Understanding Innovation Management

Introduction: What Is Innovation Management?
Innovation management comprises a set of processes and procedures that allow organizations to reach strategic goals, remaining competitive in a rapidly changing and diverse global economy. The discipline of innovation management combines many of the core principles of both innovation and of management, synthesizing research in the psychology of human motivation with research into the sociological phenomena of organizational behavior and performance. Moreover, the discipline involves both qualitative and quantitative research methods, in terms of analyzing organizational performance and goals. Innovation management also takes into account change management, as a core feature of innovation management is the ability for an organization and its leaders to anticipate challenges and respond using creative and unique strategies. Often, innovation management depends on either the implementation of technology as a tool or on the direct application of innovation management to the development of transformative technologies that may serve as industry disrupters.
Innovation management can be open, closed, or a combination of the two (Mikhailovich, Dmitrievich, Evgenevna, et al., 2017). The type of innovation management strategy employed will depend on key variables and situational constraints including technological potential, life cycle issues, and other internal and external factors. Open innovation strategies present risks such as the relative lack of intellectual property protections for the firm, but also offer several advantages including reduced costs for research and development, the ability to directly influence if not completely control new markets, and more potential for higher profit margins versus half-open and closed types of innovation management (Mikhailovich, Dmitrievich, Evgenevna, et al., 2017). Closed strategies can enhance the overall climate of innovation and scientific or technological breakthroughs. However, closed innovation management methods may also impede the ability for organizations to accurately manage research and development processes and outcomes (Mikhailovich, Dmitrievich, Evgenevna, et al., 2017). A combination of closed and open innovation management may be recommended in some cases, particularly when the needs of financial resource management are balanced with a recognition of the complexity of market structures and functions. The discipline of innovation management may also take into account issues related to corporate social responsibility, both as a driver of innovation and also as an outcome (Bakir, 2016). Innovation management can also offer opportunities for organizational learning, showing how innovation managers can optimize their workgroups and employ evidence-based practices. Ultimately, the practice of innovation management involves all levels of an organization.
The Role of Technology in Innovation Management
Technology is instrumental at every stage of the innovation management process, and in fact can be the single most important aspect of innovation itself. Not all technologies relevant to innovation management will be information or digital technologies, but there are some special issues that digital technologies do present to organizations and their innovation managers. Digital innovation refers to the specific application of digital technologies and information technologies in the process of innovation (Nambisan, Lyytinen, Majchrzak, et al., 2017). However, digital innovation is more than just the application of research and development to the design of new products and services. The straightforward application of innovation management and motivation to creating products and services that give organizations a competitive advantage is only one of the more obvious aspects of innovation management. Beneath the surface, organizations contend with a wide range of variables impacting innovation management including the decision of whether to use third-party or outsourced technologies to cut costs or facilitate processes and practices (Nambisan, Lyytinen, Majchrzak, et al., 2017; Tidd & Thuriaux-Alemán, 2016). Organizations may also need to use “technology roadmaps” to guide their own schedules of research and development within the product life cycle (Tidd * Thuriaux-Alemán, 2016, p. 1026). Overall industry context and external variables may provide the impetus for design and innovation changes. Innovation management involves the reflection on existing technology portfolios, the foresight needed to recognize new opportunities for innovative technologies in the market, and how to leverage internal technologies or products that have been designed by competitors.
Organizations may also need to anticipate new markets how technologies can be used to create new niches or define new user experiences. Technologies may evolve in open, closed, or half-open innovation processes. Organizations may need to leverage existing technologies within their own portfolios to initiate change or respond to threats and challenges. Likewise, organizations can capitalize on existing but stagnant technologies in the marketplace as a springboard for innovation. The alignment of innovation management and technological change takes place on the sociological level, impacting managerial and leadership strategies. For example, innovation managers collaborate with technology managers “to seek alignment with corporate strategy, or at least it facilitates a discussion on what the corporate goals are and how technology might contribute to their attainment,” (Tidd & Thuriaux-Alemán, 2016, p. 1036). Technology is instrumental in helping managers to quantify their own processes and goals, using those metrics to drive performance and optimize resource allocation.
Technology also drives most of the primary questions and concerns within the field of innovation management. Central to technology in innovation management is the gamut of intellectual property concerns that arise. Technology managers and innovation managers need to concentrate on end goals and objectives when determining how to approach intellectual property, and when to sacrifice proprietary knowledge in the interests of cost savings and/or bring a new product to market at the right time to gain competitive advantage or corner the market. When approaching innovation management from a quantifiable perspective that depends on metrics and ongoing assessments, managers need also to present possible new technologies, designs, products, and features in terms of how they meet organizational goals. Technology portfolio management can also be considered an important sub-category within the rubric of innovation management (Tidd & Huriaux-Alemán, 2016). Portfolio analysis shows how an organization creates and maintains both short-term and long-term strategies of research, development, marketing, and product launches. Innovation managers may also need to quantify the life cycle of a product, applying the requisite principles of open, closed, or half-open innovation management strategies (Mikhailovich, Dmitrievich, Evgenevna, et al., 2017). Bakir (2016) also shows how the theoretical integration of new technologies in the field of education can promote social and ethical goals.
Theories of Innovation Management
Theories of innovation management remain in their infancy, with emerging literature drawing from fields as diverse as philosophy, psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior. Asvoll (2017), for example, bases an analysis of innovation management on the metaphysical texts of philosophers like Heidegger, Polanyi and Peirce to demonstrate how human beings (both developers and end users) interact with technology and locate existential meaning in its implementation and design. Philosophy can also contribute frameworks for understanding various epistemologies or ways of knowing: in terms of how an organization develops and manages knowledge of consumer behavior or market forces, or in terms of how employees are motivated to innovate. According to Asvoll (2017), both intuitive and scientific ways of knowing are applied in the corporate sector to promote optimized innovation management strategies.
Other theorists conceptualize innovation management in more pragmatic and empirical terms, focusing on how innovation depends on organizational culture and how innovation management must “systemize innovation at all organizational levels,” (Morente & Ferras, 2017, p. 642). Furthermore, Morente & Ferras (2017) offer a metatheory guiding innovation management, one that “conceives the organization as a system of distributed attention,” (p. 643). Innovation needs to be fully integrated into the organizational culture, into its mission, vision, and values. Therefore, innovation management permeates every level of the organization and is never confined only to departments that directly focus on research and development. Innovation management needs to be part of the company culture, driving the ways departments work together to achieve organizational goals. Issues related to collaboration, multifocality, organizational attention, and “micro-sociological positioning,” are all part of the emerging theories in innovation management (Morente & Ferras, 2017, p. 640).
Theories in innovation management can be either inductive or deductive, evolving first and then informing best practices or resulting from an assessment of results and outcomes. Some innovation management theories derive from management theories more generally, including the Six Sigma approach, the Goldratt theory of constraints, the triple helix theory, and regional clusters theory (Mikhailovich, Dmitrievich, Evgenevna, et al., 2017). In this sense, innovation management theories extend from broader theories of strategic management. Organizations reflect on emerging trends and make necessary changes to organizational practices to account for big picture ideas and goals. Contingency theory is also relevant to innovation management, which must be responsive to sudden changes, enabling organizations to mitigate crises via effective change management—which depends on innovation (Tidd & Huriaux-Alemán, 2016). Innovation management requires the ability to navigate through periods of change and uncertainty.
According to Nambisan, Lyytinen, Majchrzak, et al. (2017), innovation management theories reflect on the three basic questions of how innovations form and evolve, how actors within the organization can optimally organize their resources for innovation, and how the innovative processes and organizational processes interact with each other. Nambisan, Lyytinen, Majchrzak, et al. (2017) also present new theories of innovation management, claiming that innovation is “well-bounded phenomenon,” and thus has clearly defined borders, boundaries, and limitations (p. 225). Digital technologies sometimes liberate the innovation process from its boundaries, or redraw lines of demarcation but ultimately innovation is a human factors process that inherently has limitations, constraints, and boundaries. Innovation management allows organizations to operationalize as much as possible, capitalizing on organizational strengths and certainties in the market.
Conclusion: The Role of Visionary Leadership
Naturally, innovation management requires visionary leadership. Emerging research in the field of innovation and innovation management shows how visionary leadership drives the company’s research and development program, recognizing the dynamic interactions between the organization and its interior functions and the exterior landscape of the marketplace. Visionary leadership can be used within the organization to guide management strategies, linking disparate departments to come up with more cohesive innovation strategies. Within fields not typically noted for their dedication to innovation, visionary leadership can stimulate advancements and prevent redundancies. For example, Bakir (2016) shows how visionary leadership is crucial in education, helping educators and administrators better integrate technologies into the goals of pedagogical practice. Visionary leadership can inform organizational change, including dramatic structural change or crisis management. Finally, the concepts illustrated in the literature show how visionary leadership concepts, strategies, and practices are requisite for integrating innovation management at every level of the organization and its culture.





References
Asvoll, H. (2017). Developing a framework of reflective, intuitive knowing in innovation management. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 16(2).
Bakir, A.A. (2016). Innovation management perceptions of principals. Journal of Education and Training Studies 4(7): doi:10.11114/jets.v4i7.1505
Mikhailovich, N.R., Dmitrievich, S.V., Evgenevna, G.A., et al. (2017). Features of innovation management strategies in the post-industrial economy. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 16(2).
Morente, F. & Ferras, X. (2017). Innovation management from the inside: An approach from attention and everyday praxis. Intangible Capital 13(3): 640-667.
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., et al. (2017). Digital innovation management. MIS Quarterly 41(1): 223-238.
Tidd, J. & Thuriaux-Alemán, B. (2016). Innovation management practices: cross-sectorial adoption, variation, and effectiveness. R&D Management 46(S3):1024-1043.