Why do managers innovate?
The word innovation is generally used for to explain objects like a new microcomputer or a late model car. But according to some innovation theorists it can take some other form. For example, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971:19) argued that innovation could be an idea, practice or material artifact (Carol Slappendel, 1996). Innovation has a diverse nature that reflects classification schemes, which differentiate between administrative and technical innovations (Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981), work organizations and product and process innovations (Whipp and Clark, 1986).
Innovation practice is widely accepted. Some researchers believe that it is the idea of newness that is more important than the idea or the object, which is new to the world. Zaltman et al (1973:158) used this idea and defined innovation as ‘any idea, practice or material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption. ’ The term innovation can also be defined as a process through which new ideas; objects and practices are created and developed. This process naturally embraces the periods of design and development, adoption, implementation and diffusion (Carol Slappendel, 1996).
For some time, innovation in organizations has been recognized. In an early paper on the innovative organizations, Becker and Whisler (1967, 467-468) referred to a ‘humanistic approach’ that is used by those who wish to explain innovation behavior in terms of the personality characteristics of ‘organizational participants’ and structural approach is used by them who wish to explain innovative behavior in terms of structural differences. Pierce and Delbecq (1977:34) present the third perspective: The deterministic structural model has detained the most concentration i. e. structure and context cause innovation.
Alternately, member values and attributes can be cast the primary rival casual force in determining organizational innovation, i. e. influential value good to change best calculate organizational innovation. The relationship between organization and innovation may be interactively influenced by both structure and membership (Carol Slappendel, 1996). Pierce and Delbecq (1977) identified same perception that is found in the mappings of the organization theory and strategic management literatures. Pfeffer (1982) presented two levels of analysis and three perspectives on action for organization theory.
Those three perspectives are: rational action perspectives, the situational constraint perspective and an emergent process perspective, which are in turns similar to Chaffee’s linear, adaptive and interpretative models of strategy (Carol Slappendel, 1996). Hamel’s (2006) definition for management innovation: A management innovation can be defined as a marked departure from traditional management principles, processes and practices or a departure from customary organizational forms that significantly alters the way the work of management is performed.
Innovation is the basis for new strategy to be developed. Seeking ways to be more innovative does not show the more creativeness of the managers- senior managers have been seeking this Holy Grail for years. The important thing is the use of controlled experimentation both inside companies and with external partners. Executives, including CIOs have started understanding the power of a well-defined business experimentation process as a way to increase the pace of organizational learning and so speed up the development of new or extended products or services and processes (James Cash and Cari Pearlson, 2005).