Month: December 2020

One of the first (theoretical) frameworks developed in history for understanding science and technology and its relation to the economy has been the linear model of innovation. The model postulated that innovation starts with basic research, followed by applied research and development, and ends with production and diffusion.
The precise source of the linear model remains nebulous, having never been documented. Several authors who have used, improved or criticized the model in the last fifty years rarely acknowledged or cited any original source. The model was usually taken for granted. According to others, however, it comes directly from V. Bush’s Science: The Endless Frontier (1945).
This paper traces the history of the linear model, suggesting that it developed in three steps, corresponding to as many scientific communities looking at science from an analytical point of view. The paper argues that statistics is one of the main reasons explaining why the model is still alive, despite criticisms, alternatives, and having been proclaimed dead.

This paper explores the influence of innovation on the probability of survival of two hundred top British firms founded throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. To this end, we have collected the firms’ significant innovations and classified them by Schumpeterian types, patented and non-patented and domestic and imported.The number of patents registered by the firms throughout their lifetime−a rough measure of their incremental innovation activity–has also been recorded. In addition, twelve control variables−five characteristics of the firms and seven of their business leaders–have been included. Both log-normal and gamma duration model shave been used in the analysis. They have been estimated,firstly for the whole set of firms and, secondly, for the manufacturing and the service firms separately to control for industry differences. The results of the log-normal and gamma estimations are highly coincident, with some nuances. The significant innovations−particularly new processes, non-patented and domestic ones–have been found to positively influence the probability of business survival. The number of patent applications seems to increase the survival probability of the manufacturing firms, but not of the service ones. Among the control variables, the firm’s size, its international dimension, and the age of the business leader at entry seem to be the most influential ones on business survival,although there are some differences between manufacturing and services. The main results are robust to the division of the sample by entry p

Resilience: Continuous renewal of competitive advantages

Even in these financially challenging times, business performance alwayscomes down to a firm’s competitive advantages. Subsequently, how can companiessustain a long-run competitive advantage, especially in the face of increasing competi-tion? Apart from the pat answer that innovation is critical to organizational survival, weargue that it is the innovation process and how companies manage it that forms thefoundation of a resilient organization. Our research finds that organizational innovationprocesses take three main forms: reactive, proactive, and anticipatory innovators. It isfrom anticipatory innovators that resilient organizations emerge. Here, resilient orga-nizations not only anticipate the needs of buyers but do so by creating an innovationorientation within the firm’s culture. This culture-based focus goes beyond any specificinnovation; it directs leaders to create an organizational culture that is receptive toinnovative ideas and to the changes they produce. Here, the competitive advantage isnot so much innovation per se but the organization’s ability to continuously createcompetitive advantages based on innovations.#

Even in these financially challenging times, business performance always comes down to a firm’s competitive advantages. Subsequently, how can companies sustain a long-run competitive advantage, especially in the face of increasing competition? Apart from the pat answer that innovation is critical to organizational survival, we argue that it is the innovation process and how companies manage it that forms the foundation of a resilient organization. Our research finds that organizational innovation processes take three main forms: reactive, proactive, and anticipatory innovators. It is from anticipatory innovators that resilient organizations emerge. Here, resilient organizations not only anticipate the needs of buyers but do so by creating an innovation orientation within the firm’s culture. This culture-based focus goes beyond any specific innovation; it directs leaders to create an organizational culture that is receptive to innovative ideas and to the changes they produce. Here, the competitive advantage is not so much innovation per se but the organization’s ability to continuously create competitive advantages based on innovations.#

This paper argues that innovation can be best understood as an information process which is then concretized as a product that meets demand. Two very different firms, Canon Inc. and Apple Computer Inc., are used as case study illustrations. Innovation does not proceed through logical deduction, but rather is furthered by the use of metaphors and analogies. The bureaucratic and staid structures of the firm can be challenged and broken up to provide the space for innovations to emerge. The leader’s role in the innovating firm is as a catalyst and facilitator, not as an all knowing despot. The importance of innovations is not merely in the new product, but also the “ripple” effects of innovations which can propel the firm into a self-renewal process

Why ‘open innovation’ is old wine in new bottles

The concept of ‘open innovation’ has received a considerable amount of coverage within the academic literature and beyond. Much of this seems to have been without much critical analysis of the evidence. In this paper, we show how Chesbrough creates a false dichotomy by arguing that open innovation is the only alternative to a closed innovation model. We systematically examine the six principles of the open innovation concept and show how the Open Innovation paradigm has created a partial perception by describing something which is undoubtedly true in itself (the limitations of closed innovation principles), but false in conveying the wrong impression that firms today follow these principles. We hope that our examination and scrutiny of the ‘open innovation’ concept contributes to the debate on innovation management and helps enrich our understanding.