Getting real about innovations

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how descriptions of innovations can be formulated in order to reduce the potential for ontological uncertainty. Ontological uncertainty exists when individuals have perceptions about the future consequences of an innovation, which are based more on their diverse world views than on the innovation itself.Design/methodology/approachThe research comprised unstructured interviews and review of the literature relating to innovation hype, innovation reliability, innovation negative unintended consequences, and critical realism.FindingsCritical realist diagrams provide the basis for descriptions that can encompass an innovation's purpose; the functions and conditions which are necessary for its reliable operation; and also potential negative unintended consequences that might arise from the innovation.Practical implicationsThere can be much hype and little clarity surrounding an innovation. This can make it easier for different stakeholders to have different perceptions of the same innovation. By increasing the clarity of descriptions, there can be less uncertainty about the purpose, reliability, and consequences of an innovation.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper is that provides example innovation descriptions which illustrate how hype can be decreased and clarity can be increased. The value of this paper is that supports reduction of ontological uncertainty in practice.

Reducing uncertainties in innovation projects through intra-organisational collaboration: a systematic literature review

“…Research emerging trends and future directions Managing and reducing innovation projects uncertainties: A major trend is the emergence of innovation project uncertainties over time, such as perceived social uncertainty (Hall et al, 2014), collaboration uncertainty (Wu and Wu, 2014), decision uncertainty (Ilevbare et al, 2014) and ontological uncertainty (Fox, 2011(Fox, , 2012. Future studies should explicitly account for these emerging uncertainties through pinpointing the effective way to address them.…”

“…. (2010),Galbraith (1974),Gann and Salter (2000),Mohan and Mitzi (2001),Peng et al (2014),Puranam et al (2009),Tang et al (2015),Tatikonda and Rosenthal (2000),Um and Kim (2018),Vickery et al (2016), Yan and Dooley (2013), Zhao et al (2014) Perceived environmental uncertainties 8 Daft et al (1988), Duncan (1972), Koetse et al (2006), May et al (2000), Miles et al (1978), Sawyerr (1993), Roper and Tapinos (2016), Taminiau (2006) Decision uncertainty 1 Ilevbare et al (2014) Technological uncertainty 14 Ahola and Davies (2012), Alam (2006), Andersen (2008), Christensen and Bower (1996), Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995), Kim and Vonortas (2014), Liu et al (2011), Mam edio and Meyer (2020), Mu et al (2009), Thanasopon et al (2016), Van De Ven (1986), Verworn et al (2008), Verworn (2009), Wu and Olson (2010) Operational uncertainty 2 Kim and Vonortas (2014), Liu et al (2011) Financial uncertainty 5 Kim and Vonortas (2014), Liu et al (2011), Miorando et al (2014), Reed and Knight (2010), Wu and Wu (), Bendoly et al (2012),Kim and Vonortas (2014),), Miller (1992,Moriarty and Kosnik (1989),Souder and Moenaert (1992), Thanasopon et al (2016), Van Riel et al (2004), Verworn et al (2008), Verworn (2009), Wu and Wu (2014) Organisational uncertainty 2 Mu et al (2009), Palmer and Wiseman (1999) Ontological uncertainty 2Fox (2011Fox ( , 2012 …”