Innovation Management – “We have arrived”

There are several layers to conducting good research. For my Manuscript I depended on 4 critical elements which makes up the Evidence Based Management process (Briner, Denyer, & Rousseau, 2009):

1.       Practitioner expertise and judgment

2.       Locally contextual evidence

3.       Critical evaluation of the best available research evidence

4.       Perceptions of stakeholders who may be affected by the decision

As mentioned in my Blog #2, I wanted to expand my dialogue on the theory applied for my Manuscript research. I initially took a deeper dive into Social Cognitive theory. Even though Social Cognitive theory addresses the fact that teams in the pharma biotech arena utilize their cognitive abilities to a very high level as well as the socio (behavioral) aspects, there was no tie into my research of the technology piece. My current professor suggested that I should look at Socio-Technical theory and make the decision if I thought it was a better fit or not. The exploration of Socio-Technical theory was a game changer for my research. This theory was the ultimate fit for my research. This theory explores how the technical aspects impacts the socio or behavioral aspects of teams. I took a deep dive into understanding the elements of Socio-Technical theory to expound why this theory could underpin my research from several different vantage points.

The problem statement formulated in my Blog #1 was the biggest driver in exploring Socio-Technical theory. It was critical for me to understand what happens to teams during the “game of changing spaces” in the pharma biotech industry. Socio-Technical theory not only supports “people”, the behavioral piece, but it supports the “skills” piece of the research. One of the most profound finding during this research was that much of the socio-technical connection happens early in the research and development phase of technology. Several questions now popped up during this stage of my research. How does the people affect the technology? How does technology affect the people?

In parallel to making the discoveries during exploration of the theory underpinning the study, I took a dive into dynamic capability as the framework for my Manuscript. The dynamic capability framework examination showcased how innovation is impacted by this phenomenon. Therefore, for my research I was looking intently at the effects of this framework on radical innovation and incremental innovation (ambidextrous innovation). Teece (2007) work of “seizing, sensing and managing threats” showed that Knowledge Management, Governance, Decentralization, Cospecializations were key constructs. After much deliberation, the decision was made not to look at Governance because that had been exhausted in the literature. Knowledge management was a key area because the pharma biotech industry is a knowledge intensive arena, even though much had been written about knowledge management, the literature had not fully explored the area I am researching for my Manuscript. Further justification was made to look at Decentralization which according to Teece is associated with Open Innovation, a strategic area of radical innovation.

The research was full of twists and turns with detailed research in the area of knowledge management. The literature showed the deep connection of knowledge management to innovation. The literature had widespread data and research on organizations and leadership. But again, please reference my first 2 blogs to see where the gap still exists in the literature.

One aspect of the literature mentioned tacit knowledge. That is the knowledge that cannot be written down. This observation is critical in the pharma biotech industry which is constantly playing the game of “trading spaces”. Ultimately, what does this observation mean for pharma biotech organizations, leaders and teams existing in this environment? How can anyone codify this type of knowledge in the pharma biotech industry?

After an exhaustive literature review, synthesis of the literature and analysis; several items came to the surface. It was as if I had gone into the deep as a scuba diver and I was beginning to come to the surface.

Discoveries

Interestingly, the conceptual framework highlights learning, knowledge transfer, and knowledge sharing but one key area of knowledge management was not explicitly called out in the framework. It does not appear in the conceptual framework utilized for this study. This area of knowledge management is key to the survival and competitive edge of pharma biotech companies who grapple for position on a daily basis with a race towards market share. This is an area I will research in the future and hope to publish about this critical construct shortly in my Manuscript.

The research was also full of confirmation of the effects of dynamic capability on ambidextrous innovation but not necessarily highlighting the role of teams in the pharma biotech industry. The literature confirmed that dynamic capability had a positive effect on radical innovation. It was also confirmed that learning had a positive effect on incremental innovation (Sheng, 2016). Open Innovation had a positive effect on radical innovation (Cheng, 2016).

Notice how deliberate these discoveries are as related to ambidextrous innovation. What does this mean for managers of teams who potentially have to manage both radical and incremental innovation at the same time in the pharma biotech industry? My next blog will expound on the implications and the limitations of the study.