Innovation practices and their boundary-crossing mechanisms: a review and proposals for the future

Abstract

In response to the increased complexity of innovation projects, tools and methods applied in the innovation process need to be able to support knowledge sharing across semantic and pragmatic boundaries. Despite evidence of the importance of these tools and methods – referred to as innovation practices – for the success of innovation projects, significant gaps exist in our understanding of the nature of innovation practices. It is not clear yet, how innovation practices address the challenges of knowledge sharing across semantic and pragmatic boundaries. This article therefore advances knowledge in this area by offering a systematic analysis of innovation practices. Existing streams of innovation practices literature across different domains are reviewed. Comparing the knowledge sharing processes when innovation practices are applied, it has been found that innovation practices comprise four distinct mechanisms to cross semantic boundaries and three to cross pragmatic boundaries. Moreover, we integrate these findings with perspectives from other research areas so as to stimulate fruitful avenues for future research. In sum, rather than viewing innovation practices as ‘add-ons’, we submit that they are important variances to assess, model, and understand in order to overcome semantic and pragmatic knowledge boundaries in innovation projects.

Keywords:

• innovation
• knowledge sharing
• development
• boundary management
• innovation practices

Acknowledgements

We thank all inside and outside innovators who are part of our ongoing innovation research journey, in particular Vivek Velamuri, and gratefully acknowledge support by the Peter Pribilla Foundation (project: Leading Innovation in a Boundaryless World) as well as the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the European Social Fund (project: ServProf, 01FB08043).

Notes

As discussed in ‘The Redesign Business Summit 2010’ 11 March 2010 staged in London with The Economist.

It is has been applied equally to study knowledge boundaries within (e.g. Keller 1986; Joyce 1986; Ancona and Caldwell 1992b) and above companies’ boundaries (e.g. Katz and Tushman 1981; von Hippel 1988; Ancona and Caldwell 1992a).

In line with Benders and Vermeulen (2002), we define innovation practices as all methods, tools strategies and concepts that are implemented to support innovation processes.

This research is part of Rau, Christiane (forthcoming) Dissolving knowledge boundaries in innovation projects. PhD dissertation, University Erlangen-Nuremberg.

Co-creative communication is defined as ‘Human–human communication in a physically present situation, mutually creating and sharing context through embodied interactions’ (Wesugi and Miwa 2006, 36).

Third spaces for communication are defined as ‘spaces in which assumptions are challenged, learning is reciprocally and ideas are created through negotiation and co-creation of identities, working languages, understanding, and relationships, and polyvocal (manyvoice) dialogues across and through differences’ Muller (2003, 1).

The strength of ties is defined according to Granovetter (1973, 1361) as ‘a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie’.