IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joiaen/v9y2020i1d10.1186_s13731-020-00118-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the development of an innovation metric — from hypothesis to initial use

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Radziszewski

    (Consultant)

Abstract

Purpose The challenge to improving innovation in an organisation is limited by the metrics used to measure it. Dimensions related to where an organisation is on an innovation spectrum, how fast is that organisation innovating and what is holding it back are key elements that could be used to adequately measure innovation. The objective of this work is to explore the development of an innovation metric based on a pipe flow analogy that has the potential to provide insights into these key elements describing innovation. Methodology This work follows three steps: establishing a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and applying the hypothesis. The proposed hypothesis suggests that an innovation metric, Ri, can be developed based on a pipe flow analogy. This hypothesis is tested qualitatively and quantitatively. The quantitative assessment is accomplished by populating the innovation metric, Ri, with data mainly from the World Bank, comparing the results with established innovation and competitiveness metrics and examining if the metric confirms the trends suggested by the qualitative assessment. Using an illustrative case drawn from the quantitative assessment, the resulting innovation metric is used to indicate possible avenues for innovation performance improvement. Statistical analysis is limited to describing the goodness of fit of different trend line relationships. Results A qualitative assessment indicates that the innovation metric (Ri) behaves as illustrated in the literature. The quantitative assessment confirms the qualitative assessment results. The illustrative case demonstrates how the innovation metric can be used to potentially orient innovation performance improvement. The paper closes with a discussion addressing issues and limitations of the metric. Research limitations/implications The validity of this innovation metric is limited by the variables defining it and the quality of the data input. Consequently, the variables used are limited to the analogous versions of fluid mechanics variables used to describe fluid flow in a pipe. The variables used require both hard and soft data which was obtained from the data sources cited as related to nations. On the other hand, the subsequent challenge is related to applying this model to ever smaller organisations especially with respect to gathering soft data related to trust and ease of communication. Practical implications Keeping in mind the limitations mentioned, the innovation metric, as it stands, can be used to describe an organisation’s innovation performance, the speed of innovation and resistance to innovation with the data available from the sites indicated. As a result, the model also can be used to see how an organisation’s innovation performance evolves over time as well as indicate possible avenues to improve innovation performance. Originality/value This is the first application of the fluid mechanics analogy to describe innovation performance. Its main value is related to contributing to the global conversation on innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Radziszewski, 2020. "Exploring the development of an innovation metric — from hypothesis to initial use," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-29, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joiaen:v:9:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-020-00118-4
    DOI: 10.1186/s13731-020-00118-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13731-020-00118-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13731-020-00118-4?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. Cristiano Antonelli, 2009. "The economics of innovation: from the classical legacies to the economics of complexity," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(7), pages 611-646.
    2. Annika Steiber, 2014. "The Google Model," Management for Professionals, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-319-04208-4, December.
    3. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    4. Ibert, Oliver & Müller, Felix C., 2015. "Network dynamics in constellations of cultural differences: Relational distance in innovation processes in legal services and biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 181-194.
    5. Herstad, Sverre J. & Sandven, Tore & Ebersberger, Bernd, 2015. "Recruitment, knowledge integration and modes of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 138-153.
    6. Nils D. Kraiczy & Andreas Hack & Franz W. Kellermanns, 2017. "The Relationship Between Top Management Team Innovation Orientation And Firm Growth: The Mediating Role Of Firm Innovativeness," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Joe Tidd (ed.), Promoting Innovation in New Ventures and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises, chapter 11, pages 253-277, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Michael Naef & Jürgen Schupp, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 167, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    8. Annika Steiber, 2014. "Managing Continuous Innovation," Management for Professionals, in: The Google Model, edition 127, chapter 4, pages 85-123, Springer.
    9. Laarni Escresa & Lucio Picci, 2017. "A New Cross-National Measure of Corruption," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(1), pages 196-219.
    10. Karl Widerquist, 2018. "The Bottom Line," Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee, in: A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers, Policymakers, and Citizens, chapter 0, pages 93-98, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    12. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, December.
    13. Boh, Wai Fong & Evaristo, Roberto & Ouderkirk, Andrew, 2014. "Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for innovation: A 3M story," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 349-366.
    14. Melero, Eduardo & Palomeras, Neus, 2015. "The Renaissance Man is not dead! The role of generalists in teams of inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 154-167.
    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. Vega-González Luis Roberto, 2021. "Using Analog Models based in Physical Systems for Technology Management Processes," Business and Management Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 7(1), pages 59-73, March.

    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. Nanditha Mathew & George Paily, 2022. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 435-458, April.
    2. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    4. Hall, B.H., 2011. "Innovation and productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2011-028, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Quatraro, Francesco, 2010. "Knowledge coherence, variety and economic growth: Manufacturing evidence from Italian regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1289-1302, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2010. "From population thinking to organization thinking: Coalitions for innovation. A review article of Complexity perspectives in innovation and social change, by Lane, D.A., van Der Leeuw, S.E., Pumain, D," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201002, University of Turin.
    8. Mafini Dosso & Fernando Hervas & Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2015. "5th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation CONCORDi 2015. Industrial Research and Innovation: Evidence for Policy – Background Note," JRC Research Reports JRC97469, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzmán & José Trinidad Marín-Aguilar & Sandra Yesenia Pinzón-Castro, 2017. "Service Innovation in Mexican Small Business," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 7(4), pages 1-1.
    10. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Asa & Andersson, Martin & Carlsson, Bo, 2016. "Entrepreneurial Experimentation: A key function in Entrepreneurial Systems of Innovation," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/20, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    12. J. H. Wesseling & E. M. M. I. Niesten & J. Faber & M. P. Hekkert, 2015. "Business Strategies of Incumbents in the Market for Electric Vehicles: Opportunities and Incentives for Sustainable Innovation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 518-531, September.
    13. Nuno Campos Pereira & Nuno Araújo & Leonardo Costa, 2016. "A counting multidimensional innovation index for SMEs," Working Papers de Economia (Economics Working Papers) 01, Católica Porto Business School, Universidade Católica Portuguesa.
    14. Doran, Justin, 2012. "Are different forms of innovation complements or substitutes?," MPRA Paper 44580, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Lavarello, Pablo José, 2016. "Corporate knowledge diversification in the face of technological complexity: The case of industrial biotech," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 95-105.
    16. Christoph Breunig & Steffen Huck & Tobias Schmidt & Georg Weizsäcker, 2021. "The Standard Portfolio Choice Problem in Germany," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(638), pages 2413-2446.
    17. Teemu Makkonen & Timo Mitze, 2019. "Deconstructing the Education-Innovation-Development Nexus in the EU-28 Using Panel Causality and Poolability Tests," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(2), pages 516-549, June.
    18. Vermeulen, Ben & Pyka, Andreas, 2016. "Agent-based modeling for decision making in economics under uncertainty," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-33.
    19. Brennecke, Julia & Rank, Olaf, 2017. "The firm’s knowledge network and the transfer of advice among corporate inventors—A multilevel network study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 768-783.
    20. Sher Jahan Khan & Puneet Kaur & Fauzia Jabeen & Amandeep Dhir, 2021. "Green process innovation: Where we are and where we are going," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3273-3296, November.

    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:spr:joiaen:v:9:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-020-00118-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.