IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v27y1998i7p689-709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cognitive model of innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Nightingale, Paul

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:27:y:1998:i:7:p:689-709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(98)00078-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. David, P. A., 1997. "From market magic to calypso science policy a review of Terence Kealey's The economic laws of scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 229-255, May.
    2. Hobday, Mike, 1998. "Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 689-710, February.
    3. Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1993. "In search of useful theory of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 108-108, April.
    4. Rothwell, R. & Freeman, C. & Horlsey, A. & Jervis, V. T. P. & Robertson, A. B. & Townsend, J., 1974. "SAPPHO updated - project SAPPHO phase II," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 258-291, November.
    5. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, January.
    6. Miller, Roger, et al, 1995. "Innovation in Complex Systems Industries: The Case of Flight Simulation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 363-400.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nightingale, P., 2000. "The product-process-organisation relationship in complex development projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 913-930, August.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    4. Geyer, Anton & Davies, Andrew, 2000. "Managing project-system interfaces: case studies of railway projects in restructured UK and German markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 991-1013, August.
    5. Parayil, Govindan, 2003. "Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 971-990, June.
    6. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    8. Prencipe, Andrea, 2000. "Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 895-911, August.
    9. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    10. Wang, Q. & von Tunzelmann, N., 2000. "Complexity and the functions of the firm: breadth and depth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 805-818, August.
    11. Gianluca Carnabuci, 2013. "The distribution of technological progress," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 1143-1154, June.
    12. Gholz, Eugene & James, Andrew D. & Speller, Thomas H., 2018. "The second face of systems integration: An empirical analysis of supply chains to complex product systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1478-1494.
    13. Hobday, Mike & Rush, Howard & Tidd, Joe, 2000. "Innovation in complex products and system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 793-804, August.
    14. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    15. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
    16. Harada, Tsutomu, 2015. "Structural change and economic growth with relation-specific investment," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Ben Martin, 2010. "Science Policy Research: Having an Impact on Policy?," Seminar Briefing 000197, Office of Health Economics.
    18. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Pammolli, Fabio & Tani, Simone, 1996. "The changing boundaries of system companies," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 5(6), pages 539-560, December.
    19. Pierre Barbaroux & Victor Santos Paulino, 2022. "Why do motives matter? A demand-based view of the dynamics of a complex products and systems (CoPS) industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1175-1204, September.
    20. Davies, Andrew & Brady, Tim, 2000. "Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 931-953, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:respol:v:27:y:1998:i:7:p:689-709. 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/respol .

    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.