272 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Characteristics of Innovative
Companies: A Case Study of
Companies in Different Sectors
Carmen Cabello Medina, Antonio Carmona Lavado
and Ramón Valle Cabrera

The literature on new organizational forms offers an up-to-date picture of organizations that
combines traditional variables with new ones, and contributes to a more productive analysis
of the relationship between organization and innovation. Our review of the literature high-
lights several research topics dealing with new organizational forms and innovation, such as
strategic flexibility (in the form of customization of output, subcontracting or outsourcing and
the use of contingent workers), informal communication throughout the entire organization
made feasible by information technology and collaboration with other organizations and
institutions. These topics have been analysed in a study of four companies that differ in size
and sector, but that have all been classified as innovative. This article confirms the existence
of certain factors that operate as described in the literature, and reveals other factors that have
to be taken into account because they contribute to a better understanding of how innovation
takes place in the four companies.

Introduction provides sufficient theoretical arguments for a

nnovative activities of organizations have
I attracted the attention of many researchers
who try to identify the factors that pro-
mote innovation (Damanpour, 1988, 1991;
Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Wolfe,
1994). From a review of a relatively large body
of literature it becomes clear that there are a
variety of concepts and types of innovation
that researchers have attempted to relate to a
wide variety of organizational variables.
A recurring theme in the research literature
on innovation is the role of organizational
structures and management processes. These
factors are considered to be the major determi-
nants of innovative activity (Damanpour,
1988, 1991; Kim, 1980; Kimberley & Evanisko,
1981; Wolfe, 1994). This line of research has
been characterized by the use of classic struc-
tural dimensions (complexity, formalization,
centralization and level of differentiation).
Recently, however, new forms of organization
have received attention as well, and the study
of these new forms calls for considering a
number of new variables involved in the inno-
vation process itself. Although the literature
belief that these new organizational forms
favour innovation (Daft & Lewin, 1993; Hitt,
Keats & DeMarie, 1998; Ruigrock et al., 1999),
empirical evidence is still relatively scarce.
The fundamental objective of our study is to
build theory from this new perspective and,
from an empirical standpoint, explore the
existence and essence of these new organiza-
tional forms in different types of innovative
companies. We also propose possible relation-
ships (1) between type of company and the
variety of these forms and (2) among the var-
ious new organizational forms. To this end, we
seek to study whether the innovative organi-
zations in our case studies present the identi-
fiable features cited in the literature with
respect to: organizational flexibility (customiza-
tion, employment of contingent workers and
subcontracting or outsourcing), formalization of
internal communications processes and signifi-
cant collaboration agreements with other entities.
These are some of the variables highlighted by
Hitt, Keats and DeMarie (1998), Whittington
et al. (1999) and Ruigrock et al. (1999), offering
an integrative view on the dimensions of these
new organizational forms, and the mecha-

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4

Volume 14 Number 3 2005 2DQ and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
nisms in place within the organizations which
facilitate innovation.
The research methodology adopted is the
case study, best suited in our opinion to the
objectives of our study: constructing theoreti-
cal approaches and revealing still relatively
unknown aspects of the relationships being
studied (Eisenhardt, 1995; Lee, 1999). To this
end we have selected four innovative compa-
nies, of different size, belonging to different
sectors of the business world.
In the first two sections we synthesize the
current positions and concepts in the innova-
tion literature. In the third section, we focus in
on the structural characteristics of innovative
organizations and conclude with an outline of
what a basic innovative company case study
should reveal. The fourth section profiles the
four companies, presents our empirical work
and the subsequent findings. The final section
is devoted to analysis, conclusions and
limitations.
Some Issues in the Study
of Innovation
The first problem we face when studying
innovation is its conceptual and typological
essence. The epistemological meaning of
‘innovation’ is clear: making something new
(Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt, 1999). However, the
variety of ways in which innovation has been
addressed in the literature demonstrate the
need to specify which definition of the term is
being used (Cumming, 1998; Escorsa & Valls,
2000; Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997;
Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt, 1999). In the next part
of this study we present several authors’
approaches to innovation, and state the per-
spective that we have adopted.
Innovation is widely understood to be
related to the implementation of new ideas
or original solutions (Camisón-Zornoza et al.,
2004; Damanpour, 1991, 1996; Escorsa and
Valls, 2000; Quinn, 1979; Tidd, Bessant &
Pavitt, 1999). It means the introduction of sig-
nificant technical or technological changes
(product or process) or changes in other areas
such as commercial, marketing, financial,
social (e.g. human resources), and organiza-
tional structures or administration. Each of these
areas can give rise to different types of inno-
vation (Frascati Manual of the OECD, as dis-
cussed by De Oyarzábal, 1985; Damanpour, 1991,
1996; Fernández & Fernández, 1988; Kanter,
1984; Pavón & Goodman, 1981; Sánchez &
McKinley, 1998; Yamin, Gunasekaran &
Mavondo, 1999; Wolfe, 1994).
Taking the company as the unit of analysis,
this study is centred on technical or technolog-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
273
ical innovation. Together with administrative
innovation, technological innovation is one of
the types most frequently considered in other
studies in this line of research (Camisón-
Zornoza et al., 2004; Damanpour, 1991;
Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997;
Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981; Yamin,
Gunasekaran & Mavondo, 1999).
In our review of the literature, we have
identified two general, somewhat contradic-
tory, positions on when innovation should be
understood as having taken place. The first
position subsumes two basic criteria. On
the one hand, innovation simply involves
the introduction of a new (or significantly
improved) product or service in the market-
place or the implementation of a new (or sig-
nificantly improved) process (Audretsch &
Acs, 1991; González, Jiménez & Sáez, 1997;
OECD/Eurostat, 1997; Sanchez & McKinley,
1998). On the other hand, it is also vital that
such introduction or implementation of some-
thing new be successful. In the case of new
products and services, this normally means
commercial success, as proposed in several
studies (Cumming, 1998; Escorsa & Valls,
2000; Guellec, 1999; Morcillo, 1997; Pavitt,
1984; Pavón & Goodman, 1981; Sidro, 1988).
Burgelman and Sayles (1986) consider that the
criteria for success in innovation are commer-
cial, while for invention they are technical.
The second position we have detected
regarding when innovation should be under-
stood as having taken place is defined by the
entities for which the innovative product or
process should be considered as new. In the
view of the majority of authors, for innovation
to occur, it is sufficient that the corresponding
product, service or process be classed as new
(or improved) for the company or business
unit being considered, and not necessarily so
for the industry, the market, or the world
(Damanpour, 1991; Johannessen, Olsen &
Lumpkin, 2001; Nelson & Rosenberg,
1993OECD/Eurostat, 1997; Sánchez & McKin-
ley, 1998; Tushman & Nadler, 1986). Other
studies, in contrast, define innovation more
restrictively. For example, according to
Cumming (1998, p. 22), innovation is ‘the first
successful application of a new product or
process’, and Pavón and Goodman (1981)
write of the successful first-time introduction
to the market of new or improved products or
services. The extent to which a product or pro-
cess is considered to be new (in the firm, mar-
ket, industry or the world) is employed as a
criterion for classifying innovations as a func-
tion of their degree of novelty (Brouwer &
Kleinknecht, 1999; Guellec, 1999; Johannessen,
Olsen & Lumpkin, 2001; OECD/Eurostat,
1997).
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
274
The position taken in this paper with respect
to these two preceding questions is essentially
to adopt the definition of the Oslo Manual:
Technological product and process innova-
tions (TPP) comprise implemented techno-
logically new products and processes and
significant technological improvement in
product and process. A TPP innovation has
been implemented if it has been introduced
on the market (product innovation) or used
within a production process (process inno-
vation). (OECD/Eurostat, 1997, p. 47)
We should add here that technological inno-
vation can be classified and analysed not
only according to basic purpose (innovation in
product/service and in process) but also
according to the degree of novelty involved
(the extent of the change), ranging from incre-
mental innovations to radical innovations (e.g.
Damanpour, 1991; Dewar & Dutton, 1986;
Ettlie, Bridges & O’Keefe, 1984; Green, Gavin &
Aiman-Smith, 1995). We have also briefly dis-
cussed this dimension in the case descriptions.
Innovation and Organizational
Characteristics
A large number of organizational variables
that could be related to the innovative capacity
of a given company can be found in the liter-
ature. Several researchers have concluded that
structural variables are a major determinant
of innovation (Damanpour, 1988, 1991; Kim,
1980; Kimberley & Evanisko, 1981; Wolfe,
1994). This explains the considerable efforts
that researchers devote to specifying the par-
ticular organizational variables and manage-
ment processes that promote or hinder
innovation.
The traditional approach, born mainly from
studies of big manufacturing companies in
traditional industries, still enjoys a following
among many authors (Damanpour, 1991;
Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1998). It
focuses on the type of structure (organic ver-
sus bureaucratic or mechanistic, using the ter-
minology of Burns & Stalker, 1961) considered
to promote particular types or stages of inno-
vation (technological versus administrative,
radical versus incremental, initial stage versus
implementation).
Nevertheless, the natural evolution of orga-
nizations – constantly seeking greater compet-
itiveness – together with the development of
information technologies has substantially
modified intra-organizational and inter-
organizational relationships and communication
types. This has led researchers to investigate
new organizational characteristics and new
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
conceptions of traditional parameters, giving
rise to a great number of somewhat over-
lapping terms to characterize the new organi-
zational forms. In this study we aim to
incorporate some of the factors emerging in
the literature on new organizational forms in
the study of the relationships between organi-
zational structure and innovation.
Choosing key topics for study is not an easy
task, given the abundance of perspectives in
the literature on new organizational forms
(Daft & Lewin, 1993; Langlois & Robertson,
1992; Miles et al., 1997; Sanchez & Mahoney,
1995; Schilling & Steensma, 2000; Volberda,
1998; Whittington et al., 1999). An example of
one attempt to adopt a more integrative
approach is the cross-national research carried
out by Whittington et al. (1999), which high-
lights that European firms are evolving along
several trajectories that shape the new organi-
zational forms. Another seemingly compre-
hensive listing of organizational actions
designed to achieve strategic flexibility is pre-
sented by Hitt et al. (1998). Strategic flexibility
here is the capability of the firm to respond
quickly to changing competitive conditions, in
a new competitive landscape characterized by
an increasing focus on innovation. In most of
the above-mentioned literature on new orga-
nizational forms, these new designs are pre-
sented as scenarios that stimulate innovative
activity, albeit only from a theoretical and intu-
itive perspective. Nevertheless, the arguments
generally suggest that some of these character-
istics can be expected to be present, at least to
some degree, in contemporary innovative
companies.
Currently, of these various emerging organi-
zational trends, self-managing teams seem to be
studied quite extensively. Some other hypoth-
esized forms of organization are troublingly
difficult to define, hindering a simple, effective
and conclusive selection of cases. Given such
practical prerequisites (newness and ease of
definability for operational purposes) we have
selected the following aspects from the sets
of organizational forms in Whittington et al.
(1999) and Hitt et al. (1998) for our analysis:
strategic flexibility factors (subcontracting, use
of contingent/temporary workers and cust-
omisation), communication processes and the use
of IT and strategic alliances and collaboration
agreements. All items are defined conclusively
enough for case study purposes and have yet
to be exhaustively researched.
Strategic Flexibility
As noted, Hitt et al. (1998) include outsourc-
ing, the utilization of contingent workers, and
the use of special production systems that
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
facilitate customization among actions related
to greater strategic flexibility. By means of out-
sourcing and contingent workers, companies
maintain a reduced permanent workforce,
which increases their ability to make strategic
moves more quickly, thus facilitating broader
commitment to unavoidable changes. Schilling
and Steensma (2000) consider outsourcing and
alternative work arrangements essential fea-
tures of modular systems featuring compo-
nents that can be separated and recombined to
form new configurations with little loss of
functionality. Outsourcing and contingent
workers represent two essential features of vir-
tual organizations, which focus on one particu-
lar segment of its value chain, and entrust
‘partners’ (suppliers or distributors) with the
carrying out of other stages in this value chain
(Denison, 1997). The prevailing approach to
virtual con uration suggests that this con-
figuration allows companies to concentrate
resources in activities where corporate capabil-
ities can best be exploited, encouraging spe-
cialized knowledge-building and innovation.
In this regard, Storey et al. (2002) have exam-
ined the relationships between the use of var-
ious forms of ‘flexible employment contracts’
and the incidence of product and process inno-
vation. Among other arguments, they consider
that the internal labour market model (incor-
porating vertical integration, formal contrac-
tual relationships and life-long employment)
could be ill-suited to the needs of innovative
companies facing rapidly changing markets.
Nevertheless, literature on virtual organi-
zation poses the question of whether con-
figuration flexibility is beneficial in all cases.
Chesbrough and Teece (1996), who have criti-
cized the simplicity of such a premise, state
that depending on the type of innovation in
question, either a virtual or an integrated con-
figuration model may be more suitable. Con-
sequently, it is worth studying which kinds of
innovative companies present such features.
Customization, the third factor that we are
considering, is the degree to which a product
is produced in accordance with customer spec-
ifications. When a company tailors the manu-
facturing process to meet the specific needs of
a given client, an increase in investment is
inevitable in order to cover the cost of rede-
signing procedures and frequent production
changes. Sanchez and McKinley (1998) state
that companies that customize have sufficient
capabilities and resources to make the modifi-
cations necessary for the development of such
ideas into concrete products, and that those
modifications in the production process in
turn increase the possibilities for introducing
new products. Furthermore, customization
also depends, to a great extent, on the com-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
275
pany’s ability to redefine the roles and respon-
sibilities of both individual employees and
teams. Along these lines, Hage (1999) has
highlighted the importance of the complexity
of the job for stimulating innovation. Like-
wise, research on flexible production pro-
cesses reveals that it is the complexity of the
job itself which allows employees to obtain the
expertise required to diagnose problems, gen-
erate innovative solutions and implement
these solutions more quickly than if problems
had to be resolved via hierarchical models
(Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). This statement
is quoted as one of the principles of innovative
company design (Dougherty, 1992), and pro-
vides a context for promoting the generation,
exchange and use of knowledge. It is clearly
related to the broadly accepted and empiri-
cally demonstrated premise that organic orga-
nization models, with broadly defined and
less formalized jobs, encourage innovation.
The literature discussed above would, in
our opinion imply, either directly or indirectly,
that companies that work mainly by following
the specifications of the client and using con-
tingent hiring and subcontracting are in a
good position to achieve the organizational
flexibility required for innovation.
Communication and Use of IT
A second characteristic that has merited the
attention of researchers on innovation and
represents one of the defining features of the
new organizational forms is the means by
which communication takes place in the orga-
nization. Given that innovations are typically
initiated by one or more members who must
then convince their colleagues to support
them and participate in their implementation,
effective communication is essential in getting
managers to be favourably disposed towards
any specific innovation (Johnson, 1990). Sev-
eral authors have highlighted the importance
of formal mechanisms of communication
when, in certain conditions of uncertainty,
objective and formal information is required
(Daft & Lengel, 1986) or when the back-
ground, the perspective or the language of the
people is different (Tushman, 1978). Neverthe-
less, most researchers has emphasised the
effectiveness of interpersonal channels for
building confidence in the results of a particu-
lar innovation. The greater the risk, the uncer-
tainty, the technological novelty and the
complexity associated with innovation, the
more effective the informal channels of inter-
nal communication are (Fidler & Johnson,
1984; Johnson, 1990; Tatikonda & Rosenthal,
2000). Because this type of communication can
meet specific needs and concerns, as well as
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
276
provide immediate feedback, uncertainty is
reduced and the understanding of innovation
is improved.
Communication is clearly a feature linked
to flexibility because flexibility, by definition,
requires that many organizational processes
should be loosely formalized and thus contin-
uously fine-tuned for each task at hand by
communication. The basic idea here is that an
excessively formal communication system can
hinder the development of solutions for prob-
lems and ideas for innovations that require co-
operation among different functional areas
(Von Hippel, 1998) or innovative approaches
that go outside the task definitions of the indi-
viduals. Therefore, innovative companies tend
to allow procedures and routines to extend
beyond the boundaries established by the
organizational structure (Pitt & Clark, 1999).
Much of the literature quoted above leads
us to conclude that, in order to facilitate inno-
vation in the current rapidly changing envi-
ronments, the traditional ways of creating,
sharing and controlling information must also
be changed. Information, used in the past as a
limited resource in a tightly controlled way, as
a means of exercising power, has to become
a more effective instrument of knowledge
exchange to be extended throughout the entire
organization and made available electroni-
cally (Daft & Lewin, 1993). Indeed, the new
information technologies have raised commu-
nication processes to a new dimension, and
they have facilitated the effective formation of
so-called ‘virtual teams’ comprised of individ-
uals in different locations. These distributed
specialists can function thanks to instant com-
munication via Internet, intranet, videoconfer-
encing and so on (Hitt, Keats & De Marie,
1998).
Undoubtedly, these new forms of communi-
cation in the innovative company also recipro-
cally serve to further strengthen and create a
new work paradigm where work is perceived
as a social, collaborative process. According to
such a model, people in different functions
and/or locations interact continuously yet
informally, and every individual should have
a clear vision of the global project (Dougherty,
1992).
Therefore, the existence of informal commu-
nication processes (made possible by new IT
resources available to most of the members of
the organization) should be considered a charac-
teristic of today’s innovative companies.
Strategic Alliances and
Collaboration Agreements
Communication can also spread and become
less formal in arenas beyond the company.
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Recently, one of the most relevant recent fea-
tures of organizational design has been the
progressive blurring of company boundaries
and the creation of inter-organizational value
networks and strategic alliances. Such net-
works and alliances have merited the attention
of researchers in recent years. However, the
vast body of literature that has emerged is
very fragmented, encompassing a wide range
of perspectives (Hagedoorn, 2002; Tracey &
Clark, 2003). Not all networks are designed
with innovation in mind, although all of them
involve, at the very least, a desire to access
new skills and areas of expertise (Hage, 1999).
In any case, the literature offers more than
enough arguments highlighting the impor-
tance of networks for learning and innovation,
given such potential benefits as better access to
information, knowledge, skills and experi-
ence, new complementary capabilities and
technology and the possibility of sharing
resources and reducing costs, among others
(Hagedoorn, 1993; Hotz-Hart, 2000). And
there is enough empirical evidence about the
positive effect of the inter-organizational col-
laboration on innovation (Chang, 2003; Faems,
Van Looy & Debackere, 2005; Luke et al.,
2004).
Nevertheless, research on networks does
not always consider these arrangements as
innovation-fostering mechanisms. Inkpen
(2001) exposes several costs of alliances strat-
egies: the costs of co-ordinating the often
divergent interests of the partners, the poten-
tial to create competitors, the possibility of cre-
ating an adverse bargaining position when
one partner captures a disproportionate share
of the value created by an alliance. Probably,
these problems become worse when the aim
of the alliance is innovation. Hobday (1994),
whose research focused on the Silicon Valley
network, has highlighted its disadvantages.
Hobday affirms that, on the one hand, small
companies in the network lack the comple-
mentary assets needed to exploit new mass
market innovation. On the other hand, large
firms are unlikely to distribute their core
capabilities within a network for economic,
technological and strategic reasons, because
the network would expose them to predatory
behaviour from other large companies. Fur-
thermore, the participation of the large firm in
the network would end where their core assets
and advantages begin. Similarly, Lei, Hitt and
Goldhar (1996) consider that firms belonging
to the network find themselves obliged to
share information among themselves. For each
one this situation raises the dilemma of how
much knowledge can be shared with the other
companies without taking a high risk of loss of
key competencies.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
As a result of the general lack of consistency
of the above arguments, Hage (1999) con-
sidered this topic one of the new areas
for research in the field of organizational
innovation.
Based on the discussion above, we have to
examine the involvement of innovative companies
in networks and alliances and their collaboration
agreements with other organizations, which could
imply the transmission of information relevant to
innovative activity.
Case Study
With this study, we would like to contribute to
the theory about the relationships between
organization and innovation, to study further
the theoretical approaches discussed above
concerning the relationship between innova-
tion and the new organizational forms. The
case-study approach is considered a suitable
research methodology for this type of inquiry.
It not only enables a situation to be described
and explained, but also allows a theory to be
developed, constructed, and tested (Lee,
1999). In this respect, we think that the tradi-
tional approach in the study of organization
and innovation (based on the consideration of
the organic and bureaucratic models) needs to
be examined and enriched with the new per-
spective offered by the literature about the
new organizational forms.
Following the literature review above, it
seems that a company that tries to maintain
the innovative edge in the contemporary rap-
idly changing, globalized environment should
• work mainly by following the specifications
of the client and using contingent hiring
and subcontracting;
• utilize mainly informal communication
processes (relying on the new information
technologies available to most of the mem-
bers of the organization);
• be involved in networks of companies
and collaboration agreements with other
organizations.
The existence of these stated relations, as well
as the forms in which they exist, are the main
focus of our case design. Basically, one case
would be enough, but we would also like to
study the differences in a contingent way.
Thus, we have preferred the multiple-case
study to the single-case study. By comparing
and contrasting several cases, we can examine
common patterns and reach sounder con-
clusions, therefore increasing their external
validity. This option identifies similarities and
differences in a group of cases.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
277
Two theoretical criteria, company size and
activity sector, were thus used to select the
cases, because these are thought to be vari-
ables that have a significant impact on innova-
tion (Gopalarishnan & Damanpour, 2000).
We wanted to standardize the size to similar
‘average’ companies, because the organiza-
tional forms should be consciously planned; in
ten-person start-ups, especially the innovative
ones, the organizational structure often is
‘undefiniable’ as discussed above, and in huge
conglomerates it may be difficult to imple-
ment the latest ideas of organizational design
(especially concerning flexibility). On the
other hand, we wanted to have companies that
were considered to be market leaders in inno-
vation, but showing differences in market ori-
entation, industry maturity, technologies used
and the types of innovation they are involved
in. Because the earlier literature does not give
any indication on how these kinds of factors
might affect the existence of the new organiza-
tional forms, we selected four different sectors
in the hope of achieving enough differences
between the cases.
We used a list of companies belonging to the
Network of Andalusian Innovative Compa-
nies (http://www.andalucia-innovacion.net).
This network is promoted by the Instituto
Andaluz de Tecnología (IAT), which facilitates
access to information and promotes co-opera-
tion among them. A manager of IAT was
asked to indicate the four most innovative
organizations that fulfilled the above-men-
tioned criteria. The four companies, all of
which operate in international markets, are
below referred to as Fruit, Elevator, Lighting
and Energy. These names refer to their indus-
try sectors but attempt to keep the companies
otherwise unidentifiable.
We have used different sources to gather
information: interviews, documents and ques-
tionnaires. First, we telephoned the companies
and asked them for their collaboration. We
conducted personal interviews with the man-
agers directly concerned with the innovative
activity of the firm being studied. Before visit-
ing the company for the interview, we exam-
ined the documentation available (web pages,
reports, media articles and so on) to obtain the
necessary background information on their
activities, products and so forth. In the per-
sonal interviews, we followed a list of themes
that had been pre-decided on the basis of what
had to be found out in each interview (Yin,
2003, pp. 67–70). In some cases, apart from the
notes taken, we recorded the interview. We
also distributed a number of questionnaires in
each company, that were addressed to the
chairman, the R&D director and/or opera-
tions managing director, and to other func-
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
278
tional directors. The questionnaires contained
questions about general facts, outputs and
inputs of the innovative activity, organiza-
tional characteristics, incentives for innova-
tion, working systems, human resources
management, strategic vision and so on. At the
end of the interviews, we visited the factory to
observe and gain an understanding of the
company’s productive process. We also
reviewed the reports and other material that
we had been given during our visits to the
company or that had been sent to us. Lastly,
we also held a number of telephone conversa-
tions to resolve specific questions that did not
come through in the earlier interventions.
Description of the Activity and Sector of
the Companies
Fruit
A co-operative society founded in the 1960s,
Fruit processes citrus and other fruits, produc-
ing derivatives in the form of pulp, essential
oils, purée, peels and juice for marmalade and
concentrates. They also transform red pepper
into paste and they stuff olives, and sell fresh
products (sweet oranges, mandarins, peaches,
nectarines, plums, tomatoes, peppers and
cucumbers) wholesale and through a shop-
ping centre open to members as well as non-
members. Fruit exports almost all it produces
to countries within Europe, operating in a very
small specialized sector. One of our infor-
mants stated that there are only five compa-
nies that compete in the citrus market at the
international level. Competition is mainly
based on price, because the quality of the
product is taken for granted.
The company is involved in both product
and process innovation. Product innovation
derives from market demand. They only man-
ufacture when there is an order and according
to the specifications of the client. The products
introduced are new to the company, but not to
the market. However, in the last three seasons
they have tried new products and varieties,
some of which could be considered to be new
products also in the whole market.
Elevator
This is a group of companies created of indi-
vidual companies in the last years of the 20th
century. There are seven business sections: ele-
vators, environment, productivity, mechanical
components, industrial services, syncros and
systems. Currently, it mainly concentrates on
the design and manufacture of elevators. Ele-
vator produces almost every component of an
elevator, and is the only company in the world
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
that sells entire elevators. It operates in many
countries (in Europe, Southern America and
Africa) and also has assembly plants in some
of these countries. The elevator sector is rela-
tively concentrated – 70 percent of the market
is controlled by multinationals such as Otis,
Schindler, KONE, Thyssen and so on. Eleva-
tor’s clients are small installation companies
who service construction companies and com-
munities of property owners. According to the
executive interviewed, the company’s market
share for elevators in the international market
is about 2 percent. Last season, its turnover
was between €50 and 100 million, of which 50
percent was exported. The large lift manufac-
turers provide installation and maintenance,
while Elevator does not.
In Elevator, we find product innovation. The
ideas that lead to innovation come from differ-
ent sources: the trade department tries to
improve the product by observing and study-
ing the needs in the market; the production
department helps to redesign the product; the
R&D department produces and improves con-
trol chips; and general management contrib-
utes diverse ideas.
Lighting
Lighting was founded in the late 1970s. It
works in the electricity and electronic sector
where it manufactures installs, and maintains
lighting systems for urban as well as airport
and heliport use. Later additions to product
lines include products for control of presence
and access. It also manufactures various
related products that constitute a certain
degree of synergy among its different activi-
ties. Its clients are mainly central, regional
and local public administrations, and large
construction and industrial companies. In
2000, its turnover was between €10 and
20 million.
Lighting launched one new product every
year between 1997 and 2000; in 1999, the com-
pany launched two ‘radical product innova-
tions’. They manufactured one improved
product in 1998 and 1999, and two in 2000
(‘incremental product innovations’). These
products are relatively new in the market, but
not in the world. They include new technolo-
gies or a combination of existing technologies,
new functions or new components. Process
innovation is reflected in Lighting’s need to
develop its own technology because this can-
not be purchased in the market. As regards
the resources used for product innovation,
between 1996 and 2000, 5 percent of its sales
were spent on R&D activities. This percentage
rises to 6.5 percent if total spending on inno-
vation is considered. The impact on sales
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
of both new and improved products was 5
percent.
A new Lighting product can emerge in very
different ways: from previous projects under-
taken by new employees, identification of pos-
sible problems or improvements that could be
added to a lighting or traffic regulating sys-
tem, and so on. In this way, they have devel-
oped projects of relatively independent
technologies, such as computers for a large
national railway company in Europe, data-
collection systems to supervise vehicles
crossing a frontier, wireless communication
systems for trains, runway lights (to automate
air traffic) and so on.
Energy
This company was created in 1990s as a spin-
off of a technical university, and now belongs
to an international company. It works in the
solar energy sector, specifically photovoltaic
and thermal energy, the latter representing 10
percent of the business. According to Energy’s
R&D manager, it is the second-largest com-
pany of this sector in Europe, and it hopes to
soon be the leading company. It competes
against large multinational corporations like
Mitsubishi, Siemens, Shell, BP and Sanyo,
among others. It focuses mainly on two mar-
kets: the professional market, whose clients
are in the communication sector (solar energy
for radio stations, cellular phone antennas etc.)
and the electrification market in developing
countries and in rural areas of developed
countries. The company is expanding thanks
to strong growth in demand for its products.
Production has increased seven-fold, and the
staff threefold in the last four years. Energy,
unlike its competitors, has a very good trade
network where they sell only solar energy, but
no other products (such as fuel). This is a very
important competitive advantage, according
to one marketing person we interviewed.
Energy has not introduced product changes,
except for some design modifications (mainly,
panels with more cells). Instead, it develops
important process innovations, mainly by
manufacturing its own production equipment
at a lower cost than elsewhere in the market.
Recently, the sector has gone through a large
expansion. Before that, there were no suppli-
ers of production equipment, meaning it was
necessary to manufacture them. Energy has
also further simplified the production process
to increase its efficiency. In 1985, the process
was divided into 24 steps, obtaining cells with
an efficiency of about 12 percent to 13 percent,
and solar arc technology. In contrast, today the
process is divided into six steps and cells have
an efficiency rating of 15 percent.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
279
Ideas for improving Energy’s production
systems arise partly from examining what
suppliers offer – i.e. what is available in the
market. As for process improvements, the
R&D manager attends meetings, conferences
and so on to get ideas; the company is also
interested in suggestions from the employees.
Energy has a good relationship with the local
university, which provides another source of
ideas, specialized personnel and funding pos-
sibilities. The R&D strategy of Energy is linked
in some way to several universities. This com-
pany takes part in various long-term projects
of a more strategic nature that, if successful,
could generate a completely new product.
They also study the use of alternative materi-
als that might lead to radical product
innovations.
Organizational Characteristics: Flexibility
(Customization, Contingent Worker and
Subcontracting), Informal Communication
and Collaboration with Other Organizations
In Fruit, 75 percent of total sales correspond to
products manufactured to customer specifica-
tions. The management team consists of only
three people: a manager (agricultural engi-
neer, BSc), a factory director (agricultural engi-
neer, BSc), and a quality manager (industrial
engineer, MA).1 The co-operative comprises 50
permanent workers or intermittent workers.2
These workers are not highly skilled and their
tasks are defined in a flexible way. Temporary
workers, mainly women, can number between
350 and 400. An external accountant/auditor
is in charge of financial matters.
This company is characterized by high flex-
ibility in the production process. Machinery is
quickly adapted to the new products that are
introduced or processed. The employees are
very versatile and the management members
interchange tasks. Particularly notable fea-
tures are their informal communication and
the speed with which the three members of the
management team take and implement deci-
sions about the introduction of new products
or the improvements needed in the production
process. The communication between the
management team and the workers is fluid,
which could partly explain the absence of
working groups. They do not have an intranet
1
A retired chemist uses its facilities to develop new
products, but so far, FRUIT has not profited from
this activity.
2
The price that the members receive for their crop
depends on its quality, which is usually above that
of the market. Only one member works for the
cooperative.
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
280
and do not have special collaborations or links
with other companies or institutions.
Elevator has 800 workers; around 550 of
them work for the elevators division. A signif-
icant part of its total sales (although the man-
agers were not able to state how much)
corresponds to products manufactured to cus-
tomer specifications. There are three levels in
Elevator’s organizational structure: senior
management, functional management and the
other staff. Their relationships are informal;
the chairman often communicates directly
with the personnel. Forty people work in the
R&D department. Surprisingly, Elevator does
not have a human resources department. They
do not normally use subcontracting for man-
ufacturing activities (they have their own
manufacturing plants for all their compo-
nents), but they have outsourced other activi-
ties in their value chain. Their clients are small
installation companies who work for construc-
tion companies and communities of property
owners. The relationship between Elevator
and its clients is very close (the R&D personnel
and the clients are in constant and direct con-
tact). The client is in charge of the installation
and maintenance of Elevator’s products.
There are also collaborations with two named
universities. They do not usually resort to tem-
porary employment contracts. They have an
intranet, although only some of the staff have
access to the information therein.
In Lighting, the percentage of customized
sales is about 15 percent of the total. There
were 253 workers in Lighting in 2000; 11
percent comprised the management and admin-
istration, 60 percent production, 14 percent
sales and 15 percent R&D. Permanent employ-
ees make up 65 percent of the total, with 35
percent being temporary. In 2001, 25 people
worked in the R&D department, mainly
industrial and telecommunications engineers,
physicists and computer specialists. It is a
loosely structured department and communi-
cation is very informal. There is strong com-
munication among the different departments
and the workers carry out varied activities; for
instance, development personnel can work on
the improvement or installation of a product,
and the lighting personnel can work on traffic
activities. Therefore, we could state that the
company is not highly formalized. There are
working groups for the development of
projects, and these include participation by
other firms. Lighting relies to a large extent on
external collaboration. For example, the basic
research of the university’s engineering school
has proved to be very useful. This research
is assessed by Lighting to test the technical
and commercial feasibility of the various
products. Through consortia, they get the
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
collaboration of other companies, which pro-
motes the development of projects (for
instance, they are considering forming a con-
sortium for runway lights). Lighting resorts to
subcontracting in some stages of the produc-
tion process, such as assembly and welding. It
is also flexible to some extent in its installation
and maintenance activities, where it uses sea-
sonal contracts. They are equipped with an
intranet and most of the employees have
access to it. There are four loosely structured
hierarchical levels.
Energy is the only one of the four companies
that does not customize its output. Customer
specifications are only followed in detail on
very specific aspects related to the design of
the products. The company is comprised of
300 employees. Decision-making is quite
decentralized in the management department.
Decisions can be made, for example, by the
operations director and the R&D manager
without having to report to the chairman, who
is informed at the next meeting. This decen-
tralization translates into speedy decision-
making, which represents one of the
competitive advantages of Energy.
This company is distinctive in the close col-
laboration among its various departments.
The R&D management works closely with the
technical office management (both are part
of the operations department). For instance,
part of the technical office director’s time is
devoted to projects for the R&D director. The
technical office management is in charge of the
development of production equipment. This
activity must be co-ordinated with the process
improvement work of the R&D management.
The personnel of those departments comprise
physicists and industrial and telecommunica-
tions engineers.
Reports on the company’s performance are
provided to the managers (down to a given
level) during an annual convention, and the
managers transmit this information to the
members of their units. Energy is equipped
with an intranet, but only the directors and
managers have access to it. This company’s
subcontracting policy is similar to that of Ele-
vator. Installation activities are performed by
local installation companies. It has close col-
laborative agreements with those companies
and with several universities.
Analysis of Results
Individual Discussion on the New
Organizational Forms in the Cases
Analysis of the information presented above
in a brief format reveals that all the companies,
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
except Energy, manufacture to customer spec-
ifications, albeit in differing proportions of
total output. It seems logical that such custom-
ization, and the flexibility in production that is
derived from this practice, should create con-
ditions favourable to innovation (Hitt, Keats &
DeMarie, 1998; Vickery, Calantone & Droge,
1999).
However, one question that follows from
this is whether the fact of customizing output
(or not) is associated more with a particular
type of innovation, process or product, or
both. On the one hand, the three companies
that produce to customer specification (Fruit,
Elevator and Lighting) innovate in both prod-
uct and process (particularly in the case of
Fruit, to a proportion of 75 percent of total
sales). This suggests that customization could
be related, first, with innovation in product (in
order to meet specific requirements of cus-
tomers) and, second, with innovation in pro-
cesses, to the extent that processes must be
adapted or reconsidered (in order to introduce
the new or improved products). On the other
hand, it may be significant that Energy, the
only one of the four companies that manufac-
tures standardized products not adapted to
customer specifications, only reports making
process innovations; and in this case with the
very different objective of reducing costs.
Therefore, it could be thought that those com-
panies that compete with standardized prod-
ucts concentrate mainly on developing and
implementing process innovation.
These comments with respect to customiza-
tion suggest future lines of work to research
more deeply the questions that emerge from
the case studies. First, an analysis could be
made of the two distinctive objectives that
might be driving process innovation: the need
to increase production efficiency (as in the case
of Energy) or as a necessary condition for
implementing innovation in products, whether
to manufacture a new product or to adapt an
existing product to the customer’s specifica-
tions (as occurs in Fruit). Second, we could
study whether the nature of the company’s
manufacturing activity (standardization
versus customization) favours one type of
innovation over another (product versus
process).
The information gathered on outsourcing
also reveals that the four companies studied
resort to subcontracting, or to contracting
temporary employees, for diverse activities
(production in Fruit, product installation in
Elevator and Energy, and assembly and weld-
ing in Lighting). Both these practices have been
considered relevant dimensions for the study
of flexibility as a feature of the new organiza-
tional forms. It seems that innovative compa-
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
281
nies, independently of the type of innovation,
company size, or activity sector, resort to the
practices described. We are reminded by the
literature that such practices can improve
the innovative capacities of companies by
facilitating the implementation of strategic and
organizational changes. It is also recognized
that the search for greater flexibility implied by
subcontracting and use of temporary em-
ployees has become a common practice
adopted generically by all kinds of companies,
with the objective of improving their structure
of costs, independently of whether they inno-
vate or not. Clearly, this means that subcon-
tracting and the like cannot be considered as
determining factors of innovative behaviour.
Given this, we believe that the relationship
proposed merits deeper analysis in subsequent
studies to identify the specific activities out-
sourced or developed by temporary workers
in the innovative companies.
With regard to communications processes,
these are observed to operate very informally
in the four companies, both vertically and hor-
izontally, as described by their managers. The
reason for this appears to be a consequence of
the need for close and well-informed interac-
tion among individuals and/or units within
the organization, as well as the need for deci-
sions to be made quickly, particularly those
related to changes in products and processes.
Nevertheless, certain differences between
the companies can be discerned. It will be
recalled that Energy is the only one of the four
companies analysed that manufactures highly
standardized products not requiring adapta-
tion to the specifications of individual custom-
ers. This implies that at the basic operative
level, the work of employees is characterized
by considerable formalisation and standard
routines; this therefore would make it unnec-
essary to foster a high degree of informal com-
munication at the lower levels of the hierarchy.
In this company, which implements mainly
innovation in processes, the proposals for such
innovation generally originate at the manage-
ment level, and come only to a minor extent
from the rest of the employees. This explains
why the processes of communication are
described as informal and fluid only at the
upper and intermediate levels of the company.
The other three companies, obliged to intro-
duce frequent changes in products and pro-
cesses to meet the specifications of customers,
need to seek effective interaction among per-
sonnel at all levels, including that of the
factory operatives. Therefore, although the
literature on new organizational forms sug-
gests that information is spread throughout an
entire organization, it is likely that this does
not happen homogeneously at all levels. This
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
282
leads us to think that these questions need to
figure in future studies designed to distin-
guish how the process of communication actu-
ally takes place not only at the top of the
organization, but also at lower operating
levels, according to the different innovation
scenarios analysed such as innovation in pro-
cess, innovation in product, standardization of
activities, customization and so forth.
Regarding the use of information technol-
ogy to achieve communication objectives, it
seems logical to assume that this aspect
reflects the questions dealt with in the pre-
ceding paragraphs. If communication fluid-
ity is only needed at certain management
levels, it is likely that access to the company
intranet to keep in touch with current devel-
opments and the progress of the business
should also be limited to certain levels. Of the
three companies that have their own intranet,
two (Elevator and Energy) demonstrate this
behaviour, whereas in Lighting most of the
employees can access information through
this medium. The small size of the manage-
ment team and uneducated workforce of
Fruit is said to be the reason why it does not
have an intranet.
The last of the questions posed in the third
sections deals with the degree of involvement
of innovative companies in networks with
other organizations or in collaboration agree-
ments. For this aspect, the information from
the case studies reveals that the three compa-
nies in the high technology sectors (Energy,
Lighting and Elevator) have collaboration
agreements with other organizations; among
these, those with universities should be
emphasized because of their claimed capacity
for generating innovations and testing ideas.
This tendency has also been observed in other
research studies in which university–company
collaborations have also been specifically
analysed (Bayona, García & Huerta, 2002;
Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Gomes, Hurmelinna &
Amaral, 2004; López-Martínez et al., 1994;
McMillan, Narin & Deeds, 2000). It is also
interesting to note that it is the three com-
panies competing in sectors of higher tech-
nological levels that enter into this type of
agreement. Logically, the complexity of
knowledge handled within these organiza-
tions obliges them to develop collaborative
projects of this type, in which complementary
capacities can be combined to mutual benefit.
The reflection suggested to us by the relation-
ships found is that the existence of agreements
may be a feature associated with the techno-
logical complexity of a company rather than
with the type of innovation made (product or
process).
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
The Causalities Between the New
Organizational Forms
A widely accepted approach by Miles and
Snow (1978, p. 24) states that the basis of man-
agerial decision-making and planning is the
choice of product-market domain, and the
process and administrative decisions would
follow from this first decision (‘adaptive
cycle’). If the idea of companies existing to
serve their customers (either without any
other back-thoughts or as a tool for generating
wealth) is accepted, it indeed is reasonable to
accept that the (successful) companies first
take the markets’ requirements into account
and then adapt their processes and organiza-
tion to these. This would also lead to the pro-
posal that the customization requirement
would precede the other factors here called
‘new organizational forms’ and be, in essence,
a contingency factor rather than an organiza-
tional form. Table 1 presents the findings con-
cerning these organizational forms in the four
case companies.
As customization is basically continuous
innovation required by customers (making it
more turbulent and less foreseeable than inno-
vation launched by management), it could be
assumed that the innovative companies that
live by customizing must have a structure that
is even more flexible and information flows
that are even more informal than the tradi-
tional types of innovative companies. In our
four case-study companies, this proposition
would seem to hold (see Table 1; the customi-
zation degree diminishes from left to right).
We can thus propose this theoretical con-
nection (customization degree correlates to
informality of communication and flexible
structure) to be tested in further studies.
Another possible causality – still following
the idea that markets are the drivers the orga-
nizational forms – arising from the findings
seems to be that the companies with less cus-
tomization have a higher degree and variety
of inter-organizational collaboration ties, and
these also tend to be of more strict nature
(written long-term agreements). This might be
explained with reasoning opposite to the one
above; in innovation projects started by the
management, the product trajectories and also
the project portfolios can better be planned
and foreseen (and also maybe be more
diverse) than what is the case when customers
require the innovations for their purposes.
Christensen (1997) explains that companies
tend to serve their current customers with
current technologies, the very same that
have made the companies able to retain the
customers.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES 283

Table 1. New Organizational Forms in the Four Innovative Companies Studied

Fruit Elevator Lighting Energy

Innovation in both Innovation Innovation in both Principally innovation

product and process. principally in product and process. in process.
product, together Innovation in product,
with the innovation in as long-term projects
process necessary to of radical character.
implement changes in
the products.
75% of production A ‘significant part’ About 15% of the Customisation nearly
customized (probably majority) of products customized non-existent (only in
products customized small details of the
product)
Small (three-person) Small management 65% of the 250 300 persons;
management group; group, no temporary workers permanent, practically no
80% of the about 450 workers, a 40-person the rest temporary; temporary workers
workers temporary R&D dept. Total about 35 staff in R&D
number of staff about
550 (in the elevator
‘division’)
High flexibility, Outsourced some Subcontracting of Installation
highly adaptable parts of value chain, some non-central subcontracted
machinery; no but not the activities (welding,
outsourcing manufacturing installation)
Quick, informal Typically lots of R&D department very Centralized decision-
communication and informal informal, and also making; R&D
speedy decision- communication circulate to other connections between
making between all levels departments quite departments close,
often economical and other
information formally
distributed
Low hierarchy Low (3-level) ‘Typical’ industrial ‘Typical’ industrial
hierarchy organization with organization with
strong administration strong administration
and sales and sales
departments; four departments; four
levels levels
No intranet /IT Intranet, but access Intranet fully in use Intranet only for the
communication only by a part of the management
network staff
No innovation co- Close co-operation Consortia (including Close collaborative
operation ties with with customers; also universities) for R&D agreements with
other organizations agreements with two in some key product installation companies
universities areas and with several
universities

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005 Volume 14 Number 3 2005

284
According to Christensen, the strict current-
customer orientation forces companies to
make only the changes required by the cus-
tomers, thus leading to smaller product devel-
opment projects, often within known
technologies (and being caught by surprise by
‘disruptive’ technologies being developed in
other fields or for other markets). Following
the logic, it would be possible that the strictly
current-customer-oriented companies indeed
do not need to expand their R&D networks to
other areas of technologies, making it possible
to do most of the R&D in-house. Opposite to
this, a longer-term orientation that is aimed
towards satisfying needs of new customers or
starting completely new businesses (then, pos-
sibly also with foreign or future technologies)
would require broader research collaboration.
This, again, might require more mutually
binding forms of alliances, because the bene-
fits and customers of the technology maybe
are not known, the move to these new areas is
more strategic, investments may be bigger,
and maybe more secrecy is required to keep
the competitive edge.
These proposals arising from the four cases
would also, to our opinion, be a promising
starting point for a large-scale empirical study.
Conclusions and Limitations
of the Study
In conclusion, the findings that seem to arise
from our study of the four innovative compa-
nies are:
• Companies currently held as being innova-
tive seem indeed to contain a variety of the
new organizational forms that are pre-
sented in literature. However, the variety is
not similar in different companies.
• The differences in the organizational forms
existing in these four companies might
have a connection to the nature of innova-
tion the company is involved in, that can
again be a feature of the stage in the life-
cycle of the company or its products, (com-
plexity; internal factor) or the development
speed of the industry (uncertainty, external
factor) or the degree of customization
required (uncertainty; external factor).
• Subcontracting some of their non-core or
ancillary activities is a tactic that innovative
companies use to improve flexibility, but
might be rather a way to free resources to
the innovation activity than innovation
activity itself when non-core activities are
subcontracted; strategic alliances and tem-
porary help in installation are not the same
thing.
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
• Independently of the type of innovation,
there is a tendency to make effective use of
informal communication systems, but the
use or non-use of information technology
seems to rather be a function of how well
the communication can be arranged with-
out it (maybe driven by other organiza-
tional decisions and capabilities, possibly
also by the amount of hierarchical levels).
From further discussion concerning the inter-
nal dynamics between these new organiza-
tional forms, the following can be proposed:
• Customization, as opposed to innovation
originated internally by the management,
might be connected to more orga-
nizational flexibility and more informal
communication.
The study we carried out makes us conclude
that there is a variety of characteristics pro-
posed in the literature as ‘the new forms of
organization’ that can typically be found in
innovative organizations. The case studies
suggest that several of these characteristics
may be more strongly associated with one
type of innovation (product or process),
although this needs to be approached in more
depth in future research. The study also pro-
poses that the customization, listed currently
among these ‘new forms of organization’ may
actually be a contingency factor that drives
organization development decisions.
Among the more important limitations of
our study are those implicit in the actual meth-
odology utilized, which firstly prevents us
from generalizing the results to a population
of companies different from those analysed
and making statements that verify any of the
proposals described above. Thus, they are pro-
posed as theoretical constructs to be studied
further with other research designs. Further-
more, the selection of cases can always be crit-
icized and is at best, even if based on the
theoretical background, difficult to control for
all possible background variables that may
affect the findings; another possible way to
continue after this study would thus be to
duplicate the case study with a sample
selected along the same criteria (Eisenhardt,
1985), for example in another part of the
world, and see if similar connections between
the type of company and between the organi-
zational forms would be found. Lastly, we
acknowledge that the fact that any non-inno-
vative company has been studied prevents us
comparing the features of innovative and non-
innovative companies; thus, we cannot con-
clude in the opposing direction that these new
organizational forms would be in any way
obligatory requirements for innovative capacity.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
Rather, from the variety present already in this
study of four cases we still believe that inno-
vative action can still also take place, in certain
types of companies and businesses, without
the aid of these new organizational forms.
Note
The authors acknowledge the helpful com-
ments and suggestions of Professor Tauno
Kekäle, and the anonymous reviewers. Finan-
cial support for this article was provided by
the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Plan
Nacional de I+D+I (SEC 2003–07741).
References
Audretsch, D.B. and Acs, Z.J. (1991) ‘Innovation
and size at firm level.’ Southern Economic Journal,
27(3), 739–44.
Bayona Sáez, C., García Marco, T. and Huerta
Arribas, E. (2002) ‘Collaboration in R&D with
universities and research centres: an empirical
study of Spanish firms.’ R&D Management, 32(4),
321–41.
Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht, A. (1999) ‘Innovative
output, and a firm’s propensity to patent. An
exploration of CIS micro data.’ Research Policy, 28,
615–24.
Burgelman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986) Inside Cor-
porate Innovation: Strategy, Structure, and Manage-
rial Skills. The Free Press, New York.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) The Management
of Innovation. Tavistock Publications, London.
Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R.,
Segarra-Ciprés, M. and Boronat-Navarro, M.
(2004) ‘A meta-analysis of innovation and orga-
nizational size’, Organization Studies, 25, 331–61.
Chesbrough, H., and Teece, D. (1996) ‘When is
virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation’,
Harvard Business Review, 74, 65–73.
Christensen, C. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma. Har-
vard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cumming, B.S. (1998) ‘Innovation overview and
future challenges.’ European Journal of Innovation
Management, 1(1), 21–9.
Daft, R. and Lengel, R. (1986) ‘Organizational
information requirements, media richness and
structural design’, Management Science, 32, 554–
71.
Daft, R. and Lewin, A. (1993) ‘Where are the theo-
ries of new organizational forms? An editorial
essay’, Organizational Science, 4(4), i–vi.
Damanpour, F. (1988) ‘Innovation type, radicalness,
and the adoption process’, Communication
Research, 15, 545–567.
Damanpour, F. (1991) ‘Organizational innovation:
A meta-analysis of effect of determinants and
moderators’, Academy of Management Journal,
34(3), 555–90.
Damanpour, F. (1996) ‘Organizational complexity
and innovation: Developing and testing multiple
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
285
contingency models’, Management Science, 42,
693–716.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998) ‘The-
ories of organizational structure and innovation
adoption: The role of environmental change’,
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
15, 1–24.
De Oyarzábal, M. (1985) ‘Aspectos generales del
Manual de Frascati.’ Medition de las actividades
científicas y técnicas: En torno al Manual de Frascati.
Cuadernos Universidad-Empresa, no. 21, Fun-
dación Universidad-Empresa.
Denison, D.R. (1997) ‘Toward a process-based
Theory: can organizations be designed around
value chains and networks?’, Advances in Strategic
management, 14, 1–44.
Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986) ‘The adoption
of radical and incremental innovations: an empir-
ical analysis’, Management science, 32(11), 1422–33.
Dougherty, D. (1992) ‘A practice-centered model of
organizational renewal through product innova-
tion’, Strategic Management Journal, 13(Special
Issue), 77–92.
Eisenhardt, K. (1995) ‘Building theories from case
study’. In Huber G. and Van de Ven A. (eds.),
Longitudinal field research methods. Studying pro-
cesses of organizational change. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks CA.
Escorsa, P. and Valls, J. (2000) Tecnología e innovación
en la empresa: Dirección y gestión. Editions UPC,
Barcelona.
Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P. and O’Keefe (1984) ‘Orga-
nization strategy and structural differences for
radical versus incremental innovation’, Manage-
ment Science, 30(6), 682–95.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and
Cantisano Terra, B.R. (2000) ‘The future of the
university and the university of the future:
Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial
paradigm’, Research Policy, 29, 313–30.
Faems, D., Van Looy, B.,Debackere, K. (2005) ‘Inter-
organizational Collaboration and Innovation:
Toward a Portfolio Approach’, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–50.
Fernández, E. and Fernández, Z. (1988) Manual de
dirección estratégica de la tecnología. La producción
como ventaja competitiva. Ariel Economía, Madrid.
Fidler, L. and Johnson, J.D. (1984) ‘Communication
and innovation implementation’. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 704–11.
Gomes, J.F.S., Hurmelinna, P. and Amaral, V. (2004)
‘Managing collaboration of universities and com-
panies – The rules of the game and the game of
the rules’. Paper presented at EURAM 2004, St.
Andrews, 5–8 May.
González, A., Jiménez, J.J., and Sáez, F.J. (1997)
‘Comportamiento innovador de las pequeñas y
medianas empresas.’ Investigaciones Europeas de
Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 3(1), 93–112.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1997)
‘A review of innovation research in economics,
sociology and technology management.’ Omega,
25(1), 15–28.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (2000) ‘The
impact of organizational context on innovation
adoption in commercial banks’, Transactions on
Engineering Management, 47(1), 14–25.
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
286
Green, S.G., Gavin, M.B. and Aiman-Smith, L.
(1995) ‘Assessing a multidimensional measure of
radical technological innovation’, IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203–214.
Guellec, D. (1999) Économie de l’innovation. Éditions
el Découverte, Paris.
Hage, J.T. (1999) ‘Organizational Innovation and
Organizational Change’, Annual Review of Sociol-
ogy, 25, 597–622.
Hagedoorn, J. (1993) ‘Understanding the Rationale
of Strategic Technology Partnering: Interorgani-
zational Modes of Cooperation and Sectorial
Differences’, Strategic Management Journal, 14(5),
371–85.
Hagedoorn, J. (2002) ‘Inter-firm R&D Partnerships:
an overview of major trends and patterns since
1960’, Research Policy, 31(4), 477–92.
Hitt, M., Keats, B. and DeMarie, S. (1998) ‘Navigat-
ing in the new competitive landscape: Building
strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in
the 21st century’, Academy of Management Execu-
tive, 12(4), 22–42.
Hobday, M. (1994) ‘The Limits of Silicon Valley: a
Critique of Network Theory’, Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 6(2), 231–44.
Hotz-Hart, B. (2000) ‘Innovation Networks, Regions
and Globalization’. In Clark, G.L., Feldman M.P.
and Gertler M.S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Economic Geography. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Inkpen, A.C. (2001) ‘Strategic Alliances’. In Oxford
Handbook of International Business. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, Oxford, pp. 402–29.
Johannessen, J-A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G.T.
(2001) ‘Innovation as newness: what is new, how
new, and new to whom?’, European Journal of
Innovation Management, 4(1), 20–31.
Johnson, J. (1990) ‘Effects of communicative factors
on participation in innovations’, The Journal of
Business Communication, 27, 7–23.
Kanter, R.M. (1984) The change masters: Innovation
and entrepreneurship in the American corporation.
Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York.
Kim, L.K. (1980) ‘Organizational innovation and
structure’, Journal of Business Research, 8, 225–
70.
Kimberley, J.R. and Evanisko, M.J. (1981) ‘Organi-
zational innovation: The influence of individual,
organizational, and contextual factors on hospital
adoption of technological and administrative
innovations’, Academy of Management Journal, 24,
689–713.
Langlois, R. and Robertson, P. (1992) ‘Networks and
innovation in a modular system: Lessons from
the microcomputer and stereo component indus-
tries’, Research Policy, 21, 297–313.
Lee, T. (1999) Using Qualitative Methods in Organiza-
tional Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
CA.
Lei, D., Hitt, M. and Goldhar, J. (1996) ‘Advanced
manufacturing technology: organizational design
and strategic flexibility’, Organization Studies, 17,
501–23.
López-Martínez, E., Medellín, E., Scanlon, A.P. and
Solleiro, J.L. (1994) ‘Motivations and obstacles to
university-industry cooperation (UIC): a Mexican
case’, R&D Management, 24(1), 17–31.
Volume 14 Number 3 2005
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Luke, P., Robertson, M., Munir, K. Denyer, D. and
Neely, A. (2004) ‘Networking and Innovation: a
systematic review of the evidence’, International
Journal of Management Review, 5/6(3/4), 137–68.
McMillan, G.S., Narin, F. and Deeds, D.L. (2000) ‘An
analysis of the critical role of public science in
innovation: The case of biotechnology’, Research
Policy, 29, 1–8.
Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978) Organizational Strat-
egy, Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Miles, R., Snow, C., Mathews, J.A., Miles, G. and
Coleman, H. (1997) ‘Organizing in the knowledge
age: Anticipating the cellular form’, Academy of
Management Executive, 11(4), 7–20.
Morcillo Ortega, P. (1997) Dirección estratégica de la
tecnología e innovación. Editorial Civitas S.A.,
Madrid.
Nelson, R.R. and Rosenberg, N. (1993) ‘Technical
innovation and national systems’. In Nelson,
R.R. (ed.) National Innovation Systems. A Com-
parative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New
York.
OECD/Eurostat (1997) Oslo Manual. Proposed Guide-
lines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological
Innovation Data. Head of Publications Service,
OECD, Paris.
Pavitt, K. (1984) ‘Sectorial patterns of technical
change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory’,
Research Policy, 13, 343–73.
Pavón, J. and Goodman, R. (1981) Proyecto MOD-
ELTEC. La planification del desarrollo tecnológico
CDTI-CSIC, Madrid.
Pitt, M. and Clark, K. (1999) ‘Competing on
competence: A knowledge perspective on the
management of strategic innovation’, Technol-
ogy Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(3),
301–16.
Quinn, J.M. (1979) ‘Technological innovation, entre-
preneurship, and strategy’, Sloan Management
Review, 20(3), 19–30.
Ruigrok, W., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S. and Whitting-
ton, R. (1999) ‘Corporate restructuring and new
forms of organizing: Evidence from Europe’,
Management International Review, 39, Special
Issue, 41– 64.
Sanchez, C.M. and McKinley, W. (1998) ‘Environ-
mental regulatory influence and product innova-
tion: The contingency effects of organizational
characteristics’, Journal of Engineering and Technol-
ogy Management, 15, 257–278.
Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (1995) ‘Modularity,
flexibility and knowledge management, in prod-
uct and organization design’. University of Illi-
nois Working Paper 95–0121.
Schilling, M. and Steensma, H.K. (2000) ‘The use of
modular organizational forms: An industry-level
analysis’. Working Paper, Boston University.
Sidro, V. (1988) Gestión tecnológica de la empresa,
Manuales ImpI, no. 21, ImpI, Madrid.
Storey, J. Quintas, P., Taylor, P and Fowle, W. (2002)
‘Flexible employment contracts and their impli-
cations for product and process innovation’ Inter-
national Jpurnal of Human Resource Management,
13(1), 1–18.
Tatikonda, M. and Rosenthal, S. (2000) ‘Successful
execution of product development projects:
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
balancing firmness and flexibility in the innova-
tion process’, Journal of Operation Management, 18,
401–25.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1999) Managing
Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and
Organizational Change. John Wiley & Sons, Chich-
ester.
Tracey, P. and Clark, G.L. (2003) ‘Alliances, Networks
and Competitive Strategy: Rethinking Clusters of
Innovation’ Growth and Change, 34, 1, 1–16.
Tushman, M. (1978) ‘Technical communication in
R&D laboratories: the impact of project work
characteristics’ Academy of Management Journal,
21, 624–45.
Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D.A. (1986) ‘Organizing
for innovation.’ California Management Review,
28(3), 74–92.
Vickery, S., Calantone, R. and Droge, C. (1999)
‘Supply chain flexibility: An empirical study’, The
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Summer, 16–
24.
Volberda, H.W. (1998) Building the Flexible Firm.
Oxford University Press, London.
Von Hippel, E. (1998) ‘Sticky information and the
locus of problem solving: Implications for inno-
vation’. In Chandler Jr., A.D., Hangstrom, P. and
Solvell, O. (eds.), The Dynamic Firm: The Role
of Technology, Strategy, Organization, and Regions.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 60–77.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S. Fenton, E.
and Conyon, M. (1999) ‘Change and complemen-
tarities in the new competitive landscape: A
European panel study, 1992–1996’, Organization
Science, 10(5), 583–600.
Wolfe, R.A. (1994) ‘Organizational innovation:
Review, critique and suggested research direc-
tions’, Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405–
31.
Yamin, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Mavondo, F.T.
(1999) ‘Innovation index and its implications on
organizational performance: A study of Austra-
lian manufacturing companies’, Technology Man-
agement, 17(5), 495–503.
Yang, Y. (2003) ‘Benefits of co-operation on innova-
tive performance: evidence from integrated cir-
cuits and biotechnology firms in the UK and
Taiwan’, R&D Management, 33(4), 425–37.
Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research Design and Meth-
ods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005
287
Zammuto, R. and O’Connor, E.J. (1992) ‘Gain-
ing advanced manufacturing technologies’
benefits: The roles of organization design and
culture’, Academy of Management Review, 17(4),
701–28.
Carmen Cabello-Medina has a PhD in the
field of Business Administration from the
University of Cádiz. Currently, she is Asso-
ciated Professor at the Business Admini-
stration Department of the Pablo de Olavide
University of Sevilla (Spain), and she
teaches Organisational Theory. Her main
research area is the organisational design
and its relationships with the innovation.
She is member of a National Research Project
focused on organisational innovation.
E-mail address for correspondence:
mcabmed@upo.es
Antonio Carmona-Lavado has been at the
Universidad Pablo de Olavide since 1997 as
teacher assistant. He holds a degree in Busi-
ness Administration, and he is currently
finishing the Ph.D. Member of the research
project “Effects of the firm capabilities,
new organizational structure and human
resources architecture on product and pro-
cess innovation,” funded by the Spanish
Ministry of Education.
E-mail address: acarlav@upo.es
Ramón Valle-Cabrera has a PhD in Busi-
ness Administration from Seville Uni-
versity. He is professor at the Business
Administration Department of the Pablo de
Olavide University (Sevilla, Spain). His
main research areas are the Strategic
Human Resource Management and Inno-
vation Management. He is responsible
researcher of a National Research Project on
organisational innovation.
E-mail address for correspondence:
rvalcab@upo.es
Volume 14 Number 3 2005