White Spaces Innovation in Sweden - Innovation policy for ... - Vinnova

WHITE SPACES INNOVATION IN SWEDENrefracted through the lens of complex adaptive systems. In Stacey‟s (2003) work, whichis dismissive of most individualist theories of organisation, he nevertheless gives supportto „symbolic interactionism‟ after George Mead. This is primarily because of itsinter-personal communicative content, which relates to the more modern narrative,discourse and even dramaturgical turn that is characteristic of the „dialogical‟ strand ofcontemporary organisation theory. Meanwhile, hybrid theories like structuration, consideredby others to be a successful attempt to unify structural and individual agencyinteractions, are critiqued for their apparent imputation of omniscience to individualaction, as we have seen (Giddens, 1985; Garud & Karnøe, 2001). The narrative strand isconsistent both with the element of „critical organisation theatre‟ represented by thelikes of Boje (2008) and the „cognitive-cultural‟ approach of Weick (1995). In particular,Boje‟s (2008) „critical dramaturgy‟ of Enron used narrative fragments of the individualperformances and corrupt logic of this „beyond the edge of chaos‟ corporatescandal, which is a useful corrective to the more managerial platitudes of the mainstreamchange management literature (Schreyögg & Höpfl, 2004).A bridge from Boje‟s (2008) „critical dramaturgy‟ with its exploration of the psychologicallydark impulses and identities driving individual motivation to commit fraudulentactions to the sunnier uplands of design creativity is found in Lester & Piore(2004). They discuss firm innovation strategies based on interviews with managers andmake three relevant points in their book. First, managers are expected to be analyticalbut are in fact frequently interpretive: analytical management is based on predictability,interpretive management has to work with ambiguity and uncertainty. We know whythis is from the foregoing lengthy discussion of the complexity perspective, which demonstratesthe unknowability of the future in the face of the nevertheless „adjacentpossible‟. The adjacent possible, which is a complex adaptive system space composedof „structural holes‟ or „white spaces‟ (Burt, 1992; Johnson, 2010) contains topologicalinformation that makes some moves more likely to be fruitful than others. Certain systemelement or „cluster‟ characteristics displaying „relatedness‟ and feasible „path interdependence‟can act as guides away from the known into an adjacent possible knowledgerecombination or „combinative evolution‟ (Arthur, 2009) and consequently aninterpretive innovation „design space‟.Hence, we conclude from this first point that the interpretive manager is a designer,as indeed is made clear as follows; „…Designers develop an instinct for what customerswant…‟ (Lester & Piore, 2004, 98). This sounds pretty vague, so what does it mean?One thing it contrasts with is the analytical manager where; „Designers listen to thevoice of customers….‟ (ibid). So this is a contrast between so-called design driven innovation,after Verganti (2006) and user driven innovation after Von Hippel (2005). As weshall see, the former is critical of user driven design for its clipboards, consumer surveys,and market research modelling on the grounds that the consumer seldom knowswhat he or she genuinely wants in any non-trivial way. Very much in line with Arthur‟s84