In a world that is growing faster than ever, innovation and change are becoming inevitable. But change brings fear and uncertainty, and innovation brings change, but innovation brings change.
Many authors have studied innovation and change to develop theories that could help drive innovation to success. In the course of this task, we will present the first part of a three-part series on innovation, change and leadership. We will start with a brief overview of the theory of innovation and the role of change in the development of innovation. The first part also presents the following different theories of change, which are divided into three main categories: theory, practice and practice – specific theory.
Our work also evaluates two practical examples that we have experienced directly in our work, the first of which was unsuccessful, while the second was successful.
Theories and approaches to guiding innovation and change are some of the best tools that organizations can use, but they can be a bit confusing for practitioners, though they bear some similarities. This includes leadership, innovation, change and the last part is critical to developing leadership skills and success in the current highly competitive business environment. One of the theories of innovation or change is the role of leadership in innovation leadership as a key component of a company’s success strategy. This is the most important part of an organization’s strategic plan and is key to its ability to lead innovation to succeed in our current highly competitive business environment.
Most authors agree that innovation is about developing and implementing new ideas, and von Stamm (2003) describes innovation as creativity and successful implementation. The first part of this task will provide a brief overview of some theories of innovation and change and the role of leadership in innovation or change.
Adair (2007) also points out that innovation literally means “introducing new ideas, new methods and new ways of thinking, a new way of working, a change in the organisational structure or even the creation of new products or services” (Adair, 2007). He adds that “innovation combines two overlapping processes: it has a new idea and implements it. Innovation is the key to an organisation’s success because it is also an element that must be considered within and outside the organisation and is an integral part of the overall organisation.
Many definitions and classifications have been used to identify different types of innovation, and the theory of innovation has been developed and verified over many years. TVs are getting a new model with more features, we can learn more about it in the latest issue of The New York Times Magazine.
Innovation and Zen (2006) brings together important theories of innovation, and these theories range from traditional to disruptive, but they are all different.
I believe that large companies tend to innovate more than small companies, especially in areas such as technology, business models and marketing. This is true, given that many of the largest companies started out as smaller companies and grew into innovative products like apples.
Incremental innovation builds on a company’s existing knowledge and resources, which means it means an increase in skills. Radical innovation, on the other hand, requires new technologies, new business models, and new approaches to business processes.
The technological knowledge required to develop new products and thus to introduce innovation is divided into links and components called architectural knowledge, which, as a result, introduces innovation.
In his theory, David Teece examines which benefit from innovation, and this theory has two dimensions. When a complementary asset is freely available and easy for others to emulate, it is difficult to make money from innovation. However, when complementary assets are high and developed again, the holders of these assets will be the ones who will benefit most from innovation, owing to the higher value of their assets.
In this fluid phase, many changes are taking place that respond to technological and market needs. During this transition phase, manufacturers learn more about technological applications and customer needs. This model has some similarities to Teece’s model, but we have a different model for the transition from the first to the second phase of innovation and change.
During this phase, dominant designs will emerge in the form of products, production will use highly specialized equipment and the market will grow. In the concrete phases, companies have a clear picture of market segments and therefore concentrate on serving specific customers. Normally, at this point, the acceptance of innovation begins to increase and the demand for new products increases.
Disruptive innovation will often have characteristics that traditional customer segments may not want, at least initially. Such innovations will be appreciated by the edges of the new segments, and new markets for existing products will emerge, but also new ones.
If we look at seven different theories, we can see that there are many similarities, but also some differences. Shumpeter’s theory of incremental change examines how innovation can be built on existing resources.
However, many organisations and companies have grown from small businesses to large companies such as Apple and Google and have been able to innovate. Shumpeter believes that larger firms are more innovative than smaller ones, which is perhaps true because Toyota is a big innovative company. It’s about how much effort you put into an innovative idea and how hard you work to achieve and implement it.
The ability to recognize resources and competence is an advantage in any organization, but radical change requires other areas of the same organization. Sometimes a sector or department needs gradual change, sometimes it is necessary because radical change could destroy skills. This is necessary because some say it could “destroy capabilities.”
The Henderson-Clark model also takes into account whether innovation is radical or incremental by analyzing the impact of each knowledge component. The Utterback model is similar to the Teece model, where it examines the market and the various players, with the S Curve model not taking into account any technological perspective, while the Teece models are more marketing-related. Both the Abernathy and UtTERback models seem to take into account both technological and market-based aspects. They analyze the search for a new product by taking it into account, and also determine whether the innovation was radical (or not) by leading to a dominant design.
Von Stamm (2003) further categorizes innovation theories, and companies can build innovation by examining the various theories and models. It is also possible to take certain elements from different theories and develop what fits best to the company’s vision for innovation. For example, disruptive innovation claims that it is not always about innovation, but rather about creating new markets where a lower-quality or cheaper product can find value.
An innovation of this kind defines the basic configuration of a product or process, defines a technical or marketing agenda that controls further development and defines its impact on existing capabilities and resources. It is about changes based on established technical and production expertise and applying existing technologies. The impact of change is to consolidate existing technologies and to accelerate the development of new products and services for existing markets and customers. There are effects in production and technical systems to maintain or strengthen established designs.
The following part is therefore the culmination of a critical review of the theory of change. Von Stamm (2003, p. 7) criticized this categorization, saying that it focuses on results and not on the process of innovation. I also believe that there should be some kind of balance between process and outcome, which is clear in describing innovation as the making of new connections and the constant questioning of the status quo through change for the sake of change. Innovation, the implementation of changes in an organisation, means bringing innovative and creative ideas to life.
The aim would be to develop innovative ideas and implement them in a successful change process. Change planning is essential in any organisation for several reasons. Isaksen and Tidd (2006) identified three main factors: increasing complexity, increasing competition and globalization, and increasing pace and volume of change, as well as increasing complexity.
