ConclusionsThe literature is increa

Conclusions

The literature is increasingly recognizing the importance of continuous innovation and a number of researchers have investigated organizational characteristics for continuous innovation. This paper compares the findings from an empirical study of Google Inc with findings identified in previous research on organizational characteristics for continuous innovation in fast-changing environments. While our own study as well as the major part of the literature selected for comparison had its empirical basis in fast-changing industries, there are reasons to believe that similar organizational characteristics would be useful for continuous innovation in more slow-moving industries as well. This was indicated by the two research articles based on cases from mature industries, package material, and type writers (a mature industry entering discontinuous change) as well as by 3M, the company that in many practices seems most similar to Google.

The organizational solution behind Google's innovativeness can be described as a dynamic and open corporate system for innovation, in which innovations take place in regular work. The main organizational characteristics of this corporate system for continuous innovation are: an innovation-oriented and change-prone top management and board; an innovation-oriented and change-prone culture; competent and committed individuals with a passion to innovate; leaders who empower, coach, and remove obstacles to innovation; a semi-structured and ambidextrous organization; innovation-oriented P&I systems; continuous learning; and open innovation.

Previous research findings on continuous innovation in rapidly changing industries are relevant and useful when discussing and analyzing Google's organization for continuous innovation. The comparison, however, identified a need for further elaboration and integration of current findings into an analytical framework for continuous innovation. Insights from Google provide additional understanding of how a corporate system conducive to innovation can be designed. There is a need to emphasize and better understand how factors such as culture and individuals influence firms' ability to innovate continuously. Data from Google indicate that culture and individuals are decisive for continuous innovativeness, and that important leader roles are to contribute to creating/sustaining an innovation culture and to facilitate for individuals to innovate. The importance of individuals and culture might in turn create a need for a change in managers' mental models of how best to run and therefore organize a company for continuous innovation, including how to select and develop people, not least for leadership roles. In addition, the roles of top management and the board in creating a foundation for continuous innovation are essential to investigate further. Also the issue of whether and under what conditions continuous innovation and continuous improvement can be managed in the same organization is essential to scrutinize. Finally, it would be of interest to develop a deeper understanding of how, in a corporate system, to successfully generate, incubate, grow, and integrate both internally and externally generated innovations.

Harvard Business Review

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

KesimpulanLiteratur adalah semakin menyadari pentingnya inovasi yang berkelanjutan dan sejumlah peneliti telah menyelidiki organisasi karakteristik untuk inovasi yang berkelanjutan. Makalah ini membandingkan temuan dari studi empiris Google Inc dengan temuan-temuan yang diidentifikasi dalam penelitian sebelumnya pada organisasi karakteristik untuk inovasi terus-menerus berubah cepat lingkungan. Sementara penelitian kami sendiri dan juga sebagai bagian utama dari literatur yang dipilih untuk perbandingan telah dasar empiris di berubah cepat industri, ada alasan untuk percaya bahwa karakteristik organisasi serupa akan berguna untuk inovasi terus-menerus lebih lambat bergerak industri juga. Ini ditunjukkan oleh dua penelitian artikel berdasarkan kasus dari industri dewasa, paket bahan dan jenis penulis (mengubah industri dewasa yang memasuki terputus) dan 3 M, perusahaan yang dalam banyak praktek-praktek tampaknya paling mirip dengan Google.Solusi organisasi di belakang Google inovasi dapat digambarkan sebagai sistem perusahaan yang dinamis dan terbuka untuk inovasi, di mana inovasi mengambil tempat di pekerjaan tetap. Utama karakteristik organisasi sistem ini perusahaan untuk inovasi yang berkelanjutan: manajemen inovasi-oriented dan rawan perubahan atas dan papan; budaya yang berorientasi pada inovasi dan perubahan rawan; individu yang kompeten dan berkomitmen dengan hasrat untuk berinovasi; pemimpin yang memberdayakan, pelatih, dan menghilangkan hambatan untuk inovasi; organisasi yang semi-terstruktur dan ambidextrous; Inovasi-berorientasi P & saya sistem; terus belajar; dan membuka inovasi.Previous research findings on continuous innovation in rapidly changing industries are relevant and useful when discussing and analyzing Google's organization for continuous innovation. The comparison, however, identified a need for further elaboration and integration of current findings into an analytical framework for continuous innovation. Insights from Google provide additional understanding of how a corporate system conducive to innovation can be designed. There is a need to emphasize and better understand how factors such as culture and individuals influence firms' ability to innovate continuously. Data from Google indicate that culture and individuals are decisive for continuous innovativeness, and that important leader roles are to contribute to creating/sustaining an innovation culture and to facilitate for individuals to innovate. The importance of individuals and culture might in turn create a need for a change in managers' mental models of how best to run and therefore organize a company for continuous innovation, including how to select and develop people, not least for leadership roles. In addition, the roles of top management and the board in creating a foundation for continuous innovation are essential to investigate further. Also the issue of whether and under what conditions continuous innovation and continuous improvement can be managed in the same organization is essential to scrutinize. Finally, it would be of interest to develop a deeper understanding of how, in a corporate system, to successfully generate, incubate, grow, and integrate both internally and externally generated innovations.Harvard Business Review