Studying the Impact of Innovation on Organizations, Organizational Populations and Organizational Communities: A Framework for Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThis paper examines whether and how the of innovation on organizations can be determined. Following a discussion of four possible conceptual paradigms, it develops a framework for studying the of innovations on their organizations. The paper argues that there are four main aspects to the of innovation that require four different approaches:(1) Successful and unsuccessful cases of implementation of individual innovations that achieve/do not achieve their chosen objectives and the effects of innovations on (2) employees, (3) organizational functioning, and (4) Organizational structures. Accordingly, it frames the research within four possible research approaches (case studies, people, functions, structures), loosely based on Burrell and Morgan's (1979) and Gioia and Pitre's (1990) organizational paradigms. The first approach focuses research on the of individual innovations on individual issues and individual organizations, organizational populations, and organizational communities. The second approach studies impacts on people; the third emphasizes inputs and organizational adaptation; and the fourth the on structures and survival of organizations, populations and communities. The framework identifies definitions of innovation suitable for each approach, what each approach is most suited to studying, their levels of analysis, suitable methodologies and measures, and the types of impacts each is capable of revealing.Keywords: Impact of innovation, innovative organization, innovative organizational population, organizational community, organizational demography; research framework.IntroductionWhile private sector, non-profit sector and public sector innovation has been vigorously promoted for two generations, the impacts of innovation have not been determined. When the impacts of innovation have been addressed, the focus has tended to be the effect on economic performance at the firm (Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010) and country levels (Sapprasert and Clausen, 2012). During this period, the primary focus of public sector innovation has been strategies and methods to reduce use of public resources, create agencies and privatize government functions (the New Public Management), not the of the innovations. Several authors have noted the lack of attention to the impacts of the set of innovations known as the New Public Management (Christensen and Laegreid, 2006: 2; Pollitt, 2001: 480). Damanpour (1991: 584) recommended expanding the scope of innovation studies to include evaluation of the consequences of innovation.The innovation literature has tended to focus on the successful implementation of innovations and making appropriate tactical choices about when to innovate and when to delay/selectively adopt innovations (de Lancer Julnes and Holzer, 2001). There is much to be learned, however, from innovations that fail, but they are difficult to research. A clear distinction must be made between innovations that are not fully implemented or that fail and ones that are fully implemented and accomplish their objectives in determining the effect on organizational survival. As well, organizations have many other objectives that include supporting employees, achieving organizational objectives and assuring the organization survives. This paper's objectives are to identify ways to determine the of innovations on their organizations and to develop a research framework for doing so. The term impact is defined to include both the results of the innovation's intervention (outcomes) and the broader effects of the innovation. The paper builds a framework for research on the of innovation on organizations that addresses both the of individual innovations and innovations' impacts on organizational people, functioning and structures. Each approach is seated within a different conceptual paradigm. The paradigms are described, then the paper develops an approach and explores innovation within each paradigm, by discussing the different definitions of innovation used by each approach, what each is most suited to studying and the issues that can best be studied within them, levels of analysis implied, methodologies and measures that could be used, and the impacts that can best be studied within each approach. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it