Innovation

Innovation in its modern meaning is "a new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method".[1] Innovation is often also viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs.[2] Such innovation takes place through the provision of more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, or business models that are made available to markets, governments and society. An innovation is something original and more effective and, as a consequence, new, that "breaks into" the market or society.[3] Innovation is related to, but not the same as, invention,[4] as innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention (ie new / improved ability) to make a meaningful impact in the market or society,[5] and not all innovations require an invention. Innovation often manifests itself via the engineering process, when the problem being solved is of a technical or scientific nature. The opposite of innovation is exnovation.

For other uses, see Innovation (disambiguation).

In economics, management science, and other fields of practice and analysis, innovation is generally considered to be the result of a process that brings together various novel ideas in such a way that they affect society. In industrial economics, innovations are created and found empirically from services to meet growing consumer demand.[6][7][8]

Innovation also has an older historical meaning which is quite different. From the 1400s through the 1600s, prior to early American settlement, the concept of "innovation" was pejorative. It was an early modern synonym for rebellion, revolt and heresy.[9][10][11][12]

Definition

A 2014 survey of literature on innovation found over 40 definitions[13]. In an industrial survey of how the software industry defined innovation, the following definition given by Crossan and Apaydin was considered to be the most complete, which builds on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) manual's definition:[13]

Innovation is production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and the establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome.

According to Kanter, innovation includes original invention and creative use and defines innovation as a generation, admission and realization of new ideas, products, services and processes.[14]

Two main dimensions of innovation were degree of novelty (patent) (i.e. whether an innovation is new to the firm, new to the market, new to the industry, or new to the world) and kind of innovation (i.e. whether it is processor product-service system innovation).[13] In recent organizational scholarship, researchers of workplaces have also distinguished innovation to be separate from creativity, by providing an updated definition of these two related but distinct constructs:

Workplace creativity concerns the cognitive and behavioral processes applied when attempting to generate novel ideas. Workplace innovation concerns the processes applied when attempting to implement new ideas. Specifically, innovation involves some combination of problem/opportunity identification, the introduction, adoption or modification of new ideas germane to organizational needs, the promotion of these ideas, and the practical implementation of these ideas.[15]

Peter Drucker wrote:

Innovation is the specific function of entrepreneurship, whether in an existing business, a public service institution, or a new venture started by a lone individual in the family kitchen. It is the means by which the entrepreneur either creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth.[16]

Types

Several frameworks have been proposed for defining types of innovation.[17][18] One framework proposed by Clayton Christensen draws a distinction between sustaining and disruptive innovations.[19] Sustaining innovation is the improvement of a product or service based on the known needs of current customers (e.g. faster microprocessors, flat screen televisions). Disruptive innovation in contrast refers to a process by which a new product or service creates a new market (e.g. transistor radio, free crowdsourced encyclopedia, etc.), eventually displacing established competitors.[20][21] According to Christensen, disruptive innovations are critical to long-term success in business.[22]

Disruptive innovation is often enabled by disruptive technology. Marco Iansiti and Karim R. Lakhani define foundational technology as having the potential to create new foundations for global technology systems over the longer term. Foundational technology tends to transform business operating models as entirely new business models emerge over many years, with gradual and steady adoption of the innovation leading to waves of technological and institutional change that gain momentum more slowly.[23] The advent of the packet-switched communication protocol TCP/IP—originally introduced in 1972 to support a single use case for United States Department of Defense electronic communication (email), and which gained widespread adoption only in the mid-1990s with the advent of the World Wide Web—is a foundational technology.[23]

History
See also: Innovation economics

In business and in economics, innovation can become a catalyst for growth. With rapid advancements in transportation and communications over the past few decades, the old-world concepts of factor endowments and comparative advantage which focused on an area's unique inputs are outmoded for today's global economy. Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), who contributed greatly to the study of innovation economics, argued that industries must incessantly revolutionize the economic structure from within, that is innovate with better or more effective processes and products, as well as market distribution, such as the connection from the craft shop to factory. He famously asserted that "creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism".[24] Entrepreneurs continuously look for better ways to satisfy their consumer base with improved quality, durability, service and price which come to fruition in innovation with advanced technologies and organizational strategies.[25]

A prime example of innovation involved the explosive boom of Silicon Valley startups out of the Stanford Industrial Park. In 1957, dissatisfied employees of Shockley Semiconductor, the company of Nobel laureate and co-inventor of the transistor William Shockley, left to form an independent firm, Fairchild Semiconductor. After several years, Fairchild developed into a formidable presence in the sector. Eventually, these founders left to start their own companies based on their own, unique, latest ideas, and then leading employees started their own firms. Over the next 20 years, this snowball process launched the momentous startup-company explosion of information-technology firms. Essentially, Silicon Valley began as 65 new enterprises born out of Shockley's eight former employees.[26] Since then, hubs of innovation have sprung up globally with similar metonyms, including Silicon Alley encompassing New York City.

Another example involves business incubators – a phenomenon nurtured by governments around the world, close to knowledge clusters (mostly research-based) like universities or other Government Excellence Centres – which aim primarily to channel generated knowledge to applied innovation outcomes in order to stimulate regional or national economic growth.[27]

Process of innovation

All organizations can innovate, including for example hospitals, universities, and local governments.[28] The organization requires a proper structure in order to retain competitive advantage. Organizations can also improve profits and performance by providing work groups opportunities and resources to innovate, in addition to employee's core job tasks.[29] It is necessary to create and nurture an environment of innovation. Executives and managers have been advised to break away from traditional ways of thinking and use change to their advantage.[30] The world of work is changing with the increase in the use of technology and both companies and businesses are becoming increasingly competitive. Companies will have to downsize or reengineer their operations to remain competitive. This will affect employment as businesses will be forced to reduce the number of people employed while accomplishing the same amount of work if not more.[31]

For instance, former Mayor Martin O’Malley pushed the City of Baltimore to use CitiStat, a performance-measurement data and management system that allows city officials to maintain statistics on several areas from crime trends to the conditions of potholes. This system aided in better evaluation of policies and procedures with accountability and efficiency in terms of time and money. In its first year, CitiStat saved the city $13.2 million.[32] Even mass transit systems have innovated with hybrid bus fleets to real-time tracking at bus stands. In addition, the growing use of mobile data terminals in vehicles, that serve as communication hubs between vehicles and a control center, automatically send data on location, passenger counts, engine performance, mileage and other information. This tool helps to deliver and manage transportation systems.[33]

Still other innovative strategies include hospitals digitizing medical information in electronic medical records. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI initiatives turned severely distressed public housing in urban areas into revitalized, mixed-income environments; the Harlem Children’s Zone used a community-based approach to educate local area children; and the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfield grants facilitates turning over brownfields for environmental protection, green spaces, community and commercial development.

Sources of innovation

Innovation may occur as a result of a focus effort by a range of different agents, by chance, or as a result of a major system failure. According to Peter F. Drucker, the general sources of innovations are different changes in industry structure, in market structure, in local and global demographics, in human perception, mood and meaning, in the amount of already available scientific knowledge, etc.[16]

Original model of three phases of the process of Technological Change

In the simplest linear model of innovation the traditionally recognized source is manufacturer innovation. This is where an agent (person or business) innovates in order to sell the innovation. Specifically, R&D measurement is the commonly used input for innovation, in particular in the business sector, named Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) that grew over the years on the expenses of the declining R&D invested by the public sector.[34]

Another source of innovation, only now becoming widely recognized, is end-user innovation. This is where an agent (person or company) develops an innovation for their own (personal or in-house) use because existing products do not meet their needs. MIT economist Eric von Hippel has identified end-user innovation as, by far, the most important and critical in his classic book on the subject, "The Sources of Innovation".[35]

The robotics engineer Joseph F. Engelberger asserts that innovations require only three things:

  1. a recognized need
  2. competent people with relevant technology
  3. financial support[36]

However, innovation processes usually involve: identifying customer needs, macro and meso trends, developing competences, and finding financial support.

The Kline chain-linked model of innovation[37] places emphasis on potential market needs as drivers of the innovation process, and describes the complex and often iterative feedback loops between marketing, design, manufacturing, and R&D.

Facilitating innovation

Innovation by businesses is achieved in many ways, with much attention now given to formal research and development (R&D) for "breakthrough innovations". R&D help spur on patents and other scientific innovations that leads to productive growth in such areas as industry, medicine, engineering, and government.[38] Yet, innovations can be developed by less formal on-the-job modifications of practice, through exchange and combination of professional experience and by many other routes. Investigation of relationship between the concepts of innovation and technology transfer revealed overlap.[39] The more radical and revolutionary innovations tend to emerge from R&D, while more incremental innovations may emerge from practice – but there are many exceptions to each of these trends.

Information technology and changing business processes and management style can produce a work climate favorable to innovation.[40] For example, the software tool company Atlassian conducts quarterly "ShipIt Days" in which employees may work on anything related to the company's products.[41] Google employees work on self-directed projects for 20% of their time (known as Innovation Time Off). Both companies cite these bottom-up processes as major sources for new products and features.

An important innovation factor includes customers buying products or using services. As a result, organizations may incorporate users in focus groups (user centred approach), work closely with so called lead users (lead user approach), or users might adapt their products themselves. The lead user method focuses on idea generation based on leading users to develop breakthrough innovations. U-STIR, a project to innovate Europe's surface transportation system, employs such workshops.[42] Regarding this user innovation, a great deal of innovation is done by those actually implementing and using technologies and products as part of their normal activities. Sometimes user-innovators may become entrepreneurs, selling their product, they may choose to trade their innovation in exchange for other innovations, or they may be adopted by their suppliers. Nowadays, they may also choose to freely reveal their innovations, using methods like open source. In such networks of innovation the users or communities of users can further develop technologies and reinvent their social meaning.[43][44]

One technique for innovating a solution to an identified problem is to actually attempt an experiment with many possible solutions.[45] This technique was famously used by Thomas Edison's laboratory to find a version of the incandescent light bulb economically viable for home use, which involved searching through thousands of possible filament designs before settling on carbonized bamboo.

This technique is sometimes used in pharmaceutical drug discovery. Thousands of chemical compounds are subjected to high-throughput screening to see if they have any activity against a target molecule which has been identified as biologically significant to a disease. Promising compounds can then be studied; modified to improve efficacy, reduce side effects, and reduce cost of manufacture; and if successful turned into treatments.

The related technique of A/B testing is often used to help optimize the design of web sites and mobile apps. This is used by major sites such as amazon.com, Facebook, Google, and Netflix.[46] Procter & Gamble uses computer-simulated products and online user panels to conduct larger numbers of experiments to guide the design, packaging, and shelf placement of consumer products.[47] Capital One uses this technique to drive credit card marketing offers.[46]

Goals and failures

Programs of organizational innovation are typically tightly linked to organizational goals and objectives, to the business plan, and to market competitive positioning. One driver for innovation programs in corporations is to achieve growth objectives. As Davila et al. (2006) notes, "Companies cannot grow through cost reduction and reengineering alone... Innovation is the key element in providing aggressive top-line growth, and for increasing bottom-line results".[48]

One survey across a large number of manufacturing and services organizations found, ranked in decreasing order of popularity, that systematic programs of organizational innovation are most frequently driven by: improved quality, creation of new markets, extension of the product range, reduced labor costs, improved production processes, reduced materials, reduced environmental damage, replacement of products/services, reduced energy consumption, conformance to regulations.[48]

These goals vary between improvements to products, processes and services and dispel a popular myth that innovation deals mainly with new product development. Most of the goals could apply to any organization be it a manufacturing facility, marketing company, hospital or government. Whether innovation goals are successfully achieved or otherwise depends greatly on the environment prevailing in the organization.[49]

Conversely, failure can develop in programs of innovations. The causes of failure have been widely researched and can vary considerably. Some causes will be external to the organization and outside its influence of control. Others will be internal and ultimately within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be divided into causes associated with the cultural infrastructure and causes associated with the innovation process itself. Common causes of failure within the innovation process in most organizations can be distilled into five types: poor goal definition, poor alignment of actions to goals, poor participation in teams, poor monitoring of results, poor communication and access to information.[50]

Diffusion
Main article: Diffusion of innovations

Diffusion of innovation research was first started in 1903 by seminal researcher Gabriel Tarde, who first plotted the S-shaped diffusion curve. Tarde defined the innovation-decision process as a series of steps that include:[51]

  1. knowledge
  2. forming an attitude
  3. a decision to adopt or reject
  4. implementation and use
  5. confirmation of the decision

Once innovation occurs, innovations may be spread from the innovator to other individuals and groups. This process has been proposed that the lifecycle of innovations can be described using the 's-curve' or diffusion curve. The s-curve maps growth of revenue or productivity against time. In the early stage of a particular innovation, growth is relatively slow as the new product establishes itself. At some point, customers begin to demand and the product growth increases more rapidly. New incremental innovations or changes to the product allow growth to continue. Towards the end of its lifecycle, growth slows and may even begin to decline. In the later stages, no amount of new investment in that product will yield a normal rate of return.

The s-curve derives from an assumption that new products are likely to have "product life" – ie, a start-up phase, a rapid increase in revenue and eventual decline. In fact, the great majority of innovations never get off the bottom of the curve, and never produce normal returns.

Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones. Successive s-curves will come along to replace older ones and continue to drive growth upwards. In the figure above the first curve shows a current technology. The second shows an emerging technology that currently yields lower growth but will eventually overtake current technology and lead to even greater levels of growth. The length of life will depend on many factors.[52]

Measures

Measuring innovation is inherently difficult as it implies commensurability so that comparisons can be made in quantitative terms. Innovation, however, is by definition novelty. Comparisons are thus often meaningless across products or service.[53] Nevertheless, Edison et al.[54] in their review of literature on innovation management found 232 innovation metrics. They categorized these measures along five dimensions; ie inputs to the innovation process, output from the innovation process, effect of the innovation output, measures to access the activities in an innovation process and availability of factors that facilitate such a process.[54]

There are two different types of measures for innovation: the organizational level and the political level.

Organizational-level
The measure of innovation at the organizational level relates to individuals, team-level assessments, and private companies from the smallest to the largest company. Measure of innovation for organizations can be conducted by surveys, workshops, consultants, or internal benchmarking. There is today no established general way to measure organizational innovation. Corporate measurements are generally structured around balanced scorecards which cover several aspects of innovation such as business measures related to finances, innovation process efficiency, employees' contribution and motivation, as well benefits for customers. Measured values will vary widely between businesses, covering for example new product revenue, spending in R&D, time to market, customer and employee perception & satisfaction, number of patents, additional sales resulting from past innovations.[55]
Political-level
For the political level, measures of innovation are more focused on a country or region competitive advantage through innovation. In this context, organizational capabilities can be evaluated through various evaluation frameworks, such as those of the European Foundation for Quality Management. The OECD Oslo Manual (1992) suggests standard guidelines on measuring technological product and process innovation. Some people consider the Oslo Manual complementary to the Frascati Manual from 1963. The new Oslo Manual from 2018 takes a wider perspective to innovation, and includes marketing and organizational innovation. These standards are used for example in the European Community Innovation Surveys.[56]

Other ways of measuring innovation have traditionally been expenditure, for example, investment in R&D (Research and Development) as percentage of GNP (Gross National Product). Whether this is a good measurement of innovation has been widely discussed and the Oslo Manual has incorporated some of the critique against earlier methods of measuring. The traditional methods of measuring still inform many policy decisions. The EU Lisbon Strategy has set as a goal that their average expenditure on R&D should be 3% of GDP.[57]

Indicators

Many scholars claim that there is a great bias towards the "science and technology mode" (S&T-mode or STI-mode), while the "learning by doing, using and interacting mode" (DUI-mode) is ignored and measurements and research about it rarely done. For example, an institution may be high tech with the latest equipment, but lacks crucial doing, using and interacting tasks important for innovation.

A common industry view (unsupported by empirical evidence) is that comparative cost-effectiveness research is a form of price control which reduces returns to industry, and thus limits R&D expenditure, stifles future innovation and compromises new products access to markets.[58] Some academics claim cost-effectiveness research is a valuable value-based measure of innovation which accords "truly significant" therapeutic advances (ie providing "health gain") higher prices than free market mechanisms.[59] Such value-based pricing has been viewed as a means of indicating to industry the type of innovation that should be rewarded from the public purse.[60]

An Australian academic developed the case that national comparative cost-effectiveness analysis systems should be viewed as measuring "health innovation" as an evidence-based policy concept for valuing innovation distinct from valuing through competitive markets, a method which requires strong anti-trust laws to be effective, on the basis that both methods of assessing pharmaceutical innovations are mentioned in annex 2C.1 of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement.[61][62][63]

Indices

Several indices attempt to measure innovation and rank entities based on these measures, such as:

  • Bloomberg Innovation Index
  • "Bogota Manual"[64] similar to the Oslo Manual, is focused on Latin America and the Caribbean countries.
  • "Creative Class" developed by Richard Florida
  • EIU Innovation Ranking
  • Global Competitiveness Report
  • Global Innovation Index (GII), by INSEAD[65]
  • Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Index
  • Innovation 360 – From the World Bank. Aggregates innovation indicators (and more) from a number of different public sources
  • Innovation Capacity Index (ICI) published by a large number of international professors working in a collaborative fashion. The top scorers of ICI 2009–2010 were: 1. Sweden 82.2; 2. Finland 77.8; and 3. United States 77.5[66]
  • Innovation Index, developed by the Indiana Business Research Center, to measure innovation capacity at the county or regional level in the United States[67]
  • Innovation Union Scoreboard
  • innovationsindikator for Germany, developed by the Federation of German Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) in 2005[68]
  • INSEAD Innovation Efficacy Index[69]
  • International Innovation Index, produced jointly by The Boston Consulting Group, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and its nonpartisan research affiliate The Manufacturing Institute, is a worldwide index measuring the level of innovation in a country; NAM describes it as the "largest and most comprehensive global index of its kind"[70]
  • Management Innovation Index – Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index[71]
  • NYCEDC Innovation Index, by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, tracks New York City's "transformation into a center for high-tech innovation. It measures innovation in the City's growing science and technology industries and is designed to capture the effect of innovation on the City's economy"[72]
  • OECD Oslo Manual is focused on North America, Europe, and other rich economies
  • State Technology and Science Index, developed by the Milken Institute, is a U.S.-wide benchmark to measure the science and technology capabilities that furnish high paying jobs based around key components[73]
  • World Competitiveness Scoreboard[74]

Rankings

Many research studies try to rank countries based on measures of innovation. Common areas of focus include: high-tech companies, manufacturing, patents, post secondary education, research and development, and research personnel. The left ranking of the top 10 countries below is based on the 2020 Bloomberg Innovation Index.[75] However, studies may vary widely; for example the Global Innovation Index 2016 ranks Switzerland as number one wherein countries like South Korea and Japan do not even make the top ten.[76]

Bloomberg Innovation Index 2020[77]
RankCountry/Territory Index
1 Germany 87.38
2 South Korea 87.3
3 Singapore 85.57
4  Switzerland 85.49
5 Sweden 84.78
6 Israel 84.49
7 Finland 84.15
8 Denmark 83.21
9 United States 81.40
10 France 81.67
Global Innovation Index 2019[78]
RankCountry/Territory Index
1  Switzerland 67.24
2 Sweden 63.65
3 United States 61.73
4 Netherlands 61.44
5 United Kingdom 61.30
6 Finland 59.83
7 Denmark 58.44
8 Singapore 58.37
9 Germany 58.19
10 Israel 57.43
Innovation Indicator 2018[79]
RankCountry/Territory Index
1 Singapore 73
2  Switzerland 72
3 Belgium 59
4 Germany 55
5 Sweden 54
6 United States 52
7 United Kingdom 52
8 Denmark 51
9 Ireland 51
10 South Korea 51

Rate of innovation

In 2005 Jonathan Huebner, a physicist working at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center, argued on the basis of both U.S. patents and world technological breakthroughs, per capita, that the rate of human technological innovation peaked in 1873 and has been slowing ever since.[80][81] In his article, he asked "Will the level of technology reach a maximum and then decline as in the Dark Ages?"[80] In later comments to New Scientist magazine, Huebner clarified that while he believed that we will reach a rate of innovation in 2024 equivalent to that of the Dark Ages, he was not predicting the reoccurrence of the Dark Ages themselves.[82]

John Smart criticized the claim and asserted that technological singularity researcher Ray Kurzweil and others showed a "clear trend of acceleration, not deceleration" when it came to innovations.[83] The foundation replied to Huebner the journal his article was published in, citing Second Life and eHarmony as proof of accelerating innovation; to which Huebner replied.[84] However, Huebner's findings were confirmed in 2010 with U.S. Patent Office data.[85] and in a 2012 paper.[86]

Innovation and development

The theme of innovation as a tool to disrupting patterns of poverty has gained momentum since the mid-2000s among major international development actors such as DFID,[87] Gates Foundation's use of the Grand Challenge funding model,[88] and USAID's Global Development Lab.[89] Networks have been established to support innovation in development, such as D-Lab at MIT.[90] Investment funds have been established to identify and catalyze innovations in developing countries, such as DFID's Global Innovation Fund,[91] Human Development Innovation Fund,[92] and (in partnership with USAID) the Global Development Innovation Ventures.[93]

The United States has to continue to play on the same level of playing field as its competitors in federal research. This can be achieved being strategically innovative through investment in basic research and science".[94]

Government policies

Given the noticeable effects on efficiency, quality of life, and productive growth, innovation is a key factor in society and economy. Consequently, policymakers have long worked to develop environments that will foster innovation and its resulting positive benefits, from funding Research and Development to supporting regulatory change, funding the development of innovation clusters, and using public purchasing and standardisation to 'pull' innovation through.

For instance, experts are advocating that the U.S. federal government launch a National Infrastructure Foundation, a nimble, collaborative strategic intervention organization that will house innovations programs from fragmented silos under one entity, inform federal officials on innovation performance metrics, strengthen industry-university partnerships, and support innovation economic development initiatives, especially to strengthen regional clusters. Because clusters are the geographic incubators of innovative products and processes, a cluster development grant program would also be targeted for implementation. By focusing on innovating in such areas as precision manufacturing, information technology, and clean energy, other areas of national concern would be tackled including government debt, carbon footprint, and oil dependence.[38] The U.S. Economic Development Administration understand this reality in their continued Regional Innovation Clusters initiative.[95] The United States also has to integrate her supply-chain and improve her applies research capability and downstream process innovation.[96]

In addition, federal grants in R&D, a crucial driver of innovation and productive growth, should be expanded to levels similar to Japan, Finland, South Korea, and Switzerland in order to stay globally competitive. Also, such grants should be better procured to metropolitan areas, the essential engines of the American economy.[38]

Many countries recognize the importance of research and development as well as innovation including Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT);[97] Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research;[98] and the Ministry of Science and Technology in the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, Russia's innovation programme is the Medvedev modernisation programme which aims at creating a diversified economy based on high technology and innovation. Also, the Government of Western Australia has established a number of innovation incentives for government departments. Landgate was the first Western Australian government agency to establish its Innovation Program.[99]

Regions have taken a more proactive role in supporting innovation. Many regional governments are setting up regional innovation agency to strengthen regional innovation capabilities.[100] In Medellin, Colombia, the municipality of Medellin created in 2009 Ruta N to transform the city into a knowledge city.[101]

gollark: __TEST__
gollark: ~~TEST~~
gollark: -TEST-
gollark: _TEST_
gollark: ***_OH REALLY?_***

See also

Further reading

References
  1. "Innovation". Merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  2. Maranville, S. (1992). "Entrepreneurship in the Business Curriculum". Journal of Education for Business. 68: 27–31. doi:10.1080/08832323.1992.10117582.
  3. Franklin, Perú (2009). "Questioning two myths in innovation literature". The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 20: 40–51. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2009.02.002.
  4. Bhasin, Kim (2 April 2012). "This Is The Difference Between 'Invention' And 'Innovation'". Business Insider.
  5. "What's the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?". Forbes. 10 September 2015.
  6. Growth in Services. Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, 2005. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  7. Consumer Policy Toolkit. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2010. doi:10.1787/9789264079663-en. ISBN 9789264079656.
  8. "EPSC - European Commission" (PDF).
  9. Mazzaferro, Alexander (2018). ""Such a Murmur": Innovation, Rebellion, and Sovereignty in William Strachey's "True Reportory"". Early American Literature. 53 (1): 3–32. doi:10.1353/eal.2018.0001.
  10. Mazzaferro, Alexander McLean (2017). "No newe enterprize" (Doctoral dissertation). Camden, New Jersey: Rutgers University. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  11. Lepore, Jill (23 June 2014). "The Disruption Machine What the gospel of innovation gets wrong". The New Yorker. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  12. Green, Emma (20 June 2013). "Innovation: The History of a Buzzword". The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  13. Edison, H., Ali, N.B., & Torkar, R. (2014). Towards innovation measurement in the software industry. Journal of Systems and Software 86(5), 1390–407.
  14. Innovation in American Government: Challenges, Opportunities, and Dilemmas. Brookings Inst Pr. 1 June 1997. ISBN 9780815703587.
  15. Hughes, D. J.; Lee, A.; Tian, A. W.; Newman, A.; Legood, A. (2018). "Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations" (PDF). The Leadership Quarterly. 29 (5): 549–569. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001. hdl:10871/32289.
  16. "The Discipline of Innovation". Harvard Business Review. August 2002. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
  17. Blank, Steve (1 February 2019). "McKinsey's Three Horizons Model Defined Innovation for Years. Here's Why It No Longer Applies". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  18. Satell, Greg (21 June 2017). "The 4 Types of Innovation and the Problems They Solve". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  19. Bower, Joseph L.; Christensen, Clayton M. (1 January 1995). "Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave". Harvard Business Review (January-February 1995). ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  20. Christensen, Clayton M.; Raynor, Michael E.; McDonald, Rory (1 December 2015). "What Is Disruptive Innovation?". Harvard Business Review (December 2015). ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  21. "Disruptive Innovations". Christensen Institute. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
  22. Christensen, Clayton & Overdorf, Michael (2000). "Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change". Harvard Business Review.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. Iansiti, Marco; Lakhani, Karim R. (January 2017). "The Truth About Blockchain". Harvard Business Review. Harvard University. Retrieved 17 January 2017. a foundational technology: It has the potential to create new foundations for our economic and social systems.
  24. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (6 ed.). Routledge. pp. 81–84. ISBN 978-0-415-10762-4.
  25. Heyne, P., Boettke, P. J., and Prychitko, D. L. (2010). The Economic Way of Thinking. Prentice Hall, 12th ed. pp. 163, 317–18.
  26. "Silicon Valley History & Future". Netvalley.com. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  27. Rubin, Tzameret H.; Aas, Tor Helge; Stead, Andrew (1 July 2015). "Knowledge flow in Technological Business Incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel". Technovation. 41–42: 11–24. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.002.
  28. Salge, T. O.; Vera, A. (2009). "Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: Evidence from English public acute care". Health Care Management Review. 34 (1): 54–67. doi:10.1097/01.HMR.0000342978.84307.80. PMID 19104264.
  29. West, Michael A. (2002). "Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups". Applied Psychology. 51 (3): 355–387. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00951.
  30. MIT Sloan Management Review Spring 2002. "How to identify and build New Businesses"
  31. Anthony, Scott D.; Johnson, Mark W.; Sinfield, Joseph V.; Altman, Elizabeth J. (2008). Innovator's Guide to Growth. "Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work". Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1-59139-846-2.
  32. Perez, T. and Rushing R. (2007). "The CitiStat Model: How Data-Driven Government Can Increase Efficiency and Effectiveness". Center for American Progress Report. pp. 1–18.
  33. Transportation Research Board (2007). "Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 70: Mobile Data Terminals". pp. 1–5. TCRP (PDF).
  34. H. Rubin, Tzameret (2015). "The Achilles heel of a strong private knowledge sector: evidence from Israel" (PDF). The Journal of Innovation Impact. 7 (1): 80–99.
  35. Von Hippel, Eric (1988). The Sources of Innovation (PDF). Oxford University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 October 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
  36. Engelberger, J. F. (1982). "Robotics in practice: Future capabilities". Electronic Servicing & Technology magazine.
  37. Kline (1985). Research, Invention, Innovation and Production: Models and Reality, Report INN-1, March 1985, Mechanical Engineering Department, Stanford University.
  38. Mark, M., Katz, B., Rahman, S., and Warren, D. (2008) MetroPolicy: Shaping A New Federal Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation. Brookings Institution: Metropolitan Policy Program Report. pp. 4–103.
  39. Dubickis, M., Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2015). "Perspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 213: 965–970. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.512.
  40. "New Trends in Innovation Management". Forbesindia.com. Forbes India Magazine. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  41. "ShipIt Days". Atlassian. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  42. "U-STIR". U-stir.eu. Archived from the original on 18 September 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  43. Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation. Oxford University Press. Networks of Innovation Archived 5 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  44. Siltala, R. (2010). Innovativity and cooperative learning in business life and teaching. PhD thesis. University of Turku.
  45. Forget The 10,000-Hour Rule; Edison, Bezos, & Zuckerberg Follow The 10,000-Experiment Rule. Medium.com (2017-10-26). Retrieved on 2018-10-16.
  46. Why These Tech Companies Keep Running Thousands Of Failed Experiments. Fastcompany.com (2016-09-21). Retrieved on 2018-10-16.
  47. Simulation Advantage. Bcgperspectives.com (2010-08-04). Retrieved on 2018-10-16.
  48. Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., and Shelton, R. (2006). "Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It." Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.
  49. Khan, Arshad M.; Manopichetwattana, V. (1989). "Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms: Types and Characteristics". Management Science. 35 (5): 597–606. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.5.597.
  50. O'Sullivan, David (2002). "Framework for Managing Development in the Networked Organisations". Journal of Computers in Industry. 47 (1): 77–88. doi:10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00135-X.
  51. Tarde, G. (1903). The laws of imitation (E. Clews Parsons, Trans.). New York: H. Holt & Co.
  52. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.
  53. The Oxford handbook of innovation. Fagerberg, Jan., Mowery, David C., Nelson, Richard R. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN 9780199264551. OCLC 56655392.CS1 maint: others (link)
  54. Edison, H.; Ali, N.B.; Torkar, R. (2013). "Towards innovation measurement in the software industry". Journal of Systems and Software. 86 (5): 1390–1407. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.013 – via ResearchGate.
  55. Davila, Tony; Marc J. Epstein and Robert Shelton (2006). Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing
  56. OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Oslo Manual. 2nd edition, DSTI, OECD / European Commission Eurostat, Paris 31 December 1995.
  57. "Industrial innovation – Enterprise and Industry". Ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 27 August 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  58. Chalkidou, K.; Tunis, S.; Lopert, R.; Rochaix, L.; Sawicki, P. T.; Nasser, M.; Xerri, B. (2009). "Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: Experience from four countries". The Milbank Quarterly. 87 (2): 339–67. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00560.x. PMC 2881450. PMID 19523121.
  59. Roughead, E.; Lopert, R.; Sansom, L. (2007). "Prices for innovative pharmaceutical products that provide health gain: a comparison between Australia and the United States Value". Health. 10 (6): 514–20. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00206.x. PMID 17970935.
  60. Hughes, B. (2008). "Payers Growing Influence on R&D Decision Making". Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 7 (11): 876–78. doi:10.1038/nrd2749. PMID 18974741.
  61. Faunce, T.; Bai, J.; Nguyen, D. (2010). "Impact of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement on Australian medicines regulation and prices". Journal of Generic Medicines. 7 (1): 18–29. doi:10.1057/jgm.2009.40.
  62. Faunce TA (2006). "Global intellectual property protection of 'innovative' pharmaceuticals: Challenges for bioethics and health law in B Bennett and G Tomossy" (PDF). Law.anu.edu.au. Globalization and Health Springer. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2011. Retrieved 18 June 2009.
  63. Faunce, T. A. (2007). "Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?". Medical Journal of Australia. 187 (4): 240–42. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01209.x. PMID 17564579.
  64. Hernán Jaramillo, Gustavo Lugones, Mónica Salazar (March 2001). "Bogota Manual. Standardisation of Indicators of Technological Innovation in Latin American and Caribbean Countries". Iberoamerican Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT) Organisation of American States (OAS) / CYTED PROGRAM COLCIENCIAS/OCYT. p. 87.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  65. "The INSEAD Global Innovation Index (GII)". INSEAD. 28 October 2013.
  66. "Home page". Innovation Capacity Index.
  67. "Tools". Statsamerica.org. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  68. Innovations Indikator retrieved 7 March 2017
  69. "The INSEAD Innovation Efficiency Inndex". Technology Review. February 2016.
  70. Adsule, Anil (2015). "INNOVATION LEADING THE WAY TO REVOLUTION" (PDF). International Journal of Business and Administration Research Review. 2, Issue.11, – via Google scholar.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  71. Kerle, Ralph (2013). Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. pp. 1300–1307. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_35. ISBN 978-1-4614-3857-1.
  72. "Innovation Index". NYCEDC.com.
  73. "Home page". statetechandscience.org.
  74. "The World Competitiveness Scoreboard 2014" (PDF). IMD.org. 2014.
  75. "These Are the World's Most Innovative Economies". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  76. "Infografik: Schweiz bleibt globaler Innovationsführer". Statista Infografiken. Statista (In German). Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  77. "kex Data Findings Bloomberg Innovation Index" published by datawrapper, reviewed 10. September 2019
  78. "Global Innovation Index Report 2019" Published by GII, reviewed 10. September 2019
  79. "Innovation Indicator 2018,PDF 2,7 MB" Published by the BDI and ZEW, reviewed 10. September 2019
  80. Huebner, J. (2005). "A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72 (8): 980–986. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003.
  81. Hayden, Thomas (7 July 2005). "Science: Wanna be an inventor? Don't bother". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 1 November 2013. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
  82. Adler, Robert (2 July 2005). "Entering a dark age of innovation". New Scientist. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  83. Smart, J. (2005). "Discussion of Huebner article". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72 (8): 988–995. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.07.001.
  84. Huebner, Jonathan (2005). "Response by the Authors". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72 (8): 995–1000. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.05.008.
  85. Strumsky, D.; Lobo, J.; Tainter, J. A. (2010). "Complexity and the productivity of innovation". Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 27 (5): 496. doi:10.1002/sres.1057.
  86. Gordon, Robert J. (2012). "Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds". NBER Working Paper No. 18315. doi:10.3386/w18315.
  87. "Jonathan Wong, Head of DFID's Innovation Hub | DFID bloggers". Dfid.blog.gov.uk. 24 September 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  88. "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenge Partners Commit to Innovation with New Investments in Breakthrough Science – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation". Gatesfoundation.org. 7 October 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  89. "Global Development Lab | U.S. Agency for International Development". Usaid.gov. 5 August 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  90. "International Development Innovation Network (IDIN) | D-Lab". D-lab.mit.edu. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  91. "Global Innovation Fund International development funding". GOV.UK. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  92. "Human Development Innovation Fund (HDIF)". Hdif-tz.org. 14 August 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  93. "USAID and DFID Announce Global Development Innovation Ventures to Invest in Breakthrough Solutions to World Poverty | U.S. Agency for International Development". Usaid.gov. 6 June 2013. Archived from the original on 4 May 2017. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  94. "StackPath". www.industryweek.com. Retrieved 28 April 2020.
  95. "U.S. Economic Development Administration : Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report" (PDF). Eda.gov. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  96. "The American Way of Innovation and Its Deficiencies". American Affairs Journal. 20 May 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2020.
  97. "Science and Technology". MEXT. Archived from the original on 5 September 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  98. "BMBF " Ministry". Bmbf.de. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  99. "Home". Landgate.wa.gov.au. Landgate Innovation Program. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  100. Morisson, A. & Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science,6(1),101–116. https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2019.1578257.
  101. Morisson, Arnault (2018). "Knowledge Gatekeepers and Path Development on the Knowledge Periphery: The Case of Ruta N in Medellin, Colombia". Area Development and Policy. 4: 98–115. doi:10.1080/23792949.2018.1538702.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.