The contrary forces of innovation

Hoholm, Thomas; Olsen, Per Ingvar

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.01.013

Cited by 65 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data has been collected through three main sources: direct semistructured interviews and participating observation conducted by one of the coauthors (Hoholm and Olsen, 2012) as primary sources, and company's websites, sectorial magazines and editorials, press briefings and corporate reports as secondary sources.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From knowledge broker to solution provider in the Industry 4.0 setting: the innovation path of a small consulting firm

Mersico

Carloni

Bocconcelli

et al. 2022

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to explore the resource development process implemented by a small consulting firm, active in a traditional industrial context, pursuing the innovation path to develop solutions within the Industry 4.0 (I4.0) domain. Design/methodology/approach This study undertakes a single qualitative case study of Sinergia, an Italian innovative small consulting firm. The case study is analyzed through critical events and adopting the 4 R model, developed within the industrial marketing and purchasing (IMP) approach. Findings The analysis highlights a transition from knowledge broker to solution provider, based on a process of networking, with a relevant strategizing effort, and of assembling internal, external and shared resources. Three patterns in the evolution of the company’s innovation path emerge: resource-oriented networking, hybrid resource development and resource assembly. Originality/value The empirical study provides novel empirical evidence over localized innovation processes in I4.0 by exploring the innovation path pursued by a small consulting firm in connection with the local business. The study represents a theoretical development in terms of the 4 R model as it suggests the need to further conceptualize the category of technical resources – including products and facilities – in the increasingly complex I4.0 domain and provides insights on the changing role of actors in networks underpinned by emerging resource structures.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From knowledge broker to solution provider in the Industry 4.0 setting: the innovation path of a small consulting firm

Mersico

Carloni

Bocconcelli

et al. 2022

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some other studies (e.g., Baraldi, et al, 2001;Fonseca, 2001;Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002;Nerkar and Shane, 2003;Waluszewski, 2004;Baraldi and Strömsten, 2006;Hoholm and Olsen, 2012;Alexis, 2014) indicated that a possible source of uncertainty is the resources' own conflicting properties. Resources (for example, raw materials, machinery, knowledge) are heterogeneous (Penrose, 1959).…”

Section: Sources Of Uncertainties In the Innovation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3. Resources are not always available either due to focal actors' inability to produce them, unwillingness of other actors to exchange necessary resources, by any institutional restriction, by the unsuccessful combination of differential and conflicting resources from previously undertaken activities (Goldratt, 1997;Fonseca, 2001;Gadde and Håkansson, 2001;Spencer, 2003;Håkansson and Walusewski, 2002;Waluszewski, 2004;Chaturvedi, et al, 2009;Hoholm and Olsen, 2012;Muller, 2013;Petruzzelli and Savino, 2014). Due to resource unavailability the linking of activities may become uncertain and eventually a condition called inertia can appear in the activity sequence (Goldratt, 1997).…”

Section: Theoretical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of how uncertainty emerges in the uncertainty-embedded innovation process

Luthfa

2019

jim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to understand about how uncertainty emerges in the innovation process. Since uncertainty is embedded in the innovation process, to understand how uncertainty emerges in the process one needs to understand how innovation process unfolds over time. Since an innovation process involves various resource recombination activities occurring in several phases, to understand how innovation process unfolds one needs understand “how do various resource recombination activities occur over time for the creation of novelty?” This knowledge would enable us to understand the conditions under which vital activities of resource recombination can/cannot be undertaken and coordinated as well as would allow us to understand the underlying decisions made by the innovators for their efficient undertaking and coordination. This paper investigates the innovation process in two companies through performing qualitative study. The innovation processes are analysed in the light of a conceptual model developed based on the Dubois’ (1994) End-product related activity structure model, Håkansson’s (1987) “ARA model” and Goldratt’s (1997) “Critical chain concept”. The findings suggest that uncertainty emerges in the innovation process in a cycle of interaction with resource void, activity void and actors’ limited cognition due to lack of knowledge, undue optimism, and rationally justified reason for disregarding information. Accordingly, a great deal of compromises is made while undertaking the activities.

show abstract

“…It “creates tension between a resource exposed to a force and the history of the resources it has interfaces with” (Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002a, p. 225). Friction generated through tensions in resource interfaces transforms existing resource combinations or creates new ones; therefore, it is a transformational force (Hoholm and Olsen, 2012). This also means that any force directed towards a resource will produce a reaction that will be distributed to all resources through resource interfaces.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A particularly useful concept for analysing the disruptive process of digital transformation within RIA is friction, which describes any destabilising movement or force between resources linked to other interconnected resources (Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002a). When introducing new technologies or digital processes within highly traditional analogue processes, friction between different resource types is bound to occur (Fremont et al, 2019;Hoholm and Olsen, 2012). This friction may be a source of both positive and negative outcomes in terms of co-created and codestroyed value (Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2002a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value co-creation and co-destruction in the digital transformation of highly traditional companies

Hauke-Lopes

Ratajczak‐Mrozek

Wieczerzycki

2022

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how digital transformation changes highly traditional business processes and how it impacts value co-creation and co-destruction. More specifically, the aim is to examine, using the resource interaction approach, how the friction between non-digital and digital resources affects the co-creation and co-destruction of value in a network during digital transformation. Based on this, the authors provide managerial implications on how to handle simultaneous digital and traditional business processes to co-create value during digital transformation. Design/methodology/approach A case study is conducted of a digital platform provider and of three traditional confectioneries. In this analysis, the authors looked at the business processes of highly traditional confectioneries that have introduced online services through a digital platform and are undergoing digital transformation. Findings In some industries, it is neither possible nor advisable to fully digitalise all business processes, and companies have to partially retain their traditional, analogue character to create value. The process of value co-creation during digital transformation is affected by friction between the digital and non-digital resources and is mitigated by specific lubricants (e.g. mutual reliance, smooth personal communication, willingness to help, attitude towards change). This results in the improvement of processes and capabilities in terms of digital development and traditional production. Friction may also lead to value co-destruction, for example, as the result of transformation from face-to-face to digital interactions. Originality/value The authors contribute to research on the digital transformation of highly traditional companies that need to introduce new, digital technologies and resources while continuing their traditional processes. The authors develop the concept of lubricants that mitigate the friction between resources and, therefore, facilitate value co-creation in a business network. Additionally, the authors provide managerial implications for how to handle simultaneous digital and traditional business processes during digital transformation.

show abstract

The contrary forces of innovation

Cited by 65 publications

References 28 publications

From knowledge broker to solution provider in the Industry 4.0 setting: the innovation path of a small consulting firm

From knowledge broker to solution provider in the Industry 4.0 setting: the innovation path of a small consulting firm

A study of how uncertainty emerges in the uncertainty-embedded innovation process

Value co-creation and co-destruction in the digital transformation of highly traditional companies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About