IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2022-002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revisiting innovation typology: A systemic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Knuepling

    (Institute of Economic and Cultural Geography, Leibniz University Hannover)

  • Colin Wessendorf

    (Centre for Regional and Innovation Economics, University of Bremen)

  • Stefano Basilico

    (Chair of Microeconomics, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena & Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Bremen)

Abstract

Innovation studies use labels such as radical or disruptive to qualify innovation according to different concepts. Within the literature, these labels are frequently used interchangeably due to overlaps in their characteristics. These various definitions present challenges when the labels are operationalized in empirical studies. Based on a quantitative analysis of the most common innovation labels' definitions in 532 scientific papers, we find that novelty and impact, predominantly used for empirical operationalization, differentiate only between ordinary and more exceptional innovations. Based on our findings, a differentiation between the impact’s target and the consideration of positive versus negative effects enables better distinction between labels for more 'exceptional' innovations. We extend the existing literature and enable a more precise definition of (single) innovations by providing a novel, more nuanced description of innovations' different characteristics and a further distinction of their effects. Thereby, the relevant decisive aspects will be communicated more accurately.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Knuepling & Colin Wessendorf & Stefano Basilico, 2022. "Revisiting innovation typology: A systemic approach," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-002, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2022-002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://oweb.b67.uni-jena.de/Papers/jerp2022/wp_2022_002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    2. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    3. Sam Arts & Francesco Paolo Appio & Bart Looy, 2013. "Inventions shaping technological trajectories: do existing patent indicators provide a comprehensive picture?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 397-419, November.
    4. Hubert Gatignon & Michael L. Tushman & Wendy Smith & Philip Anderson, 2002. "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1103-1122, September.
    5. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    6. Jose-Luis Hervás-Oliver & Jose Albors-Garrigos & Sofia Estelles-Miguel & Carles Boronat-Moll, 2018. "Radical innovation in Marshallian industrial districts," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(10), pages 1388-1397, October.
    7. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    8. Germain, Richard, 1996. "The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics innovation adoption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 117-127, February.
    9. Achilladelis, Basil & Schwarzkopf, Albert & Cines, Martin, 1990. "The dynamics of technological innovation: The case of the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-34, February.
    10. Sam Arts & Bruno Cassiman & Juan Carlos Gomez, 2018. "Text matching to measure patent similarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 62-84, January.
    11. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    12. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    13. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    14. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    15. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    16. Sam Arts & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(6), pages 1215-1246.
    17. Jugend, Daniel & Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappeta & Alves Scaliza, Janaina A. & Rocha, Robson Sø & Junior, José Alcides Gobbo & Latan, Hengky & Salgado, Manoel Henrique, 2018. "Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 74, pages 54-65.
    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. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    2. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    3. Sandro Montresor & Gianluca Orsatti & Francesco Quatraro, 2023. "Technological novelty and key enabling technologies: evidence from European regions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 851-872, August.
    4. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    5. 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.
    6. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    7. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    8. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Elona Marku, 2018. "Patent value and the Tobin’s q ratio in media services," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and radical innovation: an opportunity for all companies?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 771-797, August.
    10. Stephan, Annegret & Bening, Catharina R. & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Schwarz, Marius & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2019. "The role of inter-sectoral knowledge spillovers in technological innovations: The case of lithium-ion batteries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    12. Colombo, Massimo G. & Guerini, Massimiliano & Hoisl, Karin & Zeiner, Nico M., 2023. "The dark side of signals: Patents protecting radical inventions and venture capital investments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    13. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    14. Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2021. "Do not neglect the periphery?! - the emergence and diffusion of radical innovations," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2102, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    15. Antonio Malva & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Basic science as a prescription for breakthrough inventions in the pharmaceutical industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 670-695, August.
    16. Keyvan Vakili & Sarah Kaplan, 2021. "Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1159-1183, June.
    17. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara DiGuardo, 2017. "Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the U.S. communications services industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1334-1361, December.
    18. William Arant & Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Kolja Hesse & Cathrin Söllner, 2019. "University-industry collaborations—The key to radical innovations? [Universität-Industrie-Kooperationen – Der Schlüssel zu radikalen Innovationen?]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 119-141, October.
    19. Nils Grashof & Holger Graf, 2023. "Universities that matter for regional knowledge base renewal - the role of multilevel embeddedness," Jena Economics Research Papers 2023-009, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    20. Uijun Kwon & Youngjung Geum, 2020. "Identification of promising inventions considering the quality of knowledge accumulation: a machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1877-1897, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    radical; incremental; disruptive; breakthrough; innovation typology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2022-002. 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: Markus Pasche (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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.