Innovation in Stra.Tech.Man (strategy-technology-management) terms

Business and Economic Research, 9(1), 236-262, 2019

This study examines the concept of Innovation from two different conceptual and theoretical prisms: the science of economics and the theoretical tradition of entrepreneurship and organizational theory which both offer a remarkable distance in the way in which innovation is perceived. This study supports the notion that, by pointing a theoretical focus based on a co-evolutionary approach, centered on the "evolutionary heart" of the capitalist business, modern economic science and business thinking will gain from bridging the study of the innovative phenomenon with analytical fertility. To achieve this, the physiological structure and organic evolution of Strategy-Technology-Management (Stra.Tech.Man) synthesis of business becomes the center of attention, perceiving ultimately the firm as an active actor and even as a major structural co-creator of the sectors of industries and the socioeconomic systems which is hosted in.

Issues in Economics and Business (International Economics and Business), Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 80-102, 2019

The Schumpeterian way of thinking for the analysis of innovation, as an evolutionary socioeconomic phenomenon, seems to be still of particular usefulness while the fundamental contribution by Nelson and Winter with the “evolutionary theory of economic change” is nowadays one of the most widely cited references in the contexts of “neo-Schumpeterianism.” In a similar evolutionary concern, Vlados (2004) also examines the “dynamics of the triangle of strategy, technology, and management” (Stra.Tech.Man synthesis). The aim of this article is, in particular, to find out to what extent the Stra.Tech.Man approach utilizes and enriches some of the fundamental neo-Schumpeterian contributions by focusing mostly on the evolutionary theory of the firm, the use of evolutionary biology on analyzing socioeconomic phenomena, and the interpretation of structural change into the context of global dynamics. To achieve this goal, we first distinguish some of the criteria/filters that allow for evaluating whether a research contribution can be of neo-Schumpeterian direction. These criteria also help to identify generic concepts of recent neo-Schumpeterian trends in order to formulate a new analytical background based on the Stra.Tech.Man approach.

KSP Books, 2019

This volume presents some fundamental elements to the Stra.Tech.Man approach, which the author of this book tried to develop during the last few years. The main challenge of the Stra.Tech.Man approach is to synthesize interpretatively the analytical spheres of strategy, technology, and management, upon the effort of any socioeconomic organization to innovate, survive, and develop. The following chapters search to define and apply in particular the multiple applications of the Stra.Tech.Man concept. They use this approach as an analytical mechanism to perceive in the context of the current transformative phase of globalization the aspects of competitiveness, innovation, and change management. This volume includes the following chapters that apply the aspects of the Stra.Tech.Man analysis: I. The Greek firms into globalization: The Stra.Tech.Man approach Globalization is not a static and finished status quo: it is subject to a continuous transformation and restructuring. At the same time, globalization is not a timeless, a historical, and automatically homogenizing phenomenon. Every attempt of scientific understanding, interpretation, and prediction of the partial socioeconomic dynamics and developments is becoming increasingly infertile and disorientating, insofar as the rigid analytic division between the “national” and the “international” continues unaltered; globalization is a complex, dialectic, and evolutionary phenomenon. The study of globalization through the examination of the synthesizing and co-evolving incorporation of partial socioeconomic structures (social, economic and sectoral) and corporate subsystems in terms of strategy, technology, and management (“Stra.Tech.Man” triangle) constitutes a new approach for the study of the globalization process. II. Innovation in Stra.Tech.Man terms Contrary to the conventional neoclassical perspective, the approaches focusing on the evolutionary nature of the capitalist firm are probably more comprehensive in the study of innovation. This chapter attempts a theoretical refocusing in the analysis of innovation, by following a perspective of “biological” type. It highlights the synthesis of “strategy-technology-management” as the organic center that generates and re-generates the phenomenon of innovation within the socioeconomic organizations. III. Innovation in economics and management: The Stra.Tech.Man synthesis Economics and the theoretical analysis of entrepreneurship and organizational theory keep up with producing innovation theories with remarkably various forms and analyses. This chapter suggests that economics and management science can be “analytically bridged” if we reposition the phenomenon of innovation into the evolutionary/physiological Stra.Tech.Man “core” of the organization. In this theoretical perspective, the firm as a “living organism” operates as structural co-creator of the economic sectors and the socioeconomic systems that host its entrepreneurial activity. IV. Change management and innovation in Stra.Tech.Man terms In the current context of globalization’s restructuring, the concepts of change management and innovation are co-evolving. A counter-proposed theoretical perspective in terms of the evolutionary Stra.Tech.Man triangle is useful for the successful innovative action of all socioeconomic organizations. This chapter suggests the concept of change management in Stra.Tech.Man terms in five consecutive steps as a novel approach to the phenomenon of organizational change. V. Fostering micro and meso competitiveness in Stra.Tech.Man terms In the current restructuring phase of globalization, since all partial socioeconomic systems are inescapably entering an ever-deeper process of “organic restructuring,” the content of competitiveness is changing structurally. To this end, it seems that a repositioned developmental economic policy is necessary, which can focus on fostering the competitiveness of the locally operating entrepreneurial actors. This chapter proposes specifically the concept of competitiveness as a synthesis of the three fundamental micro, meso, and macro levels that create and reproduce the systemic competitiveness. It also presents the Stra.Tech.Man perspective on the proposal of creation of the Local Development and Innovation Institutes (LDIs) as useful dimensions to strengthen local business systems in combined terms of meso- and micro- competitiveness. In conclusion, the “Stra.Tech.Man approach” attempts to define a unifying and evolutionary field of research, by initiating its exploration on the inner “physiology” of the socioeconomic organization. This approach extends analytically from the micro to the meso- and macro- level of socioeconomic system dynamics and vice versa. Cite as: Vlados, Ch. (2019). Stra.Tech.Man (Strategy-Technology-Management): Theory and Concepts. KSP Books. Available at: http://books.ksplibrary.org

Business, Management and Economics Research, 2019

This article aims to examine whether the “Stra.Tech.Man” approach (Vlados, 2004), which explores the dialectical synthesis between strategy, technology, and management inside all socioeconomic organisms fulfills the requirements to be an analysis of evolutionary direction. It tries to answer this question, in particular, by examining the theoretical foundations of evolutionary economics and the subsequent evolutionary theorization of the firm that stems analytically from evolutionary economics. With this goal in mind, an overview of the relatively recent literature is attempted by presenting some of the significant contributions to evolutionary economics and the evolutionary theory of the firm. Next, it examines the specific way of building the Stra.Tech.Man approach on the production process of innovation and change management, by analyzing how this can lead to the structuration of an evolutionary direction of business planning for any socioeconomic organism.

Strategic management establishes an operational link between the enterprise's overall strategy and more specific aspects of management, such as human resources management (HRM). In a way, the strategic vision is an extension of the systemic vision, which included various elements but did not integrate them from the outset into the enterprise's overall strategy nor establish an operational link between these aspects. The present text will shed light on one of the dimensions of the strategy of the enterprise, that is, its innovation strategy. We will reveal the contribution of the economic vision of innovation to the understanding of one area of strategic management, that is, innovation strategy and innovation management within the enterprise. We draw mainly on the work of the economist Joseph Schumpeter as well as the more recent contributions of the evolutionary economists who, in our view, work in the tradition of Schumpeter's vision of the entrepreneur-innovator and appear to be most relevant when returning to the roots of strategic management. Moreover, the contributions of these authors appear to be most useful for legitimizing the strategic management of human resources in a context of innovation since they put forward a vision of innovation as a process. They also take into account collective learning and other aspects that establish a stronger connection between human resources management and innovation management. This justifies the strategic management of human resources, which then becomes linked (or operationalized) to the enterprise's overall strategy, particularly as regards innovation.

The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 2019

This essay is a review of and tribute to the life and contributions of Nina Shapiro, who passed away this year. Shapiro was an American Post-Keynesian economist, who was a bridge figure in radical economics, connecting Marx to Keynes, Schumpeter to Kaldor, the behavior of the firm to the dynamics of the macroeconomy, and the process of innovation to the organization of production and accumulation. She was seminal to important moments in the history of radical economics in the US, including the formation of the Hegel-inspired journal Social Concept in the 1980s and the Rutgers University’s Post-Keynesian circle in the 1980s and 1990s. Shapiro’s deeply philosophical and dialectical approach to firm behavior, innovation, and business cycles led her to theorize the “revolutionary character” of Post-Keynesian economics and to formulate a critique of the competitive neoclassical firm which, she argued, is at odds with the logic of capitalism in which firms seek to make profit and grow.

2000

he role of technological evolution and innovation in shaping the destinies of industries and firms is often underestimated. Technological change is a key factor as both a creative force in the growth of enterprises and as a destructive force making those same enterprises vulnerable to competi- tion. Analysis of how innovations enter and transform enter- prises reveals several strategies for

2015

The purpose of this study is to identify the specific subjects that deal with innovation, in order to understand if the innovation " belongs " more to the capitalist or to the entrepreneur, and if there is any difference between the capitalist and the entrepreneur in terms of commitment, risk, and expectations. In this study a literature review methodology is used for classifying the capitalist and the entrepreneur form different profiles and in relation with the innovation process. Data are obtained mainly from books and articles, relying on an interdisciplinary perspective. Research findings show that the figure of the capitalist is distinguished from that of the entrepreneur in front of business activities. Thus, the capitalist is financially committed by offering the capital, expecting as a return the financial interest rate, and assuming a financial risk. Instead, the entrepreneur is committed with innovation and change, expecting the profit as remuneration for the assumed organizational risk.

Handbook of The Economics of Innovation, Vol. 1, 2010

International Journal of Innovation and …, 2011