¶ … Corporate Innovation Chapters 8, 9 and 10 in Robert Burgelman's book help answer one of the questions posed for this assignment: "How do you resolve the apparent conflict between innovation as abandonment and strategy as persistence?"

Burgelman points out (151) that some big corporations seem to cling to highly conservative goals such as "minimal fluctuation, stability, and predictability" - which explains why the U.S. automobile industry was sluggish back in the 1970s and 1980s when it came to innovations. And because of that recalcitrance, the auto industry (123) was subsequently forced into change by the stunning success the Japanese auto industry's more efficient cars achieved.

To avoid those kinds of corporate hindrances, Burgelman suggests a "new-venture division" (NVD) should be part of corporate strategy. And so, within the structure of a visionary company, one should expect to see "two structures and associated cultures" (125): one, for existing technologies and a second for innovative "about-to-be-born" new products and the attendant technologies.

If one buys into that idea (of two separate divisions within a company), then one begins to answer the question at the top of the page, because there should be no "conflict" in a desperate or dramatic way, the kind of conflict that tears companies apart, simply because innovating doesn't mean a business is abandoning the old way entirely, it just implies that the business has decided to move forward with the necessary new ideas.

Yet, as Burgelman explains (126-127), there will exist, of necessity, some conflict between the two divisions ("By definition, new ventures are volatile..."), though that built-in conflict need not be debilitating to corporate momentum. If the NVD appears to want to "gain control" over the development of new product, "astute negotiating will be required," Burgelman offers. In other words, both divisions are going...

But without risk, what can a company expect to accomplish in this highly competitive 2004 global marketplace?
The Australian economist Joseph Schumpeter says that innovation requires the "creative destruction of the past" and the "planned abandonment of historical activities" in order to "grasp the future." But that sounds a bit too radical and bridge-burning to really fit into the context of accepting the need to innovate and progress and compete.

On page 138, for example, it the manager hired to head the NVD understands the critical need to "double link-up" (pulling together the "new technical knowledge" and matching that knowledge with the "market need"), and if the NVD manager also understands "the business side of the corporation," there should be no sense of "creative destruction" or "planned…