工程管理专业外文文献以及汉文翻译--作为一种组织创新项目管理办公室(编辑修改稿)

工程管理专业外文文献以及汉文翻译--作为一种组织创新项目管理办公室(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

to be very similar, responding to the same incentives. The objectives of research are often to provide organisations with practical solutions determining factors to innovative success. Innovation theory is now shifting to a social innovation approach, broadening the concept of technological innovation to a social system. ‘‘[...]the sociological crucial point is that organisations have not only bee prominent actors in society, they may have bee the only kind of actor with significant cultural and political influence. Yet, recent organisation theory has surprisingly little to say about how organisations affect the society.” [13, p. 148] New questions have emerged which lead to motivation theory and to the context of innovation that rehabilitates history along with innovation, thus introducing the temporal element to the social innovation system [17,18]. This historical perspective was a natural step after the ecological model which demonstrated the usefulness of the biological metaphor with the concepts of evolution and coevolution [19]. This social approach paved the way for looking at organisations as part of the social innovation system and new forms of structure as innovations. Along this line of thought, innovation is viewed as an art or, more exactly, as a craft [18]. Innovation then bees a creative act, the dynamic construction of something new in which it can be difficult to discern any regular pattern 1 [20]. . From evolutionary theory to coevolution The evolutionary theory was developed in the theory of organizations based on a biological metaphor. A basic evolutionary model of an organisation envisions it as a collection of routines or stable bundles of activities. With time, variation occurs within these routines with the result that any given set of routines evolves, whether intentionally or not. A certain number of new routines are then adopted as temporarily permanent practices. This simple variation–selection–retention repeats continuously [21, p. 76]. Evolutionary theories are made up of two major groups: contingency theories and social theories. Contingency theories consider technological change as an exogenous phenomenon which triggers organisational evolution [8,22]. This deterministic approach makes structural 4 arrangements predictable from variables such as plexity, uncertainty and interdependency, which can be integrated into a single dimension – the ability to treat information [23]. Social theories view organisations as technological social constructions in which the munity of organisations determines the nature of technological evolution [22]. In this approach, organisational structures are seen as processes in action which are continuously built and rebuilt [23]. Scott argues that these approaches are two sides of the same coin [23]. On the one hand, technology can be considered the causal agent which shapes the structure of organisations。 while on the other hand, to reverse this causal effect, organisations influence the innovation process with either the creation of a new technology or its early adoption [23]. This plementarity is recognized in the coevolution theory in which technological innovations are believed to give the impetus that initiates new cycles of variation–selection–retention and in which a dynamic process of evolution with innovation constantly feeds organisation [22,24]. Massini et al. [19] confirm that evolutionary theory is capable of explaining changes in organisational structures and routines. They conclude that organisational adaptation is a consequence of changes related to the adoption of technological innovations. Looking at large Western and Japanese firms at two different periods in time (1992, 1996), their research confirms both the progressive adaptation over time and the tendency to adopt organisational routines associated with a higher capacity for flexibility. This also confirms the selection and emergence of dominant routines suggested by the evolutionary theory. They also confirm that these changes are contextdependant: the institutional context in which organisations are embedded defines patterns of organisational structures and strategies. . Coevolution In biology, coevolution is defined as evolution involving successive changes in two or more ecologically interdependent species (as of a plant and its pollinators) that affect their interactions. (MerriamWebster, 11th Collegiate Dictionary) The relation could be of a predatorprey nature or of a symbiotic nature. Coevolution is also used in a narrower context when it refers to a specific form of relation (inside or outside of a pany) adopted for short term results. Eisenhardt and Galunic [25] refer to coevolution (of a symbiotic nature) when they argue that multibusiness corporations are coevolving ecosystems. From that viewpoint, 5 collaboration occurs only when it gives a positive performance result in terms of growth, shares and profits. Coevolution helps us understand the evolution of plex systems. At a macrolevel2, Rosenkopf and Tushman [22] propose a framework to examine various stages of coevolution of organisational and technological forms. These authors argue that there are two different interlinked processes – the evolution of munity organization and the evolution of technology within one cycle of variation–selection–retention. Organisations are part of their munity and they contribute to the evolutionary process of munity organisation which simultaneously drives and is driven by cyclical technological progress through eras of ferment followed by eras of incremental change. At a micro level, there are numerous technological (variation) events, rulemaking (selection) events, and institutional rulefollowing (retention) events that occurred and coevolved over time to facili。