The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test a model of the organizational innovation process that suggests that the strategy-structure causal sequence is differentiated by radical versus incremental innovation. That is, unique strategy and structure will be required for radical innovation, especially process adoption, while more traditional strategy and structure arrangements tend to support new product introduction and incremental process adoption. This differentiated theory is strongly supported by data from the food processing industry. Specifically, radical process and packaging adoption are significantly promoted by an aggressive technology policy and the concentration of technical specialists. Incremental process adoption and new product introduction tends to be promoted in large, complex, decentralized organizations that have market dominated growth strategies. Findings also suggest that more traditional structural arrangements might be used for radical change initiation if the general tendencies that occur in these dimensions as a result of increasing size can be delayed, briefly modified, or if the organization can be partitioned structurally for radical vs. incremental innovation. In particular, centralization of decision making appears to be necessary for radical process adoption along with the movement away from complexity toward more organizational generalists. This suggests that a greater support of top managers in the innovation process is necessary to initiate and sustain radical departures from the past for that organization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators
Damanpour, F. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256406 · Cited by 6,542
EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: PERSONAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AT WORK.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256657 · Cited by 3,749
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 · Cited by 3,705
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1920110 · Cited by 3,470
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249774 · Cited by 1,512
The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework
Baker, J. (2012) · Integrated Series in Information Systems · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12 · Cited by 1,275
An Empirically Derived Model for the Adoption of Customer‐based Interorganizational Systems*
Grover, V. (1993) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1993.tb01295.x · Cited by 757
Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation
Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/17.403738 · Cited by 457
An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Role of Organizational Mission
McDonald, R. E. (2007) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764006295996 · Cited by 353
Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J. (2020) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2020.1740618 · Cited by 331
The role of information governance in big data analytics driven innovation
Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103361 · Cited by 260
Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Expertise and Flexibility: a Cognitive Entrenchment Perspective
Dane, E. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.35.4.zok579 · Cited by 603
Service innovation and performance in SMEs
McDermott, C. M., & Prajogo, D. I. (2012) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443571211208632 · Cited by 226
Organizational characteristics and the CRM adoption process
Ko, E., Kim, S. H., Kim, M., & Woo, J. Y. (2008) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.05.011 · Cited by 217
Identifying New Product Ideas: Waiting for the Wisdom of the Crowd or Screening Ideas in Real Time
Hoornaert, S., Ballings, M., Malthouse, E. C., & Van den Poel, D. (2017) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12396 · Cited by 152
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1998) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.1998.11678949 · Cited by 150
How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services?
Ashok, M., Narula, R., & Martinez-Noya, A. (2016) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2015-0429 · Cited by 142
Implementation research: state of the art and future directions
Linton, J. D. (2002) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(01)00075-x · Cited by 126
Business group characteristics and affiliated firm innovation: The case of Taiwan
Hsieh, T.-J., Yeh, R.-S., & Chen, Y.-J. (2010) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.12.018 · Cited by 110
West, J., & Iansiti, M. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00090-2 · Cited by 110
Hospital organization culture, capacity to innovate and success in technology adoption
do Carmo Caccia‐Bava, M., Guimaraes, T., & Harrington, S. J. (2006) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/14777260610662735 · Cited by 86
Systems Antecedents for Dissemination and Implementation: A Review and Analysis of Measures
Emmons, K. M., Weiner, B., Fernandez, M. E., & Tu, S.-P. (2012) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/1090198111409748 · Cited by 72
Hossain, M. A., Standing, C., & Chan, C. (2017) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-06-2016-0133 · Cited by 47
Gales, L. M., & Boynton, A. C. (1992) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/1047-8310(92)90010-y · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O'Keefe, R. D.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1984-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 682-695
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2036633969
- Cited by
- 1,490
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.