Innovation defined: a survey
B.J.G. van der Kooij, Guest at the University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Contents
Abstract ... 3
Proloque ... 4
Searching for definitions ... 6
Analysis ... 9
Common elements ... 9
Creating the variables ... 10
Classification of definitions ... 11 Results ... 13 Absolute scores ... 13 Observations ... 13 Definition profiles ... 16 First evaluation ... 21 Relative scores ... 22 Relative to what? ... 22 Observations ... 23 Definition profiles ... 25 Second evaluation ... 28 Interpretation ... 29 Hypothesis ... 29 Primary hypothesis ... 29 Secondary hypothesis ... 30 Falsification ... 31 Conclusions ... 33 Epiloque ... 34
April 2013. Last update: 4/27/2013 1:03:00 PM. Versie 1.0E . 1
This non-published article is based on research report EUT/BDK/33, University of Technology, Eindhoven, 1988. Available at: http://repository.tue.nl/305860
Addendum ... 41 1988-collection of definitions ... 41 Before 1960 ... 41 1961-1970 ... 41 1971-1980 ... 43 1981-1988 ... 45 Tinnesand definitions ... 46
ABSTRACT
This paper focusses on the definition of the word ‘innovation’ as used in scholarly manuscripts (books and articles) about the Innovation. The research was done in 1988, and reported in the Dutch Language in a Research Paper of the University of Eindhoven (The Netherlands). As preparation for a comparable larger study in 2013, the original material is reprocessed, updated and presented here in the English language. 2
The basis for this analysis is a group of 76 definitions from the period 1952 – 1988 (and Schumpeter’s definition from 1934). They resulted from a total of 300 manuscripts covering the subject Innovation. This population had been classified according to eight variables that were created from the keywords found in the definitions themselves. Variables like ‘’Subject’, ‘Stimulus’, ‘Moment’, ‘Novelty’, ‘Change’, ‘Object’, ‘Reference’,’ Success’. Of each of the definitions the year, nation and field of origin was registered.
This paper consists out of five segments. In the Prologue we describe why we initiated the survey and the method used for searching for definitions of the word ’Innovation’. In the second part we describe the way we classified the found definitions. In the third part we present our observations for both the individual variables and for the definition profiles. In the fourth part we define and falsify the hypotheses. Finally in the Epilogue we try to reach an overall conclusion about what could be considered the abstract version of a definition. The Addendum gives all the definitions and their citations.
Basically the definitions are about changing something: ‘old thing’ plus ‘creating change’ is ‘new thing’. It is a human induced and implemented activity. Innovation is for the authors defining innovation (in the period 1950s -1980s) considered to be an activity or range of activities that are primarily related to a product or (production) process. From the 1970s they also included changes in (organizational) structures. Dominantly innovation definitions are about new products that become in existence when the change into new is implemented. However, not too many definitions specify the novelty-aspect (what is new?) and the reference-aspect (new in relation to what?). We conclude with an abstract interpretation that innovation is a discontinuity that appears as a stepwise change in the function of a system.
2
Author: Drs.Ir.Ing. B.J.G.van der Kooij (1947) is former professor in ‘Management of Innovation’ at the University of Technology in Eindhoven. He has two degrees from the University of Technology in Delft (the Netherlands) in electrical engineering (B.S.E.E and M.S.E.E.), and a degree in management (M.S.B.A.) from the Erasmas University in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). He currently working on his Ph.D.dissertation.
PROLOQUE
In 1986 we were appointed a part time professorship at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, Holland. The chair was in the “The Management of innovation processes”, so our interest was certainly focused on the subject ‘Innovation’. Earlier we already had noticed that many publications about innovation did not define to clearly the main subject of their interest. Whole publications talked about ‘innovation’’ without spending any word on what ‘innovation’’ was to them. It often looked like the word ‘innovation’ was just a replacement for the word ‘new’ as in ‘new product’ and ‘new technology’. Maybe understandable in popular, mass oriented publications, but not expected in the scholarly articles oriented at more professional readers. And certainly not in research based publications that were drawing serious conclusions related to innovation. With effects on governmental ‘innovation policy’ or on firms ‘creating the innovative organization’.
Well, the topic of innovation is certainly a complex one as eloquently described by Patrick Kelly and Melvin Krantz when they reported in 1978 on the current status of current knowledge of innovation (Kelly & Krantzberg, 1978). Technological innovations result often in a new product (product innovation), a new (production)process (process-innovation) or a new structure (organizational innovation). The change may be earthshaking (radical innovation), it may be a breakthrough (basic innovation), disrupting the existing order (disruptive innovation), just be an improvement (incremental innovation) or it even may be an imitation (imitative innovations). So there is quite diversity in innovations themselves. But it is even more complex when we look at the dimensions of the process in which innovations are conceived, developed, introduced and diffused. Looking at the organizational dimensions this multi phased process is complex involving different parts of organizations (organizational change). Looking form a social point of view at the process of innovation (all the activities that result in an innovation), it can be completely new to the
organization, disrupting the existing organizational culture (social change). From the economic point of view, innovation needs the considerable commitments of resources; investments in knowhow and new techniques (economic change). The word innovation covers quite a multidimensional concept. But there is more as we realize that Innovation takes place in small and large organizations within a specific context defined by internal and external factors. Internal factors like the corporate structure and strategy, R&D facilities, internal resistance to change. External factors like the institutions related to the market and industry structure, competition from other companies and the influence of government policy. This all illustrates the natural complexity of (technological) innovation as a
multidimensional topic which attracted the attention scholars with completely different
backgrounds. And they all use the one word ‘innovation’, sometimes just the word ‘innovation’, sometimes as ’an innovation’3, that is always about changes. Changes that result in the creation of something new. In simple terms: ‘old’ plus ‘change’ creates ‘new’.
So much for the complexity of innovation. Now let’s go back to our definition-issue. How can a scholar write an article about innovation, using the word innovation more than 150 times, also in the title, without even to try and defining it? Sure often, by knowing other work of this author, on can assume how he would interpretate innovation. In 1967 Becker and Whisler stated, after quoting other scholar’s definitions of (organizational) innovation: “In these definitions clear distinction is seldom made between innovation, invention, and change or adaptation. We believe that such distinction is necessary.” (Selwyn W. Becker & Whisler, 1967, pp. 462-463). Even worse is the resulting confusion as noted by Downs and Mohr: “Perhaps the most alarming characteristic of the body of empirical study of innovation is the extreme variance among its findings, what we call instability. Factors found to be important for innovation in one study are found to be considerably less important, not important at all, or even inversely important in another study. This phenomenon occurs with relentless regularity. [...] Despite - or perhaps because of - the involvement of a diverse group of researchers, results at the empirical level often are non-comparable and occasionally contradictory.” (Downs & Mohr, 1976, p. 700).
The problem is clear, let’s try and find out more about definitions of innovation. We decided on a small exploratory literature search looking for some serious definitions of the word ‘innovation’. The project of 1988 was presented in a Research Paper in the Dutch language. In 2013, preparing for a more extensive study on the same subject, we redid the research and you find it here presented in the English language. By the way, some twenty odd years later the same problem exists as noted in 1996 by Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour: “However, researchers within each discipline conceptualize innovation differently, and have quite different views of its impact on an industry or a firm's
productivity, survival, growth, and performance. Thus, the theoretical and practical value of research from one field is not entirely clear for another because of differences in research focus and variations in the way innovation is defined. [...] Our overview of the dimensions of innovation establishes that there is no one commonly accepted definition of innovation.” (Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997, pp. 15, 19).
3
This is quite similar to the use of the word ‘organization’: sometimes it is just meant as ‘organization’, sometimes it is meant as ‘an organization’
Searching for definitions
So we started looking for some serious definitions of the word ‘innovation’. Considering that, if an author decided to use the word ‘innovation’ (or it’s derivate like ‘innovator’, ‘innovating’) in the title of his/her publication, one can assume that ‘innovation’ is an important subject in the
discourse. A second assumption was, that given the word ‘innovation’ in the title, the body of the manuscript would be about (1) innovation as a subject itself (as in: ‘a study about innovation’ from an scientific point of view), (2) innovation as a practice (as in: ‘introducing innovation into the firm’) or (3) about the results of, the experiences with innovation (as in: ‘the description of the new product/process itself’ from a practical point of view). Certainly in the first group – with titles like: “Designing the innovating organization ...” (Galbraith, 1982) or “Successful industrial innovations...” (Myers & Marquis, 1969)- we expected to find the most definitions. Maybe less in the second group that would also include thinkers, gurus, consultants, managers, etc. paying attention to innovation. Like Peter Drucker in: ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ (1985). The third group would encompass (auto)biographic writers practically active in the field of innovation itself (with titles as ‘My years at General Motors/Ford/Xerox/Lockheed’). Knowing that also quite some authors in non-scientific publications used the word innovation to stimulate the sales of their work, we tried to exclude that type of manuscripts as much as possible.
In a first search round, in the keyword file system of the library of the University of Eindhoven, some 240 publications with the keyword ‘innovation’ in their title were identified4. In the second round the publications of authors cited in those primarily identified publications were investigated, together with publications already known to us from earlier work (Kooij, 1983). These included for example publications on ‘techn(olog)ical change’, ‘organizational change’, ‘management of change’.
In total some 300 publications were identified, found and investigated. By ‘investigated’ meaning that we looked in the table of contents, the abstracts (if available) and the index for an indication of the keywords ‘definition’, ‘defined’, ‘consider to be’, ‘For us [innovation] is ...’. We also included those situations when we felt that a chapter title justified more attention (I.e. ‘concept of
innovation’, ‘theory of innovation’, ‘innovation model’). In 100 publications we found some form of a definition. And by ‘definition’ we mean a description like ”An innovation is...”, not a discourse of several pages describing innovation at length without concluding in a usable definition. As quite a
4
This work was done manually as we were in the pre-internet days without Google Scholar and other electronic search facilities.
few authors referred in their description to a definition created by another author (like ‘based on Schmookler’s, Schumpeter’s, Mansfield, etc.), we were left with 53 usable definitions.
During the search we found a PhD dissertation by B.Tinnesand (1973) which revealed a collection of definitions from the period 1951-1971 from literature on innovation in economics, marketing5, psychology, social-psychology, sociology and business administration. He reported that, after reviewing 188 sources, 108 sources were failing to present a formal definition. In Table 1 his
breakdown is shown where he related the definitions to the groups of literature sources and to their major characteristic.
Table 1: Usage of the concept of innovation 1951-1971 (Tinnesand; Table 2)
Groups: Definition: Ec on om ic s M a rke ti ng Ps y c ho log y & Soc io lo g y Bus in e s s Adm in is trati on T ota l No definition available 33 36 14 25 108 Innovation as... ...New idea 2 8 1 2 13
...Introduction/application of a new idea 11 4 7 7 29
…Invention 3 1 2 1 7
…Introduction/application of invention 8 0 0 3 11
…qualitatively different form existing form 0 6 2 3 11
...Introduction/adoption of disruptive idea 1 5 1 2 9
Subtotal 25 24 13 18 80
Total 58 60 27 43 188
Source: (Tinnesand, 1973, p. 17)
Among the 80 sources left he observed a lot of ‘new idea’ related definitions (13 sources) or ‘introduction or application of a new idea’ related definitions (29 sources): i.e. “... an idea perceived as new by the individual”. He also observed ‘synonymously with invention’ related definitions (7 sources) or ‘introduction/application of an invention’ related definitions (11 sources): i.e. “....the process of bringing an invention into use.” From the rest he found 11 sources to consider innovation qualitatively different from an existing form; i.e. “Innovation is the fundamental change in a
significant number of tasks”. And 9 sources related innovation to the introduction/adoption of a disruptive idea: i.e. “An innovation is anything perceived to be new by the potential trier, the adoption of which would tend to alter significantly his existing patterns of behavior.” (Tinnesand, 1973, pp. 16-17).
5
He concluded that “[....] most writers fail to present a formal definition of the concept”. He additionally stated, obviously being a follower of Schumpeter’s creative destruction concept (discontinuities disrupting the equilibrium): “We are of the opinion that the disequilibrium of disturbance creating force of innovation, as suggested by Schumpeter, is the essential characteristic of an innovation on which an appropriate definition of the concept should be based.” (Tinnesand, 1973, pp. 16, 26).
This Tinnesand study added (in 1988) another 23 usable definitions (including his own definition) to our population of definitions. So we ended up with a population of 76 definitions. In Figure 1 for the total population of definitions the breakdown into the ‘nation of origin’ and the ‘field or origin’ is shown.
Figure 1: Total population: field of origin (left) and nation of origin (right)
Figure 2: Number of definitions found in a given year
6 26 8 6 3 11 0 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Economic Organizational Marketing Technical
N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s USA Europe 56 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 USA Europe N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 10 5 4 5 4 2 2 5 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 6 0 1 2 195 0 195 1 195 2 195 3 195 4 195 5 195 6 195 7 195 8 195 9 196 0 196 1 196 2 196 3 196 4 196 5 196 6 196 7 196 8 196 9 197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 198 6 198 7
ANALYSIS
So we had our collection of definitions. A range of totally different descriptions of innovations. Some hardly usable, like Sach’s definition: “[...] far reaching basic changes.” (Sachs, 1963) and Casinco’s definition: “[...] a drastic change to something different.”(Casinco, 1963). The one word (=element) they have in common is ‘change’ of a certain kind.
Common elements
To analyze the definitions, we scanned the definitions for their contributing elements (aka keywords). We looked for similar elements to create variables. Take for example Knight’s definition: “An innovation is the adoption of a change which is new to the organization and to the relevant environment.” (Knight, 1967, p. 1). This definition is not about a new product nor about a new technology. It has the keywords ‘adoption’, ‘change’, ‘new’, ‘to the organization’ and ‘to the relevant environment’. Totally different from Mansfeld’s definition: “An invention, when applied for the first time, is called an innovation” (Mansfield, 1968, p. 99). This definition has the keywords ‘invention’ and ‘first time’. This scanning of the definitions resulted in a range of elements that were grouped. For example, the elements that were related to object-definitions, activity-definitions and process-definitions were group under the label ‘subject’. Or the elements that were related to the aspect ‘new’: new in absolute terms (i.e. ‘... is something new...’), new in relational terms (i.e. ‘... new to the market’) that were grouped under the label ‘novelty’. And so on. Thus we were following a rather pragmatic approach.
We realized that a specific definition has to be seen within its context. A context that is more or less identifiable by the characteristics of the author and the period in time of the publication. Or the author is telling us the context: “Since we are interested in innovation as a social process rather than a product of a scientific discovery,[...].” (Carroll, 1967, p. 532). Using the two examples, we identified Knight as a 1963 Ph.D.-student at the Carnegie Institute of Technology and assistant professor at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University around 1967 (publication year), and Mansfield as a professor of economics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania around 1968 (publication year). Reading his article, Knights definition certainly was related to ‘organizational innovation’ and Mansfield’s definition was related to – the diffusion of – ‘technological innovation’. Earlier Mansfield published an impressing article on twelve innovations in bituminous coal (i.e. continuous mining machine), in iron and steel (i.e. continuous wide strip mill), in brewing (i.e. high speed bottle filler) and in railroads (i.e. the diesel locomotive, centralized traffic control and car retarders), without seeing the need for any form of definition (Mansfield, 1961).
Creating the variables
Finally we constructed, after a trial round, eight variables which covered the elements of the definitions. For each variable we decided upon the values they could have when a certain element was identified :
1. Subject: What is defined by the definition? What is the subject of the definition? Is it a (physical, nonphysical) object (an innovation), an activity (to innovate) or process (as in a range of
innovative activities)? So the values for this variable are: [object, activity, process].
2. Stimulus: What initiated the innovation the definition refers to? Is it an internal cause (‘initiated by discovery...” or is it an external cause (“... in response to a need or an opportunity....”)? So the values for this variable are: [internal, external].
3. Moment: What is the moment of innovation? Was it the time of its initiation (of the idea), its adaption (of the idea), its realization (in something tangible like a prototype) or was it the time of its implementation (into the organization, marketplace)? So the values for this variable are: [initiation, adoption, realization, implementation].
4. Novelty: What is the novelty aspect of the innovation? Is it ‘new’ in absolute terms or is it ‘new’ in relative terms (i.e. new to the market, organization)? So the values for this variable are: [absolute, relative].
5. Change: What is the use of the change-element? Is it just ‘any change’ or is it a specific change (i.e. a discontinuity)? So the values for this variable are: [any change, discontinuity].
6. Object: What is the object of the definition? Is it a (physical/nonphysical) product, a (production) process, an (organizational) structure? So the values for this variable are: [product, process, structure].
7. Reference: What is the point of reference? Is it internal oriented (new for the person, the organization) of external orientated (new to the market, industry, world)? So the values for this variable are: [internal, external].
8. Success: Is there some form of value judgment? This relates to the use of elements like ‘successful’, ‘useful’. So the value for this variable is: [judgment]
In addition to the above mentioned variables we added variables like year of publication, nation of origin and field or origin:
9. Year of origin: This is the year of actual publication as indicated in the publication itself. So the value of this variable is [year].
10. Nation of origin: We identified the authors as having an American or European nation or origin. (Maybe a more appropriate term would be ‘continent of origin’). This, however, is quite a subjective interpretation as illustrated by a Austrian educated professor, working on Austrian, German and American Universities: is the origin of his work European or American? As we expect that his major influence would be during his work on the American University, we would identify this as ‘USA’. In only one cases (Schumpeter who we actually had in mind describing this example), we would consider the nation of origin both European (early work: Schumpeter I) and American (later work: Schumpeter II). So the values for this variable are: [USA, Europe].
11. Field of origin: Here we tried to distinguish between Economic, Organizational, Managerial and Technical. Sometimes depending on the publication in which the article appeared, but also other indicators (i.e. the title itself) were used. Again, this is all quite subjective as illustrated by an economist writing about the organization of R&D in a management publication. So the values for this variable are: [Economics, Organizational, Marketing, Technical].
12. Topic idea/invention6: Because Tinnesand observed a certain dominance of the ‘idea’-element and the ‘invention’-element in many of the definitions he collected, we included a variable relating to the use of the word idea/invention in the definition (i.e. “[...] the commercial introduction of an invention.” ). So the values for this variable are [idea, invention].
Concluding, the creation of this set of variables is not based on any specific theory or standard available methodology. It is based on the grouping of elements found in the collection of definitions itself.
Classification of definitions
We then proceeded to classify each of the available definitions7. This is quite a subjective activity which has a high intuitive content. The original 1988-scores were taken and each was evaluated. Sometimes leading to adaptations in the scores (indicated red in table). This means that the resulting conclusions in this 2013 interpretation can be (slightly) different from the 1988-study. Thus each of the 76 definitions was evaluated and scored according to the before mentioned 12 variables: 8 primary variables for the definition itself and 4 secondary variables for others use. For each variable a dataset was created. Thus creating 76 individual definition profiles based on 12 datasets of the type [0010]. To give some examples:
6
This variable was not reported on in the original 1988-study. It is added in the 2013 version.
7 The classification was registered in a spreadsheet where each definition and its classification was occupying a
row. The values for the variable were placed in columns. So a ‘0’ or ‘1’ in a cell would indicate as a score for a certain variable for a given definition.
Table 2: Example of classification methodology Variable: Sub je c t Stim ul us M om e n t Nov e lty Cha ng e O bj e c t Refe ren c e Suc c e s s Ye a r Nati on Fi e ld Topic Values: Ob je ct , act iv it y p ro ces In ter n al ex tr n al in it iat io n , ad o p ti o n , rea liz at io n , imp lem en tat io n ab so lu te, rel at iv e an y ch an ge, d is co n ti n u it y p ro d u ct , p ro ces s, st ru ct u re in ter n al , ex ter n al ju d gment USA, Eu ro p e Ec o n o mi cs , Or gan iz at io n al , M ar ket in g, Tech n ic al , id ea , in ven ti o n “The implementation of new procedures or ideas, whether a product of invention or discovery , will be referred to [...] as innovation.” (Evan & Black, 1967) A cti vit y - imp le me n tati o n ab so lu te - - - - 19 67 US A Ec o n o mics O rg an iz ati o n al Id ea in ve n ti o n Definition profile [0,1,0] [0,0] [0,0,0,1] [1,0] [0,0] [0,0,0] [0,0] [0] [1967] [1,0] [1,0,0,0,0] [1,1] “Innovation is the process of applying a new idea to create a new process or product” [Galbraith, 1982] p ro ce ss - - ab so lu te - Pro d u ct, pr o ce ss - - 1982 US A Ec o n o mics Id ea Definition profile [0,0,1] [0,0] [0,0,0,0] [1,0] [0,0] [1,1,0] [0,0] [0] [1982] [1,0] [1,0,0,0,0] [1,0]
Using the definitions found in our 1988 study, we checked again every definition and its citation (in 2013) on its correctness. Some sources however could not be found anymore, or where not available for a check-up (mostly books not available in electronic form).
Every definition was placed in a worksheet and classified. For some definitions a realistic classification based on the variables was nearly impossible. Like Cyert & March’s definition: " […] new solutions to a problem that currently faces the organization."; Shephard’s definition: “When an organization learns (not) to do things it did not know how to do before, and then proceeds (not) to do so in a sustained way, a process of innovation has occurred.”; Tannenbaum’s definition: "Technical innovation is the novel application of physical knowledge and technique to make premeditated changes in the physical aspects of the environment.”; Drucker’s definition: "It can be defined as changing the yield of resources. Or, [….], as changing the satisfaction obtained from resources by the customer. "; Casinco’s definition: “[...] a drastic change to something different.” ; Carter’s definition: “Innovation is the application of knowledge.” ; McNair’s definition: "[...] a bright new idea.”. We tried to classify them keeping the context of the definition in mind.
RESULTS
In the following we will present the results of the qualification of the definitions. We will start with observations for the variables, followed by definition profiles for the total of variables. The results are shown in an absolute way; the number of
scores for a specific variable.
Absolute scores
Observations
Observation 1: The definitions are focusing on innovation as a) an activity or b) a range of activities (innovation as a process) and c) not that much on innovation as an object.
As shown in Figure 3 most (58/76) of the
classifiable definitions were considering innovation to be a) an activity (32/76) or b) a range of activities (26/76).
Observation 2: The definitions do not pay attention to what initiated the innovation.
Only 8 out of the 76 definitions (Figure 4) had an explicit reference if the innovation was initiated by a need (from the market) or an opportunity (from the technology).
Observation 3: The majority of the definitions are considering the moment of implementation as decisive.
As shown in Figure 5 most (28/40) of the
classifiable definitions consider the moment when one can talk about the change being an innovation, to be the moment of implementation (in the organization, in the marketplace).
Figure 3: The Subject-variable
13 32 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Object Activity Process
N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s
Figure 4: The stimulus-variable
6 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Internal External N u m b e r o f d e fi n tion s
Figure 5: The moment in time-variable
4 5 3 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s
Observation 4: The majority of the definitions are considering the novelty aspect, mostly in absolute terms (Figure 6).
Many definitions (48/76) refer to the novelty aspect without explain what they mean by new. It is mostly (39/76) used in an absolute way: ‘new’ is just ‘new’. Some (9/76) indicated the newness to be related to the organization or the market. Observation 5: A minority of the definitions refer to the
element of change (Figure 7).
Implicitly innovation is a change in something. But what kind of change: gradually, drastic, substantial disturbance? Only 8/76 definitions relate to a ‘discontinuity’.
Observation 6: The object of the definitions is either a product or a process. For a minority it also can be a structure (Figure 8).
For a majority of the definitions an innovation is either a product-innovation (32/76) or a
(production) process-innovation (21/76). A minority also considers an organizational innovation (7/76).
Observation 7: For a minority of the definitions a point of reference is given (Figure 9).
An innovation can be a change that is new
‘internally’ (for the individual, for the organization itself), or it can be new ‘externally’ (for the
market, for the world). Only 9 out of 76 definitions refer to this element.
Figure 6: The novelty-variable
39 9 0 10 20 30 40 Absolute Relative Nu m b er of d efi n iti on s
Figure 7: The change-variable
11 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Any change Discontinuity
N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s
Figure 8: The object-variable
32 21 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Product Process Structure
Nu m b er of D efi n iti on s
Figure 9: The reference-variable
6 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Internal External Nu m b er of d efi n iti on s
Observation 8: The success-element is not a relevant factor in the definitions. (no graph)
Only 6/76 definitions use the word ‘success’. Those were the observations about the definitions and the primary variables. We next analyzed the definitions also for the secondary variables: their year, nation and field or origin.
Observation 9: The field of origin-element is a relevant factor in analyzing the definitions. As 70/76 definitions can be attributed to their field of origin (Figure 10) and the definitions originating from authors in the ‘organizational’ field, this variable is quite important.
Observation 10: The nation of origin-element is a relevant factor in analyzing the definitions.
As shown in Figure 11 76/76 definitions can be attributed to their nation of origin (USA or Europe).
Observation 11: Tinnesands observation of idea/invention can be confirmed
Tinnesand noted (see Table 1) the dominant use of the words ‘idea’ and ‘invention’ in his definitions. For the totality of our definitions (which include a part of Tinnesands definitions) the word ‘idea’ scores 16/76 and the word ‘invention’ 12/76 (Figure 12).
Figure 10: The field of origin-variable
13 39 10 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Econ o m ic O rg an iz at io n al Ma rk e ti n g Tech n ica l N u m b e r o f d e fin itio n s
Figure 11: The nation of origin-variable
56 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 USA Europe Nu m b er of d efi n iti on s
Figure 12: The topic idea/invention variable
10 8 6 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Idea Invention Nu m b er of d efi n iti on s Definitions Tinnesand Definitions 1988-study
Definition profiles
Combining the totality of the 8 primary variables and the result of the classification we next created ‘definition profiles’. This definition profile gives a visual representation of the totality of the scores for all the varaibles. In the following we will present our observations about the profiles.
Profile 1: General profile of totality of definitions
In Figure 13 such a definition profile for the totality of the 76 definitions is shown.
Observation A: Innovation is seen as an activity (32 scores) or a range of activities = process (26 scores). In fact it considers more ‘the act of innovating’ that the ‘innovation’ itself. Observation B: One talks about innovation when it is implemented.
Observation C: Innovation is related to the absolute ‘new’, but ‘new in relation to what’ is hardly an issue.
Observation D: When innovation is spoken about, it mostly relates to product-innovation and (production)process-innovation.
Figure 13: General profile of the totality of definitions.
13 32 26 6 2 4 5 3 28 39 9 11 8 32 21 7 6 3 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Ob jec t Acti vity Pro ce ss In tern al Ext ern al In itia tio n Ad o p tio n Re aliz at ion Im p lem en ta tio n Ab so lu te Re lat iv e An y ch an ge Dis con tin u ity Pro d u ct Pro ce ss Stru ctu re In tern al Ext ern al Ju d gm en t N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s A B C D
Profile 2: ‘Field of origin’ profile of totality of definitions
When we break down the totality of the definitions into the professional background of the author (see Figure 14 where we use the ,economic, organizational, marketing or technical background of the author), we can observe the following:
Observation E: The authors with an organizational background seem to dominate the general definition profile. However, we have to realize that the classification of this variable is quite subjective (Figure 14).
Figure 14: ‘Field or origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.
2 7 3 0 0 0 1 0 8 6 1 2 1 10 7 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 6 13 17 5 2 2 3 3 11 23 5 6 2 16 10 3 4 3 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Ob jec t Acti vity Pro ce ss In tern al Ext ern al In itia tio n Ad o p tio n Re aliz at ion Im p le m en ta tio n Ab so lu te Re lativ e An y ch an ge Di sco n tin u it y Pro d u ct Pro ce ss Stru ctu re In tern al Ext ern al Ju d gm en t N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s
Profile 3: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of totality of definitions
When we break down the totality of the definitions by ‘nation of origin’ (see Figure 15, where we distinguished between the continents USA and Europe) we can make the following observations:
Observation F: As this classification is quite solid we can conclude that the authors with an American background dominate the definition profile. There seems to be a slight difference in orientation though, where ‘European’ definitions focus on innovation as a process and ‘American’ definitions focus on innovation as an activity (Figure 15).
Figure 15: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.
3 6 12 1 0 1 0 0 8 9 2 2 1 13 6 2 3 0 3 10 26 14 5 2 3 5 3 20 30 7 9 7 19 15 5 3 3 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ob jec t Acti vity P ro ce ss In tern al Ext ern al In itia tio n Ad o p tio n Re aliz at io n Im p le m en ta tio n Ab so lu te Re lat iv e An y ch an ge Dis con tin u ity Pro d u ct P ro ce ss Stru ctu re In tern al Ext ern al Ju d gm en t N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s Europe USA F
Profile 4: ‘Period of origin’ profile of totality of definitions
The total number of definitions has about the same amount of definitions before 1970 as after 1970. So, when we break down the totality of the definitions over two different periods (see Figure 16 where we distinguish the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period) we can make the following observations:
Observation G: The past-1970 definition-profile see innovation as a activity and process, and seems to differ from the pre-1970 profile where the definitions focus on the innovation as an activity.
Observation H: The past-1970 definition profile seem to consider the novelty-element even more in absolute terms than the pre-1970 definitions.
Observation I: In the past-1970 period innovation is more and more related to product and production-processes than in the pre-1970 period.
Figure 16: ‘Period of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.
7 15 10 1 0 2 4 1 11 15 5 5 6 11 8 2 1 2 2 6 17 16 5 2 2 1 2 17 24 4 6 2 21 13 5 5 1 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ob jec t Acti vity Pro ce ss In tern al Ext ern al In itia tio n Ad o p tio n Re aliz at ion Im p le m en ta tion Ab so lu te Re lat iv e An y ch an ge Dis con tin u ity Pro d u ct Pro ce ss Stru ctu re In tern al Ext ern al Ju d gm en t Nu m b er of d efi n iti on s Definitions <1970 Defintions >=1970 G H I
Profile 5: ‘Idea/Invention origin’ profile of totality of definitions
Tinnesand noted that in his collection of usable definitions quite a few used either the word ‘idea’ or ‘invention’ (Table 1). As his definitions are from the 1951-1973 period they indicate a specific character of the definitions in this period. Looking at the score for the elements ‘invention’ and ‘idea’ we observe the following
Observation J: Both the idea-definitions and the invention-definitions are focusing on innovation as a range of activities (= process).
Observation K: For both groups of definitions the moment of implementation is decisive. Observation L: The idea-definitions are considering the novelty element more as absolute new
than the inventions-definitions.
Observation M: Both the idea-definitions and the invention-definitions are focusing on product innovation.
Figure 17: ‘Idea/Invention origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.
4 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 2 5 8 2 0 3 1 1 6 10 0 2 1 8 5 1 0 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ob jec t Acti vity Pro ce ss In tern al Ext ern al In itia tio n Ad o p tio n Re aliz at ion Im p le m en ta tio n Ab so lu te Re lat iv e An y ch an ge Dis con tin u ity Pro d u ct Pro ce ss Stru ctu re In tern al Ext ern al Ju d gm en t N u m b e r o f d e fi n ition s
Origin is invention Origin is idea
J
First evaluation
We presented the observations and the definition-profiles for the total population of definitions in absolute terms. Looking at the profiles with their absolute scores for the 8 variables (Figure 13) we can conclude that only the following variables seem to be important in the totality of the definitions: The variable ‘subject’: This variable scores 71 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this
variable is quite relevant.
The variable ‘moment’: This variable scores 40 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this variable has some relevance.
The variable ‘novelty’: This variable scores 48 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this variable has some relevance.
The variable ‘object’: This variable scores 50 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this variable has some relevance.
The other primary variables have scores so low that these variables seem not to be that relevant. This is shown in Table 3 where the low scores are marked in red.
Looking at the secondary variables we can conclude the following:
The variable ‘Field of origin’: This variable, being quite subjective when the scores were made, scores 70 times for the 76 definitions. It seems to be an indicator of the influence of authors with an ‘organizational’ background.
The variable ‘Nation of origin’: This variable scores also 70 times for the 76 definitions. It seems to be indicator for the dominance of authors with a USA-background.
The variable ‘Idea/Invention origin’: The dominance of definitions using the idea- or invention- element, as indicated by Tinnesand, is not recognizable in the totality of the definitions with the score of 16/76 resp. 12/76.
Table 3: Overview of scores for each of the variables
Subject Stimulus Moment Novelty Change Object Reference Success
Total score 71/76 8/76 40/76 48/76 19/76 50/76 9/76 6/76
Relative scores
In the preceding observations the results were presented in an absolute way. The vertical axe was the number of definitions that had a score for the item classified. Now, for each of the relevant primary variables we will present the analysis based on the percentages. Thus we are creating relative scores. As we are looking for a shift over time in the definitions, we will relate to the ‘year of origin’ by creating a pre-1970 period and a past-1970 period. These two periods have a comparable amount of definitions in the total population.
Relative to what?
As explained before, the result of the classification is the creation of datasets for each definition. A dataset is the score for a variable: like [0,1,1], [1,0,0], etc. for the variable ‘subject’. Remember, a dataset can be empty [0,0,0] when the definition does not justify a score.
Table 4 is showing a part the total result of the classification just for the variable ‘subject’. It shows in the top segment the absolute score for the 76 definitions and the scores for the variable ‘subject’ to be [13, 32, 26]. (This totals to 71 scores and not 100 scores because the empty datasets.) When we want to analyze for ‘period of origin’ the breakdown into the pre-1970 and the past-1970 period gives us two datasets: [7, 15, 10] for the pre-1970 period and [6, 17, 16] for the past-1970 period. From this can be concluded that the activity-element and process-element of the variable ‘Subject’ are – in absolute terms- more important than the object-element in the definitions for both periods.
Next it shows in the lower segment the percentages of the scores where the total of the column is 100%. This results in [54%, 47%,
38%] for the pre-1970 period and [46%, 53%, 62%]. From this can be more clearly concluded that the process-element of the variable subject is more important in the past-1970 definitions (because is score 62% compared to 38%). So the initial conclusion of the absolute importance of the process-element is supported by the relative importance
Table 4: Scores for the variable 'Subject' broken down for pre-1970 and past-1970
Absolute number of definitions
Object Activity Process
Definitions <1970 37 7 15 10 Definitions >=1970 39 6 17 16 Total of definitions 76 13 32 26
Percentage relative to total of definitions (1) Definitions <1970 49% 54% 47% 38% Definitions >=1970 51% 46% 53% 62% Total of definitions 100% 100% 100% 100%
of the process-element in the past-1970 definitions. This interpretation is visualized in Figure 18 and illustrates that the relative score helps to determine if the score has an importance in relation to the other scores.
Observations
Now we will present the observations for the relative analysis of the relevant variable ‘subject’, ‘moment’, ‘novelty’ and ‘object’.
Observation N: Concerning the variable ‘Subject’ we concluded, explaining before the use of the relatives scores, that this variable is certainly relevant for the definitions. The relative scores supports this conclusion and
underscores that the definitions of innovation are considering innovation as an activity or a proces (= range of activities). It also showed that the past 1970-definitions put more emphasis on the process-element (see Figure 18).
Observation O: Concerning the variable ‘Moment’ Figure 19 shows that the moment of adoprtion is important in the pre-1970 definitions. In the past-1970 definitions this changed to the moment of realization and
implementation.
Figure 19: The relative scores for the variable 'moment' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 50% 80% 33% 39% 50% 20% 67% 61% Per ce tn ag e Definitions <1970 Definitions >=1970
Figure 18: The relative scores for the variable 'subject' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Object Activity Process 54% 47% 38% 46% 53% 62% Per ce n tage Definitions <1970 Definitions >=1970
Observation P: Concerning the variable ‘Novelty’ Figure 20 showes that novelty changed from a ‘relative new’ (i.e. for the organization) in the pre-1970 definitions, to an ‘absolut new’ in the past-1970 definitions.
Observation Q: Concerning the variable ‘Object’ one can certainly observe that the past-1970 definitions put more emphasis on the objet of the innovation (both product, process and structure). Figure 21 shows that all of the past-1970 scores are considerably higher that the pre-1970 scores.
Figure 20: The relative scores for the variable 'Novelty' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Absolute Relative 38% 56% 62% 44% Per ce n tage Definitions <1970 Definitions >=1970
Figure 21: The relative scores for the variable 'object' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Product Process Structure 34% 38% 29% 66% 62% 71% Pe rc e n tage Definitions <1970 Definitions >=1970
25
Definition profiles
Like we did for the absolute scores, we will now create defintion profiles using the relative scores. Profile 6: General profile of totality of definitions
For the general profile we will distinguish between two periods: the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period (Figure 22).
Observation R: Innovation is seen as an activity or a range of activities. In the past-1970 period the focus was even more on the process of innovation.
Observation S: The moment of implementation is already the decisive moment and the past-1970 definitions even put more emphasis on the moment of implementation.
Observation T: Novelty is a key element in the definitions and Innovation is dominantly related to the ‘absolute new’, even more in the past-1970 period.
Observation U: When innovation is spoken about, it mostly relates to product-innovation and (production)process-innovation. This is even more so in the past-1970 period.
Figure 22: General profile of the totality of the definitions fort two distinct periods. Figure 23: General profile of totality of definitions.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Definitions <1970 Definitions >=1970 R S T U
Profile 7: ‘Field of origin’ profile of totality of definitions
When we break down the totality of the definitions by ‘field of origin’ (see Figure 24, where we distinguished between the economic, marketing, technical and organizational backgrounds) we can make the following observation:
Observation V: The authors with an ‘organizational’ background dominate the definitions. However, we have to remind here that the classification of this variabled is quite subjective and not too reliable, as stated before8.
8
The classification of this variable is not reliable. We could not find details on the professional background of many authors (especially the not well known authors). And for those we found, the information that they were academics working at a certain university did not supply solid information to decide on this variable in a reliable way.
Figure 24: ‘Field of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Profile 8: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of totality of definitions
When we break down the totality of the definitions by ‘nation of origin’ (see Figure 25, where we distinguished between the continents USA and Europe) we can make the following observation:
Observation W: Definitions created by authors with an American background are dominating the totality of the population of definitions.
Figure 25: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Europe USA
Second evaluation
In the preceding part we classified the definitions and showed the results of the classification in absolute and relative terms. In the first round of evaluation we determined that some of the primary variables were not that relevant for the overall definition-profile. Now we will try and give for the relevant variables an evaluation based on the relative scores.
Variable subject: This variable relates to the subject of the definition: is innovation an
object/artifact, an activity or a process? From the absolute scores (see Figure 3) we can conclude that the majority of the definitions consider innovations to be a) an activity or b) a range of interrelated activities (process). From the relative scores we can conclude that the process-element became more dominant in the past-1970 period and the object-process-element became (slightly) less dominant (Figure 18).
Variable moment: This variable relates to the moment the innovation came into existence. When was the innovation ‘there’?9 Was it the time of its initiation (the conception of the idea), its adaption (the birth of the idea), its realization (in something tangible like a prototype) or was it the time of its implementation (into the organization, marketplace). From the absolute scores (Figure 5) we can conclude that the moment of implementation is considered to be the ‘moment of existence’ of the innovation. From the relative scores we can conclude that in the past-1970 definitions both the realization and implementation moments became more relevant (Figure 19). Variable novelty: This variable relates to the novelty-element in the definition: innovation is
something new, but new for whom (the user, the organization) or what (the market, the industry, the world)? From the absolute scores (Figure 6) we can conclude that the element ‘new’ is dominantly used in an absolute way. From the relative scores we can conclude that this dominance of ‘absolute novelty’ increased in the past-1970 period (Figure 20).
Variable object: This variable relates to the object of the definition: a (physical) product, a
(production) process, an (organizational) structure? From the absolute scores (Figure 8) we can conclude that the definitions in majority related to products and next to (production) processes. From the relative scores we can conclude that this changed in the past-1970 period as innovation in structures (like ‘organizational innovation’) became more dominant in the definitions (Figure 21).
9 The analogy of ‘human life’ comes to mind here. In the establishment of the moment of the existence of a
new human being, quite some discussions can being held. Some consider the moment of the existence of a human being the moment of its conception, others the embryonic stage, others the moment of birth.
INTERPRETATION
We have to realize that the total population of definitions is small in statistical terms. Too small to apply a statistical analysis. We used a more intuitive method to analyze this small population by breaking them down in their defining elements based on keywords. These elements were used to create variables. Then we looked at the scores for the variables in both an absolute way and a relative way. And we presented our observations in detail so you, reader, can check our
qualifications. The next step is the interpretation of our findings by the creation of hypothesis, trying to falsify them and reaching conclusions.
Hypothesis
We started with the initial assumption that innovation is always about changes. Changes that result in the creation of something new. In simple terms: ‘old’ plus ‘change’ creates ‘new’ (so our assumption is: old + change = new). From this we drew the proposition that ‘innovation is the creation of something new’. In simple terms: ‘something old’ plus ‘creating change’ becomes
‘something new’ at a given moment (so our implicit proposition is: old thing + creating change = new thing). Note that ‘creating change’ is an activity initiated, executed and implemented by humans. It is not a mutation that occurs in biology. Looking at the collected definitions our assumption seems to be shared, but from there on the diversification in definitions - as described in the Prologue - started. The ‘thing’ could be a product but also production process or even an organizational structure. The change could be drastic, disruptive or incremental. And so on.
From the observations we concluded that in the total population of the definitions only some of the eight primary variables played a significant role. These were the variables ‘Subject’. ‘Moment’, ‘Novelty’ and ‘Object’. These variables we will now use for the hypothesis building.
Primary hypothesis
Using these four primary variables we constructed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Based on the variable ‘subject’ and ‘novelty’ we were inclined to find out if the authors considered ‘innovation’ as something physical of more as a process of change? Typical definitions would be: “An innovation is (some ‘thing’) new” versus “Innovation is the activity that results in something new....”.
H1: The definition of innovation considers innovation as an activity resulting in something new. The ‘something’ is not, or hardly, specified.
Hypothesis 2: Based on the variables ‘subject’, ‘novelty’ and ‘object’ we were inclined to find out if innovation for the authors was mostly a process that results in new products. A typical definition would be: “Innovation is the process that results in new products.”
H2: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a range of activities, a process, which results in new products.
Hypothesis 3: Based on the variable ‘subject’, ‘moment’, ‘novelty’ and ‘object’ we were inclined to find out if the authors considered innovation at the moment of its implementation. A typical definition would be: “Innovation is the process of activities that creates products that are new when introduced.”
H3: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a process in which new products and processes are implemented.
The reader will note that the preceding hypothesis is formulated in such a way that they are each time using more of the relevant variables and thus focusing more and more on a tight definition.
Secondary hypothesis
As we were interested in finding out if a shift over time in the focus of the definitions could be detected, we related the definitions to their ‘year of origin’. The same goes for the influence of the ‘nation of origin’. Can a difference in definitions made by European or American authors be detected?
Hypothesis 4: Based on the variable ‘year of origin’ we were inclined to find out if one could detect a shift over time in the general character of the definitions. Like: before the 1970s innovation was related to invention which confirms the in that period active R&D approach to innovation. That would mean that after the 1970s innovation was more seen as an activity of a firm not related to ‘invention’ but more to market pull and technology push aspects.
H4: Over the years a shift appeared in the definitions of innovation.
Hypothesis 5: Based on the variable ‘nation of origin’ we were inclined to find out if the American authors had different definitions from the European authors.
Falsification
In scientific terms the appearance of one definition which relates to innovation as an artifact would falsify the hypothesis that innovation is seen as an activity (analogy: one black swan falsifies the hypothesis that all swans are white). Our falsifying process is not that strict. We will refer back to the variable and the conclusion we reached observing that variable. So we falsify on the level of the variables.
An example: We observed with the variable ‘object’ (Figure 8) that innovation definitions relate to a (material/immaterial) product or production process (53 out of 76 definitions scored on product or process). So the majority (about 70%) of the scores for this variable ‘object’ does support the conclusion that ‘innovations are about products and production processes’. Given this conclusion, for us ‘this swan is white’.
H1: The definition of innovation considers innovation as an activity resulting in something new. The ‘something’ is not, or hardly, specified.
This hypothesis narrows the definition to any activity that leads to ‘some thing’ (literally whatever ‘thing’) new. The results of the analysis of the variable ‘subject’ (Figure 3) indicates, that for the population of the definitions classified, it can be concluded that innovation is considered to be an activity or a range of interrelated activities (process). The result of the analysis of the variable ‘novelty’ (Figure 6) indicates that ‘new’ is dominantly seen in absolute terms, not related to indigenous or exogenous elements. The result of the analysis of the variable ‘object’ (Figure 8) indicates that the object – the ‘something’ – is specified as being either a product or a process. So the second part of this hypothesis falsifies the hypothesis H1. Innovation is for the authors related to a product, (production)process or (organizational) structure.
H2: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a range of activities, a process, which results in new products.
This hypothesis narrows the definition to the process of product innovation. Again, the results of the analysis of the variable ‘subject’ indicates that it can be concluded that innovation is considered to be an activity or a range of interrelated activities (process). The result of the analysis of the variable ‘novelty’ indicates that ‘new’ is dominantly seen in absolute terms, not related to
indigenous or exogenous elements. The result of the analysis of the variable ‘object’ indicates that the object – the something – is specified as being either a product or a process. So this hypothesis can be falsified. Innovation is for the authors not dominantly related to products, but also includes (production) processes.
H3: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a process in which at the moment of implementation new products and processes are realized.
This hypothesis focusses on the process that leads to new products and/or productions processes at the moment of their implementation. Again, the results of the analysis of the variable ‘subject’ indicates that it can be concluded that innovation is considered to be an activity or a range of interrelated activities (process). The result of the analysis of the variable ‘novelty’ indicates that ‘new’ is dominantly seen in absolute terms, not related to indigenous or exogenous elements. The result of the analysis of the variable ‘object’ indicates that the object – the something – is specified as being either a product or a process. And, the variable ‘Moment’ (Figure 5) indicates that the implementation is a specific element of the definition. Innovation is for the authors there when the change into new is implemented.
H4: Over the years a shift appeared in the definitions of innovation.
This hypothesis would be falsified when the definitions had a constant profile for different time periods in the range 1950-1988. As illustrated in the profiles shown in Figure 18 through Figure 21 and the related observations, this is not the case. Over the 1950s-1980s period there is a change in the subject of the definitions: form artifact dominated definitions they become more process oriented definitions. The object of the definitions have broadened from being focused on new products and new production processes to include new (organizational) structures. So this hypothesis can not be falsified.
H5: The background of the author (geographically and professionally) influences the definition. Looking at the absolute score of the definitions originated from USA-based authors (Figure 11) we see they dominate the definitions. The absolute scores resulting in a profile (Figure 15) suggest a difference between European originated and American originated definitions. The relative score (Figure 25) seem to support this. From the small sample of European definitions we find it hard to conclude on a difference between American and European definitions. So we falsify this hypothesis.
Conclusions
The starting question for the survey was about the definition of the word ‘innovation’ in scholarly manuscripts. From our analysis it is clear that there is not one specific definition that can be
considered as a kind of general applicable definition; no such thing as ‘one size fits all’.
That being said, we can conclude that the definitions do not consider innovation to be related to ‘an innovation’ (the object) as well as about ‘to innovate’ (the activity). The majority of the
definitions consider innovation as an activity or range of activities that result in new products or new (production) processes. Certainly, implicitly they all consider innovation is a change into something new. That something can be concluded to be a product, process or structure. The change always has the aspect of novelty related to the preceding situation. It is a new product, a new production process or a new organizational structure. In addition, innovation is considered to be realized at the moment of its implementation. Which can be the moment of market/commercial introduction for a product, the moment the new production process is started, or the moment the organizational structure is implemented. Finally, over the 1950s-1980s period one can detect a shift from
innovation as an activity to innovation as a range of interrelated activities. Also over this period the object of the definitions has broadened to incorporate organizational innovations.
Given this general conclusion the definitions of innovation formulated by the authors show a great diversity. Some – a minority - relate it to an invention (which can be a quite solid physical ‘thing’), others relate it to ‘an idea’(which is more of a mental construct). The majority stick to products and production processes. Some consider it to be new for the organization, other new to the organizational environment (market, industry, world). But the majority just considers ‘new’ to be new without any point of reference. Some consider it to be a drastic change with a revolutionary character; others consider also minor changes with an incremental character. Most consider it to be just a change.
EPILOQUE
We have been looking at the formulated definitions of innovation over the period 1951-1988 quite in detail. Now, trying to interpretate more at an abstract level the totality of the definitions, one can observe the following.
Looking at the subject of the definitions we concluded that they seemed to be based on the assumption ‘old’ plus ‘change’ is ‘new’. This goes for the artifact-based interpretation of innovation However, we observed many definitions that consider innovation to be an activity or a range of activities. So the assumption changes to ‘old thing’ plus ‘creating change’ is ‘new thing’. The ‘thing’ is the object we will discuss next, but the activity is ‘creating change’ as a single activity or a process of interrelated activities. This is different from pure ‘change’ (Table 5).
Table 5: The subject of definitions
Innovation as an artifact Innovation as an activity Innovation as a range of activities
Innovation type Product innovation Innovation Innovation process
Example “[...] the commercial
introduction of an invention.” (Maclaurin, 1953) “Innovation is the introduction of new things or methods.” (Steele, 1975)
“The process by which an
invention or idea is translated into the economy”. (Twiss, 1980)
When we looked at change in the definitions we concluded that many definitions used it in an absolute way; a change is just a change (Table 6). Some authors used it relatively; a change in relation to the individual, the organization, the market. Other saw it as something drastic, a
discontinuity. The general dominator is that a change can be understood as a step: be it a small step or a big step compared to the existing situation. This existing situation creates a point of reference (the individual, the organization, the environment).
Table 6: The change element in definitions Innovation as an absolute change Innovation as a relative change Innovation as a discontinuity
Innovation type Just ’change’ ‘Change’ in relation to ‘Change’ as drastic
Example "It can be defined as changing
the yield of resources. Or, [….], as changing the satisfaction obtained from resources by the customer. " (Drucker,
1987)
“An innovation is the adoption of a change which is new to the organization and to the relevant environment.” (Knight,
1967)
“Product innovation involves the development of radically or
incrementally new products.” (Johne, 1984)
Then we looked at the objects of the definitions that makes it a product innovation, a process innovation or an organizational innovation. The object of these definitions is always a ‘function’: it
