Innovación Organizativa en organismos de investigación

  1. Carlos Martin-Rios 1
  2. Susana Pasamar 2
  3. Cesar Gonzalez-Perez 3
  1. 1 Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne, HES-SO. University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland
  2. 2 Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Departamento de Dirección de Empresas y Marketing.
  3. 3 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) antiago de Compostela, España
Zugehörigkeit anzeigen +
Zeitschrift:
Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

ISSN: 1132-175X

Datum der Publikation: 2016

Nummer: 59

Seiten: 4-17

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.37610/DYO.V0I59.490 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

Zusammenfassung

Public research organizations (hereinafter, PROs) are a type of knowledge organization with a strong emphasis on contributions by scientists. Although the value of PROs has seldom been questioned, their characteristics and functioning as well as the appropriate amount of funds to be supplied have received considerable attention in the media and from the scientific community. As in the case of other public services, PROs are subject to increasingly severe scrutiny and pressure for accountability forcing them to shift away from their traditional, bureaucratic type of organization. However, there are also limits to the restructuring of PROs guided by private sector models. Radical administrative change is not likely to occur within the boundaries of a formal scientific organization with its restricting rigidities and bureaucracies. Hence, organizational renewal of science organizations is a complex phenomenon of growing relevance. Recent developments in the study of organizational renewal have revealed the potential of organizational innovations for the design and improvement of internal processes and values. This longitudinal study of the evolution of a research center that is part of Spanish CSIC provides insight into the design and implementation of organizational innovations to drive strategic organizational shift from bureaucracy to collaborative and postbureaucracy, in an attempt to overcome external demands and promote higher organizational and financial diversification. The paper shows that innovations in work design and values may facilitate organizational change in, otherwise, highly rigid work settings. Innovation studies have traditionally been linked with technological change, usually related to manufacturing activities, and until recently, organizational innovation has received little systematic attention. This study offers insight into how certain management practices borrowed from private firms can be adopted in public research organizations, setting the base for developing a collaborative organization in science. We conclude that as contribution grows more complex, as it depends on collective endeavor to engage in more interdisciplinary undertakings, the search for alternative models of organization becomes critical for public services of this kind

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • ADLER, P. S., y HECKSCHER, C. (2013). "Collaborative ambidextrous organizations". Universia Business Review, 40, pp. 34-51.
  • ADLER, P. S., HECKSCHER, C., y PRUSAK, L. (2011). "Building a collaborative enterprise". Harvard Business Review Julio-agosto, pp. 95-101.
  • ADLER, P. S., KWON, S., y HECKSCHER, C. (2008). "Professional work: The emergence of collaborative community". Organization Science, 19, pp. 359-376.
  • ALBERT, A., GRANADINO, B., y PLAZA, L. (2007). “Scientific and technological performance evaluation of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) in the field of biotechnology”. Scientometrics, 70, pp. 41-51.
  • ALDRICH, H. (1999). Organizations evolving, London, UK: Ed. Sage.
  • ALVESSON, M., y WILLMOTT, H. (2002). “Producing the appropriate individual: Identity regulation as organizational control”. Journal of Management Studies, 39, pp. 619-644.
  • ARMBRUSTER, H., BIKFALVI, A., KINKEL, S. y LAY, G. (2008). “Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys”. Technovation, 28, pp. 644-657.
  • ARROW, K. J. (1962). “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”. In: The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 609-636.
  • BARZELAY, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
  • BEISE, M., y STAHL, H. (1999). “Public research and industrial innovations in Germany”. Research Policy, 28, pp. 397-422.
  • BIRKINSHAW, J. (2010). Reinventing management: Smarter choices for getting work done. San Francisco, CA: Ed. John Wiley & Sons
  • BIRKINSHAW, J., y MOL, M. (2006). “How management innovation happens”. Sloan Management Review, 47, pp. 81-88.
  • BIRKINSHAW, J., HAMEL, G., y MOL, M. (2008). “Management innovation”. Academy of Management Review, 33, pp. 825-845.
  • BROOKS, H. (1994). “The relationship between science and technology”. Research Policy, 23, pp. 477-486.
  • CAMISON-ZORNOZA, C., LAPIEDRA-ALCAMI, R., SEGARRA-CIPRES, M., y BORONET-NAVARRO, M. (2004). “A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size”. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 331-361.
  • CHILD, J., y GUNTHER MCGRATH, R. (2001). “Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an information-intensive economy”. Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 1135-1148.
  • CLANON, J. (1999). “Organizational transformation from the inside out: Reinventing the MIT Center for Organizational Learning”. Learning Organization, 6(4), pp. 147-156.
  • CLEGG, S., HARRIS, M., y HÖPFL, H. (2011). Managing modernity: Beyond bureaucracy? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • CRUZ-CASTRO, L., y SANZ-MENENDEZ, L. 2007. “New legitimation models and the transformation of the public research organizational field”. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(1), pp. 27-52.
  • CRUZ-CASTRO, L., SANZ-MENENDEZ, L. and MARTINEZ, C. (2012), "Research centers in transition: patterns of convergence and diversity". The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), pp. 18-42.
  • DAMANPOUR, F. (1991). “Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”. Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 555-590.
  • DAMANPOUR, F., y SCHNEIDER, M. 2006. “Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers”. British Journal of Management, 17, pp. 215-236.
  • DAMANPOUR, F., y SCHNEIDER, M. (2009). “Characteristics of innovations and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, pp. 495-522.
  • DAMANPOUR, F., SZABAT, K. A., y EVAN, W. (1989). “The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance”. Journal of Management Studies, 26, pp. 587-602.
  • DAMANPOUR, F., WALKER, R., y AVELLANEDA, C. (2009). “Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations”. Journal of Management Studies, 46, pp. 650-675.
  • EDVARDSSON, B., y GUSTAFSSONY ROOS, A. (2005). “Service portraits in service research: A critical review”. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16, pp. 107-121.
  • EVANGELISTA R., y VEZZANI, A. (2010). “The economic impact of technological and organizational innovations: A firm level-analysis”. Research Policy, 39, pp. 1253–1263.
  • FERNANDEZ, S., y RAINEY, H. G. (2006). “Managing successful organizational change in the public sector”. Public administration Review, 66, pp. 168-176.
  • FERNÁNDEZ-ESQUINAS, M., MERCHÁN-HERNÁNDEZ, C., y RAMOS-VIELBA FERNÁNDEZ, I. (2010). "Key knowledge providers as sources of business innovation" Industry and Higher Education, 24(3), pp. 189-201.
  • FERNÁNDEZ-ESQUINAS, M., SEBASTIÁN J., LÓPEZ-FACAL, J., y TORTOSA-MARTORELL. E. (2009). "Anillos de crecimiento en el árbol de la ciencia. La evolución institucional del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas" Revista Internacional de Sociología, 67(2), pp. 251-284.
  • GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P., y TROW, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Ed. Sage.
  • GREENWOOD, R., y HININGS, C.R. (1996). “Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism”. Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 1022-1054.
  • GOULDNER, A. W. (1957). “Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, pp.281-306.
  • HANSEN, M., y NOHRIA, N. (2004). “How to build collaborative advantage”. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, pp. 22-30.
  • HARRIS, M., Y WEGG-PROSSER, V. (2007). “Post-bureaucracy and the politics of forgetting: The management of change at the BBC, 1991-2002”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), pp. 290-303.
  • HECKSCHER, C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In: The post-bureaucratic organization. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14-62
  • HECKSCHER, C. (2007). The collaborative enterprise. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • HECKSCHER, C., y ADLER, P. (2006). The corporation as a collaborative community: Organization in the knowledge-based economy. Oxford University Press: Oxford
  • HECKSCHER, C., y MARTIN-RIOS, C. (2013). "Looking back, moving forward: Toward collaborative universities". Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), pp. 136-139.
  • HILL, T. P. (1977). On goods and services. Review of Income and Wealth, 23, pp. 315-18.
  • HININGS, C. R., y GREENWOOD, R. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. Basil Blackwell: Oxford
  • HIPP, C., y GRUPP, H. (2005).” Innovation in the service sector: the demand for service-specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies”. Research Policy, 34, pp. 517-535.
  • HOOD, C., y PETERS, G. (2004). “The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, pp. 267–282.
  • JACKSON, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multi-disciplinary work teams. In: Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 53-76.
  • JONES, B., WUCHTY, S., y UZZI, B. (2008). “Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science”. Science, 322(5905), pp. 1259-1262.
  • JOSSERAND, E., TEO, S., y CLEGG, S. (2006). “From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: the difficulties of transition”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1), pp. 54-64.
  • KANTER, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization. In: Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, pp.169-211.
  • KIMBERLY, J. R., y EVANISKO, J. M. (1981). “Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovation”. Academy of Management Journal, 24, pp. 689-713.
  • LAM, A. (2005). Organizational innovation. In: The Oxford handbook of innovations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115-147
  • MALLON, M., DUBERLEY, J., y COHEN, L. (2005). “Careers in public sector science: Orientations and implications”. R&D Management, 35, pp. 395-407.
  • MARTINEZ, C., AZAGRA-CARO, J. y MARAUT, S. (2013). "Academic investors, scientific impact and the institutionalization of Pasteur’s quadrant in Spain". Industry and Innovation, 20(5), pp. 438-455.
  • MCNULTY, T., y FERLIE. E. (2004). “Process transformation: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations”. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1389-1412.
  • MITCHELL, R. K., AGLE, B., y WOOD, D. (1997). “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts”. Academy of Management Review, 22, pp. 853-886.
  • NELSON, R. R. (1990). “Capitalism as an engine of progress”. Research Policy, 19, pp. 193-214.
  • PARGA, E., MARTIN-RIOS, C., y CRIADO, F. (2013). “Organizational and management innovation as a driving force of business renewal”. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 8(2), pp. 132-143.
  • PARKER, R., y BRADLEY, L. (2000). “Organizational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organizations”. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), pp.125-141.
  • SALGE, T. (2011). “A behavioral model of innovative search: Evidence from public hospital services”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), pp. 181-210.
  • SIMONS, R. (2005). Levers of organization design. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
  • SIMPSON, B., y POWELL, M. (1999). “Designing research organizations for science innovation”. Long Range Planning, 32, pp. 441-451.
  • STRAUSS A., y CORBIN, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Ed. Sage.
  • VAN DE VEN A., y HUBER, G. P. (1990). “Longitudinal field research methods for studying the process of innovation”. Organization Science, 1, pp. 213-219.
  • VAN DE VEN, A., y POOLE, M. S. (2005). “Alternative approaches for studying organizational change”. Organization Studies, 26, pp. 1377-1404.
  • WALTER, R. (2006). “Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government”. Public Administration, 84, pp. 311-335.
  • WEJNERT, B. (2002). “Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework”. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, pp. 297–326.
  • WHITLEY, R. (2011). “Changing governance and authority relations in the public sciences”. Minerva, 49, pp. 359-385.
  • YIN, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Ed. Sage.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet