We explore how the literature on business models can explain the outcomes of innovation attempts in the public sector. Our findings suggest that governments can access a well-developed knowledge domain for a public sector area but have a weak ability to propagate its value for society. Drawing on the business model literature concerning interdependence and distributed agency, we illustrate how a collective action problem related to innovation may arise in the public sector. We illustrate this new category of public innovation challenge with the (failed) case of the Swedish civil contingencies system and subsequently discuss a new line of inquiry for future research.

Companies increasingly seek to foster collaborative innovation through the design of innovation spaces such as incubators, accelerators, studios, and fab labs. Innovation spaces bring together multiple actors for collaborative practices to generate new products and processes. Despite their growing popularity, many innovation spaces fail to deliver on their promises and are subsequently shut down. How can innovation spaces foster effective collaborative innovation? This article illustrates the role of space and boundary objects to facilitate collaborative innovation. Based on illustrative examples from the context of business studios, the findings show that innovation spaces enable the four affordances of convergence, generativity, socialization, and collaborative learning. Managers who design and run innovation spaces need to leverage these affordances to propel collaborative innovation.

It is well established that engaging paradoxes and the role of space are important aspects of idea work. Although the significance has been recognized, studies that focus on the intersection between space and paradox are scarce. Accordingly, this article explores the intersection and focuses on the role of space in idea work characterized by paradoxes. More specifically, the aim of this article is twofold. First, the article aims at identifying the spatial conditions that enable organization members to think and act paradoxically. Second, the article aims at exploring how spatial conditions evoke a paradoxical way of thinking and doing. Based on three Scandinavian architectural firms, and through abductive inference, four spatial conditions are identified and outlined. The conditions are conceptualized as organized chaos, boundary(less)ness, premeditated spontaneity, and (re)framing. From the results, and through the discussion, the notion of "generative space" is introduced to explain the overall importance of spatiality, as well as how the interrelatedness of the conditions facilitates a paradoxical way of thinking and doing in idea work.

The literature on disruptive innovation has convincingly explained why many established firms encounter problems under conditions of discontinuous change. Incumbents fail to invest in new technologies that are not demanded by their existing customers. This argument is grounded in resource dependency theory and the associated assumption that existing customers control a firm's internal resource allocation processes. While the problem of disruptive innovation has been convincingly explained, there is still a need for managerial solutions. We argue that a key reason why such solutions are lacking can be found in the asymmetric assumptions made in the original theory of disruptive innovation. Specifically, we identify two related forms of asymmetry. First, the focal (incumbent) firm is treated as a collection of heterogeneous actors with different preferences, incentives and competencies, whereas firms in the surrounding environment are treated as if they contained no such heterogeneity. Second, the theory of disruptive innovation describes incumbents as controlled by their environment, but has failed to recognize that the environment can also be influenced. In this paper we argue that a more symmetric theory of disruptive innovation - i.e. one that treats all similar entities in the same way - opens up for a range of interesting managerial solutions. 

This paper explores how certain incumbent characteristics influence an established firm’s response to disruptive innovation. More specifically, it looks at the challenges a middle size, top segment company faced and how this affected its reaction to the disruptive threat. This is done by conducting an in-depth case study of Hasselblad, a manufacturer of professional cameras. It can be seen in this case study that Hasselblad’s limited resources and its niche strategy affected how it managed the transition from analogue to digital camera technology. These characteristics made it difficult to allow experimentation with digital imaging in the main business since the available resources were severely limited and this initially inferior technology could harm the brand image. Instead, Hasselblad pursued collaborations and eventually launched a hybrid camera, which was compatible both with film and digital backs but did not become the expected success. Being close to bankruptcy, the digital resources needed were acquired and the company eventually survived the disruption. In conclusion, this paper argues that the managerial challenges and solutions to the innovator’s dilemma depend upon the particular characteristics of incumbents and that this heterogeneity has not been sufficiently captured by previous literature. It also suggests that medium size, top segment firms can survive disruptive innovation through collaboration and acquisitions.