Innovation

Innovation in its modern meaning is a "new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method".[1] Innovation is often also viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs.[2] Such innovation takes place through the provision of more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, or business models that are made available to markets, governments and society. An innovation is something original and more effective and, as a consequence, new, that "breaks into" the market or society.[3] Innovation is related to, but not the same as, invention,[4] as innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention (i.e. new/improved ability) to make a meaningful impact in the market or society,[5] and not all innovations require an invention. Innovation often manifests itself via the engineering process, when the problem being solved is of a technical or scientific nature. The opposite of innovation is exnovation.

While a novel device is often described as an innovation, in economics, management science, and other fields of practice and analysis, innovation is generally considered to be the result of a process that brings together various novel ideas in such a way that they affect society. In industrial economics, innovations are created and found empirically from services to meet growing consumer demand.[6][7][8]

Innovation also has an older historical meaning which is quite different. From the 1400s through the 1600s, prior to early American settlement, the concept of "innovation" was pejorative. It was an early modern synonym for rebellion, revolt and heresy.[9][10][11][12]

Definition

A 2014 survey of literature on innovation found over 40 definitions. In an industrial survey of how the software industry defined innovation, the following definition given by Crossan and Apaydin was considered to be the most complete, which builds on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) manual's definition:[13]

Innovation is production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and the establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome.

According to Kanter innovation includes original invention and creative use and defines innovation as a generation, admission and realization of new ideas, products, services and processes.[14]

Two main dimensions of innovation were degree of novelty (patent) (i.e. whether an innovation is new to the firm, new to the market, new to the industry, or new to the world) and kind of innovation (i.e. whether it is processor product-service system innovation).[13] In recent organizational scholarship, researchers of workplaces have also distinguished innovation to be separate from creativity, by providing an updated definition of these two related but distinct constructs:

Workplace creativity concerns the cognitive and behavioral processes applied when attempting to generate novel ideas. Workplace innovation concerns the processes applied when attempting to implement new ideas. Specifically, innovation involves some combination of problem/opportunity identification, the introduction, adoption or modification of new ideas germane to organizational needs, the promotion of these ideas, and the practical implementation of these ideas.[15]

Inter-disciplinary views

Business and economics

In business and in economics, innovation can become a catalyst for growth. With rapid advancements in transportation and communications over the past few decades, the old-world concepts of factor endowments and comparative advantage which focused on an area's unique inputs are outmoded for today's global economy. Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), who contributed greatly to the study of innovation economics, argued that industries must incessantly revolutionize the economic structure from within, that is innovate with better or more effective processes and products, as well as market distribution, such as the connection from the craft shop to factory. He famously asserted that "creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism".[16] Entrepreneurs continuously look for better ways to satisfy their consumer base with improved quality, durability, service and price which come to fruition in innovation with advanced technologies and organizational strategies.[17]

A prime example of innovation involved the explosive boom of Silicon Valley startups out of the Stanford Industrial Park. In 1957, dissatisfied employees of Shockley Semiconductor, the company of Nobel laureate and co-inventor of the transistor William Shockley, left to form an independent firm, Fairchild Semiconductor. After several years, Fairchild developed into a formidable presence in the sector. Eventually, these founders left to start their own companies based on their own, unique, latest ideas, and then leading employees started their own firms. Over the next 20 years, this snowball process launched the momentous startup-company explosion of information-technology firms. Essentially, Silicon Valley began as 65 new enterprises born out of Shockley's eight former employees.[18] Since then, hubs of innovation have sprung up globally with similar metonyms, including Silicon Alley encompassing New York City.

Another example involves business incubators – a phenomenon nurtured by governments around the world, close to knowledge clusters (mostly research-based) like universities or other Government Excellence Centres – which aim primarily to channel generated knowledge to applied innovation outcomes in order to stimulate regional or national economic growth.[19]

Organizations

In the organizational context, innovation may be linked to positive changes in efficiency, productivity, quality, competitiveness, and market share. However, recent research findings highlight the complementary role of organizational culture in enabling organizations to translate innovative activity into tangible performance improvements.[20] Organizations can also improve profits and performance by providing work groups opportunities and resources to innovate, in addition to employee's core job tasks.[21] Peter Drucker wrote:

Innovation is the specific function of entrepreneurship, whether in an existing business, a public service institution, or a new venture started by a lone individual in the family kitchen. It is the means by which the entrepreneur either creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth. –Drucker[22]

According to Clayton Christensen, disruptive innovation is the key to future success in business.[23] The organisation requires a proper structure in order to retain competitive advantage. It is necessary to create and nurture an environment of innovation. Executives and managers need to break away from traditional ways of thinking and use change to their advantage. It is a time of risk but even greater opportunity.[24] The world of work is changing with the increase in the use of technology and both companies and businesses are becoming increasingly competitive. Companies will have to downsize and re-engineer their operations to remain competitive. This will affect employment as businesses will be forced to reduce the number of people employed while accomplishing the same amount of work if not more.[25]

While disruptive innovation will typically "attack a traditional business model with a lower-cost solution and overtake incumbent firms quickly,"[26] foundational innovation is slower, and typically has the potential to create new foundations for global technology systems over the longer term. Foundational innovation tends to transform business operating models as entirely new business models emerge over many years, with gradual and steady adoption of the innovation leading to waves of technological and institutional change that gain momentum more slowly.[26] The advent of the packet-switched communication protocol TCP/IP—originally introduced in 1972 to support a single use case for United States Department of Defense electronic communication (email), and which gained widespread adoption only in the mid-1990s with the advent of the World Wide Web—is a foundational technology.[26]

All organizations can innovate, including for example hospitals, universities, and local governments.[27] For instance, former Mayor Martin O’Malley pushed the City of Baltimore to use CitiStat, a performance-measurement data and management system that allows city officials to maintain statistics on several areas from crime trends to the conditions of potholes. This system aids in better evaluation of policies and procedures with accountability and efficiency in terms of time and money. In its first year, CitiStat saved the city $13.2 million.[28] Even mass transit systems have innovated with hybrid bus fleets to real-time tracking at bus stands. In addition, the growing use of mobile data terminals in vehicles, that serve as communication hubs between vehicles and a control center, automatically send data on location, passenger counts, engine performance, mileage and other information. This tool helps to deliver and manage transportation systems.[29]

Still other innovative strategies include hospitals digitizing medical information in electronic medical records. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI initiatives turned severely distressed public housing in urban areas into revitalized, mixed-income environments; the Harlem Children’s Zone used a community-based approach to educate local area children; and the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfield grants facilitates turning over brownfields for environmental protection, green spaces, community and commercial development.

Hasmath et al. have found that within local government organizations in China, the appetite to innovate may be linked to specific character types. They identify three distinct character types within the Chinese local government: authoritarian bureaucratic, a primarily older male cadre who are most likely to follow central government command; a consultative governance types that is most open to collaborating with NGOs and outside of government, and; an entrepreneurial type that is both less risk averse and demonstrates high personal efficacy.[30]

Sources

There are several sources of innovation. It can occur as a result of a focus effort by a range of different agents, by chance, or as a result of a major system failure.

According to Peter F. Drucker, the general sources of innovations are different changes in industry structure, in market structure, in local and global demographics, in human perception, mood and meaning, in the amount of already available scientific knowledge, etc.[22]

Technological Change
Original model of three phases of the process of Technological Change

In the simplest linear model of innovation the traditionally recognized source is manufacturer innovation. This is where an agent (person or business) innovates in order to sell the innovation. Specifically, R&D measurement is the commonly used input for innovation, in particular in the business sector, named Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) that grew over the years on the expenses of the declining R&D invested by the public sector.[31]

Another source of innovation, only now becoming widely recognized, is end-user innovation. This is where an agent (person or company) develops an innovation for their own (personal or in-house) use because existing products do not meet their needs. MIT economist Eric von Hippel has identified end-user innovation as, by far, the most important and critical in his classic book on the subject, The Sources of Innovation.[32]

The robotics engineer Joseph F. Engelberger asserts that innovations require only three things:

  1. A recognized need,
  2. Competent people with relevant technology, and
  3. Financial support.[33]

However, innovation processes usually involve: identifying customer needs, macro and meso trends, developing competences, and finding financial support.

The Kline chain-linked model of innovation[34] places emphasis on potential market needs as drivers of the innovation process, and describes the complex and often iterative feedback loops between marketing, design, manufacturing, and R&D.

Innovation by businesses is achieved in many ways, with much attention now given to formal research and development (R&D) for "breakthrough innovations". R&D help spur on patents and other scientific innovations that leads to productive growth in such areas as industry, medicine, engineering, and government.[35] Yet, innovations can be developed by less formal on-the-job modifications of practice, through exchange and combination of professional experience and by many other routes. Investigation of relationship between the concepts of innovation and technology transfer revealed overlap.[36] The more radical and revolutionary innovations tend to emerge from R&D, while more incremental innovations may emerge from practice – but there are many exceptions to each of these trends.

Information technology and changing business processes and management style can produce a work climate favorable to innovation.[37] For example, the software tool company Atlassian conducts quarterly "ShipIt Days" in which employees may work on anything related to the company's products.[38] Google employees work on self-directed projects for 20% of their time (known as Innovation Time Off). Both companies cite these bottom-up processes as major sources for new products and features.

An important innovation factor includes customers buying products or using services. As a result, firms may incorporate users in focus groups (user centred approach), work closely with so called lead users (lead user approach) or users might adapt their products themselves. The lead user method focuses on idea generation based on leading users to develop breakthrough innovations. U-STIR, a project to innovate Europe’s surface transportation system, employs such workshops.[39] Regarding this user innovation, a great deal of innovation is done by those actually implementing and using technologies and products as part of their normal activities. Sometimes user-innovators may become entrepreneurs, selling their product, they may choose to trade their innovation in exchange for other innovations, or they may be adopted by their suppliers. Nowadays, they may also choose to freely reveal their innovations, using methods like open source. In such networks of innovation the users or communities of users can further develop technologies and reinvent their social meaning.[40][41]

One technique for innovating a solution to an identified problem is to actually attempt an experiment with many possible solutions.[42] This technique was famously used by Thomas Edison's laboratory to find a version of the incandescent light bulb economically viable for home use, which involved searching through thousands of possible filament designs before settling on carbonized bamboo.

This technique is sometimes used in pharmaceutical drug discovery. Thousands of chemical compounds are subjected to high-throughput screening to see if they have any activity against a target molecule which has been identified as biologically significant to a disease. Promising compounds can then be studied; modified to improve efficacy, reduce side effects, and reduce cost of manufacture; and if successful turned into treatments.

The related technique of A/B testing is often used to help optimize the design of web sites and mobile apps. This is used by major sites such as amazon.com, Facebook, Google, and Netflix.[43] Procter & Gamble uses computer-simulated products and online user panels to conduct larger numbers of experiments to guide the design, packaging, and shelf placement of consumer products.[44] Capital One uses this technique to drive credit card marketing offers.[43]

Goals and failures

Programs of organizational innovation are typically tightly linked to organizational goals and objectives, to the business plan, and to market competitive positioning. One driver for innovation programs in corporations is to achieve growth objectives. As Davila et al. (2006) notes, "Companies cannot grow through cost reduction and reengineering alone... Innovation is the key element in providing aggressive top-line growth, and for increasing bottom-line results".[45]

One survey across a large number of manufacturing and services organizations found, ranked in decreasing order of popularity, that systematic programs of organizational innovation are most frequently driven by: improved quality, creation of new markets, extension of the product range, reduced labor costs, improved production processes, reduced materials, reduced environmental damage, replacement of products/services, reduced energy consumption, conformance to regulations.[45]

These goals vary between improvements to products, processes and services and dispel a popular myth that innovation deals mainly with new product development. Most of the goals could apply to any organisation be it a manufacturing facility, marketing firm, hospital or local government. Whether innovation goals are successfully achieved or otherwise depends greatly on the environment prevailing in the firm.[46]

Conversely, failure can develop in programs of innovations. The causes of failure have been widely researched and can vary considerably. Some causes will be external to the organization and outside its influence of control. Others will be internal and ultimately within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be divided into causes associated with the cultural infrastructure and causes associated with the innovation process itself. Common causes of failure within the innovation process in most organizations can be distilled into five types: poor goal definition, poor alignment of actions to goals, poor participation in teams, poor monitoring of results, poor communication and access to information.[47]

Diffusion

InnovationLifeCycle

Diffusion of innovation research was first started in 1903 by seminal researcher Gabriel Tarde, who first plotted the S-shaped diffusion curve. Tarde defined the innovation-decision process as a series of steps that includes:[48]

  1. First knowledge
  2. Forming an attitude
  3. A decision to adopt or reject
  4. Implementation and use
  5. Confirmation of the decision

Once innovation occurs, innovations may be spread from the innovator to other individuals and groups. This process has been proposed that the life cycle of innovations can be described using the 's-curve' or diffusion curve. The s-curve maps growth of revenue or productivity against time. In the early stage of a particular innovation, growth is relatively slow as the new product establishes itself. At some point, customers begin to demand and the product growth increases more rapidly. New incremental innovations or changes to the product allow growth to continue. Towards the end of its lifecycle, growth slows and may even begin to decline. In the later stages, no amount of new investment in that product will yield a normal rate of return

The s-curve derives from an assumption that new products are likely to have "product life" – i.e., a start-up phase, a rapid increase in revenue and eventual decline. In fact, the great majority of innovations never get off the bottom of the curve, and never produce normal returns.

Innovative companies will typically be working on new innovations that will eventually replace older ones. Successive s-curves will come along to replace older ones and continue to drive growth upwards. In the figure above the first curve shows a current technology. The second shows an emerging technology that currently yields lower growth but will eventually overtake current technology and lead to even greater levels of growth. The length of life will depend on many factors.[49]

Measures

Measuring innovation is inherently difficult as it implies commensurability so that comparisons can be made in quantitative terms. Innovation, however, is by definition novelty. Comparisons are thus often meaningless across products or service.[50] Nevertheless, Edison et al.[51] in their review of literature on innovation management found 232 innovation metrics. They categorized these measures along five dimensions i.e. inputs to the innovation process, output from the innovation process, effect of the innovation output, measures to access the activities in an innovation process and availability of factors that facilitate such a process.[51]

There are two different types of measures for innovation: the organizational level and the political level.

Organizational level

The measure of innovation at the organizational level relates to individuals, team-level assessments, and private companies from the smallest to the largest company. Measure of innovation for organizations can be conducted by surveys, workshops, consultants, or internal benchmarking. There is today no established general way to measure organizational innovation. Corporate measurements are generally structured around balanced scorecards which cover several aspects of innovation such as business measures related to finances, innovation process efficiency, employees' contribution and motivation, as well benefits for customers. Measured values will vary widely between businesses, covering for example new product revenue, spending in R&D, time to market, customer and employee perception & satisfaction, number of patents, additional sales resulting from past innovations.[52]

Political level

For the political level, measures of innovation are more focused on a country or region competitive advantage through innovation. In this context, organizational capabilities can be evaluated through various evaluation frameworks, such as those of the European Foundation for Quality Management. The OECD Oslo Manual (1995) suggests standard guidelines on measuring technological product and process innovation. Some people consider the Oslo Manual complementary to the Frascati Manual from 1963. The new Oslo manual from 2005 takes a wider perspective to innovation, and includes marketing and organizational innovation. These standards are used for example in the European Community Innovation Surveys.[53]

Other ways of measuring innovation have traditionally been expenditure, for example, investment in R&D (Research and Development) as percentage of GNP (Gross National Product). Whether this is a good measurement of innovation has been widely discussed and the Oslo Manual has incorporated some of the critique against earlier methods of measuring. The traditional methods of measuring still inform many policy decisions. The EU Lisbon Strategy has set as a goal that their average expenditure on R&D should be 3% of GDP.[54]

Indicators

Many scholars claim that there is a great bias towards the "science and technology mode" (S&T-mode or STI-mode), while the "learning by doing, using and interacting mode" (DUI-mode) is ignored and measurements and research about it rarely done. For example, an institution may be high tech with the latest equipment, but lacks crucial doing, using and interacting tasks important for innovation.

A common industry view (unsupported by empirical evidence) is that comparative cost-effectiveness research is a form of price control which reduces returns to industry, and thus limits R&D expenditure, stifles future innovation and compromises new products access to markets.[55] Some academics claim cost-effectiveness research is a valuable value-based measure of innovation which accords "truly significant" therapeutic advances (i.e. providing "health gain") higher prices than free market mechanisms.[56] Such value-based pricing has been viewed as a means of indicating to industry the type of innovation that should be rewarded from the public purse.[57]

An Australian academic developed the case that national comparative cost-effectiveness analysis systems should be viewed as measuring "health innovation" as an evidence-based policy concept for valuing innovation distinct from valuing through competitive markets, a method which requires strong anti-trust laws to be effective, on the basis that both methods of assessing pharmaceutical innovations are mentioned in annex 2C.1 of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement.[58][59][60]

Indices

Several indices attempt to measure innovation and rank entities based on these measures, such as:

  • The Bloomberg Innovation Index
  • The "Bogota Manual"[61] similar to the Oslo Manual, is focused on Latin America and the Caribbean countries.
  • The "Creative Class" developed by Richard Florida
  • The EIU Innovation Ranking
  • The Global Competitiveness Report
  • The Global Innovation Index (GII), by INSEAD[62]
  • The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Index
  • Innovation 360 – From the World Bank. Aggregates innovation indicators (and more) from a number of different public sources
  • The Innovation Capacity Index (ICI) published by a large number of international professors working in a collaborative fashion. The top scorers of ICI 2009–2010 were: 1. Sweden 82.2; 2. Finland 77.8; and 3. United States 77.5.[63]
  • The Innovation Index, developed by the Indiana Business Research Center, to measure innovation capacity at the county or regional level in the United States.[64]
  • The Innovation Union Scoreboard
  • The innovationsindikator for Germany, developed by the Federation of German Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) in 2005[65]
  • The INSEAD Innovation Efficacy Index[66]
  • The International Innovation Index, produced jointly by The Boston Consulting Group, the National Association of Manufacturers and its nonpartisan research affiliate The Manufacturing Institute, is a worldwide index measuring the level of innovation in a country. NAM describes it as the "largest and most comprehensive global index of its kind".
  • The Management Innovation Index – Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index[67]
  • The NYCEDC Innovation Index, by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, tracks New York City's "transformation into a center for high-tech innovation. It measures innovation in the City's growing science and technology industries and is designed to capture the effect of innovation on the City's economy."[68]
  • The Oslo Manual is focused on North America, Europe, and other rich economies.
  • The State Technology and Science Index, developed by the Milken Institute, is a U.S.-wide benchmark to measure the science and technology capabilities that furnish high paying jobs based around key components.[69]
  • The World Competitiveness Scoreboard[70]

Rankings

Many research studies try to rank countries based on measures of innovation. Common areas of focus include: high-tech companies, manufacturing, patents, post secondary education, research and development, and research personnel. The left ranking of the top 10 countries below is based on the 2016 Bloomberg Innovation Index.[71] However, studies may vary widely; for example the Global Innovation Index 2016 ranks Switzerland as number one wherein countries like South Korea and Japan do not even make the top ten.[72]

Bloomberg Innovation Index 2016
Rank Country/Territory Index
1  South Korea 91.31
2  Germany 85.54
3  Sweden 85.21
4  Japan 85.07
5   Switzerland 84.96
6  Singapore 84.54
7  Finland 83.80
8  United States 82.84
9  Denmark 81.40
10  France 80.39
Global Innovation Index 2016
Rank Country/Territory Index
1   Switzerland 66.3
2  Sweden 63.6
3  United Kingdom 61.9
4  United States 61.4
5  Finland 59.9
6  Singapore 59.2
7  Ireland 59.0
8  Denmark 58.5
9  Netherlands 58.3
10  Germany 57.9

Future

In 2005 Jonathan Huebner, a physicist working at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center, argued on the basis of both U.S. patents and world technological breakthroughs, per capita, that the rate of human technological innovation peaked in 1873 and has been slowing ever since.[73][74] In his article, he asked "Will the level of technology reach a maximum and then decline as in the Dark Ages?"[73] In later comments to New Scientist magazine, Huebner clarified that while he believed that we will reach a rate of innovation in 2024 equivalent to that of the Dark Ages, he was not predicting the reoccurrence of the Dark Ages themselves.[75]

John Smart criticized the claim and asserted that technological singularity researcher Ray Kurzweil and others showed a "clear trend of acceleration, not deceleration" when it came to innovations.[76] The foundation replied to Huebner the journal his article was published in, citing Second Life and eHarmony as proof of accelerating innovation; to which Huebner replied.[77] However, Huebner's findings were confirmed in 2010 with U.S. Patent Office data.[78] and in a 2012 paper.[79]

Innovation and development

The theme of innovation as a tool to disrupting patterns of poverty has gained momentum since the mid-2000s among major international development actors such as DFID,[80] Gates Foundation's use of the Grand Challenge funding model,[81] and USAID's Global Development Lab.[82] Networks have been established to support innovation in development, such as D-Lab at MIT.[83] Investment funds have been established to identify and catalyze innovations in developing countries, such as DFID's Global Innovation Fund,[84] Human Development Innovation Fund,[85] and (in partnership with USAID) the Global Development Innovation Ventures.[86]

Government policies

Given the noticeable effects on efficiency, quality of life, and productive growth, innovation is a key factor in society and economy. Consequently, policymakers have long worked to develop environments that will foster innovation and its resulting positive benefits, from funding Research and Development to supporting regulatory change, funding the development of innovation clusters, and using public purchasing and standardisation to 'pull' innovation through.

For instance, experts are advocating that the U.S. federal government launch a National Infrastructure Foundation, a nimble, collaborative strategic intervention organization that will house innovations programs from fragmented silos under one entity, inform federal officials on innovation performance metrics, strengthen industry-university partnerships, and support innovation economic development initiatives, especially to strengthen regional clusters. Because clusters are the geographic incubators of innovative products and processes, a cluster development grant program would also be targeted for implementation. By focusing on innovating in such areas as precision manufacturing, information technology, and clean energy, other areas of national concern would be tackled including government debt, carbon footprint, and oil dependence.[35] The U.S. Economic Development Administration understand this reality in their continued Regional Innovation Clusters initiative.[87] In addition, federal grants in R&D, a crucial driver of innovation and productive growth, should be expanded to levels similar to Japan, Finland, South Korea, and Switzerland in order to stay globally competitive. Also, such grants should be better procured to metropolitan areas, the essential engines of the American economy.[35]

Many countries recognize the importance of research and development as well as innovation including Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT);[88] Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research;[89] and the Ministry of Science and Technology in the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, Russia's innovation programme is the Medvedev modernisation programme which aims at creating a diversified economy based on high technology and innovation. Also, the Government of Western Australia has established a number of innovation incentives for government departments. Landgate was the first Western Australian government agency to establish its Innovation Program.[90]

Regions have taken a more proactive role in supporting innovation. Many regional governments are setting up regional innovation agency to strengthen regional innovation capabilities.[91] In Medellin, Colombia, the municipality of Medellin created in 2009 Ruta N to transform the city into a knowledge city.[92]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Innovation". Merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  2. ^ Maranville, S. (1992). "Entrepreneurship in the Business Curriculum". Journal of Education for Business. 68: 27–31. doi:10.1080/08832323.1992.10117582.
  3. ^ Frankelius, Per (2009). "Questioning two myths in innovation literature". The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 20: 40–51. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2009.02.002.
  4. ^ Bhasin, Kim (2 April 2012). "This Is The Difference Between 'Invention' And 'Innovation'". Business Insider.
  5. ^ "What's the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?". Forbes. 10 September 2015.
  6. ^ Growth in Services. Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, 2005. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  7. ^ Consumer Policy Toolkit. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2010. doi:10.1787/9789264079663-en. ISBN 9789264079656.
  8. ^ "EPSC - European Commission" (PDF).
  9. ^ Mazzaferro, Alexander (2018). ""Such a Murmur": Innovation, Rebellion, and Sovereignty in William Strachey's "True Reportory"". Early American Literature. 53 (1): 3–32. doi:10.1353/eal.2018.0001. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  10. ^ Mazzaferro, Alexander McLean (2017). "No newe enterprize" (Doctoral dissertation). Camden, New Jersey: Rutgers University. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  11. ^ Lepore, Jill (23 June 2014). "The Disruption Machine What the gospel of innovation gets wrong". The New Yorker. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  12. ^ Green, Emma (20 June 2013). "Innovation: The History of a Buzzword". The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 February 2019.
  13. ^ a b Edison, H., Ali, N.B., & Torkar, R. (2014). Towards innovation measurement in the software industry. Journal of Systems and Software 86(5), 1390–407.
  14. ^ Innovation in American Government: Challenges, Opportunities, and Dilemmas. Brookings Inst Pr. 1 June 1997. ISBN 9780815703587.
  15. ^ Hughes, D. J.; Lee, A.; Tian, A. W.; Newman, A.; Legood, A. (2018). "Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations". The Leadership Quarterly. 29 (5): 549–569. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001. hdl:10871/32289.
  16. ^ Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (6 ed.). Routledge. pp. 81–84. ISBN 978-0-415-10762-4.
  17. ^ Heyne, P., Boettke, P. J., and Prychitko, D. L. (2010). The Economic Way of Thinking. Prentice Hall, 12th ed. pp. 163, 317–18.
  18. ^ "Silicon Valley History & Future". Netvalley.com. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  19. ^ Rubin, Tzameret H.; Aas, Tor Helge; Stead, Andrew (1 July 2015). "Knowledge flow in Technological Business Incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel". Technovation. 41–42: 11–24. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.002.
  20. ^ Salge, Torsten Oliver; Vera, Antonio (2012). "Benefiting from Public Sector Innovation: The Moderating Role of Customer and Learning Orientation". Public Administration Review. 72 (4): 550–559. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02529.x.
  21. ^ West, Michael A. (2002). "Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups". Applied Psychology. 51 (3): 355–387. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00951.
  22. ^ a b "The Discipline of Innovation". Harvard Business Review. August 2002. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
  23. ^ Christensen, Clayton & Overdorf, Michael (2000). "Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change". Harvard Business Review.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ MIT Sloan Management Review Spring 2002. "How to identify and build New Businesses"
  25. ^ Anthony, Scott D.; Johnson, Mark W.; Sinfield, Joseph V.; Altman, Elizabeth J. (2008). Innovator's Guide to Growth. "Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work". Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1-59139-846-2.
  26. ^ a b c Iansiti, Marco; Lakhani, Karim R. (January 2017). "The Truth About Blockchain". Harvard Business Review. Harvard University. Retrieved 17 January 2017. a foundational technology: It has the potential to create new foundations for our economic and social systems.
  27. ^ Salge, T. O.; Vera, A. (2009). "Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: Evidence from English public acute care". Health Care Management Review. 34 (1): 54–67. doi:10.1097/01.HMR.0000342978.84307.80. PMID 19104264.
  28. ^ Perez, T. and Rushing R. (2007). "The CitiStat Model: How Data-Driven Government Can Increase Efficiency and Effectiveness". Center for American Progress Report. pp. 1–18.
  29. ^ Transportation Research Board (2007). "Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 70: Mobile Data Terminals". pp. 1–5. TCRP (PDF).
  30. ^ Hasmath, Reza; Teets, Jessica C.; Lewis, Orion A. "The Innovative Personality? Policymaking and Experimentation in an Authoritarian Bureaucracy".
  31. ^ H. Rubin, Tzameret (2015). "The Achilles heel of a strong private knowledge sector: evidence from Israel" (PDF). The Journal of Innovation Impact. 7 (1): 80–99.
  32. ^ Von Hippel, Eric (1988). The Sources of Innovation (PDF). Oxford University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 October 2006. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
  33. ^ Engelberger, J. F. (1982). "Robotics in practice: Future capabilities". Electronic Servicing & Technology magazine.
  34. ^ Kline (1985). Research, Invention, Innovation and Production: Models and Reality, Report INN-1, March 1985, Mechanical Engineering Department, Stanford University.
  35. ^ a b c Mark, M., Katz, B., Rahman, S., and Warren, D. (2008) MetroPolicy: Shaping A New Federal Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation. Brookings Institution: Metropolitan Policy Program Report. pp. 4–103.
  36. ^ Dubickis, M., Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2015). "Perspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 213: 965–970. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.512.
  37. ^ "New Trends in Innovation Management". Forbesindia.com. Forbes India Magazine. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  38. ^ "ShipIt Days". Atlassian. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  39. ^ "U-STIR". U-stir.eu. Archived from the original on 18 September 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  40. ^ Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation. Oxford University Press. Networks of Innovation Archived 5 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  41. ^ Siltala, R. (2010). Innovativity and cooperative learning in business life and teaching. PhD thesis. University of Turku.
  42. ^ Forget The 10,000-Hour Rule; Edison, Bezos, & Zuckerberg Follow The 10,000-Experiment Rule. Medium.com (2017-10-26). Retrieved on 2018-10-16.
  43. ^ a b Why These Tech Companies Keep Running Thousands Of Failed Experiments. Fastcompany.com (2016-09-21). Retrieved on 2018-10-16.
  44. ^ Simulation Advantage. Bcgperspectives.com (2010-08-04). Retrieved on 2018-10-16.
  45. ^ a b Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., and Shelton, R. (2006). "Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It." Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.
  46. ^ Khan, Arshad M.; Manopichetwattana, V. (1989). "Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms: Types and Characteristics". Management Science. 35 (5): 597–606. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.5.597.
  47. ^ O'Sullivan, David (2002). "Framework for Managing Development in the Networked Organisations". Journal of Computers in Industry. 47 (1): 77–88.
  48. ^ Tarde, G. (1903). The laws of imitation (E. Clews Parsons, Trans.). New York: H. Holt & Co.
  49. ^ Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.
  50. ^ The Oxford handbook of innovation. Fagerberg, Jan., Mowery, David C., Nelson, Richard R. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN 9780199264551. OCLC 56655392.CS1 maint: others (link)
  51. ^ a b Edison, H., Ali, N.B., & Torkar, R. (2013). "Towards innovation measurement in the software industry" (PDF). Journal of Systems and Software. 86 (5): 1390–1407. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.013.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  52. ^ Davila, Tony; Marc J. Epstein and Robert Shelton (2006). Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing
  53. ^ OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Oslo Manual. 2nd edition, DSTI, OECD / European Commission Eurostat, Paris 31 December 1995.
  54. ^ "Industrial innovation – Enterprise and Industry". Ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 27 August 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  55. ^ Chalkidou, K.; Tunis, S.; Lopert, R.; Rochaix, L.; Sawicki, P. T.; Nasser, M.; Xerri, B. (2009). "Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: Experience from four countries". The Milbank Quarterly. 87 (2): 339–67. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00560.x. PMC 2881450. PMID 19523121.
  56. ^ Roughead, E.; Lopert, R.; Sansom, L. (2007). "Prices for innovative pharmaceutical products that provide health gain: a comparison between Australia and the United States Value". Health. 10 (6): 514–20. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00206.x. PMID 17970935.
  57. ^ Hughes, B. (2008). "Payers Growing Influence on R&D Decision Making". Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 7 (11): 876–78. doi:10.1038/nrd2749. PMID 18974741.
  58. ^ Faunce, T.; Bai, J.; Nguyen, D. (2010). "Impact of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement on Australian medicines regulation and prices". Journal of Generic Medicines. 7 (1): 18–29. doi:10.1057/jgm.2009.40.
  59. ^ Faunce TA (2006). "Global intellectual property protection of 'innovative' pharmaceuticals: Challenges for bioethics and health law in B Bennett and G Tomossy" (PDF). Law.anu.edu.au. Globalization and Health Springer. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2011. Retrieved 18 June 2009.
  60. ^ Faunce, T. A. (2007). "Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?". Medical Journal of Australia. 187 (4): 240–42. PMID 17564579.
  61. ^ Hernán Jaramillo, Gustavo Lugones, Mónica Salazar (March 2001). "Bogota Manual. Standardisation of Indicators of Technological Innovation in Latin American and Caribbean Countries". Iberoamerican Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT) Organisation of American States (OAS) / CYTED PROGRAM COLCIENCIAS/OCYT. p. 87.CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
  62. ^ "The INSEAD Global Innovation Index (GII)". INSEAD. 28 October 2013.
  63. ^ "Home page". Innovation Capacity Index.
  64. ^ "Tools". Statsamerica.org. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  65. ^ Innovations Indikator retrieved 7 March 2017
  66. ^ "The INSEAD Innovation Efficiency Inndex". Technology Review. February 2016.
  67. ^ Kerle, Ralph (2013). Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. pp. 1300–1307. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_35. ISBN 978-1-4614-3857-1.
  68. ^ "Innovation Index". NYCEDC.com.
  69. ^ "Home page". statetechandscience.org.
  70. ^ "The World Competitiveness Scoreboard 2014" (PDF). IMD.org. 2014.
  71. ^ "These Are the World's Most Innovative Economies". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  72. ^ "Infografik: Schweiz bleibt globaler Innovationsführer". Statista Infografiken. Statista (In German). Retrieved 25 November 2016.
  73. ^ a b Huebner, J. (2005). "A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72 (8): 980–986. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003.
  74. ^ Hayden, Thomas (7 July 2005). "Science: Wanna be an inventor? Don't bother". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
  75. ^ Adler, Robert (2 July 2005). "Entering a dark age of innovation". New Scientist. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  76. ^ Smart, J. (2005). "Discussion of Huebner article". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72 (8): 988–995. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.07.001.
  77. ^ Huebner, Jonathan (2005). "Response by the Authors". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 72 (8): 995–1000. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.05.008.
  78. ^ Strumsky, D.; Lobo, J.; Tainter, J. A. (2010). "Complexity and the productivity of innovation". Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 27 (5): 496. doi:10.1002/sres.1057.
  79. ^ Gordon, Robert J. (2012). "Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds". NBER Working Paper No. 18315. doi:10.3386/w18315.
  80. ^ "Jonathan Wong, Head of DFID's Innovation Hub | DFID bloggers". Dfid.blog.gov.uk. 24 September 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  81. ^ "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenge Partners Commit to Innovation with New Investments in Breakthrough Science – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation". Gatesfoundation.org. 7 October 2014. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  82. ^ "Global Development Lab | U.S. Agency for International Development". Usaid.gov. 5 August 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  83. ^ "International Development Innovation Network (IDIN) | D-Lab". D-lab.mit.edu. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  84. ^ "Global Innovation Fund International development funding". GOV.UK. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  85. ^ "Human Development Innovation Fund (HDIF)". Hdif-tz.org. 14 August 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  86. ^ "USAID and DFID Announce Global Development Innovation Ventures to Invest in Breakthrough Solutions to World Poverty | U.S. Agency for International Development". Usaid.gov. 6 June 2013. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  87. ^ "U.S. Economic Development Administration : Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report" (PDF). Eda.gov. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  88. ^ "Science and Technology". MEXT. Archived from the original on 5 September 2011. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  89. ^ "BMBF " Ministry". Bmbf.de. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
  90. ^ "Home". Landgate.wa.gov.au. Landgate Innovation Program. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  91. ^ Morisson, A. & Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science,6(1),101–116. https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2019.1578257.
  92. ^ Morisson, Arnault (2018). "Knowledge Gatekeepers and Path Development on the Knowledge Periphery: The Case of Ruta N in Medellin, Colombia". Area Development and Policy: 1–18. doi:10.1080/23792949.2018.1538702.
Bloomberg L.P.

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It was founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981, with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, Charles Zegar, and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch.Bloomberg L.P. provides financial software tools such as analytics and equity trading platform, data services, and news to financial companies and organizations through the Bloomberg Terminal (via its Bloomberg Professional Service), its core revenue-generating product. Bloomberg L.P. also includes a wire service (Bloomberg News), a global television network (Bloomberg Television), websites, radio stations (Bloomberg Radio), subscription-only newsletters, and two magazines: Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets.In 2014, Bloomberg L.P. launched Bloomberg Politics, a multiplatform media property that merged the company's political news teams, and has recruited two veteran political journalists, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, to run it.

Carnegie Mellon University

Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) is a private research university based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Founded in 1900 by Andrew Carnegie as the Carnegie Technical Schools, the university became the Carnegie Institute of Technology in 1912 and began granting four-year degrees. In 1967, the Carnegie Institute of Technology merged with the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research to form Carnegie Mellon University. With its main campus located 3 miles (5 km) from Downtown Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon has grown into an international university with over a dozen degree-granting locations in six continents, including campuses in Qatar and Silicon Valley, and more than 20 research partnerships.The university has seven colleges and independent schools which all offer interdisciplinary programs: the College of Engineering, College of Fine Arts, Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mellon College of Science, Tepper School of Business, H. John Heinz III College of Information Systems and Public Policy, and the School of Computer Science.Carnegie Mellon counts 13,961 students from 109 countries, over 105,000 living alumni, and over 5,000 faculty and staff. Past and present faculty and alumni include 20 Nobel Prize laureates, 13 Turing Award winners, 23 Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 22 Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 79 Members of the National Academies, 124 Emmy Award winners, 47 Tony Award laureates, and 10 Academy Award winners.

Creativity

Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and somehow valuable is formed. The created item may be intangible (such as an idea, a scientific theory, a musical composition, or a joke) or a physical object (such as an invention, a literary work, or a painting).

Scholarly interest in creativity is found in a number of disciplines, primarily psychology, business studies, and cognitive science, but also education, technology, engineering, philosophy (particularly philosophy of science), theology, sociology, linguistics, and economics, covering the relations between creativity and general intelligence, personality type, mental and neurological processes, mental health, or artificial intelligence; the potential for fostering creativity through education and training; the fostering of creativity for national economic benefit, and the application of creative resources to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was a ministerial department of the United Kingdom Government created on 5 June 2009 by the merger of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). It was disbanded on the creation of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 14 July 2016.

Design

Design can have different connotations in different fields of application (see design disciplines below), but there are two basic meanings of design: as a verb and as a noun.

Design (as a verb: to design) is the intentional creation of a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process.

Design (as a noun: a design) can refer to such a plan or specification (e.g. a drawing or other document) or to the created object, etc., and features of it such as aesthetic, functional, economic or socio-political.

The process of creating a design can be brief (a quick sketch) or lengthy and complicated, involving considerable research, negotiation, reflection, modelling, interactive adjustment and re-design. In some cases, the direct construction of an object without an explicit prior plan (such as in craftwork and some engineering, coding, and graphic design) is also considered to be a design activity.

Design thinking

Design thinking refers to the cognitive, strategic and practical processes by which design concepts (proposals for new products, buildings, machines, etc.) are developed by designers and/or design teams. Many of the key concepts and aspects of design thinking have been identified through studies, across different design domains, of design cognition and design activity in both laboratory and natural contexts.Design thinking is also associated with prescriptions for the innovation of products and services within business and social contexts. Some of these prescriptions have been criticized for oversimplifying the design process and trivializing the role of technical knowledge and skills.Design Thinking is not a problem focused, but a solution oriented approach to problems. There are five principles of design thinking which are Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test and the process keeps repeating till the product is finalised.

Diffusion of innovations

Diffusion of innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. Everett Rogers, a professor of communication studies, popularized the theory in his book Diffusion of Innovations; the book was first published in 1962, and is now in its fifth edition (2003). Rogers argues that diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the participants in a social system. The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span multiple disciplines.

Rogers proposes that four main elements influence the spread of a new idea: the innovation itself, communication channels, time, and a social system. This process relies heavily on human capital. The innovation must be widely adopted in order to self-sustain. Within the rate of adoption, there is a point at which an innovation reaches critical mass.

The categories of adopters are innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Diffusion manifests itself in different ways and is highly subject to the type of adopters and innovation-decision process. The criterion for the adopter categorization is innovativeness, defined as the degree to which an individual adopts a new idea.

Disruptive innovation

In business theory, a disruptive innovation is an innovation that creates a new market and value network and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network, displacing established market-leading firms, products, and alliances. The term was defined and first analyzed by the American scholar Clayton M. Christensen and his collaborators beginning in 1995, and has been called the most influential business idea of the early 21st century.Not all innovations are disruptive, even if they are revolutionary. For example, the first automobiles in the late 19th century were not a disruptive innovation, because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. The market for transportation essentially remained intact until the debut of the lower-priced Ford Model T in 1908. The mass-produced automobile was a disruptive innovation, because it changed the transportation market, whereas the first thirty years of automobiles did not.

Disruptive innovations tend to be produced by outsiders and entrepreneurs in startups, rather than existing market-leading companies. The business environment of market leaders does not allow them to pursue disruptive innovations when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take scarce resources away from sustaining innovations (which are needed to compete against current competition). A disruptive process can take longer to develop than by the conventional approach and the risk associated to it is higher than the other more incremental or evolutionary forms of innovations, but once it is deployed in the market, it achieves a much faster penetration and higher degree of impact on the established markets.Beyond business and economics disruptive innovations can also be considered to disrupt complex systems, including economic and business-related aspects.

Innovation management

Innovation management is a combination of the management of innovation processes, and change management. It refers to product, business process, and organizational innovation. Innovation management is the subject of ISO 50500 series standards developed by ISO TC 279.

Innovation management includes a set of tools that allow managers and engineers to cooperate with a common understanding of processes and goals. Innovation management allows the organization to respond to external or internal opportunities, and use its creativity to introduce new ideas, processes or products. It is not relegated to R&D; it involves workers at every level in contributing creatively to a company's product development, manufacturing and marketing.

By utilizing innovation management tools, management can trigger and deploy the creative capabilities of the work force for the continuous development of a company. Common tools include brainstorming, prototyping, product lifecycle management, idea management, TRIZ, Phase–gate model, project management, product line planning and portfolio management. The process can be viewed as an evolutionary integration of organization, technology and market by iterating series of activities: search, select, implement and capture.Innovation processes can either be pushed or pulled through development. A pushed process is based on existing or newly invented technology, that the organization has access to, and tries to find profitable applications for.

A pulled process is based on finding areas where customers needs are not met, and then find solutions to those needs. To succeed with either method, an understanding of both the market and the technical problems are needed. By creating multi-functional development teams, containing both engineers and marketers, both dimensions can be solved.The product lifecycle of products is getting shorter because of increased competition. This forces companies to reduce the time to market. Innovation managers must therefore decrease development time, without sacrificing quality or meeting the needs of the market.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is a private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1861 in response to the increasing industrialization of the United States, MIT adopted a European polytechnic university model and stressed laboratory instruction in applied science and engineering. It has since played a key role in the development of many aspects of modern science, engineering, and mathematics, and is widely known for its innovation and academic strength, making it one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world. The Institute is a land-grant, sea-grant, and space-grant university, with an urban campus that extends more than a mile alongside the Charles River.

As of March 2019, 93 Nobel laureates, 26 Turing Award winners, and 8 Fields Medalists have been affiliated with MIT as alumni, faculty members, or researchers. In addition, 58 National Medal of Science recipients, 29 National Medals of Technology and Innovation recipients, 50 MacArthur Fellows, 73 Marshall Scholars, 45 Rhodes Scholars, 41 astronauts, and 16 Chief Scientists of the US Air Force have been affiliated with MIT. The school also has a strong entrepreneurial culture, and the aggregated annual revenues of companies founded by MIT alumni ($1.9 trillion) would rank roughly as the tenth-largest economy in the world (2014). MIT is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU).

New product development

In business and engineering, new product development (NPD) covers the complete process of bringing a new product to market. A central aspect of NPD is product design, along with various business considerations. New product development is described broadly as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale. The product can be tangible (something physical which one can touch) or intangible (like a service, experience, or belief), though sometimes services and other processes are distinguished from "products." NPD requires an understanding of customer needs and wants, the competitive environment, and the nature of the market.

Cost, time and quality are the main variables that drive customer needs. Aiming at these three variables, innovative companies develop continuous practices and strategies to better satisfy customer requirements and to increase their own market share by a regular development of new products. There are many uncertainties and challenges which companies must face throughout the process. The use of best practices and the elimination of barriers to communication are the main concerns for the management of the NPD .

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems is an American aerospace manufacturer and defense industry company that operates as the aviation division of parent company Northrop Grumman. It was formed as Orbital ATK Inc. in 2015 from the merger of Orbital Sciences Corporation and parts of Alliant Techsystems, and was purchased by Northrop Grumman in 2018. Innovation Systems designs, builds, and delivers space, defense, and aviation-related systems to customers around the world both as a prime contractor and as a merchant supplier. It has a workforce of approximately 12,000 employees dedicated to aerospace and defense including about 4,000 engineers and scientists; 7,000 manufacturing and operations specialists; and 1,000 management and administration personnel.

Open innovation

Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D. Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California,.The term was originally referred to as "a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology". More recently, it is defined as "a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization's business model". This more recent definition acknowledges that open innovation is not solely firm-centric: it also includes creative consumers and communities of user innovators. The boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable; innovations can easily transfer inward and outward between firms and other firms and between firms and creative consumers, resulting in impacts at the level of the consumer, the firm, an industry, and society.Because innovations tend to be produced by outsiders and founders in startups, rather than existing organizations, the central idea behind open innovation is that, in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (i.e. patents) from other companies. This is termed inbound open innovation. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the company (e.g. through licensing, joint ventures or spin-offs). This is called outbound open innovation.

The open innovation paradigm can be interpreted to go beyond just using external sources of innovation such as customers, rival companies, and academic institutions, and can be as much a change in the use, management, and employment of intellectual property as it is in the technical and research driven generation of intellectual property. In this sense, it is understood as the systematic encouragement and exploration of a wide range of internal and external sources for innovative opportunities, the integration of this exploration with firm capabilities and resources, and the exploitation of these opportunities through multiple channels.

Research and development

Research and development (R&D, R+D, or R'n'D), known in Europe as research and technological development (RTD), refers to innovative activities undertaken by corporations or governments in developing new services or products, or improving existing services or products. Research and development constitutes the first stage of development of a potential new service or the production process.

R&D activities differ from institution to institution, with two primary models of an R&D department either staffed by engineers and tasked with directly developing new products, or staffed with industrial scientists and tasked with applied research in scientific or technological fields, which may facilitate future product development. R&D differs from the vast majority of corporate activities in that it is not intended to yield immediate profit, and generally carries greater risk and an uncertain return on investment. However R&D is crucial for acquiring larger shares of the market through the marketisation of new products.

Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DEBEIS), or informally Business Secretary, is a cabinet position in the United Kingdom government. The office is responsible for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (formerly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and previous to that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). The secretary of state was, until July 2016, also President of the Board of Trade when that position was transferred to the newly created post of Secretary of State for International Trade.

The Economist

The Economist is an English-language weekly magazine-format newspaper owned by the Economist Group and edited at offices in London. Continuous publication began under its founder James Wilson in September 1843. In 2015, its average weekly circulation was a little over 1.5 million, about half of which were sold in the United States. Pearson PLC held a 50% shareholding via The Financial Times Limited until August 2015. At that time, Pearson sold their share in the Economist. The Agnelli family's Exor paid £287m to raise their stake from 4.7% to 43.4% while the Economist paid £182m for the balance of 5.04m shares which will be distributed to current shareholders. Aside from the Agnelli family, smaller shareholders in the company include Cadbury, Rothschild (21%), Schroder, Layton and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.A board of trustees formally appoints the editor, who cannot be removed without its permission. Although The Economist has a global emphasis and scope, about two-thirds of the 75 staff journalists are based in the London borough of Westminster. For the year to March 2016, the Economist Group declared operating profit of £61m.The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism that supports free trade, globalisation, free immigration and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage or drug liberalisation). The publication has described itself as "a product of the Caledonian liberalism of Adam Smith and David Hume". It targets highly educated, cultured readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers. The publication's CEO described this recent global change, which was first noticed in the 1990s and accelerated in the beginning of the 21st century as a "new age of Mass Intelligence".

Timeline of Russian innovation

Timeline of Russian Innovation encompasses key events in the history of technology in Russia, starting from the Early East Slavs and up to the Russian Federation.

The entries in this timeline fall into the following categories:

Indigenous inventions, like airliners, AC transformers, radio receivers, television, artificial satellites, ICBMs

Products and objects that are uniquely Russian, like Saint Basil's Cathedral, Matryoshka dolls, Russian vodka

Products and objects with superlative characteristics, like the Tsar Bomba, the AK-47, and Typhoon class submarine

Scientific and medical discoveries, like the periodic law, vitamins and stem cellsThis timeline examines scientific and medical discoveries, products and technologies introduced by various peoples of Russia and its predecessor states, regardless of ethnicity, and also lists inventions by naturalized immigrant citizens. Certain innovations achieved by a national operation may also be included in this timeline, in cases where the Russian side played a major role in such projects.

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (also known as U of I, Illinois, or colloquially as the University of Illinois or UIUC) is a public research university in Illinois and the flagship institution of the University of Illinois System. Founded in 1867 as a land-grant institution, its campus is located in the twin cities of Champaign and Urbana.

The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign is a member of the Association of American Universities and is classified as a R1 Doctoral Research University under the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, which denotes the highest research activity. In fiscal year 2017, research expenditures at Illinois totaled $642 million. The campus library system possesses the second-largest university library in the United States by holdings after Harvard University. The university also hosts the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) and is home to the fastest supercomputer on a university campus.The university contains 16 schools and colleges and offers more than 150 undergraduate and over 100 graduate programs of study. The university holds 651 buildings on 6,370 acres (2,578 ha) and its annual operating budget in 2016 was over $2 billion. The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign also operates a Research Park home to innovation centers for over 90 start-up companies and multinational corporations, including Abbott, AbbVie, Caterpillar, Capital One, Dow, State Farm, and Yahoo, among others.As of October 2018, 30 Nobel laureates, 2 Turing Award winners, and 1 Fields medalist have been affiliated with the university as alumni, faculty members, or researchers.

User innovation

User innovation refers to innovation by intermediate users (e.g. user firms) or consumer users (individual end-users or user communities), rather than by suppliers (producers or manufacturers). This is a concept closely aligned to co-design, and has been proven to result in more innovative solutions than traditional consultation methodologies.Eric von Hippel and others observed that many products and services are actually developed or at least refined, by users, at the site of implementation and use. These ideas are then moved back into the supply network. This is because products are developed to meet the widest possible need; when individual users face problems that the majority of consumers do not, they have no choice but to develop their own modifications to existing products, or entirely new products, to solve their issues. Often, user innovators will share their ideas with manufacturers in hopes of having them produce the product, a process called free revealing.

Based on research on the evolution of Internet technologies and open source software Ilkka Tuomi (Tuomi 2002) further highlighted the point that users are fundamentally social. User innovation, therefore, is also socially and socio-technically distributed innovation. According to Tuomi, key uses are often unintended uses invented by user communities that reinterpret and reinvent the meaning of emerging technological opportunities.

The existence of user innovation, for example, by users of industrial robots, rather than the manufacturers of robots (Fleck 1988) is a core part of the argument against the Linear Innovation Model, i.e. innovation comes from research and development, is then marketed and 'diffuses' to end-users. Instead innovation is a non-linear process involving innovations at all stages.In 1986 Eric von Hippel introduced the lead user method that can be used to systematically learn about user innovation in order to apply it in new product development. In 2007 another specific type of user innovator, the creative consumer was introduced. These are consumers who adapt, modify, or transform a proprietary offering as opposed to creating completely new products.User innovation has a number of degrees: innovation of use, innovation in services, innovation in configuration of technologies, and finally the innovation of novel technologies themselves. While most user innovation is concentrated in use and configuration of existing products and technologies, and is a normal part of long term innovation, new technologies that are easier for end-users to change and innovate with, and new channels of communication are making it much easier for user innovation to occur and have an impact.

Recent research has focused on Web-based forums that facilitate user (or customer) innovation - referred to as virtual customer environment, these forums help companies partner with their customers in various phases of product development as well as in other value creation activities. For example, Threadless, a T-shirt manufacturing company, relies on the contribution of online community members in the design process. The community includes a group of volunteer designers who submit designs and vote on the designs of others. In addition to free exposure, designers are provided monetary incentives including a $2,500 base award as well as a percentage of T-shirt sales. These incentives allow Threadless to encourage continual user contribution.

Lists of inventions or discoveries
by country/region
by topic
Lists of inventors or discoverers
by country/region
General
Ideology
Cultural aspects
Social aspects
Criticism
Antithesis

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.