Читать книгу Innovation in Sport. Innovation Trajectories and Process Optimization онлайн

51 страница из 54

KEY POINT – Not all research on innovation escapes the shortcomings mentioned above (excessive rationalization, emphasis on disruptive innovations to the detriment of imitation and incremental innovations, poor integration of resistance and failures, etc.). The whole point of critical studies of innovation is to provide hindsight to oppose these unthoughts, which are at the origin of a form of partial blindness (Godin and Vinck 2017). To remedy this, Bauer (2017) recommends observing innovations in progress, rather than retrospectively; studying failures in order to understand, by contrast, the origins of success; analyzing abandonments following adoptions; taking into account feedback from users (re-innovation); or even considering the reasons for rejecting an innovation.

At the end of this brief overview, it should be pointed out that there is no a priori more or less true (or false) reading of innovation processes, nor is there a neutral reading; the statements produced from these different theoretical perspectives constitute, as it were, “pieces of the truth”, each with its own grey areas. There are therefore different ways of understanding sports innovations, which are sometimes difficult to reconcile. Diffusionism, inspired by Rogers, focuses on the properties of an innovation in order to highlight its relative qualities (within a given context) and thus explain its spread. For some, the context (organizational, historical, social, cultural) will appear to be more decisive in understanding the success or failure of inventions. For others, it is the users (lead users, users involved in the innovation process) who are the main drivers of value creation. Finally, a current of socio-technical inspiration will reverse the gaze to address the dynamic and reciprocal co-construction of the innovation and the environment that will judge it... These different perspectives are not mutually exclusive but correspond to distinct questions that focus on different scales or periods of the innovation.