Major Barriers of Innovation Magna Closures and Magna

Question: Discuss about theMajor Barriers of Innovation at Magna Closures and Magna. Answer: Introduction Magna International Inc. is one of the largest industrial houses of Canada. Based at Aurora in Ontario, the organization operates in the field of automobile parts production and is considered as one of the global leaders of the said domain (Magna.com 2016). The various operational groups of the organization include the Magna Powertrain, Magna Steyr, Magna Exteriors, Magna Closures, Magna Seating, Magna Electronics, Magna Mirrors and Cosma International. This paper is aimed at identifying the factor that are acting as a barrier to organizational innovation of the said group. Organizational silos. Researchers Lee et al. (2012) are of the opinion, that the very first factor that need to be considered while finding out the reasons for the lack of innovation within an organizational infrastructure is that of the hierarchical nature of the administration. Researchers Gnyawali and Srivastava (2013) second their opinion, claiming that interests of the organizational heads in creating their individual identities, get recognized, maintaining the sustainability of the organization and protect their own interests forces them to create boundaries and define specific roles and responsibilities for all. Such division of responsibilities leads to the development of organizational silos. On the other hand, author Laforet (2013) is of the opinion that innovation, by nature defies all organizational barriers and boundaries, and creates new categories within an organization. The information available from the official website of Magna Closures indicates that the organizati onal heads run the company in a bureaucratic fashion (which denotes existence of silos): this indeed is one of the major factors restricting innovation in the organization (Magna.com 2016). Risk avoidance. On the other hand, experts in the domain of organizational management uniformly agree on the point that the organizational heads of most larges sized industrial houses tend to avoid situations that might lead to loss of finances or reputation of the organization (Lee et al. 2012). Researchers Purcarea et al. (2013), further claim that the implementation of innovative ideas and process are generally stalled as soon as the risks associated with such ideas are identified. The official website of Magna indicates that at present, the organization is currently conducting business in a stable manner: thus, the tendency of the organizational heads towards avoiding risky situations in their business in justified (Magna.com 2016). Other factors. Researchers DEste et al. (2012) have pointed out several other factors that restrict the incorporation of innovative ideas within an organizational infrastructure. The authors are of the opinion that the lack of urgency is indeed one such factor that does not motivate the organizational heads to incorporate innovative ideas. The financial records of the organization (as released officially) claim that the company had been gaining profits steadily for the last few years: thus it can be concluded that the lack of any market threat or urgency is the actually hindering the inclusion of innovation in Magna. Authors Gnyawali and Srivastava (2013) , on the other hand, argue that the concept of innovation is essentially conceptual and not concrete: thus the mere lack of inclusion of significant innovative ideas within an organization in the recent past does not imply the fact that no efforts are being made in the said direction. But at the very same time, the official website of the organization does not provide enough information that can support the fact that the stakeholders internal to the organization are working on innovative ideas (Magna.com 2016). Existing good examples. However, an important point that demands mention in this context is the fact that the organizational heads of Magna International Inc. are aware of the fact that the incorporation of new ideas and concepts is important to maintain the sustainability of the organization (Magna.com 2016). This is evident from the fact that the newsletters posted on the web pages announce of contests for submitting innovative ideas that could be utilized for enhancing the safety of the customers. Besides this, the publication of the said newsletter is indicative of the fact that Magna has started utilizing innovative management policies within the organizational infrastructure, even if a small scale. According to experts DEste et al. (2012), the existence of the above mentioned features within an organization deserves special mention and appreciation. Conclusion In the light of the discussions made in this paper, it can thus be concluded that the existence of the o organization silos in Magna closure is the first and primary reason behind the lack of innovative ideas in the organization. On the other hand, a tendency to avoid any risk is yet another significant reason for the said state of the business. However certain efforts being made by the organizational heads are truly appreciable and would indeed lead to the inclusion of innovation in Magna. References DEste, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M., and von Tunzelmann, N., 2012. What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers.Research Policy,41(2), 482-488. Gnyawali, D. R., and Srivastava, M. K. ,2013. Complementary effects of clusters and networks on firm innovation: A conceptual model.Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,30(1), 1-20. Laforet, S. (2013). Organizational innovation outcomes in SMEs: Effects of age, size, and sector.Journal of World business,48(4), 490-502. Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., and Trimi, S. , 2012. Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values.Management Decision,50(5), 817-831. Magna.com,. 2016. Magna: Home. Magna.com. Retrieved 23 June 2016, from https://www.magna.com Purcarea, I., del Mar Benavides Espinosa, M., and Apetrei, A., 2013. Innovation and knowledge creation: Perspectives on the SMEs sector.Management Decision,51(5), 1096-1107.