H.J. de Vries
Please Note
40 records found
1
Many researchers have defined the concept of innovation, without reaching consensus. But in any case an innovation concerns something new or the process of achieving such a thing. Since ‘new’ is a subjective qualification, the concept of innovation is weakly defined. As a consequence, the difference between an innovation and not-an-innovation (‘ordinary change’) stays unclear. This not only hinders the research of innovation and the advancement of innovation theory, but also may lead to costly mismanagement of innovation. To advance the definition of innovation, we distinguish two fundamentally different types of change: the change of the parameters of a system versus the expansion of its dimensions. The first type we identify as ordinary or first-order change and the second type as innovation or second-order change. We explain how our mathematical definition of innovation, combined with social processes of argumentation and discussion, can be operationalized methodically. Using a case of tightening the energy efficiency requirements for newly built houses, a case of business transformation, and a case of decentralization of youth care, we demonstrate how our socio-mathematical definition of innovation helps to study innovation more accurately and to understand the fundamental differences between ordinary change and innovation in their dynamics of planning, acting, and learning. Our socio-mathematical definition positions innovation management next to strategic change management, quality management and standardization management, and is easily applicable for researchers, innovation managers and policy makers.
Technological developments such as the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence result in new innovative systems. In these systems, ICT is integrated in products, services and processes. Interconnectivity gets crucial and standards should facilitate this. New standards complement existing ones and these may originate both from the ICT field and from other fields. These fields have different standardization cultures and often, multiple standards are competing. The question is which standard, if any, will achieve market success. We relate the success factors to the different phases of the technology life cycle. We assess the importance of these factors by using the Best Worst Method. In the discussion section, we argue how the importance of certain factors may change and which new factors pop up in an increasingly globalized and digital world. This should provide a basis for future research on market success of standards in this new context.
Standardization
Research Trends, Current Debates, and Interdisciplinarity
Telecommunication systems can only function properly with standards that ensure interoperability. Consequently, these standards shape the systems. However, the European Commission (EC) is concerned that foreign (e.g. Chinese) companies are influencing and shaping European telecommunications through their participation in committees of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The EC wants ETSI to ban non-European firms from co-deciding about critical standards. This paper discusses the EC’s concerns by examining ETSI’s practices from a historical perspective and discussing the concept of legitimacy. Our findings demonstrate that this ban is unsuitable for reaching the EC’s objectives. We develop an alternative by separating decisions about standards to be used in Europe from ETSI’s standard development process. This way, ETSI can continue to involve companies from China and other countries outside Europe, but there will be an additional step for acceptance of telecommunications standards: Europeans will decide which standards to adopt, using value-based criteria. This approach would address the EC’s concerns much better than the solutions they originally envisioned, while still allowing ETSI to maintain its global relevance. This approach is novel in the literature on standardization. Moreover, this study shows that combining the different forms of legitimacy provides a more comprehensive framework for analyzing standardization.
Scaling Agile Company-Wide
The Organizational Challenge of Combining Agile-Scaling Frameworks and Enterprise Architecture in Service Companies
Competing Standard-Setting Organizations
A Choice Experiment
Certification to compensate gender prejudice
Analysis on impact of management system certification on export by companies in Central and Eastern Europe
Addressing Sustainability in Education About Standardisation
Lessons from the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University