A case study of global agency innovation rankings: implications on current definitions of innovation
- Author(s)
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(3).2018.22
-
Article InfoVolume 16 2018, Issue #3, pp. 269-284
- 1719 Views
-
244 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
In this paper, the authors analyze global innovation rankings as provided by Strategy& over the last 7 years. They first explore the raw ranks and report variations in year-over-year (YOY) ranks for top ten ranking companies. The normalized innovation ranks are then used to calculate the Innovation Power (inP) to assess if these companies maintained or improved their ranks over time. An interesting classification of innovations for the top 10 emerges from this analysis. The constant top innovators were Apple and Google. The rising innovators were Tesla, 3M and Facebook. Other classifications are discussed. The authors propose a non-statistical predictive model, which is reminiscent of a kinematic model using a novel concept of Innovation Momentum (inM) and predict that for 2017, Apple and Google will hold their first and second place, followed by Amazon, Samsung and Tesla. Facebook is also expected to rise in its rank. Companies that reach out and serve end-user needs with service innovations appear rising in ranks, far more than R&D intensive patent filing innovators in these ranks. Tesla is an interesting top ranker to watch. There are implications for software focused companies gaining importance given their flexibility over hardware dominant ones. Some bottom innovators are further declining. Although the rankings are perception-based, there is a pattern that implies it is not random or merely subjective. The analysis highlights the need for leaders and consultants to put in perspective the complex management problem of measuring innovation.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)O3, O32, G24, L29
-
References31
-
Tables5
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Normalized performance of top 10 innovators versus top 10 R&D spenders, showing, on an indexed basis, the innovators consistently outperforming the spenders on all 3 most important financial metrics
- Figure 2. The 3-year running average of the Innovation Power of each of the top 12 innovators over the four-year period from 2013 through 2016
-
- Table 1. The 2016 Innovation Ranking by Strategy&
- Table 2. The rank (Rank), the normalized Rank (inR) and the Innovation Power (inP)
- Table 3. Predicted versus actual values of normalized Innovation Ranking for the top 12 innovators for 2015 based on 2014 ranking
- Table 4. Correlation coefficient between the predicted versus actual normalized Innovation Ranking of the top innovators for the period 2012–2016
- Table 5. Predicted normalized Innovation Ranking for the top 12 innovators in 2017
-
- Archibugi, D., & Iammarino, S. (2002). The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence. Review of International Political Economy, 9(1), 98-122.
- Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.
- Bottazzi, L. &. (2007). The International Dynamics of R&D and Innovation in the Long Run and in The Short Run. The Economic Journal, 117(518), 486-511.
- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation.
- Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 354-363.
- Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
- Edwards, A., & Chaney, C (2016, June). Strategic Vision.
- Ettlie, J. E., & Reza, E. M. (1992). Organizational integration and process innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 795-827.
- Eurostat OECD (2005). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data.
- Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110-132.
- Govindarajan, V., & Srinivas, A. S. (2015, August 30). The innovation mindset in action: 3M corporation.
- Hamel, G. (1998, June). The Challenge Today: Changing the Rules of the Game. Business Strategy Review, 9(2), 19-26.
- Higgins, J. M. (1995). Innovation: The core competence. Strategy & Leadership, 23(6), 32-36.
- Jaruzelski, B., Schwarts, K., & Staach, A. V. (2015). The global innovation 1000 – innovation’s new world order. Strategy & Business, 81, 2-14.
- Johannessen, J., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. (2001). Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom? European Journal of innovation management, 4(1), 20-31.
- L. Bottazi, A. P. (2005). The International Dynamics of R&D and Innovation in the Short and the Long Run. No. w11524. National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Lundvall, B. Å. (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (Vol. 2). Anthem Press.
- McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. CUP Archive.
- Potts, H. E. (1994, July). The Definition of Invention in Patent Law. The Modern Law Review, 7, 113-123
- Prahalad, G. H. (1989, May/June). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review.
- Roberts, E. B. (1988). What we have learned: Managing Invention and Innovation. Research Technology Management, 1, 11-29.
- Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
- Schumpeter, J. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as Innovation. Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View, 51-75.
- Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Kourmousis, F. (2009, December 3). Assessing non-financial reports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(5), 426-438.
- Statista (2017, March). Statista – The Statistical Portal.
- Strategy & (2013). Who We Are. Strategy& creates strategy that works.
- Strategy & (2015). Past studies 2005–2013.
- Strategy& (2017). The top innovators and spenders.
- Strategy& (2017, January 3-5). Private Communication.
- Ven de Van, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
- Wang, E. L., & Kleppe, J. A. (2001). Teaching invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 565.
-
Model for innovation management by companies based on corporate entrepreneurship
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017 Issue #3 pp. 234-241 Views: 1574 Downloads: 602 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper aims to propose a new model for the manner in which companies manage innovation. To that end, some of the most important research on the topic is analyzed and summarized through a review of its historical background in the indexed databases in WoS (Web of Science) and an analysis of frequently used terms over the past 15 years (2001–2016). The analysis is developed through bibliometric techniques using VOSviewer software, version 1.6.4, seeking to identify recurring and related concepts, such as corporate entrepreneurship, that can leverage company innovation management from the strategy, inherent factors related to human resources and the environment in which the organization operates. Henceforth, this paper focuses on a new model to manage innovation in companies through a conceptualization of innovation and corporate entrepreneurship, this model can be useful in countries with low levels of cooperation between stakeholders and scarce resources, countries on bias of development like Latin America, Africa and some Asian countries. It can be concluded that the company innovation should start with the definition of its strategy, taking into account factors like the human talent and the environment in which the organization is operating, through customized innovation processes that can be applied following some of the multiple models referred to in the literature, framed within the needs of different stakeholders, as indicators of organizational performance. Therefore, the actors which are part of the model are: employees, clients, state, suppliers, academics, community, shareholders and business.
-
Commercialization of conventional and sustainability-oriented innovations: a comparative systematic literature review
Dinara Kalmakova
,
Yuriy Bilan 
,
Aknur Zhidebekkyzy ,
Rimma Sagiyeva
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.29
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 19, 2021 Issue #1 pp. 340-353 Views: 1387 Downloads: 496 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯInnovations play an important role in achieving competitiveness and long-term economic growth at all levels of the economic hierarchy. More recently, the role of sustainability-oriented innovation in achieving economic growth has become equally important. However, there is a scientific debate about the possibility of effective commercialization of sustainability-oriented innovations. The existence of such scientific debate, as well as the absence of citation-based systematic literature reviews, became a prerequisite for conducting a comparative literature review of research on the effective commercialization of conventional and sustainability-oriented innovations. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comparative review and analysis of research on the commercialization efficiency of conventional and sustainability-oriented innovations. The analysis was conducted on the basis of a citation-based systematic literature review method. The results show that sustainable innovation research is more focused on the relationship between commercialization and firm performance. In the field of conventional innovations, research trends have shifted from studying the impact of technology transfer office (TTO) size, staffing, compensation practices to how strategic factors affect the efficiency of commercialization. In the area of sustainability-oriented innovation, the issues of the strategic orientation impact cause the most sustained interest, while managerial concerns and the stringency of environmental regulations have been actively explored in the past few years. It was revealed that the commercialization efficiency of sustainability-oriented innovations is characterized by so called sustainability-oriented criteria. A distinctive output criterion for commercialization efficiency of sustainability-oriented innovation is the improvement of the firm’s image. In addition, content analysis identified possible research directions to be investigated.
