The diffusion of innovation in project-based firms – linking the temporary and permanent levels of organisation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to address the problematic yet under-researched issue of the disconnectedness of the temporary and permanent levels of organisation in project-based firms in terms of learning and innovation diffusion. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a longitudinal case study of a pioneering French construction firm introducing the partnering method in France. Based on an abductive approach, the analytical framework combines insights of the literature on community and networks of practice to investigate the processes and mechanisms of diffusion of innovation in project-based firms. Findings The function of semi-permanent organisational levels in connecting the temporary and permanent levels of the firm – the communities of practice (CoPs) and network of practice (NoP) exists besides the formal organization of the firm. As a social learning process, innovation diffusion involves both formal (i.e. vertical) and informal (i.e. horizontal) forms of organising and learning. Intermediary and informal ways of organising enables the embedding of innovation both in terms of content and connections. Foremost, CoPs/NoPs contribute to relational embeddedness. Boundary actors and objects are essential in crossing the different levels of embeddedness to overcome the learning boundaries between temporary projects and the permanent firm. Research limitations/implications The investigation is built on a single case study and further empirical research is needed, preferably longitudinal case studies, as this allows greater capture of the diffusion process. The authors suggest further studies using practice-based perspectives to capture the formal and informal ways of organising innovation diffusion. Practical implications Managerial interventions should favour the development of the informal dynamics of community and networks to foster both innovation and its diffusion. The managerial challenge lies in creating the right prerequisites for the existence of both the informal community logics of organising and the formal top management decision-making, and to orchestrate their timing in the diffusion process. Social implications The study reveals the importance of both formal and informal networks in driving innovation. As such, project-based firms should be aware of these dynamics when striving for change. Originality/value The study contributes to the literatures on diffusion of innovation, project marketing and construction management. It includes new insights related to the function of intermediary and informal organisational levels of project-based organisations, the dynamics and connection between the temporary and permanent levels of the project-based firm related to communities and networks of practice, and the boundary spanning activities that are involved between the formal and informal levels of the firm.

Formal clusters supporting small firms' internationalization: a case of public–private interaction

“…They are rather embedded in wider and more permanent contexts and processes (Lind and Dubois, 2008). In this sense, clusters may function as intermediaries to fill in and link the distinction and disconnectedness between the temporary level linked to the project and the permanent one of firms (Crespin-Mazet et al , 2021; Ingemansson Havenvid et al , 2016) and of the cluster.…”

“…In this sense, clusters can provide a twofold contribution to firms’ international expansions: directly, by implementing dedicated and designed internationalization measures and activities and, indirectly, by supporting a natural conducive environment to internationalization (Jankowska and Götz, 2018). Because of their features and nature, clusters have been described as cognitive labs (Camuffo and Grandinetti, 2011), characterized by diversity and complexity of learning mechanisms, that rely on a mix of related local/global and formal-deliberate/informal-emergent structures (Belussi and Sedita, 2012; Crespin-Mazet et al , 2021).…”

The coordination of technology development for complex products and systems innovations

“…Within an inter-organizational setting, many studies emphasize the management side of coordination with customers and suppliers (Abrell et al , 2018; Crespin-Mazet et al , 2019; Roehrich et al , 2019). Other studies include the orchestration aspect, bringing other actors to the analysis, such as universities, communities of practices and funding agencies, to have a more broad view of the coordination phenomena (Ciarmatori et al , 2018; Crespin-Mazet et al , 2021; Rubach et al , 2017).…”

First-mover advantages and innovation success: a contingency approach

“…Early innovation research mainly concentrates on the process and success of innovations, not on their time of entry. Later researchers have advocated for the integration of timing in marketing, R&D, and innovation management (Crespin-Mazet et al , 2021; Ottum and Moore, 1997). Nevertheless, there is still a large gap in the literature.…”

“…One area where this gap in the innovation literature is evident is the definition of successful innovations. Different authors have used different definitions that include profitability, market share immediately after introduction, payback period and the number of trials to achieve new product penetration, among others (Cake et al , 2020; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987; Crespin-Mazet et al , 2021; Kerin et al , 1996). The common thread across these kinds of measures is that these are short-term metrics and do not inform us about sustained market success or competitive advantages.…”