Short answer
If radical or modular innovation is a goal, consider how standardization efforts might need to be structured differently or complemented by other strategies that encourage exploration of less codified knowledge.
- Field
- Innovation & Design
- Source
- Technovation (2015)
- Method
- Inductive Case Study
- Evidence
- Moderate effect
When a company prioritizes standardization, especially with highly codified knowledge, it tends to foster incremental and architectural innovations while suppressing modular and radical ones. This innovation & design research insight is drawn from a 2015 study published in Technovation. Using Inductive case study, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: If radical or modular innovation is a goal, consider how standardization efforts might need to be structured differently or complemented by other strategies that encourage exploration of less codified knowledge.
Standardization efforts can hinder radical innovation by favoring codified knowledge.
When a company prioritizes standardization, especially with highly codified knowledge, it tends to foster incremental and architectural innovations while suppressing modular and radical ones.
Technovation · 2015
Key Findings
- 01Highly codified knowledge in standardization efforts fosters incremental and architectural innovation.
- 02Highly codified knowledge in standardization efforts hinders modular and radical innovation.
- 03Different degrees of knowledge complexity and codification lead to four types of knowledge search processes (active, integrative, decentralized, passive).
- 04These search processes result in four types of innovation outcomes (modular, radical, incremental, architectural).
Application
Design takeaway
If radical or modular innovation is a goal, consider how standardization efforts might need to be structured differently or complemented by other strategies that encourage exploration of less codified knowledge.
How to apply
Before implementing broad standardization initiatives, analyze the nature of the knowledge involved and assess the potential impact on the desired innovation outcomes. Consider creating parallel processes for exploring more radical ideas.
Project actions
- 01When researching a product, consider if its design is heavily standardized and how that might affect its potential for future innovation.
- 02If your design project aims for a breakthrough, think about how to avoid over-standardization early on.
Method & Evidence
Variables
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
- +Provides a typology of search processes and innovation outcomes.
- +Uses a real-world case study for practical insights.
Limitations
This study is based on one company, so the results might not apply to all businesses.
Reliability & validity
The inductive case study approach provides rich qualitative data but may have limited generalizability. Further quantitative studies or cross-case analyses would be needed to establish stronger reliability and validity.
Think critically
To what extent can a company truly achieve both radical innovation and widespread standardization simultaneously, and what organizational structures or strategies might be necessary to bridge this gap?
Design Principles
"The degree of knowledge codification within a standardization strategy directly influences the type of innovation that is likely to emerge."
Understanding this relationship is crucial for design teams aiming to balance the benefits of standardization with the need for disruptive innovation. It highlights a potential trade-off that needs careful consideration during the early stages of product development and strategic planning.
What This Means for Your Design
Trying to make everything standard can make it harder to invent something totally new.
How to use in your project
- 1.Reference this study when discussing how design choices, like standardization, can influence the type of innovation achieved in your design project.
Add to My Project
Quick Cite
Paragraph starter
The research by Xie et al. (2015) suggests that a strong focus on standardization, particularly with easily documented knowledge, can inadvertently limit the potential for radical and modular innovation, favoring instead incremental and architectural changes. This implies that design teams aiming for breakthrough innovations must carefully consider how standardization efforts are implemented to avoid stifling creativity.
Source
Technovation
Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes
journal · 2015
View sourceQuestions About This Research
- What does the research say about standardization efforts can hinder radical innovation by favoring codified knowledge?
- If radical or modular innovation is a goal, consider how standardization efforts might need to be structured differently or complemented by other strategies that encourage exploration of less codified knowledge. Evidence: Technovation (2015).
- Why does "Standardization efforts can hinder radical innovation by favoring codified knowledge." matter for design?
- Understanding this relationship is crucial for design teams aiming to balance the benefits of standardization with the need for disruptive innovation. It highlights a potential trade-off that needs careful consideration during the early stages of product development and strategic planning.
- How can designers apply this research?
- If radical or modular innovation is a goal, consider how standardization efforts might need to be structured differently or complemented by other strategies that encourage exploration of less codified knowledge.
- What were the main findings?
- Highly codified knowledge in standardization efforts fosters incremental and architectural innovation.. Highly codified knowledge in standardization efforts hinders modular and radical innovation.. Different degrees of knowledge complexity and codification lead to four types of knowledge search processes (active, integrative, decentralized, passive).. These search processes result in four types of innovation outcomes (modular, radical, incremental, architectural).
- What research method was used?
- Inductive Case Study.
- How strong is the evidence?
- Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2015 journal from Technovation.
- What should I do differently in my next project?
- Before implementing broad standardization initiatives, analyze the nature of the knowledge involved and assess the potential impact on the desired innovation outcomes. Consider creating parallel processes for exploring more radical ideas.
- What are the limitations?
- The findings are based on a single case study in the property development sector and may not be universally applicable across all industries or organizational contexts.