The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning the Innovation Journey: Order out of Chaos?
Abstract
This paper examines whether the developmental process of two biomedical innovations followed either (1) an orderly periodic progression of stages or phases, (2) a random sequence of chance “blind” events, or (3) a seemingly random process of chaotic events. Various diagnostics are applied to distinguish periodic, chaotic, and random patterns in time series data on innovation development events. We find that the actions and outcomes experienced by innovation teams exhibit a chaotic pattern during the initial period of innovation development, and an orderly periodic pattern during the ending development period: however, exogenous context events exhibit a random pattern during both the beginning and ending periods of innovation development. These research findings, if substantiated in other studies, significantly alter prior views of innovation and learning processes. The two most commonly-used explanations of the innovation process, that it follows either an orderly periodic sequence of stages or a random sequence of “blind” events, are not valid where chaos is found. Chaos tells us that the innovation process consists of a nonlinear dynamical system, which is neither orderly and predictable nor stochastic and random. The findings of chaos also expand existing definitions of organizational learning. Learning in chaotic conditions can be viewed as an expanding and diverging process of discovery. Learning during more stable and periodic conditions is viewed as a narrowing and converging process of testing. Timing of transitions from chaos to periodic patterns may explain whether decision or action rationality prevails. Hence, the difference between behavioral learning theorists and cognitive learning theorists may be just a matter of time.
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
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics
May, R. M. (1976) · Nature · doi:10.1038/261459a0 · Cited by 7,001
Cited by
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 · Cited by 3,737
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 · Cited by 2,829
Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 · Cited by 1,173
Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new perspective
Peng, D. X., Schroeder, R. G., & Shah, R. (2008) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.11.001 · Cited by 612
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, Y.-T., & Van de Ven, A. H.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 593-614
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2066735286
- Cited by
- 499
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 42.23
- 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.