Abstract
Every innovation model is both a strategy and a detour from another strategy. In this chapter, the answer to our questions (which strategy? which detour?) is based on utility. Which works best is the real question. We consider the alternatives in alphabetical order, closing with the unique contribution of paired constraints to solving the innovation problem.
The question is: which strategy?
Pat
The question is: which detour?
Michael
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Between things is the atmosphere or as Monet called it, the envelope (see Preface).
- 2.
See Pat’s problem space for Starbucks in Chap. 7.
- 3.
Perhaps due to the intuitive appeal of the idea that similarity increases with common, and decreases with distinctive, features, it has served as the basis for key frameworks like strategic relatedness, taxonomies such as the Standard Industry Classification system and patent classification systems such as the International Patent Classification. For example, IPC category F02 (combustion engines) contains internal-combustion piston engines, gas-turbine plants, jet-propulsion plants, and so on.
References
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 887–907.
Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Duggan, W. (2007). Strategic intuition: The creative spark in human achievement. New York, NY: Columbia Business School Publishing.
Eagleman, D., & Brandt, A. (2017). The runaway species: How human creativity remakes the world. New York, NY: Catapult.
Froehlich, J., Gibbert, M., & Hoegel, M. (2014). Thematic thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press.
Garud, R., & Karnow, P. (2002). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 277–300.
Gupta, A., Hoopes, D. G., & Knott, A. M. (2015). Redesigning routines for replication. Strategic Management, 36, 851–871.
Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: How a group of hackers, geeks, and geniuses created the digital revolution. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Liedtka, J., King, A., & Bennett, K. (2013). Solving problems with design thinking: Ten stories of what works. New York, NY: Columbia Business School Publishing.
Stokes, P. D. (2006). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. New York, NY: Springer.
Valikangas, L., & Gibbert, M. (2005). Boundary-setting strategies for escaping innovation traps. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 58–65.
Young, J. W. (1940). A technique for producing ideas. Lincolnwood, IL.: National Textbook Co.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stokes, P.D., Gibbert, M. (2020). Evaluating Usefulness: Other Models and Ours. In: Using Paired Constraints to Solve The Innovation Problem. Edizioni della Normale, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25771-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25771-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Edizioni della Normale, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25770-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25771-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)