Bottom-up Innovations Research Articles

Four types of emergence: a typology of complexity and its implications for a science of management

Complexity science has the potential to explain emergence; unfortunately most management applications of complexity rarely define emergence. We develop a typology that defines four increasingly demanding definitions of emergence, and use this typology to organise a review of the complexity literature, focusing on computational models that have been utilised by management scholars. We generate propositions addressing the value of emergence and complexity for integrating theory and practise in the field. Self-organisation and emergence offer methods for integrating a variety of management frameworks, allowing researchers to draw together some of the disparate threads of management theory and practise. An expansion of ‘emergence’ processes in organisations fosters adaptive bottom-up innovations and change.

Is the current theory of construction a hindrance to innovation?

An explanation for the low innovation activity in construction is put forward. The central argument is that the current theory of construction is one root cause for low innovation activity. Instead, an explicit and more powerful theory of construction is needed for further innovation, which is ‘to manage new ideas into good currency’. There are three main mechanisms in the current theory of construction which are identified as causing this hindrance. Firstly, production theories in general, as well as construction theories specifically, have been implicit. Therefore, it has not been possible to transfer radical managerial innovations, such as lean production, from manufacturing to construction at a theoretical level. Direct application of this production template to construction has been limited due to the different context of construction in comparison with manufacturing. Secondly, the current theoretical model of construction is based on the transformation model of production. It is argued that the principles of this model are counterproductive, because uncertainty and interdependence are abstracted away. This leads to fragmented and myopic management and inflated variability. Practical examples show that these deficiencies and related practical constraints hinder the implementation of top-down innovations. Thirdly, empirical research shows that also bottom-up innovations - systematic learning and problem solving - are being hindered by the current theory. Thus, the advancement of innovations in construction requires that a new, explicit and valid theory of construction is created, and business models and control methods are developed on the basis of that new theory. Cet article propose une explication concernant le taux bas de l'activité d'innovation dans la secteur du bâtiment. L'argument central étant que la théorie actuelle de la construction est une des raisons fondamentales de cette activité basse d'innover. Au lieu de cela, on a besoin d'une théorie de la construction explicite et plus efficace afin d'innover. Dans la théorie actuelle du bâtiment, il y a trois mécanismes fondamentaux qui sont identifiés comme causes gênant cette innovation. Premièrement, les théories de production en général, ainsi que les théories de la construction en particulier, ont été implicites. Ainsi, il était impossible de transférer des innovations gestionnaires radicales, comme la production allégée (lean production), à partir du domaine de la fabrication à celui du bâtiment à un niveau théorique. L'application directe de ce modèle de production au secteur bâtiment a été limitée à cause du contexte différent de celui-ci en comparaison de celui de la fabrication. Deuxièmement, le modèle théorique actuel de la construction bâtiment est basé sur le modèle de la transformation de production. On avance que les principes de ce modèle agissent négativement sur la productivité parce que l'incertitude et l'interdépendance en sont exclues. Ceci mène à une gestion fragmentée et myope ainsi qu'à une inflation de la variabilité. Des exemples pratiques montrent que ces déficiences et les contraintes pratiques qui leur sont liées, gênent les implémentations des innovations de haut en bas. Troisièmement, une étude empirique montre que les innovations de bas en haut - c'est-à-dire l'apprentissage systématique et la résolution de problèmes - sont gênés par la théorie actuelle. Ainsi, le progrès dan les innovations du secteur bâtiment exige qu'une nouvelle théorie explicite et valide soit créée, et que des modèles d'affaires et des méthodes de contrôle soient développés sur la base de cette nouvelle théorie.

When a Bottom-Up Innovation Meets Itself as a Top-Down Policy

While practitioner-based research holds potential for closing the theory and practice gap, it is unclear how such research contributes to the policy and practice gap. This case study traces an educational innovation from its practice-based creation to its mandated implementation as public policy. Findings indicate that these bottom-up innovations face the same kind of implementation challenges as their top-down cousins. The authors take the position that practice-based innovations can engage in multiple contexts if knowledge creation (research) continues into knowledge utilization (policy and practice). The authors argue that this happens when knowledge utilization, like implementation, is understood as mutual adaptation. If innovations are frozen as knowledge creations in time and context, they cannot mutually adapt elsewhere. The result is that the good innovations of one practitioner will remain just that.