Search results

Seeking to distil and integrate a range of previous definitions, models, frameworks and classifications relating to types of innovation, this paper aims to make a contribution to clarity in innovation research and practice through offering insights into the definitions of the different types of innovation, and, specifically, the relationships between them.

This theoretical paper is based on a review of extant models and frameworks of types of innovation, which includes earlier foundation models, and more recent integrative models.

This distillation results in a diagrammatic representation of the key frameworks, which is used as a platform to propose a new framework of types of innovation.

This paper draws on all the terminologies used for types of innovation and creates an innovation type‐mapping tool that can be used to clarify the various definitions and terminologies of the innovation type concept.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an innovation-based perspective on company performance and develops a conceptual framework.

This is a research paper, which builds on prior theoretical and empirical management research.

The innovation-based view is grounded in interfirm differences in innovation, and it underscores the opportunities to achieve sustainable superior firm performance by innovating internally besides the increasing trend toward open innovation. The innovation-based perspective goes beyond many firms’ focus on product innovation by examining its interdependencies with other essential first-order innovations such as service, process, business model, and management innovations. The innovation-based perspective further addresses the dynamic and intertemporal transformation of innovation activities based on second-order innovations, which provide a more realistic view of organizations’ innovation over time. This transformation affects organizational boundaries and how a firm sustains superior performance.

The innovation-based view revises extant approaches to competition and firm boundaries. The new arguments help to reconcile inconsistent earlier findings, and they deepen the understanding of interfirm differences in innovation and performance.

Although several types of innovation are identified in the extant literature, researchers have not resolved conflicting theoretical predictions about the implication of adopting innovation types. Following the conceptualization of Damanpour et al., this paper aims to distinguish between three innovation types (i.e. services, technological process, and administrative process) and make suggestions for banks on whether to focus their innovation efforts on a specific type or composition of different types in order to optimize the returns to innovation.

Based on an empirical case study of a large multinational bank in Ghana (name withheld for anonymity), data were collected with questionnaire instruments from 51 bank managers. Two regression equations were estimated and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

The paper finds evidence that focus on adopting a specific innovation type seems to contribute more to performance than adopting bundles of different types of innovation. As the bank focuses on adopting only administrative process innovation it enjoys higher growth in market share than when it adopts services innovation and technological process innovation in conjunction with administrative process innovation.

It seems that even when resources are in abundance, and complementary changes or innovations are found to be necessary, there is less need to introduce different types of innovation with a more balanced rate simultaneously.

The study proposes to resolve conflicting theoretical predictions and ongoing policy disputes about the effects on business performance (i.e. market share) of the adoption of a specific innovation type versus composition of different innovation types.

The purpose of this study is to test the usefulness of the literature-based innovation output (LBIO) approach to identify innovation types from press releases of hospitality firms and to evaluate if the typology captures the effect of innovation on firm value.

The LBIO approach was applied to three years of press releases from two publicly traded lodging firms in the USA announcing innovations. A database of lodging and innovation relevant terms was compiled. Starting with classifications found in the innovation literature, the researchers coded each announcement. Coded announcements were clustered into innovation types using pairwise similarity analysis. Event study analysis assessed the efficacy of the overall method to find types that were useful to measure the impact on firm value from the company’s adoption of an innovation.

Cluster analysis identified four lodging innovation types: property and location, marketing, strategic development and guest experiences. These types corresponded closely with the innovation classification suggested by the Oslo Manual. The event study found that the typology was useful in determining the market value effects of an innovation.

This study focused on innovation; future studies might test other organizational factors. The study uses data from two large, publicly traded hospitality firms and may not extend to smaller, privately held businesses. A key implication is that human coding is sufficient to identify innovation types that correspond closely with existing classifications and affect firm value.

This study successful learns from hospitality press releases to identify a hospitality innovation typology and tests type impact on firm value.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the adoption process of innovative asphalt equipment in road construction and how the level of knowledge as characterised by the level of education in the companies affects this process. The emphasis is on equipment used for transporting asphalt from asphalt plant to construction site or at the construction site itself. It is assumed that the uptake of this equipment is influenced by the radicality of the innovation and the company's level of education.

In this research, the innovation behaviour of construction companies is assessed through a case study, an expert opinion, and an industry survey (of which 55 per cent of the total population participated).

The results show that on average, experts and companies alike give more radical equipment innovations less adoption chances. Companies prefer to make minor improvements and perceive no benefits in implementing a risky radical equipment innovation. Companies that have a higher level of knowledge are found to show a more positive and professional attitude towards implementing innovative asphalt equipment.

The defined knowledge is restricted to the formal level of education of both management and the firm in one part of the construction industry. The knowledge indicator used in this study has a high validity (it is easy to measure). Further research could focus on other types of knowledge affecting innovation adoption in other parts of the construction industry.

The value of this study is that it addresses the important questions of how managers of construction firms select equipment and how it is affected by the level of knowledge.

In the construction industry, building facade systems are gaining significance as reflected in the number of facade product innovations available on the market. While research studies on the adoption of these facade product innovations are comparatively limited in number. An awareness of the advantages and impacts that a product innovation brings is critical in its adoption, and therefore the purpose of this paper is to develop a classification framework for the use of producers/vendors present the advantages and impacts of their innovative facade products to the architects.

The study, in addition to literature review, consisted of four main steps without distinct boundaries, namely, (1) case study sample selection regarding facade products, (2) data collection through review of published documents, analysis of the data via content analysis and generation of a preliminary framework for the evaluation of facade product innovations, (3) further data collection through semi-structured interviews and analysis of the products and (4) redefining innovation types and finalizing classification framework through assessment of new facade products.

Innovation types may vary according to the product groups under investigation and viewpoints of the classifications. Selected facade products were evaluated in terms of their specific characteristics through identified viewpoints: as a physical object and as an agent. It was revealed that assessing a product innovation in terms of changes in its structural composition and impact on other related physical objects/processes can change the type of innovation. Additionally, insights about improved characteristics specific to facade products, forms of change in these products and architects' new actions in the facade design process were obtained.

Only the products stated by the producers/vendors as being new to the Turkish market at the time they were introduced were evaluated in terms of all aspects proposed in the framework. For these products and others that were evaluated, the product data obtained from the producers/vendors have been deemed to be accurate. Research on equivalent products in the market has not been conducted.

Studies identifying innovation types in the facade industry are very rare. The proposed framework can be regarded as a detailed investigation of product innovation types in the facade industry which offers component-system level improvement/change analysis. Moreover, it can be an effective tool for producers/vendors to ensure that architects have knowledge about their innovative products and their impacts on facade design and also to facilitate the adoption of these products.

This article aims to offer insights into the range of innovations in food sector SMEs, and demonstrate the way in which managers classify their innovations on the basis of Francis and Bessant's classification of innovations into the following four types: product, process, position, and paradigm.

As part of a larger questionnaire‐based survey on innovation in food sector SMEs, respondents were asked to provide examples of their recent innovations and to categorise them as product, process, position, or paradigm innovations.

Food sector SMEs offered a wide range of examples of innovation. They were able to classify their innovations into product, process, position or paradigm innovations. Further, there is evidence that food sector SMEs are engaged in a range of innovation types, although a greater number of examples were offered for product innovation than for other types of innovation. Additionally, there is evidence of overlap and complementariness between different types of innovation.

Although the food sector plays an important role within the UK economy, innovation in food and drink sector SMEs has received relatively limited attention. This article offers interesting insights into the reality of innovation in food sector SMEs. In addition, it demonstrates the applicability of Francis and Bessant's model of types of innovation to SMEs in this sector.

This paper aims at investigating the multifaceted nature of innovation networks by focusing on two research questions: Do cluster actors exchange only one type of innovation-related knowledge? Do cluster actors play different roles in innovation-related knowledge exchange?

This paper builds on data collected at the firm level in an Italian aerospace cluster, that is a technology-intensive industry where innovation is at the base of local competitiveness. A questionnaire was used to collect both attribute data and relational data concerning collaboration and the flows of knowledge in innovation networks. The authors distinguished among three types of knowledge (technological, managerial and market knowledge) and five types of brokerage roles (coordinator, gatekeeper, liaison, representative and consultant). Data analysis relied on social network analysis techniques and software.

Concerning the first research question, the findings show that different types of knowledge flow in different ways in innovation networks. The different types of knowledge are unevenly exchanged. The exchange of technological knowledge is open to everyone in the cluster. The exchange of market and managerial knowledge is selective. Concerning the second research question, the authors suggest that different types of cluster actors (large firms, small- and medium-sized enterprises, research centers and universities and institutions for collaboration) do play different roles in innovation networks, especially with reference to the three types of knowledge considered in this study.

The present paper has some limitations. First of all, the analysis focuses on just one cluster (one industry in one specific location), cross- and comparative analyses with other clusters may illuminate the findings better, eliminating industry and geographical biases. Second, the paper focuses only on innovation-related knowledge exchanges within the cluster and not across it.

The results have practical implications both for policy makers and for managers. First, this research stresses how innovation often originates from a combination of different knowledge types acquired through the collaboration with heterogeneous cluster actors. Further, the analysis of brokerage roles in innovation-driven collaborations may help policy makers in designing programs for knowledge-transfer partnerships among the various actors of a cluster.

The paper suggests a clear need of developing professional figures capable of operating at the interface of different knowledge domains.

The data illuminate several aspects of how innovation takes place in a cluster opening up intriguing aspects that have been overlooked by extant literature. The authors believe that this may trigger several lines of further research on the topic.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.

This paper empirically investigates the processes by which manufacturing firms create radical innovations in their core production process, referred to as radical manufacturing technology innovations (RMTI). The purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of the processes and practices manufacturing firms use to create RMTI.

Creation processes for 23 RMTI projects from diverse industry and technology contexts are explored. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews, and an inductive analysis was carried out to identify similarities and differences in RMTI types and creation processes.

Three types of RMTI and three alternative RMTI creation processes are revealed and characterized. An integrated view is developed of the activities of the equipment supplier and the manufacturing firm, highlighting their different roles and interaction across the three RMTI creation process types.

The exploratory design limits the depth of the analysis per RMTI project, and the focus is on manufacturing technology innovations in one country. The results extend previous case and context-specific findings on RMTI creation processes and provide novel frameworks for cross-case comparisons.

The manufacturing firms’ proactive role in RMTI creation is defined. A framework is proposed for using different RMTI creation processes for different types of RMTI.

This study addresses recent calls for empirical research on understanding the ways in which process innovations unfold in manufacturing firms. The findings emphasize the role of manufacturing firms as creators of RMTI in addition to their role as innovation adopters and implementers and reveal the suitability of different RMTI creation processes for different RMTI types.