Sociology

With the recognition of the importance of innovation in as far as firms survival and its role in determining social and economic revolution, Hung goes ahead to describe the way innovations came up, how they develop as well as the path they take as they grow. In discussing the innovation process, he proposes a model whereby the tenets of innovation (i.e. action and structure) are brought together to co work in achieving this. In essence, Hungs article is a focus on the relationship between action-structure as well as cause-effect in the process of innovation.

Article summary
Hung defines innovation as described in related literature as a new idea, practice or object. This article explores the relationship between peoples actions and structures thereof as far as innovation is concerned. It is an appraisal that innovation in any industry follows a particular path of which the path is non-reversible and contingent. Entrepreneurs are brought on board as actors in the innovation process who initiate creative destruction whereby qualitative change is achieved through destroying an old economic structure and erecting a new structure. Three actors are recognized in the innovation process including sponsors and stakeholders, technology commercializing actors and users of a particular technology. Hung however recognizes that even with these actors, innovation has to be based on regime, paradigm and tradition.

For the above three factors to reign over time, dominant designs have to keep on coming up while technological cues have to also prevail. A technological path that actors actions uphold and transform holds regime, paradigm and history together. Hung describes the model of technological path which as opposed to the static evolutionary path is a dynamic one that recognizes the connection between human action and social structure in shaping innovation. Actions are taken as a form of destruction and the change while structure connotes order as stipulated by rules and stability as enabled by resources. Hung therefore insists that actions, rules and resources are the pillars of a technology path.

Aspects of a technology path
Under action, Hung argues that innovation is a result of the coming in of many actors and innovators. With many actors, it is possible to come up with creativity and transformation since they are able to make tactical choices and differences. The article appreciates that a technologically uncertain period is bound to exist but not exceeding the time when a dominant technology comes up that guides other innovations. Central to action is that it is a creative destructive process.

Hung argues that the rules pillar is born from actions as these are determinant of the decisions that are made in a firm. Rules are appreciated as important in maintaining orderliness in the innovation process. Rules are also known to vary with technology and incidents and these cannot be absolutely predetermined. Hung points out that structures that are laid up today determines the actions taken tomorrow.

Resources have been cited as important in creative action of innovation. Hung stresses on the need to legitimize the resources so as to attract others to join the development process as well as to ensure the general formulae are followed. Central to resources is the need to network actors. Hugh suggests that networking will enhance trust since the institutions can set standards and guidelines as well as handle rather difficult tasks. Knowledge as a resource is also able to be shared among all actors. Networking also helps in accessing institutional capital and instituting market contracts.

Conclusively, Hung proposes the new model due to the strengths that it has and the potential it holds for the innovation process.

It is appreciable that Hungs proposal is based on cited examples such as the innovation in the information technology sector as well as the communication sector whereby the interrelationship between action and structure in shaping innovation path is clearly seen. There are however questions on whether this is the universal rule in every sector of the economy. For instance, would innovation in the textile industry take the same route of development putting into consideration the aspect of the differences in culture along in this sector

Although Hungs work is very solid on the impact that todays actions can have on tomorrows structure, he barely talks on the effects that todays structure is likely to have on actions regarding tomorrows actions in the innovation trajectory. He therefore does not highlight clearly the relationship between action and structure.

Among the main strengths of the model as proposed by Hung is the relationship between the three building blocks of innovation. The place of actions in determining the decisions that are made by a firms management is commendable with those actions setting the ground for setting rules governing innovation of which may change depending on circumstances. The place of resources is also not left out for without considering such, innovation comes to a stand still.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that Hungs work is an evolutionary model that is able to change organizational structure as it appreciates the creative destructive process of innovation.