Search results

The aim of this research is to evaluate the conditions of production of methodological knowledge on innovation management. It seeks to present the experience of an applied research team working with practitioners of R&D by means of an inter‐disciplinary research team in social sciences. The theoretical framework aims to present two approaches for knowledge production: collaboration with practitioners and interdisciplinary research in social science.

The methodology is a case study focused on the various forms of collaborative research. While the literature mainly considers only one form of collaborative research, the author distinguishes between mono‐disciplinary and inter‐disciplinary collaborative research on one hand, and between mono‐partner and multi‐partner collaborative research on the other, leading to four typical research situations. The paper examines empirically the rigor‐relevance debate as seen as the researchers and the practitioners.

The findings bring to light different criteria that influence the production of knowledge, within the rigor‐relevance dilemma, according to the collaborative research situations and the epistemological posture of researchers from various disciplines.

The practical implications concern the conditions under which a research program in social sciences can reach both rigor and relevance and produce methodological knowledge. It provides a guide for effective collaboration between social science academics and managers.

This research enlightens the conditions of collaboration between the academic world and the industrial world, which is key to foster innovation, particularly in social sciences.

The value of the paper is to illustrate that collaborative research requires a “boundary organization” to create new knowledge, which is a type of task force capable of mediation between academia, industrials and consultants.

This paper deals with how to design innovative organizations through theoretical and managerial insights. The theoretical framework is based on the structuration theory, with a focus on language and conversations within and across innovation projects. As a setting for the theoretical model, two case studies are presented and discussed: the first analyses an innovation project’s structuration through conversations via e‐mails. The second is an action research whose purpose is to design a project‐oriented organization to improve the innovation capability of an industrial firm. These two field studies lead to a final appraisal of the relevance of a discursive approach to better understand innovation processes and their contribution to organizational learning.

This paper aims to identify the differentiated paths followed by firms to innovate in business models, among four different strategic postures and also to determine the innovation interactions between business model components, among strategic postures. The authors intend to highlight the differentiated patterns of business model innovation (BMI) in each strategic posture and provide guidance to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) managers regarding the suitable alignments of business model components when they innovate in their business model.

The research model developed and tested in this work uses a composite model that borrows from the logic of Miles and Snow’s cycle of adaptive strategic choices as well as Demil and Lecocq’s perspective of permanent change within and between components of a business model. The authors’ model is designed first to encompass the differentiated patterns characterizing the relationships between the strategic posture of defender, prospector and analyzer profiles and the related innovation attributes of their business model components. The study was conducted with independent French manufacturing SMEs ranging from 10 to 250 employees in size and having revenues below €50m (European Commission, 2007). The analysed sample includes 169 firms from 14 sectors representative of French manufacturing SMEs.

Results confirm the differentiated propensity to adopt specific BMI behaviours among strategic postures. The authors also highlight the differentiated interactions between and within BMI components. These results suggest that SMEs tend to leverage specific BMI components related to their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative choices. Thus, firms tend to evolve in a posture-specific, path-dependent dynamic consistency in which BMI attributes interact towards a limited set of alternatives, thus anchoring the new business model into strategic choices. It has been shown that the predictability of strategy–BMI alignment is contingent on the level of fit between empirically derived strategic profile attributes and Miles and Snow’s ideal profile attributes.

This paper investigates strategy–BMI alignments without addressing such alignments from the standpoint of firm performance. Still, performance from a BMI perspective lies in the ability of the firm to sustain the dynamic consistency of its business model components by identifying the effects of change in interactions between and within components on overall BM performance. Further studies should explore dynamic consistency as a means for firms to generate and maintain performance by innovating in their business model when facing specific contingencies. The conceptual framework designed for the present research seems appropriate for conducting such an investigation on the performance implications of strategy–BMI fit.

This research offers insights regarding manufacturing SMEs seeking guidance when changing business strategy. Indeed, by combining Miles and Snow’s configurational framework of strategic postures with Demil and Lecocq’s RCOV BM framework, the authors provide insights that can bridge the gap between intended strategy and realized strategy. The authors suggest that when realizing new strategic choices, SMEs should favour behaviours of BMI that are likely to fit the new intended strategic posture. Accordingly, the authors introduce a set of field-based BMI alignments specific to firms’ strategic posture to support the strategic management of innovation in SMEs.

By unravelling the alignments between strategic posture and business model innovation, this work contributes to enlightening the dynamics of Miles and Snow’s adaptive cycle. Indeed, viewing Miles and Snow’s typology from the configurational perspective of BMI provides a clearer picture of the adaptive cycle through which BMI reflects the path-dependent process of the formation of the firm’s strategic posture through the transformation of its business model.