Skip to main content

Advertisement

A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Triple Helix Cover Image

Table 1 Factors that influence the creation, diffusion, and sustaining of two categories of organizational innovations

From: Organizational innovation: verifying a comprehensive model for catalyzing organizational development and change

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 20 % 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