Novelty of Management Innovations: A Study of ISPIM Grand Prize

(1)

Novelty of Management Innovations:

A Study of ISPIM Grand Prize

University of Groningen

Strategic Management Innovation

MSc BA Master’s Thesis

Student Name & Number: Alper Aksoy, S3517314

(2)

(3)

2

Abstract

Management innovations have been gaining track in academia. Yet, major gaps still persist within theory, especially regarding the characteristics of management innovations, as well as how those characteristics interact with antecedents and outcomes. In order to fill these gaps, an inductive study of real life management innovations are necessary, which theory provides a starting point for, but is still very limited. Following this, we analyze applications that were sent to ISPIM Grand Prize, an internationally recognized open contest for management innovations. Through the adoption of a hybrid case study method, we develop a concrete analytical

framework, a robust novelty scale, and utilize cross analysis techniques like pattern matching and explanation building to explain the connections and interactions between antecedents, types, and outcomes of management innovations both with each other and with novelty. We identify novel management innovations that has not yet been recognized by academia. We find that most management innovations are procedural and intra-organizational, in addition to being

(4)

(5)

4

Novelty, as a concept, is a rather familiar term for business and innovation scholars in particular. Also termed ‘innovativeness’ or ‘radicalness’ , it is most frequently used as a measure of the degree of (relative) ‘newness’ of an innovation (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). The effects of novelty on products, services, and firms have been studied rather extensively. Kleinschmidt & Cooper (1991) found that product innovativeness has a strong and statistically significant, dramatic and consistent impact on new product performance. Avlonitis, Papastathopoulou, & Gounaris (2001) found that more novel financial services brought with them a boost on company image, new customers, and customer loyalty. Service firms that introduce a product with highly novel components were found to derive more commercial sales than otherwise, even if this product is already on the national or the establishment’s market (Therrien, Doloreux, &

Chamberlin, 2011). Even entrepreneurial firms with novelty-centered business models aiming to come up with novel end products, performed better (Zott & Amit, 2008).

However, scholars have pointed out that an organization’s performance and growth are not only affected by new and novel products, but are also subject to the firm’s ability to employ new management practices to replenish strategy, structure, and other processes (Damanpour, 2014). The generation and implementation of a management practice, process, structure or technique1 that is intended to further organizational goals are called management innovations2 (Birkinshaw,

Hamel, & Mol, 2008). Famous examples for management innovations include the modern assembly line, total quality management programs, and the Toyota production system (Birkinshaw et al., 2008). Such innovations have been found to increase organizational

performance just as much as product and process innovations, to affect the dynamic capabilities of the firm, and stated by various authors to be a critical success factor for contemporary firms as

1_{The broad phenomenon of management innovation makes it difficult to distinguish practices, processes, structures}

and techniques from each other. Yet, it would be difficult to define management innovation without any one of them (Birkinshaw et al., 2008). For the sake of simplicity, the terms “practice” and “initiative” will be used throughout this paper to refer to all four terms (see: theoretical background section).

2_{Various terms such as organizational, administrative, managerial and management innovations have been used to}

(8)

7

they also result in productivity growth (Walker, Chen, & Aravind, 2015; Gebauer, 2011; Volberda, Van Den Bosch, & Heij, 2013; Mol & Birkinshaw, 2009).

However, academic research on management innovations has been relatively lacking. Despite a recent increase in academic interest, management innovations comprised only 3% of innovation-related paper, and has not been as widely examined (neither conceptually nor empirically) as other types of innovations at the firm level of analysis (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Damanpour, 2014). The studies of novelty (and radicalness) also follow a similar line, where novelty of firm outputs in the form of products and services (and its effect on firm performance, for instance) have been studied extensively (Garcia & Calantone, 2002), being considered an important attribute of innovation in every field, resulting in many developed typologies by researchers (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012), whereas this has not been the case for management innovations. A reason why management innovation research is at this state may be because of their tacit nature that makes them difficult to observe, define, and identify (Birkinshaw et al., 2008), as this domain of innovations have also been described as “multidisciplinary and multilevel; complex, ambiguous, and difficult to measure” (Damanpour, 2014). Thus for instance, the characteristics and attributes of management innovations –including but not limited to novelty- have also remained inadequately addressed at best by literature, especially with regards to how they interact with other antecedents -resulting in unestablished, scattered typologies (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012; Damanpour, 2014).

In order to answer these direct and indirect calls to research and address the relatively wide gap in literature, this study has several aims and purposes. Firstly, we would like to add the novelty aspect to management innovation research, providing a pathway towards measuring novelty in this field. Secondly, we would like to connect novelty to existing management innovation theories, and observe how novel management innovations differ from not novel ones in terms of antecedents, types, and outcomes. We seek to provide a more complete picture about

(9)

8

That being said, it should also be stated here that academic literature has lagged behind practice when it comes to management innovations. For instance, consider the Six Sigma quality

management initiative developed by Motorola in 1987. Many books and additional material were written about it, but only a few academic articles remain published in scholarly journals

(Schroeder, Linderman, Liedtke, & Choo, 2008). Another example is the Toyota Way, a set of principles with regards to organizational culture that led to the development of the Toyota Production System. Despite being formalized by Toyota as early as 2001, it took academia thirteen years to “catch up” and develop an in-depth theoretical model for it (Jayamaha, Wagner, Grigg, Campbell-Allen, & Harvie, 2014). This set of circumstances called for a case study approach that would examine management innovations in practice, supplemented by theory, rather than in theory. Following this logic, our research question is set as:

What novel management innovations can be identified in practice, how have they emerged, and why?

A data set that is fitting for the purposes of this study is one that is made available by the International Society of Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). ISPIM is an association for professionals sharing a passion for innovation management from all kinds of sectors – research, industry, consulting, or public (ISPIM, n.d.). ISPIM has members in more than 70 countries, and has the privilege of being the oldest, largest, and the most active innovation network in Europe, aiming to also extend their reach to the Americas and Asia-Pasific (ISPIM, n.d.). Every year since (and including) 2015, ISPIM organizes an management innovation initiative competition called the ISPIM Grand Prize, where every type of organization (or part of an organization) believing their initiative(s) to be unique and novel can apply by providing detailed information about the initiative. Applicants are usually well-known leading firms such as Cisco, Tata, SAP, and Huawei, among many other both well- and lesser-known organizations, originating from various countries and actively operating in different industries. The reach of ISPIM, coupled with a relatively generous entry criteria, allows for a unique as well as highly diverse set of applicants for the ISPIM Grand Prize, which will be utilized as the data set. More information regarding the data set and the Grand Prize can be found in the theoretical

(10)

9

A brief overview of the study is as follows. We adopt a hybrid case study approach with: explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive elements; utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques; and cross-analyzing applications to come to concrete conclusions. We develop a three-point novelty scale for management innovations, being representative of product innovation literature (Tushman & Nadler, 1986), and cross-analyze our data by using pattern matching and explanation building (Yin, 2014). Through these methods, we identify novel management innovation initiatives and practices that have not been addressed by theory. Our findings are that higher novelty management innovations arise in order to: address market network/partnership opportunities, build the integrative and sensing capabilities of the firm, as well as benefit from technological developments and environmental shifts. We conclude that higher novelty management innovations are more likely to be introduced by larger and more established firms, thus encountering barriers like organizational size and complexity more. We find that higher novelty management innovations result in increased innovation and management performances along with better dynamic and learning capabilities. We show that most

management innovation practices are not entirely novel and that procedural, intra-organizational practices comprise the majority type for both novel and less than novel management innovation practices. We provide significant theoretical and managerial contributions.

This thesis is structured in the following way. First, the background to management innovation research, in addition to the antecedents, types and outcomes identified in literature so far will be provided, which will form the basis for the analytical framework. Afterwards, the methodology section comes which explains in detail and justifies the research design, the data set, the

(11)

10

II. Theoretical Background

This section explains in detail important concepts from the accumulated management innovation literature that are critical for the development of an analytical framework in scope of this study in order to analyze and break down the elements of initiatives. First of all, a distinction will be made between the ISPIM applications, management innovation initiatives, and management innovation practices. Then a general overview of management innovation research from the novelty aspect will be provided. Afterwards, the dimensions of innovation as specified in

literature will be discussed and then supplemented by additional literature, which will outline the fundamental components of the analytical framework. Finally, a detailed discussion regarding the ISPIM Grand Prize ends this section.

Applications, Initiatives, and Practices

Before moving on, it should be noted here that a distinction is made in this study between

management innovation applications, initiatives, and practices. The term application refers to the entirety of the information provided by the applicants to the ISPIM Grand Prize. These

applications include one or more management innovation initiatives. For example, Bayer HealthCare’s crowdsourcing initiative (Dorsch, Jurock, Schoepe, Lessl, & Asadullah, 2014), or the Toyota Production System (Birkinshaw et al., 2008) are both management innovation initiatives, just as the famous total quality management programs (Damanpour, 2014). These initiatives harbor within them one more more management innovation practices. Elements in these initiatives such as service design, employee involvement, cross-functional teams,

continuous improvement processes, and just-in-time systems are all practices –out of which an organization may choose to adopt only a couple and not all within the boundaries of the initiative (Schroeder et al., 2008; Armbruster et al., 2008). However, all fall within the definition of

(12)

11

Management Innovation and Novelty Research

Novelty refers to the relative degree of newness of a given innovation (Garcia & Calantone, 2002). In the context of management innovations, there are two degrees: an innovation can be new to the firm or new to the state of the art, with different authors supporting different viewpoints (Birkinshaw et al., 2008). For instance, Damanpour & Aravind (2012) apply the exploitation and exploration concepts to management innovations, stating that the latter would require search for more in-depth learning to produce more novel management tools and

techniques, whereas the former would require an exploitative search based on existing ideas to refine management processes and systems. Nevertheless, management innovations represent a particular form of organizational change in either way, where the change is a novel or

unprecedented departure from the past, usually emerging through organizational necessity (Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Birkinshaw & Mol, 2006). Change is a requirement for management innovations, but has to involve changes in managerial work itself as well –for example,

downsizing can incur some changes in a firm but can not be regarded as management innovation if the usual managerial routines continue (Volberda et al., 2013).

As no measurement scale for novelty in the context of management innovations exist, a scale had to be developed for the purposes of this study. All the stated viewpoints were taken into account during analysis. This study assumes the position that management innovations can be both new to the firm and new to the state of the art, but also that the (more) novel ones would be new to the state of the art. We define being new to the state of the art as being new to academic literature, and determine the novelty of management innovation practices based on to what degree they have been explored and examined so far in peer-reviewed academic journal articles.

Dimensions of Innovation

(13)

12

in which the definition of innovation includes the establishment of new management systems, and hence is appropriate for this study. They identify ten dimensions of innovation based on whether they relate to innovation as a process or innovation as an outcome (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).

In the following section, these dimensions: are outlined as they have been by Crossan & Apaydin (2010), their relevancy for this study is discussed, and supplemental findings from literature are provided.

Innovation as a Process. These dimensions answer the “how” question for an

innovation, and are relatively underdeveloped by academic literature. The dimensions are as follows (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010):

Driver. Refers to the reason behind the development of the innovation. Can be either

internal (available resources) or external (market opportunity).

Source. Refers to whether the innovation originated from an internal source (ideation) or

an external source (adopting an innovation invented elsewhere).

Locus. Refers the extent of an innovation process as in being within or trespassing firm

boundaries. An innovation process can take place solely within the firm (closed process) or the firm can be in collaboration with external network partners (open process).

View. Refers to how the innovation process starts and develops, as in being top-down or

bottom-up.

Level. Refers to whether the process takes place on an individual, group, or firm level.

Within the scope of this study (analyzing the novelty of management innovation initiatives and how as well as why have they emerged) are a few but not all dimensions. The level dimension for instance is omitted since the Grand Prize initiatives almost always encompass the whole firm or at least a business unit. The view dimension is omitted because management innovations often are initiated in the administrative core of the firm and follow a top-down process for

(14)

13

concern to us, since whether the idea(s) for the initiative originated within or outside the firm does not relate to the final implementation of the initiative as reported to the ISPIM Grand Prize. However, the driver and locus dimensions are very much of concern. The former replies the “why” part of our research question and gives insight to why the initiative was developed. The latter replies the “how” part of our research question and gives insight to whether the initiative (eventually) benefited from open innovation. As these are the dimensions we are interested in for the descriptive analysis, and as these dimensions will be very important during the comparison of the antecedents to novel management innovations in this study, they are further explained in the following section.

Antecedents, Drivers, and Outcomes of Management Innovations. So far in the literature,

various drivers of management innovations have emerged. In a very recent systematic review and meta-analysis of management innovation literature, Khosravia et al. (2019) develop a model of management innovation that outline as well as categorize the drivers, moderators, mediators and outcomes of management innovations as they have been identified in peer-reviewed academic journals. So far literature has described three main factors that (positively and negatively) affect the emergence of management innovations: organizational factors (size, culture), environmental factors (market dynamics, political/legal environment), and managerial factors (leadership behavior, characteristics/attributes of managers). Other factors like IT

(15)

14

(16)

15

Because the previously stated study consolidated a grand body of information into one that provides insights for the categorization and the coding of drivers (as well as outcomes) of management innovations, an adaptation of their framework will be used for identifying the drivers during this study. For this purpose, since both organizational and managerial factors are internal while environmental factors remain internal, these three main drivers will be adapted as two categories -internal drivers and external drivers, as Crossan & Apaydin (2010) did- to provide simplicity during coding, and the subcategories will be utilized as well. These will provide the answer for the “why” section of the research question, and can be said to be captured by the ISPIM Grand Prize application forms. Since the mediators, moderators, and attributes of innovations, are not measured by the ISPIM Grand Prize application forms, these constituents of the framework will not be used for this study. However, since outcomes are actually measured by the forms, their categorization will be used in order to provide more detail for the descriptive analysis as well as offer an empirical insight from the practical world about the outcomes of management innovations. It is also of interest to us to see whether highly novel management innovations result in different outcomes in contrast to less novel ones.

Moreover, the antecedents that are drivers in some instances, can also act as barriers. Consider knowledge management for instance -the process of acquiring, sharing, using and developing knowledge in an organization- which can trigger management innovations by enabling transfer and creation of new knowledge, thus leading to the development of novel ideas (Khosravia et al., 2019). Conversely thinking, the lack of knowledge management in an organization can thus act as a potential barrier for the ideation or implementation of a management innovation.

Investigating these barriers are of interest to our study for the descriptive analysis, and have the potential to provide a starting point for future research regarding this particular field of hurdles in the way of management innovation. This is also captured by the ISPIM Grand Prize application forms, and thus this categorization of antecedents will also be used to code and classify the different barriers that challenged the applicants. This is also important for the comparison between barriers encountered by highly novel and not as novel applications.

(17)

16

Khosravia and colleagues (2019) cite in their review. For more details on the coding process, see methodology and appendix.

Locus of Management Innovations. According to Birkinshaw, et al. (2008), management

innovations follow a four-stage interlinked process (deemed motivation, invention,

implementation, and lastly theorization & labeling). During these stages, two parties always are in interaction: internal change agents from inside the organization (who for instance, identify an internal novel problem as a motivation for a new management innovation) and external change agents from outside the organization (who for example identify new threats or opportunities that can be addressed via a new management innovation) who set the agenda, link ideas, test ideas, and link theories relating to a new management innovation. This would be parallel to open innovation, where the in- and out-flows of both tangible and intangible resources to and from the organization are present (Chesbrough, 2003). This is of interest to our study, since it would yield insights into whether more novel management innovation initiatives benefit (more) from closed or open innovation, in addition to being important for the descriptive analysis. Since the extent to which the initiative utilized open innovation is both hard to calculate and out of the scope of this study, the codings for this dimension will be done in a binary zero (closed innovation) and one (open innovation) fashion.

Innovation as an Outcome. These dimensions answer the “what” or “what kind”

question for an innovation, which has been the main focus of research done by scholars. The dimensions are as follows:

Referent. Whether the innovation is new to the firm, the market, or the industry. Magnitude. Whether the innovation is incremental or radical.

Form. Whether the innovation relates to a product/service, a process, or a business

model.

Type. Whether the innovation is a technical one (relating to products or technologies) or

an administrative one (relating to organizational structure or human resources).

(18)

17

Calantone, 2002) -are irrelevant, since we are investigating first-hand whether management innovation initiatives within our data set is new to academic literature, and if so, how new. Since these are management innovations, they can not be a direct product/service or a business model innovation, so the form dimension is also omitted.

The type dimension on the other hand, is perhaps the most important dimension for this study. When put into the context of management innovations however, this technical/administrative divide is rendered superficial at best for our analysis, since management innovations are almost always fully administrative. Hence, a further academic investigation regarding the types and typologies of management innovation had to be done. The findings are elaborated on in the following section.

Types of Management Innovation. Some typologies of management innovation exist in

literature. However, these typologies are very scattered and a commonly accepted typology has yet to emerge (Damanpour, 2014). Distinctions have been made by several authors between management innovations that: affect either structure, process, or boundaries (Whittington, Pettigrew, Peck, Fenton, & Conyon, 1999); are IT-based or administrative-based (Wang, 2010; Walker, Damanpour, & Devece, 2011); are used for either setting objectives, motivating employees, coordinating activities, or decision-making during resource allocation (Hollen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2013; Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). Damanpour & Aravind (2012) also state that Oslo Manual and the Community Innovation Survey group management innovation into three: new business practices for organizing procedures (supply chain

management, knowledge management), new methods of organizing work responsibilities and decision making (teamwork, decentralization), and new methods of organizing external relations with other organizations (alliances, outsourcing) (OECD, 2005).

Arguably, the most comprehensive (and the most appropriate for the purposes of this study) comes from Armbruster and colleagues (2008). They develop a two by two matrix of

organizational innovations based on the dimensions of type and focus (Armbruster et al., 2008). Regarding type, they differentiate between structural and procedural innovations. The former encompasses the innovations that influence, change, or improve the responsibilities,

(19)

18

manufacturing) to product-oriented divisions or business units. The latter however affects the routines and processes of an organization and changes them or implements new procedures into them, such that they can influence the speed, flexibility, or quality of production. Examples can be simultaneous engineering, continuous improvement processes, just-in-time concepts and quality circles. The focus of an innovation refers to whether the innovation occurs within the boundaries of the firm (intra-organizational), or beyond (inter-organizational). The former here usually concerns departments or functions and may affect the overall structure and strategy of the organization, such as the implementation of teamwork or certification under ISO 9000. The latter includes new organizational structures or procedures in an organization’s environment, like R&D cooperation with customers or supply chain management practices (Armbruster et al., 2008). A figure demonstrating their matrix can be found below as Figure 2.

Figure 2. Two by two matrix of Armbruster et al. (2008).

For classifying practices into different types, the Armbruster and colleagues (2008) matrix will be used during the coding procedure. Because of the fact that initiatives cover a range of

(20)

19

In addition to the dimensions elaborated upon in detail, Crossan & Apaydin (2010) also identify a dimension called “nature”, which is part of both innovation as an outcome and as a process. As this dimension states whether the innovation is more tacit or explicit, and management

innovations are characterized by being tacit as stated in the introduction, this dimension is of no use for our study. Besides, investigating the nature dimension is out of our scope, and very difficult to do. Hence, it has been omitted.

ISPIM Grand Prize

The applications to the ISPIM Grand Prize are formatted in a way that covers the background of the initiative, barriers encountered, opportunities addressed, and the initial outcome, among other details like why the applicant believes their initiative to be novel. Since they are filled by

someone directly involved in the initiative, they represent self-filled out interview forms. The questions asked in the applications are structured in a way that standardizes the possible answers to an utmost degree. An example application form is provided in the appendix. The outline of the application forms, including the questions asked, are as follows:

 Contact person, organization, name of initiative

 Brief description of the background of the initiative and the opportunity addressed  Specific barriers, challenges, or problems that had to be overcome

 Actions taken to address the opportunity and overcome the challenges  Outcome, results, and impact of the initiative

 Reason(s) to why the applicant considers the initiative to be novel

In order to gain a more delicate view of ISPIM and the ISPIM Grand Prize, an available interview3 with Kevin McFarthing, a (former) member of the ISPIM board and the scientific panel, was utilized. The arguments below are derived from this interview.

The ISPIM Grand Prize was devised in 2015 specifically as a competition that looks into “how” innovation is managed within a firm, how it is recognized, and rewarded. This is in contrast to “best innovation within a particular industry” competitions that look into “what” innovation is

3_{Master’s student Arkadius Mueller conducted the interview on 21 June 2018. The interview protocol is}

(21)

20

managed, concerning mainly (if not only) product and service innovations. It is a prize for innovation management, and not innovation. The competition is not open to academics, but to any other organizations (companies as well as non-profits) of any size and of any country of origin. The incentive for organizations to enter the competition is a recognition of their competence and proficiency in terms of how well they manage innovation, which also brings them reputational gains with many parties –investors, existing employees, and future employees. In order to attract submissions, innovation intermediaries like InnoGate, InnoCentive,

NineSigma, as well as the innovation blog website Innovation Excellence are used to “spread the word”, in addition to using personal networks and social media.

The submissions are assessed in the following way. There are two stages followed by a final stage. In the first stage, the longlist of applications are turned into a shortlist by eliminating the more generic applications in the first place, getting the number of applications down to a

reasonable number (for instance, from 50 to 15) to prevent judges from revieweing uninteresting applications This is done by an evaluator panel, which also includes Kevin McFarthing,

consisting of experienced persons across a relatively wide range of industries that have the knowledge of a wide range of innovation management practices. When an impasse is reached by this panel, such that two people say no and two people say yes for an application to advance to the next stage, the application goes through. This process ensures that better applications make it through the first stage. This shortlist is then evaluated by a group of judges (around 16 judges) for stage two, who are each sent 4-5 applications each, and each application is scored by 3-4 judges. The result of the judgings determine which applications go to the final stage. All the judges’ opinions are weighed equally, and when there is a tie regarding an application’s

(22)

21

Table 1. Overview of the Number of Total and Second Round Applications.

ISPIM Grand Prize Cohort

Number of Total Applications

Number of Second Round Applications 2015 36 12 2016 26 15 2017 27 15 2018 32 10 Total 121 52

(23)

22

III. Methodology

Planning and Design

A case study approach is especially prevalent when trying to answer “why”, “what”, and “how” questions, and hence was appropriate for the purposes of this study (Yin, 2014). Because of the wide scope of our study and research question which has exploratory, explanatory, and

descriptive elements, we wanted to study cases that would satisfy a variety of criteria. We wanted cases that would serve both as a means for critically testing existing theory (for testing the antecedents) and as a means for identifying revelatory, extreme or unusual circumstances (for the novelty analysis) that could contradict, confirm, and extend existing theory regarding

management innovations. Yet in order to properly know the revelatory, extreme or unusual cases from the common ones, we also needed common cases that took place in the same context. Overall, this resulted in the emergence of an embedded single-case design, but with multiple subunits of analysis (Yin, 2014). Since management innovation research is still in the early stages (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012), thus being part of a tentative field of theory that has various gaps and holes, this approach that aims to shed more light into existing theory and build on existing theory, is justified (Ridder, 2017).

Data Set and Data Inclusion

Our data set consisted of the management innovation applications submitted to ISPIM Grand Prize between the years 2015 and 2018, which was made available for us. The context of the study was the Grand Prize, and each of the applications were embedded units of analysis. The applications were formatted in a way that represents self-filled out interview forms or

questionnaires. For more information on the data set, consult the theoretical background section of this thesis.

(24)

23

panel of Grand Prize evaluators. Thus, only the second round applications were retained, lowering the number of applications to 52. There was one application which stressed the anonymity of the submitted data, and was removed from the set. Lastly, after the analysis of these 51 applications, three cases of repetition were recognized. Applications encompassing the same initiative(s) were submitted twice over different years by the same firm(s). These repetitive applications included redundant information, and while the application(s) which were interpreted to contain more information were retained, the other three were removed from the set, bringing down the total number of applications in the final data set to 48.

Analytical Framework and Analysis Procedure

The analysis procedure was threefold. Preliminary codings were done for all 51 second round applications, which identified the antecedents and outcomes for each application, in addition to the management innovation practices employed. After the codings were done, the novelty analysis followed, starting from the beginning of the data set. Novelty analysis was based on the degree of novelty of each management innovation practice included in the application, which cumulatively determined the overall degree of novelty for the application. During this time, codings were examined, removed, or further consolidated to ensure standardization across the wide variety of different information. The codings were generalized as much as literature allowed without losing the unique aspects that each code encompassed. This was especially necessary for coding the practices, considering that the measurement of management innovations are assisted by standardization, but their variability also requires their characterization beyond a certain label (Damanpour, 2014). Lastly, a cross-analysis of data followed, bringing together the identified opportunities, barriers, and outcomes with the novelties of applications and types of practices included. In this phase, pattern-matching and explanation building was employed as a core method of analysis (Yin, 2014). The following section explains each phase in detail.

Coding Process

(25)

24

thus appropriate (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Since the main characteristic of case studies is particularization as opposed to generalization, this approach becomes even more valid for understanding what makes each case unique (Stake, 1995). Due to the qualitative nature of the applications, coding was chosen as the main strategy of analysis, to be able to classify and summarize relevant information and recognize patterns as well as irregularities across the

applications (Saldaña, 2013). During the coding procedure, AtlasTi v7.5.7 was used as software. In order to qualitatively analyze the ISPIM Grand Prize applications accurately and find an answer to our research question, an analytical framework which is grounded in academic literature that is also parallel to the questions asked to and answered by the applicants of the Grand Prize had to be devised. In order to first gain familiarity with the structure and content of applications, some preliminary codings were done across several applications, which gave rise to various themes and categories of codes after a certain point –in line with the coding process of inductive analysis set out by Thomas (2006). A figure that outlines this coding process by Thomas (2006) can be found below as Figure 3. Once the understanding of what kinds of

information the application questions asked for and what kinds of replies the applicants gave was formed, research for the theoretical background regarding the common categories and themes which would form the basis of the analytical framework was conducted. After this research, the final coding categories took shape, along with a full-fledged theoretically backed up analytical framework. Then the updated framework was deployed to analyze the applications, including the ones that were initially coded. This thus resulted in a mix between top-down and bottom-up coding, where the first step was bottom-up, but then the actual analysis that was driven by literature took place in a top-down manner. This approach was appropriate given that the Grand Prize applications ask a unique set of questions, thus requiring familiarity before the formation of an analytical framework.

(26)

25

Each application was treated as a unique embedded subunit of analysis, and was analyzed after having been read at least once. The opportunities, barriers, and outcomes were coded according to the findings of the extensive literature review by Khosravia et al. (2019). Not all categories identified by them were used since the applications had a certain word limit and thus the information provided in them were at times not extensive enough to relate to all types of antecedents. In addition, some of the antecedents had significantly overlapping definitions, and resembled each other very closely, thus they were consolidated into one. The practices employed within these applications were coded according to literature searches and were classified in the two by two matrix of Armbruster et al. (2008). In order for a certain activity to be regarded as a practice, it had to involve changes in managerial work itself, as change is a requirement but not enough on its own for management innovations (Volberda et al., 2013). Moreover, as stated before, the practices had to be generalized and standardized while also allowing for their

(27)

26

Figure 4. Analytical Framework.

Novelty Analysis

The second phase of analysis is about determining the novelty of applications based on the novelties of practices employed within them. This entailed going back to the original data set and examine the practices once again, this time from the aspect of novelty. A novelty scale was not available for management innovations, and adapting one from the product literature was not applicable since the calculation of novelty in products are based on the technological and market

(28)

27

discontinuities they cause (Garcia & Calantone, 2002), both of which are not observable within the complex and tacit nature of management innovations (Birkinshaw et al., 2008).

We hold the position that management innovations can be new to the firm or new to the state of the art, and we wanted to examine the ones that were new to the state of the art. In our case, new to the state of the art was held equal to being new to academic literature, and it was decided that novelties of management innovation practices would be based on whether or not (and to what degree) they departed from the findings of research. Thus, novelty of practices were determined on their “relative degree of newness” to literature (Garcia & Calantone, 2002).

For each identified practice, such as cross-functional teams or innovation trainings, multiple keywords for literature search were generated, also taking into the context and variability of these practices, in order to ensure a correct scope of study. For instance, regarding the practice of forming a cross-functional regional innovation team, the keywords generated would be cross functional teams and regional innovation teams. These would then be used as Boolean phrases for research on the University of Groningen SmartCat database, in the form of “kw: (cross functional team) AND kw: (regional innovation team)”. If the search did not yield sufficient results, the scope was widened accordingly, and the search would become “kw: (cross functional team) OR kw: (regional innovation team)”, until it was made sure that no relevant results were coming up. Additional searches were also done for each practice in Google Scholar to not rely on the search engine optimization of only one database, but novelties were always calculated

according to the searches on SmartCat. In this literature search, if the practices from the

applications were largely identified by literature, their effects or antecedents known, and cases of their use exist to a great degree, the practice would be given zero points. If the practice was half recognized, with some elements of it being known whereas other elements have not been explored yet by academia, it would be given a half point. If the practice has basically zero grounds in literature, and is (almost) totally unknown and unrecognized by research, it would be given a full point. Both the content and the number of publications were interpreted. Only peer-reviewed academic journals that are published in English were taken into account, in line with other literature reviews (Khosravia et al., 2019).

(29)

28

would be categorized in three groups: low novelty, medium novelty, and high novelty. point scale would correspond to low novelty, medium novelty, and high novelty, which would be determined by the amount of “novelty points” a practice would earn through a literature search. As this scale represents incremental, synthetic, and discontinuous degrees of novelty, it is representative of the product innovation literature (Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Following this, the number of novel practices in an application will determine the total novelty of the

application, as the points earned by these practices would be summed and would become the points for the entire application. The documentation and calculation of novelty was done via Microsoft Excel 2016. This three point novelty scale for management innovations is seen fitting for the purposes of this thesis, but should be elaborated upon more in future research, supported by empirical results. A flowchart for the novelty analysis procedure can be found below as Figure 5.

Figure 5. Novelty Analysis Procedure.

ISPIM Grand Prize Application Identify Practices in the Application Identify The Unique Aspects of Practices Develop Keywords for Literature Search Search Literature

for the Unique Aspects Interpret Number

and the Content of Results

Assess Degree of Novelty for the

Practice

Repeat Until Every Practice in an Application is

Assessed

Determine Degree of Novelty for the

(30)

29

Cross Analysis of Findings

After the codings for each application were complete, and every practice in the whole data set is assessed, the most crucial part of analysis would begin. This phase would entail the

quantification of the overall codes, to see what opportunities, barriers, outcomes, practices, and types of practices were the most occurring. In addition, the total amount of points earned by each application would be used to produce an ISPIM-wide novelty scale, which would again be a three point scale consisting of low, medium, and high novelty applications. Afterwards, the most occurring codes for each group would be quantified, which would allow us to analyze the

opportunities, barriers, outcomes and, (types of) practices that were the most frequent

differentiated by the novelty of the group. This would allow for a possible conclusion regarding whether more novel initiative(s) differ in terms of their drivers, outcomes, and types of practices they employ. Literal and theoretical replications were employed, in addition to pattern-matching and explanation techniques in this stage to provide the utmost complete picture (Yin, 2014).

Validity and Reliability

Construct Validity. Our measurement of novelty is based on the three point scale, as it has been

in the product innovation literature. It serves to measure novelty of practices as the relative degree of newness to literature. Furthermore, we measure novelty of initiatives based on their relative degree of novelties to the entire ISPIM Grand Prize application base. Thus, these are congruent with literature, and are valid constructs that measure what we want to measure (Yin, 2014).

Internal Validity. We use pattern matching and explanation building to see how antecedents,

types, and outcomes of management innovations interact with each other. We seek to establish causal relationships that explain and explore certain phenomena. We draw from already proven theories as a starting point, and then doing multiple levels of analysis that all serve to establish these patterns. We then use only the most frequent patterns to make inferences, which ensures internal validity (Yin, 2014).

External Validity. We use theory as basis for our research, and then employ various methods of

(31)

30

firms of various shapes and sizes. As we already have a more wholistic research question that includes three main questions, external validity is ensured (Yin, 2014).

Reliability. Due to our well-defined scope, robust analytical framework, and multi-level

(32)

31

IV. Results

This section will be divided into four parts. First the aggregate results of the whole sample will be discussed, followed by the low novelty, medium novelty, and high novelty groups. In each section, the opportunities and barriers encountered by the applications will be described, and afterwards, a general view of the novelty aspect of applications and their practices will be given. Statistics such as point means, variances, and standard deviation will be provided for each group, with more descriptive statistics being available in the appendix. The novelty groups were formed based on these statistics, in which the applications below the mean (which standard deviation was deducted from) were categorized as low novelty, and the applications above the mean (which standard deviation was added into) would be high novelty. The ones in the middle would be medium novelty. Ultimately, a top four cohort emerged that formed the high novelty group.

Aggregate Results

In total there were 48 management innovation applications from 16 unique countries. 27 of these were from Europe (56%), and countries that applied the most were Germany (13), USA (10), and India (5). Organizations came from a wide array of 18 different industries, but most reoccurring firm types were: services (9 applications, 19%), followed by multi-market conglomerates (6 applications, 12%), and chemicals (5 applications, 10%). 32 of the applications utilized external change agents of all kinds at some point in their initiative(s), including customers, consultants, experts, and suppliers, so 67% of the applications benefited from open innovation dynamics.

Opportunities, Barriers, Outcomes. There were 120 opportunities identified, 18 of them

unique. 98 of these were internal (82%), and 13 were external (18%). The most occurring opportunities were all internal. Overall, 19 applications saw their integrative and sensing

(33)

32

The firms experienced 144 barriers of which 28 were unique. 131 were internal barriers (91%), and 13 were external to the firm (9%). Here also the most reoccurring barriers were all internal, beginning with 18 applications struggling with organizational policies (12%), 13 with

organizational memory (9%), and 11 with organizational size (8%). The most frequent external barrier encountered however was interestingly local legal environment (7 times, 3%), followed by rapid technological changes (3 times, 2%).

Coming to outcomes, 143 outcomes were identified but only 8 of them were unique. The most frequently stated outcomes were innovation performance with 44 times (31%),

technological/product innovations with 23 (16%), and financial performance with 16 (11%).

Practices and Their Novelty. In total, 38.5 points were distributed across 48 applications and

179 practices (68 unique), coming to 0.8 per application and 0.22 per practice. Most points earned by an initiative was 3.5 and lowest was 0. Variance of the points distributed were 0.55, and standard deviation was 0.74. Only a sliver of the 179 practices were highly novel (17 in total for %9), a significant amount was moderately novel (43 in total for 24%), and the rest were not novel. Out of the highly novel practices, 8 were procedural and intra-organizational (47%), 7 were procedural and inter-organizational (41%), and 2 were structural and intra-organizational (12%). The ratio of total novel practices to total practices were 33%. The ratio of total high novelty practices to medium novelty practices was 28%.

A significant majority of the practices identified were procedural and intra-organizational (113 times for 63%). That was followed by procedural and inter-organizational (44 times for 25%), structural and intra-organizational (20 times for 11%), and lastly, structural and

(34)

33

structural and intra-organizational practices. Lastly, open innovation living laboratories were identified in two instances (1%).

Low Novelty

This group consisted of 10 applications from 7 unique countries, with Germany having four applications. Europe in general was responsible for the origination of 9 applications (90%), and the remaining one application was from USA. All of this group were equally distributed across various firm types in different industries such as chemicals, consumer goods, non-profit, higher education, and more, even having some entrepreneurial entities. 8 of them benefited from open innovation (80%).

Opportunities, Barriers, Outcomes. 22 opportunities were identified across this group. 17

of these were internal opportunities (77%) and 5 were external (23%). Most reoccurring opportunities were internal, as this group stated their integrative/sensing capabilities (5

instances, 23%) and market network or partnerships (4 instances, 18%) as being the main driving opportunities behind their initiatives. External opportunities that were more addressed than the rest were community wealth (2 instances, 9%), and rapid technological changes (2 instances, 9%).

24 barriers emerged throughout this group. 18 of them were internal (75%) and 6 were external (25%). The most frequently stated barriers were organizational memory (3 times, 12%),

organizational policies (12%), both of them internal. Coming to external barriers, applicants regarded the local legal environment as a barrier on two instances (8%), and rapid technological changes as a barrier in another two instances (8%).

There were 31 outcomes in this group. Innovation performance was stated in 9 different instances (29%), followed by dynamic/learning capabilities (5 times, 16%) and

technological/product innovations (5 times, 16%).

Practices and Their Novelty.This group consisted of 10 applications that did not get any

(35)

34

occurring procedural and inter-organizational practice was the incorporation of external parties into new product development processes (2 instances, 8%). Most frequent procedural and intra-organziational practices were extensive communication of the initiative(s) throughout the organization (2 times, 8%), implementation of teamwork in a process (2 times, 8%), innovation skills and creativity trainings (2 times, 8%), and job design practices such as job enrichment, enlargement, or rotation (2 times, 8%). The only two structural and inter-organizational practices in the whole data set came from this group, in the shape of open innovation living labs (2

instances, 8%). Lastly, the only structural and intra-organizational practice was a prolonged skunk works project team on one instance (4%).

Medium Novelty

This was the largest cohort out of the three. This group consisted of 34 applications from 14 unique countries, but the most prevalent country was USA with 9 applications (26%), followed by Germany with 7 applications (21%) and India with 5 (15%). The share of Europe in this group was 15 applications (44%), while 19 were from the rest of the world (56%). Out of these 34 applications, service firms were the most frequent applicants on 8 instances (23%), followed by conglomerates on 5 instances (15%). 21 of them utilized external change agents (61%).

Opportunities, Barriers, Outcomes. There were 85 opportunities that came to be, 71 internal

(84%) and 14 internal (16%). Knowledge management and exchange was addressed most frequently for 13 times (15%), after which came integrative/sensing capabilities with 12 times (14%) and organizational strategy with 8 times (9%). Community wealth (5 times, 6%) and environmental dynamism and uncertainty (4 times, 5%) were the most often addressed opportunities in this group.

(36)

35

There were 101 outcomes identified. 31 of these included increases in innovation performance (31%), 17 included new technological/product innovations (17%), and 13 mentioned increased financial performance (13%).

Practices and Their Novelty. 27.5 points were given in total in this cohort for 132 practices.

The mean of points given to this cohort per application was 0.81, with standard deviation of 0.3 and variance of 0.09. Maximum points awarded was 1.5, and minimum was 0.5. 37 of these practices were moderately novel (28%) and only 9 of them were highly novel (7%). Out of the identified 37 moderately novel practices, 30 were procedural and intra-organizational (81%) and 7 were procedural and inter-organizational (19%). Coming to highly novel practices, 5 were procedural and intra-organizational (55%), 3 were procedural and inter-organizational (33%), and one was structural and intra-organizational (11%).

In this group as well, the majority of the practices identified were procedural and

intra-organizational. Organizations used these kinds of practices on 92 instances (70%), with the next most used kind being procedural and inter-organizational with 26 instances (20%), with

structural and intra-organizational practices being last with 14 instances (10%). Among the most frequently employed procedural and intra-organizational practices were: extensive

communication of initiative(s) within the organization (11 times, 8%), innovation awards and recognition (11 times, 8%), innovation skills and creativity workshops (11 times, 8%), and use of innovation champions (10 times, 7%). Procedural and inter-organizational practices consisted mostly of open idea generation and problem solving platforms for crowdsourcing and hackathon contests (7 tines, 5%), followed by innovation skills and creativity trainings or workshops with external change agents (5 times, 4%), and the use of corporate acceleration/incubation as an award for crowdsourcing activities (4 times, 3%). The most often used structural and intra-organizational practices were the introduction of a new strategy and/or structure (6 times, 4%) and formation of a new cross-functional team (6 times, 4%).

High Novelty

(37)

36

operated in the public sector. The last applicant was a Chinese conglomerate specializing in electronics. All of these organizations are established firms that have worldwide reach and influence. A description of each application in the format of a case description is provided in the appendix. Three of these firms except for the software company benefited from the use of external change agents (75%).

Opportunities, Barriers, Outcomes. These four firms addressed 13 opportunities in total, 10

of which were internal (77%) and 3 of which were external (23%). Market network and partnership was the most frequently used driver on 3 occasions (23%), followed by integrative and sensing capabilities twice (15%). External opportunities included rapid technological

changes on two instances (15%) and environmental dynamism/uncertainty on one occasion (7%). 19 barriers were encountered, and all of them were internal. The firms in the top four struggled with organizational size the most, on 3 instances (16%), after which came distinct functional groups, organizational complexity, and relational capability (each was stated twice for 10%). Out of 11 identified outcomes, the most frequent was innovation performance with 4 instances (36%). Then came dynamic/learning capabilities, management performance, and marketing innovation (each was stated twice for 18%). Only on one occasion did the outcome consist of a technological/product innovation.

Practices and Their Novelty. This cohort engaged in 23 total management innovation

practices. 8 of these were highly novel (35%), and 6 were moderately novel (26%). Out of the 8 highly novel practices, four were procedural and inter-organizational (50%), three were

procedural and intra-organizational (37%), and one was structural and intra-organizational (13%). From the moderately novel practices in this group, 5 were procedural and

(38)

37

For these they were collectively awarded 11 points. The mean of points awarded to this cohort per application was 2.75, with a standard deviance of 0.65 and variance of 0.42. The maximum point earned was 3.5 and lowest was 2.

Robustness Checks

Two different robustness checks were done via ANOVA and F-tests to ensure the validity of the points system. Between each of the four years, in 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, no statistically significant differences were found between their means and their variances. These tests were repeated for the medium and high novelty cohorts (low novelty cohort was not included because they all gained zero points), which gave rise to statistically significant

(39)

38

V. Discussion

Below, a table that summarizes the general findings of this study is provided as Table 2.

Table 2. General Overview of Findings.

Overall, we can see some clear differences as well as similarities between the three groups in terms of the opportunities they have addressed, the barriers they have encountered, and the types of practices they have employed. Starting from the top of the table, the first finding is that more than half of the management innovations at all levels of novelty benefit widely from external change agents and open innovation mechanics (%67 on aggregate). This result partly answers the call to research of Birkinshaw et al. (2008) regarding locus of management innovations. This section will now go on to compare and contrast the results for each group with one another, in context of Table 2.

First of all, results from the low novelty and high novelty groups. They actually resemble each other very closely, except for some aspects. The opportunities the both groups have addressed the most are exactly the same, except the high novelty group has addressed market networks and partnerships more than their integrative and sensing capabilities. This is probably due to the fact

FINDINGS LOW NOVELTY MEDIUM NOVELTY HIGH NOVELTY

Use of External Change Agents 80% 61% 75%

Most Frequent Opportunities

Internal: Integrative/Sensing Capabilities (23%) Knowledge Management/Exchange (15%) Market Network/Partnership (23%)

Market Network/Partnerships (18%) Integrative/Sensing Capabilities (12%) Integrative/Sensing Capabilities (15%)

External: Community Wealth (9%) Community Wealth (6%) Rapid Technological Changes (15%)

Rapid Technological Changes (9%) Environmental Dynamism/Uncertainty (5%) Environmental Dynamism/Uncertainty (7%)

Most Frequent Barriers

Internal: Organizational Memory (12%) Organizational Policy (14%) Organizational Size (16%)

Organizational Policy (12%) Organizational Memory (10%) Distinct Functional Groups (10%)

Organizational Complexity (10%)

External: Local Legal Environment (8%) Local Legal Environment (3%) n/a

Rapid Technological Changes (8%)

Most Frequent Types of Practices Procedural, Intra-Org (46%) Procedural, Intra-Org (70%) Procedural, Intra-Org (43%)

Procedural, Inter-Org (42%) Procedural, Inter-Org (20%) Procedural, Inter-Org (35%)

Most Frequent Moderately Novel Practices n/a Procedural, Intra-Org (81%) Procedural, Intra-Org (83%)

Procedural, Inter-Org (19%) Structural, Intra-Org (17%)

Most Frequent Highly Novel Practices n/a Procedural, Intra-Org (55%) Procedural, Inter-Org (50%)

Procedural, Inter-Org (33%) Procedural, Intra-Org (37%)

Innovation Performance (29%) Innovation Performance (31%) Innovation Performance (36%)

Most Frequent Outcomes Dynamic/Learning Capabilities (16%) Technological/Product Innovations (17%) Dynamic/Learning Capabilities (18%)

(40)

39

that all four of the applicants in the top four were larger and more established than the low novelty cohort, at which point the marginal utility of developing extra integrative and sensing capabilities would not be as much as a new market network and partnership. The external opportunities they address however point to the fact that these larger and more established firms have better competencies when it comes to exploiting rapid technological changes and

environmental uncertainties. Firms in the low novelty group struggled with organizational memory and established policies, two connected phenomena, which could indicate that these firms have not embarked on this type of innovation journeys before, thus not knowing how to proceed for the most part. They also faced legal challenges and the rapid technological

developments as external barriers. Whereas high novelty groups have struggled with their size, their structure in the shape of distinct functional groups, and complexities of the different knowledge bases they harbor within. They also have not stated a single external barrier. These last two points also point towards the fact that the higher novelty applications came from more established and larger firms, which face internal struggles originating due to their sizes and complex knowledge bases, but can more easily deal with external issues.

Continuing on comparing the results from low and high novelty groups, additional insights follow. The types of practices both groups introduced are also somewhat similar to one another, focusing mainly on procedural practices. In outcomes they also resemble each other, with a few take-aways. Innovation performance has been stated more by the high novelty group, and while the low novelty group enjoyed new technological/product innovations, top four benefited from increases in management performance, which corresponds to the overall efficiency of

management activities in a wholistic point of view. This again points to the difference in scale and size of the two groups, where the larger, more established firms would have more to gain from an increase in management performance than the introduction of a new technological or product innovation. These findings support and extend to a certain degree Schumpeter’s Mark II view of innovation, where incumbent and established firms are the primary producers of all kinds of innovations due to possessing significant scientific knowledge, management expertise, and other complementary assets (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012).

(41)

40

exchange as an opportunity more frequently than market networks or partnerships. Both groups wanted to hone their integrative/sensing capabilities, while also trying to add value to their communities. Both groups suffered from organizational memory, organizational policies, and the local legal environment while implementing their initiative(s). This finding suggests that the medium novelty group, much like the low novelty group, is comprised more of less established organizations that do not have a memory to fall back on when it comes to innovation challenges and changing their internal processes. In addition, they were constrained by the legal

environment that surrounded them, possibly due to not having the adequate resources to

effectively deal with these constraints. The medium novelty group introduced almost one and a half times more procedural and intra-organizational practices, instead of procedural and inter-organizational ones. Finally, even though they had similar occurrences of innovation

performance, the medium novelty group experienced technological and product innovations, as well as increases in financial performance as outcomes more frequently.

Thirdly and lastly, contrasting the medium and high novelty groups sheds light on some other issues. Firstly, the medium novelty group has addressed the dissemination and exchange of the organizational knowledge base as an opportunity, whereas high novelty group addressed market networks and partnerships more, and both have addressed their integrative and sensing

capabilities. This shows that medium novelty groups have been lacking the mechanisms and processes in information sharing that sets them back in the competitive landscape, whereas the established top four already have these mechanisms and processes. Similarly to the first

comparison between low and high novelty groups, the barriers encountered by medium and high novelty groups point again to the fact that the high novelty group has a larger scale and size of resources like workforce and knowledge. In contrast, the medium novelty group has been

(42)

41

(43)

42

VI. Conclusion

In summary, this study provides several findings and fills in the research gap regarding the novelty of management innovations, and how that novelty affects or is affected by: the

opportunities addressed, barriers encountered, types of practices employed, and final outcomes. By adopting a case study approach with qualitative and quantitative elements, having a robust analytical framework, and utilizing pattern matching and explanation building as main analytical methods, we shed light on why and how novel management innovations come to be, and what type of management innovations they are, through analyzing 48 management innovation applications sent to the ISPIM Grand Prize between 2015 and 2018. We use a the three point novelty scale employed in product innovation literature by Tushman & Nadler (1986), and we determine the novelty of management innovations based on literature searches.

We identify a couple of practices within the initiatives of the high novelty group that is of

interest to researchers and practicioners. One of the applications from the novel group included a transformation centred around fostering corporate intrapreneurship, making use of a central innovation management authority comprised of top managers to fuel the acceleration and incubations of internal projects. Another one came from a venture capital organization that developed an innovation radar to detect and further develop high-potential innovations within their funding program, which they would use to provide their wide expertise to innovators. One submission in this group focused on specific partner/project selection and portfolio management procedures specific for industry-academia collaborations, developing various frameworks. The last submission in this category included an innovation capability and maturity assessment, trainings tailored for enhancing open innovation capabilities, cross-functional regional innovation teams and team innovation champions.

(44)

43

cause rapid changes in the tacit processes they engage in. As the conglomerate firm in the top four said, industry and academia differ very much, especially in terms of shared objectives, goals, and scope. The phenomena of management innovations can be too broad and vague to be explicitly defined in strict limits by literature, thus preventing an academically coherent picture from emerging.

We find that higher novelty management innovations arise in order to address market network and partnership opportunities, in addition to the integrative/sensing capabilities of the

organization, which aids in finding new business opportunities and integrating them into the firm. Externally, these higher novelty innovations also aim to exploit the shifts in the business landscape that takes the forms of rapid technological changes and environmental

dynamism/uncertainty. These innovations are introduced by larger, more settled firms that most likely has enough organizational resources to deal with phenomena like external barriers or pressures on short-term results, which makes them more likely to introduce novel management innovations. However, they run into intra-organizational barriers such as size, complexity of knowledge base, and silo mentalities arising due to distinctly operating functional groups. In terms of outcomes, higher novelty management innovations result in increased innovation performance, dynamic and learning capabilities, and management performance. Furthermore, highly novel management practices take the form of procedural management innovations rather than structural, as 88 percent of highly novel practices were procedural, divided almost equally between intra- and inter-organizational, while the former has a slight edge over the latter. On the other hand, moderately novel practices are mostly procedural and intra-organizational (%82), then procedural and inter-organizational (%16). Moreover, we show that in addition to the technological and product innovation literatures, that most of management innovations are also incremental, representing derivatives or recombinations of existing ones, rather than being entirely novel (Dosi, 1988). Lastly, we show that no matter the novelty of the management innovations, they almost always include external change agents, and benefit from open innovation mechanics.

Novelty of Management Innovations: A Study of ISPIM Grand Prize