Votre recherche

Artificial Intelligence (AI) reshapes companies and how innovation management is organized. Consistent with rapid technological development and the replacement of human organization, AI may indeed compel management to rethink a company's entire innovation process. In response, we review and explore the implications for future innovation management. Using ideas from the Carnegie School and the behavioral theory of the firm, we review the implications for innovation management of AI technologies and machine learning-based AI systems. We outline a framework showing the extent to which AI can replace humans and explain what is important to consider in making the transformation to the digital organization of innovation. We conclude our study by exploring directions for future research.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) reshapes companies and how innovation management is organized. Consistent with rapid technological development and the replacement of human organization, AI may indeed compel management to rethink a company's entire innovation process. In response, we review and explore the implications for future innovation management. Using ideas from the Carnegie School and the behavioral theory of the firm, we review the implications for innovation management of AI technologies and machine learning-based AI systems. We outline a framework showing the extent to which AI can replace humans and explain what is important to consider in making the transformation to the digital organization of innovation. We conclude our study by exploring directions for future research.

Innovation in the forest sector is a growing research interest and within this field, there is a growing attention for institutional, policy and societal dimensions and particular when it comes to the question of how to support innovativeness in the sector. This Special Issue therefore focuses on governance aspects, relating to and bridging business and political-institutional-societal levels. This includes social/societal factors, goals and implications that have recently been studied under the label of social innovation. Furthermore, the emergence of bioeconomy as a paradigm and policy goal has become a driver for a variety of innovation processes on company and institutional levels. Our article provides a tentative definition of "innovation governance" and attempts a state-of-art review of innovation governance research in the forest sector. For structuring the research field, we propose to distinguish between organizational/managerial, policy or innovation studies. For the forestry sector, specifically, we suggest to distinguish between studies focusing on (i) innovative governance of forest management and forest goods and services; on (ii) the governance of innovation processes as such, or (iii) on specific (transformational) approaches that may be derived from combined goals such as innovation governance for sustainability, regional development, or a bioeconomy. Studies in the forest sector are picking up new trends from innovation research that increasingly include the role of societal changes and various stakeholders such as civil society organizations and users. They also include public-private partnership models or participatory governance. We finally should not only look in how far research approaches from outside are applied in the sector but we believe that the sector could contribute much more to our general scientific knowledge on ways for a societal transformation to sustainability. • We sketch the state-of-knowledge in innovation governance in the forest sector. • We provide a definition and possible categorizations of innovation governance. • We discuss recent research avenues, including social innovation and bioeconomy. • We assess how this Special Issue contributes to our scientific knowledge. • We discuss state of art, research gaps and possible future research directions.

Innovation in the forest sector is a growing research interest and within this field, there is a growing attention for institutional, policy and societal dimensions and particular when it comes to the question of how to support innovativeness in the sector. This Special Issue therefore focuses on governance aspects, relating to and bridging business and political-institutional-societal levels. This includes social/societal factors, goals and implications that have recently been studied under the label of social innovation. Furthermore, the emergence of bioeconomy as a paradigm and policy goal has become a driver for a variety of innovation processes on company and institutional levels. Our article provides a tentative definition of "innovation governance" and attempts a state-of-art review of innovation governance research in the forest sector. For structuring the research field, we propose to distinguish between organizational/managerial, policy or innovation studies. For the forestry sector, specifically, we suggest to distinguish between studies focusing on (i) innovative governance of forest management and forest goods and services; on (ii) the governance of innovation processes as such, or (iii) on specific (transformational) approaches that may be derived from combined goals such as innovation governance for sustainability, regional development, or a bioeconomy. Studies in the forest sector are picking up new trends from innovation research that increasingly include the role of societal changes and various stakeholders such as civil society organizations and users. They also include public-private partnership models or participatory governance. We finally should not only look in how far research approaches from outside are applied in the sector but we believe that the sector could contribute much more to our general scientific knowledge on ways for a societal transformation to sustainability. • We sketch the state-of-knowledge in innovation governance in the forest sector. • We provide a definition and possible categorizations of innovation governance. • We discuss recent research avenues, including social innovation and bioeconomy. • We assess how this Special Issue contributes to our scientific knowledge. • We discuss state of art, research gaps and possible future research directions.

L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser une nouvelle forme organisationnelle, le living lab (LL) et sa capacité à favoriser l’innovation territoriale en milieu rural ou péri-urbain. A travers une revue de littérature et la mobilisation de la sociologie de l’acteur-réseau (Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987), nous positionnons les living labs comme intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte dont les caractéristiques permettent d’intégrer de nombreux acteurs hétérogènes, établissements publics, entreprises privées, associations et citoyens, sur des projets d’innovation. L’étude d’un LL rural met en évidence la capacité d’une telle structure à reconfigurer des réseaux d’acteurs pour proposer une série de tiers-lieux adaptés aux spécificités des territoires sur lesquels ils s’implantent. Cette recherche permet d’enrichir la réflexion la pérennisation des tiers-lieux ruraux et leurs spécificités par rapport aux espaces urbains.

L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser une nouvelle forme organisationnelle, le living lab (LL) et sa capacité à favoriser l’innovation territoriale en milieu rural ou péri-urbain. A travers une revue de littérature et la mobilisation de la sociologie de l’acteur-réseau (Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987), nous positionnons les living labs comme intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte dont les caractéristiques permettent d’intégrer de nombreux acteurs hétérogènes, établissements publics, entreprises privées, associations et citoyens, sur des projets d’innovation. L’étude d’un LL rural met en évidence la capacité d’une telle structure à reconfigurer des réseaux d’acteurs pour proposer une série de tiers-lieux adaptés aux spécificités des territoires sur lesquels ils s’implantent. Cette recherche permet d’enrichir la réflexion la pérennisation des tiers-lieux ruraux et leurs spécificités par rapport aux espaces urbains.

The main aim of the paper is to question the viability of measuring social innovation with the current state of knowledge on the one hand, and to make suggestions for better measurement of it on the other. To reach this aim, the literature on the traditional measures of technological innovation and the previous attempts of measuring social innovation is surveyed. Despite relatively narrow scope of the literature mainly originated from the very recent and pioneer experiments, one may argue that the first findings do not present a promising picture for future studies. Therefore, existing trials to measure social innovation have to be critically screened to ascertain problematic areas, and hence, to provide plausible solutions. The problems with social innovation metrics are not only limited with obtaining concrete and trustworthy results, but also extended to statistical, methodological and even conceptual spheres.

Cross-boundary teaming, within and across organizations, is an increasingly popular strategy for innovation. Knowledge diversity is seen to expand the range of views and ideas that teams can draw upon to innovate. Yet, case studies reveal that teaming across knowledge boundaries can be difficult in practice, and innovation is not always realized. Two streams of research are particularly relevant for understanding the challenges inherent in cross-boundary teaming: research on team effectiveness and research on knowledge in organizations. They offer complementary insights: the former stream focuses on group dynamics and measures team inputs, processes, emergent states, and outcomes, while the latter closely investigates dialog and objects in recurrent social practices. Drawing from both streams, this paper seeks to shed light on the complexity of cross-boundary teaming, while highlighting factors that may enhance its effectiveness. We develop an integrative model to provide greater explanatory power than previous approaches to assess cross-boundary teaming efforts and their innovation performance.

Un article de la revue Management international / International Management / Gestiòn Internacional, diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

This Article provides the first legal examination of the immensely valuable but underappreciated phenomenon of social innovation. Innovations such as cognitive behavioral therapy, microfinance, and strategies to reduce hospital-based infections greatly enhance social welfare yet operate completely outside of the patent system, the primary legal mechanism for promoting innovation. This Article draws on empirical studies to elucidate this significant kind of innovation and explore its divergence from the classic model of technological innovation championed by the patent system. In so doing, it illustrates how patent law exhibits a rather crabbed, particularistic conception of innovation. Among other characteristics, innovation in the patent context is individualistic, arises from a discrete origin and history, and prioritizes novelty. Much social innovation, however, arises from communities rather than individual inventors, evolves from multiple histories, and entails expanding that which already exists from one context to another. These  Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law. I would like to thank Camilla Hrdy, Chris Griffin, Richard Gruner, Courtney Joslin, Lydia Loren, Manesh Patel, and Darien Shanske for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. This Article benefitted substantially from presentations at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School, the East Bay Faculty Workshop, the Works in Progress Intellectual Property colloquium at Santa Clara School of Law, IP in The Trees at Lewis & Clark Law School, PatCon 4 at the University of San Diego School of Law, the Value Pluralism and Intellectual Property Law conference organized by the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and BYU Law School. I would like to thank Dean Kevin Johnson and Associate Dean Vik Amar for providing generous institutional support for this project. I would also like to thank Erin Choi and the UC Davis School of Law library staff for exceptional research assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the excellent editors of the Washington University Law Review. 2 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [VOL. 92:1 attributes, moreover, apply in large part to technological innovation as well, thus revealing how patent law relies upon and reinforces a rather distorted view of the innovative processes it seeks to promote. Moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive, this Article cautions against extending exclusive rights to social innovations and suggests several nonpatent mechanisms for accelerating this valuable activity. Finally, it examines the theoretical implications of social innovation for patent law, thus helping to contribute to a more holistic framework for innovation law and policy.

L'inventeur isolé n'existe pas vraiment. Les inventions sont souvent simultanées et collectives. Mieux, avancent les plus récents travaux d'Eric von Hippel, les utilisateurs sont les premiers innovateurs. Certes, leurs conceptions ne forment pas nécessairement des produits : il faut pour cela que l'industrie s'y intéresse. Mais avec les nouvelles formes de contributions permises par l'internet, c'est la forme même de l'innovation qui est transformée. Désormais son paradigme repose sur l'ouverture et la participation. Des formes proches de l'auto-organisation, qui nécessitent une forte adaptation des entreprises pour apprendre à "perdre le contrôle". L'innovation via l'internet montre qu'il n'y a pas d'innovation sans lien social et que l'accélération de l'innovation actuelle est certainement plus à mettre au bénéfice des nouvelles sociabilités que des nouvelles technologies.

L'inventeur isolé n'existe pas vraiment. Les inventions sont souvent simultanées et collectives. Mieux, avancent les plus récents travaux d'Eric von Hippel, les utilisateurs sont les premiers innovateurs. Certes, leurs conceptions ne forment pas nécessairement des produits : il faut pour cela que l'industrie s'y intéresse. Mais avec les nouvelles formes de contributions permises par l'internet, c'est la forme même de l'innovation qui est transformée. Désormais son paradigme repose sur l'ouverture et la participation. Des formes proches de l'auto-organisation, qui nécessitent une forte adaptation des entreprises pour apprendre à "perdre le contrôle". L'innovation via l'internet montre qu'il n'y a pas d'innovation sans lien social et que l'accélération de l'innovation actuelle est certainement plus à mettre au bénéfice des nouvelles sociabilités que des nouvelles technologies.