IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v257y2017i2p559-567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the degree of novelty of innovation based on Porter's value chain approach

Author

Listed:
  • Koc, T.
  • Bozdag, E.

Abstract

Measurement of the degree of novelty is extremely important to avoid risk and carry out a sound innovation process. This research attempts to offer a different conceptual framework to understand and measure the degree of novelty of an innovation. It is based on Porter's value chain approach and proposes a process-oriented model that considers the possible impact of a particular technology on the discrete business processes in a firm's value chain. A new technology employed by companies is expected to impact the value chain activities by requiring reorganization in the current value chain of the company. The 2-additive Choquet integral is used to measure how such impacts will be reflected on the degree of novelty of that technology. An application of the proposed model to technology alternatives for the energy sources of electrical automobiles is presented. The model is applied in a battery manufacturing company. Technology alternatives to be measured in terms of the degree of novelty consist of the nickel metal hydride battery, the lithium-ion battery and fuel cell technologies. The results indicate that fuel cell technology has the highest degree of novelty among the three energy sources for electrical automobiles.

Suggested Citation

  • Koc, T. & Bozdag, E., 2017. "Measuring the degree of novelty of innovation based on Porter's value chain approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(2), pages 559-567.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:257:y:2017:i:2:p:559-567
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.07.049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722171630604X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.07.049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel Santi & François Duhamel, 2012. "Degree of innovativeness and new product performance," Post-Print hal-00683354, HAL.
    2. Sharaf, Omar Z. & Orhan, Mehmet F., 2014. "An overview of fuel cell technology: Fundamentals and applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 810-853.
    3. Choi, Kanghwa & Narasimhan, Ram & Kim, Soo Wook, 2016. "Opening the technological innovation black box: The case of the electronics industry in Korea," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 192-203.
    4. Prajogo, Daniel I. & Sohal, Amrik S., 2006. "The integration of TQM and technology/R&D management in determining quality and innovation performance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 296-312, June.
    5. S-K Lee & J-H Yu, 2013. "Composite indicator development using utility function and fuzzy theory," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 64(8), pages 1279-1290, August.
    6. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    7. Hall, Richard & Andriani, Pierpaolo, 2003. "Managing knowledge associated with innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 145-152, February.
    8. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    9. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    10. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    11. Liou, James J.H. & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 131-138.
    12. Angilella, Silvia & Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto, 2010. "Non-additive robust ordinal regression: A multiple criteria decision model based on the Choquet integral," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(1), pages 277-288, February.
    13. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    14. Fariborz Damanpour, 1996. "Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 693-716, May.
    15. Fabien Lehuédé & Renaud Masson & Sophie N Parragh & Olivier Péton & Fabien Tricoire, 2014. "A multi-criteria large neighbourhood search for the transportation of disabled people," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 65(7), pages 983-1000, July.
    16. Berrah, L. & Mauris, G. & Montmain, J., 2008. "Monitoring the improvement of an overall industrial performance based on a Choquet integral aggregation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 340-351, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan H. Reed, 2022. "Operational and strategic change during temporary turbulence: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 589-608, June.
    2. Kiani Mavi, Reza & Kiani Mavi, Neda, 2021. "National eco-innovation analysis with big data: A common-weights model for dynamic DEA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Tholakele Nkomo & Mlisa Jasper Ndlovu, 2023. "The Effects of Innovation on the Entrepreneurial Performance of Family Businesses with Special Reference to Nyaradzo Group, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(9), pages 1366-1384, September.
    4. Carlos Moreno Miranda & Ra?l Moreno & Pablo Moreno, 2020. "Protected-Denomination-of-Origin Cocoa Bean: Chain governance and Sustainability Performance," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-24.
    5. Ashish Dwivedi & Dindayal Agrawal & Sanjoy Kumar Paul & Saurabh Pratap, 2023. "Modeling the blockchain readiness challenges for product recovery system," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 327(1), pages 493-537, August.
    6. Liu, Sijing & He, Nannan & Cao, Xindan & Li, Guoqi & Jian, Ming, 2022. "Logistics cluster and its future development: A comprehensive research review," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Anne H. Gausdal & Karen V. Czachorowski & Marina Z. Solesvik, 2018. "Applying Blockchain Technology: Evidence from Norwegian Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Claudio Bellia & Pietro Columba & Marzia Ingrassia, 2022. "The Brand–Land Identity of Etna Volcano Valley Wines: A Policy Delphi Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-32, June.
    9. Miranda, Carlos Moreno & Moreno, Raúl & Moreno, Pablo, 2020. "Protected-Denomination-of-Origin Cocoa Bean: Chain governance and Sustainability Performance," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), April.
    10. Jung, Eunjun & Lee, Changjun & Hwang, Junseok, 2022. "Effective strategies to attract crowdfunding investment based on the novelty of business ideas," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Ryu, Youngbok, 2022. "Performance assessment on technology transition from small businesses to the U.S. Department of Defense," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Młody Michał & Ratajczak-Mrozek Milena & Sajdak Maja, 2023. "Industry 4.0 technologies and managers’ decision-making across value chain. Evidence from the manufacturing industry," Engineering Management in Production and Services, Sciendo, vol. 15(3), pages 69-83, September.
    13. Jarmila Straková & Ismi Rajiani & Petra Pártlová & Jan Váchal & Ján Dobrovič, 2020. "Use of the Value Chain in the Process of Generating a Sustainable Business Strategy on the Example of Manufacturing and Industrial Enterprises in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Manuel Sánchez-Pérez & María Belén Marín-Carrillo & María Dolores Illescas-Manzano & Zohair Souilim, 2023. "Understanding the illegal drug supply chain structure: a value chain analysis of the supply of hashish to Europe," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    2. Kolja Hesse & Dirk Fornahl, 2020. "Essential ingredients for radical innovations? The role of (un‐)related variety and external linkages in Germany," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(5), pages 1165-1183, October.
    3. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    4. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    5. Sandro Montresor & Gianluca Orsatti & Francesco Quatraro, 2023. "Technological novelty and key enabling technologies: evidence from European regions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 851-872, August.
    6. Kolja Hesse, 2020. "Related to whom? The impact of organisational and regional capabilities on radical breakthroughs," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2005, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    7. William Arant & Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Kolja Hesse & Cathrin Söllner, 2019. "University-industry collaborations—The key to radical innovations? [Universität-Industrie-Kooperationen – Der Schlüssel zu radikalen Innovationen?]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 119-141, October.
    8. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    9. Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and radical innovation: an opportunity for all companies?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 771-797, August.
    10. Avimanyu Datta, 2016. "Antecedents To Radical Innovations: A Longitudinal Look At Firms In The Information Technology Industry By Aggregation Of Patents," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-31, October.
    11. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    12. Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2021. "Do not neglect the periphery?! - the emergence and diffusion of radical innovations," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2102, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    13. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    14. Avimanyu Datta, 2016. "Evaluating The Antecedents Of Foundational Innovations: A Longitudinal Look At Patents From Information Technology Industry," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(01), pages 1-29, January.
    15. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry," Post-Print hal-02613665, HAL.
    16. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    17. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara DiGuardo, 2017. "Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the U.S. communications services industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1334-1361, December.
    18. Sajad Ashouri & Anne-Laure Mention & Kosmas X. Smyrnios, 2021. "Anticipation and analysis of industry convergence using patent-level indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5727-5758, July.
    19. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    20. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2020. "Ties that matter: The impact of alliance partner knowledge recombination novelty on knowledge utilization in R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:257:y:2017:i:2:p:559-567. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.