Innovation and institutional change: the transition to a sustainable ...

Theoretical perspectives 49
company related to existing evaluation routines, as this glue that didn’t glue
did not fit the frames of reference and routines within the company which
were built up through years of experience in serving the office supplies the
customers wanted. Basically, virtually all people in the company were
unable to disengage from their existing products and markets and their
existing mindsets, and were thus to appreciate the potential of this new
product. To imagine a piece of paper that would eliminate the need for tape
was almost unthinkable. Only because the inventor was convinced of its
potential and committed to make it work, had a powerful personality
(‘champion’), and was able to mobilise others to share his vision regarding
the invention, it was further developed (the idea to stick the glue on a piece
of paper came from someone else within 3M), tested and marketed (by
providing samples in and later outside the company, people in 3M became
more and more convinced that this was a good business opportunity). From
the invention of the weak glue to mass production of the product took a
period of 12 years. As customers understood the usefulness of this product,
and took it for granted in their office routines, Post-it Notes speedily became
a natural part of the office supplies used. “Path creation, in the case of Postit
Notes, involved the disembedding of an individual from localized
structures of relevance and provinces of meaning, overcoming the inertia
and momentum that he encountered, mobilizing others to work on an idea
that was transformed over time, all the while being flexibly resolute with a
vision of what might be possible” (Garud and Karnoe, 2001: 20).
New ideas, concepts and technologies part of processes of systems change
are of a different nature and demand more far-reaching changes than the case
of Post-it Notes. They often imply fundamental change away from existing
modes of production and consumption (e.g. small-scale photovoltaic power
or distributed generation as means to generate electricity), changing and
replacing infrastructures (e.g. a hydrogen-based society), and changing
knowledge bases (e.g. fuel cell technology for cars and power generation vs.
combustion engines and turbine technology). We suggest that some of the
main barriers for these new products and technology are based on
‘institutional fabric’ that is missing and therefore there is a lack of alignment
and linkages between different actors for the further development and
diffusion of the product or technology. Institutional fabric is missing for the
(re-)configuration of relations between producers and consumers; for dealing
with and solving safety concerns, e.g. an absence of generally accepted
safety standards for hydrogen delivery and storage; as regulatory
frameworks have to develop such as regulations for CO2 as a coolant and
rules for integration of photovoltaic modules into rooftops; etc. Regarding
the knowledge base institutional change is necessary to gain more public and
private support for R&D on the new technologies, their components and