Full article: [[Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large firms|/static/files/MBI/Module%206/READINGS_%20Dougherty_OrgSc_1992.pdf]]. Organization Science 179-202.

Three findings:
# Commercial success of a new product depends on how well the product design meets customer needs (Duh..!)
# Collaboration among technical, marketing, manufacturing and sales contributes to a new product success
# Product innovators do not often link technological and market issues and oftern do not collaborate across departments.

There is a significant [[difference in thought worlds|Differences in though worlds in product innovation in large firms]] in different departments for larger firms:
# Departments are like different "thought worlds" each focussing on different aspects of technology-market knowledge and making different sense of the total.
# Organizational routines seperate rather than coordiante the thougth worlds, further constraining joint learning.

Technology-market thinking  has a ''process and a content component''. ''On the process site'', linking involves the construction of new knowledge about the product and the market. Product innovation is a complex coupling between market needs and technologies over time. Linking technology and market possibilities is challenging because choices must be made among multiple design options. ''On the content site'' the requisite knowledge for new products is multi-faceted, multi-leveled and detailed.

Departments may develop perspectives through which they might seperate rather than combine information:
# Programs and routines create a situation where each person knows their job and there is no need to know others 'job'
# Routines bind the organization in a network of practices that are difficult to alter
# Routines are standards which keep managers from changing.

A more complete model allows for more intra departemental collaboration; innovation aree unsolvable by anyone prson. Unfortunately the 'thought worlds' with different funds of knowledge cannot easily share ideas and ''may view one anothers central issues as esotheric, if not meaningless''. Thought worlds selectively filter information and insights. This reduces the possibility for join learning as department members may think that they already know everything.

The research questions investigated in the article are:
1) What are the diffent funds of knowledge and systems of meaning for new products in the departemental thought worlds and how do they affect product innovation?
2) What are the routines that inhibit product innovation and how do they affect the collective action among the thought worlds?

The conclusions of the article are:
# The effects of existing organisational routines and practices need to be taken into account:
## Innovation is an interpretive process.
## Innovation requires collective action, or efforts to create shared understanding form different perspectives.
## The advocation of rational tools and processes, market research and the redesign of structures are not enough.
# The departemental differences need to be dealt with:
## Use and build on the unique insights of each thought world
## Develop collaboration mechanisms that deal directly with the interpretive as well as structural barriers to collective action
## Develop an organizational context for collective action that enables both.
# Interdisciplinairy responsability for focus groupsm, market research plans, technology audits and visits with users will enhance and improve collaborations.
# Barriers for innovation can be overcome by creating a new innovative social order in which:
## Interactions between thought worlds are based on appreciation and joint development
## Product definitions are based on collective, first order customer knowledge
## Product norms are based on the specific market
# No matter what the organizational design, managers must focus on knowledge development, joint learning and customer interactions.
Sun, 30 May 2010 20:40:48 GMT
Sun, 30 May 2010 20:40:48 GMT