Orphan innovation, or when path-creation goes stale: a design framework to characterise path-dependence in real time

How can we identify whether innovation processes in an organisation, a region or a sector are stagnating? Moreover, how can we assess the degree of innovation stagnation? These are issues at the core of the management of innovation literature, and the challenge of how to answer these questions in real time remains a problem yet to be solved, particularly in cases where innovation is highly expected. Most path-dependence studies observe the degree of ‘innovativeness’ in novelty creation and analyse path-dependence and path-creation phenomena after the fact, relegating the actors to grasping at the lessons learned rather than providing them with a real-time diagnosis of their specific situation. However, in some lock-in situations where the demand for innovation is high – we label these as orphan innovation situations – characterising the paths that are potential candidates for path-creation can be critical for the development of the industrial sector. With the goal of assessing path-dependence in real time, we develop a framework to visualise three types of innovation pathways (those explored, those not explored but visible in the present innovation field, and those potential pathways that are unknown in the present innovation field). Using C-K design theory as a conceptual framework, we go further and apply this framework to two case studies to explore its utility as a reference for assessing the degree of innovativeness for a field of innovation. We then explore the framework's potential to provide strategic intelligence to break out of stagnant situations.

[1]  Blanche Segrestin,et al.  Towards a New Logic for Front End Management: From Drug Discovery to Drug Design in Pharmaceutical R&D , 2007 .

[2]  John Metcalfe,et al.  Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge , 2007 .

[3]  Thomas Gillier,et al.  Managing Innovation Fields in a Cross‐Industry Exploratory Partnership with C–K Design Theory* , 2010 .

[4]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  C-K THEORY IN PRACTICE : LESSONS FROM INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS , 2004 .

[5]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Path Creation as a Process of Mindful Deviation , 2013 .

[6]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[7]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[8]  Tobias Fredberg,et al.  Real options for innovation management , 2007, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[9]  S. Lall Technological capabilities and industrialization , 1992 .

[10]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Teaching innovative design reasoning: How concept–knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects , 2011, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[11]  K. Clark,et al.  Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction☆ , 1993 .

[12]  Sof Thrane,et al.  Innovative path dependence: Making sense of product and service innovation in path dependent innovation processes , 2010 .

[13]  Martin Stack,et al.  Path Creation, Path Dependency, and Alternative Theories of the Firm , 2003 .

[14]  Timothy W. Guinnane,et al.  History matters : essays on economic growth, technology, and demographic change , 2004 .

[15]  R. Garud,et al.  Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship , 2003 .

[16]  Ken Starkey,et al.  Strategy as innovative design : an emerging perspective , 2010 .

[17]  Marie-France Turcotte,et al.  Path dependence and path creation: Framing the extra‐financial information market for a sustainable trajectory , 2009 .

[18]  P. David Path Dependence, its Critics, and the Quest for ‘Historical Economics’ , 2005 .

[19]  Alexis Tsoukiàs,et al.  Extending the C–K design theory: A theoretical background for personal design assistants , 2005 .

[20]  Edith Guilley,et al.  Vers une définition opérationnelle de la fragilité : Gérontologie , 2003 .

[21]  Sampsa Hyysalo,et al.  The fog of innovation: Innovativeness and deviance in developing new clinical testing equipment , 2009 .

[22]  J. Mahoney Path dependence in historical sociology , 2000 .

[23]  Mary Tripsas,et al.  Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change , 2008 .

[24]  L. Fried,et al.  Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. , 2001, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[25]  Douglas K. R. Robinson,et al.  Multi-path mapping for alignment strategies in emerging science and technologies , 2008 .

[26]  M. Callon,et al.  Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities , 2003 .

[27]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Collaborating for Management Research: From Action Research to Intervention Research in Management , 2008 .

[28]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  C-K design theory: an advanced formulation , 2008 .

[29]  Cornelius Schubert,et al.  Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general understanding of path constitution. The role of agency and institutions in the stabilisation of technological innovations , 2007 .

[30]  S. Liebowitz,et al.  Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History , 1995 .

[31]  P. David Clio and the Economics of QWERTY , 1985 .

[32]  G. Dosi Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[33]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Real Options and Real Tradeoffs , 2004 .

[34]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Strategic Management of Design and Innovation , 2010 .

[35]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  Design Theory and Collective Creativity: A Theoretical Framework to Evaluate KCP Process , 2009 .