Spaces of innovation: experiences from two small high‐tech firms

Abstract

Purpose By comparing two small high-tech firms specializing in medical technology this article seeks to answer the following questions: What are the key characteristics of innovation processes in the case firms? How do the mutual relationships between mental, social and physical spaces explain the different pathways in the innovation processes in the firms? Methodology One case is based on an in-depth study conducted by the authors. Regarding the other case, a secondary analysis is conducted of a case described in the literature. Both cases apply several data sources. The case firms are comparable in their most crucial aspects (field, main product, geographical location, joint learning space in the start-up phase). Findings The firms have many similar features. The study, however, draws attention to the factors that have made them substantially different as contexts of innovation activities. The differences are interpreted through the concepts of physical, social and mental space. Special attention is paid to the tightness/permeability of boundaries circumscribing spaces and to how this condition supports/inhibits cooperation between different occupational groups in the product planning process. Tightness of boundaries is not unambiguously a good or a bad thing but permeable boundaries are needed when a mix of different knowledge bases is vital. Limitations The focus remains within the firms. Innovation activities extend also beyond the borders of the organization. Originality The study highlights the potential of the concept of space in an empirical comparative setting for studying organizational prerequisites for innovation processes and related learning and cooperation. Practical implications Management should be aware of the productive and counterproductive effects of spaces and the means to influence their shaping.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.