A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Influencing factor | Quality Management/Production Systems | Google Innovation System (GIS) |
---|---|---|
External context | Institutional setup affected desirability and feasibility. Bridging institutions (industry and standard organizations) played an especially important role by standardizing the innovation. | Silicon Valley’s institutional setup affected desirability and feasibility of the innovation. However, local history and norms may have played an even more important role. |
User network and role models (national and international), national and international fads, and market demand on ISO 9000 affected them. | User network and role models (3M, Intel, and other innovative firms) affected components of the innovation (e.g., the 20Â % rule). Local researchers (local universities) of organizational characteristics for speed and innovation influenced it. | |
Diffusion mechanisms | Top management movement and the board were important knowledge transfer mechanisms. | Founders played a key role. They, in turn, came directly from Stanford University, which therefore might have played a role. First and second waves of employees also played a role in the system’s development. |
In addition, experts (e.g., Toyota employees) and consultants played important roles, especially in the first trial. | The board brought important knowledge and experience regarding components of the innovation. | |
Experts (e.g., the Coach) played a role. | ||
Internal context | Top management’s beliefs and involvement in the innovation were important and affected all five steps. | Top management’s beliefs and involvement in the innovation were important and affected all five steps. |
The board also played a role in both early and later steps. | Certain board members’ user competence played an important role for parts of the innovation. | |
Consistency of board members was important for the sustaining of innovation. However, the board also in several cases hindered the sustaining of the innovation across changing CEOs. | Board members’ consistency has been important to sustaining the innovation. | |
Characteristics of the innovation itself | The tacitness of the innovation has been well documented and thereby coded. | GIS is by its nature more tacit than TQM, Lean, and TPS. Not well documented and thus not coded. |
The innovation has been standardized to a high degree. | Not standardized (however, a European standard for innovation management was developed in 2014). | |
The innovation was continually reinvented and path dependent within the organizations studied. | The innovation was continually reinvented and path dependent within Google. | |
Main triggers of organizational development | Market demands for ISO 9000 and the international fads around TQM and Lean. | Local history and norms (open, flat, fast, big thinking, etc.) |
Top management experience of (through either their own experience or role models) and resulting belief in the innovation. | Founders’ beliefs about how to develop a great company are an innovation engine. | |
Influence of the board | Influence of the board |