IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/89.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Process of Innovation

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The paper argues that innovation processes can be cognitive, organisational and/or economic. They happen in conditions of uncertainty and (in the capitalist system) of competition. Three broad, overlapping sub-processes of innovation are identified: the production of knowledge; the transformation of knowledge into products, systems, processes and services; and the continuous matching of the latter to market needs and demands. The paper identifies key trends in each of these areas: (1) increasing specialisation in knowledge production; (2) increasing complexity in physical artefacts, and in the knowledge bases underpinning them; and (3) the difficulties of matching technological opportunities with market needs and organisational practices. Despite advances in scientific theory and information and communication technologies (ICTs), innovation processes remain unpredictable and difficult to manage. They also vary widely according to the firm's sector and size. Only two innovation processes remain generic: co-ordinating and integrating specialised knowledge, and learning in conditions of uncertainty. The paper also touches on the key challenges now facing 'innovation managers' within modern industrial corporations, bearing in mind the highly contingent nature of innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith Pavitt, 2003. "The Process of Innovation," SPRU Working Paper Series 89, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp89/sewp89.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1994. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 299-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Prencipe, Andrea, 1997. "Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dynamics a case study from the aero-engine industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 1261-1276, January.
    4. Michael Hobday, 1995. "Innovation In East Asia," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 226.
    5. Soete, Luc & Verspagen, Bart & ter Weel, Bas, 2010. "Systems of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1159-1180, Elsevier.
    6. Hobday, Mike & Rush, Howard & Tidd, Joe, 2000. "Innovation in complex products and system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 793-804, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    9. Edwin Mansfield, 1995. "Innovation, Technology And The Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 298.
    10. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    11. David C. Mowery, 1995. "The Boundaries of the US Firm in R&D," NBER Chapters, in: Coordination and Information: Historical Perspectives on the Organization of Enterprise, pages 147-182, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Freeman, Chris & Louca, Francisco, 2002. "As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251056.
    13. Daniel Holbrook & Wesley M. Cohen & David A. Hounshell & Steven Klepper, 2000. "The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1017-1041, October.
    14. Methe, David & Swaminathan, Anand & Mitchell, Will, 1996. "The Underemphasized Role of Established Firms as the," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(4), pages 1181-1203.
    15. Maidique, Modesto A. & Zirger, Billie Jo, 1985. "The new product learning cycle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 299-313, December.
    16. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1974. "Science, Invention and Economic Growth," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(333), pages 90-108, March.
    17. Rothwell, R. & Freeman, C. & Horsley, A. & Jervis, V. T. P. & Robertson, A. B. & Townsend, J., 1993. "SAPPHO updated -- project SAPPHO phase II," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 110-110, April.
    18. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    19. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, January.
    20. Cooper, Arnold C. & Schendel, Dan, 1976. "Strategic responses to technological threats," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-69, February.
    21. Nightingale, Paul, 2000. "Economies of Scale in Experimentation: Knowledge and Technology in Pharmaceutical R&D," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(2), pages 315-359, June.
    22. Steven Klepper & Kenneth L. Simons, 2000. "Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 997-1016, October.
    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. Negin Salimi & Jafar Rezaei, 2016. "Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1911-1938, December.
    2. Jurczyk-Bunkowska Magdalena, 2013. "Innovation Process Planning Model in the Bpmn Standard," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Gilberto SERAVALLI, 2011. "Conflict, Contract, Leadership and Innovation: An Interdisciplinary View," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 1(6), pages 1-48, October.
    4. Yee Yee Sein & Viktor Prokop, 2021. "Mediating Role of Firm R&D in Creating Product and Process Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Norway," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Hans Lööf & Anders Broström, 2008. "Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 73-90, February.
    6. Brink, Siegrun & Nielen, Sebastian & May-Strobl, Eva, 2018. "Innovationstätigkeit des nicht-forschenden Mittelstands," IfM-Materialien 266, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    7. Alejandra MIRANDA FELIX & Ramon MARTINEZ HUERTA & Alejandra MIRANDA FELIX, 2016. "Management of the Technological Innovation Process in Software Companies from Sinaloa, Mexico," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 4(2), pages 193-214, June.
    8. Christian Le Bas & Caroline Mothe & Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi, 2011. "Technological innovation persistence : Literature survey and exploration of the role of organizational innovation," Working Papers halshs-00649095, HAL.
    9. Dinar Kale, 2012. "Innovative Capability Development In The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 1-19.
    10. Konrad Kubacki, 2013. "Wpływ współpracy przedsiębiorstw z sektorem naukowo-badawczym na innowacyjność firm notowanych na GPW w Warszawie oraz NewConnect," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 5-6, pages 97-121.
    11. Corral de Zubielqui, Graciela & Fryges, Helmut & Jones, Janice, 2019. "Social media, open innovation & HRM: Implications for performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 334-347.
    12. Lhuillery, Stéphane & Pfister, Etienne, 2009. "R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 45-57, February.
    13. Mozas-Moral, Adoración & Bernal-Jurado, Enrique & Medina-Viruel, Miguel Jesús & Fernández-Uclés, Domingo, 2016. "Factors for success in online social networks: An fsQCA approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5261-5264.
    14. Domingo Fernández-Uclés & Saida Elfkih & Adoración Mozas-Moral & Enrique Bernal-Jurado & Miguel Jesús Medina-Viruel & Saker Ben Abdallah, 2020. "Economic Efficiency in the Tunisian Olive Oil Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Kotsemir, Maxim & Meissner, Dirk, 2013. "Conceptualizing the Innovation Process – Trends and Outlook," MPRA Paper 46504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    4. Eckhardt, Jonathan T. & Shane, Scott A., 2011. "Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 412-430, July.
    5. Tiziana Di Cimbrini & Fabrizio Maturo & Stefania Migliori & Francesco Paolone, 2018. "Innovation Propensity in the Specialized Suppliers Industry," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(10), pages 129-148, October.
    6. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    7. Stefano Brusoni & Paola Criscuolo & Aldo Geuna, 2005. "The knowledge bases of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 395-415.
    8. Yang, Chia-Hsuan & Nugent, Rebecca & Fuchs, Erica R.H., 2016. "Gains from others’ losses: Technology trajectories and the global division of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 724-745.
    9. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    10. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    11. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.
    12. Hoppmann, Joern & Wu, Geng & Johnson, Jillian, 2021. "The impact of demand-pull and technology-push policies on firms’ knowledge search," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Bell, Martin & Martin, Ben R., 2011. "Christopher Freeman: social science entrepreneur," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 897-916, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Dirk Meissner & Maxim Kotsemir, 2016. "Conceptualizing the innovation process towards the ‘active innovation paradigm’—trends and outlook," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Nicholas S. Argyres & Alfredo De Massis & Nicolai J. Foss & Federico Frattini & Geoffrey Jones & Brian S. Silverman, 2020. "History‐informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 343-368, March.
    17. Vivarelli, Marco, 2018. "Globalisation, structural change and innovation in emerging economies: The impact on employment and skills," MERIT Working Papers 2018-037, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Deepak Hegde, 2014. "An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1744-1763, December.
    19. Ben Martin, 2010. "Science Policy Research: Having an Impact on Policy?," Seminar Briefing 000197, Office of Health Economics.
    20. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    innovation processes; specialised knowledge production; knowledge transformation; modern industrial corporations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:sru:ssewps:89. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.