Search results

Firms need to constantly renew themselves to keep up with the pace of competition and proactively establish innovations to the markets. This requires capabilities in learning and renewing of the firm’s knowledge base, conceptualized as renewal capital of the firm. On the other hand, firms that acquire high levels of competitiveness by renewing their knowledge base also need to protect that knowledge from unwanted spillovers. This study aims to examine how renewal capital affects incremental and radical innovation performance of the firm, moderated by the firm’s protection of its strategic knowledge.

The study is based on a multi-industry survey study with a time-lagged data set, with independent variables collected in the first wave, followed by a second wave four years later for the dependent variables. The authors test the hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modeling.

The authors find that firms’ renewal capital is positively associated with the level of incremental and radical innovation. Furthermore, the authors find that knowledge protection negatively moderates the relationship between renewal capital and incremental innovation performance of the firm. In case of radical innovation performance, similar moderating effect is not statistically supported.

With a time-lagged research design, this study study reveals the interdependent roles of renewal capital and knowledge protection for firm’s innovation performance, and provides insights of when (and when not) it would be beneficial for a firm to seek renewal and protective oriented approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how access to financing for incremental as well as radical innovation activities is affected by firm-specific structural and behavioral characteristics.

Deploying a two-stage Heckman probit model on survey data spanning the period 2000–2013 and covering 1,169 firms, this paper analyzes the effect of a firm’s engagement in incremental and radical innovation on its likelihood to get constrained in their access to external finance, and how this effect is moderated by the firm’s age and size.

In line with earlier research, it is confirmed that the type of innovation matters for the access to external finance, but in a more nuanced way than generally portrayed. While incremental innovation activities have little negative effect on the access to external finance, radical innovation activities tend to be penalized by capital markets. This effect appears to be particularly strong for small firms.

This paper provides nuanced insights into the interplay between types of firm-level innovation activities, structural characteristic and access to external finance.

Firms frequently struggle with measuring the performance of their radical innovation activities. Due to the uncertainty and ambiguity involved, key performance indicators (KPIs) used for incremental innovation projects are often not useful in this context. The purpose of this paper is to explore suitable KPIs particularly useful for radical innovation projects.

This study first reviews commonly used measures for innovation projects, which is then followed by case-study evidence from three industry-leading international firms. This study includes 13 in-depth interviews with innovation managers and directors in these firms, providing insights on how they measure the progress and performance of radical innovation projects.

KPIs used commonly in incremental innovation showed lackluster results in the case firms and were problematic for radical innovation context. A key finding was that radical innovation project performance should be evaluated based on the process rather than on the expected outcome. Concurrently, based on the literature review and the cases, three sets of KPIs with 13 specific KPIs useful for radical innovation projects are proposed.

The paper addresses a core challenge in using established KPIs in a radical innovation context. The paper gathers and synthesizes a range of measurement points suitable for radical innovation projects and provides specific suggestions for appropriate metrics that innovation managers can use.

The purpose of this paper is to test the effect of internal and external collaboration on the degree of newness (incremental/radical) in innovation projects. This adds to the understanding of the particular patterns of open innovation (OI) and what characterizes the innovation emerging through this approach.

Tests are performed on the effect of internal and external collaboration on the degree of newness (incremental/radical) in innovation projects. This adds to the understanding of the particular patterns of OI and what characterizes the innovation emerging through this approach. The empirical analysis is based on a data set including responses from 512 Danish engineers.

The results show that external collaboration has significantly different effects on the degree of newness depending on the type of external partners involved, and they also show that radical innovation output is positively related to involving the R&D department (internal) and universities (external involvement) and negatively related to involving suppliers.

The results provide a more detailed understanding of how different OI patterns affect the development of incremental vs radical innovation in existing organizations. In particular, three findings add new insights into how OI affects innovation to reach the highest degree of newness: high importance of collaboration with external partners with distinct interests and skills; low reliance on existing customers and suppliers for the development of radical innovation; and narrow and focused internal involvement rather than broad internal involvement.

This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare.

A systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with a PRISMA flowchart. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for original publications in English between the 1st of January 2010 and 6th of November 2020. The level of radicalness was determined based on five characteristics of radical innovations. The level of evidence was classified according to the level of evidence scale of the University of Oxford. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a framework to classify the barriers and facilitators.

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine publications were included, concerning six technological, two organizational and one treatment innovation. The main barriers for radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare were lack of human, material and financial resources, and lack of integration and organizational readiness. The main facilitators included a supportive culture, sufficient training, education and knowledge, and recognition of the expected added value.

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining the barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare. To ease radical innovation implementation, alternative performance systems may be helpful, including the following prerequisites: (1) Money, (2) Added value, (3) Timely knowledge and integration, (4) Culture, and (5) Human resources (MATCH). This study highlights the need for more high-level evidence studies in this area.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how project portfolio selection (PPS) methods have evolved and which approaches are more suitable for radical innovation projects. This paper addressed the following research question: how have the selection approaches evolved to better fit within radical innovation conditions? The current literature offers a number of selection approaches with different and, in some cases, conflicting nature. Therefore, there is a lack of understanding regarding when and how to use these approaches in order to select a specific type of innovation projects (from incremental to more radical ones).

Given the nature of the research question, the authors perform a systematic literature review method and analyze 48 portfolio selection approaches. The authors then classified and characterized these articles in order to identify techniques, tools, required data and types of examined projects, among other aspects.

The authors identify four key features related to the selection of radical innovation projects: dynamism, interdependency management, uncertainty treatment and required input data. Based on the content analysis, the authors identified that approaches based on different sources and nature of data are more appropriated for uncertain conditions, such as behavioral methods, information gap theory, real options and integrated approaches.

The research provides a comprehensive framework about PPS methods and how they have been evolving over time. This portfolio selection framework considers the particular aspects of incremental and radical innovation projects. The authors hope that the framework contributes to reinvigorating the literature on selection approaches for innovation projects.

Innovation dynamics have been the object of study of several researchers, focusing in particular on technological innovation and the emergence of a dominant design. However, these models have been challenged by how the pervasiveness of digital technologies is speeding up the pace at which innovation evolves. On the other hand, a growing body of literature in innovation management has started underlining the relevance of new product and service meanings as a source of innovation.

This research aims to study the different innovation dynamics within an industry, investigating not only how companies react to fast-changing functional advancements but rather how their behavior changes as shifts in meaning occur. To properly assess the phenomenon, this longitudinal study analyzes the social media industry, strongly subjected to continuous functional advancements, through a deep dive in the 160 innovations introduced between 2003 and 2017 by the eight leading players in the industry.

Our results illustrate the co-existence of different approaches to innovation within an industry and hint that consequent and fast cycles of innovation in both functionalities and meanings discourage the emergence of a dominant design.

Our results help managers and innovators acknowledge the possibility to leverage not just on the technological dimension of innovation but also the reason why people use a given product or service, innovating its meaning. Furthermore, our results recognize the co-existence of different innovation streams upon which innovators can act.

This research contributes to the extant literature in innovation management, extending the classical models of innovation dynamics by including the evolution of innovations of meaning in relation to technological innovation.

The purpose of this article is to contribute to studies on organizational ambidexterity by analyzing how an incumbent company is managing its innovation structures and balancing exploitation and exploration activities to generate value in a digital economy context.

The research was designed in a qualitative format through a single case study in a Brazilian financial institution, with semi-structured interviews conducted with internal and external players.

Based on the case study, two possible contributions emerged as results, to fill the research gap: the need to develop more complex innovation structures, which act in a way that is integrated to the ecosystem; and the establishment of an organizational function, with a specific mandate to seek innovation in new business platforms.

Although the theory gives evidence about the potential that ambidexterity represents for companies, ‘how’ to orchestrate the trade-offs to achieve it is not clear, particularly in regards to first steps toward ambidexterity. This work aims to contribute to fill this gap through an empirical study in a large Brazilian company, analyzing its trajectory toward ambidexterity.

This study aims to analyze the influence of job autonomy and unscripted agility on ambidextrous innovation in startups in times of the Covid-19 pandemic.

A survey was conducted with founders and managers of Brazilian startups in the e-commerce segment, resulting in a sample of 84 startups. Symmetric (structural equation modeling) and asymmetric (fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis) analyses were performed. The variables' external financing and institutional ties were controlled.

The symmetric findings indicate that unscripted agility is a full mediator between job autonomy and ambidextrous innovation. The asymmetric findings offer two solutions for startups to achieve high ambidextrous innovation.

The implications of the research for the literature are discussing elements associated with ambidextrous innovation, exploring the context of innovation in startups in times of crisis, specifically in the Covid-19 pandemic, and considering the role of resilience in startups.

The study provides informational inputs to founders and managers of startups on how job autonomy and unscripted agility can propel incremental and radical innovations.

This study provides new insights and success factors into startups, based on the discussion of entrepreneurship in times of crisis, as in the case of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Family firms that simultaneously engage in multiple levels of innovation – incremental and radical – are likely to enjoy performance advantages across generations. The purpose of this paper is to research under which management conditions (i.e. top management team (TMT) diversity in terms of generational or non-family involvement) family firms are more likely to achieve innovation ambidexterity. Also, the paper addresses the mediating role of open innovation (OI) breadth in this relationship.

A large cross-sectional sample of 335 small- and medium-sized family firms is used. The hypotheses were tested in a mediation model. The relationship between TMT diversity and ambidexterity is measured using a binominal regression analysis, the one between TMT diversity and OI breadth using a Tobit model.

Drawing on the family firm upper echelon perspective, the results indicate that TMT diversity induced through external managers and multiple generations is positively related to innovation ambidexterity. As the mediation analysis reveals, the relationship can be explained by the higher propensity of diverse TMTs to get involved in OI breadth. The findings add to the discussion on family firm heterogeneity and its influence on different kinds of innovation.

So far, few studies have been concerned with ambidextrous family firms. Contrary to their reputation, this study identifies family firms as radical as well as open innovators. As such, this research takes account not only of the heterogeneity of family firms, but also of the heterogeneity of family firm innovation.