A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation

By Nelson P. Repenning. Organ. Sci., 2002

387 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The history of management practice is filled with innovations that failed to live up to the promise suggested by their early success. A paradox currently facing organizational theory is that the failure of these innovations often cannot be attributed to an intrinsic lack of efficacy. To resolve this paradox, in this paper I study the process ofinnovation implementation. Working from existing theoretical frameworks, I synthesize a model that describes the process through which participants in an organization develop commitment to using a newly adopted innovation. I then translate that framework into a formal model and analyze it using computer simulation. The analysis suggests three new constructs--reversion, regeneration, and the motivation threshold--characterizing the dynamics of implementation. Taken together, the constructs provide an internally consistent theory of how seemingly rational decision rules can create the apparent paradox of innovations that generate early results but fail to produce sustained benefit.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1fe33e20bdb94e77774a42d5be3dbe7aecca53ca

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement (2002, methodology): “Similarly, recent field studies explicitly considering feedback confirm the complexity of the dynamics that emerge from efforts to implement improvement techniques (Sterman, Repenning, and Kofman, 1997; Keating and Oliva, 2000; Repenning, 2002).”
Mapping the benefits and costs associated with process innovation: The case of RFID adoption (2011, background): “One reason for this approach is that the focus of implementation studies tends to be on identifying “success factors” associated with effective implementation rather than on identifying what “success” represents (Klein and Sorra, 1996; Linton, 2002; Meyer et al., 1999; Repenning, 2002).”
Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations (2008, methodology): “This approach has been used to study operational or organizational improvement (Repenning and Sterman, 2002; Sterman, Repenning and Kofman, 1997), innovation implementation (Repenning, 2002), and product development (Ford and Sterman, 1998; 2003a; 2003b).”
Developing Theory Through Simulation Methods (2007, neutral): “System dynamics Sastry (1997), Sterman, Repenning, & Kofman (1997), Repenning (2002), Rudolph & Repenning (2002) Behavior of a system with complex causality and timing What conditions create system instability?”
Innovation Implementation (2005, background): “Thus, even the most beneficial inno vation is likely to result in poorer team and/or organizational performance in the short run, as Repenning and Sterman (2002)”
The Strategic Management of Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research (2011, neutral): “Consequently, there have been repeated calls to study the implementation of innovation (Klein and Sorra 1996; Repenning 2002), however our analysis suggests that few studies have addressed this issue, such that important questions remain unanswered.”
Service innovation implementation: a systematic review and research agenda (2020, background): “…al. (2010); Choi and Chang (2009); McAdam et al. (2010); Sawang and Unsworth (2011); Choi et al. (2011) Ford (2009); Hanson (1995); Mohamed (1995); Repenning (2002); West (2002); Abernethy and Bouwens (2005); Atun et al. (2007); Bondarouk and Ruël (2008); Ensminger and Surry (2008); Lin and…”
Simulation modeling in organizational and management research (2007, background): “Repenning (2002) examined organizational implementation of innovations by modeling the process whereby participants collectively develop commitment to newly adopted innovations.”
Means versus Ends in Opaque Institutional Fields: Trading off Compliance and Achievement in Sustainability Standard Adoption (2014, background): “While it is a truism to say that complex, wicked problems do not have easy solutions, it is remarkable that scholars and practitioners have paid so little attention to the means-ends 13 Field studies could draw on the following methods: system dynamic modeling (Repenning, 2002; Sterman, 2000) to cap”
The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing (2007, positive): “We extend the simulation work by March (1991) and model firms as adaptive agents existing in networks of alliance relations through which firms can exchange resources and learn from past interactions (Repenning 2002, Sorenson 2003).”
Where Do Creative Interactions Come From? The Role of Tie Content and Social Networks (2011, background): “The argument behind this test is that if reverse causality is significant, the relationships between predictor variables and dyadic creativity would be greater for older ties owing to the reinforcing loop between the predictor variable and creative outcomes (Repenning 2002).”