Summary of the Article
The article “Innovation Management: A Breakthrough Approach to Organizational Excellence” by Harrington and Voehl provides a thorough examination of the concept of innovation management. These authors appreciate organizations’ need for operating in an orderly manner when developing original income channels and inventive solutions that seek to revolutionize companies, sectors, and, consequently, societies. According to this article, investing in innovation management is a sure way of facilitating business growth and success. Harrington and Voehl do not provide an explicit statement of their research problem.
However, a keen examination reveals that these authors are worried about the current situation whereby many organizations seem to be ignorant when it comes to embracing innovation management, despite their consciousness of the role of the concept in influencing their performance and sustainability. Regarding the method adopted, the article deploys reports and survey findings from various scholars to confirm that indeed less than 25% of present-day businesses have not tapped the idea of innovation management. The thesis of the article is not clearly presented, although Harrington and Voehl give a hint that they wish to campaign for the embracement of inventive business strategies because conventional ones are no longer sufficient in today’s technology-driven world.
A Critical Evaluation of the Article
Scholarly works follow a standard format that ensures that readers can easily understand the problem being examined, questions being responded to, a literature review section for substantiating claims made, findings, recommendations, and even conclusions drawn. In earlier chapters, it is crucial to pose a question or questions confirming the existence of a gap that can be sealed once answers to such queries are provided. In the current study, Harrington and Voehl pose the question “…where does innovation come from in the first place?” (p. 214). This inquiry is not only wrong in relation to the issue under investigation but also misplaced.
Readers expect an inquiry related to innovation management posed in the introductory section. However, this expectation is not met. Although the article fits into other studies examining the concept of modernization, it may be discredited for its shallowness in addressing its main area of innovation management. Standard articles that investigate this topic are characterized by their substantive use of the available literature to support claims made because of the broad nature of the subject of innovation management. Consequently, the article by Harrington and Voehl misses many studies it would have used, for instance, when defining the notion of innovation. These authors would have also consulted other studies to see the way they present the concept of innovation management before coming up with their customized and unreferenced perspective.
However, the article’s problem matches the method used. When examining a particular subject, it is crucial to adopt a plan that will give reliable data regarding the issue under investigation. In the current study, Harrington and Voehl consult sources such as the “Council on Competitiveness Report of 2008” (p. 213) among other surveys that bear first-hand information concerning over 700 organizations’ innovation levels. They adopt a convincing method of giving a wide range of companies, some of which recorded losses following the lack of innovation management while another category contains businesses that flourished after embracing this concept. This way, readers can gauge the impact that embracing or failing to uphold the idea of innovation management can have on companies’ performance.
The article’s findings are not reported in a clear and consistent manner. Although Harrington and Voehl strive to categorize performing and non-productive businesses in relation to their perception of innovation management, readers expect a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information presented in the form of tables and figures. However, out of the 700 companies consulted, the article attempts to report percentages of businesses that succeeded after adopting innovation management, including those that failed because of ignoring the impact of this concept on their productivity. For instance, as Harrington and Voehl reveal, “More than 70 percent of those surveyed compared their organizations to a ‘slow-moving truck’” (p. 219). Nevertheless, figures and tables would have been added for easy comparison purposes. Consequently, readers encounter problems because the article omits such crucial data that would have helped to substantiate its findings. Despite these weaknesses, not attempts are made to acknowledge or explain any limitations.
The logic in Harrington and Voehl’s article is clear. The two authors give well-reasoned arguments regarding the subject of innovation management. Their illustrations of performing and non-profitable organizations are also logically presented. However, as earlier mentioned, many claims are not supported by convincing data. In particular, a statement such as “Product innovation results in new products or services” (p. 218) should be referenced to show the connection of this claim to previous studies. Nonetheless, no fallacies are evident in the current study.
My Opinion on the Article
I agree with Harrington and Voehl’s article because it offers crucial information, which present-day companies need, to augment their efforts to remain functional. Technology has transformed the way people conduct business. In addition to altering product-packaging approaches, it has revolutionized the level of buyer-seller interaction, including the process of acquiring and delivering services and commodities to customers. Hence, in my opinion, the article’s findings address a current issue that cuts across all modern businesses. Companies’ leaders and managers can benefit from illustrations given in this study by adjusting their practices to match the prevailing standards. Although not every area is addressed in a clear, logical, and well-ordered manner, I do not remain skeptical regarding the content given. In my view, embracing innovation management concepts improves productivity levels because innovative services or products not only capture more clients but also help to retain existing ones.
The Article’s Contribution to Knowledge and its Application to Today’s World
Organizations that operate in contemporary competitive environments have been forced to invest hugely in strategies that emphasize the need for upgrading their products and services to remain operational and productive. As a result, they cannot ignore the concept of innovation. The article by Harrington and Voehl augments the prevailing literature on the subject of innovation management. As such, researchers interested in gathering data concerning businesses that failed after disregarding the contribution of this concept to their profitability levels will find it resourceful. Since Harrington and Voehl address a present-day issue that is being felt internationally following technological advancements, this article is significant to the extent that business proprietors now appreciate the need for embracing innovation management in their operations.
Suggestions to Improve the Article
Despite the significance of the issue under investigation, the article can be improved to match recommended academic standards. For instance, its reliability can be enhanced by ensuring that crucial data or information borrowed from previous studies is referenced accordingly. Secondly, formatting it in a standard manner that captures distinct sections such as the literature review, findings, discussions, recommendations, and conclusions would ensure that any omitted data is well captured in its respective area. Including a clear research question and a problem statement would also help to improve the article’s focus and, consequently, its presentation of findings.