
we give prominence to the active agency of participants in organizational settings
where routines are performed, and to the critical examination of relationships
that exist in practice between the ostensives of routines and actual performances
of work.
Becker has suggested that “the term ‘recurrent interaction patterns’ provides a
more precise term for organizational routines understood as behavioral regularities”
(Becker, 2005a: 818). If we make no distinction between repetition and recurrence, or
interdependent action and interaction, this can be seen as equivalent to Feldman and
Pentland’s definition of routines: “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent
actions, carried out by multiple actors” (Feldman and Pentland, 2003: 95). Both are
typical of definitions of routines, embracing both formal and informal practices.

However, we believe that in practice it is important to maintain the formal or

non-formal distinction. Our analysis of the work done by formal representations
of practice brings increasing discrimination to our account of the contributions of
what we refer to as formal routines, routines that prominently include formal
representations.
2.2 Artifacts and representations

Winter identifies the significance of an artifactual environment, prior to and

independent of any given performance of a routine:
One important aspect of total context is the physical, which includes
both the local/artifactual complements of the routine (e.g., the requisite
plant and equipment) and the broader physical environment that was
not produced for the benefit of the routine . . .” (Cohen et al., 1996: 662;
italics added).
The notion of an artifactual environment is developed by some researchers to include
linguistic or cultural or communicative resources—for example, Warglien (Cohen
et al., 1996: 674) refers to “cognitive artifacts.” Helpfully, Pentland and Feldman
(2005) have extended the ostensive or performative model of routines to include
artifacts as a third “pole” of internal structure. This develops an earlier notion that
“organizations are a sea of interdependent actions, interpretations and artifacts”
(Feldman and Pentland, 2003: 798). A generalized list of representations of routines
and other recurring action patterns of organizations can be derived from Cohen et al.
(1996: 661):
1. Memories of individual humans, for their respective roles.
2. Locally shared language.
3. Global language forms: formal oral codes, pledges, “war stories.”
4. Physical artifacts: tools, spatial arrangements, written codes (e.g., documented
operating procedures), coded in software.
5. Organizational practices: archives, personnel rotations, maintenance of working
examples, building key assumptions into organizational structure.
We are interested in the very specific category of representations, representations of

routines, which enables us to focus in our analysis on the contributions made
by formally codified representations, in particular visual representations, which we
refer to as formal representations (in contrast with many kinds of non-formal repre-
sentations—ones whose codes that are not formalized: everyday speech, contextual
gesture, ad-hoc storytelling, etc.). On this notion of layered, multiple semiotic
codes, see, for example, Wood (1992). The diverse contributions of such artifacts
are beginning to be identified (Engeström and Blackler, 2005), for example, as the

focus for the negotiation and interaction between different professional groups
(Bechky, 2003b), or for mediating boundaries between dispersed communities of
practice (Carlile, 2002; Sapsed and Salter, 2004).
2.3 Practice-based studies of routines

The routines perspective is founded on an emphasis on what is done in practice,
in contexts. Thus, for example, Winter points out:

[T]he cognitive approach neglects, and hence risks obfuscating, the
contextual aspects of routines. Context dependence is fundamental; the
effectiveness of a routine is not measured by what is achieved in principle
but by what is achieved in practice . . . (Cohen et al., 1996: 662).
However, it is only recently that routines research has begun to pay attention to
actual work in actual settings within which activity is conducted. The distinction
between ostensive and performative aspects of routines, together with reference
to artifacts, allows ways of framing empirical research which is more precisely
formulated (Pentland and Feldman, 2005). This “performance turn” in routines
research opens the possibility of an increased concern with how tasks are accom-
plished in practice. For example, Becker (2005a: 819) cites Barley and Kunda’s (2001)
injunction, to “bring work back in.” Practice-based approaches view innovation as
a social accomplishment, situated in ongoing interactions between people and
objects. It can also take the form of a “conversation with materials” (Schon,
1983), which involves interactions with an object that may itself be changed and
reconfigured as part of this knowledge work (Knorr, 2001). This “conversation with
materials” is usually embedded in a wider set of interactions that involves storytelling
and conversation between people (Gabriel, 2000).
Becker’s injunction follows on a period of increased empirical attention to
routines (Pentland and Rueter, 1994; Edmonson et al., 2001; Jones and Craven,
2001; Becker et al., 2005; Lazaric and Denis, 2005). This has prompted recent
research on routines in practice. Bechky (2003a, b) studied the role of the material
artifacts as boundary objects between communities of practitioners in design
and manufacturing operations. D’Adderio (2003) focused on process development
situations where formal representations have been introduced (software systems for
product management), and where rationalization of a formal representational system
failed to effectively support working practice [simulation of product prototypes
in software (D’Adderio, 2001)]. Similarly, Lazaric and Denis (2005) examined a
situation in which formal representations are being introduced (ISO norms)
as a process innovation, and Howard-Grenville (2005) studied routines in a
manufacturing-process development group. Our own observational approach

follows this small but significant body of empirical research on routines. To

summarize, our focus in this study is on the following constructs:
1. Formal routines: Formal routines have formal representations (their form and/or
artifactual repertoire is pre-specified; are formally required (their deployment
is specified for certain approved, required outcomes). When performed, they
often produce formal representations as a specified kind of outcome. We do
not discuss routines that are non-formal (not formally specified, not formally
represented).

2. Formal representations and non-formal representations. Formal representations
are generated via formal representational codes: specified, documented, and
standardized, for example engineering drawings, financial accounts, pro-forma
documentation, digital data, metrics, and specifications. Representations includes
performed representations (e.g., spoken, gestured) and representational artifacts
(e.g., documents, photographic images, screen-generated images, software code,
algorithms, mathematical models). Stories are prominent forms of spoken
representation in our observed settings.
3. Performances of work were observed (episodes of work interaction, in specific
workplace settings). Some of these—although rather few—were performances
of formal routines. All of them involved representations, although the balance
of forms—formal and non-formal, performed, and artifactual—varied markedly
across settings. Our observational strategy was built around a focus on visual
representations, many of which deploy highly developed formal representational
codes: visual symbols and other drawing conventions, such as projections of 3D
objects in 2D space. The focus on how visual representations are used in design
practice has been explored in detail in our previous work (Whyte et al., 2007,
2008). Our central question is what kinds of contributions do these representa-
tions make?
3. Methodology
Our study was designed to engage with issues of practice in knowledge work.
Be aware that knowledge is handled in collective settings, but while handling
artifacts, we chose to study practices in the field of design and development,
where representations and working with artifacts are known to be significant
(Henderson, 1998, 1999). We exploit traditions of ethnographic “work practice”
research: Barley (1986, 1988); Kunda (1993); Randall et al. (2007); and Suchman
and Trigg (1996), from the fields of computer-mediated communication and
computer-supported cooperative work (Strauss, 1988; Anderson and Sharrock,
1992; Schmidt and Bannon, 1992), and more broadly in the analysis of the organiz-
ing power of inscriptions in actor-network sociology (Law 1986, 1991; Latour 1990,
1991; Akrich et al., 2002). One widely diffused construct in these areas is that

coherence across differing work communities is afforded to practitioners through the

interpretative flexibility of boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989; Star, 1989a,
1993; Carlile 2002). At the most detailed level, our approach is informed by studies of
the work done by documents in engineering design practice (e.g., Henderson, 1998,
1999; Suchman, 2000a, b; Suchman et al., 2002), and the resources afforded by
common information spaces which comprise organized material objects and repre-
sentational artifacts (Bannon and Bødker, 1997; Schmidt and Wagner, 2002). Orr
(1991) is also relevant because of its attention to storytelling as a form of organiza-
tional knowing among technical staff.

Our case study was HighTech (a pseudonym), a division of a global company
which designs, builds, and supports installations of process plant for semiconductor
manufacture. Design work is strongly science-based, ranging from experi-
mental work in HighTech labs in two continents, through testing and trouble-
shooting on-site and at suppliers, and commissioning an operational support in
customers’ plants worldwide. One factor that influenced our choice of HighTech
was that routines appeared to be pervasive. Specifically, there was a prominent,
mandatory, global standard process for product development (referred to here
as “PDP”).
We observed a process of decision-making at the conceptual design level, for
a new global release of an existing engineering product. Overall, the observation
period was framed by a formal product development program, which became to
be known as ABC-10 (a pseudonym). We closed our field observation when the
beta version of ABC-10 was introduced into operational use in customers’ sites.
Observation settings were defined by a formally defined set of participants. We
observed members of the HighTech’s Engineering Group who were connected
with ABC-10, interacting in any setting where they worked together.
We were present in HighTech’s premises on an average of 2 days per week, a total
of more than 50 observed days. We sometimes shadowed the program manager, and
engaged with other senior staff: Engineering Director, Marketing Consultant, Key
Product Unit Manager, Senior Physicist, Senior CAD Designer, etc. We had full
access to the fileservers on which current and past project documentation was
archived. We began observation before a formal development program that had
been declared, and left the field site after an observational period of 24 weeks
(Table 1). Our data included: 15 h of audio recording (from formal meetings of
participants, ad-hoc interactions between participants and informal desk-interviews);
850 digital photographs of interactions-in-progress in groups and close-ups of
representational artifacts on paper and screens; a 20-cm stack of hardcopy
documents (formal process documentation, company newsletters, and some sketches
made for us on request, as explanations); an e-mail record of ABC-10 communica-
tions; and a 200-page spiral-bound book of field notes, including sketches and
diagrams, time-stamped notes of observed interactional sequences, and verbatim
quotes.

Table 1 Chronology: 24 weeks of work and observation
Week Key events
Week 1 Observation commences. Senior engineers discuss the potential for a product release
based on recent lab results exploring new configurations in the transport module
of the ABC-family machines. This includes discussion of how to package the
release to get it into leading customers’ sites, retrofitting on already-installed ABC-
family machines. Thus, the design of the release (a commercial event) is under con-

sideration in the same work setting as the design of the machine (an engineered
artifact).
Week 4 Engineering discussions are centered on defining the interface between the old
(ABC-09) and the new (ABC-10) modules of the machine.
Week 5 ABC-10 program manager’s first briefing of a 15-member engineering design team
for the new beamline module. The Engineering Director is the only senior
manager present.
Week 6 Formal 20-member kick-off of the product development program (PDP program)
for a machine (ABC-10) with a new design for the beamline module. Very tight
timeframe, half a dozen senior managers present, questions asked by senior
managers about whether the market requirements specification (formally, the
framework for engineering design) is firm yet. In fact, it is not.
Week 9 A further six-member Engineering team is created to do detail design on high-
priority, tight-timescale revisions on the front-end and process chamber modules
of ABC-09, forward-compatible with the as-yet undersigned ABC-10. These
modified process chambers are to be shipped as part of customer orders for ABC-
09 machines, to enable retrofitting of the ABC-10 beta release version of the
beamline. The ABC-10 program manager holds a handover meeting with the
detail-design team and their line manager, the ABC-09 program manager.
Week 10 General Manager’s rough whiteboard timeline sketch for the beta and alpha
prototype schedules starts to circulate: “John’s blob chart”—a pdf image grabbed
from the whiteboard after a senior management meeting a few days earlier.
Week 11 Senior CAD designer identifying long-leadtime items for ABC-10 prototype and
retrofittable ABC-09.
Week 12 First weekly scheduled meeting of the lower-level, 12-member cross-function team
for ABC-10.
Week 14 Formal ratification of the actions of Week 9: development work related to ABC-10 is
formally subdivided into three parallel PDP subprojects. Two (in the six-member
engineering team) are led by the ABC-09 program manager, who is responsible for
cost-reducing the existing machine. One is led by the ABC-10 program manager,
responsible for innovating the beamline and beta-launching ABC-10.
Weeks 14–22 Detail timelines for alpha and beta machines are evolved—Gantt charts displayed and
revised showing projected lead times to John’s blob-chart target dates.
continued

Table 1 Continued
Week Key events
Week 15 MRS (market requirements specification—ostensibly and formally, the basis of a

product design in PDP) not yet formally completed, and yet to be discussed with
some stakeholders.
Week 18 Commitments: supplies are procured for fabricating the retrofit-ready prototype
process chamber. Bills of materials are issued for orders for other long-leadtime

prototype subassemblies.
Week 20 ABC-10 makes its first appearance in the agenda of the fortnightly PDP review
meeting.
Week 22 Accelerated timeline for ABC-10 CR introduced by General Manager, John. This
hardens the ABC-10 beta release “story”; conceptual design of the beta release is
now complete in all essentials. Detail design on the release schedule, the
procurement and manufacturing process and the engineering design proceeds.
Week 23 Using a formal, standardized spreadsheet tool in the PDP wizard toolkit, “live” in a
cross-function team meeting, the senior cross-function team calculates a risk index
for the ABC-10 program and assigns a formal risk classification (CIP “continuous
improvement project”—the lowest order of risk—as distinct from PDP “product
development project” or “radical innovation”).
Week 24 Photos are circulated of the prototype module assembled in a supplier’s factory.
Beta test commitments with the customer are firm. Build and test details are being
worked out. Conceptual design is over, time to close out the field study.
Week 31 Planned lab trials and customer demo “marathon” of alpha prototype.
Week 48 Planned commissioning of beta prototype at customer’s fab.
As a central observation-orienting device in interactional settings, we used parti-

cipants’ orientation to representational artifacts, especially visual representations:
drawings, icons, visual schemas, photographic or 3D images, pictorial representa-
tions of arrangements of objects, or activities in space or time. Being constructed
through formal representational codes, a majority of these visual representations also
were formal representations. Visual representations, in this sense, were distinguished
from other kinds of visible representations (which we also noted) including textual
representations (e.g., reports, written specifications, and documented procedural
algorithms) or computable, algorithmic-symbolic—and thus, formal—representa-
tions (e.g., simulation models, spreadsheet models, and software code). A significant
implication of visuals as forms of representation—even when they are formal
representations—is that, unlike explicit texts and computable models, they cannot
easily pretend to be rules; visual representations are manifestly incomplete.
To be used in collective settings, they must be spoken about, they become sites

for the production of spoken representations (broadly, “stories”) employing largely

non-formal representational codes.
In this article, we adopt two data-focusing lenses. The first, applied in Section 4, is
a particular constellation of representational artifacts: the PDP “wizard.” Analysis of
this enables us to bring a sharper focus on the contributions made by the formal
representations and formal routines. The second lens, applied in Section 5 below, is a
kind of organizational work setting: cross-function team meetings. An analysis of
activity in these work settings enables us to clearly focus on contributions that
are being made by formal representations and formal routines on one hand and

non-formal ones on the other. These illustrate both the diversity and limitations of
formal routines and representations to product design and development (Tidd and
Hull, 2006).
4. Representations in practice: The PDP wizard

Product development in HighTech was defined globally as a business process, via
standard operating procedures, in particular compliance with a mandatory, formally
specified process model, referred to as PDP. PDP carried an extremely powerful
sanction to secure participation and compliance across the multi-divisional, multi-
site corporation—a product division cannot receive revenue from a new product,
and, thus, must bear all costs of development up to that point, until it has been
formally certified as a customer release (CR) via the sign-off machinery of PDP. We
discovered that PDP was partly enacted through participation in a set of procedures
which were hard coded—as workflow, forms, classifications, and data structures—in
a corporate standard, universally available, Lotus-Notes application: the PDP
“wizard.” Sign-off can only be formally achieved by completing specified
documentation, explicitly held in and accessed through the wizard database.
4.1 An apparatus of representational artifacts

We observed that PDP manifested not so much via the book of specifications
(the PDP Handbook) but rather via a working apparatus of representational means:
the “wizard.” We learned that each product development program must formally
initiate a PDP process and establish a program wizard. “Has he created the wizard
yet?” was a question that people asked to determine the status of a product moving
from research to development.
Over time, we were able to see three key contributions made by a wizard. First,
a wizard furnishes master copies of checklist-type documents in which nominees for
specified stakeholder roles are formally recorded. These were used in the formal
“kick-off” phase of the ABC-10 product development program. Second, a wizard
furnishes masters of the materials and tools which are mandatory in achieving com-
pliance with the requirements of PDP phase-exit: document proformas, metrical

algorithms, and records of quality-certification tasks, organized in a specified

hierarchy. Finally, as a workflow machine, a wizard automatically performs
document distribution functions that are involved in sign-off. This is a massive
and mandatory, proceduralized and automated artifact-centered (documentary)
apparatus. Nominally, PDP “is” the process (the routine or family of routines)
for developing products in HighTech; and the wizard is PDP’s ostentatious and
mandatory artifactual form in the workplace.
However, when we examined the PDP wizard in our last few days on site, we saw
that the wizard’s own completion statistics showed the wizard to be 98% empty:

a massive material and financial commitment to a product’s insertion into the
market, but an empty wizard. Whatever the work a PDP wizard does in product
development, it is not that of producing conceptual designs and commitments
to beta prototypes. By week 24, those kinds of work had been done, and they had
been done using some other kind of means.
Along the way, we had gathered clues about this “absent presence” of PDP-as-the-
wizard. Activities involving the wizard were being treated by actors in the ABC-10
development process—and being explicitly referred to—as deferred, subsequent tasks,
following on from the activity of conceptually configuring a product and materially
configuring and “cutting-in” a beta launch. These activities were also referred to as
overheads, burdens, and administrative chores: “Come in and see me doing this
one night” and even “a waste of my time.” In one formal presentation of a fortnightly
PDP review meeting, a product development program manager explained how
various working materials from a development project had been converted into legit-
imate wizard material (“populating the wizard”) at a late stage in the PDP timeframe,
as development was hardened into beta commitments and sign-off approached.
Treating PDP and the wizard in this way was not a breach of formal requirements.
The PDP process handbook provides explicit and mandatory specifications for
the roles of representatives in the formal approval of product development processes
and outcomes but, significantly, it does not specify how to get from A (roles) to
B (outcomes). Neither work method nor work sequence is specified. The wizard is
designed to contain and present representations of achieved outcomes: on one hand,
summary indices of quality and on the other, certificates of approval, co-signed by
formally registered signatories. These outcome representations are only loosely
related to any practical course of action that may be taken in achieving them.
Managers then have a high degree of discretion in the actual conduct of product
development, as distinct from product sign-off.
4.2 Representations and representatives: Formal routines and formal

authorities
The PDP kick-off meeting for ABC-10 in week 6 had been a very full room, with an
unusual number of higher-ranking actors. The meeting was an inaugural gathering of

representatives of stakeholder interests; and the checklists of the wizard were used in
the meeting—literally, completed on a laptop and displayed on a projection screen—
to register the nominees of those stakeholder interests, for the formal purposes
of PDP. Thus, right at the start of its existence, the ABC-10 wizard displayed its
basic role, as a collection of representations of outcomes of activities conducted by
stakeholders in ABC-10. And the first representation to be created in the wizard
was a representation of representatives; a map of formal authorities in the context of
ABC-10’s development.
From this point, three significant things were available to the development

program manager. First, he was now authorized to convene those representatives
in PDP meetings. Second, he was authorized to commit resources to ABC-10, the
most immediate and practically significant of which were hours of representatives’
time, in cross-function team meetings. And third, he was guaranteed legitimacy
for the outcomes of the development process, to the extent that due process was
conducted with those nominated representatives (including eventual certification in
the wizard). In a context of corporate politics and legitimacy, then, the early work
done by the PDP wizard was highly significant, even if it was in a sense trivial—
filling-in a proforma checklist on a laptop, in full view, in a meeting.
What those representatives then went on to do, in cross-function meetings
over the next 18 weeks, was highly dynamic and was accomplished with means
that lay largely outside PDP. The work and the commitments lay quite outside
the representational domain of PDP’s artifactual representative, the wizard. Many
representations were deployed in cross-function meetings, such as ad hoc PowerPoint
presentations, but these had no status whatsoever within the formal apparatus of
PDP, but rather supported the work of storymaking and commitment-making.
Having ensured that relevant authorities were identified, and, thus, were likely to
be in the room for ABC-10 working meetings, PDP seemingly had little further
contribution to make to the beta product until it approached sign-off.
5. Routines in practice: Cross-function team meetings

We examine two critical instances of formal routine and formal representations
being prominent in ABC-10 work settings: the ABC-10 kick-off meeting and the
regular generic PDP review meetings.
5.1 The kick-off meeting

The kick-off meeting for the PDP program was the most formal event that we
observed in any setting associated with ABC-10. First, the flow of the meeting was
organized around representations formally specified by the PDP and held in the
wizard, a checklist of program stakeholders. Names of nominees for these specified
roles were entered into a proforma provided by the wizard, visibly displayed on

screen and entered field-by-field scrolling down the form, as part of the live business
of the meeting. Second, participation in the meeting was very wide; it constituted
the fullest showing of ABC-10 stakeholders that we saw at any point during the
24-week period, in any work setting including generic PDP reviews and ABC-10
cross-function team meetings. Third, the kick-off event itself was formative in
a formal way: by virtue of completing this formally specified element of the PDP
procedure, the program manager was able, subsequently, to legitimately call on and
deploy both financial resources and the intangible resources taken up by the partic-
ipation in cross-function meetings, in forms of activity some of which were not

themselves formally specified by PDP (notably, cross-function team meetings).
At the same time, half or more of the kick-off meetings were taken up with activity
which wre not specified by the PDP, or by any other formal routine of which we were
aware. The program manager presented images of the projected form of the ABC-10
machine, and a bullet-pointed rationale for the design and launch of the machine.
This was done with PowerPoints in a way which was ubiquitous in all kinds of formal
meetings and many informal ones too: an ad-hoc presentation sequence of slides
assembled ad hoc by the presenter, including numerous pre-existing representations,
mobilized as part of the presentation of a narrative about the composition of the
ABC-10 machine and the rationale and timing of its launch. None of these were
recognizable as formally specified by other routines; most were typical of forms of
representations used in other venues such as management meetings, engineering
teleconferences, and cross-function design reviews.
5.2 PDP review meetings and the sign-off process for beta release
All development programs currently active under PDP were required to present
and discuss progress at PDP review meetings held in a regular timeslot every
2 weeks. The central aim of PDP reviews (a strong ostensive aspect) was to achieve
planned and formally scheduled phase-exit events for PDP programs. Meetings were
convened and led in a formal chairing style by the PDP process manager (a formal
quality management role, occupied by a person who has no specific involvement
with any actual PDP program).
The flow of each meeting was organized in segments, each of which centered on
the presentation and discussion of a “dashboard” representation that was specific
to this venue. It was a composite of three distinct representations: (i) a graphical
timeline (showing critical specified events in the lifetime of a PDP program, on a
week-by-week timeline, with the current week highlighted); (ii) a scorechart matrix
showing status (good to bad, represented by standard “smileys”) against six specified
dimensions of responsibility; and (iii) text bullet points to highlight critical issues.
The dashboard itself did not seem to be specified in any formal description of the
PDP, but the use of the dashboard—a highly formalized representational artifact—
was fundamental to the organization of activity in this particular work setting, which

was convened formally to achieve critical, specified PDP outcomes. These meetings
were formally minuted, had a formal, pre-circulated agenda, and pre-published the
dashboards for each program to be discussed. Thus, in this work setting, formal
procedure and standardized representational forms were closely coupled, with the
latter providing a strong means of ordering the flow of the meeting.
The series of review meetings leads eventually to sign-off for a PDP program.
We left HighTech in week 24, and thus did not see sign-off for ABC-10, which was
scheduled around week 48. However, it was mandatory that sign-off for this release,
as for any other MinShip (beta) or CR release, should be achieved through

presentation of a fully populated wizard—that is, a system of pre-specified, standard,
formally codified documentary formats. As noted in Section 4, at week 24—when
committed assets for the beta release were substantially in place—the wizard was
98% empty. This working disposition of assets had thus been achieved by
other means.
6. Formal tasks and storytelling

Over a period from week 11 to week 15, we began to register the degree to which the
quite massive apparatus represented by the PDP Handbook was absent from
the cross-function meetings. The task structure represented in such detail in the
Handbook was visible neither in the work being done by the increasing number of
actors, who were being included in the ABC-10 work process, nor in the references
made by the participants in the ABC-10 meetings. It was evident that PDP was
mostly about acceptable outcomes, as distinct from the specification of work that
has to be undertaken in order to achieve an acceptable outcome.
We, therefore, developed a description of this structuring in terms of a number
of ongoing, concurrent strands of discussion and negotiation, and a sense of the
cross-function team as a work setting where a certain kind of very active “making”
was taking place. We identified seven distinct strands, each characterized by a
distinctive focus, on a particular aspect of the environment of the ABC-10 work:
machines themselves, and various stakeholdings in the life and work of the machine
as a commitment of resources (see Table 2).
Overall, we observed that these strands of interaction were articulated through
telling and elaborating (and challenging, amending, negotiating, and confirming)
“stories” about the courses of action that participants were engaged in. There were
stories about “what this product will contribute to the business,” “how this product
will be constituted, physically, financially, and operationally to do this” and “how we
will organize this stream of events and outcomes to achieve a beta launch.” To
emphasize the active nature of this, its utter strategic seriousness, and the highly
focused and skilful attention that participants gave to this kind of activity, we might
label it story-development rather than storytelling. In other words, story-development

Table 2 Seven strands of story-development in ABC-10 cross-function team meetings
The storytelling strand Oriented to . . .
1. Making it work, making it fit. The machine under design—a novel, complex, engineered,
physical artifact.
2. Making it in time, achieving The supply chain for beta tools and the alpha tool—
“cut-in” with ongoing activities hundreds of thousands of dollars of working capital,
in HighTech. dozens of locations.

3. Making it into the fab, gaining The site of exploitation of the machine by the customer—
the “footprint.” a major capital investment within the evolution of
customers’ asset position and business strategy.
4. Making it similar, making it External regulatory regimes; operational and commercial
conform. regimes in customer firms.
5. Making it different, leveraging The competition: their machines, strategies, etc;
HighTech’s resources. leapfrogging, market share, market leadership.
6. Making it strategic, making it to Corporate business agendas: asset dispositions, revenue
the next node. flows, returns. Above all, a target level of gross margin
on costs.
7. Making it legitimate, achieving Total quality: complying with the concern of corporate
sign-off. stakeholders, to verify and ensure that commitments of
assets are made in approved ways and signed-off by
approved people.
appeared to be a central and intrinsic aspect—perhaps even the primary mode—of

product development work.
6.1 Discussion: Contributions of formal routines and representations

The narrowness of a focus on representations of routines prompts questions. Do all
routines work in the same kind of way (e.g., through formalization and formally
codified representations)? Do they all make contributions of the same kind, or do
routines of this particular kind—having prominent, formal ostensive descriptions, or
specifications—make contributions of a particular kind? In our analysis, we are able
to empirically explore the diversity of routines in a particular setting, and, especially,
we have chosen to pay attention to highly formalized and pre-specified forms of
activity on one hand and forms of activity where formalization and specification
(of work, or the outcomes of work) seem to be more or less absent, on the other.
6.2 Work done by formal routines and other forms of practice

In the settings that we have analyzed here, we rarely observed “performances
of routines” in our selected sense of formal routines. The work of design and

development was achieved with a wizard that was 98% empty. In 12 weeks of cross-
function team meetings, only one performance of a routine from the wizard was
observed, when a formal project-risk algorithm was run, its final value and input
values strenuously negotiated the value of the risk index recorded in the wizard.
However, the kick-off meeting, organized around certain elements of the wizard,
was critical in establishing the working regime for subsequent cross-function team
activity); and in the final stages it was mandatory that the wizard’s sign-off routines
would be employed, generating formal representations of actions and outcomes for
the file. These episodes and phases—formally establishing the PDP cross-function

regime and achieving approved PDP sign-off—bracketed a long and critical segment
of activity that was observed to be essentially non-formally organized at the level of
individual episodes.
This observation is consistent with Pentland and Feldman (2005: 798):
Managers create such artefacts in an effort to shape actual work practices,

but the practical effect of any particular rule or procedure is often quite
remote from its original design or intention . . . there are always contex-
tual details that remain open – and must remain open – for the routine
to be carried out.
Two other forms of formal organizations were manifestly significant in the episodes
we observed: meetings and hierarchy or division of labor. It goes without saying that
life in HighTech is full of meetings. A legitimate call of ABC-10 actors to another two
meetings per week, within HighTech’s crowded timetable, was one of the things
achieved by the formal launch of the PDP for the ABC-10. The ubiquitous
“meetings” are strongly patterned events, for example, with regard to timing and
the mandatory selection of people representing various hierarchical and functional
roles. They have a characteristic format (rather formal with PDP reviews, non-formal
with cross-function teams, quite informal with engineering weekly reviews), and
a typical range of representational inputs. Because of the strong patterning, these
events would naturally be seen as part of the phenomenon of routines. We are
uncertain whether this construct is appropriate. Scheduled meetings have the
nature of “places” furnished with resources and actors, rather than processes,
sequences of action. It might be more appropriate to designate these places by
some other term—for example, venues.
6.3 Contributions of formal representations and other kinds of

representations
The majority of discussions of routines seem tacitly to consider them in isolation,
discretely actioned to produce discrete outcomes. In reviewing the routines
literature, we were attracted by the realism and practical insight of a more complex

conceptualization offered by Warglien, involving multiple routines of various kinds,

concurrently and independently enacted and constituting “an architecture”:
[I]f one wants to characterize a kanban system as a recurring action

pattern, one has to look not only at these diverse ingredients [explicitly
stated rules and instructions; carefully designed artifactual environment]
but also (and maybe chiefly) at the architecture of relations between
these ingredients - how they fit reciprocally, and with other processes
such as set-up time reduction and working capital reduction . . . (Cohen

et al., 1996: 659)
Following this insight, we note that important contributions were continually

made in conceptual design work settings by formal representations generated
independently by routines elsewhere in operational domains. Using Winter’s terms
quoted earlier (Cohen et al., 1996: 662), these “artifactual complements” of
cross-function, conceptual design teamwork were part of a broader artifactual
environment “not produced for the benefit of” this particular activity. Examples
include spreadsheets from the financial accounting domain (e.g., projections of
cost and gross margin), orthographic, and perspective projections from pre-existing
ABC-09; CAD models, factory cell-occupancy schedules from manufacturing, lead
times, and bills of materials from the supply chain management domain; and so on.
Formal representations were routinely produced and archived in these concurrent
domains of activity, often through formal routines (e.g., product and project
documentation procedures, database algorithms). They were appropriated and
patched into the ubiquitous, heterogeneous PowerPoints that were routinely brought
to the ABC-10 cross-function work settings, where they furnished references for the
non-formal, creative, multi-strand story-development work of conceptual design
and the detailed work of organizing development for the manufacture and market
launch of alpha and beta prototypes.
In other words, in the focal domain of design and development, it was not
the formal representations of the PDP, such as the wizard, but relatively soft or
tacit non-formal representations that did the work. Routines in other domains of
more formally routinized activity did the work of ensuring that many kinds of formal
representations are available for use in the discursive domain of conceptual design.
Representations did the work here, in this non-formal routine setting; and formal
routines elsewhere did the work of ensuring that representations were available here.
We have noted how “visibles” (visible representations, especially PowerPoints)
were collectively read and spoken-to in cross-function meetings in order to perform
the work of the story-development. These artifacts afford “speakables”—things to
speak about and occasions for storytelling—and provide landmarks and mutual
orientation as work proceeds: artifactual “memory” and physical interaction context
for “the work we are doing here, now.” Stories themselves drew strongly on familiar

and authoritative narrative resources brought to the meeting by participants, notably

the strategy stories (evolution stories) that stand behind the seven strands of Table 2.
These stories may be seen as non-formal representations of large-scale asset-
commitments and courses of action (corporate missions, programs, targets, etc.)
which are concurrent with and temporally prior to the course of action being
articulated in the observed settings: the ABC-10 beta release. These stories are
politically prior too (they have precedence); but negotiating local versions of these
stories which “work” in the immediate context of the ABC-10 is precisely what the
storytelling in cross-function meetings achieved, episode by episode. This is identical

with the kind of relationship that Feldman and Pentland (2003) observe between
ostensives and performances, dialectic of authority and practicality in which both are
iteratively brought into local working alignment. However, we remain open on
the question of whether the storytelling that we observed being performed might
appropriately be theorized as (non-formal) routines or whether some construct more
specifically adapted to the nature of narrative practice might work better—indeed,
stories (as in Orr, 1991) or the interactional, collective, real-time remembering
of locally relevant knowledges (Middleton and Edwards, 1990).
7. Conclusions
In focusing on formal routines, we have narrowed our focus because we do not feel
that it is useful for the usual, broad “routine” construct to be made to carry the
whole burden of theorizing. We find ourselves concerned with issues of performance,
local instances of work practice, the specifics of representational work, and the
ubiquitous management and production of knowledges in mundane interactions.
We believe that these concepts are more relevant and realistic, than the broader
interpretations of routines that make no distinction between formal and non-
formal modes of representation.
We have demonstrated that formal routines make particular contributions to
the processes we have observed. They contribute resources to the work being done
which impact at certain points, on certain aspects of the work. Different routines do
different things. Interestingly, the work done by routines is not necessarily achieved
in the settings where the routines are enacted. Although the work done by repre-
sentations of routines was of limited scope (e.g., the PDP wizard), the work done by
representations from routines (e.g., PowerPoints, drawings), elsewhere, within an
architecture of multiple, concurrent, ongoing practices, was highly significant.
Specifically, we saw work “here” (in conceptual design settings) being done more
by formal representations than by formal routines, but with the work of making
those representations available being done by formal routines elsewhere.
At a higher level, formal representations of PDP (the handbook and the wizard
as formal ostensives of the PDP) played important roles: as prior and

authoritative representations of action (the handbook), as part of a system of

authority (mandatory actions, specifications, conformance), and as a template
repertoire for mandatory post-hoc representations of performed actions and their
outcomes (the wizard).
Following Pentland and Feldman (2005), we have given a very significant central
role in our account to the work being done by artifacts mobilized in performances.
We have observed two prominent modes of artifacts-at-work:
1. Explicit representational artifacts (e.g., formal representations in PowerPoints)

exploited directly as resources in non-formal representational work (storytelling)
and
2. Formal representations durably organized in formally routinized (in fact,
algorithmic) processes of document processing and task-sequencing associated
with formal routines (the PDP handbook and the wizard).
We have presented evidence which we believe justifies a rebalancing and
reconceptualizing of relationships that operate in practice between routines and
representations. Certainly, we do not regard a genotype model of representation as
appropriate: where a prior “representation of action” generates a concrete perfor-
mance. Indeed, political priority may in some respects be more central than temporal
sequence. We propose a dialectical and mediating—in contrast to a linear and
genetic—relationship between routines and representations.
8. Future research
We have been impressed by the diversity of routines, in reach, in scale, in what they
actually contribute, or even where their contributions are mobilized (not necessarily
where they are enacted). Therefore, we would encourage research which examines:
1. Differing contexts of routines in practice—for example, “strategic” activity in

the R&D sphere, operational activity in the supply chain, and process innovation
projects;
2. Differing architectures of practice—ways in which orders of scale and reach
are achieved through the organization of multiple kinds of resources and their
commitment in multiple, concurrent courses of action (e.g., the exploitation of
representations from operational spheres in the domain of beta development; the
use of mandatory global formal representational resources in conceptual design
work settings; etc.);
3. Specific contributions of routines in the work of formal post-facto accounting for
actions taken and resources redisposed. We are conscious that authority to make
commitments, authorities (as human representatives of institutional interests),
and accounting (for commitments made) are major elements in the conduct of

the kinds of organizations. We feel that such domains of activity provide fruitful
ground for empirical research on routines; and
4. The contributions that formal routines and formal representations make
in securing participation of appropriate representatives in a course of action.
While formal authority, and related constructs such as governance, do make
an appearance in the routines literature (e.g., Dosi, 1995; Coriat and Dosi,
1998), this often seems to be tied to rationalist or cognitivist constructs, such
as rules as genotypes of actions rather than being open to a more performative
analysis, episodes of interaction and negotiation, manifest collaboration between

participants in producing acceptable working order here, and, now, representa-
tions, ostensives, artifacts, and so on.
We believe that our study provides good evidence that empirical research on
routines can helpfully be organized through a focus on the work that representations
do both formal and non-formal. This must especially be so when focusing on such
strategically important areas as the dynamic capabilities of firms, the practical rela-
tionships within a firm between exploration and exploitation, and the specialized
work of “managed evolution.” Routines research needs to break away from a limited
cognitivist focus on representations of routines, even when theorized in terms of
“ostensive aspects.” It might benefit from specific attention to the work done by
(formal) routines that generate formal representations, and it needs to adequately
theorize the work done by many kinds of non-formal representations, such as stories,
in producing and reproducing the working order. It is possible that some of this
theoretical work oriented to representations may be done better by various
constructs informed by ethnography and semiotics than by an over-extension of
“routines.”
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the UK ESRC under the “Evolution
of Business Knowledge” research program and the positive and detailed feedback
that we received from the three reviewers of earlier drafts. We are also grateful for
the intellectual contributions of our co-researchers at Imperial College, in particular
Jennifer Whyte and Boris Ewenstein, now based at Reading University and
McKinsey, respectively.
Address for correspondence
Joe Tidd, SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, UK.
e-mail: j.tidd@sussex.ac.uk

References
Akrich, M., M. Callon and B. Latour (2002), ‘The key to success in innovation,’ International
Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187–225.
Anderson, B. and W. Sharrock (1992), Organisational Innovation and the Articulation of
the Design Space. Xerox EuroPARC: Cambridge, England.
Bannon, L. and S. Bødker (1997), ‘Constructing common information spaces,’ in J. Hughes
et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work. Kluwer: Amsterdam, pp. 81–96.

Barley, S. R. (1986), ‘Technology as an occasion for structuring – Evidence from observations
of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments,’ Administrative Science
Quarterly, 31, 78–108.
Barley, S. R. (1988), ‘On technology, time and social order – technically induced change in the
temporal organization of radiological work,’ in F. A. Dubinskas (ed.), Making time –
Ethnographies of High-Technology Organizations. Temple University Press: Philadelphia,
pp. 123–169.
Barley, S. R. and G. Kunda (2001), ‘Bringing work back in,’ Organization Science, 12, 76–95.
Bechky, B. (2003a), ‘Sharing meaning across occupational communities – the transformation
of understanding on a production floor,’ Organization Science, 14, 312–330.
Bechky, B. (2003b), ‘Object lessons – workplace artifacts as representations of occupational
jurisdiction,’ American Journal of Sociology, 109, 720–752.
Becker, M. C. (2005a), ‘A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical
research – linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent
action patterns,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 817–846.
Becker, M. C. (2005b), ‘Organizational routines – a review of the literature,’ Industrial and
Corporate Change, 13, 643–677.
Becker, M. C., N. Lazaric, R. R. Nelson and S. Winter (2005), ‘Applying organizational routines
in understanding organizational change,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 775–791.
Bowers, J. (1992), ‘The politics of formalism,’ in M. Lea (ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated
Communication. Great Britain: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 232–261.
Button, G. (ed) (1991), Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Carlile, P. R. (2002), ‘A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries – boundary objects in
new product development,’ Organization Science, 13, 442–455.
Cohen, M. D., R. Burkhart, G. Dosi, M. A. Egidi, L. Marengo, M. Warglien and S. Winter
(1996), ‘Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations – contemporary
research issues,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 653–698.
Coriat, B. and G. Dosi (1998), ‘Learning how to govern and learning how to solve problems –
on the coevolution of competences, conflicts and organizational routines,’ in A. D. Chandler,
P. Hagström and Ö. Sölvell (eds), The Dynamic Firm – The Role of Technology, Strategy,
Organization and Regions. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 103–33.

Cyert, R. and J. March (1963), A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
D’Adderio, L. (2001), ‘Crafting the virtual prototype – How firms integrate knowledge and
capabilities across organisational boundaries,’ Research Policy, 30, 1409–1424.
D’Adderio, L. (2003), ‘Configuring software, reconfiguring memories – the influence of
integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines,’ Industrial and
Corporate Change, 12, 321–350.
Dosi, G. (1995), ‘Hierarchies, markets and power – some foundational issues on the nature of
contemporary economic organizations,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 1–19.

Edmonson, A. C., R. M. Bohmer and G. P. Pisano (2001), ‘Disrupted routines – team learning
and new technology implementation in hospitals,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,
685–716.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and J. A. Martin (2000), ‘Dynamic capabilities – what are they?,’ The
Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Engeström, Y. and F. Blackler (2005), ‘Special issue: on the life of the object,’ Organization,
12(3).
Feldman, M. S. and B. T. Pentland (2003), ‘Reconceptualizing organizational routines as
a source of flexibility and change,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.
Feldman, M. S. and B. T. Pentland (2005), ‘Organizational routines and the macro-actor,’
in B. Czarniawska and T. Hernes (eds), Organizing and the Macro-Actor. Liber and CBS
Press: Stockholm, pp. 91–110.
Gabriel, Y. (2000), Storytelling in Organizations. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Garfinkel, H. (1996), ‘Ethnomethodology’s program,’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 5–20.
Gerson, E. M. (in press), ‘Reach, bracket and the limits of rationalized coordination – some
challenges for CSCW,’ in M. S. Ackerman, C. Halverson, T. Erickson and W. A. Kellogg
(eds), Resources, Coevolution and Artifacts – Theory in CSCW. Springer-Verlag: London,
p. 29.
Henderson, K. (1998), ‘The role of material objects in the design process – a comparison of
two design cultures and how they contend with automation,’ Science, Technology and
Human Values, 23, 139–174.
Henderson, K. (1999), On Line and On Paper – Visual Representations, Visual Culture and
Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. MIT Press: London.
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005), ‘The persistence of flexible organizational routines – the role
of agency and organizational context,’ Organization Science, 16, 618–638.
Jones, O. and M. Craven (2001), ‘Beyond the routine – innovation management and the
teaching company scheme,’ Technovation, 21, 267–279.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2001), ‘Objectual Practice,’ in T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina and
E. von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge: London,
pp. 175–188.

Kunda, G. (1993), Engineering Culture – Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.

Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA.
Latour, B. (1990), ‘Drawing things together,’ in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds), Representation
in Scientific Practice. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 19–68.
Latour, B. (1991), ‘Technology is society made durable,’ in J. Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters
– Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Routledge: London, pp. 103–31.
Law, J. (1986), ‘On the methods of long distance control – vessels, navigation
and the Portuguese route to India,’ in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief – A
New Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge/Sociological Review Monograph: London,

pp. 234–263.
Law, J. (1991), ‘Power, discretion and strategy,’ in J. Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters – Essays
on Power, Technology and Domination. Routledge & Kegan Paul: UK, pp. 234–263.
Lazaric, N. and B. Denis (2005), ‘Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop – the
case of introduction of ISO norms,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 873–896.
Middleton, D. and D. Edwards (eds) (1990), Collective Remembering. London: Sage.
Nelson, R. R. and S. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Orr, J. E. (1991), Talking About Machines – An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Xerox
Corporation Palo Alto Research Centre: Palo Alto, CA.
Pentland, B. T. and M. S. Feldman (2005), ‘Organizational routines as a unit of analysis,’
Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 793–815.
Pentland, B. T. and H. Rueter (1994), ‘Organizational routines as grammars of action,’
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484–510.
Randall, D., R. Harper and M. Rouncefield (2007), Fieldwork in Design. Springer-Verlag:
London.
Sapsed, J. and A. J. Salter (2004), ‘Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global
programs and boundary objects,’ Organization Studies, 25, 1515–1534.
Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992), ‘Taking CSCW seriously – supporting articulation work,’
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1, 7–40.
Schmidt, K. and I. Wagner (2002), ‘Coordinative artifacts in architectural practice,’
in M. Blay-Fornarino, A.-M. Pinna-Dery, K. Schmidt and P. Zaraté (eds), Cooperative
Systems Design – A Challenge of the Mobility Age (Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems – COOP 2002). IOS Press: Saint-Raphaël:
France, pp. 257–274.
Schön, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic
Books: New York, NY.
Star, S. L. (1989a), ‘The structure of ill-structured solutions – Boundary objects and
heterogeneous distributed problem solving,’ in L. Gasser and M. Huhns (eds), Distributed
Artificial Intelligence. Pitman: London, pp. 37–54.

Star, S. L. (1989b), ‘Layered space, formal representations and long-distance control – The
politics of information,’ Fundamentia Scientiae, 10, 125–155.
Star, S. L. (1993), ‘Cooperation without consensus in scientific problem solving – Dynamics of
closure in open systems,’ in S. Easterbrook (ed.), CSCW – Cooperation or Conflict?
Springer-Verlag: London, pp. 93–105.
Star, S. L. (1995), ‘The politics of formal representations – wizards, gurus and organizational
complexity,’ in S. L. Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge – Work and Politics in Science and
Technology. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.
Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer (1989), ‘Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary

objects – Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,
1907–1939,’ Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Strauss, A. L. (1988), ‘The articulation of project work – An organizational process,’ The
Sociological Quarterly, 29, 163–178.
Suchman, L. (2000a), ‘Making a case – “knowledge” and routine work in document
production,’ in P. Luff, J. Hindmarsh and C. Heath (eds), Work, Interaction and
Technology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 29–45.
Suchman, L. (2000b), ‘Organizing alignment – A case of bridge-building,’ Organization, 7,
311–327.
Suchman, L. and R. H. Trigg (1996), ‘Artificial intelligence as craftwork,’ in S. Chaiklin and
J. Lave (eds), Understanding Practice – Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, pp. 144–178.
Suchman, L., R. Trigg and J. Blomberg (2002), ‘Working artefacts – ethnomethods of the
prototype,’ British Journal of Sociology, 53, 163–179.
Teece, D. J. and G. Pisano (1994), ‘The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction,’
Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537–556.
Teece, D. J., G. Pisano and A. Shuen (1997), ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,’
Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
Tidd, J. and F. M. Hull (2006), ‘Managing service innovation: the need for selectivity
rather than best-practice,’ New Technology, Work and Employment, 21(2), 139–161.
Trott, P. and A. Hoecht (2004), ‘Enterprise resource planning and its impact on innovation,’
International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4), 381–398.
Whyte, J. K. and B. Ewenstein (2007), ‘Beyond words: aesthetic knowledge and knowing in
design,’ Organization Studies, 28(5), 689–708.
Whyte, J. K., B. Ewenstein, M. Hales and J. Tidd (2007), ‘Visual practices and the objects
used in design,’ Building Research and Information, 35, 18–27.
Whyte, J. K., B. Ewenstein, M. Hales and J. Tidd (2008), ‘How to visualize knowledge in
project-based work,’ Long Range Planning, 41(1), 74–92.
Wood, D. (1992), The Power of Maps, Routledge: London.

Generative and degenerative

interactions: positive and negative
dynamics of open, user-centric
innovation in technology and
engineering consultancies
Michael M. Hopkins1, Joe Tidd1,
Paul Nightingale1 and Roger Miller2
1
SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, East
Sussex, UK. m.m.hopkins@sussex.ac.uk; j.tidd@sussex.ac.uk; p.nightingale@sussex.ac.uk
2
Ecole Polytechnique Montreal, QC, Canada. roger.miller@polymtl.ca
The related concepts of open innovation and user-centric innovation are currently popular in
the literature on technology and innovation management. In this paper, we attempt to address
two shortcomings to their practical application. First, the precise mechanisms supporting open
and user innovation in different industrial contexts are poorly specified. Second, it is not clear
under what circumstances they might become dysfunctional. We identify how the interaction of
meso- and micro-level mechanisms contribute to project-based user-centric innovation, based
on a detailed characterization of the business activities of eight technology and engineering
consultancies working across a range of sectors. We develop and illustrate the notion of
generative interaction, which describes a series of mechanisms that produce a self-re-enforcing
ecology, which favours innovation and profitability. At the same time, we observe the opposite
dynamics of self-reinforcing degenerative interaction likely to produce a cycle of declining
innovation and profitability. In the specific context of project-based firms, we show that user-
centric, open innovation can affect performance negatively, and we discuss the consequences
(positive and negative) of different patterns of interaction with clients.
1. Introduction tion tend to offer universal, and often universally

positive, prescriptions (Trott and Hartmann,
T he two related concepts of open innovation

and user-centric innovation are currently
popular in the management and policy literature
2009) compared with research on user-led inno-
vation, which suggests that the specific mechan-
isms and outcomes of open innovation models are
on technology and innovation. However, despite very sensitive to context and contingency (Flow-
the large volume of empirical work many of the ers and Henwood, 2008). This is not surprising
prescriptions being proposed are fairly general, because the open or closed nature of innovation
rather than specific to particular contexts and is historically contingent and does not entail
contingencies. The proponents of open innova- a simple shift from closed to open as often
44 R&D Management 41, 1, 2011. r 2010 The Authors. R&D Management r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2010,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Generative and degenerative interactions
suggested in the literature (Mowery, 2009). Work point it has now become ‘all things to all people’,
that is based on Pavitt’s (1984) paper and the lacking explanatory or predictive power (Tidd and
taxonomy he proposes, shows that patterns of Bessant, 2009). The empirical evidence on the
innovation differ fundamentally – by sector, firm utility of open innovation is limited, and practical
and strategy. prescriptions are overly general (Trott and Hart-
There is a need to examine the mechanisms that mann, 2009). Individual case studies are frequently
help to generate successful open innovation (En- not generalizable, while studies based on the var-
kel et al., 2009). In this paper, we contribute to a ious Community Innovation Surveys (Laursen and
shift in the debate from potentially misleading Salter, 2006; Poot et al., 2009) provide only simple
general prescriptions, and provide some empirical counts of external sources and partnerships. Thus,
insights into the precise mechanisms and potential they may suffer from survivor bias and also reveal
limitations of open, user-centric innovation in one little about the mechanisms of and limitations to
particular industrial context – technology and open innovation.
engineering consultancies (TECs). Research in a The phenomenon of open innovation is not
tradition that goes back to Woodward (1958) new (Mowery, 2009) and innovation that exploits
shows that complex technologies developed in external networks through a process of recursive
projects, typically involve interactions with dis- learning and testing is a classic organizational
tributed external actors and users (Chandler, response to the complexity or uncertainty of
1990: p. 68; Hobday, 1998), which makes project technology and markets (Freeman, 1991). Thus,
success context dependent (Blindenbach-Driessen the well-established innovation networks litera-
and van den Ende, 2006). In this paper, we unpick ture potentially can contribute much to the debate
some of the mechanisms that generate or restrict on open innovation. Innovation networks are
innovation, with a particular focus on types of more than an aggregation of bilateral collabora-
client relationships and interactions. tive relationships or dyads (Belussi and Arcangeli,
In Section 2, we review the literatures on open 1998): as embedded social context and position
and user-centric innovation, and innovation by relative to other, actors have major impacts on
project-based organizations. In Section 3, we innovative activity. Variations in the degree and
discuss our method, which includes a large web- type of such interaction typically produces dy-
based survey to identify broad issues and patterns namic, inherently unstable and unpredictable set
of interaction, and in-depth project-level studies of relationships, that make network-based inno-
of TECs to reveal the micro- and meso-mechan- vation fundamentally different from the trial-and-
isms of open, user-centric innovation. Section 4 error process found within individual firms (Bi-
describes the business context of TECs, and dault and Fischer, 1994).
Section 5 identifies the mechanisms that support Networks shape the flow and the sharing of
generative interaction and generate mutual bene- information, and generate power and control
fits for the actors, and particularly benefits that imbalances among actors (Gulati, 1998). This
extend beyond the project to affect future cycles means that the position an organization occupies
of activity. We also identify a dark side of user- in a network is strategically important and reflects
centric innovation, which shows that interactions its power and influence. Sources of power include
with users can limit innovation (degenerative resources (technology, expertise, economic
interaction). Section 6 offers some suggestions strength), processes (decision making) and legiti-
about the implications of our findings for tech- macy (trust) (Hardy, 1996). Hakansson and Wa-
nology and innovation management and policy, luszewski (2003) identify types of interactions
and highlights some avenues for further research. influenced by network position:
product interactions – where products and

2. Open, user-centric innovation in groups of products and services interact, are
project-based organizations adapted and evolve;
process interactions – where the interdepen-
The original idea of open innovation was that firms dencies between product and process and
should (also) exploit external sources and resources between different processes and production
to innovate, a notion that is difficult to contest. facilities interact and are utilized;
However, wider dissemination of this thesis (Ches- social interaction within organizations –
brough, 2003) shows that it is difficult to research where business units within the same organi-
and implement (Chesbrough et al., 2006), to the zation have social interactions, that comprise
r 2010 The Authors R&D Management 41, 1, 2011 45

R&D Management r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

knowledge of, and an ability to work with develop stealth aircraft, provide a powerful ‘pull’
each other. for radical innovation (Rich and Janos, 1994).
social interactions between organizations – Users have come to mean external developer
external business relationships, which can im- communities (von Hippel, 2005) and even wider
pede or provide opportunities for innovation. communities of interest such as open-source soft-
ware communities (von Hippel and von Krogh,
More recent research has examined the poten- 2006; Osterloh and Rota, 2007).
tial for firms explicitly to design or selectively to Lead users are particularly important for the
participate in innovation networks, within a stra- development of complex products; in so-called
tegic path-creating rather than passive path-de- ‘vanguard projects’ (Davies and Brady, 2000),
pendent process. Doz et al.’s (2000) study of 53 they may open up the need for new requirements
research networks identifies two distinct dynamics ahead of what is generally available in the market.
of formation and growth, emergent networks and Sophisticated users in business-to-business markets,
engineered networks. The emergent network de- such as scientific instruments, capital equipment
velops as a result of environmental interdepen- and information technology (IT) systems co-
dence and common interests. The formation and develop innovation and act as early adopters. The
development of the engineered network requires a results in the lead user literature are open to a
triggering entity (Doz et al., 2000), which is potential problem of survivor bias, and the practical
usually the activity of a nodal firm to recruit difficulties related to peripheral firms identifying
network members regardless of their environmen- lead users ex ante when success is defined ex post
tal interdependence or similar interests. These and contingent on network position. Helpfully, a
different types of network present different op- recent review identified a number of characteristics
portunities for learning, the development of pro- of lead users (Morrison et al., 2004): (1) they
prietary standards, locking customers and other recognize requirements early; (2) they expect high
related companies into position, ensuring techno- level of benefits due to their market position and
logical compatibility, etc. which gives core-posi- complementary assets; (3) they identify and develop
tioned firms an advantage over firms on the their own innovations and applications; and (4) they
periphery (Hooi-Soh and Roberts, 2003). see themselves and are perceived by their peers to be
User–producer interactions are particularly im- pioneering and innovative.
portant in these networks (Freeman, 1991). User- Firms developing innovative complex products
led innovation results in better specified open and services can benefit from using lead users to
innovation, is based on a longer research tradition both co-develop products and provide feedback
(Rothwell et al., 1974; von Hippel, 1976) and has that will help to predict the success of the parti-
greater potential for in terms of technology and cular innovation (Tidd and Bodley, 2002). A
innovation management (Flowers and Henwood, study by Callahan and Lasry (2004) of 55 tele-
2008) (NESTA, 2008). Users are characterized communications infrastructure projects found
variously as ‘consumers’ whose needs must be that the importance of customer input increased
understood, as ‘tough customers’ (Rothwell and with technological newness. It showed also that
Gardiner, 1983) with exacting demands and as there had been a shift from customer surveys and
‘lead users’ (von Hippel, 1986) that promote focus groups to co-development, because ‘con-
product modifications and are often able to pre- ventional marketing techniques [had] proved to
dict future demand. In user-centric innovation, be of limited utility, were often ignored, and in
the boundary between consumer and producer, hindsight were sometimes strikingly inaccurate’
and between ‘innovators’ and ‘adopters’ tends to (Callahan and Lasry, 2004). Whyte et al. (2008)
become blurred as innovation develops and and Hales and Tidd (2009) provide similar results
becomes more complex (Hobday et al., 2000). respectively for semiconductor capital goods and
The scope of user-led innovation has broa- architecture practices.
dened from its original narrow focus on identify- Such findings are particularly important for
ing and internalizing specialist knowledge from Project-Based Organizations (PBO) (Hobday et
users (von Hippel, 1976, 1977) that was difficult al., 2000), which inherently are more open and
to capture via market research (Rothwell et al., user-centric than conventional organizations.
1974; Maidique and Zirger, 1985). As Rothwell Such organizational forms are used to realize
describes it, tough customers mean good design specific, one-off projects (e.g. the construction
(Rothwell and Gardiner, 1983) and very demand- of a major facility such as an airport or a hospital)
ing customers, such as the military seeking to or to manage the design and fabrication of
46 R&D Management 41, 1, 2011 r 2010 The Authors


complex product systems such as aero engines, flight or other clients, based on a reputation effect.
simulators or communications networks (Hobday, Swan and Scarborough (2005) refer to generative
1998; Whitley, 2006). Project organizations combine interactions rather than relationships, to describe
many different elements into an integrated whole, situations involving successful innovation in
often involving different types of firms, long time- which knowledge integration is facilitated by net-
scales and high levels of technological risk (Davies et work co-ordination. They also refer to degenera-
al., 2007). Their organizational efficiency comes tive interactions, which occur when this co-
from economies of system, rather than economies ordination fails and the knowledge is not inte-
of scale (Nightingale et al., 2003) because this grated.
organizational form enables the creation and re- While these comparative case studies (Lane and
creation of new organizational structures to fit the Maxfield, 1996; Swan and Scarborough, 2005)
demands of each new project and client, and is able focus on bilateral relationships, in this paper we
more easily than functional organizations to inte- extend the concept to the multiple meso-level
grate diverse types of knowledge (Hobday et al., interactions that occur in the wider business envir-
2000). However, PBOs have an inherent weakness onment. We refer to the sum of these relationships
in their ability to co-ordinate resources across in the ecology (i.e. a particular market in a parti-
projects and to capture innovation and learning cular geographic system) as either generative inter-
(Hobday et al., 2000). Nevertheless, PBOs are actions or degenerative interactions. We combine
associated with major innovations in project man- the insights from work on relationships and their
agement and organization, in areas such as project potential for providing feedback effects, with
financing, regulation and risk-sharing, and in sec- whether these feedback effects are beneficial or
tors as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil engi- deleterious. From a methodological perspective, it
neering. Although this type of innovation may is important to emphasize that generative interac-
appear to be very different from the core innovations may be localized, to the extent that they are
tion process associated with conventional new identifiable only at the department or division level
product development, the underlying process is still in an organization (Lane and Maxfield, 1996). In
one of careful understanding of user needs and other words, they may not be apparent at firm
meeting those. It is important to have user involve- level, and are a feature of the environments of only
ment throughout development, and to integrate some employees with particular business activities
their different perspectives. and links. In this paper, we examine the experience
Based on the existing research, when and of firms engaged in open, user-centric innovation in
whether PBOs benefit from open, user-centric different industry environments, and identify how
innovation are unclear. Selection bias, especially different interaction dynamics influence innova-
in case studies of exceptionally successful firms or tion. We focus on TECs, which are precisely the
projects, can be misleading in finding the experi- sort of firms where relationships with users are
ence to be positive. Research suggests that the likely to influence both the opportunity for innova-
dynamics of networks is an important influence tion, and the potential to create and capture value.
on the success or failure of projects. In particular,
Lane and Maxfield (1996) suggest successful in-
novative collaborations result from situations 3. Method
where two organizations with different perspec-
tives and capabilities share commitment to a The research on which this paper is based was
common direction, interact in a recurring manner conducted as part of the MINE (Managing In-
and value, monitor and nurture their relationship. novation in the New Economy) research pro-
Such generative relationships can ‘induce changes gramme. A major part of the programme
in the way participants see their world and act in involved a large web-based survey designed to
it and . . . give rise to new entities, like agents, capture the broad range of innovation dynamics
artefacts, even institutions’ (Lane and Maxfield, in different industry sectors. Cluster analysis
1996: p. 216). Importantly, Lane and Maxfield enabled the identification of seven stable and
emphasize that the precise nature of the benefits statistically different groups of a minimum of
deriving from generative relationships cannot be 100 firms that use innovation to create and
anticipated, in part because ‘relationships gener- capture value in similar ways. The survey instru-
ate relationships’ (Lane and Maxfield, 1996: ment is available at http://www.minesurvey.
p. 221). The positive results of generative relation- polymtl.ca and detailed statistical results are
ships may extend to future projects with the same reported elsewhere (Miller and Floricel, 2007b;


Table 1. Characteristics of participating firms

TEC Age Group structure Employees Group revenues Profit margins
firms (years) (2006) (2006) (2006) (%)
A 20 þ Single-sector consultancy 4100 4d10M 14

B 100 þ Single-sector consultancy 41,000 4d100M 6
C 100 þ Multidisciplinary consultancy 45,000 4d100M 3
D 30 þ Multidisciplinary consultancy 45,000 � d500M 4
E 100 þ Conglomerate offering 41,000 4d1,000M 5
diverse services, including engineering
F 50 þ Multidisciplinary consultancy 410,000 4d1,000M 8
G 50 þ Multidisciplinary consultancy 425,000 4d5,000M 3
Source: Company annual reports. TEC, technology and engineering consultancies.
Miller et al., 2008). Based on the innovation access to data (see Table 1). Note that the unit of
dynamics across clusters that were identified, we analysis is not the individual firm because we
conducted a series of case studies to investigate would expect to find interactions at the level of
innovation within each cluster. In this paper, we business units (Lane and Maxfield, 1996). It is the
focus on the dynamics of one cluster, ‘systems business unit level interactions that we asked
engineering and consultancy’, represented in this interviewees about, based on their personal experi-
paper by the TECs. We use the case studies to ence. Five of the business units in the sample are
build a theory of how innovation occurs within a focused on particular sectors, but are units within
group of firms that are part of a cluster; however, much larger firms (multi-disciplinary, multi-sector
we do not test the generalizability of this theory to consultancies). The other three (see Table 1) are
other sub-groupings (Eisenhardt and Graebner, focused on particular industries. TEC participa-
2007; Pratt, 2009). The other groups within the tion was based on our agreement that they would
cluster include IT consultancies and management remain anonymous. Here, we reveal only the most
consultancies and subsequent research could at- necessary detail and information about the firms.
tempt to generalize our theory to these groups. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews in
We conducted an inductive study to capture the eight TEC business units across the seven firms.
meso- and micro-level mechanisms involved in in- The business units were engaged in the following
novation, based on broad ranging interviews with sectors: Automotive, Energy, Water, Healthcare,
firms. The interviews included questions on value Industrial Processes (x2), Public Amenities and
creation and capture, corporate and innovation Transport Infrastructure. Interviewees included
strategies and external influences on innovation. directors and project managers. We tried to
Theory building does not require random sam- identify individuals engaged in innovation and
pling (Pratt, 2009) and sampling for this study was company learning strategies. Interviewing more
undertaken specifically to support the identifica- than one person in an organization, at different
tion of key modes of innovation in TECs. Because levels and with different expert knowledge, on the
context is important, firms were selected on the same topic, and discussing historical and recent
basis of their international coverage and experi- events, helps to avoid bias and retrospective
ence in the market. The interviews thus provided sense-making in qualitative research (Eisenhardt
information of experience in a variety of contexts. and Graebner, 2007).
Efforts were also made to ensure that different Interviews lasted between 45 and 150 min, and
industrial sectors were discussed in each firm. In were transcribed verbatim. Most of the interviews
part, this was designed to provide reassurance to were conducted on site, which enabled access to key
interviewees that the information they were pro- corporate reports and other literature (e.g. publica-
viding was not being revealed to competitors. The tions for clients). Interviewees were encouraged to
firms participating in the study were selected from direct the researchers to secondary sources to
a directory of UK engineering firms (Fullalove, triangulate their claims (e.g. in policy reports, trade
2004), which ensured the inclusion of well-known journals and engineering journals). In addition to
and less familiar, and more and less successful questions about innovation, relationships and va-
firms in the sample. The final selection of seven lue creation, we asked participants to identify
firms was on the basis of early agreement to project examples, which led to identification of
participate in the project and agreement to provide additional interviewees and documentation.


Interview transcripts and secondary materials be increasing. For example, TECs can work with
were coded using an open coding system (Strauss clients on design, or work in consortia with other
and Corbin, 1998) and synthesized into detailed contractors to provide integrated ‘design and
cases based on a standard interview template. The build’ packages, which are handed over to the
first objective was to identify the micro and meso- client when the project has reached completion.
level mechanisms associated with value creation and Private finance initiatives (PFI) allow consortia to
value capture. This approach is based on that pro- design, build, own and run the asset, whereby
posed in Swan, et al. (2007), and involved recursive they deliver to the client not the power station, for
cycles between theory and data (Eisenhardt and example, but electricity at a pre-arranged price
Graebner, 2007) in order to re-code the data and per kilowatt hour. Therefore, TECs’ role can
identify the dynamics among micro and meso-level vary. They can provide services in the form of
mechanisms based on groupings of interviewee designing a facility, or may be involved in design-
quotes. Replication logic was used (Yin, 1994; ing the competition on the basis of which con-
Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) to underpin the tracts are awarded for the construction of the
core theory presented here and to ensure that our facility; they may provide technical advice to the
findings were not related to an idiosyncratic case. client or to the financiers of projects.
As we illustrate in the following section, TECs
capture value by building experience and accu-
4. Empirical context: an introduction to mulating knowledge through partnerships with
TECs operators, strategy consultants and vendors. This
builds reputation, technological and project man-
TECs provide services to support the design, agement capabilities network connections and
development, maintenance and renewal of most leads to further assignments. We suggest that
of the physical infrastructures in modern econo- the main drivers of innovation in this category
mies (e.g. buildings, transport, utilities), over their are selecting experienced consultants to jointly
entire life cycles. They provide a very wide range envision new solutions with clients; structuring
of technical services ranging from conceptual the governance of projects for distributed pro-
design, project development, environmental as- blem-solving between clients and specialized con-
sessment, site selection, investment and acquisi- sulting and engineering firms, and developing
tion appraisal and warranty management to project management competencies that enable
decommissioning and rehabilitation.1 firms to cope with critical changes.
Examples of large multidisciplinary consulting TECs tend to access external knowledge sys-
firms include employee-owned firms, such as tematically, and therefore operate in a classic
Mott MacDonald, and publicly listed companies open innovation system. The extract below from
such as Atkins Plc. However, there are numerous an interview with an engineer in the Transport
small firms that focus on fewer or even single TEC refers to the development of data-capture
markets. TECs operate in many distinct economic methods from work-sites that exploit university
sectors, nationally and internationally, providing research and lead to new safety standards and
facilities and systems (e.g. water/energy utilities; their wider application in the professional com-
industrial and commercial assets, transport infra- munity:
structure, hospitals, schools), in which many
activities are similar. The top 10 clients for UK I know certainly with this work on [Tube Train
civil engineers in 2005 tendered for contracts, Line] there is quite a good link with [University
individually worth between d286m and d1.9bn. X] . . . they are actually instrumenting some of
These include UK government departments the sites that we are working on with monitor-
(Transport, Health, Defence) and private sector ing instrumentation and their knowledge . . .
firms (Asda, National Grid Transco, Land Secu- they’ve gained, is then sent back to us so that
rities, News Corporation).2 we can actually see exactly what is going on
The ecosystem surrounding an infrastructure during a certain remedial process or whatever,
project is composed of a web of specialized and it is that type of stuff that then gets
consultants and contractors, typically connected published and is then slowly filtered through
to a central systems integrator. TECs play im- and becomes sort of more recognised and it’s
portant roles within this network in helping to when then, fine write an updated standard that
define problems and identify solutions. The num- that stuff then raises the level and really that’s
ber of contractual roles open to TECs appears to the cycle.(Transport TEC Engineer)


The Managing Director of Industrial Process A process, which under certain conditions, can
TEC described the development of a novel system produce a positive feedback cycle or generative
developed for an application in the highly regu- interaction, which has benefits for both TEC and
lated nuclear sector: their clients (see Figure 1, boxes 1–14).
In Section 4, we described how during genera-
you get all the expertise from [Client nuclear tive interaction TECs use both external knowl-
plant], from [a Blue Chip engineering firm], edge networks and more conventional internal
from [Name of Engineering Procurement Con- capability- and reputation building. Together,
tractor] from [name of another Nuclear Client] these (internal) micro- and (external) meso-level
all of these experts and the nuclear inspectorate mechanisms account for the generative develop-
. . . and we claimed the credit but the truth is ment of stocks of expertise, which flows through
it’s an industry developed design . . . So you the project network among TECs, their clients
can feel a lot more confident with it because and their partners. The most prominent mechan-
I’ve had all the bloody experts of the industry isms in the case studies3 are depicted in Figures 1
crawling all over it and changing it.(MD In- and 2. The case studies also identified other
dustrial Process A TEC) mechanisms that enhance competitiveness. These
include internal organizational processes, such as
These two extracts illustrate how knowledge acknowledge-management programmes (developed
cumulation occurs through networks, and links by each of the multi-disciplinary TECs studied),
with universities, other contractors, suppliers and and emergent capabilities based on the scale and
regulators. Much of the knowledge is formalized scope of operations. An example here is the
into decision methodologies that help retain past ability to offer clients a one-stop-shop covering
learning and experience, including professional all the project’s design needs (mentioned explicitly
guidelines and building regulations. by three TECs). This paper focuses on the me-
chanisms that feed into the generative interactions
associated with innovation, rather than the dis-
5. Micro- and meso-level mechanisms tinct dynamics associated with successful compe-
contributing to open, user-centric tition (despite its economic importance).
innovation Figure 1 presents a series of quotes from inter-
views about mechanisms that are inter-related
In this section, we show that TECs typically engage and occur across a range of client-TEC interac-
in bespoke projects that rely on working closely tions. These were selected on the basis of replica-
with clients to specify the design brief. These tion logic (i.e. they emerged repeatedly in the
projects are often critical to the client’s business cases studied). These interactions span project
and the cost of failure is high. The case studies cycles, clients and other stakeholders; Figure 1,
show that these units’ use of innovation to add thus, does not represent a single project cycle.
value for their clients is often limited (see quotes in These mechanisms form the core of generative
Figure 2). We find that although TEC often engage interaction as conceptualized in this paper.
in open, user-centric innovation, differences in their Figure 1 begins with Proposition (i) that in-
network relationships influence the rate and direc- novation delivers added value to the client’s
tion of innovation (e.g. from award-winning business. Value is generated for clients in a
bridges and tunnels to incremental advances such number of ways, for example, through enhanced
as new ways of applying pre-existing data-capture prestige (e.g. being associated with a conspicuous
techniques on site). Because outcomes influence the construction, such as London’s 30 St. Mary Axe,
accumulation of technological capabilities and re- popularly known as ‘the Gherkin’, or the Burj Al
putation, they in turn affect future performance. Arab Hotel known as ‘the Sail’, in Dubai);
Over time, these approaches can yield very different through improved functionality of assets (e.g. im-
outcomes as we illustrate below. proving the acoustics in a concert hall, reducing
hospital infection rates); cost savings (e.g. designs
that use prefabricated components to enable
faster build times (e.g. railway station platforms,
5.1. Dynamics of generative interaction
railway embankment renewals); or less disruption
Getting to a position where TECs, their clients (e.g. using tunnel jacking and ground freezing to
and other stakeholders, such as contractors and slide a pre-fabricated road tunnel under opera-
suppliers, can innovate together is a multi-stage tional railway lines in Boston’s ‘big dig’) or


Figure 1. A chain of mechanisms that support generative interaction.
improved safety (e.g. using movement monitoring Proposition (ii) in Figure 1 states that when
systems to reduce the risk of collapses during TECs generate client-added value this may have
excavations). This list is based on information ongoing benefits for the TEC. The mechanisms
gleaned from the interviews with TECs (e.g. see through which this is achieved include better
quotes 1 and 2 in Figure 1) and a review of some chances of repeat business and enhanced reputa-
leading UK engineering publications. However, it tion (boxes 3–6). This may improve the competi-
should be regarded as illustrative rather than tiveness of TECs in tenders. A Project Manager
exhaustive. described this as:


we were in a competitive situation on the Interviewees spoke about the benefits from
[Nuclear plant] project which made a big differ- reputation and client relations including the abil-
ence . . . I suppose [to] how much profit at the ity to influence the client and other stakeholders,
end of the day, how much profit we can make. such as contractors, in project decision making.
When you are in a competitive situation it’s you The ‘soft’ skills and status of the TEC project
know, you get beaten up a lot more commer- manager can also be important in influencing
cially at the start. But I am sure that one of the clients’ receptiveness to innovative solutions.
things that went in our favour was our track This, in turn, may allow the TEC to work in
record at the [name of prior client] project ways that create value for their clients. The
because all of the people within the nuclear following extract from an interview with a Trans-
industry they know each other and they are port Director and a leading engineer, illustrates
interconnected and I am sure they talk to each these points:
other. So I am sure the [previous] project helped
us actually win the [Nuclear plant] project. . . . so understanding of customers’ needs and
(Project Manager – Industrial Process A TEC) identifying solutions that will satisfy them is a
particular strength. It’s obviously grounded in
Generating repeat business or increasing reputa- technical expertise, but it’s also dependent on
tion and enhancing competitiveness are important advocacy, mentoring, learning from experience
in lowering the cost of sales by spreading the fixed and conveying that understanding to the cus-
costs involved in running a TEC and bidding for tomers through precedent and reputation . . . I
contracts (see quotes 5 and 6). However, as the mean our competitors obviously do that to a
next quote shows, although powerful, reputation certain extent as well. (Transport director 1)
in a particular technical field is not a panacea:
If the TEC staff can indeed convey the benefits of
an innovative approach and actually deliver
if people aren’t aware of us and they advertise added value, then the cycle is complete and
for designers . . . it can be difficult for us to should generate benefits for TEC and client (see
actually win you know because it’s an open Figure 1), opening the way to future cycles and
market and money comes into it but actually more generative interaction.
more than 50% of the work we do, we get from Two important caveats must be stressed. The
people phoning us up and asking us to do it first is that innovation is not a necessary pre-
and luckily they’ll do just about anything to get condition to drive the cycle illustrated in Proposi-
us to do it . . . . [but]we just lost a design tion (iii). TECs can grow organically through an
competition for one in [place name] and I accumulation of reputation/repeat business/ex-
haven’t had any feedback yet unfortunately pertise without being particularly innovative.
. . . what we would say is why, why is the However, in contributing to the creation of added
practice that’s got by far and away the more value for the client, innovation is an important
expertise. Why have we lost this competition? driver of generative interactions and the poten-
(Public amenities TEC- Innovation leader) tially beneficial outcome of these interactions.
Also, as our interviewees pointed out, it may be
This extract and quotes 7–10 lead on to Proposi- difficult to innovate within a client project. Figure
tion (iii) in Figure 1, namely that there is a 2 puts forward two propositions which in our
reinforcing dynamic between reputation, repeat view represent a key challenge to the promotion
business and accumulation of expertise, all of of generative interaction in engineering projects.
which feed into one another. Finally, quotes 11– Proposition (v) is that TECs often do not have the
14 under Proposition (iv) in Figure 1 suggests that resources required for independent innovation
this cycle generates greater profit margins for (although there are some modes of innovation
TECs. This could be due to reductions in the they do manage alone4). It is notable that while
costs of sales, but might be due also to innovation Water TEC and Automotive TEC both had R&D
and the scarcity of a particular resource (see facilities, unlike the other TECs, even these TECs
quotes 3 and 9), which allow premium pricing. were still reliant on external funding or other
This supports research that suggests that firms use resources to take forward innovation (quotes 15
‘magnet’ projects to enhance their reputation in and 19). Proposition (vi), supported by quotes
design or problem solving, in order to attract 21–24, is that both clients and contractors (in-
customers (Dodgson et al., 2005). cluding TECs) are strongly constrained by the


Figure 2. Overcoming obstacles to generative interaction.
existing institutions, inter- and intra-organiza- . . . commercial risk, health and safety, techni-
tional structures, culture and power (Bijker, cal risk . . . there are lots of different types of
1995; Burnes, 2004; Nelson, 2008). Often, these risk but the way to manage this area is to
constraints are quite justifiable not least because actually get the parties together in a different
of the different perspectives of project stake- procurement way and have a workshop on risk
holders as we explore in more detail below. where everybody in a non-confrontational way
In projects, the TEC has to innovate with the . . . can raise it, it gets owned, examined and
client and other contractors in the project’s inno- proportioned and then you can show that the
vation network also have to be brought into risk of being conventional is actually higher in
agreement. This is important because generative all sorts of ways. All those factors where the
interaction can only occur when the gap between risk hits you can demonstrate and then you can
the project participants undertaking design and its move forward to introduce . . . which is effec-
implementation is bridged. This applies particularly tively innovation (Transport TEC Director 1)
to civil engineering projects because design consult-
ing and engineering procurement consulting are Health TEC had found an alternative way to
very distinct types of business.5 The TECs in our introduce innovation and facilitate generative
sample emphasized this requirement for harmoni- interactions. They choose to forgo joining the
zation. The Transport, Public Amenities, Health consortia bidding for larger but higher risk con-
and Industrial Process B TECs all referred to the tracts to design and build hospitals. Instead, they
importance of such methods as ‘open-book ac- favour taking and adapting the traditional role of
counting’, which allow contractors and clients to the client’s technical advisor (who help the client
work together within a mutually shared under- to develop the tender documentation and run the
standing of each other’s incentive structures. Such competition). The Health TEC project manager
approaches were one way in which innovation explained that ‘you sacrifice a much bigger fee for
could be introduced into a project: the right to be more innovative in the business . . .


technical advisor role isn’t new but the way we loop of generative interaction will develop in
approach it . . . is quite new’ The benefit comes which open user-centric innovation leads to
from persuading the client to put out a more added value for clients, and repeat business,
detailed tender than is usual. The advantage of better client relationships and accumulation of
this (in addition to a higher fee for the Health technical expertise and enhanced reputation for
TEC) is that: ‘If the brief is very well defined and the TEC. These mechanisms enable TECs to work
the design is well defined then . . . not only is the with clients prepared to sign off on innovative
programme time shortened, but the cost of bid- solutions. This cycle produces benefits for the
ding is a lot less’. The Health TEC claimed that by TEC in the form of increased profit margins
showing clients how to create space in the bidding (beyond reduced cost of sales), based on the
process for innovative designs, they were attract- ability to put a premium price on work that
ing a new stream of stimulating work internation- requires particular skills or because prior experi-
ally and also introducing clients to the one-stop- ence, and innovative methods enable more effi-
shop for additional design features provided by cient and/or more cost-effective work than is
their multi-disciplinary consultancy. The Health being offered by the competition.6
Project Manager concluded ‘all this can be looked
at outside of if you like the red hot competitive
bidding stage . . . it’s [a] more rational integrated
holistic engaging approach with the client so that
5.2. Dynamics of degenerative interaction
you get buy in.’ We have shown the feedback loop of generative
These routes to more influence over the project, interaction and shown how it can be inhibited or
adopted by the Health and the Transport TEC interrupted (in Figure 2). We now describe how the
may be critical because innovative projects are interactions between TEC and client can deterio-
often perceived to be more risky, especially in the rate into degenerative interactions through a dif-
context of large capital intensive projects. ferent feedback loop (see Figure 3). These negative
In summary, when TECs, clients and other interactions are related to the client’s attempts to
stakeholders are able to overcome the constraints reduce costs through tender-based competition to
depicted in Figure 2, then a positive feedback push down prices, or through contracts that push
Figure 3. Mechanisms that feed degenerative interaction.


the risk onto the contractors. Proposition (vii) at of Sales in Industrial Process B TEC noted that
the centre of Figure 3 is that clients’ efforts to quality was adversely affected in fixed fee projects:
protect themselves may produce degenerative in-
teractions in a business environment. For example, [In the past] there was far more lump sum
in the UK government procurement of civil en- bidding [in the UK] . . . a client would come
gineering services is a business environment that out with . . . work and they’d say . . . ‘Give me
frequently produces degenerative interactions. your price to do the full engineering and con-
Quotes 26, and 29–31 in Figure 3 suggest that struction management on a fixed price’, okay,
they may arise as a result of competitive tendering and of course they, they picked the lowest price
among TECs. In Section 4, we described how and then what they get is . . . a contractor
TECs win work to design assets, or provide they’re working with who all the time is snap-
consulting services to the client directly or work ping at their legs trying to get change orders to
in a consortium to serve the client. While compe- get the prices so they can make some money,
tition is often important to maintain a healthy but on the top of that they’re giving as crumby
industry (Tidd and Bessant, 2009), our interviews a product as possible because they’re trying to
show that staff in several TEC consider that get their costs down, okay? And so what
competitions for tenders are often badly mana- happens is these jobs regularly went extremely
ged. Competitive tendering processes referred to pear-shaped, I mean running very late, way
explicitly by interviewees include ‘lump sum’ over budget, major punch-up ending up in
contracts (services for a fixed fee) and PFI (and claims and this consumes huge amount of
related public/private partnerships – PPP), which time in both the client and the contractor
they saw as contributing to a deterioration of resolving large claims, okay?
their business environment. One suggested that
However, the Transport, Health and Industrial
The Innovation Leader at Public amenities TEC Process A and B TECs emphasized that clients
suggested ‘‘the problem [is] it’s a very expensive tried to pass on the risks to their suppliers: ‘The
business to bid to do PPP projects. . .if you fail customers are no longer prepared to pick up
you know you’ve spent an awful lot of money reimbursable jobs of a million man-hours and
which could be on these big projects millions of have all the risks’ – said Industrial Process A TEC
pounds and then fail to win it.’’ Health TEC – Managing Director.
Director echoed this: ‘‘we work on a reduced fee A consequence of this client behaviour is that it
until we win the job. Now if you don’t win the job leads to an increasingly adversarial environment
then you make a loss.’’ in which litigation is more common, which has a
negative impact on innovation (quotes 27–29 in
The interviewees’ opinions were divided about the Figure 3).
merits and downsides of tender-based competition A director of one TEC (unspecified due to the
to drive innovation. However, interviewees from association with litigation) succinctly described
three of the largest TECs suggested that fixed fee how the client would not get an innovative solu-
and PFI competitions were generally avoided and tion by pushing the risk onto the TEC:
an advisory role was preferred (see Health TEC in
Section 5.1). Because two of these firms have a The procurement of services in our business is
good reputation for innovation, this would seem an changing . . . they [the client] are then looking
undesirable consequence of this form of competi- at it from the point of view of minimising their
tion. Indeed, one TEC noted that some regions had risk and transferring risk on to their suppliers.
taken steps to try to reduce the negative conse- They want us to take different sorts of risk
quences of price competition: ‘Federal acquisition than we would have done in the past. They are
in the [United] States prohibits the use of fee transferring risks that we are not best able to
competition. Fee competition if you want [some- deal with . . . they are trying to persuade us to
thing] that is divisive to innovation is very strong. It take risks that our insurers don’t want us to
pushes prices down, your risks right up . . . and the take . . . therefore what happens at the end of
[designer’s] fee right down’. [Transport – director 2] the day we have now come into a situation with
The outputs from PFI projects were seen as another key government customer . . . [where
being poor quality: ‘PFI has been a bit negative the TEC said] if we are going to be sued for this
really in terms of quality’ (Public Amenities – [if it goes wrong] then here is our solution [the
innovation leader). Similarly, the Vice President client said] ‘oh we didn’t mean that’ . . . . you


[the client] cannot transfer this risk too us [the the client benefits the TEC through reputation
TEC] and expect us to come up with an and repeat business; (iii) Reputation, repeat busi-
innovative or the best idea . . . Insurance costs ness and the accumulation of expertise feed into
[for TECs] in the market place are going sky each other; (iv) This cycle benefits TECs by
high. One way to ensure we get good insurance contributing to increased profitability in this
quotes is that we have a risk management business ecology (although equally they may
structure that demonstrates to the insurance suffer from degenerative interactions elsewhere);
community how we manage risks. You then However, (v) TECs are dependent on clients to be
find it starts to impact on some of the things able to innovate during projects, particularly as
you would do. they do not typically have access to the resources
they need for physical testing. Therefore, although
He went on to describe another situation where computer simulations allow a degree of ‘offline’
liability had had implications for future innova- learning, TECs generally lack the sort of protected
tive solutions: space for sufficient ‘offline’ R&D that Nelson
(2008) observes in other contexts (see for example
We were sued for some work overseas where at quote 20 in Figure 2). Furthermore (vi) clients, and
the time some concrete mixes we used were more indeed TECs and other project contractors are
risky but they were a good idea at the time and in often resistant or unable to support to the intro-
the past would not have been sued for advising duction of innovations to allow such testing for
on this particular approach because a govern- institutional or cultural reasons. Yet some staff in
ment would not have chased us . . . We got chased TECs, in certain situations, are able to overcome
in hindsight for something that was natural obstacles through multiple cycles of the type out-
practice in the world community and we ended lined in Figure 1, thus enjoying generative interac-
up shelling out money from our insurance poli- tion in that business ecology.
cies. What that then makes us do is we are now It is important to stress that the process of
not only saying how do we control risk today we generative interaction is dependent on context.7
are trying to guess which way the insurance In many situations, the scope for generative
market is going in the future so that makes us interaction is limited and innovation networks
even more conservative if we are not careful . . . are ineffective and lead only to technically ade-
quate designs and services, or even have a nega-
Of course, the greatest loss to the TEC in these tive influence. The negative effects may produce a
circumstances is the inability to interest the client downward spiral in the relationships among par-
in an innovative solution, which in turn limits the ticipants, which we term degenerative interaction.
ability to provide the best solutions in terms of Based on our findings, we would suggest that
added value. clients’ efforts to reduce costs or push the risk
onto contractors may extinguish innovation and
result in poor-quality outputs and interactions in
6. Discussion and conclusion that business ecology.
Generative and degenerative interactions are the
In the study reported here, we set out to char- products of firm-specific competencies and also the
acterize the dynamics of innovation in TECs, and experience and characteristics of the TEC, the
through an inductive process, to build on a line of client, and their environment. In line with Lane
theory conceived by Lane and Maxfield (1996) and Maxfield (1996), we find these interactions to
and extended by Swan and Scarborough (2005). be context specific and unlikely to be identified by
Our contribution adds to the literature on gen- firm level analysis of large TEC firms. The interac-
erative and degenerative interactions between tions we observed are those of individuals or teams
TEC and other organizations in the same business in particular markets and were only observed
ecology. Based on a series of empirically sup- through examination at that level (e.g. PFI in the
ported, testable propositions, we extended the United Kingdom). Generative interactions involve
scope of the term generative interaction, and both the meso and micro-levels, spanning teams of
argued that it occurs through a series of inter- specialized individuals in the firm and the commu-
related mechanisms that allow TEC to establish nities of clients, competitors, contractors, suppliers
and build on a trajectory of innovative projects and regulators with whom they interact.
through a process as follows: (i) Innovation adds Although the cases in this study relate only to
value to the client’s business; (ii) Adding value for TECs, we find little support for the notion that


open, user-centric innovation is sufficient for sus- Bidault, F. and Fischer, W.A. (1994) Technology
tainable competitive advantage. Instead, we find transactions: networks over markets. R&D Manage-
that traditional internal knowledge routines and ment, 24, 4, 373–386.
capabilities, such as developing technical niches Bijker, W.E. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakerlites and Bulbs:
and cross-disciplinary working, in combination Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
with external knowledge networks and partner-
Blindenbach-Driessen, F. and van den Ende, J. (2006)
ships, can promote generative interactions. These Innovation in project-based firms: the context-
can generate self-reinforcing cycles that build up dependency of success factors. Research Policy, 35,
expertise and a client base in specific contexts. The 545–561.
obvious implication of this is that open forms of Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Ap-
innovation are not a substitute for building internal proach to Organisational Dynamics, 4th edn. Harlow:
capabilities, but rather act as valuable complemen- Pearson Education Prentice Hall.
tary capabilities, similar to the concept of comple- Callahan, J. and Lasry, E. (2004) The importance
mentary assets highlighted by Teece (1986). of customer input in the development of very new
Generative interaction is a useful concept to products. R&D Management, 34, 2, 107–117.
explain the success of some firms, in some mar- Chandler, A.D. (1990) Scale and Scope: The Dynamics
of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
kets, in open, user-centric innovation. However,
Press.
we cannot generalize about other business envir- Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006)
onments or geographic regions at this stage. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Ox-
Our results suggest that open and user-innova- ford: Oxford University Press.
tion need to be tested in different sectoral contexts Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The
and cannot be seen as a general solution for firms New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
seeking to innovate. . In addition to focusing on Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
firm-level strategies and mechanism for open in- Publishing.
novation, we need to understand the effects of the Davies, A. and Brady, T. (2000) Organisational cap-
interactions with the business context and ecology. abilities and learning in complex product systems:
Understanding the relative contributions of inter- towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29, 7
and 8, 931–953.
nal capabilities and external networks, and how
Davies, A., Brady, T. and Hobday, M. (2007) Charting
they combine to create and capture value during a path toward integrated solutions. Sloan Manage-
innovation, are likely to involve different mechan- ment Review, 47, 3, 39–48.
isms in different sectors. Understanding these me- Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2005) Think,
chanisms and their interactions could contribute to Play, Do: Technology, Innovation and Organization.
more precise prescriptions for open innovation and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
the avoidance of negative consequences. Doz, Y.L., Olk, P.M. and Ring, P.S. (2000) Formation
processes of R&D consortia: which path to take?
where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal,
Acknowledgements 21, 239–266.
Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M. (2007) Building
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of theory from cases: opportunities and chal-
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Coun- lenges. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 4,
cil of Canada for their support of the Managing 532–550.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O. and Chesbrough, H. (2009)
Innovation in the New Economy (MINE) Pro-
Open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D
gramme. The authors are also most grateful to all Management, 39, 4, 311–316.
the engineers who generously gave their time for Flowers, S. and Henwood, F. (2008) Editorial: special
interview in support of this project as well as to Jeff issue on user innovation. International Journal of
Butler, Juliana Hsuan, Volke Mahnke and three Innovation Management, 12, 3, 5–10.
anonymous reviewers for providing helpful advice in Freeman, C. (1991) Networks of innovators: a
improving the paper. All the usual disclaimers apply. synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, 20,
499–514.
Fullalove, S. (2004) Consultant Engineers and Technol-
References ogies 500. Twickenham: Anchor Press.
Gulati, R. (1998) Alliances and networks. Strategic
Belussi, F. and Arcangeli, F. (1998) A typology of Management Journal, 19, 293–317.
networks: flexible and evolutionary firms. Research Hakansson, H. and Waluszewski, A. (2003) Managing
Policy, 27, 415–428. Technological Development. London: Routledge.


Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009) The practice of routines and external innovation strategies in the Nether-
and representations in design and product deve- lands. International Journal of Innovation Manage-
lopment. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18, 4, ment, 13, 2, 177–200.
551–574. Pratt, M. (2009) From the editors: for the lack of a boil-
Hardy, C. (1996) Understanding power: bringing about erplate - tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualita-
strategic change. British Journal of Management, tive research. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
Special Issue, 7, 1, S3–S16. 5, 856–862.
Hobday, M. (1998) Product complexity, innovation Rich, B. and Janos (1994) Skunk Works. London:
and industrial organization. Research Policy, 26, 6, Warner Books.
689–710. Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V.T.P.,
Hobday, M., Rush, H. and Tidd, J. (2000) Innovation Robertson, A.B. and Townsend, J. (1974) SAPPHO
in complex product systems. Research Policy, 29, updated – project SAPPHO phase II. Research
793–804. Policy, 3, 258–291.
Hooi-Soh, P. and Roberts, E.B. (2003) Networks of Rothwell, R. and Gardiner, P. (1983) Tough customers,
innovators: a longitudinal perspective. Research Pol- good design. Design Studies, 4, 3, 161–169.
icy, 32, 1569–1588. Salter, A. and Gann, D. (2003) Sources of ideas for
Lane, D. and Maxfield, R. (1996) Strategy under innovation in engineering design. Research Policy,
complexity: fostering generative relationships. Long 32, 8, 1309–1324.
Range Planning, 29, 2, 215–231. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006) Open for innovation: Research. London: Sage.
the role of openness in explaining innovation perfor- Swan, J., Goussevskaia, A., Newell, S., Robertson, M.,
mance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Bresnen, M. and Obembe, A. (2007) Modes of orga-
Management Journal, 27, 2, 131–150. nizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and
Maidique, M. and Zirger, B. (1985) The new product the role of integrative and relational capabilities.
learning cycle. Research Policy, 14, 6, 299–309. Research Policy, 36, 529–547.
Miller, R. and Floricel, S. (2007b) Games of innova- Swan, J. and Scarborough, H. (2005) The politics
tion: a new theoretical perspective. International of networked innovation. Human Relations, 58, 7,
Journal of Innovation Management, 11, Special issue 913–943.
1, 1–36. Teece, D. (1986) Profiting from technological innova-
Miller, R., Olleros, X. and Molinié, L. (2008) Innova- tion: implications for integration, collaboration, li-
tion games: a new approach to the competitive chal- censing and public policy. Research Policy, 13, 343–
lenge. Long Range Planning, 41, 378–394. 373.
Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H. and Midgley, D.F. Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009) Managing Innovation:
(2004) The nature of lead users and measure- Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational
ment of leading edge status. Research Policy, 33, Change, 4th edn. London: Wiley.
351–362. Tidd, J. and Bodley, K. (2002) The affect of project
Mowery, D.C. (2009) Plus ca change: industrial R&D novelty on the new product development process.
in the third industrial revolution. Industrial and R&D Management, 32, 2, 127–138.
Corporate Change, 18, 1, 1–50. Trott, P. and Hartmann, D. (2009) Why open innova-
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the tion is old wine in new bottles. International Journal
Arts (NESTA) (2008) The New Inventors: How Users of Innovation Management, 13, 4, 715–736.
are Changing the Rules of Innovation. London: von Hippel, E. (1976) The dominant role of users in the
NESTA. scientific instrument innovation process. Research
Nelson, R.R. (2008) What enables rapid economic Policy, 5, 212–239.
progress: what are the needed institutions? Research von Hippel, E. (1977) The dominant role of the user in
Policy, 37, 1–11. semiconductor and electronic subassembly process
Nightingale, P., Brady, T., Davies, A.C. and Hall, J. innovation. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Man-
(2003) Capacity utilization revisited: software, con- agement, EM-24, 60–71.
trol and the growth of large technical systems. von Hippel, E. (1986) Lead users: a source of
Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 3, 477–517. novel product concepts. Management Science, 32,
Osterloh, M. and Rota, S. (2007) Open source software 791–805.
development – just another case of collective inven- von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cam-
tion? Research Policy, 36, 2, 157–171. bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: von Hippel, E. and von Krogh, G. (2006) Free reveal-
towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, ing and the private-collective model for innovation
13, 343–373. incentives. R&D Management, 36, 3, 295–306.
Poot, T., Faems, D. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009) Whitley, R. (2006) Project-based firms: new organiza-
Toward a dynamic perspective on open innovation: tional form or variations on a theme? Industrial and
a longitudinal assessment of the adoption of internal Corporate Change, 15, 1, 77–99.


Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2008) 7. For example the Water TEC suggested that its
How to visualize knowledge in project-based work. clients in the UK water utilities had R&D budgets
Long Range Planning, 41, 1, 74–92. related to regulatory requirements. This suggests
Woodward, J. (1958) Management and Technology. that the regulatory context influences the process
London: HMSO. of generative interaction.
Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Designs and
Methods. London: Sage.
Michael Hopkins is a Research Fellow at SPRU
(Science & Technology Policy Research) at the
Notes University of Sussex. Originally trained as a
biologist, he moved into social science research
1. Other services typically undertaken by the case study at Sussex, gaining an MSc in Technology
firms include asset integrity management, marketing and Innovation Management, and a DPhil in
and strategic advice, commercial agreements, opera- Science and Technology Policy Studies. His re-
tional engineering, commissioning client assets, plan- search focuses on the evolution of socio-technical
ning permissions, project management, development
systems, particularly in biotechnology and engi-
of regulations, engineering specifications, feasibility
studies, inspection and analysis, site supervision, ten-
neering, spanning both technological and organi-
der adjudication, interface co-ordination, lifetime stu- zational change. He publishes in natural sciences
dies and testing and inspection. (Nature, Nature Biotechnology) and social
2. Anon ‘Top 10s’, Construction News, January 19, sciences (Research Policy, Science as Culture)
2006: p. 16. and continues to undertake interdisciplinary
3. We cannot exclude the possibility that in other TEC research.
firms, beyond our cases, these mechanisms and
probably many others, feed generative interaction. Joe Tidd is a Professor of technology and innova-
Figure 1 should be interpreted as a set of empirically tion management at SPRU (Science & Technol-
derived propositions, whose sufficiency and general- ogy Policy Research), University of Sussex, UK.
izability should be tested in future studies.
His research interests include managing process
4. The focus of this paper is generative and degenerative
interaction; discussion of innovation by TECs would
innovation, service innovation and the relation-
go beyond this. However, we should emphasize that ships between innovation and organizational per-
innovation in TECs does occur outside of externally formance and growth. He has written eight books
funded projects. For example, the larger TEC in our and 460 papers on the management of technol-
sample [Firms D, E and G] had developed software ogy and innovation, the most recent being Gain-
programmes and/or knowledge management systems ing Momentum: Managing the diffusion of
that helped them to work more efficiently. innovations (Imperial College Press, 2010) and
5. The Public Amenities TEC project manager and an Managing Innovation: Integrating technological,
engineer in the Transport TEC described the key market and organizational change (Wiley, 2009,
differences as being that designers invested in few with John Bessant).
physical assets and expected smaller fees on which
they earned higher margins, while engineering procure-
ment consultants (EPC) have to invest large amounts
Paul Nightingale is the Deputy Director of SPRU
in equipment, and take on a bigger financial risk (Science & Technology Policy Research), at the
during the building phase of projects, for which they University of Sussex and visiting Professor of
earned a smaller margin of the total project budget. Corporate Strategy at Cass Business School
Although this might be quite a large sum, the risks (City). He received his MSc and DPhil from
were also higher. TECs occasionally participate in risk/ SPRU, at Sussex. His work has appeared in
reward sharing with EPC, but profit margins can be Research Policy, Industrial and Corporate
quickly eroded if there are mistakes (e.g. penalties for Change, Trends in Biotechnology and Nature
the delays (the cases of the Wembley football stadium Biotechnology. His current research focuses on
in the United Kingdom, and the collapse of the UK biosecurity, financial innovation and the innova-
London tube maintenance company, Metronet, are
tive financing and management of high impact
examples of failures in risky projects producing very
adverse impacts on the firms involved).
firms.
6. Others have suggested that innovative projects may
benefit TEC by enhancing staff retention and re- Roger Miller (MSc, MBA, DSc) has pursued
cruitment as customers with interesting projects, and a dual career in academia and international
enthusiastic staff are keen to work in innovative and consulting. He holds the Jarislowsky Chair in
successful TEC (Salter and Gann, 2003). Innovation and Project Management at Ecole


Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada. He is also a projects covering topics such as software

founding partner of Secor, a strategy consulting engineering, innovation policies, organiza-
firm with offices in Montreal, Paris and Toronto. tional change, public–private partnerships and
Over the last 25 years, Dr Miller has managed infrastructure investments.

GDV/gg/2013-04-17/212
View publication stats

Investigacion Desarrollo e Innovacion

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Investigacion Desarrollo e Innovacion

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Empresarial

Technical Report · February 2013

Guillermo Diaz Villavicencio

PRÁTICAS DE INOVAÇÃO AGROECOLÓGICA: ANÁLISE DA AGRICULTURA FAMILIAR NO PARANÁ/BRASIL View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

MODALIDAD ABIERTA Y A DISTANCIA

MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL

Ph.D. Guillermo Javier Díaz Villavicencio

UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA

5. ORIENTACIONES GENERALES PARA EL ESTUDIO... 12

6. DESARROLLO DEL APRENDIZAJE.................................. 14

Unidad I. Innovación y Principales Líneas de Investigación 15

1.1 Fundamentos de innovación................................................ 15

Unidad II. La Innovación como Proceso de Gestión........... 38

2.1 Innovación como proceso de Gestión................................. 38

3.1 La innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas....... 48

Unidad IV. Desempeño en la gestión de innovación........... 64

4.1 El desempeño en la gestión de innovación......................... 64

El presente Texto-Guía (guía didáctica) de investigación, desarrollo

El texto-guía busca despertar el interés de los candidatos a Master para

El texto-guía ha sido escrito, pensando dentro de un contexto de la

Desde una perspectiva de desarrollo del tema, el texto-guía intenta

La primera unidad habla de la innovación sus principales Líneas de

UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL 5

La segunda unidad está orientada a la innovación como proceso de

La tercera unidad trata del abordaje estratégico de la innovación, viendo

La cuarta unidad aborda el desempeño en la gestión de innovación,

6 UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL

Al finalizar el modulo el Candidato a Master podrá:

Diferenciar los tipos de innovación y sus distintas aplicaciones en la

• Distinguir conceptos, herramientas y prácticas de la innovación.

• Analizar el proceso creativo de la innovación.

• Aplicar los conceptos a la práctica empresarial.

• Participar de dos encuesta prácticas para ver la realidad innovadora

UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL 7

Innovación y Principales Líneas de Investigación

1.1 Fundamentos de innovación

1.2 Tipos de innovación

1.3 Las Cuatro Ps. de la Innovación

1.4 Innovación y las Ventajas Competitivas

1.5 La innovación como proceso basado en conocimiento

1.6 Desafíos de la innovación discontinua

1.7 La teoría de “Innovación de ruptura” de Christensen

1.8 Proceso de gerenciamiento de la innovación

1.9 Desafíos de la innovación en la investigación científica

La Innovación como Proceso de Gestión

2.1 Innovación como proceso de gestión

2.2 Organización basada en proyectos

2.3 La innovación como proceso de gestión según la Unión Europea

8 UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL

Abordaje Estratégico de la Innovación

3.1La innovación como fuente de ventajas competitivas

3.2 Estrategias racionalistas o incrementales

3.3 Tecnología y análisis competitivo

Desempeño en la Gestión de Innovación

4.1 El desempeño de la gestión de innovación

4.2 Aprendiendo a gerencial la innovación

4.3 Auditoria de la gestión de innovación

4.4 Qué buscar en la auditoria de innovación

4.5 Qué tipo de innovación caracteriza su organización

UTPL • MAESTRÍA EN GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL 9

PhD. Guillermo Díaz Villavicencio (2013) Guía Didáctica de la

4.2 Complementaria (de lectura obligatoria)