Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated

Open Models

Emmanuel D. Adamides

1

, Nikos I. Karacapilidis

1

and Konstantinos Konstantinopoulos

1,2

1

Industrial Management and Information Systems Lab, MEAD, University of Patras, 26504 Rio Patras, Greece

2

Supply Unique S.A., Coffee Island, 26334 Patras, Greece

Keywords: Activity Theory, Open Innovation, Technology-mediated Argumentation, Food & Beverages Sector.

Abstract: The paper uses activity theory and Activity Based Analysis (ABA) for understanding the contradictions

developing, and the corresponding remedial actions required, in the transition of an organization from the

closed to the technology-mediated open mode of innovation production. We use activity theory to develop

nested representations of the innovation process in both business models, and concentrate on the

argumentation-in-innovation activity and its context. We demonstrate the application of ABA in the analysis

of contradictions developing in the argumentation processes of a firm in the food and beverages sector

adopting open innovation strategies implemented in the innovation community mode.

1 INTRODUCTION

In a process view, innovation is the result of a series

of coarse-grain interlinked activities (idea

generation, selection and conceptualization of

product/service/process, technical development,

launch, value appropriation, etc. (Tidd and Bessant,

2014)), in which “knowledgeable and creative

people and organizational units frame problems and

select, integrate, and augment information to create

understanding and answers” (Teece, 2001). These

activities constitute problem resolution tasks at-large

(Leonard and Sensiper, 2003) that combine emerged

and more concretely-defined fine-grain problems.

Propositions for resolving these problems and

evaluation of propositions are placed by diverse

stakeholders (managers, employees, technology

suppliers, customers) that act as knowledge sources

along the innovation process.

The innovation process is triggered by novel

ideas and propositions for novel technologies,

products, etc, or even strategic initiatives towards

innovative business models. These, contradicting

and in conflict with other explicit or indirect

proposals, are arguments with supporting evidence,

which have to be evaluated and accepted, or at least

accommodated, in a collective manner within the

specific organisational context (Wright, 2012).

Argumentation is thus a context-based knowledge-

creating activity and can be mediated by the

technological means employed for exercising it.

Specific forms of argument exercised frequently, or

by powerful actors, become dominant schemes,

characteristics of the organisational discourse (Potter

and Wetherell, 1987), in general, and of innovation

processes in particular.

The aim of this paper is to investigate how such

dominant argumentation schemes influence the

general context of the innovation production

process, and, in turn, how a dominant argumentation

scheme is influenced by the context of the

innovation process. Adopting a practice perspective

and using activity theory, the specific objective of

this paper is to investigate how the context of a

computer-mediated open innovation process

influences the dominant argumentation scheme of a

company, and vice versa. Argumentation is a very

important issue in the context of Open Innovation

(OI), as it enables active transparency (Adamides

and Karacapilidis, 2019) – a capability that is

constituted by the capabilities of generative sensing

(Dong et al., 2016) and productive argumentation –

and which should be in line with the changing

context of the innovation process.

Following, first we consider argumentation in the

innovation process. In section 3, we briefly discuss

the characteristics and role of argumentation in

organisations. We continue in section 4 with the

introduction of an activity-theoretic model of

Adamides, E., Karacapilidis, N. and Konstantinopoulos, K.

Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated Open Models.

DOI: 10.5220/0010495100450054

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business (FEMIB 2021), pages 45-54

ISBN: 978-989-758-507-4

Copyright

c

45

argumentation practices in innovation and a related

process for investigating the impact of interventions

in organisations. Then, in Section 5, this model is

employed for analysing the contradictions

developing between the argumentation scheme and

its context and the interventions for their potential

resolution in a coffee roaster and coffee shop

franchisor company that intends to switch to

technology-mediated open innovation strategy in the

innovation community mode. We conclude with a

brief discussion of the research presented in the

paper.

2 THE MEDIATING ROLE OF

ARGUMENTATION IN THE

OPEN INNOVATION PROCESS

In today’s interconnected and dynamic world, open

innovation has received much attention in both

academic and business spheres, signifying a novel

business model that has already been considered at

different levels of analysis (Bogers, et al., 2017).

The adoption of open innovation (OI) (Chesbrough,

2006) by an organisation implies that its innovation

process becomes porous, and ideas, concepts,

design, products, services etc. flow in and out of its

boundaries. Different human and non-human

knowledge sources associated with internal and

external organization actors become interconnected

in many different ways, and information and

knowledge items of different forms flow between

them, and are transformed in many different ways,

for the development of the required capabilities ().

Clearly, in large complex organizational settings,

this is accomplished in a complex web of social

processes (Anderson and Hardwick, 2017), in which,

and in accordance with the OI model adopted

(innovation markets, communities, contests, or

toolkits (Möslein, 2013), agents of different views,

interests, cultures and power status, usually being

situated geographically and contextually at a

distance, are part of. As a result, the use of

Information and communications technology (ICT)

is inevitable and constitutes a crucial factor for its

implementation (Adamides and Karacapilidis,

2020).

In OI, external knowledge integration and

learning are associated with the organisation’s

dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 2016) (sensing

the environment, seizing opportunities and

transforming its innovation process(es) and value

offerings), while their effectiveness depends on the

organization’s level of absorptive capacity (ACAP)

(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), as well as on its

degree of “active transparency” (Adamides and

Karacapilidis, 2019), which may be defined as a

form of generative sensing (Dong et al., 2016).

Active transparency refers to an active

organisational interface that identifies, collects,

filters and distils internal and/or external knowledge

before it is integrated in the existing organisational

knowledge base. In this line, it supports the

collective development of hypotheses about

problems and their innovative solutions – in general,

hypotheses about the possible use and effects of

incoming and outgoing knowledge items – as well as

the testing for their validity. As it was already

mentioned, active transparency is a compound

capability that is constituted by the component

capabilities of generative sensing and

argumentation. Generative sensing, in turn, is

founded on the micro-capabilities of framing

problems/issues and selecting/inferring their

solutions using an abductive logic (abduction)

(Dong et al., 2016). On the other hand,

argumentation schemes influence the proposition-

setting and selection/decision-making processes by

regulating the relative power (positional and

rhetoric) of participants and their arguments

(dominant argumentation logic/repertoire).

In open innovation, once a proposition is framed

collectively in an argumentative fashion, its validity

then needs to be tested through abduction.

Abduction is a form of logical reasoning in which

hypotheses/propositions, which are intuitive

“guesses” (and not necessarily logically sound) are

introduced and then validated through testing (Dong

et al., 2016). The proposition is a hypothetical

mechanism (the product of abduction), which, if it

existed, would generate (would be responsible for)

the observed phenomenon/problem, or a

phenomenon different from what was normally

expected (Papachristos and Adamides, 2016). The

proposition may be the result of argumentation and

thus logically sound, as far as the collective process

is concerned. However, most likely, it will be

unfounded regarding its actual content, since most

participants have limited, or no, knowledge of the

specifics of the issue/problem and the context

around the issue (Androutsopoulou et al., 2018). In

this way, argumentation on these proposals produces

knowledge.

There have been direct and indirect calls for

embedding argumentation and productive conflict

resolution in open innovation processes and their

technology-mediated implementation (Battistella

FEMIB 2021 - 3rd International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

46

and Nonino, 2012; Cui et al., 2015; Malhotra and

Majchrzak, 2016; Bogers et al., 2017; Osorno and

Medrano, 2020). Argumentation is a knowledge

integration/combination and creation activity that

needs to be part of platforms supporting different

forms of open innovation and the associated

dynamic capabilities (Adamides and Karacapilidis,

2019). As argumentation and conflict resolution

processes (e.g. voting) are inscribed in the

technology, the adoption of such systems by an

organisation implies the adoption of the specific

form of argumentation supported in the system, and

the introduction of its logic into the specific

organisational context. Obviously, this may lead to

contradictions between the existing structures and

practices and the structures and practices inscribed

in the system. Hence, prior to the introduction of

computer-supported OI, the form of argumentation

inscribed should be analysed and the appropriate

modifications in organisational practices and

structures must be made. Alternatively, the OI

supporting ICT system may need to be designed

taking into account the institutionalised practices, if

change is not desirable.

3 ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES

AND ORGANISATIONAL

CONTEXTS

In general, the purpose of an argument is to show

that a non-trivial assertion (a proposition whose

validity is not obvious without further details and

cannot be proved or verified easily by evidence)

may claim validity (von Werder, 1999).

Argumentation is a context-based sense-making

process, which varies according to (socially)

constructed rules and the structure of related (social)

groups. In the context of this paper, argumentation is

considered as a logic- and evidence-based

persuasion activity that differs from persuasive

discourse which is a purely verbal exercise

(Karacapilidis and Gordon, 1995; Jarzabkowski and

Silince, 2007; Balogun et al., 2014; Bednarek et al.,

2017). According to Bloor (1980), in a specific

social/organisational setting, standing out by their

frequency (e.g. seeking argument justification with

reference to a specific report, or with reference to

what the industry leaders do, etc.), characteristic

forms of argument will emerge. Inevitably, this

gives each social (organisational) structure its

dominant argumentation repertoire of explicit

legitimation, which solidifies and increasingly

constrains social and organisational behaviour, and

is used for characterising and evaluating actions,

events and other organisational phenomena “which

are often organised around specific metaphors and

figures of speech” (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). As

a result, institutionalised justifications exist as

objective, widely available rules, and, directly or

indirectly, tell organisation members how to argue

effectively (Sillince, 1999).

Clearly, the institutionalization of an

argumentation form/scheme is not a positional- and

rhetorical-power-neutral process, neither a static

one. Frequently, in innovation production processes,

in proposing innovations and solutions to issues,

organisation members with high positional power

need not justify their arguments extensively, while

those with rhetorical power, which is frequently

related to the positional power, as far as access to the

audience is concerned, may bias the organisation

discourse, both in short and long term, towards

specific forms that have more affinity with the

institutionalised argumentation forms, undermining

other forms which may include more substantive

arguments. In fact, this is one of the drawbacks of

“closed”, organic innovation and at the same time a

sign for caution for open innovation.

Argumentation for postulating (innovative)

propositions should encourage external actors to

contribute providing them with sufficient power to

support their arguments by using a variety of

justification/claim logics. ICT can contribute to this

objective by sealing off and objectifying these

processes from their actual social/organisational

context and power distribution in a controlled

manner (Kallinikos, 2011. In this direction, different

OI platform designs of varying complexity and

features have been proposed, mainly to capture ideas

in different formats. However, so far, only few, in

specific modes of OI, such as crowdsourcing and

innovation contests that involve end-

customers/consumers, support more complex tasks,

such as productive cooperation and knowledge

integration (Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2016), not

mere expression of ideas.

Many argumentation models (formalisms) have

been proposed in the literature, especially in

connection to computer-supported argumentation

systems (Bentahar et al., 2010). Gürkan et al. (2010)

integrated three such formalisms (IBIS, the Toulmin

framework, and the concept of argument schemes of

Walton) in an inclusive model, which consists of the

problem/issue in hand, the ideas/proposals/positions

for its solution, and pro and contra arguments

related to proposals. Pro and contra arguments are

Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated Open Models

47

justified by claims consisting of grounds and

warrants. Pairs of grounds and warrants define four

main argument schemes (which are related to the

argumentation repertoires mentioned above),

namely, arguments based on expert opinion (accept

claim because someone is an expert), popular

opinion (something is generally accepted as true

because it is generally accepted as true), analogy (A

works because it resembles B that have been proven

to work in the past) and causal associations (A

works because B works, and there is a positive

correlation between the two). Argument schemes as

parts of dominant argumentation repertoires

influence decision-making in many organisational

aspects, including the innovation process.

In the innovation process, the quality of

propositions and the knowledge/insights produced is

a function of the argumentation rationality and

process, i.e. the thoroughness of the proposition

preparation as revealed by the arguments put

forward to support it (von Werder, 1999).

Connecting the issue of power to the aforementioned

argumentation models, abuse of positional power

means that the proponent does not justify claims

and/or pro/contra arguments, or does not justify the

selection of a specific argumentation scheme, or

does not justify the issue of specific rhetoric

arguments, or even does not justify the truth of

warrants.

Similarly, the abuse of rhetorical power implies

that the proponent knows how others react to

rewards and practices rhetoric argumentation

accordingly, giving little emphasis on the validity

and truth of arguments and statements (“populist”

behaviour). Such behaviours result in effectively

weak arguments and shaky propositions distorted by

power relations associated to the different forms of

capital (economic, bureaucratic, organisational,

technical, informational) that each actor possesses

(Bourdieu, 1990). As a result, the outcome of the

knowledge integration effort and innovation will not

necessarily match the organisation’s strategic needs.

The selection of an appropriate argument scheme,

which is consistent with the organisational context,

i.e. objectives, power structure, and decision

processes, is crucial in mitigating these distortions.

Following, we discuss how Activity Based

Analysis (ABA) can be employed for the assessment

of this match, as well as to indicate areas of

intervention for improving it.

4 ACTIVITY THEORETIC

PERSPECTIVE OF

ARGUMENTATION

PRACTICES

In a practice perspective, the analysis of innovation

process (activities and their context) can be

accomplished using the properties of Cultural and

Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engeström,

2000a), which is an upgrading of the original

activity theory, by introducing a more systemic

construct, the activity system, which includes the

context in which activity/practice take place. The

central tenets in CHAT are mediation, which means

that all practices/activities, at all levels of analysis,

are accomplished through a range of ideational

constructs and material artefacts that originate from

a cultural heritage of social milieu (the context)

(Nicolini, 2013), and contradictions, which are the

means through which activities change and lead to

innovations in practices and mediating tools.

Each activity system has a subject that carries

(and is carried out by) the activity (depending on the

level of analysis, a person, organisation, etc.).

Object(ive) is the problem space to be transformed

by the activity into an outcome. Tools/instruments

are the mediating means (technological artefacts or

other “softer” means, such as language, signs, or

argument schemata in our case) through which the

activity is carried out. The transformation of the

object is possible only through these historically

developed means, which also participate in the

construction of the identity of the subject. Rules are

the cultural norms, rules, etc. governing the

performance of the activity. The community denotes

those who have interest and are involved in the

activity, while the division of labour signifies who is

responsible for what, who does what, and how roles

and power hierarchies are organised. Activities are

long term phenomena with no clear-cut beginning

and end. They produce (lower-level) activities and

are realised by means of actions, but, as an emergent

phenomena, are not reducible to actions and

operations (Engström, 2000b). Contradictions are

historically accumulating structural tensions,

principally originating from interaction with, and

influence from, other activity systems. They are

identified as tensions in, or between, the elements of

the activity (e.g. between objectives and

instruments), or between activities, and are

responsible for disturbances at the level of activity.

ABA (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010) is an

organisational change analysis method, in which the

FEMIB 2021 - 3rd International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

48

activity construct is applied to activities at different

levels of detail for identifying contradictions and

initiating remediating actions to facilitate change.

Activity-based analysis of organisational phenomena

is based on a number of ontological and

epistemological assumptions. The main ontological

assumption is associated with its underlying practice

perspective, i.e. the assumption that the world is

made and remade in practice, using tools, discourse

and our bodies. In addition, practice theories

emphasize the role of interests in human behaviour

and hence they take explicitly into account power,

conflict and politics in the analysis of social reality

(Nicolini, 2013). Hence, activity theory maintains

that these are the determining factors of change and

innovation in organisations and may be employed

strategically to induce change.

There has been a debate concerning the structure

and the constituent parts of organisational activities,

focused on the nature of the subject of activities, i.e.

whether individual or collective (Blacker et al., 2000;

Thomson, 2004). However, the constructivist episte-

mology and the “systemness” of the activity construct

transcends this debate and implies that the principal

unit and departing point of analysis should be a single

activity corresponding to the emerging behaviour of

an organisational unit/function or process (with a

collective subject) (Engeström, 2000b), e.g. the

activity of argumentation in the innovation process

exercised by those involved in the process.

As the analysis proceeds by considering the

historical development of activity and questioning

whether changes are, or will be, the result of the

multi-voiceness characteristic of the activity

(endogenously emergent deviant practices), or have

been introduced by other connected activities, which

participate in the construction of the elements of the

focal activity, activities unfold. If the sources of

change are internal, the process continues by

considering activities of specific actors. The

contradictions developed are identified and the

mitigating actions are investigated in relation to the

subjects involved. It is important to understand the

conflicts and the power distribution among those

involved in activities. On the other hand, if the

sources of change are external activities, first, it is

important to investigate their relation with the

central activity, then to define their elements and

find out which of them have been changed, and how

these changes influenced the central activity. The

inquiry continues by investigating whether these

changes were the result of internal developments or

were caused by another activity, and the process

continues as above. The whole process follows an

abductive inference mode (Papachristos and

Adamides, 2016) trying to identify the contradictions

and remedial actions that lead to a plausible causation

for the final/current state of activity. In more

analytical inquiries on the role of (information)

technology in organisational interventions and

strategic change, the methodological aspects of the

philosophy of science of critical realism can be

employed along with activity theory (Allen, et al.,

2013; Simeonova, 2018).

Obviously, the above process is more suitable for

investigating organisational change and information

systems strategy retrospectively. However, activity

theory can also be used when an organisation is

planning change; either because a number of issues

have arisen with the existing structure and practices

(and their relation to technology), or because changes

are planned to improve operations. In both cases, the

basic procedures of the Change Laboratory

(Engeström, 2007) and Activity Based Analysis

(Yamagata-Lynch, 2010) can be employed. Both

methods begin with an analysis of the existing

situation, drawing and examining related activities in

a top-down or/and bottom-up fashion, as the inquiry

unfolds, and then proposing new forms of activity and

testing them. When the process concerns planned

change, changes are mapped into activity models of

the existing practices, possible contradictions are

identified, and changes are proposed, discussed and

finally decided to be implemented. Change

Laboratory is a participative synchronous method

whose main objective is learning from the process per

se. ABA, on the other hand, aims at results, and parts

of it can be accomplished off-line.

In the context of innovation, an activity

representation of the entire innovation process

(Figure 1) would have, for instance, the Innovation

Executives Council or the R&D department as

subject and the specific innovation issue/problem as

the objective. The task of innovation as a (re)solution

of an issue (object(ive)) would be carried out by

decisions taken by the subject in an argumentative

manner employing the organisation’s dominant

argumentation repertoire (e.g. based on expert

opinion) and other tools, such as Powerpoint slides,

documents, prototypes, etc., influenced by the

division of labour (distribution of expertise and

power), in a community of stakeholders (top

executives, other departments, suppliers, etc.), and in

accordance with a set of formal and informal

(organisation) rules (e.g. proposals should be in

written form, confidentiality should be guaranteed).

The product of the innovation process (product, servi-

ce, process, etc.) would be the outcome of the activity.

Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated Open Models

49

Figure 1: Activity-theoretic representation of (closed)

innovation.

The argumentation activity (Figure 2) is a lower

level activity within the innovation activity (or

within a specific innovation phase activity, e.g.

commercialisation and value appropriation). The

person or the collective entity (the subject of the

activity) is engaged in the argumentation activity

(practices argumentation) in the innovation process

to persuade her audience that her proposition is right

and has value. This is the object(ive) of the activity

and its successful accomplishment produces the

outcome of the activity. The subject uses an

argumentation scheme/logic to transform the object.

This is the instrument/tool of the activity and

mediates the relationship between the subject and

her object to persuade, i.e. persuasion is through

argumentation. The context of the argumentation

activity includes the process or argumentation, i.e.

how arguments are placed, evaluated and selected

(the rules of the activity). These may be formal rules

or just habitual rules. It also includes the community

of all interested parts (principally the audience of the

arguing subject), and the division of labour that

determines who has the right to place arguments,

who to support arguments, etc.

The activity theoretic representation of

argumentation and its context includes all the

elements of the context-embedded argumentation

model of Sillince (2002), however in a systemic and

theory-grounded way that can be easily employed

for analysis in empirical settings. The subject of the

activity is the arguer, the rules are the setting, and

the community is the audience of Sillince’s model,

respectively. The object of the activity is the topic,

whereas the content, form and integration in the

model of Sillince are represented in a compact form

in the instrument/tools element and its cultural

historical development. The strength of the

argument is the outcome that denotes its

effectiveness.

Figure 2: Activity-theoretic perspective of argumentation.

In the following section, we present a case study

of an organisation adopting an Open Innovation

strategy. ABA is employed for understanding the

role of the alignment of argument schemes/dominant

argumentation repertoires with the OI model

adopted, so that active transparency is enabled.

5 A CASE STUDY OF

ARGUMENTATION

PRACTICES IN OPEN

INNOVATION

5.1 General

The case concerns the introduction of open

innovation though the adoption of an ICT platform

by C

OFFEE ISLAND S.A. a company operating in the

food and beverages sector in Greece. The reason for

the development of the case was to learn and gain

understanding about the relationship between the

context of the innovation process and the (dominant)

argumentation scheme(s) implemented in an open

innovation platform to be adopted by the company.

C

OFFEE ISLAND was established in Patras,

Greece, in 1999. From the very beginning, the vision

of the company was to introduce an innovative,

brand-new coffee concept, which would not be

centered on just selling coffee products, but would

provide a unique coffee experience to the end-

customer and would turn the art and craft of making

artisan coffee into science. C

OFFEE ISLAND is

currently one of the most established coffee chains

in Europe; as of today, it runs more than 470 stores

in 6 countries, performs direct green coffee trade

with 10 countries and retains 3 proprietary

production units. The company offers a successful

and valid business model through fair practices and

by targeting win-win collaborations. As proud

supporters of fair company practices, this model is

FEMIB 2021 - 3rd International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

50

based on collaboration between the investors and the

franchisees that want to start a new enterprise.

C

OFFEE ISLAND has gained a unique positioning

by strategically developing a differentiated concept

and by combining the premium quality of a specialty

coffee grindery with the accessibility and

affordability of the modern, all day coffee shop that

provides unique coffee to unique people. C

OFFEE

ISLAND’s shops reflect the brand’s ethos, culture and

evolution throughout the whole coffee journey and

are the customers’ favorite place for their morning

cup of fresh-roasted specialty coffee, lunch break,

light meals and leisure home consumption coffee

experience.

5.2 Methods

The case is the result of an action research project in

which both company executives and academic

personnel, informally acting as consultants, were

involved. The research followed the generic

procedures of Change Laboratory (Virkkunen et al.,

2010) and Activity Based Analysis (Yamagata-

Lynch, 2010). Activity diagrams were developed

off-line after five structured discussion sessions took

place. Notes were taken and were used in the

analysis. The current situation of closed innovation

activities was based on information provided by the

company executives, whereas the open innovation

ones on the features and use scenarios of an

innovative OI platform under development, which

was presented to, and discussed with, the company

executives and technical consultants. The

interventions which are discussed below were

proposed by the company executives.

5.3 Description of the Case

COFFEE ISLAND is the leader domestic coffee roaster,

as well as the owner and franchisor of brand corner

coffee shops, operating more than 400 shops in

Greece and abroad. Although the child of a single

entrepreneur, the company operates as a multi-

shareholder private company with a formal R&D

and Innovation department, involving actively in its

operations and innovation initiatives shop managers

and suppliers (in a variety of product and service

aspects). Innovations mainly concerned products

(flavours and mixes), outlet layout and operations.

The company intended to switch to the open

innovation model through the use of an ICT

platform for supporting the entire innovation

process. Currently C

OFFEE ISLAND keeps open

channels with, and listens to, external partners and

stakeholders, such as suppliers, franchisees,

consultants, consumers etc., for ideas concerning the

innovation process. However, all ideas and

proposals are mainly filtered by the management of

the company in a top-down fashion without much

interaction between proponents and management.

Limited feedback is provided and only short

discussion of ideas takes place. Therefore, in actual

fact, no diverse external knowledge is used, the

active transparency of the company is weak and the

decision making process is not clear enough. For the

management of C

OFFEE ISLAND, this is the main

reason for embracing the open innovation model

though the introduction of an open innovation ICT

platform that will engage and support the productive

cooperation of internal and external stakeholders in

the innovation process.

As far as the argumentation used in innovation is

concerned, the existing dominant scheme is close to

the forms of causal association and analogy. The

argument for accepting a novel proposal, idea, etc. is

that it is in accordance with the values, the vision

and the strategy of the company, as they are

expressed in the documents and the discourse of the

company, and monitored by its executives. This

secures the closeness of the innovation with the

Brand DNA and scores as one of its main priorities.

This scheme can be considered as causal association

because claims are associated with the above

triptych (values, vision and strategy) which was the

claim and the reason that other innovative ideas

proved to be effective for the company. It is also

close to the scheme of analogy because frequently

reference is made to other resembling situations of

products, processes, etc. that are in line with the

values, the vision and the strategy of the company

and proved to work (assuming the existing values,

vision and strategy contribute to the wellbeing of the

company).

In a move to a more open innovation model,

C

OFFEE ISLAND is intending to adopt a mixed

contest/crowdsourcing and innovation community

model that will take advantage of the company’s

presence in the social media as well. The

crowdsourcing model will engage end customers,

whereas the innovation community will be

addressed to more commercial partners, such as

suppliers, advertising agencies, consultants, etc. As

the critical mass of participants of the innovation

process will be increased, it becomes apparent that

an argumentation scheme consistent with increased

participation, direct interaction and well-defined

processes need to be introduced. Gradually an

argumentation scheme based on popular opinion will

Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated Open Models

51

become the core of COFFEE ISLAND’s open

innovation process argumentation repertoire. In this

way, it will enable active transparency and result in

successful innovations in the enhancement of

customer experience in the shops, in novel products

and business, but also in the operational processes of

the company. Activity Based Analysis was used to

identify the possible contradictions that will arise

between the characteristics of the new

argumentation scheme and the innovation context in

which argumentation is exercised.

Figure 3: Argumentation in innovation process before and

after.

Figure 3 presents the employment of Activity

Based Analysis in the argumentation sub-activity of

the innovation process/activity. The secondary

contradictions between the subject(s) and the rules

(more partners in workshops need to place

arguments in a sort of synchronous manner),

between the subject(s) and the division of labour

(more partners need to have the power to place and

support arguments), and between the subject and the

tools (the argumentation of a wider multitude should

be supported and taken into consideration in a

different way) in the initial argumentation activity,

after the decision for more open innovation, are

depicted as bold dotted lines. In effect, the three

contradictions will be remediated by

institutionalizing a different argumentation scheme

based on popular opinion. This implies that the

company has to open and democratize its innovation

process. This can be accomplished in different ways

with the help of the ICT platform. In addition to

objectifying the rhetoric of argumentation, by

assigning different weights to different positions and

roles, a power structure with respect to

argumentation can be inscribed into the platform.

Again, bold letters in the labels of the elements of

the activities indicate the new state of the elements

that resulted in the resolution of the contradictions.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

As innovation is in fact the result of propositions and

argumentation, successful innovation relies on the

quality argumentation. Argumentation of high

quality means that the way propositions and

arguments are placed and the way they are evaluated

and selected are consistent with the context of

argumentation, which, in turn, is contingent to the

innovation strategy chosen. In the case of Open

Innovation, argumentation is a constituent part of the

active transparency capability that determines the

way external knowledge is selected and integrated in

the innovation process. Argumentation is a

complementary capability to the generative sensing

capability which employs abductive inference logic

that depends on evidence. Hence, it differs from

pure discourse-based rhetorical acrobatics, and its

process should be supported by its contextual

elements in a consistent way.

In this paper, we introduced an activity-theoretic

representation of argumentation practice and its

context. The importance and distinct features of

activity theory, and its corresponding activity-based

analysis (ABA) (and Change Laboratory), lie in the

concepts of mediation and contradiction. Mediation

is the manifestation of an inclusive relation between

agency acting towards an objective (persuasion) and

the (material and ideational) artefacts (argument

scheme) and the social context that surrounds this

agency in action (when arguing). This means that

this activity cannot be considered independent of the

technology and artefacts associated with, neither

from the social context (the stakeholders with their

power relations and division of labour) in which it

takes place. Hence, in considering argumentation in

the innovation process, structure and agency are

interlinked into a single inseparable construct

(activity).

In addition to offering a holistic and symmetrical

perspective to think and know about argumentation

schemes and dominant argumentation repertoires in

(open) innovation, activity theory is associated with

structured inquiry processes (activity-based analysis

and Change Laboratory). The inquiry is based on a

compact operational unit of analysis (the activity

(triangle)) with internal and external causality

relations (mediation) and does not rely on just

correlated parameters and metrics. Through the

identification of contradictions, the structure of

activity and its relations with other activities, leads

to assessing the consistency of the argumentation

scheme exercised and the context defined by the

innovation strategy and diagnosing any

FEMIB 2021 - 3rd International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

52

contradictions. This logic can operate in the reverse

direction, when a change in strategy is planned and

needs to be managed. Artefacts, or more generally

contextual mediating elements, can be used

strategically to bring about change in a manageable

way.

Through the presentation of a case study of

argumentation in the adoption of open innovation

strategy, our objective was not to provide a data-rich

extensive presentation of the development of the

relations and contradictions between argumentation

schemes and OI models in particular settings, but to

highlight methodological issues, i.e. how to think

about these relationships when adopting an

innovation strategy and open innovation in

particular.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work presented in this paper is supported by the

inPOINT project (https://inpoint-project.eu/), which

is co-financed by the European Union and Greek

national funds through the Operational Program

Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation,

under the call RESEARCH – CREATE –

INNOVATE (Project id: T2EDK- 04389).

REFERENCES

Adamides, E. D. and Karacapilidis, N. (2019). Computer-

supported Active Transparency for Strategic Open

Innovation, Proceedings FEMIB 2019, 1, 17-26.

Adamides, E. D. and Karacapilidis, N. (2020). Information

technology for supporting the development and

maintenance of open innovation capabilities. Journal

of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(1), 29-38.

Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S. and Norman, A.

(2013). How should technology-mediated

organisational change be explained? A comparison of

the contribution of critical realism and activity theory.

MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 835-854.

Anderson, A. R. and Hardwick, J. (2017). Collaborating

for innovation: the socialised management of

knowledge. International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 13(4), 1181-1197.

Androutsopoulou, A., Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E. and

Charalabidis, Y. (2018). Combining Technocrats’

Expertise with Public Opinion through an Innovative

e-Participation Platform. IEEE Transactions on

Emerging Topics in Computing, doi:

10.1109/TETC.2018.2824022.

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S. and

Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in

context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power.

Journal of Management Studies, 51, 175-201.

Battistella, C. and Nonino, F. (2012). Open innovation

web-based platforms: The impact of different forms of

motivation on collaboration. Innovation: Management,

Policy & Practice, 14(4), 557-575.

Bentahar, J., Moulin, B. and Bélanger, M. (2010). A

taxonomy of argumentation models for knowledge

representation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33, 211-

259.

Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S. and Sillince, J. (2017)

Transcendence through rhetorical practices:

responding to paradox in the science sector.

Organization Studies, 38(1), 77-101.

Blacker F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S. (2000),

Organizing processes in complex activity networks.

Organization, 7(2), 277-300.

Bloor, D. (1980). Polyhedra and the abominations of

Levitacus. British Journal of the History of Science,

11, 245-271.

Bogers, M., Zobel, A., Afuah, A., Almirall, E.,

Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L.,

Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J.,

Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G.,

Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M.,

Nambisan, S., Piller, F. T., Radziwon, A., Rossi-

Lamastra, C., Sims, J. and Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017).

The open innovation research landscape: established

perspectives and emerging themes across different

levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8-

40.

Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice. Polity Press,

Cambridge.

Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm

for understanding industrial innovation. In: H.

Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West, (Eds.)

Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.

Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive

capacity: A new perspective on learning and

innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,

128-152.

Cui, T., Ye, H., Teo, H. H. and Li, J. (2015). Information

technology and open innovation: A strategic alignment

perspective. Information & Management, 52,348-358.

Dong, A., Garbuio, M. and Lovallo, D. (2016). Generative

sensing: A design perspective on the microfoundations

of sensing capabilities. California Management

Review, 58(4), 97-117.

Engeström, Y. (2000a). Activity theory as a framework for

analysing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43, 960-

974.

Engeström, Y. (2000b). Comment on Blackler et al.

Activity theory and social construction of knowledge:

A story of four umpires. Organization, 7, 301-310.

Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting to work: The Change

Laboratory as an application of double simulation. In:

H. Daniels, M. Cole and J.V. Wertsch (Eds.) The

Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, pp. 363-382.

Innovation as Argumentation in Closed and Technology-mediated Open Models

53

Gürkan, A., Iandoli, L., Klein, M. and Zollo, G. (2010).

Mediating debate through on-line large-scale

argumentation: Evidence from the field. Information

Sciences, 180, 3686-3702.

Jarzabkowski, P. and Sillince, J. (2007). A rhetoric-in-

context approach to building commitment to multiple

strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1639-

1665.

Kallinikos, J. (2011). Governing through Technology:

Information Artefacts and Social Practice, Palgrave

Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.

Karacapilidis, N. and Gordon, T. (1995). Dialectical

Planning. In Proc. of the 14th International Joint

Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95),

Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, pp.

239-250, Montreal, Canada.

Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (2003). The role of tacit

knowledge in group innovation. In: Choo, C.W.,

Bontis, N. (Eds.), The Strategic Management of

Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge.

Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 485–499.

Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. (2016). Managing crowds

in innovation challenges. California Management

Review, 56(4), 103-123.

Möslein, K. M. (2013). Open innovation: Actors, tools,

and tensions. In: A.S. Huff, K.M. Möslein and R.

Reichwald (Eds.), Leading Open Innovation.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 69-85.

Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work and

Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Osorno R. and Medrano N. (2020), Open innovation

platforms: A conceptual design framework. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, doi:

10.1109/TEM.2020.2973227 (to appear).

Papachristos, G. and Adamides, E. (2016). A retroductive

systems-based methodology for socio-technical

transitions research. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 108, 1-14.

Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social

Psychology, Sage, London.

Sillince, J. A. A. (1999). The organizational setting, use

and institutionalization of argumentation repertoires.

Journal of Management Studies, 36(6), 795-830.

Sillince, J. A. A. (2002). A model of the strength and

appropriateness of argumentation in organisational

contexts. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 585-

618.

Simeonova, B. (2018). Transactive memory systems and

Web 2.0 in knowledge sharing: A conceptual model

based on activity theory and critical realism.

Information Systems Journal, 28, 592-611.

Teece, D. J. (2001). Strategies for managing knowledge

assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context.

In: I. Nonaka and D. Teece (Eds.), Managing

Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and

Utilization. London: Sage, pp. 125–144.

Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic

capabilities and organizational agility: Risk,

uncertainty and strategy in the innovation economy.

California Management Review, 58(4), 13-35.

Thomson, M. P. A. (2004). Some proposals for

strengthening organisational activity theory.

Organization, 11(5), 579-602.

Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2014). Strategic Innovation

Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Virkkunen, J., Mäkinen, E. and Lintula, L. (2010). From

diagnosis to clients: constructing the object of

collaborative development between physiotherapy

educators and workplaces. In: H. Daniels, A. Edwards,

Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher and S.R. Ludvigsen

(Eds.), Activity Theory in Practice: Promoting

Learning across Boundaries and Agencies. Abingdon,

OX: Routledge, pp. 9-24.

Von Werder A. (1999). Argumentation rationality of

management decisions, Organization Science, 10(5),

672-690.

Wright, R. S. (2012). Why innovations are arguments.

Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 95-97.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity Systems Analysis

Methods: Understanding Complex Learning

Environments. New York: Springer.

FEMIB 2021 - 3rd International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

54