Final draft

FROM THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION TO INNOVATION AS PROCESS*

Raghu Garud
Pennsylvania State University
Smeal College of Business
431 Business Building
University Park, PA 16802 USA
+1 (814) 863-4534
rgarud@psu.edu

Joel Gehman
University of Alberta
Alberta School of Business
3-23 Business Building
Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6 Canada
+1 (780) 248-5855
jgehman@ualberta.ca

Arun Kumaraswamy
Florida International University
College of Business
MANGO Business Building, 4th floor
11200 SW 8 Street
Miami, FL 33199 USA
+1 (305) 348-2791
akumaras@fiu.edu

Philipp Tuertscher
VU University Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
De Boelelaan 1105, Room 3A-15
1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
+31 20 59 85988
philipp.tuertscher@vu.nl

January 20, 2016

*
Chapter written for The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies edited by Ann Langley and Haridimos
Tsoukas. We thank Ann Langley for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2786644

 FROM THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION TO INNOVATION AS PROCESS

Abstract

We begin this paper by examining the process of innovation using Ushers model of
cumulative synthesis which comprises four steps: perception of an incomplete pattern,
setting of the stage, the act of insight, and critical revision and full mastery. Going
beyond a synoptic view on the process of innovation implied by this sequence, Ushers
model also anticipates a performative view of innovation as process. In this latter view,
innovation is an on-going accomplishment with actors contextualizing their projects in
light of their aspirations and memories. We explicate such a performative view by
discussing the complexities of innovation. Considerations of performativity suggest
several implications that are different from those offered by a synoptic view.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2786644

 Well, I was doing some experiments with a new polymer system and I made this material and said,
This is interesting. When I looked at it under the microscope, it was beautiful! Little crystalline-
like spheres. Clear polymer spheres that kind of sparkled in the light. The first time I saw it, I said,
This has got to be something. Then I started telling people about it. (as quoted in Lindhal, 1988)

These are the reflections of Spence Silver, who stumbled upon an impermanent adhesive that

eventually became the foundation for Post-it Notes. Of course, one could view Silvers discovery as a

random event that could happen to anybody. But, Silver was not anybody. He was a trained chemist who

was experimenting beyond the frontiers of what was already known in his field. And, it was a deep

knowledge of chemistry that led Silver to find beauty in the material he had discovered. In other words,

Silvers discovery was the result of his disciplined search for something novel.

But, novelty for its own sake may just remain a hopeful monstrosity (Goldschmidt, 1940). After

all, as Francis Bacon (1625) noted in his essay Innovations: As the births of living creatures at first are

ill-shapen, so are all innovations (Bacon, 1867: 176). For instance, even Silvers 3M colleagues

considered the substance he had stumbled upon an oddity. Many were indifferent when Silver asked them

to help him find an application for the substance.

For the most part, I didnt succeed at getting people excited about the adhesive. These people are
busy. Theyre not just sitting around waiting for the wild-eyed scientists from Corporate Research
to come in and say, Hey, I've got something really nifty. You should try it out. I managed to get
it into the labs, but it became a dead issue rather quickly (as quoted in Lindhal, 1988).

Ultimately, it took a series of transformations by a number of people at 3M and beyond before the

substance found an application as a temporary adhesive in Post-it Notes. As Silver noted, The discovery

sort of starts the ball rolling. There are so many hoops that a product idea has to jump through. It really

takes a bunch of individuals to carry it through the process. Its not just a Spence Silver or an Art Fry. Its

a whole host of people (as quoted in Lindhal, 1988).

The development of 3Ms Post-it Notes exemplifies a process perspective on the emergence of

novelty offered by Usher (1954) in his historical analysis of innovations. Usher concluded that acts of

insight, such as Silvers, are part of a longer chain of events. Specifically, knowledgeable individuals

(such as Silver) perceive an incomplete yet emergent pattern that, once a stage has been set by bringing

together relevant actors and artifacts, may lead to insight and subsequent development. This process is

3
full of serendipitous events; therefore, specific moments of insight and their subsequent developmental

paths cannot be predicted precisely. Nevertheless, these moments are shaped by the arrangements in place

and the efforts of multiple people who transform and give meaning to the materials at hand.

In this chapter, we revisit Ushers model, which offers a holistic view of the process of

innovation, one driven by potentialities. We then show how it provides an appropriate framework to

explore innovation as process, which we introduce in more depth. Subsequently, we explore the

complexities associated with innovation, which allows us to progress from a synoptic view on the process

of innovation to a performative view of innovation as process. Although this distinction may appear to be

a mere play on words, it constitutes a fundamental ontological shift in our understanding of innovation.

We explore the implications of this shift in greater detail in the discussion section.

USHERS CUMULATIVE SYNTHESIS MODEL

Ushers (1954) A History of Mechanical Inventions offered an early process view on how

innovations emerge. In proposing his model, Usher moved away from both a transcendentalist view in

which innovations emerge through the unexplainable intuitive actions of heroic inventors, and a

mechanistic view in which the emergence of innovation is inevitable and determined by past events.

Instead, Usher proposed that invention implies an act of insight an act that goes beyond the exercise of

normal or known skills.1 He also noted that a number of such acts of insights lead to major inventions

(what he labeled strategic inventions) through a process of cumulative synthesis, with each serving as a

stepping-stone for others. In other words, innovation is a collective and distributed accomplishment.

Ushers work caught the attention of several scholars including Ruttan (1959), who contrasted

Ushers process of cumulative synthesis with Schumpeters (1939) process of creative destruction. As

Ruttan (1959) noted, Schumpeter did not offer a theory of the process underlying creative destruction, or

the micro details of how innovations unfold. By comparison, Ushers process model opened the black box

1
He noted that acts of skill include all learned activities whether such learning is an achievement of an isolated
individual or a response to instructions by other individuals. Inventive acts of insight, however, are not learned and
result in new organizations of prior knowledge and experience.

4
of innovation.

Steps of Ushers Model

Although the act of insight itself is a pivotal moment, it is but one step in a larger genetic

sequence of four steps (Usher, 1954) (see Figure 1a for a summary). Ushers genius was to recognize

that even prior to any eureka moment, actors may perceive an incomplete or unsatisfactory pattern. He

noted that, in many cases, the problem is an unfulfilled want, whose gratification is made possible by the

presence of some fortuitous conditions. Usher labeled these conditions as setting of the stage, in which

the elements necessary for a solution are brought together through some particular configuration of events

or thought. Usher drew upon work by Khler (1925), who observed that apes were able to accomplish

acts of insight under certain conditions (e.g., perception of a stick as a tool) and not others (e.g., when

such stimuli were absent). So too is the case with humans, where the setting of the stage serves as the

basis for providing mediated contingencies that engender systematic efforts to find solutions to perceived

problems through trial and error.

-- Insert Figure 1 here --

By drawing attention to the role of upstream events and activities in fostering acts of insight,

Usher was well ahead of his time in understanding the process of innovation. For instance, his emphasis

on the importance of context in providing essential ingredients2 contrasts sharply with a romanticized

view of heroic individuals who, from sheer will and genius, are able to come up with innovations. Yet,

even in Ushers model, individuals play a role. Specifically, acts of insight emerge through the resolution

of tensions generated by the association of ideas from across multiple domains of activities (what

Koestler, 1964, labeled bisociation). As an illustration, Koestler offers events leading up to

2
Note how these steps resonate with Whiteheads (1933: 179) observations on creativity: The initial situation with
its creativity [setting of the stage] can be termed the initial phase of the new occasion. It can equally well be termed
the actual world relative to that occasion. It has a certain unity of its own, expressive of its capacity of providing
the objects requisite for a new occasion, and also expressive of its conjoint activity whereby it is essentially the
primary phase of a new occasionThis basic situation, this actual world, this primary phase, this real potentiality
however you characterize it as a whole is active with its inherent creativity, but in its details it provides the passive
objects which derive their activity from the creativity of the whole. The creativity is the actualization of potentiality
[act of insight], and the process of actualization is an occasion of experiencing.

5
Archimidess eureka moment. According to Koestler, two separate fields, F1 (the problem of the crown)

and F2 (the overflow of the bathtub) were simultaneously open in Archimedess mind, thereby generating

a creative tension, without which the favorable chance constellation that led to his eureka moment may

not have occurred.

However exciting the emergence of a novel idea may be, Usher (1954: 65) highlighted that any

act of insight must be studied critically, understood in its fullness, and learned as a technique of thought

or action. This is yet another step of Ushers model that he labeled critical revision and full mastery.

This involves considerable skill, and requires gaining mastery of newly perceived relations and working

these relations into the entire context of which they are a part.

By emphasizing critical revision, Usher showed deep appreciation of developmental steps that

unfold subsequent to an act of insight. Even today, many think of innovation as an outcome a novel idea

or an end product. In contrast, Usher showed that emergent ideas are but part of a longer sequence of

steps, which may eventually result in valuable products and services only if they are carefully nurtured.

Specifically, Usher noted that critical revision is likely to trigger new acts of insight that, in turn, build

upon prior steps in nonlinear ways.

Overall, Usher labeled the process of emergence, elaboration, and implementation of novelty as

representing cumulative synthesis of many individual innovations (see Figure 1b). Cumulative synthesis

involves the various steps found in the emergence of any individual innovation that in turn set the stage

for others that follow. For instance, the very perception of an incomplete pattern may require an act of

insight, or the act of insight may lead to the solution of a major problem resulting in a strategic invention.

Usher took pains to explain that considerable uncertainty surrounds any act of insight, thereby making it

impossible to predict the timing or the precise configuration of a solution in advance. As a result, the

chance that appears in such events [novelty emergence] exhibits the contingency of systems of events that

disclose patterns and exhibit many interdependencies in a universe that is not wholly determinateIt is a

chance occurrence in the sense of being unforeseen and unplanned (Usher 1954:79).

6
 Others did not accord Ushers model the status of theory as it could not be used for prediction a

key operational criterion for assessing a theory of technical innovations at the time (Gilfillan, 1935). Yet,

it offered important guidelines as to how one can try and beat the odds stacked against innovation

(Garud, Nayyar, & Shapira, 1997). For instance, individuals can actively cultivate opposing fields that

place contradictory requirements, thereby embracing the tension that provokes the perception of

incomplete patterns and, eventually, acts of insight (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). Policymakers and

managers may actively intervene to set the stage to facilitate acts of insights and to enable critical revision

(Ruttan, 1959). Such interventions are performative (Austin, 1962; Callon, 2010; Pickering, 1994); that is,

they may be purposeful, but the specific sequence of events that unfold cannot be fully predicted in

advance.

Asynchrony and Diachrony

Mintzberg (2005) noted that we often are compelled to provide a linear account of a nonlinear

world. Usher too confronted this problem in trying to develop a model of a process that is essentially

nonlinear. Ushers approach was to first provide a linear account (his four-step sequential model) and then

to break the linearity by noting that different elements of the model fold unto one another (much like a

fractal). Specifically, Usher noted that cumulative synthesis is characterized by discontinuities and

indeterminate resistances so that it cannot be described as a sequence of reflex actions, or as a necessary

process in the sense of a mechanically deterministic process (Usher, 1954: 65).

These observations draw attention to the temporal connections across the different steps of

Ushers model. While the perception of an incomplete pattern is ongoing and acts of insight may occur at

opportune moments, the setting of the stage and critical revision involve different tempos. In other words,

the process of innovation is characterized by multiple time scales and not by a single linear

conceptualization of time (Braudel, 1958; Lee, 2012; Tomich, 2012). Multiple time scales generate

asynchronies across the different steps of Ushers process for instance, between the emergence of

different components of an innovation and the infrastructure required for their development and

implementation. As shown in Figure 2, which depicts the emergence of the Video Cassette Recorder

7
(VCR), the innovation process itself is uneven (Rosenberg, 1982).

-- Insert Figure 2 here --

Considerations of asynchrony draw attention to issues such as time pacing (Brown &

Eisenhardt, 1997; Gersick, 1994) and momentum (Hughes, 1969). Yet, despite such attempts to

orchestrate the process, unanticipated roadblocks emerge in and through action (Pickering, 1993),

requiring changes in business plans (Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009). There also can be delays in

the emergence of the infrastructure (Ansari & Garud, 2009), resulting in partial implementation

(Whittington, Pettigrew, Peck, Fenton, & Conyon, 1999). Such delays allow incumbent technologies to

make progress (Abernathy, Clark, & Kantrow, 1983; Henderson, 1995), thereby reducing performance

gaps between the old and the new. As a consequence, the overall development and implementation of

innovations can be dampened or delayed (Garud, Tuertscher, & Van de Ven, 2013).

The adoption of innovations may even result in initial dips in productivity as existing

sociotechnical orders are disrupted (McAfee, 2002). This implies diachrony, wherein outcomes can

change dynamically over time. Indeed, what is considered to be a mistake at a given time may turn out to

be valuable later, and vice versa (Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2016). For instance, an idea may not be

valuable due to a lack of complementary assets, as Brown (1997) described in the case of Xerox PARCs

development of its Alto personal computer designed to work in a distributed network. But, when these

assets emerge, latent ideas can suddenly become valuable. As Brown (1997: 96) noted, Now, some

dozen years later, our original views of client-server and networking architectures are allowing that to

happen. Such diachrony has been documented in many different domains, including the emergence of

science (Irvine & Martin, 1984).

COMPLEXITIES ASSOCIATED WITH INNOVATION

Implicit in Ushers four-step model of the innovation process is a largely synoptic view of the

process of innovation, in which the entity that undergoes change is shown to have distinct states at

different points in time (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002: 570), and thus, the journey has a beginning, middle and

ending (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). Those who subscribe to such a view embrace tools such as the stage-

8
gate model (Cooper, 2001) that prescribe a temporal sequence of ever tightening and exogenously applied

selection criteria. Actors place their bets on specific trajectories, one of which eventually wins out.

Success and failure is unequivocally defined.

In contrast, a performative view (see Table 1) conceives of change as being implicated in the

sayings and doings of the various actors involved (Austin, 1962; Callon, 2010). This perspective

acknowledges the indeterminacy and openness of an ongoing process, and the futility of trying to control

it by using linear approaches such as the stage-gate model. Indeed, success and failure are no longer

unequivocally defined.3 Instead of proceeding through a series of discrete stage-gates, actors strategically

mobilize events from the past, present and future in pursuit of their projects and initiatives. The context is

not given. Rather, actors contextualize innovations by creating, strengthening or breaking linkages

between social and material elements (Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2014). The mechanism involved is

not diffusion (Rogers, 2003), but translation (Callon, 1986; Czarniawska & Sevn, 1996).

-- Insert Table 1 here --

Complex Adaptive Process

We briefly explore what a performative view of innovation entails by unpacking the layers of

complexities implicit in the process of cumulative synthesis articulated by Usher. A core feature of

Ushers model is the emergence of novelty through a non-linear recombination of already existing ideas.

Here, we see a direct connection with research on complex adaptive processes. Complexity represents the

interaction of a large number of entities, whose actions are driven by simple rules. The interdependence

between these entities represents a fitness landscape (Kauffman, 1993), the topography of which is

determined by the number of elements (N) and the degree of interdependence among them (K).

3
What may be a failure to one group may be a success to another. For instance, in the case of information systems
Cecez-Kecmanovic, Kautz, & Abrahall (2014) highlighted the inherent indeterminacy of success and failure,
proposing instead a performative perspective that conceived of success and failure as relational effects performed by
sociomaterial practices (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) including developers, managers, technologies, and other actants.
Moreover, failure at one point in time could be a success at another and vice versa (Garud & Nayyar, 1994). For
instance, 3Ms Spence Silvers unsuccessful efforts to generate a strong adhesive led to the discovery of a temporary
adhesive (potentially a failure), which was then successfully employed in Post-it Notes.

9
Recombination of elements occurs through a process of search across this landscape and results in the

emergence of novel outcomes (Levinthal, 1997). Besides shaping search, fitness landscapes also serve as

selection environments. That is, what survives is determined by how adapted the emergent variations are

to exogenous fitness landscapes.

We illustrate the implications of considering such complexity with an example from the 3M

Company, which has nurtured a number of technology platforms to enable recombination. These

technology platforms are intellectual spaces within which clusters of related ideas and artifacts with

potential are brought together and kept alive to facilitate potential cross-pollination. Cross-pollination

within and across these platforms occurs through a variety of mechanisms such as technology fairs,

rotation of people, and narratives of innovation (Bartel & Garud, 2008). These spawn garbage can type

dynamics (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972) as aptly summarized by Art Fry:

At 3M weve got so many different types of technology operating and so many experts and so
much equipment scattered here and there, that we can piece things together when were starting
off. We can go to this place and do Step A on a product, and we can make the adhesive and
some of the raw materials here, and do one part over here, and another part over there, and convert
a space there and make a few things that aren't available. (as quoted in Nayak & Ketteringham,
1986: 66-67)

Overall, this perspective emphasizes the role played by nonlinear recombination in the emergence

of novelty, thereby breaking away from the vestiges of determinism that remain in the linear, synoptic

view of innovation (see Lichtenstein, 2014 for a more thorough review). However, it leaves

underspecified the micro mechanisms underlying recombination, subsequent entrenchment and

progressive evolution of the fitness landscapes themselves. Specifically, what is required is a perspective

that highlights the relational facets of interactions that unfold during the emergence of innovations (or

what Stacey, 2001, termed complex responsive processes).

Complex Relational Process

Usher highlighted emergence of novelty as a cultural achievement based upon the

accumulation of many small acts of insight by individuals (Usher, 1954: 68). By characterizing ongoing

distributed work involved in the emergence of novelty as a cultural achievement, Ushers observations

10
connect innovation with research on complex relational processes (Bakhtin, 1981; Garud et al., 2013;

Sawyer, 2003; Tsoukas, 2009). From a relational perspective, actors are not atomistic agents working

within contexts. Rather, they attempt to translate their efforts by associating with others and

experimenting with material artifacts (Akrich, Callon, & Latour, 2002). Such translation is a process,

never a completed accomplishment (Callon, 1986: 196). Specifically, the identities and preferences of

the actors involved and the utility of the artifacts that become entangled are outcomes of the process

involving experimentation, bricolage and improvisation (Garud & Karne, 2001).

Coming back to 3M and the discovery of Post-it Notes, having stumbled upon the weak adhesive

substance, Silver decided to tell anyone who would listen, but for most part did not get any response. Yet,

he continued to talk about this piece of junk, and thereby kept it alive. A series of experiments unfolded

over time, undertaken by a host of people who engaged with different kinds of materials. For instance, the

glue was applied to a board on which paper could be stuck, but this effort was not successful. Eventually,

it was Art Fry who had another act of insight, when he realized that the weak glue could be applied to a

piece of paper which could then be used as a bookmark.4 The overall process was one of unfolding

relationality (Garud, Simpson, Langley, & Tsoukas, 2015). In the process, the identities of the people

involved and the functionality of the materials that became associated continually shifted and emerged.

Complex Temporal Process

Finally, according to Usher, the process of cumulative synthesis is ongoing, with elements of one

innovation strand informing other innovation strands over time. He wrote: In historical analysis, it would

be unusual not to find that several strategic inventions were involved in any achievement of large social

importance (User, 1954: 69). Even ideas and artifacts not considered to be useful at a given time, if they

are kept alive, can serve as solutions to problems encountered in the future. That is, innovation is mostly

about going back to the future, a process of finding future utility from past efforts.

4
Art Frys assignment of functionality represents interpretive flexibility (Pinch & Bijker, 1987), which is driven
by abduction (Peirce, 1965).

11
 But, what are the mechanisms underlying such backing and forthing? To answer this question,

we need to view innovation as a complex temporal process (Garud, Gehman, & Kumaraswamy, 2011).

Here, the past, present and future are all connected within a field of experience (Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001)

what the French philosopher Henri Bergson called duration (dure). The present is experienced in the

entwining of the past and future that are continually reconstructed in everyday activities (Mead, 1932;

Ricoeur, 1984; Simpson, 2014). Consequently, different memories of the past and different imagined

futures will generate different experiences in the unfolding present (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Schultz

& Hernes, 2013).

To fully understand what temporal complexity implies, let us revisit Silvers recollection of his

experiences. During the course of an experiment to create strong adhesives, Silver wanted to see what

would happen if I put a lot of it into the reaction mixture (as quoted in Lindhal, 1988). It was then that

Silver stumbled on the glue that did not glue. When asked whether the discovery of this weak adhesive

was a mistake, Silver replied, No, it was not a mistake, but a solution looking for a problem, and that

when I looked at it under the microscope, it was beautiful! (as quoted in Lindhal, 1988).

Silvers act of insight represents a serendipitous discovery (Merton & Barber, 2004) that occurred

during an opportune moment, or kairos in Greek mythology. Such kairotic moments represent the

capacity to understand the strategic importance of the unexpected. This capacity, in turn, is informed by a

capacity to see across time to visualize the strategic importance of anomalies. Overall, acts of insight

occur as actors cultivate opportune moments within time (kairotic moments) and by going back into the

pool of accumulated knowledge even as they imagine future worlds.

Summary

Table 2 summarizes the key elements of the three perspectives on complexity with regard to the

innovation process. In contrast to linear variance (Mohr, 1982) understandings of innovation, a complex

adaptive perspective draws attention to nonlinear dynamics and emergence. The shift from a complex

adaptive perspective to a complex relational perspective is accomplished by endogenizing context to offer

a flat, relational ontology (Latour, 2005). In turn, the shift from a complex relational perspective to a

12
complex temporal perspective is accomplished by endogenizing time to offer a intertemporal ontology

(e.g., Bergson, 1913; Ricoeur, 1984). With each shift, the synoptic view of the process of innovation as a

sequence of genetic steps is progressively transformed into a performative view of innovation as process.

-- Insert Table 2 here --

PROCESS OF INNOVATION VERSUS INNOVATION AS PROCESS

We began by exploring the process of innovation using Ushers (1954) model as a launching pad.

The four steps of the process perception of an incomplete pattern, setting of the stage, the act of insight,

and critical revision and full mastery aptly describe any innovation journey. The process ranges from

the emergence of problems and solutions, to the development and implementation of potentially valuable

products and services (Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999). En route, multiple actors

with different frames of reference and different levels of inclusion become involved (Garud & Karne,

2003), thereby shaping the innovation journey through their justifications (Tuertscher, Garud, &

Kumaraswamy, 2014). Moreover, the journey itself is full of ups and downs, false starts and dead ends

(Figure 3).

-- Figure 3 here --

These observations provide scholars an opportunity to pursue fresh avenues for research. For

instance, what are the relationships between early stages of innovation and later stages given the

asynchronies and diachronies involved? How do entrepreneurs manage the many competing demands

along the way, such as between employees, investors, customers and partners with different motivations?

Is it possible that the more groundbreaking an invention is, the more difficult it is to develop, implement

and gain acceptance?

Questions such as these are informed by a synoptic understanding of process (Tsoukas & Chia,

2002), in which innovation is conceptualized as a series of discrete steps. Departing from these

assumptions, we articulated a performative view by considering the complexities associated with any

innovation journey. Beginning with a complex adaptive perspective, we then considered complex

relational and complex temporal perspectives. The latter two perspectives entailed endogenizing context

13
and time respectively. Such a progressive shift in perspectives generated a performative view of

innovation as process.

A performative view suggests a very different research agenda founded on a paradox. On one

hand, actors must be committed to their projects based on their beliefs to convince and enroll the

necessary stakeholders and resources. On the other, given the uncertainties involved, innovation journeys

will necessarily have ups-and-downs and these actors must also be ready to discredit their own beliefs and

convictions (Weick, 1996). This is the paradox actors confront as they deal with unfolding relational and

temporal horizons. Consequently, it is critical to understand the narratives that entrepreneurs offer to

generate legitimacy for their innovations while retaining the flexibility to deviate with emergent

circumstances (Garud, Schildt, & Lant, 2014).

Scholars interested in studying innovation journeys from a performative view may find it

necessary to embrace new templates and methods (Gehman, Trevio, & Garud, 2013; Langley &

Abdallah, 2011; Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013). For instance, it is important to

embrace the notion of symmetry (Latour, 2005). Symmetry implies the need to consider the role of both

social forces and material properties when examining innovation processes. Symmetry also applies to

events an event can hold different implications for different actors depending upon the actor-networks

in which they are entangled. Symmetry also requires developing theories that can explain both successes

and failures, given that virtuous and vicious cycles are possible at any time (Pinch & Bijker, 1987). By

being sensitive to these symmetries, researchers can offer more holistic understandings of innovation as

process.

A second implication of performativity is that any innovation is realized in practice (Pickering,

1993). This leads us to conceptualize an innovation journey as involving translation instead of diffusion.

Any articulation of an innovation is but an intervention that inevitably encounters misfires or overflows

(Callon, 2010). When felicitous conditions are not present, those involved may find it necessary to

pivot (Ries, 2011). Innovation from this perspective is an ongoing unfinished accomplishment (Garud,

Jain, & Tuertscher, 2008).

14
 Another implication is the futility of identifying first movers in an innovation journey (an

implication of the synoptic view). Instead, from a performative view, we are always in the thick of time

(Garud & Gehman, 2012), with temporal experiences being narratively constituted. Such narrative

constitution is exemplified by Steve Jobss (2005) account, in his commencement speech at Stanford

University, of how he connected the dots looking backwards in order to go forward:

Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a
calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about
varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great
typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture,
and I found it fascinating. None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But
ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And
we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never
dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or
proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal
computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this
calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do.
Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was
very, very clear looking backwards ten years later. Again, you can't connect the dots looking
forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will
somehow connect in your future.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Everyday, in our personal and professional lives, we innovate. Nothing matters more to our
success and our survival and yet we struggle with our understanding of the process of
innovation. Sometimes it is messy; sometimes it is elegant; usually it is both and more. Our
difficulty in grasping the process of innovation is vexing. Successful innovation brings us joy and
confidence and well-being. It generates long-term sustainable growth. Once weve tasted this
wonderful experience, we want to experience it again but we are frequently confounded. The
process is nonlinear, and it cannot be managed in traditional ways. By following our best practices
and instincts, we can generate a Post-it Note or a valuable new pharmaceutical like imiquoimod,
or we can hit a dry hole. (Coyne, 1999: vii)

In this observation by Dr. William Coyne, erstwhile Senior Vice President of Research and

Development at 3M Company, we see both the allure of innovation and the mystery surrounding it

while successful innovation [as noun] brings us joy, the process [as verb] is such that one cannot manage

it in traditional ways. Indeed, this is the fundamental paradox of innovation that we explored in this

chapter. As we move from a variance view to a synoptic view, and then to a performative view, we see

that our efforts to manage the process of innovation in traditional ways may diminish the very

possibilities of accomplishing innovation! To resolve this paradox, we must view innovation as process in

15
and of itself. Our intention in this chapter is to provide some initial thoughts on what such a change in

perspective entails.

16
 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Raghu Garud (rgarud@psu.edu) is Alvin H. Clemens Professor of Management & Organization and the
Research Director of the Farrell Center for Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Pennsylvania
State University. Raghus research explores novelty emergence a theme around which he has co-edited a
book under the aegis of the annual Process Organization Studies (PROS). In his recent research, Raghu
has examined a paradox that entrepreneurial storytelling generates how the very expectations set
through projective stories to gain venture legitimacy can also serve as the source of future
disappointments and loss of legitimacy. He also has explored how interlaced knowledge across scientists
at ATLAS, CERN made it possible for a distributed collective to identify the Higgs boson (or the God
particle).

Joel Gehman (jgehman@ualberta.ca) is Assistant Professor of Strategic Management and Organization

at the University of Alberta School of Business. He studies the organization of concerns: the strategies
and practices organizations pursue in response to emerging cultural concerns related to sustainability and
values, and the impact of such cultural concerns on technology innovation and institutional arrangements.
Ongoing research examines these issues in the context of unconventional shale drilling, hydraulic
fracturing patents, B Corporations, corporate divestitures, and social license, among others. His research
has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Studies and Research Policy.

Arun Kumaraswamy (akumaras@fiu.edu) is Associate Professor in the Department of Management and

International Business at Florida International Universitys College of Business. He studies the
management of innovation and growth, and has published in leading journals in the management area. He
co-edited the book Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations, and serves
on the Editorial Board of the Journal of International Management.

Philipp Tuertscher (philipp.tuertscher@vu.nl) is Associate Professor of Technology and Innovation

at the Knowledge, Information, and Networks research group at the VU University Amsterdam. He
obtained a Ph.D. in management from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Philipps research
explores organizational mechanisms and social practices for collaborative innovation in a variety of
settings. Besides studying large-scale scientific collaborations at CERN, Philipp has been studying
innovation processes in collaborative communities such as Linux, Wikipedia, and Threadless. His work
has appeared in the Academy of Management Annals, Organization Science, Information Systems
Research, and Organization Studies.

17
 REFERENCES

Abernathy, W. J., Clark, K. B., & Kantrow, A. M. 1983. Industrial Renaissance: Producing a
Competitive Future for America. New York: Basic Books.

Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. 2002. The Key to Success in Innovation Part I: The Art of
Interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6: 187206.

Ansari, S., & Garud, R. 2009. Intergenerational Transitions in Sociotechnical Systems: The Case of
Mobile Communications. Research Policy, 38: 382392.

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bacon, F. 1867. Lord Bacons Essays, with a sketch of his life and character, reviews of his
philosophical writings, critical estimates of his essays, analysis, notes, and queries for students,
and select portions of the annotations of Archbishop Whately. (R. Whately & J. R. Boyd,
Eds.). New York: A. S. Barnes.

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.).
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. 2008. The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation.
Organization Science, 20: 107117.

Bergson, H. 1913. An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Braudel, F. 1958. Histoire Et Sciences Sociales: La Longue Dure. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales,
13: 725753.

Brown, J. S. 1997. Changing the Game of Corporate Research: Learning to Thrive in the Fog of Reality.
In R. Garud, P. R. Nayyar, & Z. B. Shapira (Eds.), Technological Innovation: Oversights and
Foresights: 95110. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and
Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
42: 134.

Callon, M. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the
Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: 196233. Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Callon, M. 2010. Performativity, Misfires and Politics. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3: 163169.

Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., & Abrahall, R. 2014. Reframing Success and Failure of Information
Systems: A Performative Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 38: 561588.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 125.

Cooper, R. G. 2001. Winning at New Products (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Coyne, W. E. 1999. Foreword. In A. H. Van de Ven, D. E. Polley, R. Garud, & S. Venkataraman. The
Innovation Journey: viiviii. New York: Oxford University Press.

18
Czarniawska, B., & Sevn, G. (Eds.). 1996. Translating Organizational Change. New York: de Gruyter.

Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. 2009. What Do Business Models Do? Innovation Devices in
Technology Entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38: 15591570.

Garud, R., & Gehman, J. 2012. Metatheoretical Perspectives on Sustainability Journeys: Evolutionary,
Relational and Durational. Research Policy, 41: 980995.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. 2014. Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Innovation: A Narrative
Perspective. Research Policy, 43: 11771188.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. 2016. Technological Exaptation: A Narrative Approach.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 25: 149166.

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2011. Complexity Arrangements for Sustained Innovation:
Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32: 737767.

Garud, R., Jain, S., & Tuertscher, P. 2008. Incomplete by Design and Designing for Incompleteness.
Organization Studies, 29: 351371.

Garud, R., & Karne, P. 2001. Path Creation as a Process of Mindful Deviation. In R. Garud & P. Karne
(Eds.), Path Dependence and Creation: 138. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Garud, R., & Karne, P. 2003. Bricolage Versus Breakthrough: Distributed and Embedded Agency in
Technology Entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32: 277300.

Garud, R., & Nayyar, P. R. 1994. Transformative Capacity: Continual Structuring by Intertemporal
Technology Transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 365385.

Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R., & Shapira, Z. B. 1997. Beating the Odds: Towards a Theory of Technological
Innovation. In R. Garud, P. R. Nayyar, & Z. B. Shapira (Eds.), Technological innovation:
Oversights and foresights: 345354. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. 2014. Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the
Paradox of Legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5): 14791492.

Garud, R., Simpson, B., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. 2015. Introduction: How Does Novelty Emerge? In
R. Garud, B. Simpson, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Emergence of Novelty in
Organizations: In Press. New York: Oxford University Press.

Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Perspectives on Innovation Processes. Academy of
Management Annals, 7: 775819.

Gehman, J., Trevio, L. K., & Garud, R. 2013. Values Work: A Process Study of the Emergence and
Performance of Organizational Values Practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 84112.

Gersick, C. J. G. 1994. Pacing Strategic Change: The Case of a New Venture. Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 945.

Gilfillan, S. C. 1935. Inventing the Ship. Chicago: Follett Publishing Co.

Goldschmidt, R. 1940. The Material Basis of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

19
Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development
Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716749.

Henderson, R. 1995. Of Life Cycles Real and Imaginary: The Unexpectedly Long Old Age of Optical
Lithography. Research Policy, 24: 631643.

Hughes, T. P. 1969. Technological Momentum in History: Hydrogenation in Germany 1898-1933. Past

& Present, 44: 106132.

Irvine, J., & Martin, B. R. 1984. Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. Dover, NH: Pinter.

Jobs, S. 2005. Text of Steve Jobs Commencement Address. Stanford University.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html.

Jolly, V. K. 1997. Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.

Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Koestler, A. 1964. The Act of Creation. London: Arkana.

Khler, W. 1925. The Mentality of Apes. (E. Winter, Tran.) (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.

Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. 2011. Templates and Turns in Qualitative Studies of Strategy and
Management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6: 201235.

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process Studies of Change in
Organization and Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity, and Flow. Academy of
Management Journal, 56: 113.

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, R. E. (Ed.). 2012. The Longue Duree and World-Systems Analysis. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Levinthal, D. A. 1997. Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes. Management Science, 43: 934950.

Lichtenstein, B. B. 2014. Generative Emergence: A New Discipline of Organizational, Entrepreneurial,

and Social Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lindhal, L. 1988. Spence Silver: A Scholar and a Gentleman. 3M Today, 15(1): 1217.

McAfee, A. 2002. The Impact of Enterprise Information Technology Adoption on Operational

Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Production and Operations Management, 11: 3353.

Mead, G. H. 1932. The Philosophy of the Present. (A. E. Murphy, Ed.). Chicago: Open Court.

Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. 2004. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Mintzberg, H. 2005. Developing Theory About the Development of Theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development: 355372. New
York: Oxford University Press.

20
Mohr, L. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology,
Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 433474.

Peirce, C. S. 1965. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. 1-8. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press.

Pickering, A. 1993. The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science.
American Journal of Sociology, 99: 559589.

Pickering, A. 1994. After Representation: Science Studies in the Performative Idiom. PSA: Proceedings
of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1994: 413419.

Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. 1987. The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology
of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P.
Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Social Construction of Technological Systems: 1750. Cambridge:
MIT Press.

Ricoeur, P. 1984. Time and Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ries, E. 2011. The Lean Startup. New York: Crown Business.

Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the black box: Technology and economics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Ruttan, V. W. 1959. Usher and Schumpeter on invention, innovation, and technological change.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 73: 596606.

Sawyer, R. K. 2003. Improvised Dialogues. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. 2013. A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity. Organization
Science, 24: 121.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the
Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Simpson, B. 2014. George Herbert Mead (1963-1931). In J. Helin, T. Hernes, D. Hjorth, & R. Holt
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Organization Studies: 272286. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Stacey, R. D. 2001. Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations. New York: Routledge.

Tomich, D. 2012. The Order of Historical Time: The Longue Dure and Micro-History. In R. E. Lee
(Ed.), The Longue Duree and World-Systems Analysis: 933. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Tsoukas, H. 2009. A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations.

Organization Science, 20: 941957.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change.
Organization Science, 13: 567582.

21
Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. 2001. Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach
to organizational complexity. Human Relations, 54: 9791013.

Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2014. Justification and Interlaced Knowledge at ATLAS,
CERN. Organization Science, 25(6): 15791608.

Usher, A. P. 1954. A History of Mechanical Inventions, vol. Revised. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. 1999. The Innovation Journey. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 2005. Alternative Approaches for Studying Organizational Change.
Organization Studies, 26: 13771404.

Weick, K. E. 1996. Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41: 301313.

Whitehead, A. N. 1933. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan.

Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. 1999. Change and Complementarities
in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 19921996. Organization Science,
10: 583600.

22
 Figure 1: Ushers Process of Cumulative Synthesis

Figure 1a: Emergence of Novelty Figure 1b: Cumulative Synthesis

Source: Adapted from Usher (1954)

23
Figure 2: Asynchrony and Diachrony in the Emergence of the VCR

Source: Adapted from Irvine and Martin (1984)

24
 Figure 3: Ups and Downs during an Innovation Journey

Ecstasy

New cost model Orders

It works!
looks good!
Approvals
Customers Have a fix
Qualification
like it!
Yes it does!
Enthusiasm

New fix works

Yields
Yes it is! are low
Doesnt work
No it
doesnt

Have Cost too high

an idea! Not proprietary
Despair
Vision Time Commercialization
Source: Adapted from Jolly (1997)

25
 Table 1: Assumptions Underlying Synoptic and Performative View of Innovation Process

Synoptic View Performative View

Contexts are exogenous, with actors Actors contextualize their initiatives by

adapting and then getting locked in to a actively reinforcing or de-coupling links
path. and continually re-drawing their relational
boundaries.

The beginning, the middle and the end are The beginning, the middle and the end are
fixed events between which innovations are mobilized and modified by actors to
refined. constitute innovation journeys in-the-
making.

Overall perspective is one of the process of Overall perspective is one of innovation as

innovation, driven by linear stage-gates process, driven by non-linear, ongoing
with success and failure defined translations between multiple social and
unequivocally material elements, remembered,
experienced, and imagined.

26
 Table 2: Complexity Perspectives on Innovation

Complexity Mechanism Ontology Innovation Process

Adaptive Selection Multilevel ontology with Innovation occurs
selection environments through recombination
given and unequivocal
Shifts from linear
variance based
understanding to
nonlinear process based
understanding of events
Agency shaped by path
dependencies
Relational Translation Flat ontology where Innovation occurs
selection environments through ongoing efforts to
are shaped and contested deal with new
Shifts from contexts as entanglements between
given to contexts social and material
emergent in and through elements
action
Agency is distributed and
emergent as a process of
path creation
Temporal Dure Narrative ontology that Innovation involves the
draws attention to capacity to go back and
meaning making rather forth in time to deal with
than selection continuity and change
environments
Shifts from a Newtonian
view of time to a view of
time as experienced and
thereby how meaning
emerges in and through
narration
Draws attention to
temporal agency

27