IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v22y2011i2p347-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Paul M. Leonardi

    (Department of Communication Studies, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

Abstract

This paper has three goals. The first is to understand why members of one organizational department are blind to the reasons why members of another department do not share their ideas for a new technology---what I call a “technology concept.” The second is to understand what consequences this “innovation blindness” has for the development of technology concepts across organizational and occupational boundaries. The third is to uncover strategies organizations might use to successfully develop a new technological artifact from the technology concept even if innovators never understand the nature of their own blindness. To achieve these goals, I draw on research on organizational cultural toolkits to construct a framework suggesting that technology concepts frame cultural resources, which are then used to construct the very problems the technological artifact will be built to solve. From this perspective, culture does not directly shape technological artifacts. Rather, a technology concept activates culture as it draws frames around resources that will guide people's problem construction practices. By acting as a frame through which problems can be constructed, technology concepts play a key role in selecting the set of cultural resources that will be used to develop technological artifacts. I explore this framework through a qualitative study of computer simulation software in a major automotive engineering firm.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:22:y:2011:i:2:p:347-369
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0529
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1100.0529?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    2. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    3. Callon, M., 1980. "The state and technical innovation: a case study of the electrical vehicle in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 358-376, October.
    4. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    5. Van de Ven, Andrew R., 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Agricultural Research Policy Seminar 139708, University of Minnesota Extension.
    6. Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 590-607, May.
    7. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    8. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    9. Clark G. Gilbert, 2006. "Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 150-167, February.
    10. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    11. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esther Tippmann & Pamela Sharkey Scott & Andrew Parker, 2017. "Boundary Capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge Transformation for Creative Solution Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 455-482, June.
    2. Richey, Michelle & Ravishankar, M.N., 2019. "The role of frames and cultural toolkits in establishing new connections for social media innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 325-333.
    3. Klos, Christoph & Spieth, Patrick, 2021. "READY, STEADY, DIGITAL?! How foresight activities do (NOT) affect individual technological frames for managerial SENSEMAKING," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Isabelle Huault & Hélène Rainelli-Weiss, 2013. "Is transparency a value on OTC markets? Using displacement to escape categorization," Working Papers halshs-00927090, HAL.
    5. Bunduchi, Raluca & Crișan-Mitra, Cătălina & Salanță, Irina-Iulia & Crișan, Emil Lucian, 2022. "Digital product innovation approaches in entrepreneurial firms – the role of entrepreneurs’ cognitive frames," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    7. Abela, Andrew V., 2014. "Appealing to the imagination: Effective and ethical marketing of religion," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 50-58.
    8. Julsrud, Dr. Tom Erik & Krogstad, Dr. Julie Runde, 2020. "Is there enough trust for the smart city? exploring acceptance for use of mobile phone data in oslo and tallinn," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Rory McDonald & Cheng Gao, 2019. "Pivoting Isn’t Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in New Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1289-1318, November.
    10. Yong, Kevyn & Mannucci, Pier Vittorio & Lander, Michel W., 2020. "Fostering creativity across countries: The moderating effect of cultural bundles on creativity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 1-45.
    11. Engås, Karen G. & Raja, Jawwad Z. & Neufang, Isabelle Fabienne, 2023. "Decoding technological frames: An exploratory study of access to and meaningful engagement with digital technologies in agriculture," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Joe Nandhakumar & Nikiforos S. Panourgias & Harry Scarbrough, 2013. "From Knowing It to “Getting It”: Envisioning Practices in Computer Games Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 933-955, December.
    13. Simona Giorgi, 2017. "The Mind and Heart of Resonance: The Role of Cognition and Emotions in Frame Effectiveness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 711-738, July.
    14. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2020. "Why distance matters: The relatedness between technology development and its appropriation in smart cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Raja, Jawwad Z. & Neufang, Isabelle Fabienne & Frandsen, Thomas & Gölgeci, Ismail, 2024. "Working through frame incongruences: A process perspective on (re)framing for digital servitization," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Mark Dodgson & David M. Gann & Nelson Phillips, 2013. "Organizational Learning and the Technology of Foolishness: The Case of Virtual Worlds at IBM," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1358-1376, October.
    17. Dong, Andy & Sarkar, Somwrita, 2015. "Forecasting technological progress potential based on the complexity of product knowledge," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 599-610.
    18. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    19. Klaus Weber & M. Tina Dacin, 2011. "The Cultural Construction of Organizational Life: Introduction to the Special Issue," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 287-298, April.
    20. Dasí, Àngels & Pedersen, Torben & Gooderham, Paul N. & Elter, Frank & Hildrum, Jarle, 2017. "The effect of organizational separation on individuals’ knowledge sharing in MNCs," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 431-446.
    21. Arun Kumaraswamy & Raghu Garud & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2018. "Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1025-1042, November.
    22. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    23. Callen Anthony & Andrew J. Nelson & Mary Tripsas, 2016. "“Who Are You?…I Really Wanna Know”: Product Meaning and Competitive Positioning in the Nascent Synthesizer Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 163-183, September.
    24. Chalmers, Dominic & Matthews, Russell & Hyslop, Amy, 2021. "Blockchain as an external enabler of new venture ideas: Digital entrepreneurs and the disintermediation of the global music industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 577-591.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    2. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    3. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    4. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    5. Burgers, J. Henri & Jansen, Justin J.P. & Van den Bosch, Frans A.J. & Volberda, Henk W., 2009. "Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: The moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 206-220, May.
    6. Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen, 2012. "The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of Innovation in User Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 988-1007, August.
    7. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    8. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    9. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    10. Matt Beane & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2015. "What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1553-1573, December.
    11. Johann Piet Hausberg & Peter S. H. Leeflang, 2019. "Absorbing Integration: Empirical Evidence On The Mediating Role Of Absorptive Capacity Between Functional-/Cross-Functional Integration And Innovation Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-37, August.
    12. Ann Majchrzak & Philip H. B. More & Samer Faraj, 2012. "Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 951-970, August.
    13. Cacciatori, Eugenia, 2008. "Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1591-1601, October.
    14. Hall, Matthew & Mikes, Anette & Millo, Yuval, 2015. "How do risk managers become influential?: a field study of toolmaking in two financial institutions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60485, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2007. "Developing Issue-Selling Effectiveness over Time: Issue Selling as Resourcing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 560-577, August.
    16. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2020. "Innovating with Strangers; Managing Knowledge Barriers Across Distances in Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-33, February.
    17. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    18. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2005. "The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 618-636, December.
    19. Hong, Jacky Fok Loi & Snell, Robin Stanley & Easterby-Smith, Mark, 2009. "Knowledge flow and boundary crossing at the periphery of a MNC," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 539-554, December.
    20. Esther Tippmann & Pamela Sharkey Scott & Andrew Parker, 2017. "Boundary Capabilities in MNCs: Knowledge Transformation for Creative Solution Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 455-482, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:22:y:2011:i:2:p:347-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.