Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability

This study examines why some firms are better able than others to reap benefits from collaborating with their competitors in innovation. Whereas on the general level, collaborative innovation has been studied widely, and firm‐specific success factors in collaboration between competitors (i.e., coopetition) have not been exhaustively addressed. Earlier literature describes coopetition as a risky but potentially rewarding relationship in which sharing, learning, and protection of knowledge are recognized as the key issues determining the possible benefits and hazards. This study provides evidence of factors related to this, suggesting that the firm's ability to acquire knowledge from external sources (potential absorptive capacity) and to protect its innovations and core knowledge against imitation (appropriability regime) are relevant in increasing the innovation outcomes of collaborating with its competitors. This study also distinguishes between incremental and radical innovations as an outcome of coopetition, and provides differing implications for the two innovation types. The empirical evidence for the study was gathered from a cross‐industry survey conducted on Finnish markets. The data are analyzed with multivariate multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis suggest that (1) potential absorptive capacity and appropriability regime of the firm both have a positive effect in the pursuit of incremental innovations in coopetition, and (2) in the case of radical innovations, appropriability regime has a positive effect, while the effect of absorptive capacity is not statistically significant. However, the results also indicate that there is a moderating relationship between these variables, in that the potential absorptive capacity is positively associated with creation of radical innovations within high levels of appropriability regime. These results yield important theoretical and managerial implications. As a whole, the results presented in this study provide new evidence on which types of firms can reap success in the challenging task of collaborative innovation with rivals. In the case of incremental innovation, a firm‐level emphasis on knowledge sharing and learning will positively affect the results of coopetition, as will an emphasis on knowledge protection. Thus, when incremental developments are pursued in coopetition, firms should not only seek to exchange knowledge to create value but also remember to secure the firm‐specific core knowledge within the firm's borders to stay competitive. On the other hand, when the firm is pursuing radical innovation with its rivals, the heaviest emphasis should be on protecting its existing core knowledge and also emerging novel innovations and market opportunities. Capabilities in knowledge acquisition are also beneficial in these cases, but the full benefits of knowledge exchange realize only when the firm's knowledge protection mechanisms are sufficiently strong, allowing for safe knowledge exchange between rivals.     

Five stories that illustrate three generalizations about radical innovations

Why do organizations resist radical innovations? How can organizations make radical innovations when they want to do so? This paper offers three generalizations about the processes that generate radical innovations, and it illustrates these generalizations with five symbolic stories. Two stories tell about organizations that had trouble innovating but ultimately succeeded, and three stories tell about tremendously successful radical innovation. The generalizations assert that radical innovation is a discovery process that yields unintended outcomes, that participants in radical innovation have to market their innovations to intended coworkers, funding sources, and potential customers, and that social interaction can stimulate, reinforce, and steer radical innovation.     

Using Product Bundling to Facilitate the Adoption Process of Radical Innovations*

Generally, radical innovations are not easily adopted in the market. Potential adopters experience difficulties to comprehend and evaluate radical innovations due to their newness in terms of technology and benefits offered. Consequently, adoption intentions may remain low. This paper proposes bundling as an instrument to address these problems. More specifically, this paper examines how consumer comprehension, evaluation, and adoption intention of radical innovations may be enhanced by bundling such products with existing products. In addition, it is argued that the proposed effects are contingent upon the level of fit perceived to exist between the radical innovation and the product that accompanies it in the bundle. Furthermore, consumers' prior knowledge may affect the influence of bundling on the innovation adoption process as the interpretation of the meaning of new products may be strongly related to prior knowledge. This study therefore investigates whether consumer prior knowledge has such a moderating effect. Hypotheses are tested by means of an experimental study with three different radical innovations and distinguishing among offering the radical innovation separately, offering the radical innovation in a bundle with moderate perceived fit between the products, and offering the radical innovation in a bundle with high perceived fit between the products. Results show that product bundling enhances the new product's evaluation and adoption intention, although it does not increase comprehension of the radical innovation. Moreover, the results show that comprehension, evaluation and adoption intention of the innovation significantly decrease when consumers perceive a moderate fit between the products in a bundle. Taken together, these findings contribute to the bundling literature by showing not only that product bundling may indeed be an effective instrument to introduce a radical innovation but also that product bundling may be counterproductive when ignoring the critical role of perceived product fit as core characteristic of a product bundle. In addition, the notion that product bundling helps to enhance the evaluation and purchase intention of new and relatively complex products suggests a suitable strategy for new product managers to enhance benefits and reduce learning costs for radical innovations. Moreover, the effects of bundling on consumer appraisals of radical innovations are also shown to depend on the level of knowledge respondents possess regarding the product category of the radical innovation. More specifically, if bundled with a familiar product, novices tend to evaluate the innovative product more positively, but for experts no such effect can be detected. As such, these results provide additional specific implications for managers when introducing radical innovations in the market. Offering a radical innovation in a product bundle could be a fruitful strategy for companies that target customers with little or no prior knowledge in the product domain.     

Patented innovations developed in networks: The role of cultural looseness

The ongoing globalization tears down geographical barriers to knowledge sourcing, leaving cultural ones intact. Past research on developing innovations has largely neglected national culture or solely relied on cultural values. A recent body of research has emerged around cultural looseness – the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies – and provided initial evidence on its importance for mastering creativity, an antecedent of innovations. However, the impact of cultural looseness on developing innovations in networks with diverse actors has not yet been tested. To this end, we develop a Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes (MIMIC) structural equation model and test it against empirical evidence from >1.25 million patented innovations. We find that in innovation networks, innovators based in culturally loose countries source knowledge of higher breadth and depth for developing innovations compared to innovators from culturally tight countries. We discuss our findings and – based on some study limitations – suggest seven streams for future research. We conclude with summarizing our contribution to theory on the impact of culture on innovation and our contribution to practice on helping managers to decide how to best source knowledge and thereby foster innovation.     

Balancing the Two Knowledge Dimensions in Innovation Efforts: An Empirical Examination among Pharmaceutical Firms

This study investigates the relationships between the two knowledge dimensions (knowledge breadth and knowledge depth) and two types of innovations (radical innovation and incremental innovation). While existing literature identifies knowledge in general as an important driver of innovation, the exact relationships between knowledge breadth/depth and incremental/radical innovations are not clear. Drawing from the knowledge‐based view, this study advances the understanding of the relationships between knowledge dimensions and types of innovations by hypothesizing a nonlinear relationship between knowledge breadth and radical innovation as well as a nonlinear relationship between knowledge depth and incremental innovation. Furthermore, the moderating effects of the interaction between knowledge breadth and knowledge depth on the above‐mentioned relationships are also examined. Due to the different natures of the two types of innovations, it is hypothesized that knowledge depth positively moderates the relationship between knowledge breadth and radical innovation while knowledge breadth negatively moderates the relationship between knowledge depth and incremental innovation. To empirically test the hypotheses, secondary data from multiple sources were collected on 64 pharmaceutical firms over 15 years. Due to the panel data structure and observed dispersion issues in the dependent variables, negative binomial random effects models were formulated to test the hypotheses. The statistical results largely support the proposed hypotheses. The results demonstrate that while knowledge breadth positively contributes to the development of radical innovations and knowledge depth positively contributes to the development of incremental innovations, both relationships are subject to diminishing returns. Furthermore, while the finding did support the negative moderating effect of the knowledge breadth on incremental innovation, the positive moderating effect of knowledge depth on radical innovation is not supported. While the effect is not explicitly hypothesized, knowledge breadth seems to have a direct impact on incremental innovation as well.     

Micro-processes of public good social innovation in the Australian social impact investment market

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are strategic alliances aiming to generate financial profit through social innovation in the delivery of public social services. SIBs are also a product on the social impact investment market. There is little evidence for SIBs' effectiveness, and their ongoing international popularity partly rests on a theoretical premise that market mechanisms can effectively generate and diffuse social innovation. However, the literature contains no empirical consideration of whether and how this premise applies to public good social innovations. Our empirical study fills this gap by finding that public good social innovations are stimulated by market mechanisms, and markets are in turn shaped by these innovations. Despite this, public good social innovations eventually break away from markets in a micro-process we term ‘schisming’. Through describing how and why schisming occurs, we make a unique contribution to existing knowledge of the micro-processes of concerned market shaping, and the extent to which economic markets and a concerned society are embedded within each other. Implications for practitioners seeking to bridge social innovation and economic markets include the need to be cognisant of how contextual, socially constructed concerns affect the potential and process of diffusing social innovations.     

The Role of Marketing Resources in Radical Innovation Activity: Antecedents and Payoffs

While radical product innovations represent significant engines of firm growth, questions remain over whether marketing helps or hurts (1) a firm's radical product innovation activity and (2) its rewards from radical product innovation activity. By attaching an attention‐based view of the firm to a market‐based assets view of marketing, this paper examines the role of three marketing resources—market knowledge, reputation, and relational resources—on radical innovation activity. Our conceptual framework posits differentiated effects among marketing resources as antecedents of radical innovation activity and as moderators of its impact on firms' financial performance. Using a survey of a broad set of high‐tech business‐to‐business (B2B) firms to test hypotheses, it is found that firms with strong relational resources enjoy a higher propensity for, and stronger financial rewards from, radical innovation activity. Reputational resources come with a trade‐off as they hurt the incidence of radical innovation but enhance its financial rewards. However, market knowledge resources appear to hurt both radical innovation activity and its financial rewards. Our results point to the multifaceted role of marketing in radical innovation activity, which is unlikely to come with a single benefit or liability as prior work often posits. Rather, our research heightens the alertness of managers to assess their firms' marketing strength as a bundle of stocks of several marketing resources. Managers must understand the distinct benefits and drawbacks of each resource in developing and launching radical innovations. Our research underscores the differentiated value of marketing in radical innovation activity in B2B high‐tech contrary to the entrenched idea of a limited or even stifling role of marketing in this context.     

Social and organizational capital: Building the context for innovation

In the light of the key role intellectual capital has for firms' innovation capability, this paper analyzes the influence of two of their dimensions, organizational capital and social capital, on firms' product innovation, and the moderating role of radicalness. Unlike previous studies, the unit of analysis will not be the firm, but the R&D department. Thus, our research, conducted with a sample of Spanish industrial companies, provides a new insight with interesting results. First, our findings show that social capital favours firms' product innovation, especially under radical innovations. Second, organizational capital has an indirect effect on product innovation through positive influence on social capital. This implies that firms can stimulate communication and interaction among people, and therefore innovative activity, by means of explicit and codified knowledge (organizational capital).     

Making Up Is Hard to Do: Knowledge Acquisition Strategies and the Nature of New Product Innovation

Innovation creates significant challenges for firms in high‐technology industries. This article examines how the use of external knowledge acquired from mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and joint ventures (JVs) influence the nature of innovative competence in the global pharmaceutical industry. We create a unique database on never‐before approved products that measure the scientific merit of new, exploratory product innovations, ranging from radical to incremental. We then follow their market success by recording the number of new exploitative product innovations that stem from these product innovations and that are later approved and subsequently marketed. Using a large data set spanning a 15‐year period, we find that firms were able to “make up” for their lack of exploitation or exploration innovative capabilities through the use of M&As and JVs. These external knowledge acquisition strategies were found to overcome internal processes that otherwise could cause firms to overemphasize exploitation over exploration and vice versa. Our findings suggest that acquiring external knowledge via M&As is associated with diminished exploratory product innovation, while assimilating external knowledge sourced from JVs is associated with a reduction in new exploitative product innovation.     

The Effects of Mainstream and Emerging Customer Orientations on Radical and Disruptive Innovations

The merits of being customer‐oriented for firm innovation have long been debated. Firms focused on their existing customers have been argued to be less innovative. This paper distinguishes between mainstream and emerging customer orientations and examines their effects on the introduction of disruptive and radical product innovations. Radical product innovations draw on a substantially new technology and could initially be targeted at a mainstream or an emerging market. In contrast, disruptive innovations are initially targeted at an emerging market, and may not involve the newest technology. This paper hypothesizes that mainstream customer orientation is negatively related to disruptive innovation and positively related to radical innovation, and that emerging customer orientation is positively related to disruptive innovation. To test these hypotheses, longitudinal and multiple informant data from senior executives in 128 SBUs of 19 Fortune 200 corporations are analyzed, with technology scanning and willingness to cannibalize as key control variables. The results support the hypotheses, providing evidence for contrasting effects of being oriented to mainstream customers and/or emerging customers on radical and disruptive innovations. Mainstream customer orientation has a positive impact on the introduction of radical innovations but a negative impact on disruptive innovation, while emerging customer orientation has a positive effect on disruptive innovation and is unrelated to radical innovations. Technology scanning is positively related to radical innovation but not to disruptive innovation, supporting the idea that disruptive innovation may not require new technology. In contrast, willingness to cannibalize is positively related to disruptive innovation but not to radical innovation, supporting the idea that radical innovation does not require cannibalization of existing investments. Additionally, mainstream customer orientation is found to have a near‐zero correlation with emerging customer orientation, indicating that the two can coexist and can be pursued simultaneously.     

Repeating a familiar pattern in a new way: The effect of exploitation and exploration on knowledge leverage behaviors in technology acquisitions

Research Summary: We identify two types of knowledge leverage behaviors undertaken by acquiring firms: integrated and independent knowledge leverage. We address how the prior exploitation or exploration orientation of acquirers influence these two modes of knowledge leverage behaviors. The degree of exploitation of acquirers promotes integrating their existing knowledge with acquired knowledge in innovative actions. In contrast, the degree of exploration of acquirers increases the likelihood that new innovations will use acquired knowledge without integrating it with their prior knowledge. In addition, the firm's prior acquisition rate moderates the relationship between the acquiring firms’ previous exploitation or exploration orientation and their knowledge leverage mode. The findings of this article suggest that pre‐acquisition innovation capabilities are distinct from but influence the post‐acquisition innovation actions. Managerial Summary: Firms often undertake acquisitions to gain access to new knowledge, but they can differ dramatically in how they leverage acquired knowledge. We show that the firm's prior innovation patterns drive this choice. Firms that have previously focused on incremental innovations in their internal innovation efforts tend to integrate acquired knowledge with their own prior knowledge. In contrast, firms that have previously pursued bold innovations tend to leverage acquired knowledge alone in new innovations. Thus, we show that firms use acquisitions as a means to extend their internal innovation patterns—firms that have focused on incremental innovations extend that with acquisitions by linking new innovations to their prior knowledge while firms that have pursued bold initiatives use acquired knowledge to move in new technology directions.     

Seeking the Ideal Level of Design Newness: Consumer Response to Radical and Incremental Product Design

To develop successful new products, new product development managers need to have a thorough understanding of the consumer adoption process, specifically in how consumers evaluate new products. This research examines the value of product design for consumers' evaluation of radical and incremental innovations. The primary goal was to empirically test how design newness affects consumer response to product innovations. Design newness (also referred to as novelty or atypicality) is defined as the deviation in a product design from the current design state of a certain product category. Although prior research has suggested that higher levels of design newness may have a positive effect on consumers' evaluations of new products, higher levels of design newness may also have negative consequences for consumer response to radical innovations. An experimental context (n = 130) using systematically designed products for three product categories was used to test how consumers respond to high and low levels of design newness for both radical and incremental innovations. The findings show that for radical innovations, embodying the product in a design with a low (versus high) level of design newness led to more positive evaluations and less learning‐cost inferences. Because the functional attributes of a radical innovation are incongruent to existing products, consumers find it difficult to access the relevant product category schema in order to transfer knowledge to the new product. Because of this poor knowledge transfer, consumers may feel that they lack the ability to make effective use of the radical innovation, resulting in greater learning costs. In this case, a product design with a low level of design newness can provide consumers with a frame of reference for understanding the radical innovation. Contrasting this result, no difference was found between a low and a high level of design newness for incremental innovations. For incremental innovations, by definition the functional attributes characteristic to the innovation are highly comparable with those products that are already stored in consumers' memory. Thus, there is no need for an additional reconfirmation of the preexisting schema through product design, and consumers are able to access the relevant schema regardless of the level of design newness inherent in the product. These findings are integrated into a discussion of the managerial implications and the potential avenues for future research.     

Appropriability regime for radical and incremental innovations

In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.     

Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: a framework for evaluating radical technology development

Contemporary frameworks for evaluating technological innovations contend that innovative success is dependent upon the ability of firms to acquire and assimilate new knowledge without disrupting value chain members such as suppliers, customers and complementary innovators. These frameworks, however, provide little advice on how to deal with radical, controversial innovations that may also introduce new undesirable environmental, health, and social side affects. In addition to technological, commercial and organisational uncertainties, the developers of such technology typically must resolve social uncertainties, a particularly difficult activity because of the added complexities and often conflicting and/or difficult-to-reconcile concerns from secondary stakeholders. Attempts must be made to address the potential unintended and unforeseen consequences of the technology, as well as its potential benefits, if it is to be successfully applied. Using Monsanto's development of agricultural biotechnology as an illustration, we suggest an evaluation framework that incorporates stakeholder theory, innovation management concepts and Popper's evolutionary learning methodology of science and its extension to social issues.     

Goal Multiplicity and Innovation: How Social and Economic Goals Affect Open Innovation and Innovation Performance

Integrating insights from the strategic goal literature and the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this article proposes that the pursuit of social and economic strategic goals by commercial firms affects their innovation performance through different knowledge sourcing activities. The strategic goals, knowledge sourcing practices, and innovation performance of 1257 Belgian firms are investigated. Results show that both social and economic strategic goals are associated with the use of external information sources, but only the pursuit of social goals inspires firms to engage in external collaboration. No evidence is found of an inherent conflict between social and economic strategic goals. Instead, the two types of goals are independent of each other, that is, an emphasis on social goals does not preclude an emphasis on economic goals and vice versa. Moreover, firms’ external knowledge sourcing and innovation performance benefit most when strongly held social goals align with strongly held economic goals. These findings offer new insight into the nature and the effects of goal multiplicity among commercial firms. They open up a new perspective on the potential positive effects of the joint pursuit of social and economic strategic goals instead of seeing them as inherently conflicting, as past research has typically done. We illustrate how social strategic goals can deliver unique benefits to a firm, independently of and in addition to economic strategic goals. Our findings also contribute to the open innovation literature by revealing strategic goals as a driver of firms’ knowledge sourcing practices. Our findings suggest that solely emphasizing economic goals may be one reason why firms struggle to implement open innovation practices and do not reap their full benefits. The practical implications of our research are discussed.     

Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review,Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions

Product innovation is a key to organizational renewal and success. Relative to other forms of innovation, radical product innovations offer unprecedented customer benefits, substantial cost reductions, or the ability to create new businesses, any of which should lead to superior organizational performance. In other words, a radical product innovation capability is a dynamic capability, one that enables the organization to maintain alignment with rapidly evolving customer needs in high‐velocity environments. Extensive research has been conducted on the antecedents to an incremental/general product innovation capability, and meta‐analyses have been conducted to integrate the results from the various studies. However, whether and how a radical product innovation capability differs from an incremental product innovation capability is also critical. The purpose of this work is to develop a testable model of the antecedents to radical product innovation success. Based on an extensive literature review, a comprehensive set of organizational components that comprise a firm's radical product innovation capability is identified. These organizational components include senior leadership, organizational culture, organizational architecture, the radical product innovation development process, and the product launch strategy. Of course, each of these components has subcomponents that provide even more texture. This review highlights how the components of a radical innovation capability function differently from those for an incremental capability. In addition, this review strongly suggests that the direct effects models that dominate this literature underestimate the complexity of the interplay of components that comprise a radical product innovation capability. Thus, a model to demonstrate this interplay of these organizational components is provided. Illustrative research propositions are offered to provide guidance to researchers. Suggestions for executives and managers who are involved in the product development process and for scholars who seek to advance the state of knowledge in this area are offered in the conclusion.     

Toward A Theory on the Reproduction of Social Innovations in Subsistence Marketplaces

Social innovations and their diffusion are critical in bridging the multiplicity of deprivations experienced by those in subsistence contexts. Yet they often do not diffuse as expected. To better understand this prevalent problem, this article develops a theory of diffusion that explains the reproduction (duplication) of social innovations in subsistence contexts. The theory utilizes a bottom‐up perspective that considers what attributes of innovations and capacities of actors matter to reproduction, particularly for subsistence user‐producers. Adopting an inductive, case‐based approach, the authors draw on examples of social innovations in sub‐Saharan Africa. Based on the authors' research and extant literature, this article builds a typology that captures different modes of reproduction. The typology delineates three archetypes of reproduced social innovations: mimetic, facilitated, and complex, and notes how frugal innovations can emerge from these archetypes. These archetypes are based on the interactions of: (1) a product's resource and knowledge complexities, and (2) the knowledge capabilities or resources of various actors, including subsistence user‐producers and bridging agents. The typology thus illuminates the conditions under which subsistence user‐producers might independently reproduce a social innovation (mimetic innovations), when they need assistance from bridging agents (facilitated innovations), and when the mix of resources and knowledge are beyond their capacity (complex innovations). Moreover, by exploring reproduction experiences of subsistence users, this article recognizes the implications of low literary, close social networks, and physical limitations. By examining who controls the knowledge and resources imperative to reproduction, the authors go beyond a focus on the social benefits of innovations to consider how intellectual property and profits matter to different actors. This article pulls together these various insights and identifies key implications that social innovators and intermediaries should consider when working to reproduce social innovations in subsistence contexts and with subsistence user‐producers.     

The Impact of Local Demand on Innovation in a Global Industry

Localization of knowledge flows has been extensively examined in the literature on innovation. However, almost all previous research has focused on technological knowledge. This study examines why knowledge of demand can also be tacit and localized. We provide a detailed empirical study of the global pharmaceutical industry and find not only that demand is as important as technological knowledge in determining the pattern of innovation in this industry but also that innovation is a locally determined phenomenon. These findings contribute to research regarding determinants of innovations and provide an explanation for geographic patterns of innovation that is distinct from technological knowledge spillovers. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Grantbacks,territorial restraints,and innovation

We analyse the effect of grantback clauses in licensing contracts. While competition authorities fear that grantback clauses might decrease the licensee's ex post incentives to innovate, a standard defence is that grantback clauses are required for the patent-owner to agree to license its technology in the first place. We examine the validity of this “but for” defence and the equilibrium effect of grantback clauses on the innovation incentives of the licensee for both non-severable and severable innovations, which roughly correspond to infringing and non-infringing innovations. We show that grantback clauses do not increase the patent-holder's incentives to license when non-severable innovations are at stake but they do when severable innovations are concerned – suggesting that the “but for” defence might be valid for severable innovations but not for non-severable ones, in direct contradiction to regulation in some jurisdictions. Moreover we show that, for severable innovations, grantback clauses can increase the range of parameters for which follow-on innovation by the licensee occurs. Our work extends the large literature on sequential innovation to an environment where information diffuses through licensing rather than through the mere act of patenting. In this different informational set up we show that Green and Scotchmer (1995)’s conclusion that the initial innovator should have a patent of infinite breadth no longer holds.     

A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review

A plethora of definitions for innovation types has resulted in an ambiguity in the way the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘innovativeness’ are operationalized and utilized in the new product development literature. The terms radical, really‐new, incremental and discontinuous are used ubiquitously to identify innovations. One must question, what is the difference between these different classifications? To date consistent definitions for these innovation types have not emerged from the new product research community. A review of the literature from the marketing, engineering, and new product development disciplines attempts to put some clarity and continuity to the use of these terms. This review shows that it is important to consider both a marketing and technological perspective as well as a macrolevel and microlevel perspective when identifying innovations. Additionally, it is shown when strict classifications from the extant literature are applied, a significant shortfall appears in empirical work directed toward radical and really new innovations. A method for classifying innovations is suggested so that practitioners and academics can talk with a common understanding of how a specific innovation type is identified and how the innovation process may be unique for that particular innovation type. A recommended list of measures based on extant literature is provided for future empirical research concerning technological innovations and innovativeness.

相似文献