Comments on: Innovation as a process: beyond ideation

By: Johanna Bertram, Vladimir Cardon de Lichtbuer, Denis Foguenne, Sacha Jonette, Maxime Skalkowski

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 21:19:44 +0000

This paper explores a simple but important question: if a best practice works well in one part of a company, why is it so hard to transfer it to another? Szulanski (1996) shows that “internal stickiness” is surprisingly common. Even inside the same firm, with people who technically want the same things, knowledge often gets stuck. His study reveals that the biggest obstacles are not about motivation or resistance. Instead, most problems arise because people don’t fully understand why the practice works (causal ambiguity), don’t yet have the capabilities to apply it or struggle with poor communication and low trust between the units involved. So the challenge is less about convincing people and more about helping them learn.

These insights lead to clear managerial takeaways.

1. Reduce causal ambiguity – Managers should make practices easier to understand by clarifying the “why” behind them, breaking them into essential steps, and providing examples.

2. They also need to treat knowledge transfer as an ongoing learning process rather than a one-off handover. Problems will appear along the way and follow-up support really matters.

3. Strengthen collaboration and trust between source and recipient – Building a strong relationship between the source and the recipient helps too, because trust and good communication make learning much easier.

4. Finally, managers should not over-focus on motivation; most failures happen because the recipient is confused or overwhelmed, not because they don’t want to adopt the practice.

At the same time, these recommendations have limits.
Some practices are simply hard to codify and not everything can be explained perfectly. Building strong relationships takes time, which is not always available. And if managers put too much effort into adapting practices during transfer, they risk losing consistency across the organization.

Follow-up research reinforces these ideas. Studies show that tacit or complex knowledge naturally increases ambiguity, that different stages of the transfer process require different forms of support, and that trust and diverse networks help knowledge flow more smoothly. Overall, the paper highlights that transferring best practices is mainly a learning journey: success depends on clarity, support, trust, and patience.

Further References (updated after the presentation on December 1st 2025):
– Ugur Uygur (2013) – Determinants of causal ambiguity and difficulty of knowledge transfer within the firm, Journal of Management & Organization, 19(6), 742-755.
→ Links transfer difficulty to knowledge complexity and tacitness.
– Szulanski, Ringov & Jensen (2016) – Overcoming stickiness: How the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty, Organization Science, 27(2), 304-322.
→ Shows that adapting transfer timing reduces internal stickiness.
3. Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. (2003). “Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
-> The article shows that knowledge is transferred inside a firm more easily when people have strong, trusting ties with their close colleagues and also have many diverse contacts across the organisation.

By: Adrien Rysselinck; Chloe Szabo; Clémence Laming; Eliot Henrotte; Simon Michaëlis

Adrien Rysselinck; Chloe Szabo; Clémence Laming; Eliot Henrotte; Simon Michaëlis — Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:49:53 +0000

Firstly, the objective of this paper is to test the main determinants of the persistence of technological innovation of firms at the product and process level. To be clear, technological innovation includes both product and process innovations. To answer this question, a sample of 287 firms is analyzed over two-time waves. Because to empirically assess the persistence of innovation, the observations of innovation must cover different time periods. The degree of innovation persistence of a firm is defined as the number of consecutive years during which it has recorded innovative output.
Secondly, we can see that organizational innovation influences the persistence of technological innovation. It is therefore the main determinant. More specifically, knowledge management has a crucial effect on the persistence of product innovation. And workplace organization is rather associated with the persistence of process innovation.
And finally, a very important factor is the link with R&D. Firms with intensive R&D activities are more likely to be persistent innovators in both products and processes. Constant innovators could become persistent innovators. For a company that has innovated in the past is also more likely to innovate in the future. But beware because R&D has start-up costs that are usually not recoverable.

To improve process innovation, which is a part of technological, a possibility is give more importance to R&D.
R&D exploring a learning process, discovering new useful ideas, and reorganizing existing concepts so their past innovation therefore affects their current innovation.
But to have this innovation successful, the company needs to have enough internal cash flow to finance his or her R&D expenditure, and to have persistent innovation the manager needs inter-temporal stability of R&D efforts.
But to improve innovation is not enough to focus process innovation, it is important to complement them with organizational innovations. Because these innovations increase the productivity of the company, which improves its competitive advantages and profitability. This allows more investment in technological activity and therefore supports the innovative activity of the company in the medium term.
They also improve flexibility and creativity, which also facilitate technological innovation developments
To conclude, organizational innovations improve technological innovations and companies that introduce both technological and organizational innovations have a better competitive advantage over firms that do not innovate.

Several limitations are possible. One of them is that technological innovation depends on the level of involvement and the degree of change that companies are willing to implement in their processes. This leads to knowledge management in all its stages, but also in the organization of the workplace or in external relations with suppliers or other companies.

Further References

TEDx Talks (Réalisateur). (2015, octobre 29). Why innovation is all about people rather than bright ideas | Alexandre Janssen | TEDxFryslân. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7chxarBJ98

Van Beveren, I., & Vandenbussche, H. (2010). Product and process innovation and firms’ decision to export. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 13(1), 3‑24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870903546267

By: de Fooz Marie - Etienne Arthur - Liegeois Sarah – Montesi Romain – Muller Benoit

de Fooz Marie - Etienne Arthur - Liegeois Sarah – Montesi Romain – Muller Benoit — Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:29:47 +0000

Key insights
We like to sit quietly in our routine, but that is not the only reason to resist change. The resistance often hides some other problems that managers don’t see or want to see. The article we chose is about ways to change the negative side of resistance to change.

1. They assume that if only people stopped complaining and got on board, all would be well. But we quickly understand that it is not so right and so simple.
2. Resistance is a form of feedback, often provided by people who know more about day-to-day operations of the firm than leaders do. It can be turned into a vibrant conversation that gives the change effort a higher profile. Dismissing the feedback deprives leaders of potentially valuable information, costs goodwill, and jeopardizes important relationships.
3. If you learn to embrace resistance, you can use it as a resource and find your way to a better solution.

Managerial implications
In terms of implications, we have identified three.
First, resistance is rather a subjective concept. For example, in the article we have the views of three different people after a meeting and each person sees the resistance in a different way. So, it’s different to manage this concept.
Secondly, the concept of resistance needs an implementation of a new mindset within de company. It requires so a lot of change and organisation. If the company decides to change the vision of its employees, the people who are not involved in the planning need to understand not only what is about to change but also why their jobs are being upended.
Finally, the implementation of resistance requires a lot of efforts at the managerial level. but if the concept is correctly understood, the company’s performances can increase.

Limitations
We found 2 interesting limitations in the article.
Firstly, the definition of resistance was not clear in the article. They surely say that it depends on the manager’s vision because some would think that getting asked lots of questions is a good thing, it means that people are involved but other managers may think that employees are irritated by the change program. What about when people do not ask questions? Does it mean everything is clear and agreed upon or does it mean employees do not care at all? This confusion means that you could launch a change program that is not welcomed at all by employees.
Secondly, the article supports resistance and sees it as a resource and like every other resource, you should use it smartly. Employees from different departments may have conflicting incentives, so what do you do? Do you just make a list of every department recommendation and choose the common points? If they do not agree on anything you’re basically stuck, that’s why using resistance is a long-term process in which a company must explain why the change program brings benefits to everyone in the company.

Further references
We have chosen two articles as relevant peer-reviewed scientific articles that provide further insight.

1. Röth, T., & Spieth, P. (2019). The influence of resistance to change on evaluating an innovation project’s innovativeness and risk: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Business Research, 101, 82-89. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.014

2. Vos, J., & Rupert, J. (2018). Change agent’s contribution to recipients’ resistance to change: A two-sided story. European Management Journal, 36(4), 453-462. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2017.11.004

By: Clara Jacobi

Clara Jacobi — Fri, 25 Nov 2022 09:08:35 +0000

Content:
The overall objective of this article is an explanation of the dynamics of change. The pace of a technology substitution does not only depend on the technological advantage itself, but also its suppor- ting ecosystem and the competition between the new and the old ecosystem. The new technology is analyzed along two dimensions: The first dimension includes its adaptation skills to the existing ecosystem. It seems logical that the less adaptation it needs, the faster the pace of implementation. The second dimension is the old technology’s room for improve- ment within its ecosystem. If the old technology can still be improved a lot, change will be slower. By combining both dimensions, a framework with four possible scenarios can be derived: creative destruction, robust resilience, robust coexistence, and illusion of resilience. For example, creative destruction is a scenario expecting the new technology to achieve market dominance in the short term. The new technology does not require much ecosystem adaptation, the old technology has a limited potential to improve (e.g. dot matrix vs. inkjet printing).

Implications:
Depending on the quadrant they are in, managers can align their company’s strategy and resource allocation. In case of creative destruction, incumbent firms should try to invest in the new technology and become part of the change, or use their existing product to find a niche position in the market. New players should find investors for the new technology and try to gain market dominance by becoming a first mover. In robust resilience scenarios, managers of incumbents can make use of their technology’s room for improvement, while raising the entry barriers to the mar- ket. New players should simultaneously improve their own product and work on its ecosystem align- ment. Partnerships between both parties would allow new players to make use of existing knowledge and enter the market quicker, while incumbents can ensure long-term success.

Limitations:
The framework is only applicable if you are able to define clearly what the old technol- ogy is. Defining the “old technology” as a competitor is necessary to place the innovation in the matrix. Talking about this, it does not consider or define a difference between competitors and sub- stitutes. Taking e-scooters as an example: What are competitors, what are substitutes? Cars? Bicy- cles? Public transportation?
Another limitation is that the framework serves as a forecast of the implementation pace and thus requires a prognosis of upcoming new technologies. In some cases, this is not possible, for example when technologies have been existing for a long time without any market take-over or success, and “suddenly” become successful (e.g. steam ovens that had already been invented by the Greeks thousands of years ago, but were never commercialized)

Further References:

Stringham, Miller, & Clark (2015). Overcoming barriers to entry in an established industry: Tesla Motors. California Management Review, 57(4), 85-103.

Talmar, Walrave, Podoynitsyna, Holmström & Romme (2020). Mapping, analyzing and desig- ning innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101850.

By: Martin Adam, Thibault Adam, Brieuc Degbomont, Victor Lemaire, Simon Libouton, Benjamin Mahoudeaux

Mon, 22 Nov 2021 16:35:32 +0000

Market research is often faced with a lot of imprecisions when it comes to predicting the utility of a really new product (RNP). Whereas for incrementally new products (INP), it is easier to accurately estimate the utility and sales forecasts. So first of all it’s important to make the difference between a really new product which is a product with a totally new feature like a camera 3 dimensions for example and a incrementally new product which is a product with updated features like a camera with a big zoom for example. The purpose of this paper is therefore to improve research techniques for predicting preferences of RNPs. In order to achieve this, 3 studies were conducted. The first one validated the central hypothesis that people predict with much more uncertainty the benefits of an RNP than an INP. The second study was designed to test whether modifications to conjoint analysis, the most widely used preference measurement technique today, could improve the prediction of RNPs. Two types of products were tested in this study (RNP and INP). The result was that the use of modifications such as mental simulation or the use of analogies did not really improve the predictive ability of RNP (except a little bit for mental simulation), unlike INP whose prediction was improved by all 3 types of modification. In Study 3, subjects were offered only one type of product (RNP) and were asked to mentally simulate the use of this product in their everyday life. It was found that this did improve the predictive ability of an RNP.
One of the possibilities for obtaining the most reliable results is mental simulation. Indeed, putting the respondent in a situation of use helps to stabilise preferences. This implies that the facts reported by the respondent are equivalent to the real results perceived by the respondent during the survey, which makes the results true and more reliable. In addition, putting the person in a situation of use allows him or her to become aware of all the characteristics of the product that might be hidden at first sight. In this way, the real utility can be perceived in order to respond in the most truthful way.
In addition, it is essential for the manager to take a step back from measuring the preferences of potential future customers. It may be worthwhile for him to consult with other actors in the company when drawing up an NPR study. A variety of opinions are needed in order to produce a quality study. This will also limit the errors and ambiguities that the study may contain. In order to avoid this, it is also possible to carry out a pre-survey to predict whether the voice you are heading for is a good one or not. The manager therefore plays an important role in the design of the studies that are key to the successful implementation of an RNP in the market.
One of the limitations of this paper is that people were made to think about products in a different way than they would have used during the product adoption decision. Indeed, the results of the three studies could be different from reality because respondents were given only 60 seconds to evaluate the advantages, disadvantages and the social implications of the product. It is necessary to inquire whether real preferences or preferences that were integrated into the measurement exercise are reflected.
Another limitation about the type of people interviewed in the different surveys. In each survey, the people interviewed are exclusively students. The manager should be careful as these studies are not representatives for the whole population. The products tested are products of the daily life. It would be interested to interview a more varied sample of the population in order to have more global answers.
The final limitation is the way the survey maker presents information by focusing on existing materials or materials that are comparable to those that the consumer may find in the marketplace. Therefore, the RNPs’ attributes and benefits are skewed because the respondents are relying their responses on existing products and thus overlook new, truly creative aspects.

Rylander Eklund, A., Navarro Aguiar, U., & Amacker, A. (2021). Design thinking as sensemaking—Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re)introduce sensibility. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Published. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12604

Vettorello, M., Eisenbart, B., & Ranscombe, C. (2021). The Innovation System Roadmap : A novel approach to instil futures‐oriented reasoning in strategic decision making. Creativity and Innovation Management. Published. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12472

Joško Brakus, J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zhang, S. (2014). Experiential product attributes and preferences for new products : The role of processing fluency. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 22912298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.017

By: Collard Odile; Deruyck Sarah; Jamin Pierre; Moussaoui Manal; Ndombasi Tryphène; Ndumbi Ngenda Chloé

Wed, 17 Nov 2021 16:11:17 +0000

Based on the literature, the authors identified three reactions that a user can have towards an innovation: Postponement (consumers delay the adoption of the innovation), Rejection (consumers do not find the innovation attractive) and Opposition (consumers are hostile to the innovation and actively reject it). There are also eight different factors of resistance to innovation: Conflict with traditions and norms, Conflict with existing usage patterns, Perceived image, Information overload, Physical risk, Economic risk, Functional risk and Social risk. Next, the authors organised several focus groups on the three different reactions to innovation (postponement, rejection, opposition) in order to identify the most discussed factors.

In order to find concrete solutions that business leaders could put in place to reduce consumer resistance, we have some proposals. First resistance: procrastination. First, an interesting idea to counter the perceived economic risk would be to offer consumers extremely attractive prices at the launch of the innovation so that consumers see an opportunity to buy the product at launch. Later, when the product is widely adopted, the company can afford to increase its prices. Second resistance: Rejection. To reduce the impact of functional risks, we advise managers to allow future customers to try the innovation for X amount of time, why not 1 month, to let them decide if the overall performance and functional characteristics of the product are suitable for them. The company should also try to promote the image of its product because the perceived image is important. Third resistance: Opposition. It would be more interesting to create innovations that are in line with the target’s beliefs and that respect the social and environmental issues of our world. Regarding physical risks, we believe that companies should carry out safety tests before launching a product.

We have encountered some limitations in this article. Firstly, the lack of empirical studies to draw on and explicit investigation, it implies: sociological effects not studied in depth, the need for more studies on perceived image, the lack of emphasis on price effects, the need to separate service innovation from product innovation and it does not take into account complex interactive relationships. Secondly, the population observed is very limited whereas the focus group is supposed to represent the whole population. This leads to a lack of coherence between the groups studied (only two groups for reporting), the irrelevant result on information overload. Finally, the results obtained concern groups rather than individuals. Indeed, there is a generalisation due to the interview process. Some people might not have the opportunity to express their opinion.

On the basis of the article, we think that some items could be added to have a more representative result.

Baccarella, C. V., Wagner, T. F., Scheiner, C. W., Maier, L., & Voigt, K.-I. (2020). Investigating consumer acceptance of autonomous technologies: the case of self-driving automobiles. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1210–1232.doi:10.1108/ejim-09-2019- 0245

Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2018). Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services: Challenges and Barriers in the Internet of Things Era. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5), 780– 807.doi:10.1111/jpim.12463

Radaelli, G., Currie, G., Frattini, F., & Lettieri, E. (2017). The Role of Managers in Enacting Two- Step Institutional Work for Radical Innovation in Professional Organizations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4), 450–470.doi:10.1111/jpim.12385

By: Decottignies Gil, Delhaye Clotilde, della Faille Louise, Dercq Arthur, Ouazzanie Chahdi Karim, Peltier Emilie, Waty Laura

Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:41:20 +0000

The purpose of this article is to identify the (often underestimated) potential for changing routines across organizations. The study was carried out for the housing organization of the university.
Key Insights:
The dynamics of routines: There are three main reasons why participants change their routines. First, if their actions do not produce the desired results, but results that create new and undesirable problems, they repair their routine. Secondly, when their actions result in the production of new resources and therefore new opportunities and alternatives, they expand their routine to deepen what is possible to undertake or what might be interesting to try. Thirdly, they strive their routine when the results do not identify new opportunities.
The performative model: This model proposes an internal dynamic within the routines, which favours continuous change. It can be schematized as a cycle with 4 stages: plan, action, results and ideals. Each of these parts can be linked to a mode for knowledge, which are then interconnected also. The four identified modes are: internalization, socialization, externalization and combination.
The phenomenon of routines will be more intense if the participants in the routines are considered as agents because they think, feel and get involved. Their way of acting is ordered by will and intention.
Managerial implications:
Firstly, from a managerial point of view, it could be interesting for managers to implement organisational routines within the company. Employees would then reflect on what they are doing and adapt their way of acting. Opportunities for change would then arise for managers to continue their quest for innovation. After all, change in an organisation should not only be a response to the external environment, it should also be taken into account within the company itself.
Secondly, in order to be able to best manage innovation in their organisation, managers should not be afraid to change these routines if it is in the interests of the organisation. In general, managers should deal with different situations on a case-by-case basis. For organisational issues, it is important for managers to implement routines within the company, but they should not be closed to change and adaptation of these routines either.
Through all of this process, managers should think of the process of change in organizational routines as a process of organizational learning. This organizational learning also has to be combined with an organizational part which can be seen as the movement between the level of the individual and the collectivises to which the individual belongs. Indeed, while actions can be made individually in a company, a company is an organization, which means that outcomes come for every member of the company. This implies that outcomes and how they relate to ideals and values have to be socially structured.
Limitations and outstanding issues:
The dynamics of routines are related to internal change, which constitutes one of the limitations of this article. External factors can lead to radical changes, which is something that is not really mentioned either by the author. Indeed, this article covered a lot of incremental changes, as the author talks mostly about “increasing”, “decreasing”, “improving”, and does not mention straight changes.
A second limitation that we could bring is the fact that the author has been so involved in her work and close to some participants, that she could have lost a bit of objectivity in her analysis. In a certain way, this proximity with the incumbents probably helps her to be more accurate in comparison with a situation where she would have been just looking from the outside of the company. But it is also very important to be able to take a step back, and in our opinion, she couldn’t do it properly.
Further references:
• Stiles, P., Trevor, J., Farndale, E., Morris, S. S., Paauwe, J., Stahl, G. K., & Wright, P. (2015). Changing Routine: Reframing Performance Management within a Multinational. Journal of Management Studies, 52(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12111
• Lin, H., Chen, M., & Su, J. (2017). How management innovations are successfullyimplemented? An organizational routines’ perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4), 456–486. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-07-2016-0124
• Lin, H., Qu, T., & Hu, Y. (2020). How do organizational routines paradoxically affect organizational innovation? European Journal of Innovation Management, ahead-of(ahead-of-print), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-03-2020-0093

By: Bovy Mélanie, Chatzopoulos Isaline, Eloi Camille, Fragakis Mathilde, Heyne Chloé, Vandenheede Juliette

Wed, 25 Nov 2020 07:43:03 +0000

Key insights:
The article aims to tackle the eight main errors that often cause the failing of transforming businesses and identifies the key phases. According to John P. Kotter, the most general lesson that needs to be considered is that the change process of the business goes through several phases and that every one of these steps must be completed, without wanting to speed up the process. Moreover, the article also outlines the 8 key steps to transforming an organization and illustrates that skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. It seems that having a vision of the change process and the typical errors can actually prevent a team from making them and reduce the error rate.

Managerial implications:
We have identified three concrete actions that we believe managers should focus on in order to better manage innovation. First, the manager should focus on the leadership of the company. Without a good leadership or great leaders, the expected change might not happen. Moreover, having leaders in a company is an asset because they can identify the need for a major change. Creating a new system and successfully implementing it always requires a leader. Beyond leadership, it is very important to have a strong coalition among employees. Including employees from different hierarchical levels and as many stakeholders as possible will make them feel ownership of the change and will facilitate their contribution and increase their interest to carry out the change. At last, a company’s vision is a very important element. It is essential for a company to clearly define its vision and to adapt it to changing trends. Without a clear vision, the company could commit to certain projects that do not correspond to the image it wants to give. A good vision should be something short, simple, specific to the business and that leaves nothing to interpretation.

Limitations:
We have identified 3 situations in which theses managerial implications would be difficult to apply. First, the article mentions the importance of creating a sense of urgency within the company. However, during the COVID-19 crisis, the urgency was already there. Firms did not have the responsibility to create it and communicate about it. Managers were then forced to adopt the situation instead of implementing the plan they had prepared. The companies worked against the theoretical plan of action. Secondly, the article highlights the importance of not rushing but taking the time to complete each step. But if we take the example of the development of the covid-19 vaccine, the laboratories and companies responsible for it are expected to hurry up. Indeed, the world is waiting for this vaccine. Therefore, they do not have the time to think about each of the 8 steps proposed in the article. The fifth step cited in the article calls on companies to empower others to act on the vision. In the case of Viagra, they had a clear vision regarding the heart drug. When Viagra’s side effect on erection came to light, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer did not seek to remove the side effect but kept it. While the article advised removing the barriers, Pfizer preferred to change the purpose of its product. Having a very clear and well-defined vision can therefore sometimes limit the creation of new things.

Further references:
5 ways to lead in an era of constant change | Jim Hemerling. (2016, 3 novembre). [Vidéo]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watchv=urntcMUJR9M&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2Ts0UaIh9U4Jpvb_ZC6H0LglLxBP_uwwnJgSTIP94B5huroIsKgctgKQI
In this video, Jim Hemerling mentions 5 strategies to change the way we transform organizations so that instead of being exhausting, it is empowering and energizing.

Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Right Tech, Wrong Time. Harvard Business Review, 1 9. https://enterprisersproject.com/sites/default/files/right_tech_wrong_time.pdf
This article answers the question: “How to make sure your ecosystem is ready for the newest technologies”.

By: Rémi Puggia, Olivia Muller, Camille Chiliade, Diego Defraiteur, Aurélie Degroote, Mary-Lou Collard

Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:07:36 +0000

This scientific article talks about the introduction of new technologies in the public sector and its difficulties due to the resistance to change, the risk of aversion and the hierarchical structure. To innovate, the public sector will use new business models such as the commercialization partnership that is a collaboration between a private company and a public sector organization. The private sector will provide business development expertise and technology solutions and in exchange the public sector will provide access to specific assets. In fact the commercialization partnership can help the public sector overcome the three barriers and so introduce technological innovations. It can benefit citizens, businesses and government.
This second paragraph explains the managerial implications of the commercialization partnership model into the public sector and identifies three key actions that managers should focus on. To reduce the barriers that were mentioned earlier, the public sector is adopting new concepts and business models that allow them to improve their partnerships with private organizations. The private sector provides the expertise and the technology solution while the public sector provides the facilities to develop the technology and the patents. This kind of new business model improves the public sector and therefore the lives of citizens, who are in fact the consumers of these new technologies. Moreover, enabling a private organization to improve technological innovation leads to the development of new skills and ideas in the public sector, and thus helps overcome risk aversion and resistance to change.
Surveys and case studies have highlighted three main factors managers should consider in the implementation of a commercialization partnership business model which are focusing on customer priorities, the engagement route and the sharing of intellectual capital and skill. The first point helps the diffusion of innovation and is beneficial for the public sector as well as for the private organization, one must look beyond the immediate technological aspects. The second point shows that the private organisation needs to know how and why it is committed to bringing its technology to the public sector and wants to have the necessary skills to develop market share. Finally, the third point illustrates that property rights need to be discussed in advance.
As for limitations, the first we have noted is that there may be differences of opinion between a private sector company and a public sector company as to the purpose of an innovation. In this case, managers must be careful that the purpose of the innovation is clearly defined so that it is not limited by a difference in objectives. A second limitation we discovered is that while a marketing partnership between a private company helps overcome risk aversion and resistance to change, some partnerships still fail to break down these barriers. Managers must therefore always be aware of the barriers to innovation so that innovation is not limited by them.

FURTHER INSIGHTS
Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2019). Public sector innovation: The effect of universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 596-614. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1007/s10961-017-9636-2
Shakirova, R. (2017). An investigation of government employees’ support for public-private partnerships. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(5), 467-486. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2016-0093
Elias, A. A., & Davis, D. (2018). Analysing public sector continuous improvement: A systems approach. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(1), 2-13. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.bib.ucl.ac.be/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2016-0135

By: Silas Braun, David Charlier, Sofian Gourari, Julian Kotz, Luís Medeiros, Torben Röttger

Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:39:40 +0000

Workshop 1:

In his article “Accelerate!” J. Kotter introduces the hypothesis that the greatest challenge business leaders face today is that they must maintain the competitiveness of their businesses in an environment more disruptive than ever, while old transformation processes that worked in the past are failing them.

The key message of the paper is that while a hierarchical management structure works well for the daily business, it is unsuited for disrupting changes in contemporary markets. The implementation of an agile network like operating system is proposed, as it is expected to weaken the limitation of the hierarchical approach. Both systems should be run in parallel as a dual operation system is needed to thrive in a fast-changing world.

From this article, two main implications can be highlighted. The first implication is that, to manage chance successfully, a guiding coalition within the scope of the network like system is needed. It consists of a working team of volunteers representing all levels of hierarchy. The guiding coalition aims to break change resistance and to use the knowledge of employees on every level. The second implication is that managers should celebrate even small wins with their team during the change process. This is expected to help to keep up the momentum and thus contribute to a fast change.

However, possible limitations of the proposed methodology are that employees use the “being voluntary part of the guiding coalition” as an excuse to neglect their daily businesses. Moreover, the systems could clash when an employee following his network role undermines the authority of an employee in the hierarchical system. Furthermore, the CEO has a very important role as she must be fully committed to the change process in order to convince her employees to follow. Thus, the dual operating system would not work under frequently changing CEOs.

In conclusion, the dual operating system is a recommendable strategy that is dependent on the voluntary participation and the stewardship of the CEO as well as the managers.