Models of innovation: Why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done in calling them models?

Godin, Benoı̂t

doi:10.1177/0306312715596852

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To begin with, our analysis complicates the common notion that innovation can Can be planned, steered, and measured in terms of success be easily captured through 'models' (Godin, 2015b). It thus responds to the growing discomfort with the universalist assumptions underwriting the development and circulation of 'innovation models' as seen in empirical studies that have trouble reconciling the static and structural notions of innovation pipelines, systems, helices or universal 'best practices' with the dynamic cultural and political particularities of the diverse regions they are supposed to fix.…”

Section: From Panacea To Diagnosis: Imaginaries Of Innovation In Thrementioning

confidence: 99%

Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures

Pfotenhauer

Jasanoff²

2017

Soc Stud Sci

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation studies continue to struggle with an apparent disconnect between innovation's supposedly universal dynamics and a sense that policy frameworks and associated instruments of innovation are often ineffectual or even harmful when transported across regions or countries. Using a cross-country comparative analysis of three implementations of the 'MIT model' of innovation in the UK, Portugal and Singapore, we show how key features in the design, implementation and performance of the model cannot be explained as mere variations on an identical solution to the same underlying problem. We draw on the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries to show how implementations of the 'same' innovation model -and with it the notion of 'innovation' itself -are co-produced with locally specific diagnoses of a societal deficiency and equally specific understandings of acceptable remedies. Our analysis thus flips the conventional notion of 'best-practice transfer' on its head: Instead of asking 'how well' an innovation model has been implemented, we analyze the differences among the three importations to reveal the idiosyncratic ways in which each country imagines the purpose of innovation. We replace the notion of innovation as a 'panacea' -a universal fix for all social woes -with that of innovationas-diagnosis in which a particular 'cure' is 'prescribed' for a 'diagnosed' societal 'pathology,' which may in turn trigger 'reactions' within the receiving body. This approach offers new possibilities for theorizing how and where culture matters in innovation policy. It suggests that the 'successes'

show abstract

Section: From Panacea To Diagnosis: Imaginaries Of Innovation In Thrementioning

confidence: 99%

Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures

Pfotenhauer

Jasanoff²

2017

Soc Stud Sci

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 A vast amount of research has been done on the development of innovation models, in general providing variations on a simplified figure or flow-chart representation of an innovation process. 38 These models can be useful for the formation process of an R&D consortium because they give insights into the sequence of steps an innovation goes through. We will discuss the different types of models most relevant for this paper, going from the simple linear models to more complex models, ending with circular models.…”

Section: Innovation Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to improve the process of forming biobased R&D collaborations

Israël-Hoevelaken

Wubben

Bos

et al. 2020

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition towards a biobased economy requires innovations. In addition to the usual challenges of innovation trajectories, the characteristics of biobased innovations cause extra difficulties. To lower the failure rate of innovation trajectories in general, companies tend to form R&D collaborations. Choices made during the formation of such R&D collaborations play a key role in the project's success. Here, one may benefit from the social sciences. This paper presents a perspective on what the social sciences may bring to analyze and improve the formation process of biobased R&D collaborations. The paper also provides an overview of relevant innovation and transition models, and lists the dominant variables in such formation processes (biobased characteristics and general determinants), and the guidelines that seem useful. Although each model has its advantages, none of the innovation and transition models studied addresses both the phases of a formation process of a biobased R&D collaboration and the variables involved in each phase. Concerning the formation process of biobased R&D collaborations, the literature addresses social, organizational, technological, economic, and environmental variables. The key determinants of multi‐partner R&D collaborations are partner properties, motives to join a consortium, appropriability of a firm, and project properties. The descriptions of their influence on an R&D collaboration presented here can be used as guidelines, as recommendations, in processes for the formation of relatively less complex R&D collaborations. The influence of biobased characteristics – such as type of innovation (drop‐ins versus novel materials), biorefinery, biomass supply and technological challenges – on R&D collaboration have not been studied systematically as yet. © 2020 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

“…According to Godin (2015), a model provides a conceptualization, a narrative, a figure, a tool, and a perspective, whose power is the creation of images from everyday complexity. ICMs, as a lens through which, as scholar, we examine the reality, need to deal with complexity.…”

Section: Next Steps Proposalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation cultural models: review & next steps proposal

Morente¹,

Ferràs²,

Žižlavský³

2017

Universidad&Empresa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An abundance of literature suggests a strong link between organization, culture, and innovation. These three concepts cannot be understood separately. Since the eighties, when culture began to be valued as a crucial factor by managers and scholars, several innovation cultural models have been developed to help understand this link. The aim of this paper is to review the most commonly used and applied theoretical models, analyze them, and propose several new elements that must be integrated into future models. Through an intensive review of the literature published between 1970 and 2016, we find seven main models, which we examine to explore their internal mechanisms. Then we analyze them as a group to identify gaps that need to be filled. As a result, our next steps proposals integrate concepts such as plurality, dynamism, and complexity to broaden the definition of organization, culture and innovation. New and far-better innovation cultural models are still to come.

show abstract

Models of innovation: Why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done in calling them models?

Cited by 26 publications

References 101 publications

Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures

Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures

How to improve the process of forming biobased R&D collaborations

Innovation cultural models: review & next steps proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About