Systematic Radical Innovation Model: A Case Study

5.2 Organizational dimension

In the dimension of organizational structure, when there is a need to add the contributions of different types of internal and external expertise to each phase, the models loose links between phases and organizational functions that erstwhile own them. Thus, innovation is gradually becoming recognized as inherently cross functional, whereas the organizational dimension is enriched and has become the focus of some models - particularly those covered in last subtopic of section 4.

Innovation models based on the concept of ambidexterity such as Bessant et al. (2005) highlight that the managing of innovation opportunities outside the organization domains (in terms of technology, market knowledge, etc.) demands specific processes and work structures from those involved in incremental innovations. Although recent research reveals different modes of ambidexterity (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013), it becomes evident that the same process and/or organizational elements will not potentially fit the demands of different bundles of innovation opportunities to be captured and managed in a firm. Nevertheless, these texts do not address neither how to set ambidexterity nor how to organize and to manage radical innovation.

The DNA model (O’Connor et al, 2008) aims to fill this gap. Systematic radical

For practical issues, it is important to question the nature of uncertainties faced before deciding what works best for the firm. In that sense, a company should think of want it is searching for and adopt or adapt models accordingly. Taking the ambidexterity approach, a company is likely to introduce different organizational and managerial schemes for incremental innovation, for R&D, and for radical