Although she is addressing within this paper the bigger more complex social and economic challenges we are facing in healthcare, alternative energy, water scarcity, climate management, poverty and economic revitalization, she is attempting to reframe these into problem resolutions from breaking down discovery into four distinct channels. I liked this thinking.

The new innovating world we face in the 21st Century

Her opening insight is in the twenty-first century we are all requiring more reliance on social technologies that are designed to allow the different technologies to emerge and be allowed to integrate, due to the diversity and diffusion of knowledge. This is different from past practices found within organizations. Dr Dougherty points out much of what takes place today is still based on nineteenth-century practices where organizations were designed to stabilize, scale up and optimize, mostly internally, the scientific and technological knowledge into large working configurations.

Today, in the 21st century, we need to reply on social technologies that allow for emergence, anchor it far more into the region, or specific problems or challenge, and not so much scale up into large working configurations that might be limited and to integrate more than optimizing. She discusses as examples drug therapy, cancer cures, or developing a technology platform to integrate the creation, storage, and distribution of wind power.  Innovation needs to be more external in its outreach in creating, combining and recombining knowledge, so it can accomplish particular uses and can materialize all this gained knowledge into something new that actually works in the real world but can be dealing with different configurations in different situations. As she points out knowledge is fragmented, partial and widely dispersed, where we are constantly seeking out all the unknown, unknowns. This is why I value the absorptive capacity framework for knowledge.

The complexity today is being faced with any innovation challenge that spans the globe.

The success of extracting knowledge is in the connecting, capturing those unique insights and interdependencies in new contexts that capture the ‘nuggets’ of local knowledge applied in local situations or applied to solve and overcome situations and bring these together to accumulate all these diverse nodes of knowledge.

Today with technology, with platforms and the recognition of ecosystems we can really tap into these point of diverse knowledge and harness them in new innovative ways and deliver them far more specifically to closer customer needs by understanding these. The whole network and relationship building opens us up to discovery and the communication platforms and social types allow for a greater exchange, so new knowledge emerges.

The framework of discovery suggested

What I liked about her thinking was suggesting to “disentangle the ecology of complex innovation into distinct problems of discovery“. These were broken out into four: 1. the Project discovery Problem, 2. The knowledge integration discovery problem, 3. the strategic discovery problem and 4. the governance discovery problem.

This is suggesting these four discovery pathways can help develop a more robust 21st century for understanding and then managing innovation in a more social related way within organizations.

Let me describe the four discovery pathways as direct quotes from her paper as it does a good job of the why:

“The project discovery problem is at the heart of innovation. It concerns building and materializing the product, program, or service so that it works to actually resolve problems. Project innovators ferret out specific elements that might constitute the emerging product and how they go together to generate desired functionality. Project work is very hands-on, concrete, embodied, iterative, and multi-functional, but occurs in large networks because emergent knowledge is noisy, fragmented, and far-flung”.

We need less work on general network structures among scientists based on patents (patents are inventions or inputs to innovation, but not innovation), and more work on how particular relationships enable the ongoing confluence of knowing and doing for innovation across many potential participants in concrete settings. We need less work on small teams and more work on how to collectively integrate noisy information, on the nature of experiments for particular kinds of problems, and on the reasoning processes, people use when deductive confirmation cannot work.

The knowledge integration discovery problem redefines R&D as an ecology-wide challenge of integrating diverse knowledge in ways that support project problem setting and solving. Knowledge integration brings together different technologies to solve problems, selects alternative paths as projects move forward, supports general questions that span projects, or sets up experiments and testing regimes.

We need less work on investing in science and technology in general and more on how these investments lead to actual innovation. Studies might examine the types of organizing that enable knowledge co-evolution among disparate knowledge communities for different grand challenges, how governments, universities, and publishing regimes may perpetuate the myth of the linear flow of knowledge from basic research into application, and how to make basic knowledge actually usable without thwarting the basic research goal of fundamental insight.

The strategic discovery problem involves creating the strategic direction to channel resources, focus efforts, and incorporate the new with the old. In complex innovation systems, the question becomes how to strategize across the ecology, and how to map forward into the long-term future so that innovators can persist with projects that take decades to develop, or with problems such as education or health care that will never be fixed once and for all, because these problems keep emerging.

We need less work on short-term collaborations or open innovation, and more work on ecology-wide strategizing over the long-term. For example, how can strategic managers use knowledge from projects and knowledge integration efforts to develop a variety of potential value creating opportunities? How can they use these potential opportunities to map the future, and how far into the future can they see? How can managers of individual organizations use this mapping for their own needs, and how can they work together with others and still compete? What alternate temporal structures and metrics enable managers to work toward very long-term goals, and how can these be organized?

The governance discovery problem involves creating mechanisms of interaction among organizations and agencies that sort out who gets what is accountable for what, and for how long. Complex innovation requires orchestrating collaboration among many organizations, institutions, regulators, and other agents. We already have many examples of non-market systems of interactions such as regional agglomerations, industry platforms, social movements, strategic alliances, or self-designing standards-setting bodies.

Research can consider how such existing mechanisms might evolve to enable people to come together for complex innovation. In addition, societies invest enormous resources into supporting commercial development, education, basic research, and so on. Research can consider the kinds of governance mechanisms that effectively leverage society’s knowledge resources for particular problems.”

In summary

We need to rethink our discovery pathways for innovation in our new socially connected world. We do need to integrate emerging knowledge in new ways

Deborah Dougherty is suggesting disentangling the ecology of complex innovation into distinct problems of discovery: generating new products and programs; developing and integrating knowledge across the ecology; strategically framing
innovation for long-term development across the ecology, and enabling new governance mechanisms in the ecology.

Each discovery problem is an essential part of complex innovation that involves many players. Each must be set and solved in its own right, yet each is entangled with the others. All four discovery problems encompass the entire process of problem setting and solving and in a more “connected” world, we do need to manage these to emerge and fragmented knowledge in new ways.

I think this outline of four discovery approaches helps us to think about this a little more. I am thinking about how to take this forward in my own thoughts

********

To cite this article: Deborah Dougherty (2016): Organizing for innovation in complex innovation systems, Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1245109

To link to this paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1245109

This paper was published in late 2016 by Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice and © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Deborah Dougherty has written a more extensive book on this ” Taking Advantage of Emergence: Productively Innovating in Complex Innovation Systems”, published 25 Feb 2016, Publisher: Oxford University Press, ISBN: 978-0-19-872529-9

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The post Taking advantage of emergence for discovery first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.

So do Art and Science combine for innovation?

First of all, what we do does come from us as humans, in our actions and needs,these are also the starting point for innovation, pushing for something new; it is linked to experiences and questioning, seeking out and wanting to explore “all things possible”.

The powerful combination of designing and providing something that pushes our existing knowledge, our boundaries, understanding or expectations and capturing it in thought, in explanation or detailing out the discovery makes up the art and science of innovation.

We just need to find even-better and consistent ways to combine them continuously.

Science chases progress, Art really does not. Art just looks to make a change, sometimes evolving, sometimes in powerful new ways and it does this from the evolving multiple perspectives and studies of much that is existing, both physical and within the mind to express this to others.

Sometimes, Science is often constrained by a far too linear approach and this needs somehow change where we need to think in less rigid, structured ways today.

We are demanding, no, expecting, more in the future. Art and Science agree they are both forms of exploration, one explores the imaginary more and then this challenges and pushes the scientific and engineers to find the answers.

They both change our reality and innovation should be fueling this and always be pushing our expectations that little bit more, driving our determination to push out the frontiers of science and art..

Art and Science are the bookends for innovation

I was reading an article about the great disconnects between Art and Science by Kristi Charish, and I loved the way she explained her thoughts, in particular:

“Art leads to scientific innovation and science inspires art. Like a pair of bookends, they work best in tandem and change the way we view the world. Without one, you can’t have the other and there is a lot to celebrate in that!”

So have we fast-forwarded so much?

I think we still see art and science operating in different worlds, in different compartments and they often don’t combine as we would like. Yet Kristi Charish is right, they do prop up innovation but we do need to stop using them as the ‘book ends’ and bring them into the middle to combine more and more until they are ‘fused’ as one.

The very best, the breakthrough, the new discoveries happen when we combine in today’s world.

Getting the ends to fuse!

It is these ‘emerging’ fusion points of art, design, engineering, and science coming together and coalescing that are giving us great innovation. Art and design provide innovation with analogies and compelling stories, alternative structures, inspiring techniques, challenging methods and knowledge to push our boundaries and our minds. It inspires us to then often push science, technology and engineering more and more to translate this.

Just think of the architecture of great buildings, pushing the boundaries of function and design with availability or the technology and design of the iPad or iPhone that pushed those boundaries of the accepted, and changed the norm for measuring the future.

So we need to rebuild and recombine

Specialization has a place but has it been pushed too far? Often we hear that the world is “complex”, or the issues cannot be resolved by the best minds in the ‘given’ area, well we need a new way based on total knowledge. Piero Scaruffi offered his view in a talk on “Bridging the gap between Art and Science” at Swissnex, in San Francisco in 2007.

He remarked “the digital age is providing us the opportunity to rebuild the continuum …has enabled an unprecedented degree of exchange, interaction, integration, convergence and blending”

Scaruffi suggests we are able to move out of the discrete spaces we have found ourselves in and finally recombine knowledge in new ways. He argues we live in a context-specific world that is based increasingly on a knowledge-specific society, so different from the last time art and science came together in a knowledge-deprived society to offer this new continuum.

Are we arriving?

Perhaps we are about to arrive at the age of the “rinascimento l’innovazione”, the innovation renaissance period. I hope so as it can be such a rich place for real progress, based on our understanding of the last renaissance period that challenged and changed our world in such powerful ways that made such advancement on where we were.

The post Art and Science Combines for Innovation first appeared on Building Your Innovation & Ecosystem Intelligence.