Innovation Management Systemicity : How Systemic Dimensions of Innovation Management Influence Innovation Capabilities

Sammanfattning: The field of innovation management has gained extensive knowledge; however, there has been a tendency to study its various aspects in isolation rather than with a systems perspective, resulting in a potential oversight of interconnections between important aspects. While systems perspectives have been employed in organization and management research for over half a century, systems perspectives have more recently gained relevance in innovation management research. A sign of the growing relevance is the creation of an international guidance standard for innovation management systems, ISO 56002, published in 2019. Research indicates that implementing innovation management systems, with or without using a standard, has facilitated the transition from ad hoc practices to more integrated ones. Thus, it is interesting to investigate how systems approaches influence innovation capabilities. Furthermore, managing radical and incremental innovation may require different approaches, which presents challenges, particularly for large companies that prioritize projects typically involving incremental innovation. Consequently, studying how incremental and radical innovation are influenced when managing both types within the same system becomes relevant. In this study, the concept of systemicity was used to describe how systemic a system is through three system dimensions comprehensiveness, coherence and correspondence, which overlap with those commonly used in literature to describe and define a system. The purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding of innovation management from a systems perspective by investigating how different systemic dimensions influence and relate to innovation capabilities, analysing these capabilities from a systems perspective, exploring hindrances and opportunities with a systems approach, and investigating the relationship between these systemic dimensions and incremental and radical innovation capabilities respectively. The study was part of a research project with the overarching aim to investigate important future development trends and evaluate the innovation capabilities of the Swedish metallic materials industryto use as a basis to develop strategies for how the industry can support the transition towards sustainability. A multiple-case study of two companies within the metallic materials industry was conducted using an abductive approach, including a literature study, data collection, coding, and analysis. Semi-structured interviews were employed, where interview questions were based on the ISO 56002 standard and its seven system elements. The analysis involved within-case and cross-case analysis. The findings from the study imply that having capabilities related to all seven system elements seem to be important for an organization's overall innovation capability, highlighting the significance of comprehensiveness. The interconnections between elements highlight the significance of coherence, and establishing correspondence between capabilities and goals enhances innovation capability. While exhibiting comprehensiveness, coherence, and correspondence is beneficial, the suitable level of systemicity remains uncertain. Further research is needed to determine the balance between systemicity and flexibility for effective support of innovation capabilities. Furthermore, in relation to managing incremental and radical innovation together, the study indicates the importance of considering systemicity to identify opportunities and hindrances when managing both types in the same system. The analysis of comprehensiveness highlights the need for distinct management approaches and capabilities for each innovation type. The analysis of coherence emphasizes the importance of considering interdependencies between system elements to avoid obstacles resulting from interdependencies being overlooked. The analysis of correspondence suggests separate goal setting for incremental and radical innovation due to their distinct objectives and outcomes. Based on the method and findings, a tentative framework was developed for analysis and evaluation of innovation management systemicity.