IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/iasawp/ir98023.html

Organizational Dynamics and the Evolutionary Dilemma between Diversity and Standardization in Mission-Oriented Research Programmes: An Illustration

Author

Listed:
  • E. Conesa

Abstract

The American NASP programme - National Aero Space Plane - is a good illustration of the evolutionary dilemma between variety and standardization in management of mission-oriented R&D. This dilemma relates to the trade-off between the need to explore the technological diversity in order to avoid the risk of being locked-in on the wrong technological option, and the need to share the knowledge produce through the experiments. In this regard, two main organizational designs can be considered: -the 'mainlining' strategy gathering all the partners in an 'club', exploring the potential of one alternative, allowing the sharing knowledge, and -a network of simultaneous competing technological projects, allowing a synchronic exploration of the technological variety The NASP programme was dedicated to the design of radical technology innovation system, and then was basically characterized by a structural uncertainty arising from the structural change it involved in the technological basis. In this case the lack of guide mark resulted from technological discontinuities in the innovation process. Moreover, the research activities were impeded by strong indivisibilities in the research outcomes needed for the design and demonstration of an hypersonic airbreathing propulsion system. This situation was due to the specific properties of the knowledge about hypersonic technology- strong compacity, low scalability and low analogic connections with other scientific and/or technological fields. This creates a strong need for the production of new infratechnologies, instrumentalities and research infrastructures, i.e. infrastructural knowledge and infrastructure facilities. In this case, the adoption of the "mainlining approach" in the management of the programme can be justified.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Conesa, 1998. "Organizational Dynamics and the Evolutionary Dilemma between Diversity and Standardization in Mission-Oriented Research Programmes: An Illustration," Working Papers ir98023, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:ir98023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-98-023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-98-023.ps
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Cohen, Linda R & Edelman, Susan A & Noll, Roger G, 1991. "The National Aerospace Plane: An American Technological Long Shot, Japanese Style," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 50-53, May.
    4. Steinmueller, W. Edward, 1995. "Technology infrastructure in information technology industries," Research Memorandum 007, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    6. David, Paul A., 1994. "Why are institutions the 'carriers of history'?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 205-220, December.
    7. David, Paul A. & Rothwell, Geoffrey S., 1996. "Standardization, diversity and learning: Strategies for the coevolution of technology and industrial capacity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 181-201.
    8. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    9. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Fransman, Martin, 1995. "Is National Technology Policy Obsolete in a Globalised World? The Japanese Response," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 95-119, February.
    11. Giovanni Dosi, 1984. "Technical Change and Industrial Transformation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-17521-5, September.
    12. Tassey, Gregory, 1991. "The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 345-361, August.
    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. Jeongwon Lee & Kiyoon Shin & Hongbum Kim & Junseok Hwang, 2025. "Efficiency of Innovation Policy with Different Types of R&D Planning: Evidence from South Korea’s Information and Communication Technology Sector," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(1), pages 630-662, March.
    2. Mark Lehrer & Andrew Tylecote & Emmanuelle Conesa, 1999. "Corporate Governance, Innovation Systems and Industrial Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 25-50.

    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. Carolina Castaldi & Giovanni Dosi, 2003. "The Grip of History and the Scope for Novelty: Some Results and Open Questions on Path Dependence in Economic Processes," LEM Papers Series 2003/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    2. 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.
    3. Ruttan, Vernon W., 1996. "Sources Of Technical Change: Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory And Path Dependence," Bulletins 12974, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    4. Roberta Patalano, 2007. "Mind-dependence. The past in the grip of the present," Discussion Papers 1_2007, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    5. Mazzucato, Mariana, 1998. "A computational model of economies of scale and market share instability," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 55-83, March.
    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. Olsen, Odd Einar & Engen, Ole Andreas, 2007. "Technological change as a trade-off between social construction and technological paradigms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 456-468.
    8. Nooteboom, B., 2005. "Entrepreneurial Roles Along a Cycle of Discovery," Discussion Paper 2005-43, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Leonardo M. Klüppel & Lamar Pierce & Jason A. Snyder, 2018. "Perspective—The Deep Historical Roots of Organization and Strategy: Traumatic Shocks, Culture, and Institutions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 702-721, August.
    10. Labarthe, Pierre & Coléno, François & Enjalbert, Jérôme & Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline & Hannachi, Mourad & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2021. "Exploration, exploitation and environmental innovation in agriculture. The case of variety mixture in France and Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    11. José Porfírio & Marc Jacquinet & Tiago Carrilho, 2009. "The Concept of Agricultural District and the Question of Rural Development," Spatial and Organizational Dynamics Discussion Papers 2009-3, CIEO-Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, University of Algarve.
    12. Ron Martin, 2010. "Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography—Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, January.
    13. R. Boschma, 1996. "The window of locational opportunity-concept," Working Papers 260, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    14. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2010. "The Place of Path Dependence in an Evolutionary Perspective on the Economic Landscape," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    16. Sandra Silva, 2009. "On evolutionary technological change and economic growth: Lakatos as a starting point for appraisal," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 111-135, February.
    17. Pyka, Andreas & Windrum, Paul, 2000. "The Self-Organisation of Innovation Networks," Research Memorandum 020, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Engwall, Mats & Freilich, Jonatan, 2014. "Architectural Lock-in of the Drug Development Process," INDEK Working Paper Series 2014/4, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics and Management.
    19. Nicolai J. Foss, 1997. "Equilibrium vs Evolution in the Resource-Based Perspective The Conflicting Legacies of Demsetz and Penrose," DRUID Working Papers 97-10, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. Christopher Esposito & David Rigby, 2017. "When Buzz and Pipelines Fail," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1701, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2017.

    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:wop:iasawp:ir98023. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiasaat.html .

    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.