Systems Innovation (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Innovation Management, 2000
Many researchers and practitioners contend that organisations should respond to changing market need and create competitive advantage through innovation and creativity. Each year, organisations expend significant resources developing new products and processes and yet research shows that more than half of these initiatives fail. Successful organisations are not innovative by accident; they deliberately manage their innovation process. In order to effectively manage the innovation process, organisations must utilise proven approaches to "lever" innovation within the organisation. This paper proposes an approach to managing systems innovation that centres on the process of organisational innovation and good management practice. This approach aims to provide a more integrated approach to systems innovation that will make it more systemic and improve its likelihood of success. This paper's main objective is to present a Systems Innovation Self-Assessment (SISA) tool. This ...
A systems perspective on systemic innovation
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2021
The term 'systemic innovation' is increasing in use, but there is no consensus on its meaning: five understandings of the term can be identified, each based on a different view of what the word 'systemic' should refer to. The first understanding focuses on technologies, where the innovation in focus is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, 'systemic' refers to technological innovations interacting in a larger product system. A second use of the term refers to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for innovation systems. Here, 'systemic' means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term says that an innovation is 'systemic' when its purpose is to change societal laws and norms to place new enablers and constraints on innovation in the interests of ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of nested systems: innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecosystem. The fourth use focuses on collaboration in innovation networks with multiple actors. This has evolved from the first understanding of systemic innovation, but the critical difference is the primary focus on people and processes rather than technological products. The word 'systemic' refers to the interdependency of actors in a business or community context, leading to a need to cocreate value and innovate in concert or through coevolutionary dynamics. The fifth use of the term 'systemic innovation' concerns how people engage in a process to support systemic thinking and action, and it is primarily this process, and the thinking and action it gives rise to, that is seen as systemic, rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fifth understanding that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published over the last 50 years. The current paper offers a contemporary perspective on what systems thinkers mean by 'systemic', and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of 'systemic innovation', but it also helps to show how all four previous forms of
Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2010
In this paper we develop an analytical framework for studying learning processes in the context of efforts to bring about system innovation by building new networks of actors who are willing to work on a change towards sustainable development. We then use it to evaluate two specific intervention programmes carried out by a self-proclaimed ‘system instrument’. The framework integrates elements from the Innovation Systems approach with a social learning perspective. The integrated model proposes essentially that these kinds of systemic instruments can serve to enhance conditions for social learning and that such processes may result in learning effects that contribute to system innovation by combating system imperfections. The empirical findings confirm the assumption that differences in learning can be explained by the existence or absence of conditions for learning. Similarly, the existence or creation of conducive conditions could be linked to the nature and quality of the interventions of the systemic instrument. We conclude that the investigated part of the hypothesised model has not been refuted and seems to have explanatory power. At the same time we propose that further research is needed among others on the relation between learning, challenging system imperfections and system innovation.
Developing a software infrastructure to support systemic innovation through effective management
Technovation, 2003
Organisations are constantly adapting and innovating their systems in order to compete. Given current turbulence of the global market, together with constant technological developments, pressure for modern organisations to innovate their systems is constantly increasing. Despite the obvious importance of systems innovation to continued organisational existence, research suggests that these innovative efforts are ineffectively managed, cumulating in over half failing to achieve their goals. Given this reality, there exists a need for an infrastructure that integrates the core elements of systems innovation to allow its effective management. The objective of this paper is to introduce a software system that supports the operation of the systems innovation process through the provision of such an infrastructure for its effective management. This paper is the cumulation of substantial research and the framework presented in Section 2 has been the focus of a number of publications. Consequently the material in Section 2 is presented as background to the development of the Systems Innovation Management software. The paper concentrates on the process pursued during the design of the software to ensure a strong correlation with the requirements of systems innovation management.
Moving innovation systems research to the next level: towards an integrative agenda
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2017
The concept of innovation systems has been a guiding paradigm of innovation research and strongly influenced research and innovation policy since the early 1990s. In spite of this success, criticisms have been raised in recent years about whether it is still a suitable framework for addressing the innovation-related challenges of the future. In the present paper we claim that systemic explanations of innovation success have still a very important role to play. In order to address the rising criticism, however, we have to reconsider the conceptual core of the family of innovation systems (IS) approaches and sketch out a path for renewal. The paper retraces the conceptual roots of IS approaches, assesses their uptake in different policy circles around the world, discusses the conceptual core and explanatory ambition, and finally formulates a future-oriented research agenda for a more integrative innovation systems framework.
Each year organizations spend a signi® cant amount of money developing new products and processes in an ee ort to satisfy customer demands and manufacture high-quality products ee ciently. Both development processes ± product and process , are complex, resource intensive and thrive on innovation. They demand a variety of skills and resources, but in particular, participation among all sta in generating ideas, managing projects and implementing change. There are currently a number of software tools and methods that facilitate change in a systems environment. These range from complex modelling tools to information management tools. The tools have been developed around paradigms, e.g. world class manufacturing, total quality management and business process reengineering. They are often complex, requiring the ee orts of skilled designers and managers. Current thinking within a systems environment re¯ ects a more participative and less specialist approach to managing innovation and change. There is a need to create compromise between detailed project engineering and good management practice. This paper introduces a new paradigm centred on good management practice, and identi® es the critical issues in systems innovation and change. The paradigm is articulated through a series of change levers and a methodology that guides managers and designers. It is supported by a series of software tools that together bring innovation management to life within the industrial organization.