Maria Laura Frigotto

A Working Definition and Tentative Models

Building on the review of the literature and the theoretical speculation developed in chapters 5 and 6, this chapter builds a definition of novelty that is articulated through two models -the NK landscape model (Kauffman 1993; Levinthal 1997) and the network model-, into conservative novelty (consisting of new solutions within known problem representations) and revolutionary novelty (consisting of new problem representations). The concept is specified further in relation to the dimensions of relativity into relative/absolute novelty, awareness into known/unknown novelty, and impact.

Novelty in Organization Studies

This chapter presents an overview of the main perspectives in the organization studies literature shaping novelty. Since no stream of research has yet focused primarily on novelty, this review builds on the collection of contributions that can be easily applied to novelty. Along an evolutionary perspective, six streams are considered: (1) population ecology; (2) neoinstitutionalism; (3) evolutionary economics; (4) dynamic capability theories and the resource-based view; (5) organizational learning and (6) organizational cognition. Novelty is positioned across them along three dimensions: level of analysis (population, organization and individual), source of novelty (exogenous, endogenous or combined), kind of novelty (type A—ingredient or type B—result, as introduced in Chap. 2). Moreover, the implicit main mechanism of evolution is clarified as Darwinian or Larmarkian.

Novelty in Evolution

Novelty is a central phenomenon in organizations and a central construct in theories on learning, change and adaptation. In evolutionary theories, novelty has been referred to as the implicit “lifeblood” (Levinthal in JAMA 1: 189–190 , 2008), since it is the motivation for learning, the source of change and the reason for adaptation. As Witt stated: “For a proper notion of socioeconomic evolution, an appreciation of the crucial role of novelty, its emergence, and its dissemination, is indispensable” (Hodgson in JAMA 42: 469–488, 1995). However, it is also the ancestral “thorny problem” (Becker et al. in JAMA 15: 353–371, 2006). Darwin never truly answered the question about the origin of change, and novelty remained excluded from the focus of evolutionary theories as reported by Padgett and Powell, (The emergence of organizations and markets, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2012). With such a gap in the theory, early critiques of Darwin pointed out the difficulty of accounting for the new characters that appeared, as a result of variations and mutations (Muller and Wagner in JAMA 22: 229–256, 1991). Moreover, the inability to define the nature of novelty appeared to some as a problem that challenged the entire theory. The quest for a deeper understanding of novelty is as old as the formulations of theories about the evolution of organisms (Winter in JAMA 2: 163–169, 2004), and it is central to them, both conceptually and methodologically. However, it is far from being satisfactorily understood. The translation of this quest into the social sciences makes the understanding of novelty even more challenging as it implies to address some of the most difficult questions for organization such as: how does evolution take place among organizations? what is the origin of novelty? is it emergent or designed? what does emergence mean and how is it reconcilable with the idea of control, intent and will which is typical of human action on organizations? This chapter builds a link between the discussion on novelty in evolutionary biology and in the social sciences with reference to different epistemological and ontological frameworks. The concepts of emergence, agency and novelty are also discussed in the light of these diverse frameworks.

Novelty Across Consequences and Control

Management studies research displays the twofold tendency to see novelty as both (1) controllable and (2) associated with success. This induces to consider novelty mainly in terms of designed success. As a result, the emerging character of the new, which includes non-controlled elements (often identified in terms of chance), has traditionally remained unexplored, and the potential of novelty has been significantly reduced to individual and organizational determination and determinateness. Overcoming this biased perspective on novelty, this chapter presents a conceptual framework to understand novelty that is constructed on two dimensions: (1) control on novelty (ranging from design to emergence) and (2) consequences of novelty (including positive and negative consequences). Traditionally, such dimensions have partitioned rather than specified novelty in the literature. Here, building on the idea of novelty as a unified phenomenon, these dimensions are used to identify novelty types that have individually been tackled in the literature. The framework will be introduced and discussed in this chapter, while novelty types deriving from it, will be addressed in the next chapters. The framework and the combined discussion of novelty types ground the understanding of novelty offered in this book.

Black Novelties and the Early Recognition of Emergence

In this chapter, novelty is considered in terms of black novelty: new disasters, emergencies, and hazards (i.e., novelty associated with effective or potential negative consequences), all of which appear without being designed nor predicted. This chapter presents studies where such novelty is discussed under several labels such as “rare emergencies,” “black swans,” the “unexpected,” and the “unthinkable.” Each label draws attention to different nuances and properties of novelty, and to the challenges they pose for organizations that attempt to anticipate novelty or recognize it early enough to fruitfully mitigate its impact or possibly avoid it altogether. Building on empirical evidence and theoretical literature on new emergencies, this chapter discusses both the organizational competencies and learning strategies adopted by organizations to support the early recognition of black novelty. The discussion will particularly refer to the case of the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York.

White Novelties and Their Capture

In this chapter, novelty is associated with potential positive consequences. While such novelty is strongly pursued by organizations, which design it and set up plans for its production, this chapter focuses on the white novelty that is not designed, but found. In this chapter, novelty represents an unforeseen novelty that organizations want to seize. Building on empirical evidence and theoretical literature on invention, innovation, and creativity, this chapter discusses what organizations do in their efforts to recognize and capture novelty. First of all, novelty is positioned within studies on the innovation process. Then, triggers to novelty are discussed with a specific focus on the role of agency. This discussion will also address studies on serendipity. Finally, strategies for achieving genuine novelty are presented, including open innovation and crowdsourcing. The chapter ends by building a concept of novelty, which distinguishes novelty consisting of new solutions from novelty consisting of new problem representations, and by discussing what organizations can do when they target one or the other kind of novelty.

Organizational Implications and Conclusions

If, as claimed in this book, novelty consists of a unified phenomenon including designed and emergent novelty, as well as positive and negative novelty, it seems that, traditionally, organizations target only a small set of the novelty phenomenon, as the set of novelties organizations can design, meaning they can conceive and imagine, is limited and there is no particular reason to claim that their selection included the most impactful cases. In fact, such novelties are typically designed conservative novelties. This chapter develops implications for organizations for the early recognition of emergent revolutionary novelty. Early recognition enables an organization to capture white novelty or strongly mitigate black novelty. These considerations build a set of suggestions for engineering novelty not by controlling it, but through greater exposure and inclusion to other organizations. For instance, building on the relativity of novelty, organizations can adopt the versioning strategy, meaning that, instead of searching for new problem representations (revolutionary novelty) directly, they can link to other actors that already access and are familiar with those problem representations. Furthermore, in this search for allies, organizations might decide to play different roles according to how good they are able to identify and target solvers. They play the role of the “800-pounds gorilla” when they know exactly who would provide novelty. They play the role of the “anchor tenant” when they target a set of solvers but then then let these solvers find their own way into the problem. They play the role of the “Prince of Serendip” when they are open to emergent solutions and questions they were not searching, and they are prepared to grasp them .

Management control system and strategy: the transforming role of implementation

Purpose n n n n nThe purpose of this paper is to encourage a discussion of the implementation of management control systems (MCSs) in the MCS-strategy relationship. Borrowing from the literature on software development, the authors propose two archetypes of MCS implementation – waterfall and agile – and employ them to understand how the MCS-strategy fit unfolds over time. n n n n nDesign/methodology/approach n n n n nThe authors empirically ground the archetypes on two exploratory case studies based on the collection of extensive qualitative data. n n n n nFindings n n n n nThe authors show that MCSs change not only in relation to strategy, but also in response to an autonomous source: implementation. These two implementation archetypes differ in their degrees of specification, in the ways in which the transitions among their implementation phases occur and in the sources and ways in which their feedback loops affect the MCSs; however, both shed light on the dynamic dimension of fit and show that the fit should be assessed over time. n n n n nResearch limitations/implications n n n n nThe two archetypes are derived from two exploratory cases. Further research may both strengthen the framework by testing the validity of the archetypes for a wider set of empirical cases and enrich the framework by investigating the determinants of agile and waterfall MCS implementation. n n n n nPractical implications n n n n nThe introduction of MCS implementation to the determinants of fit or misfit provides practitioners with a further interpretation and an action driver for fit or misfit. MCS implementation should be coordinated with the pace of change of strategy and should be changed in relation to the possibility for an organisation to move from a process- to a people-centred system (or vice versa). n n n n nOriginality/value n n n n nThe authors propose two archetypes of MCS implementation, both of which support the empirical interpretation and theoretical reconceptualisation of the concept of the MCS-strategy fit in terms of dynamic fit.