market.
The brief discussion of these famous formulas applied to the world of organizations leads us to underline how difficult it is to manage innovation: it involves individuals, the organization, their capacities and resources; it requires a variably long time frame due, among other things, to potential failures; it meshes the internal space of the organization, and also the external space. However, innovation is essential to exist in a competitive market, to differentiate oneself from one’s competitors, or to create a new activity, or even a new market, in a disruptive manner (Porter 1996; Kim and Mauborgne 2005; Christensen et al. 2015). The question that many managers then ask themselves is: how to manage innovation? In other words, how do we find the ideas that give rise to innovations, select them and share them within the organization and with other stakeholders?
The purpose of this chapter is to propose the elements of response according to three complementary dimensions, summarized in a symbolic way under the three notions: “space, time and matter”.
– The first is particularly concerned with space, as seen from the perspective of organizational boundaries. The objective is to understand their roles in innovation, the actors involved, and the challenges posed for organizations in terms of innovation management.
– The second dimension focuses on presenting the emblematic processes of innovation, in particular the stage gate from the idea to the implementation of the innovation.
– The third dimension refers to the material, sensitive version of innovation, i.e. the product, the service, a new organization, etc., and returns to its appropriation by individuals and the challenges faced by managers.
2.2. Managing innovation: a question of space
If innovation is born somewhere, in the form of an idea, its development requires a favorable environment, so that it can be nourished by knowledge and exchanges between people who are relatively close, in order to trust and understand each other. Indeed, proximity is required, especially a certain cognitive proximity, in other words, individuals with the same knowledge and skills base who can learn from one another (Boschma 2004). It is for this reason that it is accepted that innovation initially requires a delimited space, a place composed of experts, such as researchers or designers, and also with technical tools, such as scientific apparatus or creative methods. In fact, the work of innovation takes place within a given perimeter with a degree of specialization of activities in research and development units, design centers, laboratories, etc. Beyond this specialization, these spaces are mainly made up of social and material interactions (Hall 1966; Massey 2005). Thus, contextualized practices develop, with a certain degree of confidentiality and even clandestinity (Guérard and Seidl 2013; Grenier and Denis 2017).
This delimitation and specialization of innovation has been contested by a double movement. On one hand, innovation has become an imperative for all companies subject to ambiguous, uncertain, complex and volatile environments (Bennis and Nanus 1985). These conditions imply greater organizational flexibility, with faster rhythms in developing products for the markets. On the other hand, innovation has been progressively democratized (von Hippel 2005) with the idea that innovation is no longer the producer’s activity of creation and also that of users with the simpler and more accessible use of information technology, and more recently, of the 3D printer. This openness to innovation is defended by the proponents of open innovation (Chesbrough 2003, 2006; von Hippel 2005). They point to a paradigm shift in innovation management from a rather closed mode to a more open mode, at both organizational and individual levels. This approach calls the more internalized model of innovation into question, where spaces are more closed and specific to the organization, through a more externalized model with more open spaces, less centered around an organization linked to communities or collaborative movements (Bohas et al. 2017).
This greater porosity still raises questions about how to manage innovation spaces. While innovation has never been a closed phenomenon, these contemporary models refer to a less linear, more dynamic or even more turbulent approach. In this context, how should the organization manage these spaces? Is it necessary to delimit or widen the spaces for innovation? What about the configuration of these spaces?
2.2.1. Delimiting and/or expanding organizational spaces
A first “centripetal” perspective is that of a delimitation of innovation spaces. Whether it is a simple idea or an invention as a starting point, its development presupposes knowledge between actors who can engage in rich and rapid exchanges, connections that make it possible to develop expert knowledge, whose cross-fertilization would promote in-depth learning (Camagni 1991; Maskell and Mamberg 1999). As proximity theorists defend (Torre and Gilly 2000), proximities (physical, social, cognitive, etc.) favor these types of virtuous interactions, which explain the existence of innovation departments, learning communities, innovation networks, clusters or innovation ecosystems where strong links are crucial. Of course, these networks where expert knowledge circulates are not completely closed, as it is absolutely essential that they are constantly irrigated with new knowledge to give rise to new ideas and creativity (Cohendet and Llerena 1997). Nevertheless, the underlying assumption is that innovation in these spaces is related to absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) – an ability of the organization to identify the value of new information, to assimilate it and apply it for commercial purposes. This capacity depends on knowledge and skills already acquired by the firm’s actors in their past exploration and exploitation of technologies and markets. In fact, there is a form of path dependency (Antonelli 1997; Belussi and Sedita 2009) guiding new explorations of new ideas to extend existing knowledge bases, in order to develop innovation. These pathways allow for faster progress in the learning process to innovate.
A second “centrifugal” perspective is that of widening the space for innovation by opening up organizational boundaries. Organizational boundaries tend to lock individuals and groups into cognitions that are too similar, and this is reinforced by social reproduction mechanisms (Bourdieu and Passeron 1970), which can induce, at a more macro level, paradigms that lock the organization into a dominant logic that can restrict its capacity to innovate (Prahalad and Bettis 1995; Kor and Mesko 2013). This lack of openness would explain the inability of certain large firms (such as Kodak, Ericsson and Motorola) to innovate when they had all the knowledge and human capital necessary to do so. Consequently, this perspective underscores the importance of de-embedding relationships and interactions for the contribution of new ideas and knowledge, particularly through the strength of weak ties (Granovetter 1985). The hypothesis here is that innovation depends on a combined capacity to identify, capture and integrate knowledge or resources for innovation into the established organization (Teece et al. 1997). In contrast to the absorptive capacity approach, it is less the stock than the flow which guides innovation paths.
However, too much openness can be counterproductive for two reasons. On one hand, firms run the risk of rapid imitation by competitors, hence the importance of forms of protection for their intellectual property. On the other hand, a multiplication of interaction spaces can end up generating too much noise, too much information that is difficult to combine, leading to misunderstanding and dispersion in the end. In fact, openness does not need to be complete for an organization. It is more a question of creating porosity through specific connections from internal space to external space, by leveraging technologies in the form of licensing or spin-offs, and also from external space to internal space by including new technologies from other networks (Chesbrough 2012).
However, these two perspectives are not incompatible. A balanced approach allows us to understand that innovation needs both centripetal and centrifugal movements to advance more quickly and efficiently. In the beginning, innovation may need some form of protection, even though this incubation does not take place in a vacuum. The metaphor of the baby as a fetus can be enlightening here. The fragility of the fetus presupposes its protection
