Thesis (M.S.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1990. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 97-104). Also available via the Internet.

Scholars in science and technology studies have long been concerned with a variety of issues revolving around technological change, such as explaining the origins of technological innovation and arguing for or against technological determinism. This thesis reviews a number of theoretical models developed by historians, philosophers, sociologists, and other scholars to explain technological change. A case study of technological innovations in industnal forestry and timber harvesting practices provides a basis for a critique of these previously proposed models and for an argument for a new model. This model, an ecological model, suggests homeostatic pressures play a major role in the innovative processes within any technological system. / Master of Science

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1997. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [208]-237).

Innovation is a critical component for long term success of an organization. However, being innovative is rarely easy. Successful implementation of any innovation (product, process, or business system) can heavily rely on the functionality of the current innovation system in a given industry. An innovation system is composed of policies, companies, individuals, and other major actors that may play a role in the development and diffusion of an innovation into the marketplace. Historically, the forest products industry has faced numerous challenges in remaining innovative: outside forces provide few incentives or favorable policies while poor communication among industry sectors impedes creative growth from within. An in-depth analysis of why the forest sector innovation system is not performing at a higher level is therefore essential. This thesis outlines results gathered from personal interviews with industry professionals and an industry survey on key policies, incentives, organizations, and the condition of Oregon's forest sector innovation system in general. Ultimately, the research provides recommendations for an improved forest sector innovation system that can, in turn, increase competitiveness and synergies among forest sector companies, higher education, and other businesses in Oregon. / Graduation date: 2013

In many business sectors today, the focus on quality as a competitive tool is being replaced by a focus on innovation. Research exploring connections between quality management, innovation, and company performance suggests that quality is 'necessary but insufficient' in today's business environment. In short, the question facing managers, particularly those in small firms, is how to adapt their quality management practices to achieve innovation performance in addition to quality performance. To answer this question, West Coast U.S. forest products manufacturers were surveyed about quality management practices and performance with respect to both quality and innovation. Quality management practices were assessed following the systems perspective articulated by the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Data envelopment analysis was used to identify companies efficiently using quality management practices to lead to quality and/or innovation performance. Survey responses from the efficient firms were then analyzed via cluster analysis to identify two categories of firms: those achieving primarily quality outcomes and those achieving both quality and innovation outcomes. Executives from two firms in each category were interviewed to provide detail on the management practices used by the companies. Interview transcripts were examined to identify similarities and differences in practices between the two categories of firms. Results suggest several specific areas of focus for firms wanting to adapt their quality management practices to achieve both quality and innovation performance. For example, firms focused on innovation proactively seek to identify and meet customers' needs whereas quality-focused firms primarily emphasize reacting to customer complaints. More specifically with respect to 'customer focus', firms focused on innovation emphasize convenience for their customers through practices such as standardizing product lines and providing product specifications on their websites. In contrast, neither quality-focused firm had a website. These firms were at their production capacity (at least prior to the recession) and viewed websites strictly as a means to attract new business rather than as a service to existing customers. Also with regards to customer focus, firms focused on innovation sought to generate new business - not just for their company, but for their customers as well. Beyond customer focus, firms focused on innovation provide employees with opportunities to help the organization implement changes. With respect to benchmarking, firms focused on innovation actively sought to measure their performance against the 'best practice' in the industry; firms focused primarily on quality performance demonstrated little if any emphasis on benchmarking. Finally, there were apparent overarching and hence cultural differences between the two categories of firms - firms focused on innovation were more proactive, strategic, and willing to take risk; in addition, these firms discussed innovation as the means to improve product quality, reduce costs, or attract new customers. By contrast, the quality-focused firms were reactive, conservative, and risk-averse; these firms discussed innovation primarily as 'technology' without reference to potential linkages to company performance.