A strategy for analysis of idea innovation networks and institutions

Abstract

Die Studie geht von der Annahme aus, dass kommerziell erfolgreiche radikale Produkt- und/oder Prozessinnovationen in den wissenschaftsbasierten industriellen Sektoren am besten durch die Fokussierung auf die Netzwerke der Ideeninnovation erforscht werden können. Netzwerke der Ideeninnovation bestehen aus sechs Arenen, die in folgenden Forschungsformen reflektiert werden: Grundlagenforschung, angewandte Forschung, Produktentwicklungsforschung, Produktionsforschung, Qualitätskontrollenforschung und Marktforschung. Bei der Analyse der Interdependenzen zwischen diesen Forschungsformen stützen die Autoren sich auf die Literatur zu organisatorischen Innovationen und zum Lernen von Organisationen. Für ihren Ansatz insgesamt ist folgende These grundlegend: Je enger die Kopplungen zwischen diesen Forschungsformen und je größer die Gemeinsamkeiten der Forschung hinsichtlich dieser Formen in den verschiedenen Industriesektoren sind, desto innovativer und wettbewerbsfähiger ist das industrielle System eines Landes.

The perspective of this paper is that variation in commercially successful radical product/ process innovations among science-based industrial sectors can be explored by focusing on idea innovation networks. Idea innovation networks have six arenas reflecting research - basic research, applied research, product development research, production research, quality control research, and commercialization/ marketing research. The paper develops two interrelated hypotheses. The first is that the greater the diversity of competencies or knowledges that are connected with frequent and intense communication within an arena and the greater the size of the arena, the greater the likelihood that radical innovations will emerge. The second hypothesis involves the same kind of logic: if radical solutions are to occur in more than one arena, there must be intense and frequent communication among the different arenas involving radically new ways of thinking. Radical research solutions in one arena usually involve tacit knowledge and to be effectively communicated to another arena, both tacit knowledge and codified knowledge must be communicated across arenas. But the communication of tacit knowledge is more likely to occur when there is frequent and intense communication across arenas. In analyzing connectedness, the authors draw on the literatures about organizational innovation and organizational learning. As well, they recognize that institutional environments shape the size of research arenas and the connectedness within and among them. The suggestion is that the more similarity there is across sectors in the patterns of research arena size and connectedness, the greater the support for a national system of innovation interpretation. Contrariwise, less similarity of network arena characteristics across sectors may mean more support for the strong role of globalization forces in affecting innovation.