MSc Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship FT

9873477

Bricolage and Breakthrough:

Mutually Exclusive or Interconnected Approaches In A Technological
Path?
(word count: 1,984 words)

1. Introduction
While Schumpeter (1939 cited in Metcalfe 2004) expresses that innovation
and invention are two separate entities, and that innovation does not constitute scientific novelty, technological advancement remains an essential part in
an innovation system. The traditional view of innovation is that of technological determinism, where the technology pushes and causes societal change.
A reversed, constructivist idea is the social construction of technology (SCOT)
by Pinch and Bijker (1984), that suggests social forces, processes and relationships are the agents that pull and influence technological change and
innovation. Garud and Karne (2003) illustrates the SCOT mechanism by explicating a study of wind power turbine industry in Denmark and United States
of America (US). The research contends that two approaches - bricolage and
breakthrough - are contrasting approaches that contribute differently to the
technological path. This essay suggest that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Rather, bricolage and breakthrough are interconnected in the
technological path. The interconnectedness brings several implications towards firms and governments in a system of innovation.
2. Summary of the concept and empirical case study
In terms of definition, this essay adopts Baker and Nelsons (2005, p.333) definition of bricolage as making do by applying combinations of the resources
at hand to new problems and opportunities. Meanwhile, the breakthrough
approach concerns more with the effort to develop radical innovations, dePage 1! of !8

fined by actors attempting to generate dramatic outcomes rather than adaptiveness, to leap-frog the Danish initiative(Garud and Karne, 2003, p.
279).
To discuss the two concepts further, this essay evaluates the research paper
by Garud and Karne (2003), which examines the two different approaches,
in the context of the development of wind power turbine systems in Denmark
and US between the 1970s to late 1990s. The paper identifies four actor sets
in the wind turbine path in both countries; designers-producers, owner-users,
test centres and government regulators. It implies that via close collaboration
between the actors in the innovation system, the Danish wind turbine industry
succeeded while the industry in the US faltered.
In the Danish innovation system, the original design for the wind power turbine was based on farming windmill technology. Then working prototypes
were constructed by the designers-producers from this humble low-tech roots
in incremental steps. Close linkages between the test centre, designer-producers and owner-users also encouraged co-shaping of the technology. Timely and effective government legislation also played an important part in developing the technological path. Conversely, there were disconnect amongst the
actors in the US wind turbine industry, underlined by competition, poor communication, and perhaps the greatest factor, the paradigm of formal R&D
management, heavily influenced by the aerospace industry (Hendry and Harborne, 2011). This disconnect, presumably due to the said breakthrough approach, caused the US wind turbine industry to stall, even if it builds on the
superior foundation of science and engineering.
In summary, the empirical research argues that the contrasting approaches
(bricolage versus breakthrough) in the two innovation systems contributes
to their respective success and failure. The bricolage approach, with its presumably low-tech scientific fundamentals but with incremental innovations
were able to prevail against the breakthrough approach. The breakthrough
approach itself can end up constraining learning and technology shaping processes through its highly formalised processes and interactions.
Page 2! of !8

3. A critique of the case

The Danish case study is an archetypal account of the romantic hero, in which
it is psychologically uplifting to visualise farmer-engineers in a rustic Danish
village relentlessly perfecting their technology and ultimately prevail over corporate scientists in a superpower country. Upon closer scrutiny however, there
are several areas for debate.
Garud and Karnes research downplays the level of science and technology
already present in the Denmark during that period. While it is true that the
Danish wind turbine industry were largely characterised by learning by doing
and learning by interacting, there are evidences that identify formal R&D and
learning by search by the Danish firms. The demand for larger wind turbines
during the Californian wind rush (1981-1985) prompted the Danish firms to
undertake formal R&D methods and seek breakthrough approach, as trial-and
error approach of the bricolage framework are becoming more expensive and
proved to be limited (Kamp et al, 2004).
The case study also fails to acknowledge that the Danish firms received huge
governmental support from the Denmark government and European Union
(EU). Hendry and Harborne (2011) highlights the fact that the Danish government salvaged the Danish firms from collapse following the Californian wind
rush fiasco. Also, Vestas, Denmarks biggest wind turbine producer in particular, received huge funding from EU for its international projects. These examples point out the fact that despite the implied self-efficacy through the bricolage approach, protectionism and artificial market creation by the government
to an extent helped to nurture the Danish wind turbine innovation system.
Finally, merely focusing on the wind turbine development by the firms may be
a narrow perspective towards the whole innovation system. Comparison between the two innovation system should also consider other inherent factors.
These may include natural factors such as the different meteorological conditions between the two countries, and other technical factors such as the level
Page 3! of !8

of integration with the existing power grid that determines the efficiency of the
wind turbines per se.
4. Discussion
The case study present a compelling argument of how social shaping of technology (Williams and Edge, 1996) influence a technological path. Even so, as
it does not take into account the longer time frame, it glaringly omits that there
were already experimentation and formal learning in Denmark since the
1930s. By the 1980s, formal R&D has slowly taken over the bricolage approach (Hendry and Harborne, 2011). As such, the argument that the bricolage versus breakthrough approaches are mutually exclusive can be reevaluated.
Thus, this essay argues that bricolage may just be the formative stage in a
longer development phase towards larger wind turbines and full scale production. In other words, the bricolage approach is feasible during the early stages
of the technological path, but as the development cycle continues to become
more complex and embedded, more formal (breakthrough) approach is
needed. Ergo, there exists an interconnectedness between the two learning
modes in a given technological path.
For example, in the case of Vestas, as discussed earlier, the demand for large
size wind turbine deployment has been massive since 1980s (Hendry and
Harborne, 2011) and created economies of scale with which the Danish firm
had been struggling to keep up. To meet this demand, Vestas changed its approach towards a more formalised R&D strategy. Vestas is now a large scale,
vertically integrated engineering firm at the forefront of large wind turbine production (Vestas, 2011).
This postulation also applies in other technological paths. Consider the technological path of the computer operating systems (OS), for example Microsoft
DOS/Windows and Linux. The technological paths of both OS develop in the

Page 4! of !8

same manner1. In the case of Microsoft OS, the founders of Microsoft developed the MS-DOS operating system with the bricolage approach, making do
by repackaging an existing OS written by a third party. As the scale of the firm
and the product grows, especially starting from the launch of Windows 95, a
definitely more complex technological artefact, Microsofts approach has become more formalised since. In the case of Linux, the original writer also undertook the bricolage approach, building the software on top of Unixs kernel 2
and putting it in the public domain so that other developers (actors) can socially shape the technological artefact. Then, several firms developed enterprise versions of Linux such as Ubuntu and Red Hat through formal software
engineering methods.
Interplay of both learning methods is also present in the cases mentioned
above. Despite the bricolage approach employed by the actors in both cases,
the technological path is underlined by formal technological breakthrough in
personal computing. In Microsofts case, the MS-DOS path is shaped by the
breakthrough development of MITS Altair and IBM PC platforms, which acted
as impetus of the personal computing system of innovation. In Linuxs case,
the underlying kernel of Unix is a product of breakthrough innovation at the
R&D-heavy Bell Labs.
4.1 Application in TEP framework
The proposition that bricolage occurs at the formative stage of the technological path can be projected to another theoretical framework as well. The early
stage of bricolage occurrence in a particular technological path is applicable in
the techno-economic paradigm (TEP) proposed by Perez (2010). In this context, bricolage would be projected to occur during the installation period. Once
the technology achieves maturity, formal breakthrough methods should occur
during the deployment period. It also should worth pointing out that within the
TEP framework, the bricolage cycle always occurs following a radical innovation that started the technological trajectory.
1

Interestingly, the application of this argument pertains to both proprietary and public technology.

The core component of a softwares source code.

Page 5! of !8

Applying this argument in the Danish wind turbine innovation system, the development of the bricolage cycle by the Danish system fits well with the TEP
framework. Riisager first recontextualised Juuls wind turbine design through
the bricolage approach in the mid 1970s (Garud and Karne, 2003, p. 282).
The bricolage phase of the Danish wind turbine industry ended in a de facto
manner during the WEGA-II project in 1992-1997 (Hendry and Harborne,
2011). This period interestingly fits the 20-30 years time frame period of the
installation period.
5. Significance/implication in innovation management and policy
As identified in the discussion, the formal R&D approach is inevitable in any
technological path. While the bricolage approach arguably enables the actors
to interact in a more agile and cost effective manner, the advantages of formal
methods are obvious, particularly in the later stages of technology life cycle.
This includes the ability to manage and codify tacit knowledge better, which is
critical when firms and other actors in the system become larger and more
complex. Thus, it is always in the interests of firms to put strong emphasis on
R&D management to gain and sustain competitive advantage.
Also, as the Danish wind turbine case study exemplifies, close ties between
distributed actors in an innovation system plays an important path in the creation of a technological path. Despite the rather narrow frame of reference by
Garud and Karne, empirical data nonetheless successfully demonstrate that
the success of the wind turbine industry in Denmark is due to the synergy and
collective efforts of the actors involved. Therefore, looking from the perspective of policymakers, the close ties presents a compelling approach towards
creating a successful national system of innovation. In other words, governments should play an active role to ensure the helix of innovation becomes as
synergistic as possible at the national, regional and international level.

Page 6! of !8

6. Conclusion
While Garud and Karne ably demonstrate that distributed actors across an
innovation system generate input that would enable or constrain transformation of the technological path, the argument that bricolage and breakthrough
are two mutually exclusive approaches should be reevaluated.
As it is, this essay proposes that the two approaches are interconnected in the
technological path. Rather, there are always mixed modes of learning in any
technological path. Both informal networks of learning and formal large scale
engineering and research are vital to develop a new technology connected to
an innovation system, like wind turbines and computer operating systems.
Delving further into the discussion, it would be interesting to study the bricolage mode of learning in a hugely complex or transglobal system of innovation. Further research on innovation systems for example in the creative industry, in which the mixed mode of learning are not just interconnected, but
present themselves interchangeably and simultaneously should also merit
discussion as to enrich the existing body of knowledge.

Page 7! of !8

REFERENCES

Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005) Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly: 50, pp. 329-366.

Garud, R. & Karne, P. (2003) Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed

and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship, Research Policy:
32, pp. 277300.

Hendry, C. and Harborne, P. (2011) Changing the view of wind power development: more than bricolage . Research Policy: 40, pp. 778789.

Kamp, L.M., Smits, R.E.H.M., Andriesse, C.D. (2004) Notions on learning

applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Energy Policy: Vol.32(14), pp.1625-1637.

Metcalfe, J.S. (2004) The entrepreneur and the style of modern

economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics: 14, pp.157-175.

Perez, C. (2009) Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics: Vol. 34(1), pp.185-202.

Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology
might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science: Vol.14(3), pp.
399-441.

Schumpeter, J. (1939) Business cycles, Vol. I. McGraw Hill Books, New

York.

Vestas (2011) Vestas announces 7MW geared turbine. Renewable Energy

Focus: Volume 12, Issue 2, p.6.

Williams, R. and Edge, D. (1996) The social shaping of technology.

Research Policy: 25, pp. 865-899.
Page 8! of !8