IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/fubjbm/66004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation management in networked economies

Author

Listed:
  • Håkansson, Håkan
  • Olsen, Per-Ingvar

Abstract

Business network research, service-dominant logic and service system thinking all reflect an interactional interpretation of value creation as the fundamental approach to understanding modern economies and business behavior. This paper aims at contributing to an integrative debate about innovation and value creation by analyzing innovation management challenges in relation to the interfaces between innovations and their environments in complex business landscapes. Any innovation may be seen as an entity within a multidimensional business landscape where relatedness, dynamism and variety are key dimensions. The innovation is typically positioned within some partly visible, partly invisible business landscape where it needs (1) to activate and stabilize a complex set of relationships between activities, resources and actors, (2) to systematically handle reactions to friction forces across these entities, and (3) to maintain and advance the necessary framing needed to coordinate interactions across all the involved and affected business resources, activities and actors. A general conclusion is that systematic managerial efforts appear to be the main driving force enacting and coordinating across these complex interfaces. In order for innovations to materialize, there is a critical need for some type of multi-functional, managerial network capable of recreating simplified and conceptual unity and a sense of direction while also managing the complexity, extendedness, ambiguity and multi-contextual challenges across the many complex interfaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Håkansson, Håkan & Olsen, Per-Ingvar, 2012. "Innovation management in networked economies," jbm - Journal of Business Market Management, Free University Berlin, Marketing Department, vol. 5(2), pages 79-105.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fubjbm:66004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/66004/1/727049321.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    2. Luis A. Nunes Amaral & Brian Uzzi, 2007. "Complex Systems--A New Paradigm for the Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1033-1035, July.
    3. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    4. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    5. Douglass C. North, 2005. "Introduction to Understanding the Process of Economic Change," Introductory Chapters, in: Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.
    6. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    7. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    8. Helena M. M. Lastres, 1994. "The Innovation Process and National Systems of Innovation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Advanced Materials Revolution and the Japanese System of Innovation, chapter 2, pages 11-30, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. Thomas Hoholm, 2011. "The Contrary Forces of Innovation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-30208-2.
    10. von Hippel, Eric, 1993. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 103-104, April.
    11. Thomas Hoholm, 2011. "The Contrary Forces of Innovation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Contrary Forces of Innovation, chapter 6, pages 232-285, Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. Eric von Hippel, 1998. "Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of "Sticky" Local Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 629-644, May.
    13. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fehrer, Julia A. & Wieland, Heiko, 2021. "A systemic logic for circular business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 609-620.
    2. Gupta, Samir & Maltz, Elliot, 2015. "Interdependency, dynamism, and variety (IDV) network modeling to explain knowledge diffusion at the fuzzy front-end of innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2434-2442.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    2. Wei Jin & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2014. "Explaining the Slow Pace of Energy Technological Innovation: Why Market Conditions Matter," CCEP Working Papers 1401, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira Fabrizio, 2012. "How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 971-987, August.
    4. Jin, Byungchae, 2019. "Country-level technological disparities, market feedback, and scientists’ choice of technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 385-400.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    7. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    8. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Antonelli, Cristiano & Gehringer, Agnieszka, 2015. "Knowledge externalities and demand pull: The European evidence," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 608-631.
    10. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    11. Shih-Chang Hung & John S. Liu & Louis Y. Y. Lu & Yu-Chiang Tseng, 2014. "Technological change in lithium iron phosphate battery: the key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 97-120, July.
    12. Linda F. Tegarden & Ann E. Echols & Donald E. Hatfield, 2000. "The Value of Patience and Start-up Firms: A Re-Examination of Entry Timing for Emerging Markets," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 24(4), pages 41-58, July.
    13. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    14. Raphaël Suire & Jérôme Vicente, 2009. "Clusters for life or life cycles of clusters. From declining to resilient clusters," Post-Print halshs-00460129, HAL.
    15. Rietveld, G.J. & Eggers, J.P., 2016. "Demand Heterogeneity and the Adoption of Platform Complements," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2016-003-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    17. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    18. Lettice, Fiona & Smart, Palie & Baruch, Yehuda & Johnson, Mark, 2012. "Navigating the impact-innovation double hurdle: The case of a climate change research fund," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1048-1057.
    19. Rossi, Federica, 2002. "An introductory overview of innovation studies," MPRA Paper 9106, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2008.
    20. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:fubjbm:66004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jbm-online.net/index.php/jbm/index .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.