From counting in management to counting on management : making social science research matter

We have an unwavering faith in research substantiated by numbers. In the popular imagination, quantitative methods are still seen as the most robust and reliable means to inform decision making. The hegemony exercised by mathematical reasoning is succinctly captured in the statement, "If it can’t be counted, then it doesn’t count!" In this paper, I'd like to explore the assumptions underpinning the 'knowledge claims' made by mathematically informed reasoning. By teasing out the reasoning processes through which quantitative analysis proceeds, I shall circumscribe the explanatory boundaries of the knowledge claims it can make. I then reflect on the knowledge contributions of techniques reliant on mathematical reasoning towards management and speculate on how the loose ends within such research programs can be strengthened

Innovating and the dynamics of temporal scaffolding

Despite the growing acknowledgement of temporal complexities associated with the process perspective on innovation, insights into how timing and temporal experiences shape innovating; remains nascent and under researched. Why might this be the case and how can we gain better insights into the temporal dynamics which unfold while innovating? In this paper, I address this puzzle by tracing the theoretical origins of current limitations in literature to the distinction between the 'substantialist' and 'processual' ontologies in process research. Specifically, I demonstrate two major implications of adopting the 'substantialist' perspective in process research. These are first, the false opposition between persistence and change resulting in theories such as the 'punctuated equilibrium model'; and second, the nature of 'substantialist' and 'processual' time. These insights are then woven into a conceptual framework which informs the process research methodology used to investigate, two new product development projects at a Scottish high value manufacturing firm. Analysis of the data illuminates the unfolding of three distinct yet intertwined processes which I’ve called the process of setting temporal boundaries, the process of temporal prioritizing and the process of temporal sequencing. Taken together, these processes constitute a dynamic process, I call the 'Dynamics of temporal scaffolding'. I conclude by outlining the theoretical and practical implications of the 'dynamics of temporal scaffolding' for innovation research and practice. Such an approach, I believe, would allow us to integrate the temporal experience of organising while innovating with process theories in innovation research

Disentangling dynamics of the innovation journey : a becoming perspective

The ability to translate creative ideas into innovations that sustain organizational growth is vital for the success and survival of firms (Anderson, et al., 2014; Slater, et al., 2014; Keupp, et al., 2012; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Whilst innovation, which we define as "“invention, development, and implementation of new ideas” (Garud, et al., 2013, p. 776) by people within an organisational context, are beneficial for both organizations and societies at large, undertaking concrete effort to transform a creative idea into an innovation in reality is perhaps the most vexing problem facing managers (Van de Ven , 2017; Garud, et al., 2017). Yet, since innovation research has largely focussed on innovation as an output rather than on the process of innovating itself, the dynamics of the messy, non-linear, organizational processes through which innovations are managed in practice, remains under-theorised and hence poorly understood (Fortwengel, et al., 2017; Van de Ven , 2017; Garud, et al., 2013). How do firms organize whilst innovating? Our paper addresses this question by developing and deploying a novel ‘processual’ becoming perspective (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Langley, et al., 2013) that allow theorists to pry open the proverbial black box that conceal the organizing and innovating processes as they unfold within organizations. Our real time, ethnographic, field study of two new product development projects as they unfolded within an organization helps illuminate how organising and innovating entwine as they become. We unearth three distinct organizational dynamics which we've called the dynamics of preferential equivocality, the dynamics of temporal scaffolding and the dynamics of relational coherence that constitute innovating-in-practice. Our findings also reveal that these three dynamics are regulated by a mechanism, called ‘tensegrity’ (tensional-integrity). We expand and elaborate on this tensegrity mechanism, which was seen to influence the entwinement and unfolding of organising while innovating. By identifying the dynamic processes and explicating the mechanism through which organising while innovating becomes, our study offers theoretical and practical guidance for managing innovating-inpractice. Overall, since our theoretical and empirical contributions illuminate the unfolding dynamics of the innovation journey, this aligns well with the theme of “Surprise in and around Organizations: Journeys to the Unexpected” of the 34th EGOS Colloquium. Further, by identifying and elaborating these dynamics and the corresponding coordinating mechanism that regulate innovating-in-practice, our paper complements “Sub-theme 34: Organized Creativity: Harnessing Serendipity and Surprise” by demonstrating how serendipity and surprise are harnessed while innovating within organizations

Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: Strategic foresight through 'Unlearning'

The emergence of strategic foresight from scenarios has constantly puzzled theorists. Whilst practitioners and scholars of scenario planning contend that scenarios generate strategic foresight by both stretching a manager's mental model by exposing them to a wide range of equally plausible futures, and triggering and accelerating processes of organisational learning, the true nature of this link between strategic foresight and organisational learning remains vague and undertheorised. Our paper tackles this puzzle by explicitly focussing on how strategic foresight emerges from the organisational learning process that unfolds during scenario planning. We undertook a 24-month long longitudinal study capturing both 'actions' and 'reflections' of a leading Scotch whisky manufacturer during their scenario planning exercises. Surprisingly, and perhaps counterintuitively, our findings unearth the role of 'unlearning' rather than 'learning' as a key mechanism that leads to the emergence of strategic foresight within the scenario planning process. Further reflection on the 'unlearning process' reveals that unlearning involves a 'letting go' or relaxing of deeply held assumptions and this in turn inadvertently leads to strategic foresight. Overall, by developing and introducing 'unlearning' as a key mechanism for the generation of strategic foresight, our paper aims to improve the effectiveness of scenario planning interventions as practiced

Business models : a routine dynamics reconceptualization

Despite its widespread use within strategy and innovation research the notion of "business model" as a theoretical construct remains ill-defined and conceptually underdeveloped. In this conceptual paper, we address these limitations, first, by identifying some of the reasons for the lack of consensus around business models conceptualisation, and, second, by reconceptualising business models from a novel perspective based on Routine Dynamics. More specifically, we show how the lack of theoretical integration between the transaction cost economics, Schumpeterian innovation, resource based theory, strategic networks and cognitive perspectives that underpin current business models research act as a major source of theoretical dissonance. We elaborate and illustrate these arguments by drawing on the business models of Amazon, a leading e-commerce firm. We then propose a routine dynamics perspective to integrate insights from the various perspectives within business model research. Our findings contribute towards further integrating BM research with Management and Organisational Theory

Emerging patterns of Grassroots Innovations : results of a conceptual study based on selected cases from India

Among all the innovation strategies that seek to impact developing economies, Grassroots Innovation remains the least explored. With critics of Bottom of the Pyramid literature articulating the need for considering the poor as producers, a better understanding of the grassroots phenomenon may help companies to understand and integrate the Grassroots Innovation strategy into their business models and thereby allowing the poor to become producers of products and solutions. This study examines the dimensions and trends, which make Grassroots Innovations unique, as well as factors which govern and influence them. The study is based on in-depth case studies which were gathered during field work with the National Innovation Foundation in India. The data illustrates how factors like education, age, occupation and sector influence the triggers and the outcomes of Grassroots Innovations. It also demonstrates how individuals, institutions and firms could collaborate to commercialize these products and solutions

Organising while innovating, towards a process theory in innovation management

The focus of mainstream innovation research has largely been on innovation as an output rather than innovating as a process. Thus, the dynamics of the messy process of innovating, characterised by its complexity, non-linearity, false starts, dead ends, ineffability and becoming, remain under theorised. Current process theories on innovating, notably the efforts of Kathleen Eisenhardt, Robert Burgelman, Andrew Van De Ven and Raghu Garud, which attempt to unravel the dynamics constituting the innovating process, have all emphasised that innovating involves change. However, the surfacing of the debate between the 'substantialist' and 'process' metaphysical perspectives in organisational studies has produced new insights on organisational change and adaptation. 'Process', in the former perspective refers to an epistemological position where change is construed as epiphenomenal and occurring between two stable states or structures or entities. 'Process' in the latter refers to an 'ontological' position where order and organisation are regarded as temporarily-stabilised accomplishments or relatively stabilised patterns of relations in a churning sea of change. These insights have triggered several theoretical and methodological debates which bear profound implications for our understanding of how innovations come into being. Specifically, these insights challenge four apparent paradoxes: a) persistence versus change; b) synchrony versus diachrony; c) necessity versus chance and d) structural determinism versus agentic free will; which have persistently puzzled the 'substantialist' innovation process theorists. Despite its ability to dissolve these paradoxes, the application of the 'processual' perspective to explore innovating remains, both theoretically and empirically underexplored. The objective of this thesis is to address this lacuna by exploring organising while innovating from a 'processual' perspective. 'Processual', here refers to both an ontological and epistemological position. Adopting this perspective requires theorists to pry open the proverbial black box which conceals the unfolding dynamics and their subsequent stabilisation while innovating. Put differently, the research must answer how organising and innovating entwine as they become. Doing so required designing a theory of method that is inherently sympathetic to process and movement as fundamental features of reality. Such a methodology was designed and deployed in this seven month long, real time, ethnographic field study of two new product development projects at a Scottish high value manufacturing firm. Analysis of the data illuminates the unfolding of three distinct yet intertwined dynamics which I've called the dynamics of preferential equivocality, the dynamics of temporal scaffolding and the dynamics of relational coherence. The findings also reveal that these three dynamics are regulated by a mechanism, called 'tensegrity' (portmanteau for tensional-integrity). I expand and elaborate on the tensegrity mechanism, which was seen to influence the entwinement and unfolding of organising while innovating. This study, offers four distinct research contributions. One, it develops a 'processual' theoretical approach to study the process of innovating. Two, it offers a theory of method that conceptually integrates and translates this framework to the practical activity of fieldwork in process research. Three, this research is among the few empirical field studies on innovating from a 'processual' perspective. And four, by identifying the dynamic processes and explicating the mechanism through which organising while innovating becomes, it offers theoretical and practical guidance to navigate the innovation journey. Overall, this study clears the ground for a more extended 'processual' inquiry within innovation research and organisational theory.The focus of mainstream innovation research has largely been on innovation as an output rather than innovating as a process. Thus, the dynamics of the messy process of innovating, characterised by its complexity, non-linearity, false starts, dead ends, ineffability and becoming, remain under theorised. Current process theories on innovating, notably the efforts of Kathleen Eisenhardt, Robert Burgelman, Andrew Van De Ven and Raghu Garud, which attempt to unravel the dynamics constituting the innovating process, have all emphasised that innovating involves change. However, the surfacing of the debate between the 'substantialist' and 'process' metaphysical perspectives in organisational studies has produced new insights on organisational change and adaptation. 'Process', in the former perspective refers to an epistemological position where change is construed as epiphenomenal and occurring between two stable states or structures or entities. 'Process' in the latter refers to an 'ontological' position where order and organisation are regarded as temporarily-stabilised accomplishments or relatively stabilised patterns of relations in a churning sea of change. These insights have triggered several theoretical and methodological debates which bear profound implications for our understanding of how innovations come into being. Specifically, these insights challenge four apparent paradoxes: a) persistence versus change; b) synchrony versus diachrony; c) necessity versus chance and d) structural determinism versus agentic free will; which have persistently puzzled the 'substantialist' innovation process theorists. Despite its ability to dissolve these paradoxes, the application of the 'processual' perspective to explore innovating remains, both theoretically and empirically underexplored. The objective of this thesis is to address this lacuna by exploring organising while innovating from a 'processual' perspective. 'Processual', here refers to both an ontological and epistemological position. Adopting this perspective requires theorists to pry open the proverbial black box which conceals the unfolding dynamics and their subsequent stabilisation while innovating. Put differently, the research must answer how organising and innovating entwine as they become. Doing so required designing a theory of method that is inherently sympathetic to process and movement as fundamental features of reality. Such a methodology was designed and deployed in this seven month long, real time, ethnographic field study of two new product development projects at a Scottish high value manufacturing firm. Analysis of the data illuminates the unfolding of three distinct yet intertwined dynamics which I've called the dynamics of preferential equivocality, the dynamics of temporal scaffolding and the dynamics of relational coherence. The findings also reveal that these three dynamics are regulated by a mechanism, called 'tensegrity' (portmanteau for tensional-integrity). I expand and elaborate on the tensegrity mechanism, which was seen to influence the entwinement and unfolding of organising while innovating. This study, offers four distinct research contributions. One, it develops a 'processual' theoretical approach to study the process of innovating. Two, it offers a theory of method that conceptually integrates and translates this framework to the practical activity of fieldwork in process research. Three, this research is among the few empirical field studies on innovating from a 'processual' perspective. And four, by identifying the dynamic processes and explicating the mechanism through which organising while innovating becomes, it offers theoretical and practical guidance to navigate the innovation journey. Overall, this study clears the ground for a more extended 'processual' inquiry within innovation research and organisational theory

Government and grassroots innovation

Prior research has highlighted institutional deficiencies which have limited the role of the poor in the formal economy. Micro-innovation has been proposed as a remedial mechanism by which localised socio-economic impact can be generated by those constrained by institutional voids. This paper seeks to contribute to understanding of how micro-innovation might deliver such impact and how, if at all, Government might nurture this form of activity. To do so, we utilise the nascent grassroots innovation perspective. Grassroots innovation is a form of micro-innovation where a knowledge rich but economically impoverished innovator creates social and economic value through innovation bricolage (‘making do’). By exploring the emergence of 16 grassroots innovations in India, we inductively develop a model of grassroots innovation practice. Cross case analysis reveals five key emergent themes which potentially impact the social and economic value of grassroots innovations. Drawing on these themes, we analyse the effectiveness of government intervention in the cases of the grassroots innovators observed. We suggest that government can play a useful role in fostering micro-innovation activities but equally, there are limitations to the scope of such intervention which might be overcome by engaging with the private sector