Can an organization generate more innovation while becoming less capable of pursuing what matters most?
Hello,
Technology and innovation research has taught us a great deal about search, experimentation, portfolio choice, technological frames, resource allocation, and path dependence.
I am interested in what may happen before those processes fully operate.
Do recurring governance conditions shape which technically viable innovations become serious candidates for investment and development by influencing how competing decision inputs are weighted?
Innovation decisions rarely turn on one consideration alone. Organizations weigh technical feasibility, financial return, strategic fit, time horizon, execution risk, resilience, incumbent commitments, and uncertainty. My question is whether governance systematically influences that weighting before a formal portfolio decision is made.
An idea may be technically feasible and strategically important, yet never gain real standing because unfamiliar evidence is discounted, near-term returns are weighted more heavily than long-term capability, uncertainty is treated as disqualifying, an incumbent technology is protected, or the proposal lacks a sponsor able to defend it.
The mechanism may be cumulative. People observe which experiments receive patience, which evidence is considered credible, which failures are treated as learning, and which proposals are funded, delayed, starved, or abandoned. Over time, those patterns influence which ideas people continue to raise, which technologies they are willing to defend, and which possibilities quietly disappear before formal selection begins.
If that is right, governance does more than influence which innovation is selected. It helps shape the weighting process that determines which innovations become credible candidates for selection in the first place.
This may become even more consequential as AI increases the speed and volume of idea generation. An organization may produce more alternatives than ever while continuing to evaluate them through the same assumptions, incumbent preferences, proof thresholds, and weighting patterns.
I am trying to understand whether this is already adequately explained by innovation search, technological frames, dominant logic, path dependence, portfolio governance, resource allocation, or another established literature.
Or is there theoretical value in examining how governance shapes the weighting of decision inputs and, through that process, narrows or expands the set of innovations that receive serious organizational standing?
I would welcome candid criticism, relevant references, and conversations with TIM colleagues attending AOM in Philadelphia.