IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021ispecial1p107-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovator Behavior Questionnaire as an Expert Selecting for Technical Innovation Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Anna M. Deptula
  • Czeslaw S. Nosal

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this paper is to explore the basic assumptions formerly applied for the development of the innovator behavior questionnaire, and thus to describe the necessary characteristics to be considered when an expert is selected for the purposes of assessing the risk of innovation. Design/Methodology/Approach: The assessment of the risk of technical innovations involves the need to take into account psychological, technical as well as economic criteria. Such wide range of analysis means that the selection of the staff dealing with the development, implementation and subsequent evaluation of innovations needs to be based on a multi-criteria approach. Findings: The questionnaire adopted five categories of questions, the formation of the mind and personality, expectations, approach to accidental events that beyond expert’s control, knowledge and skills, and commitment. The study was conducted in two areas of representation, in everyday life and professional life. These areas relate to three personality characteristics, locus of control, motivation and stimulation of the decision-maker. In addition, the paper explores areas related to the characteristics of these three basic personality characteristics of the expert. Practical Implications: As a result of the application of the newly developed tool, which can be used not only in the process of creating an expert team in the company but also in the process of recruiting people to deal with innovation, there is a chance that the risk of failure of innovative solutions can be significantly reduced and the costs associated with the process of implementing and modifying innovations can be limited. Following a broader research in the expert community and a factor analysis the structure of factors characterizing the temperament, mind and personality traits of the expert will be determined and interpreted. Originality/value: The expert selection method presented in the article forms a new solution that derives its basis in both risk theory and innovation assessment, as well as takes into account psychometric standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna M. Deptula & Czeslaw S. Nosal, 2021. "Innovator Behavior Questionnaire as an Expert Selecting for Technical Innovation Risk Assessment," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 107-119.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:special1:p:107-119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/2032/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    3. Manuel, Eduardo, 2007. "Innovation and Risk Management," MPRA Paper 2277, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Anna M. Deptuła & Michał Stosiak & Adam Deptuła & Marek Lubecki & Mykola Karpenko & Paulius Skačkauskas & Kamil Urbanowicz & Algimantas Danilevičius, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Innovation Prototype for the Example Hydraulic Cylinder," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, 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. Anna M. Deptuła & Michał Stosiak & Adam Deptuła & Marek Lubecki & Mykola Karpenko & Paulius Skačkauskas & Kamil Urbanowicz & Algimantas Danilevičius, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Innovation Prototype for the Example Hydraulic Cylinder," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    3. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    5. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    6. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    7. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    8. Sitinjak Elizabeth Lucky Maretha & Haryanti Kristiana & Kurniasari Widuri & Sasmito Yohanes Wisnu Djati, 2019. "Investor behavior based on personality and company life cycle," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 23-38, August.
    9. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.
    10. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    11. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    12. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ran Sun Lyng & Jie Zhou, 2019. "Household Portfolio Choice Before and After a House Purchase," Economics Working Papers 2019-01, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    14. Homonoff, Tatiana & Spreen, Thomas Luke & St. Clair, Travis, 2020. "Balance sheet insolvency and contribution revenue in public charities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    15. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    17. Rand Kwong Yew Low, 2018. "Vine copulas: modelling systemic risk and enhancing higher‐moment portfolio optimisation," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 423-463, November.
    18. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    19. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    20. Sergio Da Silva & Raul Matsushita & Vanessa Valcanover & Jessica Campara & Newton Da Costa, 2022. "Losses make choices nonpositional," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(11), pages 1-11, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Assessment of the risk; innovator behavior questionnaire; locus of control; motivation in activities; the need for stimulation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • M50 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - General
    • G4 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance
    • L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
    • L29 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Other
    • G4 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance

    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:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:special1:p:107-119. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.