Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Action research and innovation in networks, dilemmas and challenges: two cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Innovation plays a central role in economic development, at regional and national level. The paper takes a practical approach to innovation and the support of entrepreneurship, based on experience of facilitating two contrasting networks of enterprises. Action research is seen as having a central role, but with different approaches according to the innovation process concerned, and the part of the process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The development of an idea of a process of preparing for innovation has been inspired by the use of the concept of space for training (Botterup 2002).

  2. The concept of “cluster” covers different meanings and phenomenon. The most common understanding of the concept is some sort of geographical defined group of enterprises that co-operates closely in some way or another. So there is in the literature no clean cut between for instance the concepts of “cluster” and “network”. I prefer to use the notion “network” in this paper.

  3. In the personnel’s shift time table there was some time allocated to such events, but still they had to put in leisure time.

  4. The causes for the failure of the restart of the project will not be elaborated in this paper.

  5. That is the case in the Search conference methodology and other available methodologies.

  6. This methodological approached is an approach often used by action researchers at RF. There has been developed a certain method based on the concept of Business Process Reengineering called “Practical Process Innovation”. This method combines the BRP-approach with Norwegian tradition of co-operation in work life (Gandrud et al. 2000).

  7. For examples of network collaborations I have in mind here, see Gustavsen (2001) and Levin and Knutstad (2003).

  8. RF co-operates with a number of networks within the VC2010-program. One of them, The Industry Network in Sunnhordland (IfS), has as a part of the VC2010-program started a project called “Position as lead development officer in SME’s”. Eight SME’s within the network participate in this project. The main target for the project is to develop a new role/function within the enterprises responsible for putting development systematically on the strategic and practical agenda in the enterprises. The program is designed as regard to the need for development skills in SME’s. Considerations done after finishing an evaluation report lead us to the conclusion of what the project had to focus in the final phase of the project; the tension between the structured and the more spontaneous phases in innovation processes. Gandrud et al. (2004) Pilotprosjektet “Utviklingsansvarlig i SMB”, RF 2004/010.

References

  • Botterup P (2002) At skabe rum for læring i arbejdslivet. In: Illeris K (ed) Udspil om læring i arbeidslivet. Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Training Lab, Denmark

  • Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistock

  • Claussen T (2000) Verdiskaping i utviklingskoalisjonen på Sør-Vestlandet, RF-rapport

  • Cooke P (2002) Knowledge economies: clusters, training and co-operative advantage. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Elden M, Levin M (1991) Cogenerative training. Bringing participation into action research. In: Whyte WF (eds) Participatory action research. Sage, Newbury Park

  • Gandrud O, Haga T, Tønnessen T (2000) Prosessforbedring på norsk, Stord, Industrinettverket i Sunnhordland/RF

  • Gandrud O, Haga T, Tønnessen T (2004) Pilotprosjektet ”Utviklingsansvarlig i SMB”, RF-rapport 2004/010

  • Gustavsen B (2001) Theory and practice: the mediating discourse. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood DJ, Levin M (1998) Introduction to action research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Haga T (2003) Framdriftsrapport “Skiftet i sentrum- støperiet”, Unpublished report RF

  • Hammer M, Champy J (1993) Reengineering the corporation. London

  • Hobek J (1988) The innovation design dilemma: some notes on its relevance and solution. In: Grønhaug K, Kaufmann G (eds) Innovation: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Universitetsforlaget

  • Imai M (1986) Kaizen. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa K (1982) Guide to quality control? Nordica International

  • Ishikawa K (1985) What is total quality control? Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Juran JM (1954) Universals in management planning and controlling. The Management Review, (November)

  • Juran JM (1988) Juran’s quality control handbook. , New York

  • Juran JM (1992) Juran on quality by design. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Juran JM (1995/1964) Managerial breakthrough: the classic book on improving management performance (Revised edition)

  • Kemmis S (2001) Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin M, Knutstad G (2003) Construction of training networks—vanity fair or realistic opportunities? In: Systemic practice and action research, vol 6, No. 1

  • Pinchot G (1985) Intrapreneuring. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter M (1990a) The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter M (1990b) The competitive advantage of nations. In: Harvard Business Review

  • Reve T et al (1992) Et konkurransedyktig Norge. Tano, Oslo

  • Reve T et al (1995) Internasjonalt konkurransedyktige bedrifter. Tano og Norges eksportråd, Oslo

  • Reve T, Jacobsen EW (2001) Et verdiskapende Norge, Universitetsforlaget

  • Schumpeter J (1934) The theory of economic development

  • Sfraffa P (1979) Production of commodities by means of commodities. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg R (ed) (2000) Entrepreneurship—social science view. Fagbokforlaget

  • West MA, Rickards T (1999) Innovation, encyclopedia of creativity, vol 2

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rogaland Research, P. O. Box 784, 5405, Stord, Norway

    Trond Haga

Authors
  1. Trond Haga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trond Haga.

Additional information

This article is written based on experiences from the R&D-programme “Value Creation 2010” (VC2010) in Norway. The programme is funded by the Norwegian Research Council and has a ten year perspective. The main target for the program is to support enterprise development through partnerships and networks. The paper is a result of the work done by the VC2010 research group at Rogaland Research (RF).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haga, T. Action research and innovation in networks, dilemmas and challenges: two cases. AI & Soc 19, 362–383 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0327-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0327-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation