According to Kanter (1988, p.170) innovation can be understood as “the creation and exploitation of new ideas”. Dana et al. (2005) add that innovation can further be regarded as conscious modification or transformation by an organisation of its products and services, processes or structures which is necessary to remain competitive. The common-sense understanding that innovation processes are aiming at going beyond the realms of existing knowledge and developing new knowledge and insights is not universally applicable (Hislop, 2009). Many
organisational innovations are comparatively incremental in their nature, meaning the alteration rather than transformation and replacement of existing knowledge in order to enhance organisational competence in terms of, for example, increased process efficiency or client responsiveness (Hislop, 2009; Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Wei et al., 2011). Taminiau et al. (2009) add that in particular in consultancies the understanding of innovation varies. Some speak of innovations if the product the consultancy offers is completely new whereas others speak about an innovation when an existing product is applied in a different industry or even when it is simply applied to a different client.
Successful innovations require more than the creation of new knowledge (Newell et al. 2009). ‘Coming up with clever ideas’ is only the first step in the innovation
process. In a next step these ideas have to be implemented before they then need to be diffused. In this process a number of important elements need to be
considered (Newell et al., 2009). Whether a creative idea is implemented or not strongly depends on political interests, power and influence within the organisation (Swan and Scarbrough, 2005). It may be that those in power only implement new ideas which are in their interest and will further extend their power. As a
consequence, outcomes of the innovation process might be uncertain due to different groups within the organisation mobilising innovations in directions
benefiting their interests (Dougherty, 2007). It is important for innovators to develop a social network which provides commitment and support to implement innovative ideas in order to positively use or bypass the potential issues illustrated above. However, even then the effective integration of innovation can be inhibited by structural or hierarchical barriers as well as by the innovator’s occupational status (McLoughlin, 1999).
According to Dovey (2009) trust does not only play an essential role in the process of converting new knowledge into new products, services or procedures. Within an organisational context that promotes trust individuals can freely create ideas and
knowledge which are then openly and honestly assessed and selected before they are jointly transformed into new products or services. In case of missing trust
individuals might not be willing to disclose their ideas since they are afraid of making themselves vulnerable, being rejected and humiliated.
Oster (2010) introduces the notion of the ‘underground innovators’ in relation to the notion of innovation. The notion of underground innovators describes employees who “develop products, services, or processes informally and outside of regular corporate channels, without the knowledge or permission of appropriate company authorities” (Oster, 2010, p.566). Most large organisations have a considerable number of innovation projects in progress beneath the organisation’s surface without being aware of it. Most of the work of these underground innovators focusses on practical client needs. Some of these innovators seem to be ‘at war’ with the
organisation whereas others are content with the organisation and its leadership but feel that the existing corporate innovation system is constraining them in their work (Oster, 2010). Underground innovators are often capable of quickly creating innovations due to their broad backgrounds, multidisciplinary minds and diverse experiences (Negroponte, 2003). They nevertheless are dependent on the advice and skills of experts which they discretely seek within or outside of the organisation (Davenport et al., 2003). Usually, underground innovators constantly ignore and skip corporate innovation procedures in order to focus on the quick and inexpensive completion of products, services and processes which satisfy the clients (Oster, 2010). In order for those innovators to reveal their innovations and provide
organisations with the opportunity to leverage this innovation at the organisational level they have to be provided with recognition, appreciation and support from colleagues and management (Oster, 2010). Innovations cannot be forced out of individuals. Therefore, management should encourage the voluntary activities of underground innovators and encourage them to make their innovations available to the organisation (Oster, 2010).
In the company documents of the organisation explored in this thesis as well as in the interview participants’ accounts the concept of innovation was often linked to the notion of creativity. Amabile et al. (1996) and Borghini (2005) understand creativity as the ‘raw material’ and the basis for the creation of both new knowledge and innovations. Amabile (1996) looks at creativity on two different levels: creative ability and creative outcome. Creative ability is understood as the ability and motivation to create or seek new knowledge which manifests in a number of ways: first, the tendency to break away from mindsets by generating new ideas; second by having
the confidence to adopt non-confirming perspectives and third by acting and taking risks without being dependent on social approval (Amabile, 1996). Creative outcome is described as creative activities resulting in products and ideas which are new and original and useful for the organisation in order to be successful (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). However, a detailed review of the concept of creativity and, related to it, the concept of self-efficacy which enables individuals to transform their creative ability into creative performance (Choi, 2004) as well as the impact of an individual’s social environment on his or her creativity is outside of the scope of this research. This is because the concept of creativity, per se, is not the focus of interest in this study.