A Qualitative Investigation of Innovation Management in Multidisciplinary Engineering Organizations
Keywords:
Innovation management, multidisciplinary engineering, qualitative research, knowledge integration, engineering organizations, thematic analysisAbstract
This study aimed to explore how innovation is managed, coordinated, and sustained in multidisciplinary engineering organizations operating in Tehran. This qualitative study was conducted using a conventional thematic analysis approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 participants working in multidisciplinary engineering organizations in Tehran, including senior engineering managers, R&D specialists, project managers, systems engineers, design engineers, and technical consultants. Participants were selected through purposive sampling based on direct experience with innovation projects, interdisciplinary collaboration, product or process development, and engineering project implementation. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Each interview lasted between 45 and 75 minutes and was audio-recorded with informed consent. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis procedure. NVivo software was used to support data organization, coding, category development, retrieval of coded segments, and comparison of themes across participant groups. Trustworthiness was enhanced through member checking, peer debriefing, audit trail documentation, and researcher reflexivity. Data analysis generated five main categories: strategic framing of innovation, cross-disciplinary knowledge integration, structural and procedural support for innovation, leadership and cultural enablers, and barriers to implementation and commercialization. Participants described innovation as a process shaped by both technical creativity and organizational coordination. Effective innovation management required alignment between engineering expertise, market needs, resource allocation, managerial support, and interdepartmental communication. While multidisciplinary teams expanded the range of ideas and technical solutions, they also created challenges related to language differences, professional boundaries, slow decision-making, and conflict over priorities. Innovation management in multidisciplinary engineering organizations is not limited to idea generation or technical problem-solving; rather, it depends on the organization’s ability to integrate specialized knowledge, create flexible structures, support experimentation, and translate technical concepts into implementable outcomes. The findings suggest that engineering organizations should strengthen boundary-spanning roles, collaborative routines, innovation governance, and leadership practices that connect technical excellence with strategic and commercial value.
Downloads
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. NanoEthics, 6(1), 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0141-7
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. St. Martin’s Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
European Commission, High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). M. E. Sharpe.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373–385. doi:10.1007/s11948-005-0006-3
IEEE. (2019). Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems (1st ed.). IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. doi:10.1177/2053951716679679
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1. doi:10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
National Society of Professional Engineers. (n.d.). Code of ethics for engineers. NSPE.
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Van de Poel, I. (2016). An ethical framework for evaluating experimental technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 667–686. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9724-3
Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
