Learning across business sectors: facets of innovation in aerospace and construction

Innovation is notoriously difficult to define and is invariably intertwined with issues of knowledge creation, continuous improvement and organisational change. An extensive literature classifies numerous types of innovation and militates against any simplistic attempt at definition. It is widely accepted that innovation is at least partly dependent upon the surrounding environment. Industry recipes and institutionally embedded practices shape the environment within which innovation occurs. Recent research directions have addressed the diffusion of innovation and its dependence upon social and institutional structures. In this respect, it is highly pertinent to compare the way that innovation is interpreted and enacted in different industrial sectors. The comparison between UK aerospace and construction is especially revealing because the two sectors are so different and therefore constitute radically different climates for innovation. Empirical research is reported based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners from both sectors. Interpretations of innovation are found to differ dramatically between aerospace and construction. Within the context of an ongoing struggle to define innovation, both industries are striving to become more innovative. The aerospace sector is found to emphasise technical innovation whereas the construction sector emphasises process innovation. An overriding cultural bias in Western economies towards technological innovation results in the common perception that aerospace is much more innovative than construction. The experienced realities of practitioners in the two sectors are much more complex.

Innovation in facilities management: from trajectories to ownership

Purpose – Innovation in facilities management (FM) is a complex process as FM is a diverse discipline. This paper aims to use innovation trajectories to explore this complex process through the introduction of a technology innovation in two FM services of security and workspace management. It also aims to consider the discourse of individuals within their trajectory to understand their positions toward the innovation. Design/methodology/approach – A two-year case study was conducted and it was based in an in-house FM department that was part of a financial institution. The specific methods used for the paper were semi-structured interviews with key participants of the project. Critical discourse analysis was used to examine the data. Findings – Individuals who were involved in introducing the technology to the FM department were both internal and external to FM as innovation in FM does not happen in isolation to the organisation. Innovation trajectories were often intertwined or occurred simultaneously during the process of a project which sometimes resulted in conflict. Tensions within the discourse of ownership of the project were particularly apparent as this discourse had a power dimension in driving the project through to implementation. Research limitations/implications – The research is limited by being a single case study so it is not possible to generalise findings but the findings may have resonances with other organisations. Originality/value – The paper presents an original idea about how to understand innovation processes in FM services.