From Process to Practice: Towards a Practice-based Model of Digital Innovation

The ongoing digitalization of many corporate functions, including the innovation process, brings about fundamental changes that urge us to rethink established theories. Facilitating digital innovation requires a deep understanding of the actual practices that are carried out by innovating people with the help of artifacts. In this paper, we study the use of artifacts and illustrate their different roles in the underlying innovation practices to provide rich insights into digital innovation from a practice perspective. Grounded in a nearly three year-long, qualitative case study at two Swiss software companies and an extensive set of empirical data, this paper conceptualizes four interrelated digital innovation practices, namely making sense of an idea, aligning mental models, negotiating solution paths, and crafting an idea. We suggest a practice-based model of digital innovation, specify a set of practices for enabling digital innovation in organizations, and clarify the role of artifacts in digital innovation practices.

[1]  R. G. Fichman,et al.  Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum , 2014, MIS Q..

[2]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..

[3]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[4]  Kai Riemer,et al.  Clarifying Ontological Inseparabiilty with Heidegger's Analysis of Equipment , 2017, MIS Q..

[5]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World , 2017, MIS Q..

[6]  Hans-Jrg Rheinberger,et al.  A Reply to David Bloor: Toward a Sociology of Epistemic Things , 2005, Perspectives on Science.

[7]  Ilkka Tuomi,et al.  Networks of Innovation , 2002 .

[8]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  The Tables Have Turned: How Can the Information Systems Field Contribute to Technology and Innovation Management Research? , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Helen M. Smith,et al.  Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction 3rd Edition , 2006 .

[10]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[11]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory , 2017 .

[12]  Kai Riemer,et al.  Rethinking the place of the artefact in IS using Heidegger's analysis of equipment , 2014, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Kevin C. Desouza.  Intrapreneurship: Managing Ideas Within Your Organization , 2011 .

[14]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Doing interpretive research , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  W. Orlikowski.  Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work , 2007 .

[16]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[17]  Bill Doolin,et al.  Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[18]  W. R. Howard.  Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design , 2007 .

[19]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? , 2001, MIS Q..

[20]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[22]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[23]  Sue Newell,et al.  The Sociomaterialty of Information Systems: Current Status, Future Directions , 2014, MIS Q..

[24]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[25]  Kaj U. Koskinen.  Metaphoric boundary objects as co‐ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge sharing of innovation processes , 2005 .

[26]  R. Miettinen,et al.  Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organizational Change , 2005 .

[27]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  NEW BUSINESS MODELS THROUGH COLLABORATIVE IDEA GENERATION , 2011 .

[28]  B. Glaser.  Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , 1978 .

[29]  J. Marshall.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[30]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[31]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[32]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[33]  E. Burton Swanson,et al.  Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology , 2004, MIS Q..

[34]  Karin D. Knorr-Cetina.  Sociality with Objects : Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies , 1997 .

[35]  Cathrine Hasse,et al.  Employee-Driven Innovation , 2012 .

[36]  David Seidl,et al.  The Layered Materiality of Strategizing: Epistemic Objects and the Interplay between Material Artefacts in the Exploration of Strategic Topics , 2015 .

[37]  John Bessant,et al.  Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change, 2nd Edition , 2001 .

[38]  Chris Kimble,et al.  Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[39]  Alexander Richter,et al.  PowerPoint Use and Misuse in Digital Innovation , 2015, ECIS.

[40]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research , 2014 .

[41]  Claudio U. Ciborra,et al.  From Thinking To Tinkering: The Grassroots Of Strategic Information Systems , 1992, ICIS.

[42]  Davide Nicolini.  Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections , 2009 .

[43]  G. Hayward.  Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change , 1998 .

[44]  Kathryn Graziano.  The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[45]  Alexander Richter,et al.  Idea Hubs as Nexus of Collective Creativity in Digital Innovation , 2015, ICIS.

[46]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[47]  Raffaele Fabio.  COMMUNICATING IDEAS PURPOSEFULLY: TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF INNOVATION ARTIFACTS , 2014 .

[48]  Alexander Richter,et al.  When Prototyping Meets Storytelling: Practices and Malpractices in Innovating Software Firms , 2017, 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice Track (ICSE-SEIP).

[49]  P. Carlile.  How matter matters : objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies , 2013 .

[50]  Alexander Richter,et al.  Designing an Idea Screening Framework for Employee-Driven Innovation , 2016, 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

[51]  Steen Høyrup,et al.  Employee-driven innovation : a new approach , 2012 .

[52]  Mika Pantzar,et al.  Understanding innovation in practice: a discussion of the production and re-production of Nordic Walking , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[53]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[54]  H. Rheinberger.  Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube , 1997 .

[55]  M. Grant,et al.  Communities of practice. , 2020, Health progress.

[56]  Beth A. Bechky,et al.  When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work , 2006, Organ. Sci..