Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
rm (or government itself) must have the willing-
ness, opportunity/motivation, and capability or capacity to innovate (Ashford, 2000).
These three factors a
In order for innovation to occur, the
fi
ff
ect each other, of course, but each is determined by more funda-
mental factors.
Willingness is determined by (1) attitudes towards changes in production in general, (2)
an understanding of the problem, (3) knowledge of possible options and solutions, and
(4) the ability to evaluate alternatives. Improving (3) involves aspects of capacity-building
through the di
usion of information, through trade associations, government-sponsored
education programs, inter-
ff
rm contacts and the like. Changing attitudes towards changes
in production (1) often depends on attitudes of managers and on the larger culture and
structure of the organization, which may either sti
fi
e or encourage innovation and risk-
taking. Factors (2) and (4) depend on internal intellectual capacities. In the context of dis-
rupting innovation by
fl
rms representing the dominant technology, willingness is also
shaped by the (rare) commitment of management to nurture new approaches that are at
odds with its traditional value network or customer base.
Opportunity and motivation involve both supply-side and demand-side factors. On the
supply side, technological gaps can exist between the technology currently used in a par-
ticular
fi
rm and the already-available technology that could be adopted or adapted
(known as di
fi
usion or incremental innovation, respectively), or alternatively the technol-
ogy that could be developed (i.e. signi
ff
fi
cant sustaining or disrupting innovation).
Consciousness of these gaps could prompt
rms to change their technology, as could the
opportunity for cost savings. Regulatory requirements could also de
fi
ne the changes that
would be necessary to remain in the market. On the demand side, three factors could push
fi
fi
usion, incremental innovation, or major
innovation. These are (1) opportunities for cost savings or expansion of sales, (2) public
demand for more environmentally sound, eco-e
rms towards technological change - whether di
ff
cient and safer industry, products
and services, and (3) worker demands and pressures arising from industrial relations
concerns. The
rst factor could result from changes in the customer value networks. All
these factors, however, may stimulate change too late in the dominant technology
fi
rms,
if new entrants have already seized the opportunity to engage in developing disrupting
innovations.
Capability or capacity can be enhanced by (1) an understanding of the problem, (2)
knowledge of possible options and solutions, (3) the ability to evaluate alternatives, (4)
resident/available skills and capabilities to innovate, and (5) access to, and interaction
with, outsiders. Knowledge enhancement/learning (2) could be facilitated through delib-
erate or serendipitous transfer of knowledge from suppliers, customers, trade associa-
tions, unions, workers and other
fi
fi
rms, as well from the available literature. The skill base
of the
rm (4) could be enhanced through educating and training operators, workers and
managers, on both a formal and informal basis, and by deliberate creation of networks
and strategic alliances not necessarily con
fi
fi
ned to a geographical area, nation, or techno-
logical regime.
Interaction with outsiders (5) could stimulate more radical and disrupting changes.
This last method of enhancing the capacity of
fi
rms to undertake technological change
involves new 'outsider'
fi
rms and stakeholders with which the
fi
rm has not tradition-
ally been involved. Capacity to change may also be in
fl
uenced by the innovativeness (or
lack thereof) of the
fi
rm as determined by the maturity and technological rigidity of
