انتقال بین اکتشاف و بهره برداری به مخترعان نوآوری های بسته بندی اعمال شده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|20117||2010||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7677 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technovation, Volume 30, Issues 5–6, May–June 2010, Pages 322–331
While the inventor is often the driver of an invention in the early stages, he/she needs to move between different social networks for knowledge in order to create and capture value. The main objective of this research is to propose a literature-based framework based on innovation network theory and complemented with C–K theory, in order to analyze the invention/innovation process of inventors and the product concepts in a packaging industry context. Empirical input from three case studies of packaging inventions and their inventors is used to elaborate the suggested framework. The article identifies important gaps in the literature of innovation networks. This is addressed through a theoretical framework based on network theories, complemented with C–K theory for the product design level. The strength-of-ties dimension of the theoretical framework suggests, in agreement with the mainstream literature and the cases presented, that weak ties are required to access the knowledge related to exploration networks and strong ties are required to utilize the knowledge in the exploitation network. The transformation network is an intermediate step acting as a bridge where entrepreneurs can find required knowledge. The transformation network is also an intermediate step where entrepreneurs find financing and companies interested in commercializing inventions.
While the entrepreneur or inventor is often the driver of an invention in the early stages, she or he needs to move between different social networks for knowledge in order to create value and capture it. The creation of innovations requires highly specialized knowledge in different fields, and, networks are a breeding ground for the creation of radical innovation through new knowledge. Studies of the drivers of entrepreneurship also indicate that traditional innovation processes are becoming increasingly networked. The recent evolution, in which “ideal” models are moving from the perspective of a business unit towards a network also supports this trend (Harryson, 2008). Network theory is therefore a suitable complement in the study of innovation processes and repeals the common view that people or companies develop innovations alone. It is more likely the case that innovations involve a larger structure in the form of networks to enable access to resources and specialized knowledge. Regarding product innovation, inventors have preset knowledge when a conceptual idea appears in their minds. The C–K theory presented by Hatchuel and Weil (2003) reflects the assumption that the design of a new product can be modeled as the interplay between two interdependent spaces with different structures and logics: the space of concepts (C) and the space of knowledge (K). However, C–K theory alone is not sufficient to describe the role and process of the inventor in achieving a final invention; it is instead a complement to the innovation process, which describes the evolution of the product from an idea to a concept and eventually to a commercial product. Although the development of the product is integrated into the process of activities carried out by the entrepreneur, most research articles focus on either the process or the product. The authors of this article have chosen to integrate the two. One distinct school of thought in the innovation network literature has emerged that discusses the most favorable network structures for innovation, considering both exploration and exploitation networks (Autry and Griffis, 2008; Gilsing and Duysters, 2008; Gilsing et al., 2007; Gilsing and Nooteboom, 2005; Harryson, 2008; Harryson et al., 2008). In spite of this, no better configuration of firms within the network has been identified, and the literature seems to agree that exploration networks have the essential characteristics that facilitate value creation. In a complementary situation, though, exploitation networks are essential to capture this value creation. Although all contributions relate to how the very different forms of exploration and exploitation networks influence innovation, these authors make no link between the dynamics of innovation in generating new concepts, objects and knowledge and the different network structures that are used along the way to support the search for novel knowledge (exploration) and knowledge application (exploitation). Another gap in the mainstream literature is that it has devoted less attention to the transformation networks used to support the change from exploration networks to exploitation networks, and vice versa. It is important to understand how firms make the transition from exploration to exploitation and what the implications are for its network of alliances (Gilsing et al., 2007). Two features are central for this process: how firms combine their resources of knowledge, and how firms get information on potential partners (Cowan et al., 2007). Harryson et al. (2008) introduced the term “transformation networks”, and they see a strong need to understand the role of these networks. However, the literature seems to have missed these two intermediate steps of the transformation of networks from exploration to exploitation and vice versa, helping in this process. This is required to understand how the entrepreneur starts with an imaginary concept/idea and moves through different types of networks in order to access the knowledge required for this concept/idea's validation and to commercialize the results of this innovation. The main objective of this research is to propose a literature-based framework, based on network theory, to analyze the invention/innovation process of three packaging innovations in a packaging industry context with regards to the transformation between exploration and exploitation. The framework is complemented with the C–K theory to visualize the simultaneous evolution of the packaging innovation, per se. Three case studies of packaging inventions and the inventors of these are used as examples to elaborate and test the framework. This article provides a recent literature review of network theory applied to innovation along with the C–K theory for the development of the product. The extent to which these two theories complement each other describes the integrated pathway of the networked inventors and the simultaneous development of the product, which is the central focus of this study. First the two theories are presented. Then the framework on a process and product level is suggested. The empirical input from the three case studies is then elaborated in the context of the suggested framework. The paper is finalized by an analysis of the theoretical framework with the empirical input and concluding remarks.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Important gaps in the literature of innovation networks have been identified and addressed through a theoretical framework based on network theories complemented with C–K theory. This has been carried out in order to understand how the exploration, exploitation and transformation networks complement one another to favor the emergence of innovations and how innovations evolve from concepts into products. The theoretical framework is supported by the presentation of three examples of empirical cases. The strength of ties dimension of the theoretical framework suggests, in agreement with the current mainstream literature and with the cases presented, that weak ties are required to access the knowledge related to exploration networks and strong ties are required to utilize the knowledge in the exploitation network. The transformation network (from exploitation to exploration) is an intermediate step and acts as a bridge where companies and entrepreneurs can find information about their knowledge requirements. The transformation network (from exploration to exploitation) is also an intermediate step where entrepreneurs find financing and companies interested in commercializing the recent inventions. Apparently, on the right side of the framework (transformation network: from exploitation to exploration) organizational embedded networks dominate over social ones. On the left side (transformation network: from exploration to exploitation) the social networks dominate over organizational embedded networks. However, as illustrated in the selected cases individuals are more important than their organizations. Based on the findings from these three cases, we believe that the change in focus from exploration to exploitation (and vice versa) leads network properties to change accordingly. The relevant literature suggests that the transformation movement between exploring and exploiting is clockwise. This is empirically confirmed in the three cases of this study. We therefore have reason to believe that the direction of the path is always clockwise; however, this may be a subject for further studies. In addition, as suggested by the framework, further research is needed on how to identify ideas/concepts related to trade-off solutions or customers needs waiting to be filled. As in the innovator dilemma, exploring existing knowledge in the exploitation network through the addition of redundant links also has decreasing returns. On the contrary, the search for complementary knowledge with the addition of non-redundant links has increasing returns. The managerial implications of our study are that managers can make efforts to accelerate the transformation from an exploitation to an exploration network and vice versa through a relationship-based approach. This would be based on information technology applications (such as web 2.0 applicative), allowing for the exploring and sourcing of external knowledge or technologies (e.g. www.innocentive.com), and for the identification of possible partners for funding the prospective inventions (e.g. www.cleantech.com). Another aspect is the involvement of lead users, mainly in the innovative activities related to concept and idea formulation and in defining applications or refinement of known objects. In the case of radical innovations, the framework suggests that lead users could become entrepreneurs themselves (Lettl et al., 2008).