THE AGILE-ENTERPRISE INNOVATION PLANNINGHow to Align Self-organization Processes for Innovation Management

Mixel Kiemen

Abstract

The Agile-Enterprise Innovation Planning System (A-EIP) is build to manage breakthrough innovation based on best practices in the innovation literature. From the literature a novelty paradox is recognized: knowledge is both a barrier as a source for innovation. The goal of the A-EIP system is suppress the former and amplify the later. Theory on self-organizing feedback mechanism are needed to understand how to overcome the novelty paradox. The A-EIP system contains four management systems (MS): Group-MS, Business-MS, Strategic-MS, Learning-MS. Each management system will be important for the basic three stages of innovation: incubation phase, growth phase and maturity phase. The management systems will create a flow over the three phases and make emergence and aggregation manageable. The practical development and validation of the research is done in respect to Internet innovation. In contrast to innovation cases, a new emerging approach is pursued. Currently experiments have been done with a course that can be extended to a full Master program to create micro-spinoffs, such a program is considered the easiest way to create a test bed for the A-EIP system.

References

  1. Applegate, L., Austin, R., McFarlan, W., 2003. Corporate Information Strategy and Management: The Challenges of Managing in a Network Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 6th Edition.
  2. Applegate, L., Austin, R., McFarlan, W., 2006. Corporate Information Strategy and Management: The Challenges of Managing in a Network Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 7th Edition.
  3. Chesbrough, W.H., 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  4. Christensen, M.C., 1995. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73, 1, 43-53
  5. Christensen, M.C., 1997. The innovator's dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  6. Christensen, M.C., 2003. The innovator's solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  7. Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 35, p.128-152
  8. Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., Changeux, JP., 1998. A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. Neurobiology, Vol. 95, p.14529- 14534.
  9. Eisenhardt, K., Martin, J., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 21, p.1105-1122.
  10. Freeman, C. Soete, L., 1997. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. MIT Press Books, The MIT Press.
  11. Hawkins, J., 2004. On Intelligence Times Books.
  12. Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K., 1994. Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
  13. Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B, 1990. Architectural Innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms, Administrative Science Quarterly. March.
  14. Kiemen M. 2008. Artificial Meta-System Transition to clarify useful Novelty Control. In Proceedings of the 19th European Meeting on Cybernetics and systems Research. Vol. 19, p.289-294.
  15. Kiemen, M., 2010. Global brain inspired alignment by Drupal: between strategic problems, practical web development and cognitive insights. In Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference. (digital print)
  16. Kiemen, M., Coenen, T., Torft, E., Vandijck, E., 2009. Enterprise innovation planning with social software. In Proceeding of the 10th International Society of Professional Innovation Management conference. (digital print).
  17. Koenraad, D., 2010. The Rise of the Academic Technology Transfer Organization. Review of Business and Economics. Vol. 55, p.175-189
  18. Latour, B., 1999. Pandora's hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  19. Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: Free Press.
  20. Schumpeter, J., 1975. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.
  21. Simon, H.A., 1962. The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 106, p. 467-482.
  22. Teece, J.D., Pisano G., Shuen A., 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 18, p. 509-533
  23. Thusman, 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review. Vol. 38, p. 8-29
  24. Tuomi, I., 2005. The Future of Open Source, How Open is the Future? Brussels: VUB Brussels University Press, p. 429-459.
  25. Wernerfelt, B., 1984. The Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 5, p.171- 180.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kiemen M. (2011). THE AGILE-ENTERPRISE INNOVATION PLANNINGHow to Align Self-organization Processes for Innovation Management . In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT - Volume 1: INNOV, ISBN 978-989-8425-67-6, pages 47-53. DOI: 10.5220/0004471500470053


in Bibtex Style

@conference{innov11,
author={Mixel Kiemen},
title={THE AGILE-ENTERPRISE INNOVATION PLANNINGHow to Align Self-organization Processes for Innovation Management},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT - Volume 1: INNOV,},
year={2011},
pages={47-53},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004471500470053},
isbn={978-989-8425-67-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT - Volume 1: INNOV,
TI - THE AGILE-ENTERPRISE INNOVATION PLANNINGHow to Align Self-organization Processes for Innovation Management
SN - 978-989-8425-67-6
AU - Kiemen M.
PY - 2011
SP - 47
EP - 53
DO - 10.5220/0004471500470053