Now that I've found Hugh McLeod....I found this post on his blog:

"In any organisation, when a new technological implementation is put in (SAP, Peoplesoft etc), it affects the culture.

When a new piece of culture is implemented (new company vision, ad campaign, whatever), the technology is affected.

Cultural alignment with the technology. Technological alignment with the culture. That is the ideal goal, but it's rarely achieved, especially in times of great change.

Anyway, I have an idea which will make new technology implementations less culturally disruptive to companies. And allow cultures to make better use of their technology."

At base level as part of the conditions of possibility for innovation, it doesn't really matter whether the cultural-technological alignment works well or doesn't work well. What matters is to find out what it's reality is and understand how that reality affects innovation at a company, for better or worse.

I can certainly think of some instances where a warped cultural-technological alignment stifled innovation. It's probably also true that the other innovation drivers -- whatever drivers exist in a given situation -- need to be aligned.

Wouldn't it be great if you could call an innovation chiropractor to adjust these drivers so that *all* of the conditions of possibility for innovation could be aligned correctly!?