No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
4Cs of innovation: A conceptual framework for evaluating innovation strategy
Abstract
While innovation is on the agenda of almost all organizations, successful innovation management remains quite elusive for many managers. This article on innovation management strategy identifies four key interrelated areas that an innovator needs to concurrently define and organize for a systemic and effective innovation: the innovation concept, the consumer context, the competitive context, and the collaborative context. We refer to the framework involving these four areas as the 4Cs of innovation. Careful consideration of each of these four areas addresses specific issues, regarding operations, marketing, finance, and regulations, for the organization to enhance the effectiveness of the innovation strategy. We offer a practical diagnostic tool to implement the 4Cs of innovation framework. Further, we discuss our research on 99 highly innovative clean technology projects funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy as an example of how to utilize the 4Cs of innovation framework. Our analysis brings out important insights for managers of established firms and startups on how to prioritize innovation activities and highlights the effective use of 4Cs of innovation for guiding successful innovation strategies.
... The commercial viability of a technological innovation is central to organizations of all forms innovating in different contexts (Daim and Brem, 2018;Erzurumlu, 2017;Gans and Stern, 2003;Sohn and Moon, 2003). In the healthcare industry the viability of quality improving innovations requires a number of initiatives, including promoting a new quality paradigm and a commitment to the systematic practice of innovation from development to commercialization to establishing long-term value chain (Kim et al., 2016). ...
... The success of an innovation does not only rely on discovery and development, but also on the commercial viability of that innovation in the innovation process model (Erzurumlu, 2017;Shibata et al. 2010). Some scholars have shown that there has been a gap between technology development and successful commercialization (Cockburn, 2006). ...
Developing technologies for a transfer from science to market is a key element of research-intensive organizations such as innovation management centers that work closely with inventors to commercialize their technological innovations. To advance the commercial viability of technological innovations, this paper proposes a framework that integrates topic modeling, survival analysis, and judgment of subject matter experts to forecast promising technologies using patents as data resources. Regarding the commercial viability of identified technologies, our empirical analysis focuses on patents and licensing data from a prominent innovation management center over a 20-year period. We are able to identify technologies that are statistically significant for predicting the likelihood and the time until a patent is commercialized, and suggest a way to assess their scope of technological impact. Our results contribute to the understanding of promising healthcare technologies and help R&D managers to develop the knowledge they need to advocate technologies in support of commercial returns.
... The concept of innovation strategy is conceptualized as levers which managers pursue to innovate (Klingebiel and Joseph, 2017), and affects on firm performance (Erzurumlu, 2017;Tidd and Bessant, 2018). ...
Today, to survive in business, organizations are compelled to compete with other organizations. Therefore, they have no choice unless to be innovative. Innovation is the application of new ideas of creativity that can be new products, new services, or a new way of doing things. Without innovation, new ways of doing business cannot emerge at all, and most organizations will be forever caught up in old services and old ways. The continuous and inclusive innovation enhancement, is, in fact, a kind of systematic exploration, the aim of which is to find new ways and means to react to environmental changes and pressures. Since repeated reactions aren’t effective in today's complex and changing environments. Therefore, companies should constantly search for new and novel ways of interaction in the environment, and, in turn, affect those interactions and changes. In developing a culture of innovation that can support an organization to implement and leverage the innovation process, good human resource management and knowledge sharing should be considered. First, we describe definitions of innovation, then innovation necessity, advantages, and barriers impeding it are examined. Finally, the innovation cycle, innovation process and strategies for creating and developing a culture of innovation will be examined.
... Innovation strategy is conceptualized as levers pursued by managers to innovate (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010;Foxall and Johnston, 1987;Klingebiel and Joseph, 2017;Miller and Friesen, 1982;Soetanto and Jack, 2016;Tipping et al., 1995), and has impact on firm performance (Cooper and Edgett, 2010;Erzurumlu, 2017;Hall and Bagchi-Sen, 2007;Pearson, 1990;Tidd and Bessant, 2018). Yet, setting strategy is complex because choices are idiosyncratic and context dependent (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985;Nath and Sudharshan, 1994;Venkatraman and Camillus, 1984). ...
Innovation strategy is a context specific set of choices towards a goal that is underpinned by strategic logic. We link three archetypal innovation strategies via an analytical framework covering four dimensions- ‘objectives’, ‘scope’, ‘advantages’, and ‘flaws’. We argue that such a framework is currently non-existent and enables innovation strategy comparisons on a common basis. Patterns in the ‘disruptive’, ‘modular’, and ‘enabling’ innovation archetypes, help draw out simple rules for proactive innovation strategy. Thus, the theoretical contributions of this paper are two-fold- (a) the introduction of a novel analytical framework to characterize innovation strategies, and facilitate their comparison on common basis; and (b) the pattern-driven discovery of simple rules for three innovation types, thereby contributing to the emerging theory of strategic heuristics.
... 2 In addition, the problems that faced by engineering and design firms today are generally too complex for one individual or team from one discipline to solve. [3][4][5] Interdisciplinary, or cross-functional, teams include a variety of members representing different stakeholders from within and outside the organization. While some view these terms as different, for the purpose of this paper, we will use interdisciplinary or cross-functional teams to denote teams that include members from different departments in the organization, members from other organizations, or from different disciplines. ...
Interdisciplinary, or cross-functional, teams have become quite common for engineering and design. Many of today’s scientific breakthroughs occur in interdisciplinary teams, as the increasingly complex problems facing society often cannot be addressed by single disciplines alone. However, fostering creative and productive collaboration in interdisciplinary teams is no easy challenge. First, leading creative teamwork is difficult by itself. Second, many of the factors that impede teams and teamwork in general are exacerbated in interdisciplinary teams as a result of differences between team members. In this paper, we will review the team creativity psychology and management literature, and discuss how cognitive processes that facilitate creativity can be used by engineering and design teams. Specifically, past research has shown problem construction that allows teams to develop a structure to guide solving ambiguous problems. Further, problem construction allows teams to develop a shared understanding of the problem which aids in later processes. While there is significant research on idea generation, results suggest that teams may not be better at this than individuals. In this review, we discuss how idea generation in teams can mitigate some of the issues that lead to this effect. Finally, team research has only recently began to determine what factors influence idea evaluation and selection for implementation.
Private companies seeking to heighten their social responsibility and reduce ecological impacts often lack practical approaches to discern high‐impact and cost‐effective changes. Deeper understanding of the interrelated economic, social, and ecological systems reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) can enhance their ability to positively connect and influence both internal and external aspects of the integrated business and socio‐ecological system. Through an inductive study of three companies, this article demonstrates that systems thinking provides a valuable approach to help companies to understand and map the systems in which they operate, enabling them to expand their sustainability practices even as they address profit‐versus‐impact conflicts. We examine how strategic business goals and activities interplay with an organization's socio‐ecological system and thereby enhance business engagement with the SDGs. Our key contribution is a systems‐minded sustainable business framework using three processes: goal–purpose alignment, partnerships, and systemic interplay. We explain each company's sustainability efforts and their relative engagement with the SDGs as well as relative impact of such engagement on the company in return.
Firms that operate in high-velocity markets must configure and utilize diverse technological innovation capabilities (TICs). TICs provide the firm with technological strength and adaptability to manage technological changes with respect to demand changes on the customer value trajectory. In this paper, we examine the configuration of a high tech firm’s TICs involving R&D, manufacturing and marketing capabilities to develop technology exploring or market exploiting activities in response to shifts in the customer value trajectory. We analyze the cases of micro, electrical, mechanical systems (MEMS) accelerometer innovators, and identify strategic configuration of TICs that has been necessary to trace the customer value trajectory with technological changes. We further show how the stability of the customer value trajectory plays a role for the firm in market transition to configure and utilize its TICs for exploring or exploiting the market. Based on our findings, we offer a managerial decision-making framework regarding strategic management of TICs with respect to the customer value trajectory in high-velocity markets.
Understanding the national innovation capability involves the consideration of a variety of evolving institutional structures within the national innovation system (NIS). The variety of and interactions among institutional structures requires a systemic and dynamic approach to the NIS. In this respect, a configurational approach generates specific configurational conditions of the institutional structures, and offers a comprehensive and integrated approach to deal with the inherently complex and evolving nature of the NIS. In this research, using the Global Innovation Index (GII) data, we employ a fuzzy model with the Observer Kalman filter identification (OKID) method to develop configurational combinations. Our analysis provides a characterization of the impact of specific institutional structures on national innovation capability, while accounting for time and the innovation level of the countries. By explaining which specific institutional structures impact national innovation capability, this study contributes to the design of the innovation systems with a systemic approach and our understanding of which institutional structures to support innovation.
This is the first version of the introduction topology but we'll have others soon.
Purpose: Despite a complex, fragmented and from origin conservative environment, railway service provider organizations in the Dutch railways are innovating at a high pace. Therefore, the Dutch railway maintenance sector is a rich environment for studying innovations. To understand how this is achieved, an innovation management framework is developed and used to analyze innovation factors within a Dutch railway service provider.
Design/methodology/approach: Based on a literature review on conceptual frameworks for innovation management of the last five years, an holistic innovation management framework is constructed, using an inductive coding methodology. The holistic innovation management framework is used to analyze the case study organization, based on interviews and desk research.
Findings: The analysis indicates that various market, organization, process, and product/service factors and their interaction contribute to a high pace of innovations.
Research limitations/implications: The coding methodology used in this study can be influenced by researcher’s bias. In addition, the generalizability of this study is limited due to a single case study. The presented research shows that the Dutch railway maintenance sector is a sector which deserves further research to learn from their innovative maintenance practices on a more detailed process level. In addition, the presented framework is a step towards an holistic innovation management framework which can be used to analyze innovations on a sectoral level.
Practical implications: The research results gives practitioners insights on how to develop innovation management practices in the railway sector.
Originality/value: This research presents an in-depth analysis on the innovation management practices that have been applied in the successful Dutch railway maintenance sector from the perspective of a railway service provider.
The innovation has been recognized as a competitive advantage for almost all organizations. Yet, it has been a rather elusive topic when it comes to implementation. Operations design and strategy are mostly concerned about effective implementation of ideas. Hence, in this paper we marry these two fields (operations design and innovation), and identify three key areas for evaluating the innovation strategy, based on our previous research on innovation management. We further offer three prescriptions for practical implementation, which may be of value to managers with their assessment of the value of their innovation strategies.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.