Tensions in collaborative innovation projects and higher-level learning

Abstract

Purpose Ensuring collaboration between partners involved in a collaborative innovation project is a challenge for project managers. This paper aims to highlight how taking a high-level learning approach can represent a managerial lever. In addition, it analyzes the impact of learning tensions in a partnership context. Design/methodology/approach The paper focuses on an explorative, longitudinal and in-depth analysis of the Innovative Solutions in Urban Systems project via a qualitative single-case study. The research is inductive and based on data from the field rather than a deductive application of theory. Findings Collaborative innovation projects represent a high-level learning case. Activity theory is suited to studying the dynamics of learning in collaborative innovation projects. Tensions can fertilize the front-end of collaborative innovation projects. Research limitations/implications Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may be difficult to generalize. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the conceptual framework further. Practical implications This article provides a framework for managing tensions in collaborative innovation projects. The results provide also a process to implement all criteria of sustainable development in these projects. Social implications This article highlights to what extent collaborative relations can be developed between participants through a questionnaire with social responsibility attributes. The questionnaire allows to foster participants’ trust. Originality/value This approach is original because the authors consider that situations exist that, by definition, belong to “higher-order learning”. Through a case study, they propose a framework to manage this situation.

Activity Theory used as an Analytical Lens for Business Research

“…It is, therefore, not sufficient simply to identify contradictions; the research identify and carry out actions to address these contradictions (Karanasios, 2018). AT is a practice-based theory (Karanasios and Allen, 2018;Simeonova, 2018) and research often is undertaken in the natural (work) setting as a longitudinal case study (for example, Malaurent and Avison, 2016;Weeger and Haase, 2016;Marcandella and Guèye, 2018). Hence, research using AT may embrace a participative action research (PAR) model or canonical action research www.ejbrm.com 218 ©ACPIL (Malaurent and Avison, 2016) with the iterative design that is required by PAR or may use a Design Science research methodology (see Kang and Hovav, 2018).…”

“…In addition, it is often difficult to uncover such contradictions as established norm and existing power structures often resist change. Using various sources of data (multi-voicedness), various data collection methods (although qualitative data remains predominant the common sources of data used in case studies are needed), and longitudinal studies are appropriate for AT research (Malaurent & Avison, 2016;Marcandella & Guèye, 2018;Weeger & Haase, 2016). As will be seen in Section 3, this was a major focus for both of the studies used as examples in the current paper.…”

Contradictions and strengths in activity systems: Enhancing insights into human activity in IS adoption research

“…In addition, it is often difficult to uncover contradictions, as established norms and existing power structures often resist change and hence deny or conceal evidence that change is required. This is countered by using various sources of data (multi‐voicedness), various data collection methods (although qualitative data remains predominant the common sources of data used in case studies are needed), and longitudinal studies in Activity Theory research (Malaurent & Avison, 2016; Marcandella & Guèye, 2018; Weeger & Haase, 2016).…”

“…It is, therefore, not sufficient simply to identify contradictions; the research needs to identify and carry out actions to address these contradictions (Karanasios, 2018). Activity Theory is a practice‐based theory (Karanasios & Allen, 2018; Simeonova, 2018) and research is often undertaken in the natural (work) setting as a longitudinal case study (eg, Malaurent & Avison, 2016; Marcandella & Guèye, 2018; Weeger & Haase, 2016). Hence, research using Activity Theory may embrace a participatory action research (PAR) model or canonical action research (Malaurent & Avison, 2016) with the iterative design that is required by PAR or may use a Design Science research methodology (see Kang & Hovav, 2018).…”

“…It is, therefore, not sufficient simply to identify contradictions; the research needs to identify and carry out actions to address these contradictions (Karanasios, 2018). Activity Theory is a practice-based theory (Karanasios & Allen, 2018;Simeonova, 2018) and research is often undertaken in the natural (work) setting as a longitudinal case study (eg, Malaurent & Avison, 2016;Marcandella & Guèye, 2018;Weeger & Haase, 2016).…”