IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v56y2022i4d10.1007_s11135-021-01231-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring innovation and innovativeness: a data-mining approach

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné

    (Université Côte d’Azur (GREDEG))

Abstract

Despite substantial advances over the past decades, measuring innovation and innovativeness remains a challenge for both academic researchers and management practitioners. To address several key concerns with current indicators—such as their specialization and consequent one-sidedness, their frequent lack of theoretical foundations, and the fact that they may not really foster creativity and invention—this paper introduces some new metrics via one data-mining approach—formal concept analysis—which is increasingly used to represent and treat knowledge. This approach can adapt to particular needs and goals, incorporate various kinds of information (qualitative or quantitative) from different sources, and cope with several types of innovations. It also uncovers a logical route to novelty, which might enhance the generation of ideas and is used here to support the measurement of innovativeness.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2022. "Measuring innovation and innovativeness: a data-mining approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2415-2434, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01231-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-021-01231-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-021-01231-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-021-01231-6?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. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. Tibor Tóth & Sándor Radeleczki & Laura Veres & Attila Körei, 2014. "A new mathematical approach to supporting group technology," European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(5), pages 716-737.
    3. Gault, Fred, 2018. "Defining and measuring innovation in all sectors of the economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 617-622.
    4. Zobel, Ann-Kristin & Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John, 2017. "Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-54.
    5. Gabjin Oh & Ho-Yong Kim & Ayoung Park, 2017. "Analysis of technological innovation based on citation information," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1065-1091, May.
    6. Giada Di Stefano & Alfonso Gambardella & Gianmario Verona, 2012. "Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions," Post-Print hal-00696607, HAL.
    7. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2002. "Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 226-230, May.
    8. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    9. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2018. "Measuring Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Review," Annals of Science and Technology Policy, now publishers, vol. 2(1), pages 1-74, March.
    10. Han Woo Park, 2020. "A new era of Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology - Collaborate or Fall Behind," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 1-2, February.
    11. Sophie Raedersdorf Bollinger, 2019. "Creativity and forms of managerial control in innovation processes : tools, viewpoints and practices," Post-Print hal-02342502, HAL.
    12. Ramzi Mabsout, 2015. "Abduction and economics: the contributions of Charles Peirce and Herbert Simon," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 491-516, December.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5002 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    15. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    16. Ulrike Stefani & Francesco Schiavone & Blandine Laperche & Thierry Burger-Helmchen, 2020. "New tools and practices for financing novelty : a research agenda," Post-Print hal-03020585, HAL.
    17. Ashish Sood & Gareth M. James & Gerard J. Tellis & Ji Zhu, 2012. "Predicting the Path of Technological Innovation: SAW vs. Moore, Bass, Gompertz, and Kryder," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 964-979, November.
    18. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    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. Klessova, Svetlana & Engell, Sebastian & Thomas, Catherine, 2022. "Assessment of the advancement of market-upstream innovations and of the performance of research and innovation projects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. José García-Quevedo & Gabriele Pellegrino & Maria Savona, 2017. "Reviving demand-pull perspectives: The effect of demand uncertainty and stagnancy on R&D strategy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 1087-1122.
    3. Piotr Tomasz Makowski & Yuya Kajikawa, 2021. "Automation-driven innovation management? Toward Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle," Papers 2103.02395, arXiv.org.
    4. José García-Quevedo & Gabriele Pellegrino & Maria Savona, 2017. "Reviving demand-pull perspectives: The effect of demand uncertainty and stagnancy on R&D strategy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(4), pages 1087-1122.
    5. Makowski, Piotr Tomasz & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2021. "Automation-driven innovation management? Toward Innovation-Automation-Strategy cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Svetlana Klessova & Sebastian Engell & Catherine Thomas, 2022. "Assessment of the advancement of market-upstream innovations and of the performance of research and innovation projects," Post-Print hal-03636260, HAL.
    7. Andriani, Pierpaolo & Kaminska, Renata, 2021. "Exploring the dynamics of novelty production through exaptation: a historical analysis of coal tar-based innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    8. Manuel Toselli, 2017. "Knowledge sources and integration ties toward innovation. A food sector perspective," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 7(1), pages 43-65, April.
    9. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    10. Paolo E. Giordani & Francesco Rullani, 2020. "The Digital Revolution and COVID-19," Working Papers 06, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    11. Dawid, Herbert & Pellegrino, Gabriele & Vivarelli, Marco, 2017. "Is the demand-pull driver equally crucial for product vs process innovation?," MERIT Working Papers 2017-035, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    13. Kerstin Hotte, 2021. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Papers 2104.04813, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    14. Xu, Lei & Su, Jun, 2016. "From government to market and from producer to consumer: Transition of policy mix towards clean mobility in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 328-340.
    15. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    16. Davine N. G. Janssen & Eunice Pereira Ramos & Vincent Linderhof & Nico Polman & Chrysi Laspidou & Dennis Fokkinga & Duarte de Mesquita e Sousa, 2020. "The Climate, Land, Energy, Water and Food Nexus Challenge in a Land Scarce Country: Innovations in the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    18. Nemet, Gregory F. & Zipperer, Vera & Kraus, Martina, 2018. "The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 154-167.
    19. Uzunca, Bilgehan & Sharapov, Dmitry & Tee, Richard, 2022. "Governance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    20. Attila Havas, 2016. "Social and Business Innovations: Are Common Measurement Approaches Possible?," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 10(2 (eng)), pages 58-80.

    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:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01231-6. 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.