Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm

Administrative Science Quarterly, Dec, 1997 by Andrew Hargadon, Robert I. Sutton

We used an iterative process to develop the inferences about the process of innovation through technology brokering at IDEO that are summarized in figure 1. Following Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Miles and Huberman (1994), a set of iterations usually began with a hunch inspired by the data or literature (e.g., an informant mentioned that the original idea for a water bottle valve came from another designer who had worked on a previous shampoo bottle project, which suggested that ideas from different industries provided IDEO with potentially valuable solutions in later projects). Then, to see if a hunch could be grounded, we compiled pertinent evidence from all seven data sources (e.g., we looked for evidence that IDEO's experience in a range of industries provided its engineers with useful ideas). These analyses led us to abandon, modify, or maintain each inference (e.g., we retained the inference that access to a range of industries was an important aspect of IDEO's innovation process). If the inference was retained, we summarized the grounding for it in a within-site display reflecting how strongly each inference could be grounded in each data source. We then wrote up our inferences about each retained consequence, weaving together conceptual arguments, additional evidence, and citations to pertinent literature. Table 2 presents the evidence that grounds our process model of technology brokering.

[FIGURE 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[TABULAR DATA 2 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Access: IDEO'S Network Position as Technology Broker

Brokers derive value by enabling the flow of resources between otherwise unconnected subgroups within a larger network (Marsden, 1982; Gould and Fernandez, 1989; Burt, 1992a: DiMaggio, 1992). Marsden (1982: 202) defined brokers as intermediate actors that "facilitate transactions between other actors lacking access to or trust in one another." Considerable network analytic research has shown the power that accrues to brokers. Fernandez and Gould (1994) showed that organizations occupying brokerage positions in the national health policy domain were more likely to have greater perceived influence. Padgett and Ansell (1993) explained the rise to power of the Medici family in fifteenth century Florence as the result of a network position spanning otherwise unconnected subgroups. Burt (1983, 1992a, 1992b) described how the value of connecting different subgroups depends on the relative lack of other ties between those subgroups. By restricting the flow of information between subgroups, this lack of ties creates disparities in the knowledge held by the different subgroups and enables brokers to profit by providing access for each subgroup to the ideas of the larger network. Such a disconnected network structure allows brokers to benefit because they "are well connected in several networks, rather than extremely central in just one" (DiMaggio, 1992: 130). When the ideas are technological solutions, brokers benefit by being well connected to a range of disparate industries and enabling the flow of existing solutions between those that have such knowledge and those that do not.