Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

ecause they reconfigure existing markets, thereby offering large profits to those
pioneers who are first to establish themselves in the new market segments that
emerge. In times of rapid technological change, pioneers taking advantage of
disruptive innovations may even establish a monopoly position (Amazon, Google) or
redefine a small market to favour a new monopolistic business model (the iPod,
Facebook). While the disruptive innovations can be radical, sometimes they arise
from an insightful combination of incremental innovations – the iPod being an
example.
There are examples of radical innovations, developed inside large and competent
commercial research organisations, that are not exploited by their authors but instead
by others who see the opportunity more clearly. Xerox PARC is the paradigmatic
example, especially when it fully developed the modern personal computer, but then
left the market to Apple and Microsoft. The failure is attributed to an inability to
conceive new business models or new frames of reference that would allow the
potential of inventions to be exploited most effectively. This then becomes the source
of a rallying cry for ‘open innovation’, a call to bring together inputs and insights
from many sources from outside as well as inside the corporate boundary
(Chesbrough 2003). Open innovation is the commercial expression of the opportunity
offered by interdisciplinary innovation, but only dimly understood.
Incremental innovation presents fewer challenges, either to understanding or to
commercial exploitation, simply because it less often challenges prevailing mindsets
within the company or the market. Certainly if incremental innovation is undertaken
to ‘sustain’ a company’s current trajectory then the challenge of discerning
opportunity is trivial. Radical innovation may require new insights to understand its
potential, but if applied to a company’s familiar markets or problems then the
innovation is sustaining. The question becomes one where interdisciplinarity may
uncover opportunity for exploitation and commercialisation that would not be seen
from a single discipline mindset. How then should radical insights be developed, both
in invention and in the application and exploitation?
Parker and Ford (2008) in their report for the Royal Society of Arts suggest ways in
which organisations might successfully manage disruptive innovation, but these seem
to be optimistic expectations (either of the RSA or the social science researchers)
rather than being based in actual management practice or experience:
� Embrace chaos
� Co-design change (with users or public, making use of their creativity)
� Prototype, incubate, learn - experiment and reflection
� Mix mavericks and managers - they see charismatic leadership as
incompatible with empowering others, and there is a clear conflict between the
egalitarianism of the network ideal and the need for strategic vision
� Go beyond staff compliance: you need their deep commitment - probably a
trust issue
Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 19