Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Automation-driven innovation management? Toward

Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle
Piotr Tomasz Makowski a, *, Yuya Kajikawa b, c
a
Department of Entrepreneurship and Management Systems, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, Szturmowa 1-3, 02-678 Warsaw, Poland
b
Department of Innovation Science, School of Environment & Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 108-0023, Japan
c
Institute for Future Initiatives, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Tokyo, 113-8654, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is a resurging interest in automation because of rapid progress of machine learning and AI. In our
Innovation perspective, innovation is not an exemption from their expansion. This situation gives us an opportunity to
Automation of innovation reflect on a direction of future innovation studies. In this conceptual paper, we propose a framework of inno­
Unit process
vation process by exploiting the concept of unit process. Deploying it in the context of automation, we indicate
Innovation-automation-strategy cycle
the important aspects of innovation process, i.e. human, organizational, and social factors. We also highlight the
cognitive and interactive underpinnings at micro- and macro-levels of the process. We propose to embrace all
those factors in what we call Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle (IAS). Implications of IAS for future research
are also put forward.

1. Introduction longer the domain of human programmers (Microsoft’s program Deep­

Coder can learn itself how to program (Balog et al., 2016)). Machine
Emergent technologies have an impact on existing organizational learning and deep learning is now being catalyzed by better under­
practice, processes and strategy, and empower or degrade those. They standing of how to deal with big data (uncertainty modeling, ensemble
also surge those to transform into entirely new forms and also influence learning, etc.) (Sejnowski 2018). Quantum information science (Ladd
end users and society. When management practice and strategy suitably et al., 2010) is now gaining an experimental realization and claims
respond to available technologies and fully use them, they contribute to quantum advantage (Arute et al., 2019). The research on AI has now
further diffusive development of new technologies in a way that can be moved from ‘black box’ characteristics, entering—as XAI (Explainable
highly profitable not only for business and organizations, but also for AI)—the stage of interpretability (Rai 2020; Gill and Hall 2018).
society. Large-scale development, implementation and improved understanding
Especially, contemporary development of AI has tremendous impact of AI will surely affect the innovation curve (so called Moore’s Law (Grier
on how we understand innovations. Its standard picture, involving 2006)).
highlighted role of innovative and creative individual managers and Those and other related achievements caused that automation—a
entrepreneurs has been changing due to the societal changes resulting broad use of emergent technologies and the AI to make the functioning
from the increased use of technology. It has moved automation—the use of business and organizational processes more efficient—became a
of technology in various dimensions of human life that makes them more standard in many areas. AI not only takes routine jobs (Frey and Osborne
efficient with decreased human assistance—beyond previously known 2017; Frey 2019), but when it is designed as augmentation or AI-human
borders. And advancement in the AI is one of the main reasons of this collaboration (Raisch and Krakowski 2020), it can boost performance by
situation. three times in comparison to the abilities of mere computerization
Although the question of machines thinking and acting like humans (Wilson and Daugherty 2018). Despite some challenges related to AI
is not new (Turing 1950; Lake et al., 2016), it can be perceived as one of ethics (Hagendorff 2020; Jobin et al., 2019), recent accomplishments in
the current grand societal challenges (George et al., 2016). Reasoning is robotics, computer vision, face detection, speech recognition, natural
no longer the domain of humans (Bottou 2014). Programming is no language processing and the like display possibilities of their growing

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pmakowski@wz.uw.edu.pl (P.T. Makowski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120723
Received 13 March 2020; Received in revised form 1 March 2021; Accepted 3 March 2021
Available online 21 March 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

success in tech industry. All these automation-related phenomena transition or change management, and others that could make this list
change the role of technology in the context of managerial practice, so much longer, have definitely facilitated our understanding of innovation
they also redraw the picture of managing innovations. Thanks to the process. If we have enough knowledge on innovation and innovation
increased automation, the question of innovation management goes process, it appears straightforward to consider innovation as a process
beyond known problems such as: internal vs. external sources of inno­ that can be automated to a significant degree one the basis of socially
vation or social pull vs. technology push (Di Stefano et al., 2012). available resources. However, it seems that pieces of extant achieve­
Various technological, organizational and societal phenomena give ments are scattered in an unstructured manner. This situation calls for a
reasons for the above stipulation—from the expansion of AI and new more systematic approach.
technologies (machine learning, deep learning, programmable agents,
etc.) to the growing awareness of the social role of innovations (‘inno­ 2.1. The analogy
vation prone’ society, sustainable innovation, innovation-driven eco­
nomic and societal growth). In this light, our concern is how the Historical development of chemical engineering may serve as a good
accumulated expertise in innovation studies can contribute to realiza­ starting point. Now, most of chemicals include nanomaterials are
tion of innovation and accelerate innovation process like or by utilizing manufactured by chemical plants where most of operations are auto­
emergent AI technologies. mated, and plants themselves are designed with the support of a variety
of tools like computer-aided design, computational fluid dynamics, ki­
2. Unit process and integrated framework of innovation netic modeling, and process simulation. But it does not mean that such
process—toward automation of innovation process an automation and computational supports are enabled at the beginning
of chemical industry. Before chemical engineering was established,
The aim of this paper is two-fold: we discuss the possibility of operational know-how of production was related with each material and
automation of innovation process in organization and present a not structured. This appears to be instructive when it comes to the state-
perspective on the role of innovation studies that draws systematic of-the-art in innovation studies. Currently, we have many reports on
consequences of automation. As for the first, our hypothesis is that given each innovation which add incremental value to continuous efforts to
the current success and omnipresence of technology there are reasons to understand innovation, but they are still highly unstructured. In
perceive the societal process of innovation as highly automatized. As for consequence, they do not significantly improve the big picture of in­
the second, to draw actionable consequences of this idea we propose to novations we may have.
reconsider the character and role of innovation management and inno­ In chemical engineering, the breakthrough started with the invention
vation studies in a new perspective. On our view, current knowledge in of the concept of ‘unit process’, which enables detailed quest from input
these areas is developed enough to be examined in what we call the to output in each process and modeling (Groggins 1938). If we can un­
Innovation-Automation-Strategy (IAS) cycle. To obtain suitable context dertake similar endeavor in innovation studies, we can not only obtain a
for the IAS cycle, we first introduce integrated framework for the process deeper understanding of what innovation process is but also integrate
of innovation. and organize existing pieces of knowledge, model innovation process,
In their seminal contribution, Frey and Osborne (2017) analyzed the and finally—develop the conceptual and empirical equipment for the
impact of machine learning and robotics on labor market. According to idea of automation of innovation.
their analysis, bottleneck of computerization of labor includes creative
and social intelligence, which is highly related to innovation. Even
2.2. Unit process of innovation
though they are hard to replace by these emergent technologies, it is
helpful and even constructive, we think, to pursue a way where inno­
Our understanding of the unit process of innovation builds on the
vation can be replaced or at least supported by those, which means
ideas of lifecycle of innovation and the process of innovation which have
automation of innovation or semi-automation of innovation. Innovation
various accounts in the literature (Tao et al., 2010; Van de Ven 1986;
studies are not an exemption. We are now at a turning point to reflect on
Utterback 1971). To open the discussion, we simply assume that it
what we have achieved, who we are, and who we will become.
captures the following sequential process beginning with observation,
On the terrain of business and organizational processes, automation
through analysis, design, strategic planning, assessment to decision
seems to constitute a standard: if their mindset is suitable, organiza­
making, and action. In the following, we briefly explain each element of
tional actors will have the tendency to use emergent technologies in
the process (Fig. 1). We will cite only minimum references on the pro­
those processes that are technology-sensitive (e.g. documentation,
cesses, because our aim is to introduce a blueprint of unit process in
transport, recruitment, contracts, sells, services, production, military,
innovation process but not give a comprehensive literature review.
medical, legal etc.) (Rodrigo and Palacios 2021). Engaging new tech­
nologies in organizing becomes a natural consequence of their social
rampancy. When employed in systematic process management (BPI,
Business Process Improvement (Harrington 1991; Dumas et al., 2018)),
automation seriously boosts and optimizes the workflow—allows us to
save tangible resources and/or increase productivity. It is, therefore, of
no surprise that automation prepares managerial and organizational
practice for strategic change and rebuilds it towards innovation.
In this context, our concern is how a pile of existing literature of
innovation studies has contributed to the realization of innovation
process, and its, at least partial, automation. A huge effort has been
devoted to understand and interpret past innovation in a variety of
sectors like machines and robotics (Kumaresan and Miyazaki 1999;
Pellicciari et al., 2015; Kong et al., 2017), semiconductors and energies
(Song and Oh 2015; MacKerron 1995), automotive industry (Llopi­
s-Albert et al., 2021), information and communication (Bygstad 2010),
and how these innovations impact our daily lives and society. Key
concepts derived from those stories such as national innovation system,
open innovation, academia-industry collaboration, path-dependence, Fig. 1. Unit process in innovation process. (Source: own elaboration).

2
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

internal process within an organization for product and business

development. As discussed later (sect. 3), it is not limited to intra-
organizational process but includes multi-level societal changes.
Categorizing existing literature into unit process of innovation
framework will help enhance realization of the automation-driven
innovation management. Further work is still needed to verify the ex­
istence of unit process in innovation, explore implicit unit process,
clarify and model each unit process, develop automation tools, and
integrate those. Such an endeavor will also enable researchers to notice
unresolved issues in each innovation process and give them opportunity
to reflect on the usefulness and reliability of their own research in the
engineering context of innovation research toward automation.
Although investigations into the process of innovation can be curiosity-
driven basic research focused on better understanding of innovation, its
goal must ultimately be practical. Hence, we intend to highlight the
explicitly practical implications, which—in accordance to the idea of
BPI—aim to improve organizational practice in the context of
innovation.

3. Human and societal aspects of automation

A successful organization and integration of the literature on unit

process and innovation gives a chance to develop a systematized model
Fig. 2. The IAS cycle. (Source: own elaboration).
which shows the way how automation of innovation is generally
possible. However, there is an essential and rather evident factor which
Observation includes monitoring of multi-information resources and differentiates automation in the aforementioned example of chemical
retrospective data collection. It ranges from science and technology, engineering and automation of innovation process. The former has
industry and start-ups, market and society, policy and regulations, and exclusive enclosure in chemical plants and sides to avoid unintentional
environmental change. Observation based on papers, patents, and in­ interference of humans. But in the latter, it inevitably involves human
dustrial data is mature research field in technology and innovation actors, organizational, contextual and societal factors in the loop
management. (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Robertson et al., 1996; Leonidou et al., 2018),
Analysis is based on past and present data. One of analyses is fore­ because innovation is not merely an invention of artifacts but the
casting future trend based on existing data and a develop plausible implementation of those in society.
scenario. Another is elucidating hidden mechanisms behind observed Human actors in the social context play interactive roles and affect
phenomena. An example is technological forecasting research based on one another in the circulation of innovations. It is known that those roles
retrospective patent data. may sometimes retard the spread of innovations (Ferlie et al., 2005;
Design does not mean only industrial design of products and services. Rapport et al., 2018), but when technology and the AI enter the scene,
It includes design of system where products and services are embedded, those roles need not generate such challenges (Haefner et al., 2021).
technology enabling and manufacturing products and services, R&D Technological innovations are rife in everyday human practice to a
realizing technology if needed. Examples of design research are significant extent, so they become a reality also in organizations (if
axiomatic design (Suh 1990) and design structure matrix (Eppinger and people use them in private lives, they tend to use them as organizational
Browning 2012). These are useful frameworks but not devised as a actors, too). Technology-infused reality drives organizational change.
design tool in automation process, and thus we have a much room for The research on flexible automation and on the intensification of inno­
further study. vation—the themes known for over two decades—confirms this obser­
Strategy and planning give feasibility that design will embody as vation (Cainarca et al., 1989; Bucklin et al., 1998; Sanchez 1995; Azani
business. Strategy is needed at various levels within an organization and Khorramshahgol 1991; Dodgson et al., 2002).
from R&D strategy, business strategy and business model, corporate
strategy, strategy in business ecosystem. Institution and regulation are 3.1. Multi-scale impact
not always exogenous variables, but they should be treated as endoge­
nous variables in strategic planning process. Dissemination of innovation not only changes our material life, but
Assessment of strategy and planning is needed to comprehend tech­ also catalyzes the change of our cognitive abilities (Greve and Taylor
nological, organizational, managerial feasibilities, business profitability 2000). And automation, in turn, affects direction of future innovations.
and sustainability, and economic, social, environmental impacts. There are two main levels on which this happens:
Decision making in organization is quite a political issue, reflecting
power structure in each organization. If machine learning has more (1) cognitive micro-level: automation saves resources and frees up time
predictive power than experts’ judgements, in a naïve sense, decision- which opens new ways to innovate for organizational actors—the
making based on AI is beneficial for the organization and society. more resources an organization has, the better prospects for
Strategy research on machine learning and artificial intelligence that creative problem-solving and management innovation (on the
started just recently (Balasubramanian et al., 2018) reveals a potential in psycho-cognitive level, this phenomenon has been confirmed
this area. empirically (Leszczynski et al., 2017)). Such cognitive trans­
It is clear that products and services are offered by a (business) or­ formation has an impact not only on human activities and ca­
ganization. On the Fig. 1., orange arrow represents those elements that pabilities but also on development of automation technologies
contribute to the process within the organization, while gray arrow and human-automation interface itself (Jipp 2015; Hamid et al.,
represents elements outside it. Science and technology enable them. The 2017).
role of automation in innovation consists of not only observation and (2) organizational and societal macro-level: direct transformation of
analysis of external events and phenomena but also acceleration of management practice, e.g. automation changes organizational

3
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

routines and this poses challenges with respect to organizational technology, automation and innovation:
mindfulness (Kudesia 2019; Levinthal and Rerup 2006) and re­
quires strategic management innovation—departure from (1) innovation ecosystems enable automation through technological
accepted management practices and principles. To create value innovation: today technological innovations are omnipresent, so,
and maintain competitive advantage organizations must use their using them in business (e.g. broad use of AI) allows to signifi­
macro-capabilities for strategic innovation and play a different cantly automatize those organizational processes which are
game (redefinition and restructuration) (Means and Faulkner technology-sensitive (automation-based process innovation),
2000; Markides 1997). Automation system can be independent (2) far-reaching automation opens new ways and possibilities for
and closed, but it may also be an agent interacting with society. significant strategic and management innovation; automation-
Hence, the design of computer-aided systems and ADMs (Auto­ induced social change forces strategic invention and imple­
mated Decision-Making systems (Davenport and Harris 2005; mentation of new forms managerial and organizational practice,
Wachter et al., 2017)) that result from such interaction has to (3) catalysis effect: technology- and automation-driven, innovative
take the behavior of other agents into consideration. In conse­ forms of organizing intertwined with societal changes support
quence, such versions of automation transform strategic planning and accelerate technological innovation by enhancing innovation
as well as the ways humans interact and communicate. The ecosystems.
increased trust in automation only facilitates this process
(Rezvani et al., 2016; Hoffman et al., 2013). The above three suppositions build the cycle of continuous diffusion
of innovation. Let us call it The Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle
The two levels of influence of automation on managerial and orga­ (henceforth: IAS cycle). It can be depicted as follows:
nizational practice and strategy have various implications regarding The IAS cycle focuses on selected aspects of technology, automation
business, organizational, and societal outcomes. One of them is further and strategy that all highlight the interconnections between practical,
development of innovative technologies in a sustainable manner. Stra­ organizational and technological innovations in a model (or: ideal type
tegic innovation has the tendency to support and accelerate technolog­ (Weber 1903–1917/1949)) of continuous change driven by social
ical innovation: to maintain competitive advantage, technologically changes.
boosted forms of organizing and management tend to reinforce expan­ Let us define it in more detail:
sion and further development of emergent technologies. IAS cycle (definition): a simplified model of multi-scale process in
Naturally, the impact of automation on diffusion of innovations is which innovation is profitably transferred from state-of-the-art emer­
not—by itself—positive or beneficial as a social transformation (Boyd gent technologies to technology-sensitive organizational processes
and Holton 2017), although it is expected to generate economic profits. where it gives raise to deliberate, strategic management innovation and
The emergence of responsible innovation (RI) research (de Saille 2015; it further is diffused to new emergent technologies. The whole process is
Scherer and Voegtlin 2020) reveals that organizational democracy and entangled with social change.
deliberative engagement should build the social-political framework The perspective related to the IAS cycle has several consequences
that secures the efficiency and legitimacy of this transformation (Scherer among which the following three appear to be of key importance. First,
and Voegtlin 2020; Schneider et al., 2019; Brand and Blok 2019). Still, it implies that automation of organizational processes de facto precedes
these aspects of innovation are not something that potentially contra­ management innovation: emergent technologies first infiltrate organi­
dicts the idea of automation of innovation. Rather, with respect to the zational structures, practices, and capabilities, change business pro­
societal nature of the process as a whole, they should be perceived as its cesses, and then they launch strategic innovation mechanisms.
necessary elements that set boundary conditions on the level of what is Automation becomes a condition of strategic innovation (not the other
socially and politically acceptable or needed. way around).
In sum, innovation process inevitably involves typically human, Second, although disruption effects on existent business models,
organizational, and social dynamics. And automation-driven trans­ value chains and identities may always appear (Christensen et al.,
formations of managerial and organizational practice are entangled in 2018), the IAS cycle is based on the rudimentary assumption that in­
broad micro-level (psycho-cognitive) and macro-level (organizational) novations are diffused smoothly (Rogers 2003). In other words, in­
changes that affect those dynamics. The dynamics themselves are sub­ novations are socially and economically beneficial at each stage of the
ject to democratic regulations. cycle to the extent that any instances of disruption do not nullify the
circulation of automation. If barriers in the adoption of innovations
4. Toward acceleration of innovation cycle appear, they basically do not hamper the possibility of diffusion of
automation in the cycle. Similar observations have recently been made
The above interactive and recursive nature of automation in inno­ concerning the challenge of adoption of emerging technologies in the
vation opens a novel and alternative view on innovation process. To conditions of institutional instability (Bonnín Roca et al., 2021). Sleek­
understand the way how the process of innovation is stimulated by the ness is achievable due to typically societal character of the process—if it
societal and technological factors related to automation, we propose to is realized in the framework of RI and organizational democracy (see:
understand it as a part of the broader innovation cycle. The model of unit sect. 3.1), diffusion smoothness may be perceived as an intrinsic feature
process of innovation (Fig. 1) shows the diachronic sequence of opera­ of the cycle. Besides Roger’s classic observations (Rogers 2003), various
tions needed to strategically innovate—from conception to action. This contemporary studies, e.g. in energy industry (Dieperink et al., 2004),
is how particular innovations are produced. The model allows us to agriculture (Hansen 2015) or radio industry (Rossman 2015) confirm
highlight selected issues such as, for example, social pull or technology the above assumption.
push to innovate, but it is only a part of the broader picture of the cir­ Third, if we accept the view that organizations should strategically
culation of innovations. support innovations (‘the culture of innovation’), then the IAS cycle
reveals that automation is no less important in the process of innovation
4.1. The ias cycle diffusion than deliberate ‘managing’ of innovations on the micro-level
organizational practice. In this sense, automation not only enhances
The circulation itself implies multi-scale societal changes tied both to innovations, but also changes the perspective on innovation manage­
transformations in the dynamics of human and organizational practice ment (see also sect. 5.5).
and to the micro-level psycho-cognitive development (see: sect. 3.1). Let The three propositions show that the IAS cycle allows us to holisti­
us consider the following three key assumptions for relations between cally capture the place and role of automation for sustainable

4
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

development: technological innovations change organizational func­ inventions may effectively push automation in a given environment, at
tioning in the way that both boosts technology and may be profitable for the same time facing difficulties to play this role in another environ­
organizations and society (Fosso Wamba et al., 2021). Although the IAS mental context (Bonnín Roca et al., 2021). Contextual turbulences and
cycle does not support the view that innovation process can be auto­ institutional dynamics may also significantly limit the adoption of the
mated fully or mechanically, in the sense of the elimination of human IAS cycle.
control and intervention, it does give reasons for the view that at a This observation also opens paths to explore important and related
certain level of technological development, the process of innovation question of tools automating innovations and facilitating the whole
can be semi-automated as a stable, multi-scale social-organizational cycle in which they are entangled. This is a task not only for techno­
AI-infiltrated sequence of actions, interventions and events. logical innovation design (Norman and Verganti 2014; Verganti 2009),
but also for development and implementation science.
4.2. Antecedents of the ias cycle Additional, highly important question for the relation between
technological innovation and automation is the possibility of measuring
The IAS cycle may be perceived as a systematic, organizational and designing the acceleration of innovations in the cycle. Machine
consequence of the role and impact of automation (sect. 3) on the shape learning approaches promise a good way forward. Recent studies in
of the unit process of innovation that emerges from numerous studies of bioinformatics and drug discovery (Réda et al., 2020; Xia 2017), busi­
innovations (sect. 2.2). In this sense, it integrates and continues three ness partner recommendation systems (Mori et al., 2012), or even
large streams of research: innovations (including diffusion of in­ automated methods of discovering novel research targets in science
novations), strategy and automation. (Ogawa and Kajikawa 2017) give interesting results on the micro-scale.
The ideas behind this conceptual perspective have been present in Thus, sufficient accumulation of such studies may generate interesting
the social sciences for a long time, but due to their either early-stage or macro-level outcome for understanding the acceleration in the cycle.
fragmentary character, they could not open similar vistas and research
questions. The early works on automation (Simon 1966; Bright 1958) 5.2. Automation and strategic innovation
may be perceived as correctly forecasting the roles of automation in
organizational and industrial contexts. Especially, the tradition of the According to one of our assumptions, automation opens new ways
Carnegie School (Simon 1969; March and Simon 1958; Cyert and March and possibilities for significant strategic innovation (sect.: 4.1.).
1963), highlighting bounded resources of organizational actors Currently, our knowledge how automation and AI drive organizational
(including managers) and the need to rely on programming behavior and strategic innovation and how organizations exploit automation is
appears as important. When related to strategic decision-making limited, mainly because it focuses on technical, ergonomics-related as­
(Eisenhardt and Zbaracki 1992), computer-aided decision systems and pects of its implementation (Dwivedi et al., 2019; Wickens et al., 2015;
contemporary views on automation, it opened a new perspective on Parasuraman 2000). In consequence, we do not know much about which
organizational processes. Currently, it has been colonized by the AI- and organizational paths are available to adopt automation in the way that it
machine learning-related research on automation (Balasubramanian allows for management practices to enter the loop according to IAS. In a
et al., 2020), which in some ways revives and continues ideas from the similar vein, the study of psycho-cognitive dimension of strategic
Carnegie School. innovation that allows managers and organizations to facilitate the
Another root of the IAS cycle is the early work on diffusion of in­ automation cycle (technology-mindset interaction (Ringberg et al.,
novations (Katz et al., 1963), and later—its integrative models (Mac­ 2019)) is also at an early stage.
Vaugh and Schiavone 2010). Contemporary studies of the impact of On the other hand, assuming that organizations widely adopt the IAS
automation on innovations as well as of the complementarity between cycle to accelerate innovations, we will still have interesting paths to
business process management and digital innovation (Mendling et al., study the way how they differentiate their strategies and how they
2020) play equally important roles as pillars of knowledge behind the should orchestrate stakeholders and other agents. One pole of scenarios
cycle in which innovations are entangled. is to delegate our decision to AI, which is derived from data-driven and
model-based analysis including psycho-cognitive dimensions of the
5. Implications for future research and limitations others. Another is business-as-usual scenario where managers make
decisions by their own judgments and responsibilities. Plausible one is a
In the previous section, we briefly considered which ideas and mixture of those. We design boundaries and rules of strategic games
streams of research support and build the foundation of the IAS cycle. where agent-based simulations are run. We can utilize the simulation
Now we will examine key practical implications of the cycle and briefly results for our decision making and can also delegate our AI-based agent
discuss areas of future research related to those implications. IAS is to negotiate with the other agents. In any scenarios, we face the need of
entangled in the whole variety of complex issues the knowledge of different approaches in strategic decision making than we currently
which is currently at an early stage (Dwivedi et al., 2019; Haefner et al., make (Balasubramanian et al., 2020), which will open a new frontier
2021). More systematic investigations of those issues will allow us to both for research and practice.
shine a new light on the vast array of questions, open research oppor­
tunities, sketch a research agenda and understand its limitations. Below, 5.3. Strategic innovation and technological innovation
we group those issues under five main headings: The first three of them
refer to the elements of the cycle, the fourth deals with its social trans­ The IAS cycle has various strategic consequences for technological
formation context and the fifth raises key conceptual implications. innovations. This means, foremost, initiation of investments in emerging
Finally, the questions of key limitations are discussed. technologies. If new technologies may directly contribute to the accel­
eration of the innovation cycle (sect. 5.1), then this process has strategic
5.1. Technological innovation and automation consequences, for example, for development of SNM (Strategic Niche
Management research) (Schot and Geels 2008). IAS cycle may help
One of the most interesting implications of the proposed perspective survive and grow grassroot innovations (Hargreaves et al., 2013) or
on innovations is how emerging technologies and AI may directly increase their resilience in face of institutional turbulences (Bonnín Roca
contribute to the acceleration of the innovation cycle and how they et al., 2021). From a viewpoint of technological innovation, if these
facilitate the social automation of innovation. Currently, those roles of niches are promising both for economic and social aspects, automation
new technologies are rather implicit and context-dependent, and little process will rationally judge their promising potential and invest on
known (cf. Satchell 2020). In consequence, some technological those. Thus, IAS cycle accelerates innovation without a bias on the past

5
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

development path and strategic inertia. However, on this case, how 5.5. Conceptual transformations
should we differentiate strategy? And what strategy should be taken by
actors on the current technological regime? One of the most vividly discussed societal problems related to
Although the innovation cycle assumes that innovations are diffused automation—its impact on labor market (sect. 2)—has palpable con­
smoothly (sect. 4.1), it does not remove the question of disruption of ceptual dimension: it leads to the revision of concepts of work and job
innovations and struggles related to disruptive shift (Nagy et al., 2016; (McKenna 2017; Schoukens and Barrio 2017). Such revisions are not the
Christensen et al., 2018). However, the question is still open, we stip­ only ones with which the IAS cycle is intertwined.
ulate that the IAS cycle offers a new forward-looking perspective which Interesting reconceptualizations embrace the concept of innovation
supplements the focus on the impact of innovations and new technolo­ management. Understanding automation within the IAS cycle changes
gies on existing markets, enterprises and business models which is the perspective on innovation management (sect. 4.1). The need of such
typical for the analyses of disruptive effects. The extent to which there is transformations has already been observed (Volberda et al., 2013). Due
an interplay between these perspectives is another avenue of study. to the increased role of automation and digitalization, the standard idea
of ‘managing innovation’ (Bessant and Tidd 2013) changed its sense­
5.4. Multi-scale societal change —despite some previous opinions (McCabe 2002), innovation is not
anymore reproduction of the past. In this context, the idea of managing
The IAS cycle is entangled in multi-level social transformation (sect. as designing (Boland et al., 2008) is increasingly more apt and it
4.1), which engages it into typical questions in the area of AI and strengthens the role of top management (Nell et al., 2020).
innovation studies. For example, it may help better understand and Finally, the challenge of conceptual transformation refers also to the
develop the concept of innovation ecosystem (Tsujimoto et al., 2018; very concept of innovation: the understanding of innovation as some­
Granstrand and Holgersson 2019). Further, it may contribute to thing that is simply introduced by rational (deliberately “innovating”)
expansion of our knowledge that currently results in redefinitions of individuals or entrepreneurs (Drucker 2015) may not be fully appro­
human work. More specifically, the understanding of such questions as priate in the framework of the IAS cycle. The extent of revision is a
labor displacement (Gruetzemacher et al., 2020), augmentation (Raisch matter of future studies, however. At any rate, the proposed model
and Krakowski 2020) or human-AI symbiosis (Jarrahi 2018) may obtain should facilitate also such theoretical and conceptual transformations.
additional support under the umbrella of the IAS cycle. Currently, the
impact of AI on human work is rarely associated with deepened 5.6. Innovation studies
knowledge of management innovation (which is basically interpreted
through institutional, cultural, fashion-related or rationalistic lenses The perspective and model of innovation build on several ideas and
(Birkinshaw et al., 2008). A simple example is promotion system in an streams of research some of which have already been explored in
organization. After IAS cycle is implemented, how to assess, evaluate, innovation studies (sect. 4.2). Still, the question of the extent to which
and valuate achievements and contributions of each worker? In what we should depend on past achievements of innovation studies for
ways, does new schema of promotion system affect workers’ tasks, innovation automation remains open. Future studies will also determine
motivations, and incentives? How should we face those situations? It is the scope of processes to which innovation studies can contribute to and
clear that we have societal challenges at micro, meso, and macro-levels. what is the most effective (IAS cycle-enhancing) style of output of
Analogically to the problem of disruption (sect. 5.3), the innovation studies, papers, structured knowledge, or tools. In these respects, sig­
cycle is involved in various regulation-related challenges. We accepted nificant, automation-driven changes are possible and they may embrace
the idea that organizational democracy and the framework of RI (sect. also the research process of innovation studies itself. Limitations in this
3.1) belong to the IAS cycle, but this maneuver does not close the dis­ area seem to be defined only by the extent to which machine learning
cussion related to the practical limitations of RI (de Hoop, Pols, and and the AI cannot infiltrate research.
Romijn 2016). Other social challenges such as the AI ethics (Hagendorff The above constraint takes us to the final, indeed crucial, observation
2020; Jobin et al., 2019), good AI society (Fosso Wamba et al., 2021) or that pertains to all the above implications and research prospects for the
sustainable innovation (Cillo et al., 2019) strengthen the context of IAS cycle. We should be aware that possible developmental scenarios for
macro-level regulation. Recent studies (Silvestre and Ţîrcă 2019, Bonnín the cycle of innovation will look differently depending on the degree to
Roca et al., 2021) show that the sustainability trajectory may not be a which particular innovation processes are merged in cyber, physical and
problem of IAS cycle. These contexts request to implement regulatory social worlds. Although machine learning and AI infiltrate many orga­
mechanisms in IAS cycle. In this respect, we stipulate that the cycle has nizational and business processes that take place in a natural and social
the potential to open a novel approach to sustainable and responsible world, it is still the cyber world where they generate controllable sce­
innovation. narios. Successful implementation of those scenarios in a physical and
The social transformation behind the cycle of innovation has an social world depends on various factors.
impact on the micro-level of human actors and their psychology. By
acknowledging this micro-level (sect. 3.1), the innovation cycle may 6. Conclusion
contribute to development of conceptual models of technology in
organizational psychology (Morelli et al., 2017; Tonidandel et al., The IAS cycle gives a chance to unlock an integrated, comprehensive,
2016), improve our understanding of the impact of big data and AI on and intensified approach to relations between technological in­
psychology in industrial contexts, and thus help face the problem that novations, process management and management innovation. These
new technologies frequently outpace human needs. IAS cycle may also areas and knowledge about them are mature enough to reveal their in­
expand our understanding how micro-level strategic innovations of in­ terdependencies and open a whole new perspective on how we—scho­
dividual actors and their interactions contribute to the innovation cycle. lars, technology developers, organizational actors, managers and
Another newly emerging grand social challenge is how the IAS cycle members of global society—use the AI-driven new technologies. The IAS
deals with such macro-level causes of automation acceleration as pan­ cycle introduced in this paper can help make precise and adjust the idea
demics (Chernoff and Warman 2020; Coombs 2020; Brem et al., 2021). of innovation management to the demands and pressures which devel­
On our view, the framework we propose may not only help better un­ oping technologies make on managerial and organizational practices.
derstand such processes but also facilitate organizational change related This involves thorough reexamination of extant knowledge in innova­
to them and contribute to reconstruction of global governance system. tion studies, good understanding of the role of automation and readiness
to draw deep consequences of its impact on innovation management.
The innovation cycle introduced in this paper presents the elements

6
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

of process of technological innovation as entangled in social and tech­ Soc. Respons. Environ. Manag. 26 (5), 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1783.
nological transformation. We showed that it is a subject to a peculiar
Coombs, Crispin., 2020. Will COVID-19 be the tipping point for the Intelligent
automation due to the omnipresence of new technologies. On that basis, Automation of work? A review of the debate and implications for research. Int. J. Inf.
we proposed to make complex practical findings for innovation man­ Manage. 55, 102182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102182.
agement and strategy. The ultimate goal of introducing the IAS cycle is Cyert, Richard M., March, James G., 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
strengthening innovation studies. Davenport, Thomas H., Harris, J.G., 2005. Automated decision making comes of age. MIT
Sloan Manag. Rev. July 15, 2005.
References de Hoop, Evelien, Pols, Auke, Romijn, Henny, 2016. Limits to responsible innovation.
J. Respons. Innovat. 3 (2), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23299460.2016.1231396.
Arute, Frank, Arya, Kunal, Babbush, Ryan, Bacon, Dave, Bardin, Joseph C., de Saille, Stevienna, 2015. Innovating innovation policy: the emergence of ‘Responsible
Barends, Rami, Biswas, Rupak, Boixo, Sergio, Brandao, Fernando G.S.L., Buell, David Research and Innovation. J. Respons. Innovat. 2 (2), 152–168. https://doi.org/
A., Burkett, Brian, Chen, Yu, Chen, Zijun, Chiaro, Ben, Collins, Roberto, 10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280.
Courtney, William, Dunsworth, Andrew, Farhi, Edward, Foxen, Brooks, Stefano, Di, , Giada, Gambardella, Alfonso, Verona, Gianmario, 2012. Technology push
Fowler, Austin, Gidney, Craig, Giustina, Marissa, Graff, Rob, Guerin, Keith, and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: current findings and future
Habegger, Steve, Harrigan, Matthew P., Hartmann, Michael J., Ho, Alan, research directions. Res. Policy 41 (8), 1283–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Hoffmann, Markus, Huang, Trent, Humble, Travis S., Isakov, Sergei V., Jeffrey, Evan, respol.2012.03.021.
Jiang, Zhang, Kafri, Dvir, Kechedzhi, Kostyantyn, Kelly, Julian, Klimov, Paul V., Dieperink, Carel, Brand, Iemy, Vermeulen, Walter, 2004. Diffusion of energy-saving
Knysh, Sergey, Korotkov, Alexander, Kostritsa, Fedor, Landhuis, David, innovations in industry and the built environment: dutch studies as inputs for a more
Lindmark, Mike, Lucero, Erik, Lyakh, Dmitry, Mandrà, Salvatore, McClean, Jarrod integrated analytical framework. Energy Policy 32 (6), 773–784. https://doi.org/
R., McEwen, Matthew, Megrant, Anthony, Mi, Xiao, Michielsen, Kristel, 10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00341-5.
Mohseni, Masoud, Mutus, Josh, Naaman, Ofer, Neeley, Matthew, Neill, Charles, Dodgson, Mark, Gann, David M., Salter, Ammon J., 2002. The intensification of
Niu, Murphy Yuezhen, Ostby, Eric, Petukhov, Andre, Platt, John C., Quintana, Chris, innovation. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 06 (01), 53–83. https://doi.org/10.1142/
Rieffel, Eleanor G., Roushan, Pedram, Rubin, Nicholas C., Sank, Daniel, s1363919602000495.
Satzinger, Kevin J., Smelyanskiy, Vadim, Sung, Kevin J., Trevithick, Matthew D., Drucker, Peter., 2015. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Practice and Principles.
Vainsencher, Amit, Villalonga, Benjamin, White, Theodore, Jamie Yao, Z., Yeh, Ping, Routledge, London - New York.
Zalcman, Adam, Neven, Hartmut, Martinis, John M., 2019. Quantum supremacy Dumas, Marlon, Rosa, Marcello La, Mendling, Jan, Reijers, Hajo A., 2018. Fundamentals
using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574 (7779), 505–510. of Business Process Management. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5. Dwivedi, Yogesh K., Hughes, Laurie, Ismagilova, Elvira, Aarts, Gert, Coombs, Crispin,
Azani, Hossein, Khorramshahgol, Reza, 1991. The impact of automation on engineers’ Crick, Tom, Duan, Yanqing, Dwivedi, Rohita, Edwards, John, Eirug, Aled,
creativity and innovation and its implications for reducing resistance to change. Galanos, Vassilis, Vigneswara Ilavarasan, P., Janssen, Marijn, Jones, Paul,
Comput. Ind. 16 (4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3615(91)90077-M. Kar, Arpan Kumar, Kizgin, Hatice, Kronemann, Bianca, Lal, Banita, Lucini, Biagio,
Balasubramanian, Natarajan, Starr, Evan Penniman, Oettl, Alexander, Catalini, Christian, Medaglia, Rony, Meunier-FitzHugh, Kenneth Le, Meunier-FitzHugh, Leslie Caroline
Choudhury, Prithwiraj, Guzman, Jorge, 2018. Machine learning and artificial Le, Misra, Santosh, Mogaji, Emmanuel, Sharma, Sujeet Kumar, Singh, Jang Bahadur,
intelligence in strategy research. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2018 (1), 12214. https://doi. Raghavan, Vishnupriya, Raman, Ramakrishnan, Rana, Nripendra P.,
org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.12214symposium. Samothrakis, Spyridon, Spencer, Jak, Tamilmani, Kuttimani, Tubadji, Annie,
Balasubramanian, Natarajan, Ye, Yang, Xu, Mingtao, 2020. Substituting human decision- Walton, Paul, Williams, Michael D., 2019. Artificial Intelligence (AI):
making with machine learning: implications for organizational learning. Acad. multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda
Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0470. for research, practice and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manage., 101994 https://doi.org/
Balog, Matej, Gaunt, Alexander L., Brockschmidt, Marc, Nowozin, Sebastian, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.
Tarlow, Daniel, 2016. DeepCoder: Learning to Write Programs. ArXiv abs/ Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., Zbaracki, Mark J., 1992. Strategic decision making. Strateg.
1611.01989. Manag. J. 13 (S2), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130904.
Bessant, John, Tidd, Joe, 2013. Managing Innovation, 7th edition. Wiley. Eppinger, S.D., Browning, T.R., 2012. Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications.
Birkinshaw, Julian, Hamel, Gary, Mol, Michael J., 2008. Management innovation. Acad. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Manag. Rev. 33 (4), 825–845. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.34421969. Ferlie, Ewan, Fitzgerald, Louise, Wood, Martin, Hawkins, Chris, 2005. The Nonspread of
Boland, R.J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., 2008. Managing as Designing: lessons for innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Acad. Manag. J. 48 (1), 117–134.
organization leaders from the design practice of frank O. Gehry. Design Issues 24 (1), https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993150.
10–25. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.10. Wamba, Fosso, , Samuel, Bawack, Ransome Epie, Guthrie, Cameron, Queiroz, Maciel M.,
Roca, Bonnín, , Jaime, Vaishnav, Parth, Morgan, Granger M., Fuchs, Erica, Carillo, Kevin Daniel André, 2021. Are we preparing for a good AI society? A
Mendonça, Joana, 2021. Technology Forgiveness: why emerging technologies differ bibliometric review and research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 164,
in their resilience to institutional instability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 166, 120482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120482.
120599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120599. Frey, Carl Benedikt, Osborne, Michael A., 2017. The future of employment: how
Bottou, Léon., 2014. From machine learning to machine reasoning. Mach. Learn. 94 (2), susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 114, 254–280.
133–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5335-x. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019.
Boyd, Ross, Holton, Robert J., 2017. Technology, innovation, employment and power: Frey, Carl Benedikt, 2019. The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of
does robotics and artificial intelligence really mean social transformation? J. Sociol. Automation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
54 (3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317726591. George, Gerard, Howard-Grenville, Jennifer, Joshi, Aparna, Tihanyi, Laszlo, 2016.
Brand, Teunis, Blok, Vincent, 2019. Responsible innovation in business: a critical Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management
reflection on deliberative engagement as a central governance mechanism. research. Acad. Manag. J. 59 (6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/
J. Responsib. Innovat. 6 (1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ amj.2016.4007.
23299460.2019.1575681. Gill, Navdeep, Hall, Patrick, 2018. An Introduction to Machine Learning Interpretability.
Brem, Alexander, Viardot, Eric, Nylund, Petra A., 2021. Implications of the coronavirus O’Reilly Media, Inc, Sebastopol, CA.
(COVID-19) outbreak for innovation: which technologies will improve our lives? Granstrand, Ove, Holgersson, Marcus, 2019. Innovation ecosystems: a conceptual review
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 163, 120451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and a new definition. Technovation, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120451. technovation.2019.102098.
Bright, James Rieser, 1958. Automation and Management. Plimpton Press (Harvard Greenhalgh, Trisha, Robert, Glenn, MacFarlane, Fraser, Bate, Paul, Kyriakidou, Olivia,
University), Norwood, MA. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and
Bucklin, Randolph, Lehmann, Donald, Little, John, 1998. From decision support to recommendations. Milbank Q. 82 (4), 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-
decision automation: a 2020 Vision. Mark. Lett. 9 (3), 235–246. https://doi.org/ 378X.2004.00325.x.
10.1023/A:1008047504898. Greve, Henrich R., Taylor, Alva, 2000. Innovations as catalysts for organizational
Bygstad, Bendik., 2010. Generative mechanisms for innovation in information change: shifts in organizational cognition and search. Adm. Sci. Q. 45 (1), 54–80.
infrastructures. Inf. Org. 20 (3), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666979.
infoandorg.2010.07.001. Grier, D.A., 2006. The innovation curve [Moore’s law in semiconductor industry].
Cainarca, Gian Carlo, Colombo, Massimo G., Mariotti, Sergio, 1989. An evolutionary Computer (Long Beach Calif) 39 (2), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2006.72.
pattern of innovation diffusion. The case of flexible automation. Res. Policy 18 (2), Groggins, Philip Herkimer, 1938. Unit Processes in Organic Synthesis, 2nd Edition.
59–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(89)90006-1. /. McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York; London.
Chernoff, Alex W., and Casey Warman. 2020. "COVID-19 and implications for Gruetzemacher, Ross, Paradice, David, Lee, Kang Bok, 2020. Forecasting extreme labor
automation." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series27249. doi: displacement: a survey of AI practitioners. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 161,
10.3386/w27249. 120323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120323.
Christensen, Clayton M., McDonald, Rory, Altman, Elizabeth J., Palmer, Jonathan E., Haefner, Naomi, Wincent, Joakim, Parida, Vinit, Gassmann, Oliver, 2021. Artificial
2018. Disruptive innovation: an intellectual history and directions for future intelligence and innovation management: a review, framework, and research
research. J. Manag. Stud. 55 (7), 1043–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12349. agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 162, 120392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cillo, Valentina, Petruzzelli, Antonio Messeni, Ardito, Lorenzo, Del Giudice, Manlio, techfore.2020.120392.
2019. Understanding sustainable innovation: a systematic literature review. Corp.

7
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

Hagendorff, Thilo., 2020. The ethics of AI Ethics: an evaluation of guidelines. Minds Nagy, Delmer, Schuessler, Joseph, Dubinsky, Alan, 2016. Defining and identifying
Mach. 30 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8. disruptive innovations. Ind. Market. Manag. 57, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Hamid, O.H., Smith, N.L., Barzanji, A., 2017. Automation, per se, is not job elimination: j.indmarman.2015.11.017.
how artificial intelligence forwards cooperative human-machine coexistence. In: Nell, Phillip C., Foss, Nicolai J., Klein, Peter G., Schmitt, Jan, 2020. Avoiding
2017 IEEE 15th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), digitalization traps: tools for top managers. Bus. Horiz. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pp. 24–26. July 2017. bushor.2020.11.005.
Hansen, Bjørn Gunnar, 2015. Robotic milking-farmer experiences and adoption rate in Norman, Donald A., Verganti, Roberto, 2014. Incremental and radical innovation: design
Jæren, Norway. J. Rural Stud. 41, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. research vs. technology and meaning change. Des. Iss. 30 (1), 78–96. https://doi.
jrurstud.2015.08.004. org/10.1162/DESI_a_00250.
Hargreaves, Tom, Hielscher, Sabine, Seyfang, Gill, Smith, Adrian, 2013. Grassroots Ogawa, Takaya, Kajikawa, Yuya, 2017. Generating novel research ideas using
innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. computational intelligence: a case study involving fuel cells and ammonia synthesis.
Global Environ. Change 23 (5), 868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 120, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.02.008. techfore.2017.04.004.
Harrington, H.J., 1991. Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Parasuraman, Raja., 2000. Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and
Total Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness. McGraw-Hill, NewYork. quantitative models. Ergonomics 43 (7), 931–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Hoffman, R.R., Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J.M., Underbrink, A., 2013. Trust in Automation. 001401300409125.
IEEE Intell. Syst. 28 (1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.24. Pellicciari, M., Avotins, A., Bengtsson, K., Berselli, G., Bey, N., Lennartson, B., Meike, D.,
Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein, 2018. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: 2015. AREUS — Innovative hardware and software for sustainable industrial
human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Bus. Horiz. 61 (4), 577–586. robotics. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007. Engineering (CASE), pp. 24–28. Aug. 2015.
Jipp, Meike., 2015. Expertise development with different types of automation: a function Rai, Arun., 2020. Explainable AI: from black box to glass box. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 48
of different cognitive abilities. Hum. Factors 58 (1), 92–106. https://doi.org/ (1), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00710-5.
10.1177/0018720815604441. Raisch, Sebastian, Krakowski, Sebastian, 2020. Artificial intelligence and management:
Jobin, Anna, Ienca, Marcello, Vayena, Effy, 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics the automation-augmentation paradox. Acad. Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.5465/
guidelines. Nature Mach. Intell. 1 (9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256- 2018.0072.
019-0088-2. Rapport, Frances, Clay-Williams, Robyn, Churruca, Kate, Shih, Patti, Hogden, Anne,
Katz, Elihu, Levin, Martin L., Hamilton, Herbert, 1963. Traditions of research on the Braithwaite, Jeffrey, 2018. The struggle of translating science into action:
diffusion of innovation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 28 (2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.2307/ foundational concepts of implementation science. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 24 (1),
2090611. 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12741.
Kong, Dejing, Zhou, Yuan, Liu, Yufei, Xue, Lan, 2017. Using the data mining method to Réda, Clémence, Kaufmann, Emilie, Delahaye-Duriez, Andrée, 2020. Machine learning
assess the innovation gap: a case of industrial robotics in a catching-up country. applications in drug development. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 18, 241–252.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 119, 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2019.12.006.
techfore.2017.02.035. Rezvani, T., Driggs-Campbell, K., Sadigh, D., Sastry, S.S., Seshia, S.A., Bajcsy, R., 2016.
Kudesia, Ravi S., 2019. Mindfulness as metacognitive practice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 44, Towards trustworthy automation: user interfaces that convey internal and external
405–423. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0333. awareness. In: 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent
Kumaresan, Nageswaran, Miyazaki, Kumiko, 1999. An integrated network approach to Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 1–4. Nov. 2016.
systems of innovation—The case of robotics in Japan. Res. Policy 28 (6), 563–585. Ringberg, Torsten, Reihlen, Markus, Rydén, Pernille, 2019. The technology-mindset
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00128-0. interactions: leading to incremental, radical or revolutionary innovations. Ind.
Ladd, T.D., Jelezko, F., Laflamme, R., Nakamura, Y., Monroe, C., O’Brien, J.L., 2010. Market. Manag. 79, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.06.009.
Quantum computers. Nature 464 (7285), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Robertson, Maxine, Swan, Jacky, Newell, Sue, 1996. The role of networks in the diffusion
nature08812. of technological innovation. J. Manag. Stud. 33 (3), 333–359. https://doi.org/
Lake, Brenden M., Ullman, Tomer D., Tenenbaum, Joshua B., Gershman, Samuel J., 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00805.x.
2016. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav. Brain Sci. 40, e253. Rodrigo, L., Palacios, M., 2021. What antecedent attitudes motivate actors to commit to
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001837. the ecosystem of digital social innovation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 162,
Leonidou, Erasmia, Christofi, Michael, Vrontis, Demetris, Thrassou, Alkis, 2018. An 120394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120394.
integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and Rogers, Everett M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
entrepreneurship development. J. Bus. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Rossman, Gabriel., 2015. Climbing The Charts: What Radio Airplay Tells Us about The
jbusres.2018.11.054. Diffusion of Innovation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Leszczynski, Marcin, Chaieb, Leila, Reber, Thomas P., Derner, Marlene, Sanchez, Angel Martinez, 1995. Innovation cycles and flexible automation in
Axmacher, Nikolai, Fell, Juergen, 2017. Mind wandering simultaneously prolongs manufacturing industries. Technovation 15 (6), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/
reactions and promotes creative incubation. Sci. Rep. 7 (1), 10197. https://doi.org/ 0166-4972(95)96596-L.
10.1038/s41598-017-10616-3. Satchell, Paul., 2020. Innovation and Automation. Routledge, New York.
Levinthal, Daniel, Rerup, Claus, 2006. Crossing an apparent chasm: bridging mindful and Scherer, Andreas Georg, Voegtlin, Christian, 2020. Corporate governance for responsible
less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Org. Sci. 17 (4), 502–513. innovation: approaches to corporate governance and their implications for
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0197. sustainable development. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 34 (2), 182–208. https://doi.org/
Llopis-Albert, Carlos, Rubio, Francisco, Valero, Francisco, 2021. Impact of digital 10.5465/amp.2017.0175.
transformation on the automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 162, edited by Schneider, Anselm, Scherer, Andreas Georg, Sales, Arnaud, 2019.
120343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120343. Reconsidering the legitimacy and efficiency of corporate strategies: a case for
edited by MacKerron, Gordon., 1995. Innovation in energy supply: the case of electricity. organizational democracy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Change:
In: Dodgson, Mark (Ed.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Edward Elgar Institutional and Organizational Perspectives. Springer International Publishing,
Publishing. edited by. Cham, pp. 77–96. edited by.
MacVaugh, Jason, Schiavone, Francesco, 2010. Limits to the diffusion of innovation: a Schot, Johan, Geels, Frank W., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable
literature review and integrative model. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 13 (2), 197–221. innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040258. Strateg. Manag. 20 (5), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
March, J.G., Simon, H.A., 1958. Organizations. Wiley, New York. Schoukens, Paul, Barrio, Alberto, 2017. The changing concept of work: when does typical
Markides, Constantinos. 1997. "Strategic innovation." Sloan Management Review (Spring): work become atypical? Eur. Labour Law J. 8 (4), 306–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/
9–23. 2031952517743871.
McCabe, Darren., 2002. Waiting for dead Men’s Shoes’: towards a cultural understanding Sejnowski, Terrence J., 2018. The Deep Learning Revolution. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
of management innovation. Hum. Relation. 55 (5), 505–536. https://doi.org/ MA.
10.1177/0018726702055005426. Silvestre, Bruno S., Ţîrcă, Diana Mihaela, 2019. Innovations for sustainable development:
McKenna, H. Patricia. 2017. Re-Conceptualizing Jobs, Work, and Labour: Transforming moving toward a sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 325–332. https://doi.org/
Learning for More Creative Economies in 21st Century Smart Cities (2017). 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.244.
Means, Grady E., Faulkner, Matthew, 2000. Strategic innovation in the new economy. Simon, Herbert A., 1966. The Shape of Automation for Men and Management. Harper &
J. Bus. Strategy 21 (3), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb040086. Row, New York.
Mendling, Jan, Pentland, Brian, Recker, Jan, 2020. Building a complementary agenda for Simon, Herbert A., 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
business process management and digital innovation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. https://doi. Song, ChiUng, Oh, Wankeun, 2015. Determinants of innovation in energy intensive
org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1755207. industry and implications for energy policy. Energy Policy 81, 122–130. https://doi.
Morelli, Neil, Potosky, Denise, Arthur, Winfred, Tippins, Nancy, 2017. A call for org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.022.
conceptual models of technology in I-O psychology: an example from technology- Suh, Nam P., 1990. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York.
based talent assessment. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10 (4), 634–653. https://doi.org/ Tao, Lan, Probert, David, Phaal, Rob, 2010. Towards an integrated framework for
10.1017/iop.2017.70. managing the process of innovation. R&D Manag. 40 (1), 19–30. https://doi.org/
Mori, Junichiro, Kajikawa, Yuya, Kashima, Hisashi, Sakata, Ichiro, 2012. Machine 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00575.x.
learning approach for finding business partners and building reciprocal Tonidandel, Scott, King, Eden, Cortina, Jose M., 2016. Big Data at Work: The Data
relationships. Expert. Syst. Appl. 39 (12), 10402–10407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Science Revolution and Organizational Psychology. Routledge, New York.
eswa.2012.01.202.

8
P.T. Makowski and Y. Kajikawa Technological Forecasting & Social Change 168 (2021) 120723

Tsujimoto, Masaharu, Kajikawa, Yuya, Tomita, Junichi, Matsumoto, Yoichi, 2018. Dr. habil. Piotr Tomasz Makowski is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Management,
A review of the ecosystem concept — Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technol. University of Warsaw, Poland. He received his academic degrees from Adam Mickiewicz
Forecast. Soc. Change 136, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032. University in Poznan. His-research interests embrace management field (special focus on
Turing, A.M., 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 69 (236), 433–460. innovations, automation, organizational routines, theory development) and philosophy
https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433. (highlighted themes: philosophy of the social sciences, action theory). His-research was
Utterback, James M., 1971. The process of Technological innovation within the firm. published in Academy of Management Review, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, and
Acad. Manag. J. 14 (1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/254712. Palgrave Macmillan, among others. An awardee of Fulbright Foundation, Kosciuszko
Van de Ven, Andrew H., 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Foundation and National Science centre, Poland. Visiting Professor at University of Cali­
Manage. Sci. 32 (5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590. fornia, Riverside (USA), University of California, Davis (USA), University of Helsinki
Verganti, R., 2009. Design-Driven Innovation: Changing The Rules of Competition by (Finland), and Roma Tre University (Italy).
Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Volberda, Henk W., Bosch, Frans A.J.Van Den, Heij, Cornelis V., 2013. Management
Dr. Yuya Kajikawa is a Professor at the School of Environment and Society, Tokyo
innovation: management as fertile ground for innovation. Eur. Manag. Rev. 10 (1),
Institute of Technology, and a Professor at the Institute for Future Initiatives at The Uni­
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12007.
versity of Tokyo. He is also a Visiting Professor at the Strategic Innovation Office, Nagoya
Wachter, Sandra, Mittelstadt, Brent, Floridi, Luciano, 2017. Why a right to explanation of
University. He received his bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation.
Tokyo. His-research interests include development of methodology for technology and
Int. Data Privacy Law 7 (2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005.
innovation management, and innovation for sustainability. He has a number of publica­
Weber, Max. 1903-1917/ 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated by E.
tions in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, which cover a variety of
Shills and F. Finch. New York: Free Press.
disciplines including engineering, information science, environmental science, and tech­
Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., Banbury, S., Parasuraman, R., 2015. Engineering
nology and innovation management. He serves as an Associate Editor of Technological
Psychology & Human Performance. Taylor & Francis.
Forecasting and Social Change, an Editor of Sustainability Science and a member of
Wilson, H.James, Daugherty, Paul R., 2018. Human + Machine Reimagining Work in The
editorial boards in other five international journals.
Age of AI. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Xia, Xuhua., 2017. Bioinformatics and Drug Discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 17 (15),
1709–1726. https://doi.org/10.2174/1568026617666161116143440.