THE COMPLEX INNOVATION CHAMPION - THREE META-ROLES

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden THE COMPLEX INN...
Author: Randolf Hopkins
11 downloads 0 Views 628KB Size
Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden

THE COMPLEX INNOVATION CHAMPION - THREE META-ROLES FACILITATING INNOVATION

Ronald C Beckett1, and Gerard Berendsen2 1 2

Deakin University, Australia

Twente Quality Centre, The Netherlands [email protected]

ABSTRACT The idea that every innovation needs a champion is generally accepted, but we found more than 20 roles described in the literature that could be identified with this concept. We propose that these can be clustered under three functional metalevel roles - A passionate idea champion, an investment champion who embraces innovation as a strategic tool, and an interaction champion that facilitates the process of innovating through timely internal and external connections. We draw on structuration theory to help frame these three roles. We observe that the nature of linkages between these three roles and third party expertise/resource providers is less researched .We represent linkages in a model, which is mapped against empirical data from four regional programs aimed at building innovation capacity in different ways. This leads to an extension of the model and the identification of multiple two-way interaction pathways Keywords: Innovation champion, structuration theory, intervention programs

1.

INTRODUCTION

It is recognised that without a champion who shows persistence, belief and commitment, an innovative idea may not realise its full potential (e.g. Schon, 1963). Coakes and Smith (2007) suggest that (p77) "Championing innovation must become a norm in organisations and not an episodic event that relies on happenstance and a strong-minded individual expending large amounts of effort." Support for both an individual idea and the process of innovating is required. Some researchers observed that different kinds of champions helped overcome implementation problems in different stages of the evolution of an innovative product or process (Roberts and Fusfeld, 1981; Shane, 1995; Gassmann, Daibe and Enkel, 2011). Klerkx et al (2013) suggest (p187) "Using a multiple champion perspective can be helpful in identifying what types of actors should be present on the innovation platform once there is a clear view of the issues that need to be addressed." This approach has also been used by Boer and Krabbendam (1992) in exploring the effective deployment of a technological innovation, and by Taran and Boer (2013) in considering business model innovation typologies. Gupta et al (2006) suggest that individual champions filling multiple roles appear necessary for the creation of new high technology ventures, particularly during start-up. Those with innovative ideas need investment to develop and deploy them. Those making strategic investments in innovation need a flow of ideas to realise benefits from the resources they have allocated. In between there are those that facilitate the process 1

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden of innovating by making connections with internal and external political supporters and knowledge/infrastructure resource providers. In this paper we propose that three innovation champion meta-roles (idea, interaction and investment champion) need to be enacted to optimise innovation outcomes. We explore the linkages between them, and initially draw on the literature to develop a roleinteraction model. We then interpret case studies of four multi-company regional programs intended to enhance enterprise innovation capacity in different ways to consider the utility of this model in collaborative and open innovation projects and to further develop it. 2.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

An Innovation Champion is often described as some-one who links people passionate about their idea with others who can help them (e.g. Howell et al, 2005). Or it might be some-one who more broadly supports the process of innovating by providing permissions and resources (e.g. Barsh et al, 2008). Some descriptors used by management researchers include: new product champions, user champions, technology champions, business innovators, project champions, gatekeepers, organizational change agents, organisational maverick, innovation midwives, brokers, network facilitators, consultants, idea champions, innovation teams, innovation ambassadors, power champions, transformational leader, organisational buffer, senior management sponsors, and executive champions. Some organisations established with the express purpose of stimulating innovation may be seen as champions of the process of innovating (e.g. Howells, 2006). Following the cue from other authors (e.g. Orlikowski et al, 1995) of clustering roles under a set of meta-level functions, we suggest there are three innovation champion meta-roles to be enacted, each supporting a different aspect of innovation What is ultimately seen as an innovation starts with an idea or an invention. The implementation of an idea into a product or process or practice requires first an individual, then progressively more people to become enthusiastic about its potential. An idea champion may be the originator of the idea or someone who picks it up (Damanpour and Wischnevsky, 2006). A technology platform combined with an unmet need/want provides the foundation for implementation and value delivery. An unmet need may be identified by a market innovation champion (Johne, 1999). Champions promote the idea and draw on personal attributes like persistence to succeed. A succession of actual or virtual teams are established and disbanded as the idea is developed and deployed, and they need to also champion the idea in confronting potential difficulties along the way. As an idea evolves into a usable innovation, there may be handovers between idea champions along the way who promote and adapt its ability to satisfy unmet needs, passing the baton in the style of a relay race The metarole of idea champion involves conceptualizing then continuously promoting or selling the idea to others. An Innovation Champion may not be the one with the original idea, but an actor(s) who links those passionate about their idea with others who can help them (e.g. Howell et al, 2005; Martin, 2011). Dalziel (2011) suggested that interaction can be supported by innovation intermediaries - organizations or groups within organizations that work to

2

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden facilitate innovation, either directly by enabling the innovativeness of one or more firms, or indirectly by enhancing the innovative capacity of regions, nations, or sectors. Some intermediary roles identified in the literature were focused on external linkages. Winch and Courtney (2007) identified brokers as agents facilitating the diffusion of innovation into social systems bringing new ideas from outside the system. Turpin et al (1996) identified Bricoleurs as agents seeking to develop new applications for new technologies outside their initial development field. Howells (2006) studied the potential services offered by various kinds of innovation intermediary organisations, identifying ten functions and 28 subfunctions that helped discover, develop and deploy innovations. Not all functions were provided by a particular intermediary - there was a tendency towards specialization. Howells made the point that intermediaries do not operate on a simple ‘one-to-one-to-one’ basis, but in more complex ways. Howells also noted that increasingly, both the initiator of an innovation and potential users are engaging with intermediary organisations, who facilitate two-way flows. Here we introduce the meta-role of an interaction champion who excels in bringing people, organizations and resources together and acting like a hub to make it all happen. Whilst individual firms invest in innovation as a strategic imperative, governments also invest in innovation to sustain community economic, environmental and social wellbeing, targeting such investments towards sectors given strategic priority where there is perceived to be a market failure. This leads to the provision of financial and other forms of support for a series of targeted programs. Governments may also invest in infrastructure such as R&D facilities, and in the generation and sharing or requisite expert knowledge. They may support the establishment of multiple intermediary organisations to facilitate the process of innovating. In a similar way, individual firms may target investment in different kinds of programs, for example oriented towards R&D, open innovation or collaborative innovation, providing financial support and endorsing related aspects of organisation culture, procedures and the provision of some organisational slack (e.g.Barsh et al, 2008). Within a broad program framework, decisions are made to invest in specific projects consistent with the strategic intentions of the investor. We describe a meta-role as the investment champion - an individual, group or enterprise whose support for the complex process of innovating helps deliver value from ideas by investing in a variety of ways. Whilst there is a body of literature describing a variety of innovation champion roles, the ways these roles interact has received less attention. With this in mind, we started to explore the research question: how do champion roles that stimulate and support innovation interact? Structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) has been used to help understand the interaction between actors and structure in an innovation context (Beckett and Hyland, 2011; Jones et al, 2000). In this theory, rules (methodologies) may appear to exist independently, but they are only applied only through use and reproduction in practice, where their persistence may be framed as ‘culture’. Giddens identified three types of structure as important, each associated with a particular interaction modality. In table 1 we have mapped our three innovation champion meta-roles against these three types of structure, seeking to situate the multiplicity of functions described in the literature.

3

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden Elements  of   Structure    &   Modality   (Giddens,  1984)  

Innovation  Champion:  Elements  of  Agency   Investment   Interaction   Idea     Champion   Champion   Champion   Promoting  innovation   Facilitating  the   Promoting  an   as  a  strategy   practice  of  innovating   individual  innovation  

Signification:   structures  that  help   produce  meaning   through  interpretive   schemas  and   communication.   Innovation  must  make   sense   Legitimation:   structures  drawing  on   social  norms,  values   and  standards  that   are  sanctioned.   Innovation  must  be   embraced  /  endorsed  

Domination   structures  that   produce  and  exercise   power  through  the   allocation  of  physical   resources  (allocative)   and  human  resources   (authoritative).   Innovation  requires   access  to  diverse   resources  

Pronounces  the   adoption  of  innovation   as  a  strategic   management  tool,   launches  programs  to   stimulate  and  facilitate   innovation  (e.g.  coach  -­‐   Boer  &  Krabbendam,     1992)   Establishes  an   innovation  culture  with   supporting  permissions   and  procedures,  e.g.   supporting  open  or   collaborative  innovation   practices.   (e.g.  project  leader/   organiser  -­‐  Boer   &  Krabbendam,    1992,   Barsh,  2008)   Establishes   infrastructure  to   facilitate  idea  discovery,   development  and   deployment.  Assembles   and  authorises  the  use   of  resources  (e.g.  Top   Management  Support   Dong  et  al,  2009)  

Embraces  an  idea  and   communicates  widely   within  a  work  unit,   across  work  units  and   outside  the  host   organization  to  facilitate   its  evolution.   (e.g.  ambassador  -­‐  Boer   &  Krabbendam,    1992)   An  individual  or   organisation  gaining   respect/trust  through   their  actions  and/or  via   their  appointment  by  an   Investment  Champion.   (e.g.  innovation  catalyst   –  Martin,  2011;   Innovation  midwives  -­‐   Vincent,  2005)  

Enunciates  an  idea,   refines  a  concept,   imagines  the  potential   future  impact  of  an   innovation.   (e.g.  product  champion  –   Schon,  1963;  Howell  et   al  2005)  

Persisting  under   adversity.  Uses    ‘know-­‐ who  ‘  knowledge  as   power  and  facilitates   access  to  third  party   knowledge  and   resources.   (e.g.  organisational   maverick  –  Shane,  1995;   entrepreneur  ;  broker  –   Winch  &  Courntey,   2007)  

Uses  technological   and/or  application   knowledge  as  power  and   stimulates   multi-­‐disciplinary  teams   to  enact  an  idea.   (e.g.  consultant  –   Bessant  and  Rush,  1995;   bricoleurs  –  Turpin  et  al,   1996)  

Demonstrates  the  utility   of  an  idea,   demonstrating   organisational  fit.   (e.g.  lead  user  -­‐  Franke   et  al,  2006;  champion  -­‐   Boer  &  Krabbendam,     1992)  

Table 1 Practices adopted by innovation champions

The literature suggests some connections between roles – investment champions flowing down strategy to stimulate and support idea capture and deployment or idea champions seeking support, but the representation of these connections seems piecemeal. A provisional model illustrating the interaction between the three champion roles and two third party roles was constructed from ideas in the literature (Figure 1.)

4

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden

Figure 1. A provisional view of innovation champion interactions

3.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, PROBLEMS, HYPOTHESIS

The literature analysis indicated that some researchers explored the role of an innovation champion at a regional program level (e.g. Klerkx et al, 2013), whilst most focused on the project level (e.g. Shane,1995; Chakrabarti and Hauschildt, 1989). All observed that different kinds of champions helped overcome organizational resistance and priority conflicts in different stages of the evolution of an innovative product or process. In addition, some evidence suggested that if one of the actor roles was not enacted effectively (e.g. Boer and Krabbendam, 1992; von Stamm, 2008) or if an element of structure described in Table 1 (signification, legitimation, domination) was missing (e.g. Barsh et al, 2008) an innovative initiative may fail. This led us to undertake some empirical research at the lesser-researched program level, exploring the role interaction hypotheses that: • H1 - A failure to effectively enact all three meta-roles at each stage of the individual innovation journey will cause an innovation to stall or fail, and this also applies at the program level. • H2. – The connections between roles may be two-way and an individual may assume more than one role at a particular innovation stage.

4.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We used a longitudinal case study approach to collect rich data sets, preserve context, and obtain an indication of if/how roles might change over time. The bulk of the innovation champion literature is oriented towards the innovation dynamics within an enterprise in a commercial context. There are fewer studies of who the innovation champions might be in open innovation, collaborative innovation, or environmental innovation programs, or in innovation champion development programs. We drew on a database from four program-level longitudinal case studies of innovation stimulation initiatives and more than 40 associated projects related to these contexts. All of the 5

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden programs aimed to build capability in some way. Three were government programs that required SME co-investment and one was a cross-sector industry program specifically targeted at enhancing the internal interaction champion role. The programs were: • The Bio Best Practice Case: A 2011 - 2012 program initiated by the Dutch Province of Gelderland exploring aspects of a bio-based economy, embedding green raw materials into products to replacing fossil resources with renewables in 13 individual projects involving 34 SMEs. • The Business Unusual Case: A 2008 - 2012 program initiated by MAIN, the Manufacturing & Innovation Network East Netherlands exploring opportunities for collaborative innovation in 15 individual projects involving 28 SMEs. • The Market Validation Program - An ongoing Australian State Government program facilitating SME innovation projects that meet an open innovation challenge identified by various government departments. The program was launched in 2010 following a successful pilot program, and 15 of 32 candidate projects have been funded to date. • The Catalyst case: An ongoing Australian innovation capability enhancement program initiated by an industry - funded intermediary organisation - the Hargraves Institute, helping individual firms identify internal self-motivated innovation catalysts and accelerate innovation implementation. The program was launched in 2012 Data had been collected in the previous studies over periods of up to four years. The data collection focus had been on program/project outcomes, however the extensive data sets collected contained information about, and in many cases interviews with the actors involved. The interviews were based on semi-structured questionnaire with an emphasis on • The output requirements, in relation to selection criteria for the partner, innovation targets, feasibility criteria and predetermined risks • The relationship between the partners, derived from the formal coordination and interaction agreements, the partner-specific investments, risk distribution, the structure of the network and the nature and duration of the relationship • The results of the projects, referring to collectively and individually realises benefits • The learning experience gained by the participants In total 62 interviews with CEO’s, project managers, program managers, moderators and funders have been recorded on tape and fully transcribed. The transcripts were submitted for approval to the interviewees. We have also used program archives offered by the management authorities containing project applications and plans, progress and evaluation reports. From these we could conclude if projects were successful by comparing the final results with the original plans and targets. All approved transcripts have especially been analysed on the different roles that the project members fulfilled.

5.

FINDINGS

The literature suggested that different kinds of supporting roles may be required at different stages of the innovation journey (e.g. Gassmann, Daibe and Enkel (2011). In considering cases at the program level, we have used the following stage characterisation:

6

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden • • •

The discovery stage, which precedes program launch – seeking program ideas, developing concepts, defining goals and negotiating access to resources The development stage, which involves launching the program, seeking out suitable projects consistent with program goals, and launching those projects The deployment stage, which involves managing a portfolio of projects and providing feedback on program performance.

All of the programs were in the deployment stage at the time of data collection, and started with an open call for participants to meet some form of challenge: stimulating a bio-based economy, stimulating collaborative innovation amongst SMEs, addressing a very specific technological need or enhancing internal innovation capacity. The framing of these calls addressed structuration matters of signification and legitimation, and outlined the resources that could be made available. The initial idea champion was the owner of the challenge, and the investment champion was the funding body. Table 2 provides an overview of the actors involved and some information about their roles in our four cases. actors

Idea   Interaction   champion champion MAIN  MEP  –  program  (16  business  clusters,  12  moderators)   MAIN  platform Management  authorities  /  Provinces SME’s Moderators Lead  customers

X   XX   X  

Investment   champion

XXX   XX XXX  

  XXX XXX X XX  

X

XXX X XXX XX  

Biobest  Practices-­‐  program (13  business  clusters) Province  of  Gelderland Universities SME’s Lead  customers  

X X XX  X

XXX  

XXX  

XX  

 

  XXX  

X   XX  

XXX   XXX  

  X  

X   X  

  XX  

X   XXX        

X   X   XXX   X   X  

XXX          

MVP  –  program  (15  projects)   Challenge  Champions   State  of  Victoria   SMEs   Research  Institutions   Lead  customers    

 

Catalyst  Program  (8  Workshops)   Hargraves  Institute  Members   Hargraves  Institute  CEO   Consultant   Industry  Association   Program  participants  

Table 2: Observed roles of actors in MAIN MEP and Biobest Practices on the project level (X = low presence, XXX = high presence)

The Dutch projects were focussed on delivering a proof of concept or a prototype and were technology-oriented c.f. product development. Two thirds of the clusters were successful in achieving the project goals, although there were hiccups in every project. At the start of each project or program some idea champions and investment champions are needed for a genuine fruitful starting position. Investment champions and idea champions could realise a breakthrough to resolve technical issues within the agreed framework for almost all the cases except one – “as long as it concerns technical 7

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden problems we can fix it”. After the launch of a project the interaction champion became more and more visible and important. Especially when critical incidents occurred (and this happened in all the cases), caused by technological, time and/or financial issues, the interaction champions played a mediating role. They brought parties together and looked for solutions that were in the interest of all parties. When projects failed, it was caused by multidisciplinary conflicts and distrust. These conflicts could be overcome by solutions as redefining and revising the project goals and the benefits for each party, the roles and influence of the actors, attracting third parties and revising the initial agreements – “you must grant each other the profits. You have to share fairly. And not someone walks away with the whole cake”. In successful projects this was initiated and facilitated by the interaction champion. Some moderators and managers inside the clusters picked up the role of interaction champion in a natural way. They can be characterised as: very experienced in the sector (20 years or more), with knowledge of the market and competitors, knowledge of the technological potential, skilled in communication and mediation, able to discriminate between personal interests and business and acting from an ethical perspective, which enabled them to successfully manage relationships. If there is no effective relationship management the cluster can fall apart. The MVP case describes a form of open innovation where Victorian (Australia) State Government Departments are invited to submit a “challenge” for some-one to develop a product/service that is needed by their client base or the by the community in general. Submissions are reviewed and a short list is then published seeking innovative solutions from Victorian SMEs. “Challenge" Departments are declared to be the sponsor/champion at a project level and chair a project control board related to their particular challenge. At the program level, the Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business is declared to be the program sponsor, responsible for funding and the release of approved 'technology challenges'. The Minister's Department is responsible for program implementation. A number of challenges may be funded through three stages, depending on the quality of the submission, its emergent practicality and the budget available. Of 32 candidates, fifteen projects have been funded to date, and eight are in the deployment stage. Some projects are going into the proof of concept stage slowly if firms cannot source the requisite co-funding. As a part of the proof of concept, the Department issuing the challenge may assume the role of lead user, and experts putting the challenge may provide specialist advice during development. The government, as an investment champion, adopted an open innovation strategy to confront some challenges it had identified. At the same time it was progressing an agenda to promote SME innovation, so unlike most business open innovation situations, the people with the project ideas were supported to develop them. When the resultant products/services were developed, the government became a lead user, potentially helping in broader marketing of the product/service, consistent with the observations of Lilian et al (2002). This arrangement shows a direct connection between a government expenditure and a community benefit - a challenge was met and there may be continuing economic returns to the region, which provides support for ongoing investment in the program. The Hargraves Institute CEO has been the Catalyst Program idea champion. Some previous Hargraves programs agreed to be a good idea had failed as participants could not invest the time. The "projects" were workshops held within larger firms or with

8

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden groups of smaller firms organised by an industry association. Every participant was asked to bring the following: "In the new role you will be assuming, bring a challenge that your Business Unit would be best placed to address and benefit the corporation." They were told it should be real, something they could have ownership of and that required them to have other interdependencies in the organisation. The investment champions were individual companies who had embraced the program concept and supported program launch. There was no formally appointed interaction champion supporting program development, however the idea champion acted as an ambassador during this stage. During an extension of deployment to SMEs, an intermediary organisation (Food Innovation Australia Ltd) facilitated engagement with more than SME 100 participants and organised workshop venues. The investment champions indirectly allocated resources by supporting use of their membership fees to develop the Catalyst program and authorising their staff to participate. A consultant was appointed by the idea champion to deliver the program, taking the role of interaction champion at the deployment stage.

6.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

In our initial interaction model shown in Figure 1, everything seemed to go through the interaction champion. This reinforced the influence of that role, as implied by the level of interest in the Catalyst program. But as we delved into the individual cases and the projects associated with them, we saw more potential connecting pathways that may have been established independent of a specific project. An example is a role relationships pathway where a firm acting as an investment champion stimulates its suppliers to act as an idea champion. In other cases, prior relationships facilitated direct connections. Some idea champions had prior connections with 3rd party experts. Some investment champions also had prior engagement with 3rd party experts, e.g. in the MVP case, the Victorian Government could draw on a panel of experts that were on a pre-approved supplier list. Some idea champions had prior connections with 3rd party resource providers such as specialist test laboratories or venture capitalists, and some investment champions had collaboratively supported the development of large-scale infrastructure. These kinds of observations resulted in a modification of the initial model, as shown in Figure 2.

9

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden

Figure 2. An extended view of innovation champion interactions

Our case analysis partially supported hypothesis H1, that a failure to effectively enact all three meta-roles at each stage of the individual innovation journey will cause an innovation to stall or fail, and this also applies at the program level. In the discovery stage in some cases, we did not identify an interaction champion, but we had limited data. The role may have been enacted by the idea or the investment champion, or may have been incorporated in some other role relationship like a contract agreement. The hypothesis was confirmed at the development stage, but there was less information available relating to post-program deployment success. However others have indicated this kind of role is important in a technology diffusion setting (e.g. Boer and Krabbendam, 1992). Interaction champion effectiveness had a large impact on the success of the Dutch SME collaboration projects, whilst lead customers acting as a deployment stage idea champions positively influenced the open innovation projects in particular. Over the period under study, actors involved in multiple roles were observed in all programs as illustrated in Table 2. Maidique and Zirger (1984) observed that in an incremental innovation environment, investment champions may drive innovation, whilst recognising that, as suggested by Schon (1963), idea champions may be the driver in a radical innovation environment. In reflecting on the interaction pathways suggested in Figure 2, we adapted an interaction matrix analysis concept from systems engineering, seeking examples from our cases of what activities stimulated by one actor were supported by another. Space does not permit a full representation of this analysis, but it did help confirm our hypothesis H2, that the connections between roles may be two-way and an individual may assume more than one role at a particular innovation stage. This systems matrix indicated:

10

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden •

• •

There could be background interactions between 3rd party experts and 3rd party resource providers independent of any particular champion (not shown in Figure 2) There could be interactions between different actors within each role (e.g. idea champion relationships where lead users providing ideas for improvement). If a particular actor takes a leading role in stimulating innovation, what support might be sought from actors filling the other roles (e.g. a 3rd party expert seeking applications for a newly developed technology)

This paper contributes to the research question: how do champion roles that stimulate and support innovation interact by: • Proposing a function based three-part meta-role structure for characterising the innovation champion • Providing a structuration theoretical foundation for understanding the multiplicity of activities that may take place (Table1) and evolving a role interaction model supported by empirical research (Figure 2. • Contributing to the literature on the role of innovation champions in collaborative and open innovation environments.

11

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden

REFERENCES Barsh, J, Capozzi, M,M and Davidson, J. Leadership and Innovation. McKinsey Quarterly, 2008, No 1, pp 37 – 48 Beckett, R.C and Hyland, P (2011) Effective Communication in Innovation Processes. Journal of Science Communication. Vol 10, Iss 4. P8. Bessant, J and Rush, H. (1995) Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy 24 pp 97-114 Boer, H and Krabbendam, K (1992),"Organizing for Manufacturing Innovation: The Case of Flexible Manufacturing Systems", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 Iss 7/8 pp. 41 - 56 Chakrabarti, Alok K., and Juergen Hauschildt. "The division of labour in innovation management." R&D Management 19, no. 2 (1989): 161-171. Elayne Coakes, Peter Smith, (2007),"Developing communities of innovation by identifying innovation champions", The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 Iss: 1 pp. 74 - 85 Dalziel, M (2010) Why do Innovation Intermediaries Exist: Proc Druid summer conference, "Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology" at Imperial College London Business School, June 16 – 18 Damanpour, F and Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006) Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering Technology Management 23 pp269 - 291 Dong, L; Neufeld, D and Higgins, C. (2009) Top management support of enterprise systems implementations. Journal of Information Technology. 25 pp 55 – 80 Franke, N; Von Hippel, E and Schreier, M. "Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead‐User Theory*." Journal of product innovation management 23, no. 4 (2006): 301-315. Gassmann, O; Daibe, M and Enkel, E “The role of intermediaries in cross-industry innovation processes” R&D Management 41, 5, 2011. pp 457 – 469 Giddens, A (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Gupta, S; Cadeaux, J and Dubelaar, C. “Uncovering multiple champion roles in implementing Newtechnology ventures.” Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 549–563 Howell, J.M., Shea, C.M. & Higgins, C.A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 641661. Howells, J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy. 35 pp 715 – 728 Johne, A. Using market vision to steer innovation. Technovation 19, no. 4 (1999): 203-207. Jones, O; Edwards, T and Beckinsale, M (2000): Technology Management in a Mature Firm: Structuration Theory and the Innovation Process, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12:2, 161-177 Klerkx, L and Aarts, N (2013) The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation 33 (193–210 Madique, M.A. and Zirger, B. J. (1984) A study of success and failure in product innovation: the case of the US electronics industry. IEEE Transaction of Engineering Management, Vol EM-31, No 4, pp 192 - 203

12

Paper presented at the 16th International CINet Conference - Pursuing Innovation Leadership, 13-15 September 2015 - Stockholm, Sweden Martin, R.L (2011) The Innovation Catalysts. Harvard Business Review, http://hbr.org/2011/06/theinnovation-catalysts/ar/pr last accessed April 8 2015 Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: the metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization science, 6(4), 423-444. Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1981), Staffing the innovative technology-based organization, Sloan Management Review, 22(3), 19-34. Shane, S. (1995) Uncertainty Avoidance and the Preference for Innovation Championing Roles. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 47-68 Schon, D. A. (1963, March–April). Champions for radical new inventions.Harvard Business Review, 77–86. Von Stamm, B. (2008) Managing innovation design and creativity. -. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2008. ISBN 978-0-470-51066-7 (Chapter 21 Organising for Innovation) Taran, Y., & Boer, H. (2013). Towards a typological theory of business model innovation processes. In Proceedings 14th International CINet Conference, Nijmegen, Netherlands.. (14 ed., pp. 843-858). Enschede: Continuous Innovation Network (CINet). Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., Rankin, N., 1996. Bricoleurs and boundary riders: managing basic research and innovation knowledge networks. R&D Management 26, 267–282. Vincent, L (2005) Innovation Midwives: Sustaining Innovation Streams in Established Companies. Research-Technology Management Jan-Feb, pp 41 – 49 Winch, G. M & Courtney, R (2007): The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19:6, 747-763

13