Towards a multidisciplinary
deﬁnition of innovation
Bangor University, Bangor, UK
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, and
Bangor University, Bangor, UK
Purpose – This paper aims to undertake a content analysis of extant deﬁnitions of “innovation” as a
basis for proposing an integrative deﬁnition of organizational “innovation”.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature review was used to generate a representative pool of
deﬁnitions of organizational innovation, including deﬁnitions from the different disciplinary
literatures of economics, innovation and entrepreneurship, business and management, and technology,
science and engineering. A content analysis of these deﬁnitions was conducted in order to surface the
key attributes mentioned in the deﬁnitions, and to proﬁle the descriptors used in relation to each
Findings – The key attributes in the paper present in deﬁnitions were identiﬁed as: nature of
innovation; type of innovation; stages of innovation, social context; means of innovation; and aim of
innovation. These attributes are deﬁned, descriptors assigned to them, and both a diagrammatic
deﬁnition and a textual deﬁnition of organizational innovation are proposed.
Originality/value – As a concept that is owned and discussed by many business disciplines,
“innovation” has many different deﬁnitions that align with the dominant paradigm of the respective
disciplines. Building on these diverse deﬁnitions, this paper proposes a general and integrative
deﬁnition of organizational “innovation” that encompasses the different perspectives on, and aspects
of, innovation, and captures its essence.
Keywords Innovation, Organizational innovation, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
This paper focuses on innovation within business organisations and environments. As
marketplaces become more dynamic, interest in innovation, its processes and
management has escalated. Organizations need to innovate in response to changing
customer demands and lifestyles and in order to capitalise on opportunities offered by
technology and changing marketplaces, structures and dynamics. Organizational
innovation can be performed in relation to products, services, operations, processes,
and people. As long ago as Schumpeter, 1950 argued that organisations should
innovate in order to renew the value of their asset endowment. Even before this, whilst
the term innovation may not have been used extensively, processes that are associated
with innovation and economic and technological change were perceived as being
important (Lorenzi et al., 1912; Veblen, 1899; Schumpeter, 1934). Although we recognise
this, in this paper we focus only on explicit deﬁnitions of innovation. Zahra and Covin
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
Received November 2008
Revised February 2009
Accepted February 2009
Vol. 47 No. 8, 2009
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
(1994, p. 183) suggest that “Innovation is widely considered as the life blood of
corporate survival and growth”. Innovation is recognised to play a central role in
creating value and sustaining competitive advantage. Bessant et al. (2005, p. 1366) on
the role of innovation in renewal and growth emphasise “Innovation represents the
core renewal process in any organization. Unless it changes what it offers the world
and the way in which it creates and delivers those offerings it risks its survival and
The signiﬁcance of innovation is not restricted to business organizations. The US
has a Department for Innovation (2008), and in the UK there has been widespread and
ongoing acknowledgement of the importance of innovation. In 2003, the Department of
Trade commented on the link between continuous innovation and jobs, proﬁt and
standard of living: “If UK-based companies fail to innovate, jobs and proﬁts will suffer,
and our standard of living will fall compared with other countries”. More recently, the
UK’s Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (2008) commented on the wider
implications of innovation in the face of globalisation and environmental challenges by
highlighting the importance of all types of innovation in creating and maintaining
competencies and responding to environmental and demographic restrictions. There is
agreement that in order to both sustain their competitive position and to strengthen it,
organizations and economies must innovate and promote innovation. Innovation is a
key policy and strategic issue.
Innovation is tightly coupled to change, as organizations use innovation as a tool in
order to inﬂuence an environment or due to their changing environments (internal and
external) (Damanpour, 1991). However, innovation may involve a wide range of
different types of change depending on the organization’s resources, capabilities,
strategies, and requirements. Common types of innovation relate to new products,
materials, new processes, new services, and new organizational forms (Ettlie and Reza,
1992). These different forms of innovation draw to varying extents on different teams,
departments, and professional disciplines. Therefore, innovation is of interest to
practitioners and researchers across a range of business and management disciplines,
and has been discussed variously in, for example, the literature on human resource
management, operations management, entrepreneurship, research and development,
information technology, engineering and product design, and marketing and strategy.
Each of these different disciplines proposes deﬁnitions for innovation that align with
the dominant paradigm of the discipline. As Damanpour and Schneider (2006, p. 216)
state: “Innovation is studied in many disciplines and has been deﬁned from different
Whilst there is some overlap between the various deﬁnitions of innovation, overall
the number and diversity of deﬁnitions leads to a situation in which there is no clear
and authoritative deﬁnition of innovation. As early as 1984, Ettlie et al. (1984)
commented on the problems for research and practice of innovation arising from this
disciplinary void. More recently, both Zairi (1994) and Cooper (1998) have suggested
that one of the challenges of innovation is the lack of a common deﬁnition, which
undermines understanding of the nature of innovation. A general deﬁnition adaptable
to different disciplines and covering different aspects of innovation would be beneﬁcial
as “the term ‘innovation’ is notoriously ambiguous and lacks either a single deﬁnition
or measure” (Adams et al., 2006, p. 22).
Our emerging research questions draw on the work of Kahn et al. (2003), p. 197) who
highlight the requirements for clariﬁcation of deﬁning innovation “beyond just the
typical extremes of incremental and radical innovation?” Also, Danneels and
Kleinschmidt (2003) emphasize the importance of a better understanding of product
innovativeness. So, what are the key deﬁnitions of innovation? How do these vary
between different disciplines? What are the similarities and differences? Is it possible
and helpful to construct a universal deﬁnition? In this paper, our aim is to identify one
multi-disciplinary deﬁnition of innovation Addressing these research questions, we
suggest that one common clariﬁed deﬁnition of innovation will not only provide a
better understanding of the notion of innovation for the diverse range of practitioners
within organisations, but will also enable researchers to collaborate more closely to
more holistically investigate this complex concept. The purpose of this article is to
further develop understanding of the concept of innovation and to arrive at an
integrative deﬁnition, based on a content analysis of previous deﬁnitions. A particular
and important contribution of this article is that our analysis is based on 60 deﬁnitions
from different disciplinary traditions and paradigms, thus providing a ﬁrst attempt to
capture the “essence” and produce an integrative, cross-disciplinary deﬁnition of
innovation. Another important question, but beyond the scope of this article is: How do
deﬁnitions of innovation vary over time? We hope to address this in a future paper.
Our paper is structured as follows. First, we present a short literature review,
reﬂecting on some of the previous deﬁnitions of innovation in order to illustrate the
similarities and differences, the next section explains the methodology associated with
the collection of the deﬁnitions, and the content analysis of the 60 distinct deﬁnitions
that have been identiﬁed. This is followed by a ﬁndings section, which reports on the
key attributes of the innovation deﬁnitions and the frequency of occurrence of
descriptors to describe those attributes. On this basis, a model for the deﬁnition of
innovation, together with a succinct textual deﬁnition of innovation is proposed. We
conclude with recommendations and a brief discussion of the limitations of the paper.
To demonstrate the diversity of the deﬁnitions of innovation and to press the case for
the development of an integrative deﬁnition, we offer a few examples of deﬁnitions of
organizational innovation where some emphasize different aspects of innovation and
others are dedicated to a discipline. Thompson’s (1965, p. 2) early and straightforward
deﬁnition simply states: “Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implementation
of new ideas, processes products or services”. A similar deﬁnition of innovation was
proposed more recently by West and Anderson (1996) and quoted as recently as 2008
by Wong et al. (2008, p. 2): “Innovation can be deﬁned as the effective application of
processes and products new to the organization and designed to beneﬁt it and its
stakeholders”. On the other hand, Kimberly (1981, p. 108) deﬁnes innovation from a
different perspective which embraces different forms of innovation: “There are three
stages of innovation: innovation as a process, innovation as a discrete item including,
products, programs or services; and innovation as an attribute of organizations.” Some
scholars place emphasis on the degree of newness. For instance, quoting Van du Ven
et al. (1986) state that, “As long as the idea is perceived as new to the people involved, it
is an ‘innovation’ even though it may appear to others to be an ‘imitation’ of something
that exists elsewhere”. Newness is also associated with change. Damanpour (1996,
p. 694) provides a detailed deﬁnition of innovation, which is much quoted:
Innovation is conceived as a means of changing an organization, either as a response to
changes in the external environment or as a pre-emptive action to inﬂuence the environment.
Hence, innovation is here broadly deﬁned to encompass a range of types, including new
product or service, new process technology, new organization structure or administrative
systems, or new plans or program pertaining to organization members.
Other variations in the deﬁnition of innovation arise from different disciplinary
perspectives. For example in knowledge management, the focus is on knowledge being
vital for innovation or even a type of innovation. As Plessis (2007, p. 21) notes:
Innovation as the creation of new knowledge and ideas to facilitate new business outcomes,
aimed at improving internal business processes and structures and to create market driven
products and services. Innovation encompasses both radical and incremental innovation.
In technologically related deﬁnitions, the main focus is on innovation being a product
related to new technology (Nord and Tucker, 1987).
This study aims to:
.Identify the recurring attributes of “innovation” that are included in diverse
deﬁnitions of innovation.
.Propose both a diagrammatic model and a simple textual deﬁnition which
together act as a basis for summarizing the essence of “innovation”.
The ﬁrst stage in the research was to collect as many deﬁnitions as possible of the term
“innovation”. In this process, it was important to achieve representation over time and
across disciplines. The deﬁnitions were gathered through a thorough literature review
of articles on innovation, and innovation types and processes, using online databases,
journals and books. In addition, as the number of deﬁnitions identiﬁed in some areas is
far less than others, the relevant journals for those speciﬁc areas were further reviewed
and the text of each article on innovation was examined to see whether they proposed a
new deﬁnition; for example, in the area of organization studies, key journals such as
Management Science,Journal of Management Studies,Organization Science and
Administrative Science Quarterly were reviewed. However, in general, articles in these
journals refer to deﬁnitions of innovation proposed elsewhere rather than offering their
Ultimately some 60 deﬁnitions of innovation were collected from the various
disciplinary literatures, as shown in the following:
.Business and management: 18 deﬁnitions from 1966 to 2007.
.Economics: nine deﬁnitions from 1934 to 2004.
.Organization studies: six deﬁnitions from 1953 to 2008.
.Innovation and entrepreneurship: nine deﬁnitions from 1953 to 2007.
.Technology, science and engineering: 13 deﬁnitions from 1969 to 2005.
.Knowledge management: three deﬁnitions from 1999 to 2007.
.Marketing: two deﬁnitions from 1994 to 2004.
Table I presents the authors, the year and the discipline of the gathered deﬁnitions.
Full citations of each of these papers are listed in the references at the end of the article.
A content analysis was conducted of the collected deﬁnitions in order to surface the
key attributes mentioned in these deﬁnitions considering the disciplinary variations,
and to proﬁle the descriptors used in relation to each attribute.
Content analysis is deﬁned as “a research technique for the objective, systematic
and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (Berelson,
1952, p. 8), or “any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically
identifying speciﬁed characteristics of messages” (Holsti, 1969, p. 14). We considered
the deﬁnitions of innovation to be forms of communication and messages and we were
seeking to identify the speciﬁed characteristics or attributes of these. Various
phenomena can be counted in a content analysis, including, for example, actors, words
or themes. What we were counting were the words, rather than authors or disciplines,
although these do feature in our analysis. Content analysis was selected as the most
appropriate as it “is an approach to the analysis of documents and texts ... that seeks
to quantify content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematic and
replicable manner” (Bryman, 2001, p. 177). Deﬁnitions of innovation are considered as
sections of text, which are amenable to deconstruction into component attributes,
which can be categorized and counted. However, from our search of the literature, there
were no predetermined categories available. Therefore, we used a modiﬁed approach to
content analysis, which enabled the construction of categories. This is similar to
qualitative or ethnographic content analysis (Altheide, 1996; Bryman, 2001), where
there is an emphasis on allowing categories to emerge out of the text. However, the
categories emerged through transparent quantiﬁcation (as demonstrated in the
following) rather than the researchers simply generating these. In addition, care was
taken with coding (to ensure discrete dimensions and mutually exclusive categories)
and interpretation of meaning to ensure consistency, reliability and validity.
To be more precise, the following steps have been taken in the content analysis:
(1) Classiﬁcation of deﬁnitions of innovation by their disciplinary orientation.
(2) Cleaning the text in order to simplify the word frequency count process. For
example, the word “process” has been used as two different concepts: process as
a type of innovation; and, process as procedures or set of routines. To resolve
this complication in the content analysis, “process” as a type of innovation
remained the same but “process” as routine was changed to “procedure”.
Another example is the words “technological” and “technical”, both referring to
the same type of innovation; they have been used interchangeably and hence
occurrences of these two terms have been merged and in the proposed deﬁnition
the preferred term is “technical”.
(3) Counting of word frequencies – The number of times words appeared in each
set of deﬁnitions (disciplinary group) was counted using the word frequency
query option of NVIVO8 software.
Economy Business and management Technology, science and engineering
(Schumpeter, 1934) (Karger and Murdick, 1966) (Myers and Marquis, 1969)
(Mansﬁeld, 1963) (Knight, 1967) (Roy Rothwell and Gardiner, 1985)
(C. Freeman, 1974) (Caroll, 1967) (During, 1986)
(Nelson and Winter, 1982; OECD, 1981) (Becker and Whisler, 1967) (Nord and Tucker, 1987)
(Nelson and Winter, 1982) (Shepard, 1967) (Badawy, 1988)
(Dosi, 1990) (Daft, 1978) (Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 1998)
(Baumol, 2002) (Van de Ven, 1986) (Udwadia, 1990)
(Chen et al., 2004) (Tushman and Nadler, 1986) (Sundbo, 1996)
(Roper and Love, 2004) (Lewis and Seibold, 1993) (Dunphy et al., 1996)
(Wolfe, 1994) (Tang, 1998)
Innovation and entrepreneurship (Brown, 1994) (Figueroa and Conceicao, 2000)
(Barnett, 1953) (Damanpour, 1996) (Smits, 2002)
(Drucker, 1985) (Klein and Sorra, 1996) (Francis and Bessant, 2005)
(Kuhn, 1985) (McGrath et al., 1996)
(Urabe and Child, 1988) (Mone et al., 1998) Organization study
(Lundvall, 1992) (Trott, 2005) (Barnett, 1953)
(Cumming, 1998) (J. Freeman and Engel, 2007) (Thompson, 1965)
(Salavou, 2004) (Damanpour, 1996) (Zaltman et al., 1973)
(Alves et al., 2005) (Kimberly, 1981}
(John Bessant and Tidd, 2007) Marketing (M.A. West and Farr, 1991)
Management (Porter, 1990) (Garcı
´a-Morales et al., 2008)
(Swan et al., 1999) (Berthon et al., 2004)
(Cardinal et al., 2001)
List of sources of
deﬁnitions categorized by
(4) Grouping of words with the same stem (e.g. implement, implementing, and
implementation) in the word frequency results.
(5) Elimination of the words, which appeared only once or twice in their set of
deﬁnitions, or words, which are of no value, such as pronouns. It should be
mentioned that for those disciplines that have fewer deﬁnitions such as
knowledge management or marketing, the elimination process was performed
more ﬂexibly and cautiously. For example if the word “product” (that has been
repeated frequently in the other disciplines) was represented in knowledge
management deﬁnitions only once, it was not eliminated because its lack of
repetition is a result of the few number of deﬁnitions in this discipline.
(6) Identiﬁcation of the innovation attributes from the word frequency counts. This
process commenced with the deﬁnitions of innovation in business-management
and economics disciplines as they have the greatest number of deﬁnitions in
(7) Clustering of the descriptors used in connection with each attribute for each
discipline as shown in Table II.
(8) Cross disciplinary analysis of the descriptors used for each attribute. For each
attribute those words that have been used in common between a number of
disciplines (suggesting similarity) were selected, and are highlighted in bold in
Table II, and extracted and displayed in Table III.
(9) The proposal of a diagrammatic and text deﬁnition of innovation.
It should be noted in Table III, the counts for some descriptors exceed the total number
of deﬁnitions; for example “new” has been repeated 76 times where there are only 60
deﬁnitions of innovation. This is due to the fact that the word “new” has appeared in
some deﬁnitions more than once, for example:
Innovation concerns processes of learning and discovery about new products, new production
processes and new forms of economic organization, about which, ex ante, economic actors often
possess only rather unstructured beliefs on some unexploited opportunities, and which, ex post,
are generally checked and selected, in non centrally planned economies, by some competitive
interactions, of whatever form in product market (Dosi, 1990, p. 299).
Hence, out of the 76 times the term “new” has been used, on 34 occasions there has been
repetition of the word in the same deﬁnition. Similarly, the term “organization” has
been repeated more than once in some of the deﬁnitions, for instance:
Innovation is a process that follows invention, being separated from invention in time.
Invention is the creative act, while innovation is the ﬁrst or early employment of an idea by one
organization or a set of organizations with similar goals (Becker and Whisler, 1967, p. 463).
Table IV summarises the total number of occurrences of words in the database of
deﬁnitions, relative to the total number of deﬁnitions in which that word appears.
Findings and discussion
Tables II and III show the attributes of innovation deﬁnitions that have been identiﬁed
through the content analysis. These six attributes form the basis for an integrative
deﬁnition of innovation, since they have been surfaced from key deﬁnitions drawn
from different disciplinary areas. It is important to note that these attributes are all in
management Marketing Organization study
Nature New, 16
Type Product, 7
Stages Adoption, 3
Environment Organization, 7
Social system, 1
Organization, 12 Group, 1
Organization, 1 Firm, 5
Means Idea, 5
Aims Superior, 4
Business, 1 Superior, 1
Result of ﬁrst phase of
analysis, word frequency
count based on sector and
strong evidence not merely in discursive expositions on innovation management, but
also in the deﬁnitions of the basic concept of innovation. These attributes are deﬁned
.Nature of innovation refers to the form of innovation as in something new or
.Type of innovation refers to the kind of innovation as in the type of output or the
result of innovation, e.g. product or service.
Attribute Word frequency count
Nature of innovation New, 76
Type of innovation Product, 40
Aim of innovation Competition, 7
Social context Organization, 29
External environment 2
Social system, 2
Internal environment, 1
Means of innovation Idea, 22
Stages of innovation Adoption, 13
Summary of attributes frequency Type of innovation, 98
Nature of innovation, 92
Means of innovation, 69
Innovation and people, 60
Stages of innovation, 48
Aim of innovation, 31
Summary of word
frequencies grouped by
.Stages of innovation refers to all the steps taken during an innovation process
which usually start from idea generation and end with commercialization.
.Social context refers to any social entity, system or group of people involved in
the innovation process or environmental factors affecting it.
.Means of innovation refers to the necessary resources (e.g. technical, creative,
ﬁnancial) that need to be in place for innovation.
.Aim of innovation is the overall result that the organizations want to achieve
In arriving at this ﬁnal list of attributes two issues have been taken into consideration:
(1) One of the attributes of innovation, which only occurs in three of deﬁnitions
relates to the time of innovation implementation or adoption in the context of
speciﬁc industries. In this analysis, there are two deﬁnitions, which have paid
attention to time of innovation by mentioning ﬁrst or early use of innovation and
there is one deﬁnition, which highlights the ﬁrst use of innovation by the
organization adopting it. For example, Rothwell (1992, p. 221) quotes Freeman as:
The technical, design, manufacturing, management and commercial activities involved
in the marketing of a new (or improved) product or the ﬁrst use of a new (or improved)
manufacturing process or equipment.
Owing to the limited number of deﬁnitions considering the time of innovation,
this attribute has been excluded from the deﬁnition proposed in this study.
Total number of occurrences
Number of occurrences in
New 76 42
Organization 29 15
Product 40 33
Firm 11 4
Service 25 21
Idea 22 18
Invention 12 8
Superior 5 2
Improve 6 4
Process 23 21
Technical 10 8
Market 11 9
Creativity 10 8
Change 10 9
Implement 6 5
Group 3 2
Development 13 12
Commercialization 7 6
Technology 12 11
Value 2 1
Economic 6 5
Success 6 5
Total word frequency
versus number of times
words has appeared by
(2) Another term which occurs quite frequently is the word “process” which during
the content analysis was replaced by “procedure” for simpliﬁcation. Usage of
this word was an indication of the fact that innovation is a process not a discrete
(3) Analysis of Table III demonstrates that in deﬁning innovation, scholars have
paid more attention to type, means, social context and stages of innovation and
have made relatively limited reference to the aim of innovation. This may
potentially be evidence of a serious disconnection between the rhetoric of
innovation and its strategic context. On the other hand, most research reports
and articles on innovation start by explaining the strategic importance of
innovation. So, thus perhaps this is simply an oversight in the deﬁnitions or a
On the basis of the key attributes of deﬁnitions of innovation and the descriptors used
by those deﬁnitions to characterise the attributes, a diagrammatic deﬁnition of
“innovation” is proposed in Figure 1. The diagram incorporates the six attributes
identiﬁed as being common to the various disciplinary deﬁnitions of innovation. We do
not suggest that this is the actual or ideal ﬂow, or that the ﬂow is linear. We do not give
greater importance to “stages” or “aim” but simply suggest that these are six common,
and therefore important, attributes of innovation. The model seeks to present the
“essence” of innovation, no matter the organizational or disciplinary context. The six
components of the model do not only describe the possible ﬂow of the innovation
process, they also indicate various starting points within the innovation process. This
might be inﬂuenced by disciplinary background. For example, engineers might begin
with a focus on the technical possibilities of a new product, whereas as marketing
specialists might concentrate on identifying potential new markets. Individuals within
organisations may choose different starting points on the journey to innovation. The
chosen starting point might also have a strong relationship to the way innovation is
achieved, or not.
In order to capture and articulate the diagrammatic deﬁnition in Figure 1 in words
by means of interpretation, we propose that:
A diagrammatic deﬁnition
Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into
new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and
differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace.
Our deﬁnition begins with the term “multi stage process” as most of the deﬁnitions
presented earlier have highlighted that innovation is not a discrete act and is a process.
Secondly, we focus on business organisations in this paper, although we have not
explicitly articulated in our textual deﬁnition that innovation can occur in various
social entities and contexts. Third, as shown in the diagram, many deﬁnitions have
focused on the means of innovation, that is the ways in which ideas have been
transformed into new, improved and changed entities, whether products or services,
for example, for new markets. Therefore, a “multi stage process” together with
“transforming ideas into new/improved products ...” not only captures all the stages
that different scholars have identiﬁed or referred to in their deﬁnition of innovation, it
also highlights the fact that ideas are used and transformed (together with other means
of innovation) to result in “New/improved products, services or processes”, the main
types of innovation identiﬁed together with the level of change they involve. Finally,
although not often explicitly mentioned in extant deﬁnitions, we include the aim of
innovation as “successfully advancing” (referring to process innovations) and
“competing and differentiating” to reﬂect both the overall strategic aim of innovation
and the potentially diverse social and environmental contexts in which innovation
occurs. These diagrammatic and textual deﬁnitions, which seek to subsume and
supersede earlier deﬁnitions with their speciﬁc disciplinary biases, recognize that an
all-embracing deﬁnition of innovation needs to encompass a number of aspects of the
essence of innovation.
Conclusions and recommendations
Innovation, and how it is managed, is a key strategic issue. It is of interest to both
practitioners and researchers across a range of business and management disciplines.
Having conducted a comprehensive content analysis, we have identiﬁed how different
disciplines view innovation from a different standpoint and propose distinct
deﬁnitions. It could be argued that each discipline requires it own discipline-speciﬁc
deﬁnition. However, as business and research become more inter- and
multi-disciplinary, we suggest there is a need for a more generic, integrative
deﬁnition. This is to enable the development of common meaning and shared
understanding of the various dimensions of innovation, identiﬁed in our proposed
deﬁnition. We suggest that the number and diversity of current deﬁnitions of
innovation creates ambiguity and confusion and we support McAdam et al.’s (2004)
view that the absence of a consensual deﬁnition of innovation is problematic.
To address this, on the basis of a content analysis of existing deﬁnitions of
innovation, extracted from a number of different disciplines, we have proposed a
succinct and arguably intuitive textual deﬁnition of innovation. The text version of the
deﬁnition is supplemented by a diagrammatic deﬁnition, which identiﬁes the
descriptors that can be used to provide a more detailed deﬁnition. Such a deﬁnition
should assist in crossing disciplinary boundaries, and act as a basis for more
transparent sharing and transfer of knowledge relating to innovation and its processes.
The objective in proposing a general deﬁnition of innovation has been to seek to
offer a multidisciplinary deﬁnition for a multidisciplinary concept. There is evident
need for such a deﬁnition and it has the potential to inform both practice and research.
A consensus on the deﬁnition of innovation offers a way forward for the identiﬁcation
of innovation within organizations and countries. The typology of innovation, implicit
in our diagrammatic deﬁnition offers a means of classifying innovations. For example,
there is the opportunity to classify deﬁnitions on the basis of whether they bring
forward something new, or improve an existing aspect of the organization (nature).
Similarly, innovations may be classiﬁed as product, service, process or technical (type),
and the resources or means used to drive and support innovation can be identiﬁed in
respect of the balance of technology, ideas, inventions, creativity, and market (means).
This type of analysis would be useful for businesses in strategy and planning, and
would offer a useful framework for comparing different innovation processes in
different organizations, towards knowledge-building.
However, there are limitations with our paper. As a conceptual paper, we have
produced our textual and diagrammatic deﬁnitions drawing on existing theoretical
work from a range of business disciplines. In addition, although beyond the scope of
this paper, we have noted there is evidence that the nature and focus of innovation has
changed over time. Therefore, we propose adopting a chronological perspective in
future research to explore how meanings of innovation have evolved, generally and
speciﬁcally within disciplines. There is further empirical work to do to validate the
proposed deﬁnition in terms of its suitability, usefulness and acceptability across
different disciplinary groups and this is a clear agenda for further research.
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006), “Innovation management measurement: a review”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-47.
Altheide, D.L. (1996), Qualitative Media Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Alves, J., Marques, M.J., Saur, I. and Marques, P. (2005), “Building creative ideas for successful
new product development”, paper presented at the 9th European Conference on Creativity
and Innovation, Poland.
Badawy, M.K. (1988), “How to prevent creativity mismanagement”, IEEE Engineering
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 63-8.
Barnett, H. (1953), Innovation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Baumol, W.J. (2002), The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of
Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Becker, S.W. and Whisler, T.L. (1967), “The innovative organization: a selective review of current
theory and research”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 462-9.
Berelson, B. (1952), Content Analysis in Communication Research, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pitt, L. (2004), “Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical
investigation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 9/10, pp. 1065-90.
Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2007), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H. and Phillips, W. (2005), “Managing innovation beyond the
steady state”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1366-76.
Brown, M. (1994), Introduction to Innovation – Managing Ideas into Action, Henley Management
Center/Price Waterhouse, London.
Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research Method, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cardinal, L.B., Alessandri, T.M. and Turner, S.F. (2001), “Knowledge codiﬁability, resources, and
science-based innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Caroll, J. (1967), “A note on departmental autonomy and innovation in medical schools”,
The Journal of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 531-4.
Chen, J., Zhaohui, Z. and Xie, H.Y. (2004), “Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and
empirical study”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 195-212.
Cooper, J.R. (1998), “A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 493-502.
Cumming, B.S. (1998), “Innovation overview and future challenges”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-9.
Daft, R.L. (1978), “Dual-core model of organizational innovation”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-210.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation – a meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Damanpour, F. (1996), “Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing
multiple contingency models”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998), “Theories of organizational structure and
innovation adoption: the role of environmental change”, Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M. (2006), “Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations:
effects of environment, organization and top managers”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 215-36.
Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2003), “Product innovativeness from the ﬁrm’s perspective:
its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 357-73.
Department for Innovation, US (2008), Innovation Nation, Department for Innovation, US,
Department of Trade (2003), Innovation Report, Department of Trade, London.
Dosi, G. (1990), “Finance, innovation and industrial change”, Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 299-319.
Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
Dunphy, S.M., Herbig, P.R. and Howes, M.E. (1996), “The innovation funnel”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 279-92.
During, W.E. (1986), “Project-management and management of innovation in small industrial
ﬁrms”, Technovation, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 269-78.
Ettlie, J.E. and Reza, E.M. (1992), “Organizational integration and process innovation”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 795-827.
Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P. and O’Keefe, R.D. (1984), “Organizational strategy and structural
differences for radical versus incremental innovation”, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 6,
Figueroa, E. and Conceicao, P. (2000), “Rethinking the innovation process in large organizations:
a case study of 3M”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005), “Targeting innovation and implications for capability
development”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 171-83.
Freeman, C. (1974), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Freeman, J. and Engel, J.S. (2007), “Models of innovation: start-ups and mature corporations”,
California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 94-119.
´a-Morales, V.J., Matı
´as-Reche, F. and Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008), “Inﬂuence of
transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending
on the level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 188-212.
Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley,
Kahn, K.B., Franzak, F., Grifﬁn, A., Kohn, S. and Miller, C.W. (2003), “Editorial: Identiﬁcation and
consideration of emerging research questions”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 193-201.
Karger, D.W. and Murdick, R.G. (1966), “Product design, marketing, and manufacturing
innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 33-42.
Kimberly, J.R. (1981), “Managerial innovation”, in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Hand
Book of Organization Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996), “The challenge of innovation implementation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1055-80.
Knight, K.E. (1967), “A descriptive model of intra-ﬁrm innovation process”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 478-96.
Kuhn, R.L. (1985), Frontiers in Creative and Innovative, Ballinger, Cambridge.
Lewis, L.K. and Seibold, D.R. (1993), “Innovation modiﬁcation during intraorganizational
adoption”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 322-54.
Lorenzi, N.M., Mantel, M.I. and Riley, R.T. (1912), “Preparing your organization for technological
change”, Healthcare Informatics.
Lundvall, B.A. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, Frances Printer, London.
McAdam, R., Reid, R. and Gibson, D. (2004), “Innovation and organisational size in Irish SMEs:
an empirical study”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,
McGrath, R.G., Tsai, M.-H., Venkataraman, S. and MacMillan, I.C. (1996), “Innovation,
competitive advantage and rent: a model and test”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 3,
Mansﬁeld, E. (1963), “Size of ﬁrm, market structure and innovation”, Journal of Political
Economics, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 556-76.
Mone, M.A., McKinley, W. and Barker, V.L. (1998), “Organizational decline and innovation:
a contingency framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 115-32.
Myers, S. and Marquis, D.G. (1969), Successful Industrial Innovations: A Study of Factors
Underlying Innovation in Selected Firms, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nord, W. and Tucker, S. (1987), Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations, Lexington Books,
OECD (1981), The Measurement of Scientiﬁc and Technical Organizations, Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Plessis, M.D. (2007), “The role of knowledge management in innovation”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 20-9.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Roper, S. and Love, J. (2004), “The organization of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and
multi-functional groups in UK and German manufacturing”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 26-41.
Rothwell, R. (1992), “Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s”, R&D
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 221-37.
Rothwell, R. and Gardiner, P. (1985), “Invention, innovation, re-innovation and the role of the
user”, Technovation, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 167-86.
Salavou, H. (2004), “The concept of innovativeness: should we need to focus?”, European Journal
of Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Shepard, H.A. (1967), “Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing organizations”, The Journal
of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 470-7.
Smits, R. (2002), “Innovation studies in the twenty-ﬁrst century: questions from a user’s
perspective”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 69 No. 9, pp. 861-83.
Sundbo, J. (1996), “The balancing of empowerment – a strategic resource based model of
organizing innovation activities in service and low-tech ﬁrms”, Technovation, Vol. 16 No. 8,
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Hislop, D. (1999), “Knowledge management and
innovation: networks and networking”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 4,
Tang, H.K. (1998), “An integrative model of innovation in organizations”, Technovation, Vol. 18
No. 5, pp. 297-309.
Thompson, V.A. (1965), “Bureaucracy and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10,
Trott, P. (2005), Innovation Management and New Product Development, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Tushman, M. and Nadler, D. (1986), “Organizing for innovation”, California Management Review,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 74-92.
Udwadia, F.E. (1990), “Creativity and innovation in organizations”, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 66.
Urabe, K. and Child, J. (1988), Innovation and Management, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Van de Ven, A. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management
Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 590-607.
Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Unwin,
West, M.A. and Anderson, N.R. (1996), “Innovation in top management teams”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 680-93.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1991), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Wolfe, R.A. (1994), “Organizational innovation – review, critique and suggested research
directions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 405-31.
Wong, A., Tjosvold, D. and Liu, C. (2008), “Innovation by teams in Shanghai, China: cooperative
goals for group conﬁdence and persistence”, British Journal of Management, available at:
August 15, 2008).
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1994), “The ﬁnancial implications of ﬁt between competitive strategy
and innovation types and sources”, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Zairi, M. (1994), “Innovation or innovativeness? Results of a benchmarking study”,
TQM Magazine, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 10-16.
Zaltman, F.E., Duncan, R.B. and Holbek, J. (1973), Innovations and Organizations, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Jayanthi, S. and Kingshuk, S.K. (1998), “Innovation implementation in high technology
manufacturing: a chaos-theoretic empirical analysis”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 471-94.
Pouder, R. and StJohn, C.H. (1996), “Hot spots and blind spots: geographical clusters of ﬁrms and
innovation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1192-225.
Anahita Baragheh can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: email@example.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints