Innovative Organizations: Structure, Learning and Adaptation 創新組織：結構，學習和 適應

Innovative Organizations: Structure, Learning and Adaptation 創新組織：結構，學習和 適應


Innovation is an important source of growth and a key determinant of competitive advantage for many organizations. Achieving innovation requires the coordinated efforts of many different actors and the integration of activities across specialist functions, knowledge domains and contexts of application. Thus, organizational creation is fundamental to the process of innovation (Van de Ven et al 1999). The ability of an
organization to innovate is a pre-condition for the successful utilization of inventive resources and new technologies. Conversely, the introduction of new technology often presents complex opportunities and
challenges for organizations, leading to changes in managerial practices and the emergence of new organizational forms. Organizational and technological innovations are intertwined. Schumpeter (1950) saw
organizational changes, alongside new products and processes, as well as new markets as factors of ‘creative destruction’

創新是增長和競爭優勢的關鍵因素對於許多組織的一個重要來源。

實現創新需要許多不同的行為者和跨專業職能，知識領域和應用背景下下的整合活動的協調努力。

因此，組織創立是根本，以創新的過程中 (Van de Ven et al 1999)。

組織創新的能力是一個創造性的資源和新技術的成功運用的前提條件。

相反，新技術的引進往往呈現複雜的機遇和挑戰的組織，導致在管理實踐中的變化和出現的新的組織形式。組織創新和技術創新相互交織。熊彼特（1950）看到了組織的變化，以及新產品和新流程，以及新的市場因素的“創造性毀滅”

Extant literature on organizational innovation is very diverse and can be broadly classified into three streams. Organizational design theories focus predominantly on the link between structural forms and the propensity of an organization to innovate (e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979). The unit of analysis is the organization and the main research aim is to identify the structural characteristics of an innovative organization, or to determine the effects of organizational structural variables on
product and process innovation. Theories of organizational cognition and learning (Glynn, 1996; Bartel and Garud, 2009), by contrast, emphasise the cognitive foundations of organizational innovation which is seen to
relate to the learning and organizational knowledge creation process (Agyris and Schon, 1978; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). This strand of work provides a micro-lens for understanding the capacity of organizations to create and exploit new knowledge necessary
for innovative activities. A third strand of research concerns organizational change and adaptation, and the processes underlying the creation of new organizational forms (Lewin and Volberda, 1999). Its main focus
is to understand whether organizations can adapt in the face of radical environmental shifts and technological change. In this context, innovation is considered as a capacity to respond to changes in the external
environment, and to influence and shape it (Burgleman, 1991; 2002; Child, 1997; Teece, 2007).

現存文獻對組織創新是非常多樣的，大致可分為三個數據流。

組織設計理論主要專注於結構形式之間的聯繫和組織創新的傾向(e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979)。

分析單位的組織和研究的主要目的是要找出一個創新的組織結構特點，或確定產品和工藝創新的組織結構變量的影響。

與此相反，強調理論的認知和學習組織 (Glynn, 1996; Bartel and Garud, 2009)，涉及到學習和組織的知識創造過程（1978年Agyris和舍恩，這被看作組織創新的認知基礎; Nonaka和竹，1995; Nonaka和馮·克羅，2009）。

這股工作提供了一個微透鏡理解組織的能力，以創造和開拓新的知識創新活動所必需的。

第三鏈的研究涉及組織變革和適應，以及創造新的組織形式（Lewin和Volberda1999）背後的過程。

它的主要焦點是了解組織是否能適應在面對激進的環境變化和技術變化。在此背景下，創新被視為在外部環境的變化作出反應的能力，以及影響和塑造 (Burgleman, 1991; 2002; Child, 1997; Teece, 2007)。


This chapter examines the nature of innovative organizations and the relationship between organizing and innovating from these three perspectives. Section two will draw on organizational design theories and
work in the field of strategy to examine the relationship between organizational structure and innovativeness. The third section looks at the micro-level process of organizational learning and knowledge creation. It argues that organizations with different structural forms vary in their patterns of learning and knowledge creation, engendering different types of innovative capabilities. This will be followed by an analysis of organizational adaptation and the contemporary challenges facing firms in pursuing ‘organizational
ambidexterity’ for sustaining innovation. The final section draws some general conclusions from the analysis and highlights the gaps in the existing literature and areas for future research.

本章探討創新的組織和組織之間的關係，這三種觀點和創新的性質。

第二節將借鑒組織設計理論，並在該領域的策略研究組織結構和創新之間的關係。

第三部分著眼於微觀層面的組織學習和知識創造的過程。

它認為，組織不同的結構形式不同，他們的學習和知識創造的模式，產生不同類型的創新能力。

這之後，將通過分析組織的適應和當代面臨的挑戰，企業追求持續創新“組織雙手同利”。

最後一節吸引了一些一般性結論的分析，並強調在現有的文獻和未來研究領域的空白。



2. Organizational Structure and Innovation
2.1. Structural archetypes and innovativeness

2。組織結構和創新
2.1。結構原型和創新

The classical theory of organizational design was marked by a preoccupation with universal forms and the idea of ‘one best way to organise’. The work of Weber (1947) on the bureaucracy and of Chandler (1962) on the multidivisional form, was most influential. The assumption of ‘one best way’ was, however, challenged by research carried out during the 1960s and 1970s under the rubric of contingency theory which explains the diversity of organizational forms and their variations with reference to the demands of context. Contingency theory argues that the most ‘appropriate structure’ for an organization is the one that best fits a given operating contingency, such as scale of operation (Blau, 1970), technology (Woodward, 1965; Perrow, 1970) or environment (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). This strand
of research and theory underpins our understanding of the relationships between the nature of the task and technological environments, structure and performance. Some of the studies deal specifically with
the question of how structure is related to innovation.

組織設計的古典理論的特點是由全神貫注普遍形式和“一個最好的方式來組織”的理念。韋伯（1947年）的工作的官僚主義和錢德勒（1962）事業部的形式，是最有影響力的。 “一個最好的辦法”的假設，然而，挑戰的緊急應變組織形式的多樣性及其變化的理論解釋，參照背景下的需求的名義下，在20世紀60年代和70年代進行的研究。權變理論認為，最適當的結構組織是一個最適合給定的工作緊急應變，如經營規模（布勞，1970），技術（伍德沃德，1965年，佩羅，1970）或環境（伯恩斯潛行者，1961年，1967年勞倫斯和勞什）。這股研究和理論支撐我們的任務和技術環境的性質，結構和性能之間的關係的理解。一些研究專門處理與結構是如何創新的問題。

Burns and Stalker’s (1961) polar typologies of ‘mechanistic’ and ‘organic’ organizations (see Box 1) demonstrate how the differences in technological and market environment, in terms of their rate of
change and complexity, affect organizational structures and innovation management. Their study found that firms could be grouped into one of the two main types: the former more rigid and hierarchical, suited to stable conditions; and the latter, a more fluid set of arrangements, adapting to conditions of rapid change and innovation. Neither type is inherently right or wrong, but the firm’s environment is the contingency that
prompts a structural response. Related is the work of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) on principles of organizational differentiation and integration and how they adapt to different environmental conditions, including the market -- technical-economic and the scientific sub-environments, of different industries. Whereas Burns and Stalker treat an organization as an undifferentiated whole that is either mechanistic or organic, Lawrence and Lorsch recognize that mechanistic and organic structures can co-exist in different parts of the same organization owing to the different demands of the functional sub-environments. The
work of these earlier authors had a profound impact on organizational theory and provided useful design guidelines for innovation management. Burns and Stalker’s model remains highly relevant for our understanding of the contemporary challenges facing many organizations in their attempts to move
away from the mechanistic towards the organic form of organizing, as innovation becomes more important and the pace of environmental change accelerates. Lawrence and Lorsch’s suggestion that mechanistic
and organic structures can coexist is reflected in the contemporary debate about the importance of developing hybrid modes of organizations—‘ambidextrous organizations’—that are capable of coping
with both evolutionary and revolutionary technological changes (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; 2008; Tushman et al., 2010; see section 4).

伯恩斯和追獵者的（1961）極性類型學'機械'和'有機'組織（見專欄1）演示了如何在技術和市場環境的差異，在其速率的變化和複雜性，影響組織結構和創新管理。

他們的研究發現，企業可分為兩種主要類型：前者更嚴格的層次，適合於穩定的條件;而後者更流暢的一套安排，適應迅速變化和創新的條件之一。

兩種類型本質上是對還是錯，但公司的環境應急提示結構性響應。

 相關組織的分化和整合的原則，以及他們是如何適應不同的環境條件，包括市場 - 經濟技術和科學的環境，不同的行業，是勞倫斯和洛爾施（1967）的工作。而伯恩斯和潛行者把一個組織作為一種無差別的整體，要么是機械的或有機的，勞倫斯和勞什認識到，機械和有機結構可以共存於同一組織由於功能的子環境的不同需求的不同部位。

而伯恩斯和潛行者把一個組織作為一種未分化的的整體，要么是機械的或有機的，勞倫斯和勞什認識到，機械和有機結構可以共存於同一組織由於功能的子環境的不同需求的不同部位。

這些早期的作者的工作對組織理論產生了深遠影響，創新管理提供有用的設計準則。

伯恩斯和追獵者的模式仍然為我們理解當代面臨的挑戰，許多組織在他們的企圖擺脫機械對有機組織形式，創新變得更加重要和環境變化的步伐加快，具有很強的針對性。

勞倫斯和勞什機械和有機結構的建議，即可以共存的當代辯論關於發展組織靈巧的混合模式能夠應對與進化的和革命性的技術變化 (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; 2008; Tushman et al., 2010; see section 4)。