No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Defining and identifying disruptive innovations
... Disruptive innovation changes a market's performance metrics or consumer expectations by providing radically new functionality, discontinuous technical standards, or new forms of ownership [1]. In simpler terms, disruptive innovation is an innovation that establishes new markets and value networks and that is capable of completely transforming an existing market or creating a new one. ...
... However, through the years, issues have arisen from the misuse of the disruptive theory as a synonym for any threat or change rather than as a theoretical concept [24]. Many researchers and scholars have established that disruptive theory and its concepts have not been clear and concise [1], [25], leading to the widespread misunderstanding of its core principles [24]. It is essential, therefore, to define clearly both the basic concept of the theory and its connotation [22], [26], in order to avoid the theory of disruptive innovation being interpreted and applied subjectively, and being led down the incorrect path of further development [6]. ...
... The definition of disruptive innovation proposed by Nagy et al. [1] redefined the theory by focusing on the innovation characteristics of functionality, technical standards, and ownership. Cozzolino et al. [27], on the other hand, emphasised two phases in the disruptive innovation process: the entry phase, which involves establishing itself in a position in a low-end or untapped market; and the transformation phase, in which it gradually attracts market share by improving through an effective business model. ...
In the digital era, start-ups benefit from expanded reach, faster scaling, and access to vast data sets, yet face heightened competition and the challenge of staying current with emerging innovations. Their role in the modern economy is amplified as they collaborate with incubators, investors, and academic institutions to foster innovation and growth. Agile development methods and disruptive innovation bolster their competitiveness against larger incumbents. Leveraging digital technologies and combining resources are further recognised as pivotal success factors driving disruptive innovations in start-ups.
... https://ijbssrnet.com/index.php/ijbssr from current technologies in terms of usefulness, technical standards, or ownership structure (Nagy, 2016;Dubinsky, 2016). Chen et al. (2016) developed a model for forecasting technological disruption. ...
... https://ijbssrnet.com/index.php/ijbssr from current technologies in terms of usefulness, technical standards, or ownership structure (Nagy, 2016;Dubinsky, 2016). Chen et al. (2016) developed a model for forecasting technological disruption. ...
... Christensen (2003) There are two sorts of disruptive innovations: low-market footholds and new-market footholds. Nagy et al. (2016) Expand the definition of disruptive innovation to encompass "radical features, discontinuous technology standards, and new forms of ownership that change market expectations." Martnez-Vergara et al. (2020) Disruptive innovation is defined as a continuous process that starts in a low-cost market and moves to a well-established high-cost sector. ...
Objective: This paper reviews the findings of empirical studies linking disruptive innovations directly or indirectly to CEOs for the period 2019-2023. It also explores disruptive innovation and the fuzzy concepts of CEO and CEO power and proposes future research directions. Research Design & Methods: Research methods are based on comprehensive literature reviews. In a three-step process, relevant papers are identified and categorized. These samples are then analyzed and brought into perspective to explain the concept of disruptive innovation and CEO, based on which recommendations for future research are made. Findings: Although many studies imply a correlation between disruptive innovation and CEOs, there are no empirical studies specifically addressing this link. The main reason seems to be a lack of clarity about the concept of "CEO" itself. Contribution & Value Added: This study introduces the concept of disruptive innovation based on the study of existing literature. Furthermore, it is an excellent starting point for scholars interested in clarifying disruptive innovation or preventing the discovery of the nature of the relationship between disruptive innovation and the CEO.
... The ability to introduce features and performance attributes different from conventional technologies and offer simpler, more convenient, and cheaper products attract new or less demanding customers (Adner, 2002;Christensen, 1997;Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Since this new product is unattractive to conventional customers when it is introduced, a new segment of customers sees value in new attributes of innovation and a lower price (Christensen & Raynor, 2003 Disruptive innovations are possible because they start in a low-end market where innovations provide similar characteristics to existing technologies, but cost substantially less (Christensen & Raynor, 2003;Nagy et al., 2016), for example, Airbnb (Guttentag, 2015). They create a new value network, such as new-market disruptions that offer simpler-to-use products, for example, personal computers and Netflix (Christensen et al., 2015;Christensen & Raynor, 2003) that is, it creates new demand for new technology (Nagy et al., 2016). ...
... Since this new product is unattractive to conventional customers when it is introduced, a new segment of customers sees value in new attributes of innovation and a lower price (Christensen & Raynor, 2003 Disruptive innovations are possible because they start in a low-end market where innovations provide similar characteristics to existing technologies, but cost substantially less (Christensen & Raynor, 2003;Nagy et al., 2016), for example, Airbnb (Guttentag, 2015). They create a new value network, such as new-market disruptions that offer simpler-to-use products, for example, personal computers and Netflix (Christensen et al., 2015;Christensen & Raynor, 2003) that is, it creates new demand for new technology (Nagy et al., 2016). ...
Objetivo: Identificar e analisar a estrutura social e redes relacionais no campo conceitual que liga inovação disruptiva digital a capacidades dinâmicas.
Metodologia: Utilizou-se a Análise de Redes Sociais (SNA) com dados bibliográficos extraídos do Web of Science (WoS) e do Scopus. Redes foram construídas usando o software Gephi para analisar artigos científicos publicados de 2010 a 2021.
Originalidade: Este estudo aborda um campo emergente de pesquisa, focando nas conexões sociais entre inovação disruptiva digital e capacidades dinâmicas, destacando a centralidade dos Estados Unidos e suas parcerias institucionais.
Principais resultados: Os Estados Unidos mantêm uma posição central e influente nas redes de pesquisa, com parcerias significativas em áreas como saúde e tecnologia. O estudo revela uma rede bem estruturada e forte, indicando oportunidades para estudos futuros.
Contribuições teóricas: A pesquisa reforça a importância da proximidade geográfica e institucional na formação de redes de inovação, oferecendo insights sobre como as redes sociais científicas podem influenciar a pesquisa em inovação disruptiva digital.
... By discerning market forces, relative market sizes, and an innovation's capacity to forge new markets, Linton (2002) developed a model grounded in the Bass formula to ascertain the disruptiveness of innovation at a market level of analysis, which was subsequently adopted by Schmidt and Druehl (2008) to pinpoint disruptive innovations. Although the evolution of technology is also deemed a critical determinant of disruptive innovation (Paap and Katz, 2004;Myers, 2002), these studies have predominantly concentrated on the marketplace without offering insights into individual organizations (Nagy et al., 2016). Furthermore, empirical studies that have substantiated the universality of disruptive innovation theory and elucidated the principles governing its formation are scarce (Ben-Slimane, Diridollou, and Hamadache, 2020). ...
... However, from a technological standpoint, although the lean approach (Brad et al., 2016;Tuli et al., 2015), the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) concept (Olsen, 2015;Di Guardo et al., 2022), and the S-curve model (Borgianni and Rotini, 2012;Bradley and O'Toole, 2016) have played certain roles in the design of disruptive products, there is a paucity of literature elucidating the design principles for creating disruptive products based on existing product information. This gap stems from the predominantly qualitative nature of prior research on disruptive innovation (Schmidt and van der Sijde, 2022;Nagy et al., 2016), which has rendered the quantification of product disruptiveness challenging. The PDI method proposed in this paper quantifies the disruptiveness of products using comprehensive technical information available in the market. ...
In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, product innovation thrives on replacing outdated technologies with groundbreaking ones or through the ingenious recombination of existing technologies. Our study embarks on a revolutionary journey by genetically representing products, extracting their chromosomal data, and constructing a comprehensive phylogenetic network of automobiles. We delve deep into the technological features that shape innovation, pinpointing the ancestral roots of products and mapping out intricate product-family triangles. By leveraging the similarities within these triangles, we introduce a pioneering "Product Disruption Index"-inspired by the CD index (Funk and Owen-Smith, 2017)-to quantify a product's disruptiveness. Our approach is rigorously validated against the scientifically recognized trend of decreasing disruptiveness over time (Park et al., 2023) and through compelling case studies. Our statistical analysis reveals a fascinating insight: disruptive product innovations often stem from minor, yet crucial, modifications.
... This aspect of bias concerns DIT's focus on the incumbent's viewpoint and how incumbents can sidestep disruption from emerging competitors (Nagy et al., 2016; see also Ansari and Krop 2012). This incumbent-focused perspective of DIT was also evident in The Innovator's Dilemma (Christensen, 1997), which outlined an existential rubric for managers in established firms. ...
... Weeks offered a more hopeful outlook: 'While the current predictive power of the framework is limited, it could be greatly improved with a rigorous research agenda subjected to thorough peer review' (Weeks, 2015, p. 428). Many scholars have affirmed the ex ante predictive application of DIT (Adner, 2002;Christensen & Raynor, 2003;Danneels, 2004;Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006;Hang et al., 2011;Nagy et al., 2016;Schmidt & Druehl, 2008;Sood & Tellis, 2011). Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006) proposed that a retrospective, ex post comprehension can inform ex ante predictions of specific precursors to disruptive innovation events. ...
For more than two decades, disruptive innovation theory (DIT) has stood as one of the most influential business theories of the 21st century. Despite its widespread impact and the extensive scholarly work it has inspired, DIT has encountered divergent views among academics, sparking debates over its evolution and applicability. This essay dives into these debates, methodically unraveling and highlighting key critiques and controversies shaping the discourse around DIT. These controversies include definitional ambiguity, the case-study conundrum, challenges in generalizability, issues in defining a unit of measure, biases in assessing DIT outcomes, and the exploration of its predictive and prescriptive potential. By synthesizing and recalibrating existing theoretical disputes and distinguishing between critique and controversies, we shed new light on often overlooked or unresolved issues, particularly outcome bias and the theory’s performative capabilities beyond its predictive or prescriptive scope. Introducing a novel “challenger-incumbent perspective,” our analysis extends the discussion beyond the traditional dichotomy between established organizations and disruptors. In conclusion, we pave the way for future research directions, aiming to deepen our understanding and enhance the practical application of this influential yet contested concept.
... Disruptive innovations are possible because they start in a low-end market where innovations provide similar characteristics to existing technologies, but cost substantially less (Christensen & Raynor, 2003;Nagy et al., 2016) like Airbnb (Guttentag, 2015), for instance. ...
... On the other hand, they create a new value network such as new-market disruptions that offers products that are simpler to use, such as personal computers and Netflix (Christensen et al., 2015;Christensen & Raynor, 2003), i.e., it creates a new demand for a new technology (Nagy et al., 2016). ...
... The preceding suggests that firms that focus on sustaining innovation business models invest in production technology that focuses on a production strategy that helps improve profitability to prevent the competitive demands of disruptive innovation in the market (Christensen et al., 2018). Succinctly, the production technology aligning with the sustaining innovation business model focuses on existing customers' expectations (Nagy et al., 2016). Therefore, the values proposed by sustaining innovation improve upon a product's or service's existing characteristics as customers require them without introducing significantly new or differentiating attributes (Yu and Hang, 2010;Nagy et al., 2016). ...
... Succinctly, the production technology aligning with the sustaining innovation business model focuses on existing customers' expectations (Nagy et al., 2016). Therefore, the values proposed by sustaining innovation improve upon a product's or service's existing characteristics as customers require them without introducing significantly new or differentiating attributes (Yu and Hang, 2010;Nagy et al., 2016). Overall, existing and successful firms operating in an industry apply the strategy of sustaining innovation for profit-making by producing superior products and services for affluent customers to attract higher margins (Christensen et al., 2018;Cote, 2022). ...
This study explores the influence of disruptive and sustaining innovation on the technical efficiency of Norwegian firms and its implications for production efficiency. It employs stochastic frontier analysis with unbalanced panel data from manufacturing (7,056 observations) and service firms (6,066 observations). The results show that the individual effects of sustaining and disruptive innovation improve technical efficiency in firms’ production technologies with a superior effect from sustaining innovation. Additionally, it reveals that while hybridisation can be more beneficial for technical efficiency in manufacturing firms, service firms benefit more from sustaining innovation. In summary, it highlights that disruptive and sustaining innovation can optimize firms’ technical efficiency, and the specific effects vary by industry. Furthermore, the results indicate that manufacturing firms may respond to disruption effectively through hybridisation. Thus, the study contributes to the literature on innovation and business performance studies and provides valuable insights for business managers on strategic innovation management with production efficiency implications.
... One of the hotly discussed and fundamental issues is its ambiguous definition (Adner 2002;Bower and Christensen 1995;Zeng et al. Management System Engineering (2023) 2:3 Christensen 1997Christensen , 2006Christensen , 2014Danneels 2004;Ganguly et al. 2010;Govindarajan and Kopalle 2006;Klenner et al. 2013;Markides 2006;Nagy et al. 2016;Tellis 2006). Christensen (2006) clarified that the word "disruptive" has many different connotations and is widely misinterpreted, which may be the source of the confusion. ...
... On the contrary, if the first value dimension of disruptive innovation is deleted and only the second value dimension is retained, it will have nothing to do with existing products and lose the meaning of discussing relativity. Innovation itself is a relative concept (Guttentag and Smith 2017;Nagy et al. 2016). Therefore, having two value dimensions (duality) is a necessary condition for the existence of disruptive innovation, and it is also the key to explaining the disruptive innovation phenomenon. ...
Christensen insightfully proposed disruptive innovation. The theory is growing stronger but is still haunted by vagueness and post hoc definition issues, which signifies the nature of disruptive innovation may remain unveiled. In order to eliminate the controversies and confusion, this study sorts out commonalities and key driving forces for market encroachment of disruptive innovation, and utilizes the interpretative structural model to reorganize the original theoretical framework based on the principle of "Occam's razor". The results show that (1) the value network is the theoretical outset of disruptive innovation and manifests as two different value dimensions at the product or technical level, which endows disruptive innovation with "duality"; (2) the duality makes disruptive innovation have asymmetric advantages and disadvantages compared to existing products or technologies in terms of price and performance; The asymmetry changes enterprises' competition basis and consumers' evaluation matrices, which essentially explains the key to market encroachment of disruptive innovation; (3) the duality is the essence that distinguishes disruptive innovation from other types of innovation.
... Disruptive innovations introduce revolutionary changes, often appearing initially less adequate but eventually providing significant business value. It does not necessitate inflated costs or complex technology but focuses on unlocking new areas of customer engagement or technological application [29]. An example could be developing a new security control framework for industrial control systems (ICS) or enabling service expansion to new business lines. ...
This paper introduces a value-driven cybersecurity innovation framework for the transportation and infrastructure sectors, as opposed to the traditional market-centric approaches that have dominated the field. Recontextualizing innovation categories into sustaining, incremental, disruptive, and transformative, we aim to foster a culture of self-innovation within organizations, enabling a strategic focus on cybersecurity measures that directly contribute to business value and strategic goals. This approach enhances operational effectiveness and efficiency of cyber defences primarily, while also aligns cybersecurity initiatives with mission-critical objectives. We detail a practical method for evaluating the business value of cybersecurity innovations and present a pragmatic approach for organizations to funnel innovative ideas in a structured and repeatable manner. Lastly, shifting the focus from general market appeal to sector-specific needs, our framework provides cybersecurity leaders with the strategic cyber-foresight necessary for prioritizing impactful initiatives, thereby making cybersecurity a core business enabler rather than a burden.
... Research by (McWilliams & Siegel, 2011) expands this concept by incorporating sustainability elements that strengthen a company's competitive position. (Nagy et al., 2016) The Dynamic Capabilities Theory, which extends the RBV, emphasizes the importance of an organization's ability to adapt to changing environments by developing new capabilities (Wójcik, 2015). Strategic flexibility is a dynamic capability that enables firms to reconfigure resources and capabilities to respond to environmental changes and opportunities. ...
Purpose: This study investigates the influence of Green Strategic Management (GSM), Strategic Flexibility (SF), and Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) on Sustainable Competitive Advantage (SCA) in the book publishing industry of Central Java, with Disruptive Technology (DT) acting as a moderating factor. Theoretical Reference: The research is grounded in Resource-Based View (RBV), Dynamic Capabilities Theory, and Disruptive Innovation Theory. These frameworks explore how GSM, SF, and EO create a competitive advantage while disruptive technologies impact their relationships. Method: The study utilized survey data collected from 242 book publishers in Central Java, determined using Slovin's formula for sample size calculation. The data were analyzed using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method to assess the studied variables' direct and moderating effects. Results and Discussion: The findings indicate that GSM, SF, and EO positively and significantly influence SCA. Furthermore, DT positively moderates the relationship between GSM and EO but does not moderate the relationship between SF and EO. This suggests combining green strategies and entrepreneurial actions can enhance competitive advantages due to technological disruptions. Research Implications: The study suggests that book publishers adopting GSM, SF, and EO will achieve better competitive performance, particularly when leveraging disruptive technologies. The practical implications include guiding publishers in developing adaptive strategies to meet sustainability and technological challenges. Originality/Value: This research provides novel insights into the role of GSM, SF, and EO in sustaining competitive advantage within the context of the rapidly evolving publishing industry and how disruptive technologies can further amplify or limit these effects.
... In contrast, disruptive innovation in products targets new or low-end markets by enhanced accessibility and cost efficiency, often decoupling them from existing business models. These innovations scale up to penetrate mainstream markets and provide new functionalities and discontinuous technical standards (e.g., Nagy et al., 2016;Reinhardt & Gurtner, 2015;Si & Chen, 2020). ...
In recent years, there has been a notable shift towards embracing innovative microfinance products. Yet, what do we know about the impact of these innovations on clients, MFIs, and their associated challenges? This systematic literature review (SLR) analyzes 105 articles to analyze the effects of so-called disruptive and incremental innovation in microfinance products. The findings reveal that these innovations elicit diverse outcomes for clients and MFIs, albeit through different pathways. Although the results are mixed, this SLR emphasizes the potential of these innovations to deepen the effects of microfinance. The study highlights a symmetry between the two types of innovations. Disruptive innovations prioritize the financial empowerment of clients, whereas incremental innovations focus more on socioeconomic development. Moreover,
implementing innovative products enhances the financial and social performance of MFIs.
Intriguingly, incremental innovation may reintroduce information asymmetry problems. Disruptive innovation raises concerns about client protection and exclusion of the most unprivileged, among other aspects. The analysis emphasizes that MFIs may use these innovations to maximize benefits for their clients while maintaining sustainable financial returns.
... should be of interest to EU courts. One can expect to find a clear distinction between incremental and disruptive innovation in the case law (Dan & Chieh, 2008;Nagy et al., 2016;Si & Chen, 2020;OECD, 2015c). ...
Innovation plays a crucial role in defining competitive dynamics. Given this fact, one might expect ‘innovation’ to play a consistent role in antitrust law. The present article conducts a systematic content analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to test this hypothesis. The findings suggest that EU courts treat innovation inconsistently in competition law cases, often assigning different weight to innovation in similar contexts and neglecting central parameters agreed upon in the literature. To address this inconsistency, the article proposes measures to maintain the predictability of competition law analysis while giving innovation a more central role in the definition of relevant markets, evaluation of market power, and assessment of practices.
... Harvard Business School [6], [7] for instance takes business education to further heights. While conventional teaching areas are part of the Harvard Business Education vision, areas such as entrepreneurship, technopreneurship, social enterprise, innovation, digital transformation, digital strategy, artificial intelligence, leading in the digital era, and disruptive innovation [8], [9] (but not limited to) are all now part of the learning and teaching. ...
IoT, big data, system integration, cybersecurity, cloud computing, augmented and virtual reality, robotics, artificial intelligence, and much more are some of the big hi-tech Industry 4.0 components that are and will keep, revolutionizing industry and modern business. Unfortunately, the higher education industry in developing countries is not ready for the change that requires decision-makers to think out of the box. The existing way of business education that focuses on areas such as human resource management, finance, administration, management, marketing, and accounting, is not going to help underdeveloped economies produce business graduates who are ready for business in the Industry 4.0 era and beyond. An unconventional, innovative, forward-looking change management process is a dire need for higher educational institutes if they want to develop a workforce that would enable the workforce and prepare them for modern-day economics. This paper emphasizes and focuses on the transformation of business education to business and technology education. Through discussion of a case from an underdeveloped country and with the help of international benchmarking, the focus of this paper to is enable academic decision-makers in underdeveloped countries to think of smart education for producing quality business graduates that can contribute to the social and economic transformation of any underdeveloped country.
... Consumers who utilize online transportation services are greatly concerned about travel safety issues, including the state of the car and driver safety. Nagy et al. (2016) emphasize the significance of tariff accuracy in providing consumers with transparent and equitable pricing based on distance and journey duration. Ensuring data privacy is essential while using applications and online platforms that include sharing personal information. ...
em>Disruptive innovation is when new technologies or novel business models penetrate established markets and bring major changes to the industry. Disruptive innovation differs from incremental innovation by introducing completely new products or services or providing solutions that are more cost-effective, convenient, or effective. This research aims to examine how disruptive innovation in the internet transportation sector impacts the application and efficacy of Competition Law in Indonesia. Qualitative methodologies are utilized to investigate the intricate legal difficulties and challenges inside the realm of online transportation. The research findings indicate that the introduction of new technologies can lead to detrimental rivalry between conventional service providers and online platforms, potentially diminishing service quality and impacting regulatory efficacy. Market dominance of internet transportation platforms can lead to monopolistic or oligopolistic practices, which may result in collusion and the misuse of market power, negatively impacting consumers and competitors. Consumer protection is a crucial concern in this scenario, since it involves ensuring security, transparency, and data privacy in online transportation services.</em
... Each major innovation displaces old technologies and production systems, leading to the emergence of new production paradigms (Schumpeter, 2021). Nagy et al. (2016) defined disruptive technologies as radically innovative features, different technical standards, or novel forms of ownership. Paap and Katz (2004) viewed disruptive technology as the dismantling of outdated business models, proposing alternative technologies driven by user needs. ...
Purpose
The transformative impact of disruptive technologies on the restructuring of the times has attracted widespread global attention. This study aims to analyze the characteristics and shortcomings of China’s artificial intelligence (AI) disruptive technology policy, and to put forward suggestions for optimizing China’s AI disruptive technology policy.
Design/methodology/approach
Develop a three-dimensional analytical framework for “policy tools-policy actors-policy themes” and apply policy tools, social network analysis, and LDA topic model to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the utilization of policy tools, cooperative relationships among policy actors, and the trends in policy theme settings within China’s innovative AI technology policy.
Findings
We find that the collaborative relationship among the policy actors of AI disruptive technology in China is insufficiently close. Marginal subjects exhibit low participation in the cooperation network and overly rely on central subjects, forming a “center-periphery” network structure. Policy tool usage is predominantly focused on supply and environmental types, with a severe inadequacy in demand-side policy tool utilization. Policy themes are diverse, encompassing topics such as “Intelligent Services” “Talent Cultivation” “Information Security” and “Technological Innovation”, which will remain focal points. Under the themes of “Intelligent Services” and “Intelligent Governance”, policy tool usage is relatively balanced, with close collaboration among policy entities. However, the theme of “AI Theoretical System” lacks a comprehensive understanding of tool usage and necessitates enhanced cooperation with other policy entities.
Research limitations
The data sources and experimental scope are subject to certain limitations, potentially introducing biases and imperfections into the research results, necessitating further validation and refinement.
Practical implications
The study introduces a three-dimensional analysis framework for disruptive technology policy texts, which is significant for formulating and enhancing disruptive technology policies.
Originality/value
This study utilizes text mining and content analysis techniques to quantitatively analyze disruptive technology policy texts. It systematically evaluates China’s AI policies quantitatively, focusing on policy tools, policy actors, policy themes. The study uncovers the characteristics and deficiencies of current AI policies, offering recommendations for formulating and enhancing disruptive technology policies.
... The introduction of various disruptive technologies into production processes, such as sophisticated robots, the Industrial Internet of Things, Cloud Computing and the methods and algorithms of artificial intelligence, among others, has made the concept of Smart Factories [43] or "Dark Factories" [44] possible. Disruptive technologies can be defined by their market effects [45] Machines 2024, 12, 320 5 of 31 and customer implications [46]; they have the potential to create new markets and aim to transform companies and businesses [47]. A study identified 35 of these disruptive technologies, recognizing 13 as highly relevant and considering 9 of them the pillars of Industry 4.0 [48]: Big Data, Cybersecurity, additive manufacturing, Horizontal and Vertical Systems, augmented reality, simulation, Cloud Computing, the Internet of Things and Autonomous Robots [49][50][51]. ...
Industry 4.0 is an industrial paradigm that is causing changes in form and substance in factories, companies and businesses around the world and is impacting work and education in general. In fact, the disruptive technologies that frame the Fourth Industrial Revolution have the potential to improve and optimize manufacturing processes and the entire value chain, which could lead to an exponential evolution in the production and distribution of goods and services. All these changes imply that the fields of engineering knowledge must be oriented towards the concept of Industry 4.0, for example, Mechanical Engineering. The development of various physical assets that are used by cyber-physical systems and digital twins is based on mechanics. However, the specialized literature on Industry 4.0 says little about the importance of mechanics in the new industrial era, and more importance is placed on the evolution of Information and Communication Technologies and artificial intelligence. This article presents a frame of reference for the importance of Mechanical Engineering in Industry 4.0 and proposes an extension to the concept of Mechanics 4.0, recently defined as the relationship between mechanics and artificial intelligence. To analyze Mechanical Engineering in Industry 4.0, the criteria of the four driving forces that defined mechanics in the Third Industrial Revolution were used. An analysis of Mechanical Engineering Education in Industry 4.0 is presented, and the concept of Mechanical Engineering 4.0 Education is improved. Finally, the importance of making changes to the educational models of engineering education is described.
... Innovativeness plays a key role in business models, processes, and services (Mahto, Belousova & Ahluwalia, 2020). This is why some authors highlight the role of "breakthrough innovativeness, " which they define as "an innovativeness that changes performance indicators or consumer expectations by introducing radically new functionalities or technical standards" (Nagy, Schuessler & Dubinsky, 2016). Breakthrough innovativeness is strategically critical (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006); when mixed with EO, it leads to such innovation ) that can completely transform markets (e.g., Hu & Hughes, 2020). ...
PURPOSE: This article aims to determine how companies in the SME sector modify their business strategies in response to changes in the external environment. The research focused on modifications to entrepreneurial strategies expressed through the fundamental dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (EO): risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness. Additionally, it identified which types of reactions (modifications in strategies) lead to the most favorable changes in firm performance. The external environment was determined based on the market situation that resulted from the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: This is quantitative research. The study utilized data from 126 small printing businesses operating throughout Poland. Analyses were conducted on the data that reflected modifications in entrepreneurial behaviors and performance during three periods: the pre-crisis period, the initial phase of the crisis (the full lockdown period), and the second phase of the crisis (the period of easing the restrictions). The identification of the behavior types was carried out using cluster analysis. FINDINGS: The results of the research led to the conclusion that, with a change in market conditions, companies significantly change their levels of EO. In particular, the surveyed companies reduced their levels of EO during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, this decrease was mainly due to significant decreases in risk-taking. The levels of EO increased when the conditions improved due to significant increases in innovativeness and proactiveness. Moreover, the analysis enabled the identification of four types of reactions to the emergence of the crisis as well as three types of reactions to the improvement of the external conditions that resulted from the easing of restrictions and the introduction of anti-crisis support measures for businesses. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the type of reaction had a significant impact on the changes in the performances of the examined companies. In particular, it was shown that the lowest decline in performance during the initial phase of crisis could be observed in passive enterprises, i.e., those that did not modify their entrepreneurial strategies (did not alter their levels of individual dimensions of EO). The greatest increase in performance was achieved during the period of easing restrictions by those companies that significantly enhanced their activities across all of the considered dimensions of EO. IMPLICATIONS: The research results provided insights for entrepreneurs in strategic management. Specifically, they learned about the modifications in entrepreneurial behaviors that could lead to the most favorable and optimal improvements in a firm's performance when market conditions change. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: The study contributes to the literature concerning reactions to changes in market conditions. This innovative approach considers dynamics where the changes themselves are variables. In particular, this research identifies types of entrepreneurial reactions to market condition changes in terms of dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation. Furthermore, it provides an answer to how firm performance evolved regarding various reaction types (using the example of the printing industry).
... To catch such waves, effectively managing disruptive innovation based on firms' own innovation ability and technology positioning has become their major concern (Bower & Christensen, 1995;Christensen, 1997;Cohan, 2000;Christensen & Raynor, 2003). However, despite the accumulating findings, there are still many inconsistent arguments about the antecedents of disruptive innovations (Danneels, 2004;Markides, 2006;Yu & Hang, 2010;Nagy et al., 2016;Kovacs et al., 2019). This, to some extent, may weaken the predictive power of disruption theory and create blocks for firms to identify disruptive technology and manage their innovation strategy (Hüsig et al., 2005;Lim & Anderson, 2016). ...
Whether disruptive technologies are more likely to emerge at the margin or the core of industry has been a long‐debated issue. We theorize the relationship between technological niches and the generation of disruptive innovations. Introducing the main path analysis, we develop a novel indicator to depict firms' technological niche in a focal industry's technological landscape and link it to their performance of disruptive innovation. Further, we investigate its boundary condition by taking firms' recombinant capabilities into consideration. A sample of 29,655 USPTO patents of the electric communication industry (H04W/L) for the period 1995–2019 is used to test our hypotheses. Our research reveals an inverted U‐shaped relationship between a firm's technological niche and its disruptive innovation performance. Besides, firms' recombinant capability could moderate the relationship by steepening the curvilinear. This paper helps reconcile the long debated question of ‘ Are Outliers More Disruptive ’ by providing a contingency perspective and identifying a non‐monotonic relationship.
... Assink, M. [14] and Leifer, R. et al. [5], some still consider it to be in its infancy due to a lack of understanding and empirical data [15]. To enable an understanding which innovations are to be classified as disruptive, Danneels, E. [16] and Nagy, D. et al. [17] emphasize the need of an improved definition of disruptive product innovations. ...
The importance of disruptive product innovations is undisputed. However, the understanding of what constitutes a disruptive innovation varies widely in academic discourse. Therefore, this paper begins with a new definition of disruptive product innovation based on the design of the product innovation and its subsequent adoption by competitors. It then presents the results of an ongoing research project that uses a qualitative case study approach to analyze product innovations from the last fifty years that meet this definition. Both the design and the development process of these product innovations have been examined in detail. In particular, the effective principles and structures, geometric layouts and operating concepts used in the product innovations were analyzed, as were the differences to previous products. In addition, changes in the social and technological environment that led to the innovations were examined, as well as the role of new enabling technologies, in particular new materials and production processes. The common patterns across cases identified through the analysis were condensed into seven theses, which are presented in this article, each of them illustrated by using the example of the first iPhone. Said theses reflect the central research findings on (1) "Key usability contradictions as starting points", (2) "User-centeredness", (3) "Co-evolution of problem and solution space", (4) "Technical fixations that create cognitive gravitation", (5) "Facilitation through new technologies and reciprocal enablers", (6) "Higher degree of ideality" and (7) "Shifting tasks in the overarching human-product interaction system to the product". Finally, starting points for further research are formulated.
... According to Carroad and Carroad (1982), the disruptiveness of technology is a spectrum, not a state. Nagy et al. (2016) distinguished DT by the effect that it has on customers, forcing or encouraging them to change their behavior patterns. New technology can induce new products that have different functionalities to which customers have to adjust. ...
... Disruptive innovation was later defined as "an innovation that changes the performance metrics, or consumer expectations, of a market by providing radically new functionality, discontinuous technical standards, or new forms of ownership" (Nagy, Schuessler, & Dubinsky, 2016). Different companies will feel disruption differently and at a different pace across the value chain. ...
In response to disruptions, non-digital-native companies embark on corporate transformation journeys. Research done indicate that most companies fail to survive such journeys. So, why success varies among those companies, potentially costing the global economy trillions of dollars? My hypothesis is that those who orchestrate the three components of a corporate transformation (Business model transformation, Digital enabled transformation, and Organizational transformation) are more successful in their transformation journey compared to companies who don’t. By conducting a case study research, I validated my hypothesis and developed a prescriptive orchestration framework that will allow non-digital-native companies not only successfully navigate their corporate transformation journey but also switch their transformation to always-on.
... Radical and discontinuous innovations create opportunities for new market developments, often targeting the low-end segment. [60] • Social shoppers are rapidly increasing in number with the innovation in social media network such as Facebook and Instagram. • Ecommerce sales were projected to increase threefold within 10 year from 1.3 trillion in 2014 to 6.5 trillion in 2023. ...
... Disruptive innovations can simultaneously drive technological change [37]. Disruptive innovation can potentially disrupt existing industries or organisations [38]. It encompasses not only disruptive technologies but also innovative business models, leading many firms to choose between adhering to their existing markets and risking their advantages by adopting new technologies and business models [39]. ...
This study presents a comprehensive overview of the development process and the latest trends in technology management (TM), laying a robust foundation for further advancements in this domain. To achieve this, we analysed 1944 TM articles from the Web of Science database and 2642 articles from Scopus, spanning the last 20 years. Employing methodologies that involve scientific knowledge graphs and bibliometrics, we analysed diverse aspects such as changes in the annual publication of articles; geographical distribution among countries, institutions, disciplines, and authors; keyword co-occurrence and clusters; and timezone view. Our findings reveal a significant surge in TM's growth in recent years, showcasing its highly promising potential. The USA is the frontrunner in contributing to TM research, followed by China and the UK. TM research is relatively concentrated in the UK, while it appears more dispersed in China. The University of Cambridge had the highest volume of research, and the disciplines of Business, Management, Engineering, and Computer Science occupied the top spots. As TM evolves, a possible challenge could be the emergence of new authoritative authors. Second, TM's vibrant landscape is characterised by hotspots such as innovation, technology strategy, technology acquisition, technology application, technology standards, and sustainable development. Among these, information and medical technologies stand out as the most frequently referenced technologies. Third, the trends in TM are as follows: innovation is subdivided into technological innovation and open innovation, bibliometric analysis and patent analysis have become pivotal methods for knowledge management, the scope of TM has expanded from internal organisational processes to encompass external aspects, and TM is gradually evolving into a mature science, with its focus transitioning from macro to micro and becoming more profound and detailed. Last, Industry 4.0, artificial intelligence, big data, and the IoT represent the latest frontier technologies in the realm of TM.
Purpose
Disruptive innovation is regarded as an important engine of the new technological revolution, which can change the traditional market structure and business model completely. Articles on disruptive innovation remain fragmented and heterogeneous in terms of theoretical paradigms and empirical studies. For the purpose of further understanding about disruptive innovation, and to recognize its evolutionary trajectory and research trends, this paper provides a systematic literature review.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on data from Web of Science a total of 1,415 articles were collected to identify productive countries, prominent journals, influential authors and main sub-fields on disruptive innovation. Additionally, important articles are analyzed for content.
Findings
There is an overall increasing trend in the number of articles, a uniformity of highly productive authors and countries and a primary concentration in business and management journals. Moreover, six research clusters are identified and an antecedent-decision-outcome framework is constructed to categorize significant studies.
Practical implications
This paper outlines the key focuses of the field: application and adoption of disruptive technology, identifying and responding to disruptive innovation, commercialization of disruptive technology, disruptive innovation strategies and disruptive business models.
Originality/value
This paper combines bibliometrics and content analysis to systematically overview disruptive innovation research.
Purpose
Medical disruptive innovation is essential for deepening the reform of health-care system. The theory of general disruptive innovation assumes that innovations can diffuse by benefiting and attracting consumers through observed and objective relative advantages. Yet decision-makers for adoption in health-care settings are safety-sensitive professionals whose cognitions barriers about underperformance in focal attributes will impede further evaluation of innovation's ancillary performance. Existing studies do not answer the question of how such innovations can overcome safety barriers, find early adopters and grow to the early majority. The purpose of this study is to investigate the process, mechanism, and path of early diffusion of medical disruptive innovation.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors conduct a longitudinal case study of the diffusion of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in China during 2011–2018.
Findings
The authors find that the diffusion process of medical disruptive innovations can be viewed as a cognitive evolutionary process that sequentially establishes conformity, differentiation and normalization. Cognition reframing of expert, meaning and benefit for professionals is its implicit mechanism. When adoption may trigger cognitive concerns, actors’ very early (dis)adoption is driven by a combination of structural position, innovation attributes and performance perceptions; central actors then play amplifier roles in the development from early adopters to the early majority.
Originality/value
This study proposes a process theoretical framework for the early diffusion of disruptive innovation. By dissecting the key processes and mechanisms from a cognitive perspective, the study offers theoretical contributions and practical insights into the diffusion of disruptive innovation in professional settings.
Purpose
This study aims to comprehensively analyze the intersection of technology management and innovation management amidst the fourth industrial revolution, uncovering evolving trends and influential contributors.
Design/methodology/approach
Using the Bibliometrix R-package, this pioneering research conducts a bibliometric analysis to delve into innovation and technology management literature, quantifying scholarly output and identifying thematic breakthroughs.
Findings
The study reveals quantitative insights into the progression of innovation and technology management research, offering guidance on evolving trends, thematic breakthroughs and influential contributors.
Practical implications
The findings offer valuable insights for practitioners and managers, guiding them through emerging trends and recommending a dual focus on fundamental principles and emerging areas for strategic decision-making.
Social implications
By fostering active engagement with evolving trends, this research contributes to the ongoing technology and innovation management discourse, potentially leading to societal benefits and advancements.
Originality/value
This study pioneers an in-depth bibliometric analysis at the intersection of innovation and technology management, offering unique insights and quantitative assessments of scholarly output and thematic trends, thus adding significant value to the existing literature.
Purpose
Using the upper echelons theory, this study aims to investigate the moderating effect of managerial discretion (MD) on the impact of dynamic managerial capabilities (DMCs) on established firms’ (EFs) response strategies to disruptive innovation (RStDI).
Design/methodology/approach
A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire to collect data from senior management of sample firms, targeting the population of professional service firms (PSFs) operating in the Emirate of Dubai. After receiving 491 responses, data was analyzed using IBM packages (SPSS and Amos) through a covariance-based structural equation modeling technique.
Findings
As proposed, the underpinnings of DMCs (managerial human capital, managerial social capital and managerial cognitive perceptions) were associated with EFs’ strategies for responding to DIs. Surprisingly, despite theoretical predictions, MD did not moderate the relationship. These findings provided support to the main propositions of the upper echelons theory, however, not for its contextual moderator (MD).
Research limitations/implications
The cross-sectional approach to testing the research model limits the identified significant effects that should be further investigated. The research sample was restricted to PSFs operating in Dubai, UAE, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings to the examined context.
Practical implications
The findings of this investigation are valuable to managers and hiring teams. They provide empirically supported insights on the critical role of managerial dynamic capabilities underpinnings (human capital, social capital and cognitive perceptions) in facilitating organizational RStDI. The findings also provide significant insights to policymakers, notably on the importance of innovative and well-crafted policies and regulative frameworks that enhance MD.
Originality/value
This study provides one of the first empirical quantitative analysis to assess MD and test its effects as a moderator, thus contributing significantly to the existing theoretical arguments on MD. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to quantify the relationship between DMCs and organizational RStDI.
During crisis situations, self-disruption is becoming one of the strategies through which businesses disrupt the existing operations to introduce new approaches and capabilities that enable them to identify the emerging disruptive trends before they can affect the business’ effective market performance. Since this often bolsters the capabilities of the business to recover from the crisis, it is such values of self-disruption that motivated this study to explore how self-disruption is used by the Caribbean financial institutions as one of the strategies for leveraging a bank’s sustainability during disruptive periods. The study used the quantitative survey research method to evaluate the opinions of 80 bank personnel who were drawn from five different banks that are operating in the Caribbean financial market. Even if some of the respondents disagreed, the survey suggests to achieve the desired outcomes, the strategic process of a bank’s self-disruption requires the analysis of the existing financial market trends as well as proactive sensing of the likely financial market changes. As these are accompanied with the evaluation of the existing bank’s capabilities and weaknesses, it informs the radical change of the areas of weaknesses that must be undertaken to turnaround the performance of the bank during crisis situations. Even if such approach was found to be important for enhancing the effectiveness of self-disruption to take the bank out of the crisis situation, findings still indicated that it is not just lack of innovativeness and inflexible organisational culture which is a challenge, but also the tendency of some banks to use the “wait and see” business philosophy. Combined with the supportive leadership style and approach this was found to affect the efficacy of self-disruption as a strategy for introducing new capabilities that can enable the bank to come out of the unfolding crisis situation. To respond to such challenges, it is suggested that bank executives must adopt the use of a three-stage self-disruption process that leads to self-reinvention that introduces new capabilities to bolster a bank’s quests to come out of the crisis.
La innovación disruptiva permite el éxito y crecimiento económico de los destinos turísticos, a través de la introducción de nuevos productos, servicios o modelos de negocios que cambien radicalmente el mercado existente (Christensen et al., 2015), en un entorno tan competitivo como es el sector turístico. Este estudio analizó el estado actual de la oferta académica del sector turismo en relación con la innovación disruptiva en las Instituciones de Educación Superior de San Andrés, Isla. Además, se destaca la importancia de la innovación disruptiva en la educación superior como un elemento clave para mejorar los servicios en el sector turismo. La investigación se llevó a cabo mediante una revisión de literatura existente en bases de datos especializadas, paginas gubernamentales, instituciones y entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas a representantes de las instituciones de Educación Superior. los resultados mostraron que, aunque existe una oferta académica de turismo en la isla, la incorporación de contenidos y practicas relacionados con la innovación disruptiva es limitada. Esto sugiere que las instituciones de Educación Superior deben incluir dentro de sus currículos estas temáticas con el objetivo de formar individuos con capacidad de transformar e impulsar la competitividad del sector turístico y contribuir al desarrollo y al crecimiento económico de la isla. Adicionalmente, se logró develar la necesidad del uso se tecnologías emergentes como la inteligencia artificial, realidad virtual y aumentada entre otras, para adaptarse a los nuevos retos del sector y tendencias globales.
Quality healthcare requires two critical components: patients’ best interests and best decisions to achieve that goal. The first goal is the lodestar, unchanged and unchanging over time. The second component is a more dynamic and rapidly changing paradigm in healthcare. Clinical decision-making has transitioned from an opinion-based paradigm to an evidence-based and data-driven process. A realization that technology and artificial intelligence can bring value adds a third component to the decision process. And the fertility sector is not exempt. The debate about AI is front and centre in reproductive technologies. Launching the transition from a conventional provider-driven decision paradigm to a software-enhanced system requires a roadmap to enable effective and safe implementation. A key nodal point in the ascending arc of AI in the fertility sector is how and when to bring these innovations into the ART routine to improve workflow, outcomes, and bottom-line performance. The evolution of AI in other segments of clinical care would suggest that caution is needed as widespread adoption is urged from several fronts. But the lure and magnitude for the change that these tech tools hold for fertility care remain deeply engaging. Exploring factors that could enhance thoughtful implementation and progress towards a tipping point (or perhaps not) should be at the forefront of any ‘next steps’ strategy. The objective of this Opinion is to discuss four critical areas (among many) considered essential to successful uptake of any new technology. These four areas include value proposition, innovative disruption, clinical agency, and responsible computing.
The emergence of the sharing economy has brought about significant disruptions to traditional business models across various industries. This paper presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of the impact of the sharing economy on traditional business models. By examining key sectors such as transportation, accommo dation, and retail, this study investigates the extent to which traditional businesses have been affected by the rise of sharing economy platforms. Through a synthesis of existing literature and empirical evidence, the paper explores the drivers of disruption, the challenges faced by traditional businesses, and the strategies employed to adapt to the changing landscape. Furthermore, the study delves into the implications of these findings for both incumbent firms and the broader economy. By shedding light on the dynamics of this transformational phenomenon, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the interplay between the sharing economy and traditional business models, offering insights that can inform strategic decision-making and policy formulation in an increasingly digital and interconnected world. Introduction:
This study explores the link between sustainability orientation and disruptive innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by embracing both the natural resource-based view (NRBV) and upper echelons theory. By drawing on these theories and extending them, it sheds light on the executives’ characteristics and organizational contingencies leading to disruptive innovation. Starting from the CEOs' sustainability orientation, it investigates if and how it leads to disruptive innovation through the mediating role of green organizational identity and the moderating influence of both green product competitiveness and CEOs' gender-related characteristics. Two wave time-lagged survey data from 257 Chinese SMEs are analyzed to empirically test these relationships. Results suggest that SMEs with CEOs characterized by sustainability focus foster a green organizational identity, enabling them to generate disruptive innovations. Additionally, the presence of high green product competitiveness strengthens the connection between sustainability orientation and green organizational identity. Lastly, the relationship between this latter and disruptive innovation can be further enhanced by female CEOs by leveraging their specific skills and abilities. Implications for managers, organizations, and public policy are discussed.
Entrepreneurship education is changing dramatically due to rapid technological advancements and transformative business models. This study investigates the interactions and implications of existing frameworks and practices that link disruptive innovation with entrepreneurship education. The research employs a comprehensive literature review from 2019 to 2023, to synthesize detailed analyses for investigating the interplay of these concepts. Entrepreneurship education fosters the ability to recognize and capitalize on innovative opportunities, whereas disruptive innovation emphasizes value creation through norm-breaking when aligned with entrepreneurial principles. Effective entrepreneurship education can drive new businesses and revitalize existing ones by enabling individuals to capitalize on disruptive breakthroughs. However, incorporating disruptive innovation into courses is challenging. Traditional education may fail to capture the dynamic nature of disruptive innovation, and risk-averse academic environments may stifle experimentation. Innovative teaching methods that balance basic business concepts with disruptive thinking are essential. Finally, a new generation of entrepreneurs can be developed by combining disruptive innovation and entrepreneurship education. Individuals can capitalize on opportunities for economic growth by infusing programmers with disruptive principles. The study identifies five key components of convergence: (i) technology-enabled virtual learning environments (VLEs), (ii) online distance learning (ODL), (iii) digitalization in entrepreneurship education, (iv) competency-based education (CBE) that fosters Business Model Innovation, and (v) experience-based learning in entrepreneurial education. This paper examines the role of disruptive innovation in entrepreneurial education, proposing research directions and highlighting unresolved areas for investigation.
In response to modern-day disruptions and to maintain competitiveness and viability, companies embark on corporate transformation journeys to enhance performance and boost organizational health. When transformations succeed, they fundamentally boost a company’s key business drivers. This article is a first step in providing prescriptive literature to transforming companies that they can use to navigate their journey. The article defines the three components of corporate transformations business model transformation, digital-enabled transformation, and organizational transformation - and their interdependencies. The study is based on the systematic review of literature available on the components of corporate transformations which is mostly unidimensional and leads to the consolidation of the components into a framework. It also describes the strategic routes of corporate transformations (mesa-transformation and meta-transformation). The framework is applicable for academic research and for practitioners when diagnosing companies, strategizing their transformations, and planning their transformation journeys.
Identifying potentially disruptive technologies is challenging but important for innovators. Existing research based on tech mining approach pays much attention to technological change, but less attention to characterizing its disruptive process and effects. This research suggested a novel perspective to help understand and identify potentially disruptive technology that displace the mainstream technology (termed as “alternative disruption”) by modelling it as a process in which alternative technologies compete against incumbent technology. Accordingly, we proposed a systematic framework to identify this type of technological disruptors by quantitatively characterizing its disruptive process and effects. To illustrate the alternative features, uniquely, the framework is solutions-focused that answer a same technological problem with the mainstream one, in which Subject-action-object (SAO) semantic analysis and community detection algorithm are used to mine and cluster the found solutions into groups as candidate technologies, including mainstream technologies and potentially alternative ones. Incorporating disruptive characteristics of technological advance, technology applicability and market niche, the alternative one with a highest comprehensively competitive position against mainstream technologies remains as the most disruptive potential. Finally, the case of cancer treatments verifies the feasibility and effectiveness of this framework. Also, this proposed framework can provide quantitative information for decision making in promising technologies deployment and resource allocation.
Objective: to estimate the risk of thyroid cancer incidence in the population of Ukraine in connection with its exposure to radioactive iodine fallout of Chornobyl origin and the use of pesticides in agricultural production in the country. Object of study. Incidence rates of thyroid cancer in the population of Ukraine in 2001-2019, average regional radiation doses absorbed by the thyroid because of the Chornobyl accident, the volume of use of various groups of pesticides in the regions of Ukraine. Research methods: statistical, mathematical and cartographic. Results. The study covering the period of 2001–2019, revealed significant temporal and regional differences in the thyroid cancer incidence in the population of the Ukraine regions in 2001–2019. The existence of a significant correlation between the thyroid cancer incidence and the amount of radiation exposure to the thyroid associated with the Chornobyl accident was established. The existence of a significant correlation between the thyroid cancer incidence and the degree of pesticide use intensity in agriculture in the Ukraine regions was established. A significant value of multiple correlation r = 0.5866 (p < 0.05) was found between the thyroid cancer incidence in Ukraine and the average regional radiation doses and the pesticide use intensity in agricultural production in the country. Conclusions. A reliable value of the multiple correlation between the value of the average regional radiation exposure doses to the thyroid associated with the Chornobyl accident and the degree of pesticide use intensity in the national economy of Ukraine and the thyroid cancer incidence in the population was determined. Key words: ionizing radiation, pesticides, thyroid gland, morbidity, cancer.
The banking sector must confront challenges arising from globalization, the demand for new business models (BMs), increasing regulation, and ever-advancing digitalization. In this context, innovative competitors, namely FinTechs, are challenging banks and forcing them to rethink existing strategies and structures. In particular, the digital transformation of BMs that have been in place for decades represents a major challenge for companies and their executives. In this article, 407 German bank representatives were surveyed to identify, quantify, and analyze implementation barriers in the context of bank digitalization from a decision-maker’s perspective. By applying structural equation modeling, the authors quantified a variety of barriers and tested their influence on the degree of digitalization at banks. The study uncovered structural relationships between barriers expressed as observed variables— personal involvement, strategic corporate management, technology and regulation, and employees—and the degree of digitalization as a latent variable of banks. The findings increase bank practitioners’ understanding and awareness of barriers to digitalization and contribute to the field of bank digitalization.
JEL Classification: G21, M1, O33
Climate change mitigation is one of the most important challenges facing the modern world. It is necessary to monitor the development of new concepts and technologies and take a stab at identifying disruptive innovations, which have the potential of becoming real climate-friendly game changers. The aim of this paper is to examine the patterns of inventive activity aimed at mitigating climate change in the maritime industry with respect to other transport modes. Appropriate research tools in the area of patent analysis were selected and utilised. A new class of patents related to climate change in maritime transport (CPC-Y02T70/00) was used as a data source. The original value of the study consists of offering a complete picture of the efforts made in patenting activity in climate change mitigation in the maritime transport, with a look at leading applicants and countries, knowledge flows, the most robustly developed and underdeveloped technical fields. A map of technical knowledge flows for climate change mitigation in transport was constructed. The research results show that inventions for the maritime industry are less hermetic than those for air and road transport; however, they are not as much linked with previously developed solutions. The most intensively developed technical fields include the design and construction of watercraft hulls (1) and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to the propulsion system (2). Among the technologies whose further development merits close attention are solutions related to electrical propulsion and wave energy. At the same time, inventive activity in the area of climate change adaptation dedicated to ports is insignificant and definitely needs more support from the community of scientists and inventors. Building knowledge based on patent information can help universities, research institutions, shipyards, manufacturers of marine equipment and other business entities to identify the technologies of the greatest potential for further development.
Technology foresight report looking at different foresight methods that can be useful for public funding of innovation, with the following chapters and co-authors:
1. Per Dannemand Andersen - "Potential uses of the Delphi method in innovation funding institutions";
2. Marco Bevolo - "Individual intuition and communicative charisma as enablers of futures envisioning: ‘genius forecasting’ vs ‘forecasting geniuses’";
3. Imoh Ilevbare - "Roadmapping for strategy, foresight and policy";
4. Eirini Malliaraki - "The role of large language models in science and technology policy";
5. Rafael Popper - "The role of horizon scanning in anticipating and monitoring emerging technologies";
6. Matthew Spaniol - "Using scenarios to assess innovations".
Desde o início do século XXI, assuntos como inovação e sustentabilidade vêm tomando os holofotes no mercado corporativo. Isso se deu graças à saturação do mercado produtivo tradicional. Com isso em mente, este trabalho consistiu em uma revisão bibliográfica com o intuito de realizar uma reflexão sobre a importância do planejamento estratégico e suas principais ferramentas aplicadas às startups. O estudo em questão partiu da problemática “Como o Planejamento Estratégico pode transformar uma ideia inovadora em uma startup de credibilidade e atrativa para os investidores?”. Teve como objetivo geral demonstrar a importância do planejamento estratégico na criação e consolidação das startups. A justificativa desse estudo parte da concepção de que não existe uma receita para se ter uma ideia, mas para que ela seja validada e implementada, faz-se necessário a uso de ferramentas de planejamento estratégico. Como metodologia, foi aplicada uma pesquisa qualitativa descritiva com foco na revisão de literatura. Os assuntos Planejamento Estratégico (PE) e Startups foram abordados de maneira conjunta, sendo o PE um conjunto de ferramentas de suporte para a consolidação das startups no mercado. Os artigos pesquisados tiveram um período misto, sendo alguns de referência histórica de até 80 anos e a grande maioria de período mais recente, de até 12 anos. Como principais resultados, podemos destacar que a adoção do planejamento estratégico diminui substancialmente a taxa de mortalidade das companhias no mercado, auxiliando no fomento da economia, na geração de empregos e na criação de inovação, melhorando a vida das pessoas e facilitando cada vez mais seu dia a dia.
The purpose of the study was to systematically map Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the financial sector in the VUCA era. The research design employed a quantitative approach with a descriptive method. The study utilized a systematic literature review with bibliometric analysis techniques. Researchers collected the data from the Google Scholar database, technique analysis using VOSviewer, and descriptive statistics as data analysis techniques. The results indicated the following: (RQ1) 539 articles met the criteria for research; (RQ2) Springer was the publisher with the highest number of AI in Financial articles (58 articles); (RQ3) Karina Kasztelnik authored the most papers on AI in financial (3 documents); (RQ4) an article written by David Mhlanga titled "Industry 4.0 in Finance: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Digital Financial Inclusion" had the most citations (145 citations); and (RQ5) the systematic mapping results identified 8 clusters as research gaps, suggesting potential themes for future studies related to AI in the financial domain. The findings indicate a research gap and highlight the potential for further research on AI in the financial sector in the VUCA era. The role of AI in the financial industry in the VUCA era was to enhance efficiency, speed, accuracy, and security. AI can assist in addressing rapidly emerging complex challenges, providing competitive advantages for FinTech companies to navigate dynamic changes and uncertain business environments.
An evolutionary model of technological change is proposed in which a technological breakthrough, or discontinuity, initiates an era of intense technical variation and selection, culminating in a single dominant design. This era of ferment is followed by a period of incremental technical progress, which may be broken by a subsequent technological discontinuity. A longitudinal study of the cement (1888-1980), glass (1893-1980), and minicomputer (1958-1982) industries indicates that when patents are not a significant factor, a technological discontinuity is generally followed by a single standard. Across these diverse product classes, sales always peak after a dominant design emerges. Discontinuities never become dominant designs, and dominant designs lag behind the industry's technical frontier. Both the length of the era of ferment and the type of firm inaugurating a standard are contingent on how the discontinuity affects existing competences. Eras of ferment account for the majority of observed technical progress across these three industries.
Disruptive innovation is a term used to describe innovation that is of highly discontinuous or revolutionary nature, which is the opposite of evolutionary or incremental innovation. The term is becoming more widely recognised, but a consistent view of what disruptive innovation is or how it is defined is missing. This paper explores the different dimensions of disruptive innovation put forward by different authors and proposes a working definition as a key building block for an European Commission (EC) co-sponsored re- search project ("DisruptIT"). The working definition will be used to guide the development of the tools and methods that will help organisations enable and manage disruptive innovation as a key competitive strategy.
A disruptive innovation (i.e., one that dramatically disrupts the current market) is not necessarily a disruptive innovation (as Clayton Christensen defines this term). To aid in understanding why some innovations are more (or less) disruptive to the long-term health of incumbents, this article offers terminology and a framework complementary to Christensen's work, focusing on the diffusion pattern of the new product. The framework and model presented herein suggest that when an innovation diffuses from the low end upward toward the high end, a pattern called low-end encroachment, the incumbent may be tempted to overlook its potential impact. Three possible types of low-end encroachment are illustrated: the fringe-market, detached-market, and immediate scenarios. Conversely, when the pattern is one of high-end encroachment, the impact on the current market is immediate and striking. A three-step framework is identified to assess the potential diffusion pattern and impact of an innovation, thereby helping a firm determine the threat or opportunity that an innovation represents.
This paper focuses on patterns of technological change and on the impact of technological breakthroughs on environmental conditions. Using data from the minicomputer, cement, and airline industries from their births through 1980, we demonstrate that technology evolves through periods of incremental change punctuated by technological break-throughs that either enhance or destroy the competence of firms in an industry. These breakthroughs, or technological discontinuities, significantly increase both environmental uncertainty and munificence. The study shows that while competence-destroying discontinuities are initiated by new firms and are associated with increased environmental turbulence, competence-enhancing discontinuities are initiated by existing firms and are associated with decreased environmental turbulence. These effects decrease over successive discontinuities. Those firms that initiate major technological changes grow more rapidly than other firms.
As an increasing amount of society's wealth is tied up in intangible assets, strong, clear property rights can make a good deal of sense. But it is also possible to have too much of a good thing, and our society is in danger of reaching that point. Recent scholarship suggests as much: a growing body of literature details the expansion of particular doctrines, the rising burden of IP-related transaction costs, or the pressing need for collective *46 institutions to mediate between individual firms and the mushrooming pile of IP rights they must traverse to do business. In this Essay, we approach one part of this problem at the source. We argue that there are limits on Congress's power to create and extend intellectual property interests. Such limits are "internal" in the sense that they are the result of the very same constitutional provision giving rise to Congress's power in the first place, the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution which grants the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." We argue that the language of the Copyright and Patent Clause may restrict some of Congress's more far-reaching efforts at promoting intellectual property in recent years, particularly in passing ad hoc extensions of copyrights and patents for the benefit of individual companies. We then suggest some approaches that courts might take in evaluating, and perhaps striking down, congressional actions in this area.
This paper proposes and empirically tests whether different models are needed to predict the adoption of technical process innovations that contain a high degree of new knowledge (radical innovations) and a low degree of new knowledge (incremental innovations). Results from a sample of 40 footwear manufacturers suggest that extensive knowledge depth (measured by the number of technical specialists) is important for the adoption of both innovation types. Larger firms are likely to have both more technical specialists and to adopt radical innovations. The study did not find associations between the adoption of either innovation type and decentralized decision making, managerial attitudes toward change, and exposure to external information. By implication, managers trying to encourage technical process innovation adoption need not be as concerned about modifying centralization of decision making, managerial attitudes and exposure to external information as would managers trying to encourage other types of innovation adoption, e.g., innovations in social services where these factors have been found to be important. Instead, investment in human capital in the form of technical specialists appears to be a major facilitator of technical process innovation adoption.
Additive fabrication (AF) and rapid prototyping (RP) technologies are mostly associated with applications in the product development
and the design process as well as with small batch manufacturing. Due to their relatively high speed and flexibility, however,
they have also been employed in various non-manufacturing applications. A field that attracts increasingly more attention
by the scientific community is related to the application of AF technologies in medicine and health care. The associated research
is focused both on the development of specifically modified or new methods and systems based on AF principles, as well as
on the applications of existing systems assisting health care services. In this paper, representative case studies and research
efforts from the field of AF medical applications are presented and discussed in detail. The case studies included cover applications
like the fabrication of custom implants and scaffolds for rehabilitation, models for pre-operating surgical planning, anatomical
models for the mechanical testing and investigation of human bones or of new medical techniques, drug delivery devices fabrication,
as well as the development of new AF techniques specifically designed for medical applications.
We develop a valid definition of technological radicalness which states that a successful radical invention is: (1) novel; (2) unique; and (3) has an impact on future technology. The first two criteria allow us to identify potentially radical inventions ex ante market introduction; adding the third condition, we can ex post determine if an invention served as an important change agent. Empirically testable condition selected 6 of 581 tennis racket patents granted between 1971 and 2001. Two of the identified patents – the oversized and the wide-body rackets – are considered radical inventions by industry experts. Applying our definition and operationalization would allow researchers to achieve greater generalizability across studies, avoid endogenous definitions of radicalness, and study predictors of market success for radical inventions.
This paper demonstrates that the traditional categorization of innovation as either incremental or radical is incomplete and potentially misleading and does not account for the sometimes disastrous effects on industry incumbents of seemingly minor improvements in technological products. We examine such innovations more closely and, distinguishing between the components of a product and the ways they are integrated into the system that is the product "architecture," define them as innovations that change the architecture of a product without changing its components. We show that architectural innovations destroy the usefulness of the architectural knowledge of established firms, and that since architectural knowledge tends to become embedded in the structure and information-processing procedures of established organizations, this destruction is difficult for firms to recognize and hard to correct. Architectural innovation therefore presents established organizations with subtle challenges that may have significant competitive implications. We illustrate the concept's explanatory force through an empirical study of the semiconductor photolithographic alignment equipment industry, which has experienced a number of architectural innovations.
Organizations in today's hypercompetitive world face the paradoxical challenges of “dualism,” that is, functioning efficiently today while innovating effectively for tomorrow. Corporations, no matter how they are structured, must manage both sets of concerns simultaneously. To do this, organizations have to understand and learn to manage the dynamics of innovation that underlie both disruptive and sustaining innovations. Most analyses have been flawed by giving too little weight to the interactions between needs and technologies. Based on a dynamic model of these interactions, three distinct patterns of substitution are identified that illustrate how these two forces intersect.
In this paper I try to contrast Marxist (and more broadly realist) theories of meaning with what may be called ‘idealist’ theories of meaning. But a word of explanation is clearly in order.
There is a growing consensus that 3D printing technologies will be the next major technological revolution. While a lot of work has already been carried out as to what these technologies will bring in terms of product and process innovation, little has been done on their impact on business model innovation. Yet, history has shown that technological evolution without adequate business model innovation is a pitfall for many businesses. The contribution of this article is threefold. First, it combines the existing literature on business model innovation in an integrated 'inside-outside' framework of business model innovation. Secondly, the changes brought about by 3D printing technologies to the business model components are investigated. Finally, this article shows that in addition to enabling business model innovation, 3D printing technologies have the potential to change the way business model innovation is done, by enabling adaptive business models and by bringing the 'rapid prototyping' paradigm to business model innovation itself.
The Effects of institutional investor types and governance devices on two dimensions of corporate social performance (CSP) were examined. Pension fund equity was positively related to both a people (women and minorities, community, and employee relations) and a product quality (product and environment) dimension of CSP, but mutual and investment bank funds exhibited no direct relationship with CSP. Outside director representation was positively related to both CSP dimensions. Top management equity was positively related to the product quality dimension but unrelated to the people dimension of CSP.
This study examined how participation in open innovation communities influences the innovative and financial performance of firms commercializing open source software. Using an original dataset of open sourcecompaniesintheNetherlands, I foundthatthecommunityparticipation–performancerelationship is curvilinear. In addition, results indicate that extensive technical participation in open source projects is more strongly related to performance for firms that also engage in social (“offline”) community activities, for companies of larger size, and for firms with high R&D intensities. Overall, this research refines our understanding of the boundary conditions under which engagement in community-based innovation yields private returns to commercial actors.
Business Research Methods contains new and revised chapters on quantitative methods and visual research, while cutting-edge material on inclusivity and bias in research, feminist perspectives, and decolonial and indigenous research is also introduced. The book is composed of four parts. The first part looks at the research process. It covers research strategies and designs, as well as ethics in business research and writing up business research. Part 2 looks at quantitative research and details the nature of quantitative research, sampling, structured interviewing, and questions. It also looks at secondary analysis and statistics. The next part is about qualitative research. This part examines ethnography, participant observation, interviewing, focus groups, language, and document data. The final part is about mixed methods of research.
Before the Industrial Revolution, goods were produced by local artisans and craftsmen relying primarily on locally available materials and selling primarily to local customers. These artisans conceived of and then made products, and they sold these products in their own small shops or out of their homes. In this environment, the customer was directly linked to the producer; there was no middleman and no supply chain. The Industrial Revolution ushered in an era of innovation in production methods, mining methods, and machine tools that enabled mass production and allowed the replacement of labor with machines and of traditional energy sources such as wind, water, and wood with coalpowered (and later gas-powered) machines. In the past 200 years, the elements of production have been refi ned, but the underlying economics have remained: competitive advantage goes to the company or companies (organized into a supply chain) that can produce the highest quality part at the lowest cost. Fixed costs—infrastructure and machinery—became separate from variable costs—those expenditures that increased on a per-unit production basis, such as labor and materials. Economies-of-scale production models meant that high-volume production reduced the contribution of the fi xed-cost portion of the cost equation, thus reducing the per-unit cost. Simply put, high throughput and effi ciency yielded higher profi ts ( Pine 1993 ). Today we are entering an era many believe will be as disruptive to the manufacturing sector as the Industrial Revolution was—the age of 3D printing and the digital tools that support it ( Koten 2013 ). At a EuroMold fair in November 2012, 3D Systems used one of its 3D printers to print a hammer. The Economist (2012) used this example to compare the traditional supply chain design-build-deliver model with the emerging 3D printing model:
Three dimensional printing (3DP) is a method for direct digital manufacturing that provides capabilities for creating a wide range of part geometries (including internal channels) in a broad variety of materials, including just about anything that is available as a spreadable powder. Taking advantage of the full variety of materials requires development of specific implementations of 3DP. This paper organizes the process of 3DP implementation into five steps (powder formulation, binder method selection, binder formulation and testing, printing process specification, and post-processing specification) and presents a review of the literature relevant to each step in 3DP implementation.
A model (developed in 1975 to 1978) suggests how the character of a firm's innovation changes as a successful enterprise matures and how other companies may change themselves to foster innovation as they grow and prosper. This has become a highly cited paper.
The dominant explanation for the spread of technological innovations emphasizes processes of influence and information flow. Firms which are closely connected to pre-existing users of an innovation learn about it and adopt it early on. Firms at the periphery of communication networks are slower to adopt.
This paper develops an alternative model which emphasizes the role of know-how and organizational learning as potential barriers to adoption of innovations. Firms delay in-house adoption of complex technology until they obtain sufficient technical know-how to implement and operate it successfully.
In response to knowledge barriers, new institutions come into existence which progressively lower those barriers, and make it easier for firms to adopt and use the technology without extensive in-house expertise. Service bureaus, consultants, and simplification of the technology are examples. As knowledge barriers are lowered, diffusion speeds up, and one observes a transition from an early pattern in which the new technology is typically obtained as a service to a later pattern of in-house provision of the technology.
Thus the diffusion of technology is reconceptualized in terms of organizational learning, skill development, and knowledge barriers. The utility of this approach is shown through an empirical study of the diffusion of business computing in the United States, reporting survey and ethnographic data on the spread of business computing, on the learning processes and skills required, and on the changing institutional practices that facilitated diffusion.
We review the empirical research on Free/Libre and Open-Source Software (FLOSS) development and assess the state of the literature. We develop a framework for organizing the literature based on the input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) model from the small groups literature. We present a quantitative summary of articles selected for the review and then discuss findings of this literature categorized into issues pertaining to inputs (e.g., member characteristics, technology use, and project characteristics), processes (software development practices, social processes, and firm involvement practices), emergent states (e.g., social states and task-related states), and outputs (e.g. team performance, FLOSS implementation, and project evolution). Based on this review, we suggest topics for future research, as well as identify methodological and theoretical issues for future inquiry in this area, including issues relating to sampling and the need for more longitudinal studies.
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of participative management on the behaviour of employees and the financial effectiveness of the enterprise. The analytical data are based on the survey of 308 Taiwan enterprises. Multiple regression results show that both suggestion system and labour-management committee have a positive impact on employees' behaviour in terms of turnover and absenteeism rates. Likewise, the quality control circle (QCC) and profit sharing have a positive impact on organizational effectiveness as seen in profit and revenue growth rates. However, employee stock-ownership plans and grievance-handling systems have negative effects on both performance indicators - employee behaviour and organizational effectiveness. The practical implications are also discussed.
The popular work by Clayton Christensen and colleagues on disruptive technology serves as a springboard to examine five key issues concerning the effect of technological change on firms and industries. This article challenges and integrates current theory in this domain, and raises questions to initiate new work. The discussion is organized around the following themes: the definition of disruptive technology, the predictive use of the theory of technological disruption, explaining the success of incumbents, the implications of the theory for the merits of being customer-oriented, and the merits of creating a spin-off to commercialize the disruptive technology. Examination of these themes shows the relationship of the disruptive technology work with research in a variety of related areas. Many of these links have not been made explicit before, and several of them have been misunderstood. This article is intended to encourage further research on disruptive technology and spur debate by practitioners and scholars alike.
The three issues of measuring low-end disruptions, general measure of disruptiveness, and the criticism of Christensen's (1997) disruptiveness notion by Danneel (2004), are discussed. The aim is to add rigor to an important, substantive area of research on disruptiveness, and the first step in achieving this goal is to identify ways to measure the disruptiveness construct. This is done by elaborating the use of ex post measures to make ex ante predictions about the type of incumbents better able to develop disruptive innovations in relation to other firms. The disruptive technology framework to make ex ante predictions about the type of firms likely to develop disruptive innovations.
Copyright in 1791: An Essay explores the meaning of the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution as the Founders understood it in their own time. In his examination of the history of copyright prior to the adoption of the Constitution, Professor Joyce and his co-author, L. Ray Patterson of Georgia, consider the language of the Founders' provision for copyright against the background of Anglo-American copyright history from the 16th Century to 1787. Among their principal findings is that, to the Founders, a relatively brief term of protection, followed by entry of the work into the public domain, was a crucial element of the copyright grant required to protect against the inherent dangers of the copyright monopoly. In addition, Copyright in 1791: An Essay uncovers for the first time the historical interrelationship between the Copyright Clause and the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment. Earlier scholars have sought to reconcile these two constitutional provisions primarily through an analysis of doctrinal considerations, such as the idea/expression dichotomy. The authors conclude that the Founders themselves saw no need for reconciliation: the two provisions already were complementary, both embodying anti-censorship, anti-monopoly values learned by the Founders from their English forebears. In short, the Copyright Clause and the Free Press Clause share a common origin.
Versions of this paper-not read from the present manuscript-were given from 1971 onward to colloquia at New York University, M.I.T., the University of California (Los Angeles), and elsewhere. The present version was written on the basis of a transcript of the M.I.T. version prepared by the editors of this volume. Donnellan himself heard the talk at U.C.L.A., and he has a forthcoming paper, “Speaker Reference, Descriptions and Anaphora,” that to a large extent appears to be a comment on considerations of the type mentioned here. (He does not, however, specifically refer to the present paper.) I decided not to alter the paper I gave in talks to take Donnellan's later views into account: largely I think the earlier version stands on its own, and the issues Donnellan raises in the later paper can be discussed elsewhere. Something should be said here, however, about the pronominalization phenomena mentioned on p. 270 below. In his forthcoming paper, Donnellan seems to think that these phenomena are incompatible with the suggestion that speaker's reference is a pragmatic notion. On the contrary, at the end of the present paper (and of the talk Donnellan heard), I emphasize these very phenomena and argue that they support this suggestion. See also footnote 31 below.
A unique opportunity presented to examine the process of building the theory of disruption, is discussed. The development of the theory of disruption is built in two major stages such as the descriptive and the normative stage. The descriptive stage of theory building is a preliminary stage, because researchers generally must pass through it before developing normative theory. The theory of building process will create the opportunity for scholars to improve the crispness of definitions, the salience of the categorization scheme, and the methods for measuring the phenomena and the outcomes of interest.
The three specific types of disruptive innovations, business-model innovations, and radical (new to the world) product innovations, are discussed. The two innovations create different kinds of markets, pose different challenges for established firms and have different implications for managers. The first model innovators simply redefine what an existing product or service is and how it is provided to the customer. The second model innovation introduces new products and value propositions, disturbing the prevailing consumer habits and behaviors in a major way. All the three types of innovation may follow a similar process to invade existing markets and may have equally disruptive effect son incumbent firms.
Christensen's (1997) thesis of disruptive technology has been highly praised and popular with managers. Two of its premises are important and insightful. These deal with the performance path of a disruptive technology and its impact on dominant incumbents who ignore it in favor of listening to their current consumers. However, Christensen's thesis also suffers from limitations, two of which are troubling: ambiguity in the definition of disruptive technology and the logic of the sampling to test its validity. Several studies I have conducted over the years suggest that the disruption of incumbents - if and when it occurs - is due not to technological innovation per se but rather to incumbents' lack of vision of the mass market and an unwillingness to cannibalize assets to serve that market. I have developed metrics to test these concepts, along with models to predict the outcomes and financial value of strategic changes firms can make to avoid these problems.
To escape the intense competition of today's global economy, large established organizations seek growth options beyond conventional new product development that leads to incremental changes in current product lines. Radical innovation (RI) is one such pathway, which results in organically driven growth through the creation of whole new lines of business that bring new to the world performance features to the market and may result in the creation of entirely new markets. Yet success is elusive, as many have experienced and scholars have documented. This article reports results of a three-year, longitudinal study of 12 large established firms that have declared a strategic intent to evolve their RI capabilities. In contrast to other academic research that has analyzed specific projects to understand management practices appropriate for RI, the present research reported explores the evolution of management systems for enabling radical innovation to occur repeatedly in large firms and reports on one aspect of this management system: organizational structures for enabling and nurturing RI. To consider organizational structure as a venue for capability development is new in the management of innovation and dynamic capabilities literatures. Conventional wisdom holds that RIs should be incubated outside the company and assimilated once they have gained traction in the marketplace. Numerous experiments with organizational structures were observed that instead work to manage the interfaces between the RI management system and the mother organization. These structures are described here, and insights are drawn out regarding radical innovation competency requirements, transition challenges, senior leadership mandates, and business-unit ambidexterity. The centerpiece of this research is the explication of the Discovery–Incubation–Acceleration framework, which details three sets of necessary, though not sufficient competencies, for building an RI capability.
By identifying the possibility that technologies with inferior performance can displace established incumbents, the notion of disruptive technologies, pioneered by Christensen (1997), has had a profound effect on the way in which scholars and managers approach technology competition. While the phenomenon of disruptive technologies has been well documented, the underlying theoretical drivers of technology disruption are less well understood. This article identifies the demand conditions that enable disruptive dynamics. By examining how consumers evaluate technology and how this evaluation changes as performance improves, it offers new theoretical insight into the impact of the structure of the demand environment on competitive dynamics. Two new constructs—preference overlap and preference symmetry—are introduced to characterize the relationships among the preferences of different market segments. The article presents a formal model that examines how these relationships lead to the emergence of different competitive regimes. The model is analyzed using computer simulation. The theory and model results hold implications for understanding the dynamics of disruptive technologies and suggest new indicators for assessing disruptive threats. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
In an era of revolutionary new developments in basic information technology, innovation in its employment among organizations is increasingly crucial to competitive survival and success. The Information Systems (IS) unit within the business is largely responsible for meeting this challenge. Yet, current theory explains little about IS innovation and its role in organizational innovation in general. We suggest some needed foundations. IS innovations are posited to be of three types: Type I innovations confined to the IS task; Type II innovations supporting administration of the business; and Type III innovations imbedded in the core technology of the business. Diffusion among organizations is conjectured to occur by means of a communication circuit in which each IS unit is linked to its professional and business environments. Systematic differences in adoption and evolution patterns among IS innovation types are expected. Three specific IS innovations---data administration, the information center, and material requirements planning (MRP)---illustrate.
The purpose of this study was to test a model of the organizational innovation process that suggests that the strategy-structure causal sequence is differentiated by radical versus incremental innovation. That is, unique strategy and structure will be required for radical innovation, especially process adoption, while more traditional strategy and structure arrangements tend to support new product introduction and incremental process adoption. This differentiated theory is strongly supported by data from the food processing industry. Specifically, radical process and packaging adoption are significantly promoted by an aggressive technology policy and the concentration of technical specialists. Incremental process adoption and new product introduction tends to be promoted in large, complex, decentralized organizations that have market dominated growth strategies.
Findings also suggest that more traditional structural arrangements might be used for radical change initiation if the general tendencies that occur in these dimensions as a result of increasing size can be delayed, briefly modified, or if the organization can be partitioned structurally for radical vs. incremental innovation. In particular, centralization of decision making appears to be necessary for radical process adoption along with the movement away from complexity toward more organizational generalists. This suggests that a greater support of top managers in the innovation process is necessary to initiate and sustain radical departures from the past for that organization.
Purpose
– This paper aims to present an assessment framework which captures the essential characteristics and holistic success factors for disruptive innovation based on the original theory of Christensen, a number of clarifications as reported in the literature and a study of known, successful cases in the literature.
Design/methodology/approach
– The framework was designed based on the improved understanding of disruptive innovation challenges and on the holistic consideration of innovation as a dynamic process. It consists of structured questions which could be used to guide detailed data collection and analysis needed to answer the key questions which constitute the assessment framework. They are grouped under market positioning, technology and other favourable drivers.
Findings
– A simple yet comprehensive assessment framework for disruptive innovation has been developed. Two of the known successful cases, namely the steel minimill of Nucor and the 3.5 inch disk drive of Conner/Seagate, were presented in more detail to illustrate the use of this systematic framework in assessing the success potential of these cases of disruptive innovations in either the low‐end or new markets. A third and fairly new example, that of the limited mobile phone system/product of UTStarcom, was then presented to illustrate a case where the framework revealed reasons for potential failure. A fourth example of Google's web‐based office applications then illustrated how the framework might be used to study the disruptive potential of a new product.
Originality/value
– This paper enables a more accurate and systematic assessment of disruptive innovation. The framework also has the potential to be further developed into a systematic tool for answering the question of whether the disruptive innovation theory could indeed be used to provide ex ante prediction of the success of a new disruptive innovation.
Some very successful “open source” software products have been and are being developed, distributed, and supported in the field on a voluntary basis by and for users themselves — no supplier required2. The motives that induce users to contribute to an open source project “for free” and the mechanisms by which the various tasks can be effectively carried out are currently a subject of study for both practitioners and academics. To this point, explorations of the mechanics of and the incentives to participate in open source software projects have focused on the core tasks of developing and debugging and improving the open source software itself. Major motives used to explain why users would voluntarily work on these basic tasks include:1.
a user’s direct need for the software and software improvements worked upon,
2.
enjoyment of the work itself and
3.
the enhanced reputation that may flow from making high-quality contributions to an open source project.
This study examined how participation in open innovation communities influences the innovative and financial performance of firms commercializing open source software. Using an original dataset of open source companies in the Netherlands, I found that the community participation–performance relationship is curvilinear. In addition, results indicate that extensive technical participation in open source projects is more strongly related to performance for firms that also engage in social (“offline”) community activities, for companies of larger size, and for firms with high R&D intensities. Overall, this research refines our understanding of the boundary conditions under which engagement in community-based innovation yields private returns to commercial actors.
An analysis of manufacturers was undertaken to examine the adoption of logistics process innovation. A typology of innovation was created on innovation cost and radicalness. The results reveal that size and environmental uncertainty directly predict expensive, radical but not low-cost, incremental innovation. Specialization predicts both. Decentralization of logistics process innovation adoption decision-making predicts low-cost, incremental innovation but not expensive, radical innovation, whereas decentralization of manufacturing operations does not predict logistics process innovation. Finally, although integration does not predict low-cost, incremental innovation, it inversely predicts high-cost, radical innovation
The failure of firms in the face of technological change has been a topic of intense research and debate, spawning the theory (among others) of disruptive technologies. However, the theory suffers from circular definitions, inadequate empirical evidence, and lack of a predictive model. The authors develop a new schema to address these limitations. The schema generates seven hypotheses and a testable model relating to platform technologies. The authors test this model and hypotheses with data on 36 technologies from 7 markets. Contrary to extant theory, technologies that adopt a lower attack (“potentially disruptive technologies”) 1) are introduced as frequently by incumbents as by entrants, 2) are not cheaper than older technologies, and 3) rarely disrupt firms, and 4) both entrants and lower attacks significantly reduce the hazard of disruption. Moreover, technology disruption is not permanent due to multiple crossings in technology performance and numerous rival technologies co-existing without one disrupting the other. The proposed predictive model of disruption shows good out-of-sample predictive accuracy. The authors discuss the implications of these findings.
Eight broad areas appear to be important for new product success in a high-technology environment: 1) market knowledge gained through frequent and intense customer interaction, which leads to high benefit-to-cost products; 2) and 3) planning and coordination of the new product process, especially the R&D phase; 4) emphasis on marketing and sales; 5) management support for the product throughout the development and launch stages; 6) the contribution margin of the product; 7) early market entry; 8) proximity of the new product technologies and markets to the existing strengths of the developing unit.
It's no secret that health care delivery is convoluted, expensive, and often deeply dissatisfying to consumers. But what is less obvious is that a way out of this crisis exists. Simpler alternatives to expensive care are already here--everything from $5 eyeglasses that people can use to correct their own vision to angioplasty instead of open-heart surgery. Just as the PC replaced the mainframe and the telephone replaced the telegraph operator, disruptive innovations are changing the landscape of health care. Nurse practitioners, general practitioners, and even patients can do things in less-expensive, decentralized settings that could once be performed only by expensive specialists in centralized, inconvenient locations. But established institutions--teaching hospitals, medical schools, insurance companies, and managed care facilities--are fighting these innovations tooth and nail. Instead of embracing change, they're turning the thumbscrews on their old processes--laying off workers, delaying payments, merging, and adding layers of overhead workers. Not only is this at the root of consumer dissatisfaction with the present system, it sows the seeds of its own destruction. The history of disruptive innovations tells us that incumbent institutions will be replaced with ones whose business models are appropriate to the new technologies and markets. Instead of working to preserve the existing systems, regulators, physicians, and pharmaceutical companies need to ask how they can enable more disruptive innovations to emerge. If the natural process of disruption is allowed to proceed, the result will be higher quality, lower cost, more convenient health care for everyone.