Open innovation has developed into a bourgeoning area of innovation management research. Yet, despite the success of open innovation, research in that area has a much larger potential as an innovation framework if we broaden the scope of open innovation research. More specifically, I argue that open innovation practices should not only be related to new product development but to all possible strategic drivers such as new product development is less obvious in several businesses. Next, there is an increasing need to connect and integrate open innovation literature to new developments in other segments of the management literature: More specifically, I try to match open innovation to “The End of Competitive Advantage” of Rita McGrath.
Browse by title
Creativity and innovation are central to the competiveness of businesses and nations in the current era. Social interaction embedded in communities is increasingly recognized as a rich source of creative activity. Hence, communities are being nurtured and adopted by business organizations with the purpose of promoting and appropriating the creative and innovative potential that they offer. This chapter aims to critically examine the relationship between community, creativity and innovation to reveal how community can facilitate creative and innovative activity. The chapter begins by considering the concepts of community, creativity and innovation before going on to explore the creative potential of community through a review of the communities of practice approach to understanding and facilitating learning and knowledge generation. This is followed by an examination of different types of community as sites of creativity and innovation. The potential of communities to inhibit creativity and innovation is then considered before brief conclusions are drawn.
Patrick Cohendet and Laurent Simon
As a general paradigm for society, a dominant model of innovation drives and shapes the behaviours and decisions of policy-makers, economists, entrepreneurs, business managers and all sorts of economic agents. In the present contribution, to focus on the relationships between dominant models and constitutive disciplines, we have purposefully reduced the sequence of generations of dominant models to three main generations: 1) the linear and closed model of innovation (from World War I to the mid-1980s); 2) the interactive and closed model of innovation (from the mid-1980s to the first decade of the 21st century); and 3) the interactive and open model of innovation (starting from the first decade of the 21st century, which in our view has not yet reached its mature stage). For each generation of dominant model, we will summarise the main characteristics of the dominant model, to assess the contribution of each of the constitutive disciplines to the model, and to understand the replacement of a model by a new one.
Innovation is a concept that everyone understands spontaneously, or thinks they understand; that every theorist talks about and every government espouses. Yet, it has not always been so. For the last five hundred years, the concept innovation has been a dirty word. The history of the concept of innovation is an untold story. It is a story of myths and conceptual confusions. In this chapter, I study the ways in which thoughts on innovation of early modern society gave rise to innovation theory in the twentieth century. Namely, how, when and why a pejorative and morally connoted word shifted to a much-valued concept. I offer a history of the concept of innovation, going back to antiquity. A history that takes the use of the concept seriously: from polemical to instrumental to theoretical.
In the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis of 2007 and 2008, a new type of collaboratively oriented workplace has emerged in cities. These coworking spaces and the associated practice of coworking exemplify new ways of organizing labor in project-based and largely freelance occupations as found in the creative industries. The focus of the chapter is to introduce the rise of freelancers as independent economic agents to contextualize the emergence of coworking spaces as a collective coping strategy to deal the with uncertainties and risks associated with freelance work. The chapter combines sociological perspectives with recent research in economic geography on the social dynamics of knowledge creation, proximity and the spatialities of creative and innovative processes in order to discuss coworking spaces as new knowledge sites in creative urban economies.
David H. Cropley
Malevolent creativity has been established as a distinct area of interest in the wider field of creativity research. The construct builds on earlier concepts of negative creativity that sought to acknowledge the possibility of harmful outcomes in the production of novelty. With a particular focus on the intentional production of harmful, novel outputs, malevolent creativity has particular relevance to fields such as criminal justice, policing and counter-terrorism. There is a growing theoretical foundation for malevolent creativity, and an expanding body of empirical work that continues to develop an understanding of the relevant variables and the relationships between them. Most recently, empirical work is beginning to shift towards cause-and-effect, and practical work is focusing more and more on the application of the concept to practical policing and security applications.
Pascal Le Masson, Armand Hatchuel and Benoit Weil
In this chapter, we analyze the relationship between creativity issues and design theory. Although these two notions seemingly correspond to different academic fields (psychology, cognitive science and management for creativity; engineering science and logic for design theory), they appear to be deeply related when it comes to design methods and design management. Analyzing three historical moments in design theory-building (the 1850s, with the ratio method for industrial upgrading in Germany; the 20th century with systematic design and the 1920s with the Bauhaus theory), we point to the dialectical interplay that links creativity issues and design theory, structured around the notion of “fixation effect”: creativity identifies fixation effects, which become the targets of new design theories; design theories invent models of thought to overcome them; and, in turn, these design theories can also create new fixation effects that will then be designated by creativity studies. This dialectical interplay leads to regular inventions of new ways of managing design, that is, new ways of managing knowledge, processes and organizations for design activities. We use this framework to analyze recent trends in creativity and design theories.
Yellowlees Douglas and Andrew Hargadon
Contrary to common views of innovations as being profoundly disruptive, the innovations that succeed are those that are evolutionary, not revolutionary. This chapter examines the way in which design domesticates innovation by nudging users incrementally into adopting new practices. In fact, most successful innovations introduce only moderate amounts of novelty, even drawing off features of older, now-obsolete technologies to frame our understandings of new products in terms of the products we are about to abandon. Even as the 1984 Apple Macintosh desktop made inroads toward rendering our paper files and desktops obsolete, its innovative operating system invoked files, file folders, a desktop, and a trash can. Good design domesticates novelty. However, once an innovation has gained acceptance, the purpose of design shifts toward differentiating between competing versions of the same underlying offerings. The best designs are robust enough to withstand the continuing cycle of domestication and differentiation, changing as technologies advance and users’ sophistication follows.
Giovanni Dosi and Luigi Marengo
In this chapter we analyze the characteristics and dynamics of organizations wherein members diverge in terms of the capabilities and visions they hold, and the interests which they pursue. In particular we examine how different forms of power can achieve coordination among such diverse capabilities, visions and interests while at the same time ensuring control and allowing mutual learning. By means of a simple simulation model of collective decisions by heterogeneous agents, we will examine three different forms of power, ranging from the power to design the organization, to the power to overrule by veto the decisions of others, to the power to shape the very preferences of the members of the organization. We study the efficiency of different balances between the three foregoing mechanisms, within a framework in which organizations indeed “aggregate” and make compatible different pieces of distributed knowledge, but the causation arrow also goes the other way round: organizations shape the characteristics and distribution of knowledge itself, and of the micro “visions” and judgments.