Search results

This paper aims to suggest a procedure for successfully transforming a firm’s innovation processes in a systematic way.

This is a conceptual paper, which draws on prior academic and practitioner papers.

Changes in a firm’s environment, such as new technological trends or customer needs, regularly call for the dynamic renewal of a firm’s innovation processes. Nonetheless, most firms proceed in a surprisingly unsystematic way if they transform their innovation processes. This approach contrasts with the systematic innovation processes that many firms have established to manage their product development from initial idea to final market launch.

To overcome this discrepancy, this paper distinguishes reconfiguration and realignment challenges in the transformation of a firm’s innovation processes. These different activities are illustrated with the example of transforming firms’ innovation processes towards open innovation. Furthermore, a five-step procedure is suggested to ease implementation. On this basis, implications for managers are discussed with respect to proficiently adapting their firms’ innovation processes over time.

In a session of the Strategos Innovation Academy, participants considered how a number of core management processes – for example, strategic planning, capital budgeting, performance assessment and product and process development – inhibit innovation. Working in groups, the participants identified problems with existing practices and then suggested a number of ways to make the process less toxic to innovation. Today’s strategic‐planning processes rarely emphasize radical innovation – the new business concepts and operational models that are necessary to keep corporations at the head of the pack – either implicitly or explicitly. Another failure that participants identified is the linkage between strategy planning and the annual budgetary cycle. To improve strategic planning, participants made a number of other suggestions, many of which derive from the toxicities and failures of the existing strategic‐planning process. Companies should first ensure that their business definition and associated mission statement are broad. Narrow definitions are likely to reduce a company’s identity to its current business model, thereby impeding the possibility of renewal. Companies should also explicitly include innovation in the strategic‐planning process. A chief innovation officer – a new senior‐level appointee in the company – can help ensure that innovation remains central to the strategic‐planning process. Greater scrutiny of strategic plans can also help. For example, CEOs can reject strategic plans that do not include a substantial amount of innovation. The introduction of new metrics for innovation would help formalize this commitment to innovation. Participants also recommended that companies find ways to dissociate the strategic‐planning process from an annual schedule. Instead, the process needs to become continuous. To this end, some participants advocated renaming the process strategic evolution instead of strategic planning.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss process philosophy’s potential contributions to understanding and investigation of innovation processes associated with organizational contexts.

The paper is a theoretical piece that examines the concept of process philosophy by relating it to the relevant literature and use of examples.

In particular, the authors develop some ideas and encourage future discussion around two aspects: process philosophy-oriented conceptualizations of innovation processes and process philosophy-oriented methods of investigation about innovation processes. The authors conclude that more process philosophy-oriented research of innovation processes must be conceptually multidimensional and methodologically performative.

There is a recent claim about a “process turn” within organization studies, which is partly represented by attempts to develop and apply a deeper meaning of process. The presentation of the concept is novel, and does add to the literature. These aspects provide clarification regarding implications of thinking and enquiring procedurally into innovation processes.

This paper aims to examine the interrelation between two innovating strategies (product and process) on total factor productivity (TFP) growth and the dynamic linkages between these strategies, for Colombia. The authors first explore whether ex ante more productive firms are those that introduce innovations (the self-selection hypothesis) and if the introduction of innovations boosts TFP growth (the returns-to-innovation hypothesis). Second, the authors study the firm’s joint dynamic decision to implement process and/or product innovations. The authors use Colombian manufacturing data from the Annual Manufacturing and the Technological Development and Innovation Surveys.

This study uses a four-stage procedure. First, the authors estimate TFP using a modified version of Olley and Pakes (1996) and Levinsohn and Petrin (2003), proposed by De Loecker (2010), that implements an endogenous Markov process where past firm innovations are endogenized. This TFP would be estimated by GMM, Wooldridge (2009). Second, the authors use multivariate discrete choice models to test the self-selection hypothesis. Third, the authors explore, using multi-value treatment evaluation techniques, the life span of the impact of innovations on productivity growth (returns to innovation hypothesis). Fourth, the authors analyse the joint likelihood of implementing process and product innovations using dynamic panel data bivariate probit models.

The investigation reveals that the self-selection effect is notably more pronounced in the adoption of process innovations only, as opposed to the adoption of product innovations only or the simultaneous adoption of both process and product innovations. Moreover, our results uncover distinct temporal patterns concerning innovation returns. Specifically, process innovations yield immediate benefits, whereas implementing both product innovations only and jointly process and product innovations exhibit significant, albeit delayed, advantages. Finally, the analysis confirms the existence of dynamic interconnections between the adoption of process and product innovations.

The contribution of this work to the literature is manifold. First, the authors thoroughly investigate the relationship between the implementation of process and product innovations and productivity for Colombian manufacturing explicitly recognising that firms’ decisions of adopting product and process innovations are very likely interrelated. Therefore, the authors start exploring the self-selection and the returns to innovation hypotheses accounting for the fact that firms might implement process innovations only, product innovations only and both process and product innovations. In the analysis of the returns of innovation, the fact that firms may choose among a menu of three innovation strategies implies the use of evaluation methods for multi-value treatments. Second, the authors study the dynamic inter-linkages between the decisions to implement process and/or product innovations, that remains under studied, at least for emerging economies. Third, the estimation of TFP is performed using an endogenous Markov process, where past firms’ innovations are endogenized.

This study aims to focus on a key unanswered question about how digitalization and the knowledge processes it enables affect firms’ strategies in the international arena.

The authors conduct a systematic literature review of relevant theoretical and empirical studies covering over 20 years of research (from 2000 to 2023) and including 73 journal papers.

This review allows us to highlight a relationship between firms’ international strategies and the knowledge processes enabled by applying digital technologies. Specifically, the authors discuss the characteristics of patterns of knowledge flows and knowledge processes (their origin, the type of knowledge they carry on and their directionality) as determinants for the emergence of diverse international strategies embraced by single firms or by populations of firms within ecosystems, networks, global value chains or alliances.

Despite digital technologies constituting important antecedents and critical factors for the internationalization process, and international businesses in general, and operating cross borders implies the enactment of highly knowledge-intensive processes, current literature still fails to provide a holistic picture of how firms strategically use what they know and seek out what they do not know in the international environment, using the affordances of digital technologies.

The aim of the applied systems analysis of scientific‐technological innovation is to identify the most effective innovation fields and to develop innovation strategies. This cannot be achieved without the development of theoretical foundations, practical methods and principles, a heuristic algorithm and a computer‐aided decision system. Such a system is described in this article, and represents, it is claimed, the first steps towards a computer‐aided decision system for innovation strategies.

This article seeks to clarify the role of knowledge management in innovation as an aid to addressing this complexity. The article seeks to identify the drivers for application of knowledge management in innovation. It also details the nature of the role of knowledge management in innovation as well as its value proposition.

The methodology used was literature research and some personal experiences and interpretations.

In the fast changing business world of today, innovation has become the mainstay of organizations. The nature of global economic growth has been changed by the speed of innovation, which has been made possible by rapidly evolving technology, shorter product lifecycles and a higher rate of new product development. The complexity of innovation has been increased by growth in the amount of knowledge available to organizations.

Innovation is extremely dependent on the availability of knowledge and therefore the complexity created by the explosion of richness and reach of knowledge has to be recognized and managed to ensure successful innovation.

This paper aims to investigate sustainability-led innovation, focusing on the interplay between product and process innovation for sustainability goals and the underlying supplier–customer relationships. Thus, the paper delves into sustainability-led innovation and how it affects supplier–customer relationships, and vice versa, thus providing a twofold perspective.

The textile industry is the empirical context of this study, which is exploratory research based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs, managers and experts in the textile industry.

In the textile industry, sustainability-led product innovation concerns mainly product durability and performance, product recyclability and the use of waste for new product development. Process innovation deals with circular economy, traceability and water and chemical use minimization. The paper also shows how sustainability-led innovation is implemented in more technical terms and regarding supplier–customer relationships.

The paper adopts an original perspective on how processes take place in the relationships between suppliers and customers, where there is no dominance of one actor, but innovation emerges from interdependence and interaction. Such perspective allows to provide an in-depth analysis of the supplier–customer relationships and underlying dynamics that affect sustainability-led innovation; moreover, the authors study how such innovation impacts supplier–customer relationships and the underlying relational dynamics. The value of the paper also stands in delivering a real representation of the innovation processes grounded in the textile industry.

Adopting lean principles can unleash several opportunities for firms seeking to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their product development (PD) process. This study aims to investigate the implementation paths of lean tools in the innovation process of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

A set of 47 lean tools are identified from the literature and ascribed to the five lean thinking principles, i.e. Value, Map, Flow, Pull and Perfection. Their practical adoption – in terms of “when” and “how” – is then explored in a multiple case study of three SMEs in the manufacturing industry.

SMEs adopt multiple lean tools in different phases of their innovation process. They are still at the beginning of the holistic adoption of lean PD, but some core lean tools, such as A3 reports and visual management, are adopted systematically. Results reveal that specific sets of lean tools and supporting principles are more valuable in certain phases of SMEs innovation process. Specifically, the lean tools concerning the principle of Value and Map can enable the phases of Innovation inputs, Concept development and Solution implementation; the ones ascribed to Flow and Pull the phases of Concept development, Testing and experimentation, and Solution implementation; the Perfection tools to the final phases of Testing and experimentation, Solution implementation and Market introduction.

Results provide a reference for SMEs already adopting lean tools in their production process to be extended to the PD process, especially when the delivery of new products is pivotal. Innovative SMEs could evaluate the introduction of specific lean tools in one or more definite phases of their PD process.

The study contributes to the literature on the complementarity between lean and innovation by studying the context of SMEs with a process perspective, thus unveiling the potential paths of a widespread application of lean innovation in SMEs.

To achieve business success in a competitive market, hospitality firms are urged to search for different ways to enhance the firms' innovation capabilities. Drawing on dynamic capability theory, this study examined the role of entrepreneurial leadership in promoting product and process innovation through the mediating effect of innovation strategy and the moderating effect of knowledge acquisition.

Data were collected through a time-lagged (two waves, two months apart) survey from 137 managers and 322 employees working in 103 Vietnamese hotels. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the proposed hypotheses in our conceptual model.

The findings revealed that entrepreneurial leadership is positively associated with both product and process innovation. In addition, these relationships are mediated by innovation strategy. While the relationship between innovation strategy and product innovation is moderated by knowledge acquisition, evidence was not obtained for the moderation effect of knowledge acquisition on the link between innovation strategy and process innovation.

The findings advance innovation and leadership literature by identifying the roles of entrepreneurial leaders in managing an organization as a dynamic system and developing appropriate innovation strategy to adapt to rapidly changing environments. In addition, this study offers important implications for hospitality firms that are investing in innovation activities and are seeking ways to promote the firms' innovation of products and processes.