In today’s fast-paced business environment, a firm’s ability to generate exploratory innovations is crucial for its survival. This involves being skilled in experimentation, risk-taking, and discovery, enabling the firm to explore new knowledge domains and renew itself over time. But what drives this ability to innovate? Recent research sheds light on the role of intraorganizational collaboration and its impact on exploratory innovation.
The Role of Intraorganizational Collaboration
Since the early work of Burns and Stalker (1961) and Allen and Cohen (1969), many studies have examined how intrafirm collaboration structures or intra-firm knowledge structures influence innovation outcomes. Traditionally, the focus has been on optimizing collaboration structures within firms to enhance innovation. Studies have shown that intrafirm collaboration can influence the exploratory behavior of inventors and firms. For instance, collaboration structures like structural holes, centrality, and internal embeddedness have been linked to increased innovation. However, this approach assumes that more connectivity and collaboration are always beneficial for exploration.
The Downside of Too Much Collaboration
Interestingly, recent findings challenge this assumption. High levels of collaborative integration at the firm level or global cohesion of inventor networks may actually hinder exploration. This suggests that less or even a lack of collaboration can sometimes benefit exploratory innovation. The key question then becomes: When is it effective to stimulate collaboration among inventors, and when is it more effective to foster isolation?
High levels of collaborative integration at the firm level or global cohesion of inventor networks may actually hinder exploration.
Decoupling Knowledge and Collaboration Structures
To address these questions, we revisit the seminal idea by Nonaka and Konno (1993) and Nonaka (1994), who argued that organizations consist of multiple layers, including a project-team layer (inventor networks) and a knowledge-base layer (inventor knowledge structure). By combining collaboration distance with knowledge distance, we distinguish between symmetric and asymmetric configurations of collaboration and knowledge structures.
Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Configurations
Our research shows that a symmetric configuration, where inventors with similar knowledge collaborate, is the default form for the majority of firms and is generally effective for exploratory innovation. Based on a sample of 170 publicly traded semiconductor firms from 1980 to 2006, we found that about 68% rely on a symmetric configuration. This makes sense as it is intuitive and yields solid exploratory innovation performance on average.
However, symmetric configurations also come with risks. They can strengthen in-group orientation and feed out-group biases, limiting communication and knowledge exchange across groups of more distant inventors. This risk increases under conditions of low or high combinability of knowledge domains. In such cases, asymmetric configurations, where inventors with similar knowledge do not collaborate, can be more effective.
Asymmetric configurations, where inventors with similar knowledge do not collaborate, can be more effective.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
For practitioners, these findings have significant implications:
- Evaluate Collaboration Needs: Assess whether collaboration is necessary for a particular innovation project. In some cases, fostering isolation might lead to more creative and exploratory outcomes.
- Balance Collaboration and Isolation: Strive for a balance between collaboration and isolation. Too much of either can be detrimental to innovation.
- Customize Collaboration Structures: Tailor collaboration structures to the specific needs of the project and the knowledge domains involved. Avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.
- Encourage Diverse Knowledge Interactions: Promote interactions between inventors with diverse knowledge backgrounds. This can lead to more innovative solutions and prevent the stagnation that can result from too much similarity.
- Monitor Technological Environment: Consider the combinability of knowledge domains when designing collaboration structures. Different configurations may be needed for easy-to-recombine versus difficult-to-recombine domains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while collaboration is often seen as the key to innovation, it’s important to recognize that too much collaboration can sometimes hinder exploratory innovation. By understanding when to stimulate collaboration and when to foster isolation, firms can better navigate the complex landscape of innovation and drive their exploratory efforts more effectively.
