Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


(Page 1) | 2 | 3 | .... | 5 | newer

    0 0

    Opinion: Phenomenology of innovation

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 185-190
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.3.185
    • Authors
      • Nathan Harter

    0 0

    Letter from the Editors: University Programs for Teaching Innovation

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Editor’s Note
    • Pages i-ii
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.3.i
    • Authors
      • Brian Glassman, MEM, Ph. D., International Journal of Innovation Science
      • Brett E. Trusko, DBA, MBA, Texas Institute for Smart Health, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

    0 0

    With the global economy facing its toughest test in over 60 years never has it been so important for companies, large and small, to innovate and grow. Whilst few business leaders would argue with this statement, research has highlighted the difficulty that businesses face in developing commercially successful, innovative products and services. It's well documented that between 80-90% of new product launches fail and whilst 80% of business leaders believe that innovation is important 65% are dissatisfied with their ability to innovate. To understand why successful, innovative products and services appears to be so elusive we conducted original research amongst a sample of UK based companies. The aim of the research was to identify how companies generate potential product ideas and what barriers they face in taking these ideas to the next stage of development. The results showed that whilst small and medium sized companies recognized the importance of innovation they did not have formal processes for generating ideas. In contrast all respondents from large companies reported that their organizations did have formal documented processes for innovation activities. Worryingly, all companies failed to use a sufficiently wide range of research tools to identify customers unmet needs. Another key area of the research was regarding barriers to innovation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, cost was considered to be the greatest barrier. Several of the other top and middle tier barriers to innovation were: lack of communication between departments; senior management; politics; poor decision making processes; and incomplete scientific or technical understanding. These barriers are directly rectifiable by putting specific transparent front end innovation processes in place. Although these problems are likely to differ between different industries the use of some innovation methodologies such as technical forecasting would help in the strategic decision making process. These findings suggest that both SMEs and large companies have gaps in the quality of their innovation systems which present a significant risk that the new products they develop may meet with commercial failure.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 191-204
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.191
    • Authors
      • Patrick J. Trotter, Advation Ltd., Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS168BN, England, UK
      • Jason Vaughan, Advation Ltd., Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS168BN, England, UK

    0 0

    Recent research into effectuation and effectual logic show that entrepreneurs think and make decisions dramatically different than typical enterprise managers. One of the major issues in applying entrepreneurship and innovation to corporations is likely the misunderstanding and failed application of these core concepts to management practices. Thus, those studying intrapreneurship and innovation would find great value from this paper's discussion of effectuation and effectual logic as it explains its major differences between entrepreneurs and typical enterprise manager views as they pertain to: Goal setting, risk taking, resource selection and gathering, dealing with setbacks, building networks, and management control. To dive deeper into these valuable concepts, effectuation and its core principles were applied to the product development process and systems development process. This includes applying them to: Screening of ideas, business analysis, development, product validation, and the market launches phase of product development. This article should help those applying entrepreneurship practices to their organizations and result in more innovative managers and employees, or as the authors term it "enterprise entrepreneurs."

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 205-216
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.205
    • Authors
      • Thomas N. Duening, University of Colorado, Management, Colorado Springs, CO
      • Morgan M. Shepherd, Information Systems, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO
      • Andrew J. Czaplewski, University of Colorado, Marketing, Colorado Springs, CO

    0 0

    The following statistical study shows the results of an investigation of supply chain innovation practices of Indian Cement Manufacturers, which are a significantly large and quickly advancing industry in India. Aside from being a study of adoption of supply chain innovation practices (SCIP) in an emerging super power (India) the benefits of supply chain innovation (SCI) are discussed including the major advances in supply chain management. The statistical study compared innovation supply chain practices (like JIT, WMS, CPFR, and others) in 125 large cement firms to their financial performance measures (ROI, market share, EBIDTA, customer satisfaction, productivity). The resulting correlations showed very high levels of reliability and adequacy, and were uses to make conclusions on which supply chain innovation practices had a positive impact on company financial performance. The conclusions are somewhat astounding with the interesting finding that some innovation practices do not support firm performance and maybe should be avoided; while others ICS practices are shown to support firm performance to a high degree.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 217-230
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.217
    • Authors
      • Rameshwar Dubey, Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Symbiosis International University, Nashik, India
      • Tripti Singh, School of Management Studies, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India
      • Saurabh Tiwari, College of Management and Economic Studies, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun, India

    0 0

    There is an ongoing need to explore opportunities and build a healthy and prosperous future, create new revenue streams and wealth, discover new solutions, and transform our organizations, industries, and societies. This need leads us to focus on innovation management. Through innovation management, order can be found in chaos, while nations, industries and economies can be pulled out of crisis. This will lead to a new foundation for growth and prosperity, which may be realized sooner rather than later.

    Despite the growing awareness that innovation is the only sustainable source of growth, competitive advantage, and new wealth, the Council on Competitive Report [1] and a recent Arthur D. Little survey of 700 global companies and their executives found fewer than 25 percent of the companies believe innovation performance is where it needs to be if they are to be successful in the competitive global marketplace. Having tried endless alternatives, company leaders are now ready to accept innovation management as a key operational discipline, just as in the past they adopted the disciplines of quality, strategic planning, and performance management systems [2]. Innovation management is not a new concept in most organizations. However, the old tried and true ways, even those that may have worked in the past, are no longer adequate for the organizations of tomorrow. Across the board, organizations are engaged in new and exciting experiments to reinvent the way they conceptualise and create the future, because the old business-as-usual approaches have not produced the desired results [3].

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 231-244
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.231
    • Authors
      • James Harrington, CEO of the Harrington Institute, San Francisco Bay, California
      • Frank Voehl, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    0 0

    The sustained competitive advantage of a company today requires the management of internal and external knowledge and leveraging it to create innovation. The 21st century is rapidly moving into what is being called the "global knowledge economy," marked by the increased turbulence, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the current economic climate. Managing innovation requires research methods which evaluate: a) the technological abilities, b) the procedures, and c) the needs of a company/organization and propose specific actions for improvements, progress, and development. This paper proposes a process for managing innovation in small to medium size enterprise (SME). In order to support this process, this article elaborates on the innovation management techniques through a directory, which organizes techniques and tools into four generic types and 36 sub categories. Finally, to demonstrate this process a fictitious case example is presented.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 245-258
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.245
    • Authors
      • Dimitris Skalkos, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of The Aegean, Myrina, Lemnos, Greece

    0 0

    The research about the patterns of technology evolution is populated by descriptive models, explaining quite regular trends of product development processes. The most popular schemes share the idea of long innovation periods characterized by incremental improvements and punctuated by technological turmoil events. Within the engineering field, such pattern can be described by S-shaped curves depicting the growth of performances in charge of technological paradigms, which approach their natural limit after entering their maturity stage. The birth of a novel S-curve symbolizes the emergence of a new breakthrough technology, which is followed by the choice of a preferred paradigm in the industry, generally designated as Dominant Design. However, new exigencies expressed by practitioners have remarked the limitations of qualitative models. Whereas some contributions openly question the general validity of the described models, a remarkable amount of literature claims that certain conditions related to the innovation processes have to be respected to make the outlined frameworks be valid. A deeper understanding about the open issues raised by the paper would result in more conscious innovation practices. Indeed, the exploitation of reliable models pertaining innovation trajectories could result in assessing the advantages arising by introducing new product functions or characteristics, enhancing performances on which industry is currently competing, reengineering manufacturing processes.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 259-268
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.259
    • Authors
      • Yuri Borgianni, Dipartimento di Meccanica e Tecnologie Industriali, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via Santa Marta, 3 - 50139 Firenze, Italy
      • Federico Rotini, Dipartimento di Meccanica e Tecnologie Industriali, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via Santa Marta, 3 - 50139 Firenze, Italy

    0 0

    Point of View: Using Modalities of Veridiction to Prevent Groupthink

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 269-272
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.269
    • Authors
      • Nathan W. Harter, Department of Leadership and American Studies, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, USA

    0 0

    This is not an advertisement for a conference; it is serious analysis and critique of a new product development and innovation conference from a learning perspective to determine if one could ‘learn new product development and innovation in a conference setting. The author attended the product innovation management annual conference in Orlando in October 2012 [1, 2] and audited the academic forum, workshop series, and general conference sessions with special attention paid to the format and content. Participant's ratings of "value" and "the amount they learned" were captured from "beginners" and "experts". The results show that individuals who prefer learning through auditory and reading/writing reported, "absorbing" the most; while kinesthetic learners and those who required all inputs (auditory, visual, written/reading, and kinesthetic) wanted a greater variety of formats namely more exercises, demonstrations, case examples, and videos examples. The author tentatively concluded that "yes" one can learn NPD and innovation practices effectively at a conference setting where content and quality of materials and speakers are high. Importantly, the content quality appears to be highly dependent on the conference organizer's depth of knowledge in the topic areas. Suggested improvements to future conferences to help individuals learn more would include providing handouts and summaries after each session for the read/write learners, to increase the number of charts, graphs, diagrams, and videos for visual learners, and to increase the Q&A time allotments and included moderated discussions sessions for auditory/ learners.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 273-278
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.273
    • Authors
      • Brian Glassman, International Journal of Innovation Science, Miami, FL, USA

    0 0

    Due to a misprint Figure 1 & 2 were incorrectly displayed in the original manuscript published in volume 4 issue 2; the following presents the corrected figures.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 279-280
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.279
    • Authors
      • Robin W. Spencer, Imaginatik PLC

    0 0

    Letter from the Editor: The Shifting Tide of Knowledge: How Knowledge Availability Has Changed the Face of Business

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages i-ii
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.4.4.i
    • Authors
      • Brian Glassman, MEM, Ph.D., International Journal of Innovation Science
      • Brett E. Trusko, DBA, MBA, International Journal of Innovation Science CEO, Texas Institute for Smart Health Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

    0 0

    Innovations have hitherto mostly been acknowledged in terms of new technical products in both theories and policies on innovation. The public support to the transformation of research results and new ideas into new goods and services, provided by the state as well as by several universities, has thus primarily been adapted to the conditions prevalent in technological and manufacturing industries. Since the Nordic countries have a long tradition in policy and research focusing social aspects of societal development, there ought to be a potential in supporting innovations emanating from the social sciences as well. Social science innovations could then better serve to solve the great economic and social challenges identified on the global level by OECD, on the European level by EU and on the national level by the EU member states, not least the Nordic countries. But as the public support system for innovations is adapted to technological standards and conditions, what possibilities are there to promote and enhance ideas coming out social science driven innovations? Based on an empirical example of a specific social science innovation, this article explores how existing support systems could be adapted to enhance innovation in other disciplines and spheres outside or beyond technological ones. The empirical example emanates from a university in the middle parts of Sweden, where the Grants and Innovation Office engaged themselves in a process of intense adaptation of their services to meet the need of a social science researcher who presented on the idea of an innovation based on research on the area of gender equality. The article describes this particular innovation process step by step from research result to commercialized service using a participatory research design, autobiographical method and experimental method. Based on this empirical example of realizing a specific social science innovation, this article outlines a model for analyzing and promoting and recognizing these type of innovations. The model enables an analysis of the innovation process by its power dimensions, affecting the prospects of realizing the original idea and pinpointing key aspects for promoting social science innovations.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 21-30
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.21
    • Authors
      • Cecilia Nahnfeldt, Centre for Gender Studies, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
      • Malin Lindberg, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

    0 0

    The cluster concept has had great influence on national and regional policies for growth and innovation in Sweden since it was introduced in the late 1990s. This article argues that while the cluster concept has been relatively uncontested on the national policy arena, it has been contested on the regional arena regarding its meaning and proper use. We scrutinize this contestation as a matter of power struggles between different actors concerning the preferential right of interpretation of which organizations, areas and innovations are to be considered as important in policies and practices promoting clusters. The article thus highlights the tricky balance act performed by policy makers and civil servants when deciding on prioritization versus diversification. The article contributes to the further development of both policies and theories on growth and innovation by empirically mapping and discussing the impact of power struggles on clusters as pathways to innovation. In order to exemplify these struggles, our study draws upon two separate studies: one of how the cluster concept has been used as a policy measure over time on national and regional level in Sweden (Säll, 2012) and another of the organization of alternative clusters by Women Resource Centers throughout Sweden (Lindberg et al., 2012). Comparing these two cases makes it evident that the perceptions of clusters that harmonize with prevalent hegemonic discourses of growth and innovation have to large extent enjoyed the preferential right of interpretation, however are at the same time challenged by alternative conceptions of clusters. When highlighted in relation to existing research on innovation, growth policy and power relations, the two empirical examples stand out as interesting cases of how innovation policy has been introduced as academic theory, translated to a political context and subject for contestations that has changed the initial meaning of the concept. Ultimately, it is concluded that the pathways to innovation in the Nordic countries are paradoxical, due to the paradoxical pathway of policies and practices to evoke innovation and change as the same as preserving traditional regional power structures.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 11-20
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.11
    • Authors
      • Malin Lindberg, Department of Business Administration, Luleå University of Technology, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå, Sweden
      • Line Säll, Faculty of Social and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

    0 0

    The construction sector is often accused of being inefficient, conservative and non-innovative, although some commentators have suggested that the construction sector is not backward, it is merely different to other industries. One of these differences is the uniqueness of construction projects, which are determined by the characteristics of the site, interaction of project participants (also partly site specific) and the relationship between contractors and building product producers (which changes from one project to another). These factors are known to colour construction innovation. Previous research into the Swedish construction sector has identified a significant gap between the building product producers who are ‘product focused’ and the contractors who are ‘project focused’, with concerns expressed about effectiveness of communication between two. The findings of previous research imply, both implicitly and explicitly, that this gap may be hindering innovation within the construction sector. This appears to have implications for those concerned with construction, the building users and society as a whole. In this paper the authors provide an extensive review of the literature and research findings from which a number of unique insights are offered. The reasons for the gap between producers and contractors are discussed and a number of innovative measures are proposed that may help to bridge the gap, and hence improve innovation systems. The paper concludes with some practical findings for producers and contractors as well as some thoughts on where future research should be targeted.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 1-10
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.1
    • Authors
      • Jonas Rundquist, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden
      • Stephen Emmitt, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, UK
      • Fawzi Halila, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden
      • Bengt Hjort, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden
      • Bengt Larsson, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden

    0 0

    Both Volvo and SAAB are now Chinese owned car companies. This means that a substantial amount of Swedish innovation takes place in China. In order to understand this phenomenon better and what it means to innovation strategy we look at how industrial clusters in the automobile industry in different phases of development differ. The Diamond Model is used to explain and measure the competitive situation in three cluster regions in China. The new automobile manufacturing clusters of Chongqing and Chengdu (2C) is compared with two well-developed clusters in Shanghai and Jiangsu, and Beijing and Hebei. Although Shanghai is the most attractive automobile cluster, automobile manufacturing firms choose to locate their production in other regions. The move is also related to the level of innovation in different regions.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 31-44
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.31
    • Authors
      • William Fri, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden
      • Tobias Pehrsson, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden
      • Klaus Solberg Søilen, School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Sweden

    0 0

    The following teaching case study details an exciting and modern case of an integrated circuit distribution company in Taiwan (the Sunnic Group) as it transitions through several major innovation initiatives creating new products and a new role for itself in the industry while simultaneously fending off market forces, competition, and degrading profits. This case study delivers important lessons about conducting innovation via four major areas. The first area details how market forces, intense competitions, entry barriers, and corporate growth can create situations where innovating on a large scale has strong advantages over the alternatives. The second area shows how theories on innovation and customer value propositions are used to create realistic strategies for new products and feasible plans for organizational change. Topics like knowledge management, creating new capabilities, and key performance indicators are discussed. Next, the actual implementations of several innovation initiatives are explained in dramatic fashion with characters demonstrating resistance to innovation, competitor's reactions, and conflicts of interest; more importantly, it demonstrates how product development strategies can actually play out. This section also captures how transforming an organization can be stressful, leadership intensive, and difficult. Finally, the case reviews the results of the transformation and innovation efforts via the patent and financial results. This case is designed to teach students a mix of theory and practical skills. A lengthy list of questions for students is also provided and a teacher's edition from page 21 onwards of this text contains lecture notes that help in guiding class discussions and aid in creating assignments.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 45-68
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.45
    • Authors
      • Sheng-Yen Chang, Graduate Institute of Management, NTUST, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
      • Hsi-Peng Lu, Department of Information Management, NTUST, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
      • Chiung-Ju Liang, Graduate Institute of Finance, NTUST, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    0 0

    In part one of this article on innovation management we address the theory and practices related to managing innovation within an organization. Probably the best way to demonstrate the effectiveness and application of innovation management is through the use of real case studies. Theoretical concepts often create new thought patterns that sometimes work and more often result in failure. It's only when we apply these concepts to real applications that the proof of the pudding is realized. In part two of this article we will provide a series of case studies that document real applications and results of applying innovation management within organizations. It is our belief that through the review of the surreal life experiences you'll gain a deep insight into the practical application of innovation management and be more able to provide examples of innovation. The following organizations are used as examples to demonstrate innovation principles: Tyson Food, Hughes Aircraft, DirecTV, Thomas Edison GE, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BMW, KB home builders, GE, Callaway Golf, Phillips Electronics, Eureka Ranches, Motel 6, Southwest Airlines, Men's Wearhouse, Virgin Atlantic, Home Depot, Amway, Mary Kay, Tupperware Avon, Dell, J.D. Power & Associates, among others.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 69-80
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.69
    • Authors
      • James Harrington, CEO of the Harrington Institute, San Francisco Bay, California
      • Frank Voehl, Process Innovation, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    0 0

    Companies in developed countries have clearly benefited from university-industry collaborations but emerging nations around the world have a different series of challenges and barriers to overcome in establishing strong university-industry collaborations. The following article discusses the barrier that 202 Turkish companies experienced while collaborating with local universities. Establishing trust and awareness were found to be major barriers preventing deep research collaborations. Interestingly, Turkish companies did take great advantage of universities' technical infrastructures being their equipment and laboratory facilities to test products, conduct research, and run experiments without formally collaborating, the authors term this "light collaboration." To accelerate university-industry collaborations in Turkey and other emerging nations a simple three tiered model is presented herein and is composed of: building awareness, building trust and exposure, and transitioning companies to full research projects. It is hoped that the ideas proposed herein will positively generate new concepts for grants and programs for emerging countries to support their university-industry innovation collaborations efforts.

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Research Article
    • Pages 81-88
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.81
    • Authors
      • Serdal Temel, Ege University Science and Technology Centre, Izmir, Turkey
      • Brian Glassman, Polytechnic Institute, New York University, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    0 0
  • 03/19/13--11:36: Letter from the Editor(s)
  • Letter from the Editor(s)

    • Content Type Journal Article
    • Category Letter To Editor
    • Pages i-ii
    • DOI 10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.i
    • Authors
      • Klaus Solberg Søilen, International Journal of Innovation Science
      • Mike Danilovic, Industrial Oganization, CIEL
      • Brett E. Trusko, Texas Institute for Smart Health

(Page 1) | 2 | 3 | .... | 5 | newer