IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v23y2014i3p759-795..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation decision making in high-risk organizations: A comparison of the US and Soviet attack submarine programs

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Bierly
  • Scott Gallagher
  • J.-C. Spender

Abstract

Decision-making about innovative change in high-risk networks is exceptionally difficult because system failure may result in catastrophe. We adopt a historical method to compare the US and Soviet choices in their nuclear attack submarine programs between 1970 and 1996 and to surface their complex political, technological, and operational relations. One program achieved high reliability in the face of innovation while the other did not. Actor network theory (ANT) helps illuminate the interactions and resulting innovation paths and dependencies. We study how (i) open communication and power dispersion across high-risk networks influence system reliability, (ii) individuals spanning multiple groups within the network generate dominant coalitions, and (iii) strong safety advocates impact the network.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Bierly & Scott Gallagher & J.-C. Spender, 2014. "Innovation decision making in high-risk organizations: A comparison of the US and Soviet attack submarine programs," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(3), pages 759-795.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:23:y:2014:i:3:p:759-795.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtt026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:indcch:v:23:y:2014:i:3:p:759-795.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.