This stratification of the space of relationships can be done according to the classical logic of upstream and downstream, if we refer to the value chain (Porter 1990). A firm can then characterize the first circle of partners upstream of the innovation, be they design firms, component and material suppliers, research laboratories, etc. (Porter 1990). There are specific partners that contribute to the design activity of the innovation. These actors sometimes become assimilated to internal actors because the collaborations are so strong and recurrent. A second circle of partners upstream of the innovation is more related to the activities of diffusion, or even the marketing of the innovation. This stage involves players such as innovation intermediaries in charge of commercialization; they are accelerants or service providers for the commercialization of the innovation, leading users or other groups of community players more sensitive to certain uses, and potentially promoters of the innovation. However, this distinction between exploration and exploitation actors is not enough. Innovation is deployed through the permanent circulation of these different actors, who are fairly hybrid between several networks, which are referred to as innovation intermediaries (Howells 2006). Their intermediation activities consist of finding new partners, organizing transactions between two or more parties, mediating collaborations and advising on finding financing. Their hybrid identity seems to be a key aspect in enabling these actors to promote the circulation of knowledge and resources between innovation spaces with often-conflicting labor standards (Boltanski and Thevenot 1991).
Ultimately, innovation management according to space is particularly fruitful if we consider space as an organized arrangement of expertise, relationships and interests deliberately constructed to foster the emergence of ideas, or even support their development and diffusion to other geographical and political scales (Westley et al. 2014; Grenier and Denis 2017). In fact, innovation management implies a spatial strategy aimed at (1) designing and shaping spaces according to two joint movements of delimitation and enlargement and (2) configuring them by developing links inside and outside of these spaces, with particular care for intersections where key actors such as intermediaries operate. More than a geographical or physical delimitation, it is its relational nature that stands out, but it also has a material and temporal dimension. The innovation space can be defined as spatiotemporal events where actors gather at a given point to make sense and give meaning, with an aspiration to develop new ideas and practices (Massey 2005; Sergot and Saives 2016). Thus, there is a circumstantial aspect of innovation that can be theorized, certainly with space, and also with time and matter.
2.3. Managing innovation: a matter of time
An innovation process can easily be represented as a sequence of steps, each with its own duration and rhythm. Innovation management seeks to reduce this time, while reducing costs and improving the chances of success. We talk about time-to-market or innovation races. As a result, management practices for R&D teams and project management have been developed to accelerate the production of innovation, such as open innovation, concurrent engineering or Scrum practices (Burger-Helmchen and Raedersdorf 2018). It is also the time of the decision that forces the standardization of points of view in companies.
2.3.1. The innovation process, a long-term process
There are many representations of the innovation process in literature. One of the simplest visually, and yet one of the richest in terms of interactions and representation of time, is that proposed by Cohendet and Simon (2015). Their work has been widely used in literature on creativity and innovation (Bathelt et al. 2017). It is a holistic model that brings creativity, knowledge and innovation into interaction and can easily be described in four main steps encompassing the views and discourses of all managers. Figure 26.1 is a reproduction of this model.
The process from idea to product is long, complex and highly strategic (Birkinshaw et al. 2012). Once ideas are generated, companies must convert them, which takes time, financial resources and skills. During the process, different points of view, storytelling techniques and worldviews collide. The classic representation of the innovation process is mostly in the form of a stage-gate (Pahl et al. 2006), which is shown in the lower part of Figure 26.1.
Figure 2.1. An innovation process (source: Cohendet and Simon 2015). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/uzunidis/innovation1.zip
The first step is the ideation. Innovation management is interested in techniques to generate a large number and variety of ideas (Agogué 2016). During this stage, the selection of ideas is not final; the least promising ones are not entirely discarded. In this representation, non-validated ideas are put into organizational memory for later use. It is a “stock” with special characteristics.
David (2018) shows that each step of the process requires knowledge management based on human interaction or relying on an information system. The main challenge of knowledge management is the pooling of knowledge from the different phases of the stage-gate and its reuse in other projects, leading to its improvement or the creation of new knowledge (Hussler and Burger-Helmchen 2019). A fundamental element of the process is the “pool” or repertoire of ideas. This pool of ideas not only contains possibilities to be explored, but above all contributes to the selection process. This creative pool, whose characteristics are shaped by the culture and history of the company, has strategic implications throughout the innovation process. Thus, creativity – non operationalized – will not disappear during the other phases of the process: it feeds the pool of ideas, shapes and co-creates the decision-making process for future decisions.
2.3.2. Managing innovation means managing the time for decisions
It is recognized that the different actors involved in this process have different views on opportunities and on what ideas are worth developing (Boisot and Macmillan 2004). In order to make sense of innovation processes, researchers and practitioners work to use representations of reality. These simplifications are not the same in all organizations. They depend on the culture of the organization and the knowledge and skills of the person designing the model. Depending on the knowledge of each manager, the model will focus on certain types of elements. Finance managers will focus on costs, financial risks and other key performance indicators (KPIs). Figure 26.2 emphasizes that each decision-maker has a manifesto (a theoretical representation that corresponds to their own values and worldview). These worldviews are implemented in codebooks that are functional, sectoral or hierarchical. Each activity will have a specific set of key performance indicators (KPIs), ultimately leading to a decision at the end of the process. Such an approach, originally designed for business models, can easily translate into process innovations that can rationally explain why different people within a company have radically different views on innovations and ideas.
These decisions are sometimes imposed by the market or by the internal rules of the organization, and at other times are left without clearly established limits. In all these circumstances, the objective of the decisions is to improve the position of the company, to produce innovation, and also to capture value, to appropriate it.
Figure 2.2. The meeting of viewpoints during the innovation process (source: Bollinger 2020). For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/uzunidis/innovation1.zip
2.4. Managing innovation: a question of matter
Once the idea has been developed, improved and transformed, in a particular time and space, into an innovation (product, service, organizational, business model, etc.), the question of its appropriation arises. Appropriation can be understood as “the action of adapting something to a given use”, and also as “appropriating something, making it one’s own”. More graphically, it is also “the natural action by