NON-TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES
Cristina Saraiva Pereira
Production and Systems Department, School of
Engineering University of Minho,
Portugal
E-mail: ssaraiva.dps.uminho@gmail.com
Fernando Carlos Cabrita Romero
Production and Systems Department, School of
Engineering University of Minho,
Portugal
E-mail: fromero@dps.uminho.pt
Submission: 01/05/2013
Accept: 17/05/2013
ABSTRACT
Innovation
can be considered to be a complex phenomenon including technical and
non-technical aspects. A remarkable increase in the
interdisciplinary attention devoted to innovation has been noticed over the
recent decades but the formal
technological and economic aspects of innovation have received much more
attention and have been taken into account in a far greater number of analyses,
despite the great importance of the non-technological dimension of innovation.
This paper attempts a review on the important subject of
non-technological innovation. The main ideas on the non-technological dimension
of innovation research will be highlighted, followed by an attempt to integrate
diverse and disparate perspectives on the subject, to present evidence on
possible generalizations and to discuss eventual research gaps and
opportunities for further studies. The relationship between technological and
non-technological innovation is complex and not fully understood. Among several
aspects that will be covered in this paper, two specific ones will receive
special attention in this brief analysis: the evidence on the impacts of
non-technological innovation, and the measurements efforts that have been made
concerning this phenomenon.
Keywords: non-technological
innovation; organizational innovation; innovation indicators; new
forms of innovation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Non-technological
innovation is an important element of firms’ innovation activities that both
supplement and complement technological innovation. Some scholars have point
out that innovation in firms is not just about developing and applying new
technologies but also to adopt and re-organize business routines, internal
organization, external relations and marketing. Other authors maintain that the
innovation management literature stresses the importance of integrating
product, process and organizational innovation for successfully transferring
new ideas and new business opportunities into market success and emphasizing
the crucial role of linking research & development (R&D), technological
innovation and new marketing approaches.
That firms must innovate in order to
survive and compete (Chesbrough, 2003; Desouza et al., 2009; Drucker, 1986; Porter, 1990)
is almost a truism but, however, the ability to innovate, and do so effectively
and efficiently is a critical competency that many firms have yet to master (Jaruzelski & Dehoff, 2010; Pohle &
Chapman, 2006).
A
remarkable increase in the attention devoted to innovation by interdisciplinary
scholars has been noticed over recent decades (Fagerberg, 2004; Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2008), but the formal technological and economic
aspects of innovation have received much more attention and been taken into
account in a far greater number of analyses, despite the great importance of
organizational innovation (Bruland &
Mowery, 2004).
Referring to Schumpeter (1939) and other innovation researchers (e.g., Anderson & King, 1993; Damanpour et al., 1987; Totterdell et al., 2002),
innovation can be considered to be a complex phenomenon including technical
(e.g., new products, new production machinery) and non-technical aspects (e.g.,
new markets, production methods, and new forms of organization).
2. THE ISSUE OF NON-TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
The technological and
non-technological aspects of innovation are both of importance in constituting
an innovative firm (CHANDLER, 1962; NELSON, 1991). Among innovative firms,
process innovation and organizational changes are the most significant
innovating strategies (O´SULLIVAN & DOODLEY, 2009). If not accompanied by
organizational change, the effort to implement technological innovation will
meet only restricted success and vice versa, as they are interdependent (FREEMAN,
1995). However, historically, the relation between both dimensions seems to be
underexplored.
Nowadays, it seems insufficient to
see innovation only through the lens of new product development and process
innovation or traditional R&D. Recent literature on innovation highlights
the iterative character of innovation processes where non-technological
activities play a crucial role, stressing that non-technological factors are a
requirement for getting the most of firms’ capacity for technological
innovation (SAWHNEY et al., 2006).
Some scholars have point out that
innovation in firms is not just about developing and applying new technologies
but also to adopt and re-organize business routines, internal organization,
external relations and marketing (BARANANO, 2003; BOER & DURING, 2001). And
other authors also maintain that innovation management literature stresses the
importance of integrating product, process and organizational innovation for
successfully transferring new ideas and new business opportunities into market
success (TIDD, 2001; COZZARIN & PERZIVAL, 2006) and emphasizing the crucial
role of linking R&D, technological innovation and new marketing approaches
(GRIFFIN & HAUSER, 2001).
Computer and information
technologies can be an illustrative example of the connection between
technological and non-technological aspects of innovation. Brynjolfsson; Hitt,
(2000); Brynjolfsson et al. (1997) studies suggest that organizational
innovation is vital, since it complements a key technological driver, such as
Information and Communication Technology (ICT), uplifting the firm’s
performance and growth. Computers cannot be simply plugged in and then firms
will instantly achieve product/service quality or efficiency gains (BRESNAHAN et
al., 2002). They must go through a process of reorganization in combination
with making considerable changes to their products and processes. Brynjolfsson
et al., (1997) argue that a joint effort between ICT and organizational change
is necessary. According to these authors, this will be compulsory to achieve
success and performance improvements.
3. DEFINING NON-TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
Innovation has been recognized to
have a central role in economic growth. However, the majority of empirical
evidence concerning the relationship between innovations and firm growth has
focused on technology development. Although the concept of innovation is
usually linked to the scientific and technological dimensions, there is a large
consensus that innovation is a complex process that cannot be reduced to the
technological side (ROMERO, 2010). New ideas have proposed new ways to
interpret this process. One of them suggests that the innovation paradigm is
changing from the closed innovation model to an open innovation model (CHESBROUGH,
2003). Pursuing this tendency, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, OECD has broadened the innovation concept to cover also
non-technological innovation (OECD, 2005).
Organizational innovation involves a
customary dimension specific to the institution, implying change in the
organization, and it is more related to structure, practices, arrangements,
organizational beliefs, rules and norms, than to its technical aspects (PETTIGREW
& FENTON, 2000; EDQUIST et al., 2001).
However, the definition of
organizational, or non-technological innovation, is not stable. For instance,
recently Moore (2005) proposed a taxonomy including 12 types of innovation:
disruptive, application, product, platform, value engineering, integration,
process, line extension, enhance, marketing and experiential innovation along
with three value disciplines of product leadership, customer intimacy, and
operation excellence. The third edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD; EUROSTAT,
2005) adopted the concept of non-technological innovation and introduced two
new types of innovation, organizational innovation and marketing innovation,
which complement the standard concepts of product and process innovations.
Organizational innovation refers to the implementation of new organizational
methods not used in the firm before, while a marketing innovation is the
implementation of new marketing methods.
The point to be made here is that
different lines of research apply the term organizational innovation in
different ways (LAM, 2004). Ideally, it would be important to use the term
organizational innovation in a somewhat strict sense. Preferentially, the term
would not refer to the adoption of any novelty in the organization such as that
defined in broad terms by Damanpour (1991) and Sorensen; Stuart (2000). The
definition would be narrower, meaning a new or significant change in the firm
management methods and structure, usually mentioned by researchers in management/organizational
studies (DAFT, 1978; DAMANPOUR, 1987, 1991; KIMBERLY & EVANISKO, 1981; TEECE,
1980) as administrative innovation.
4. STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF NON-TECHNOLOGICAL
INNOVATION
Recent literature and studies on
non-technological dimension of innovation (OECD, 2009) highlights the complex
character of innovation processes where non-technological activities play a
crucial role (SCHMIDT & RAMMER, 2007; TEECE et al.,1997). Ali-Yrkkö;
Martikainen (2008), analyzed the impact of technological and non-technological
innovations using data from an ad hoc survey conducted in the year 2008. The
survey defines non-technological innovations following the Sawhney et al.
(2006) approach which includes nine non-technological dimensions of innovation:
solutions, brands, networks, presence (where), supply chain, organizational,
value capture, customer experience and customers (who). In fact, the positive
impact of innovation on firm growth depends on the argument that firms carry
out simultaneously tech and non- tech innovations. According to Ali-Yrkkö;
Martikainen (2008), in terms of turnover and employment, firms with only
technological innovations do not grow more rapidly than other firms. However,
firm growth is positively associated with the combination of technological and
non-technological innovations.
Schmidt; Rammer (2007) analyzed the
determinants and the impacts of non-technological innovations contrasting those
patterns with the determinants and effects of technological innovations, using
data from the German Innovation Survey (CIS 4) covering the years 2002-2004.
Comparing the determinants and impacts of non-technological innovations with
those of technological innovations, the results show that the share of firms
introducing only technological innovations (13%) is lower than share of firms
introducing only non-technological innovations (24%) (SCHMIDT & RAMMER,
2007).
In a sub-sample of innovative firms,
it was found that those firms investing directly in non-technological
innovation activities are 30% more likely to experience positive growth. Growth
is also significantly affected by workers and managers’ re-qualification (MORONE
& TESTA, 2008).
According to other studies, internal
organizational sources are the most important influence on firms’ innovative
performance (SVETINA & PRODAN, 2008). Investments in information and
communication technology, combined with organizational changes such as the
restructuring of production processes, human resource management practices,
product/service, quality-related practices and worker skills, are found to
contribute to better firm performance (GERA & GU, 2004).
Williamson (2010) has conducted a
study that discusses market structure in relation to technical and
organizational innovation. It proposes a systems approach to the innovation
process with the purpose to permit the realization of the distinctive
advantages of both small and large firms which apply at different stages of the
innovation process. This analysis also examines the relation of organizational
innovation to technological innovation.
Referring to services firms an
aspect that must be taken into consideration is that innovation is mainly
non-technological (organizational, marketing, management, service delivery)
with “softer” attributes such as workforce skills or cooperation practices
playing a decisive role (TETHER, 2005). Hertog (2000) proposes to analyse
service innovation in terms of conceptual, client-interface and service
delivery innovation. The latter is considered as key to service innovation (GALLOUJ
& WEINSTEIN, 1997; EVANGELISTA, 2000; FLIKKEMA et al., 2007). Sundbo (1997)
also argues that innovation in services tends to be market driven.
The effects of non-technological
innovation on technological innovation vary according to the type of industry.
Organizational and marketing innovations significantly increase the likelihood
of technological innovation. However, few studies have taken into account the
role of innovative strategies such as organizational and marketing innovations
(SCHMIDT & RAMMER, 2007; MOTHE & THI, 2010; JENSEN et al., 2007). Thus, it seems that future research should
address specificities of firms regarding the way non-technological innovation
may support technological innovation (SCHMIDT & RAMMER, 2007; MOTHE &
THI, 2010; EVANGELISTA & VEZZANI, 2010; WU, 2009). Sector specific or
technology specific characteristics of firms may result in significant variance
concerning non-technological innovation. Research should also investigate the
impact of firm size on non-technological activity strategies to enhance
performance as far as technological innovation is concerned. Differences
between large and small firms should be a matter of future research (MOTHE
& THI, 2010).
5. NON-TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION MEASUREMENT
Although the measurement of the
scientific and technological dimensions of innovation is an established
practice, so far there has been little research on possible approaches to
measure and monitor organizational or other non-technological forms of
innovation (ARMBRUSTER et al., 2008).
Using data from the Innobarometer
innovation survey which covers more than four thousand innovative firms, Arundel
et al. (2008) state that 52.5% of firms innovate without performing R&D,
40% carry out in house R&D and 7.5% outsource R&D to other agents of
the innovation system. These authors start from the assumption that firms
innovate by different methods beyond R&D. Therefore, analyzing how
non-R&D innovators innovate should be of interest.
A revision of the innovation
dimensions for the EIS 2008-2010, both for technological and non-technological
innovations was proposed by Hollanders and Cruysen (2008). According to the
authors suggestion, the EIS 2005-2007 uses five innovation dimensions, two of
which reflect innovation outputs (applications and intellectual property) and
three of which reflect innovation inputs (innovation drivers, knowledge
creation and innovation and entrepreneurship). However, these five dimensions
do not cover appropriately non-technological or non-R&D innovation, such as
organizational and marketing innovation.
Referring to the proposed model by Hollanders
and Cruysen, (2008) for the innovation process and its dimensions,
non-technological innovation could be described by four categories of
dimensions:
§ Human
resources;
§ Entrepreneurship
and the availability of finance;
§ Throughputs;
§ Applications
(Hollanders & Cruysen, 2008).
Hollanders and Cruysen (2008) have
introduced a new category defined as throughput indicators. These indicators
measure knowledge diffusion, including collaboration between firms and other
several actors such as suppliers, clients and competitors. They also might
measure new organizational arrangements. It is the intention of this category
to cover not only technological innovations but also non-technological ones.
These authors argue that it is quite relevant to take in consideration where
innovation takes place including the sectoral structure and the socio-economic
environment (HOLLANDERS & CRUYSEN, 2008). Applying this systemic approach three
main categories of indicators are highlighted: inputs, throughputs and outputs.
Analysis of the determinants of
non-technological innovations and comparisons with those of technological
innovations has been performed by Schmidt and Rammer (2006) by analyzing
marketing and organisational innovation activities of German firms during the
three-year period 2002 to 2004. After this research they have conclude that the
determinants of technological and non-technological innovations are quite
similar. Actually, firms have a propensity to innovate in every form if their
tangible and intangible assets (e.g., human capital and financial resources)
are high. Common aspects between the factors of technological and
non-technological innovations are found also for the export status, the share
of highly qualified labour and the size of the company.
Schmidt and Rammer (2007) stressed
that the principal factor that influences firms’ innovation behaviour is the
competitive environment. The parameters that significantly increase the
likelihood that a firm introduces both technological and non-technological
innovations are fast changing technologies and short product life. Whereas
organizational innovation is not considerably affected by the degree of
diversification of the products/services, less diversified firms are less
likely to introduce marketing innovations. Also it is important to say that the
likelihood to introduce non-technological innovations itself is not influenced
by the number of main competitors (SCHMIDT & RAMMER, 2007).
While it has been proposed that the
category “non-technological” shows the absence of a technological dimension,
excluding thus product and process innovation, there is a dispute that this
distinction may seem to be oversimplified and that both technological and
non-technological innovation may be actually part of any form of innovation.
Fructuoso (2009) states that the process innovation indicators constitute the
non-technological part of a technology dimension. Yet if we can accept that
technological innovation may include characteristics of non-technological ones
and vice versa, we should be aware that such a distinction enables us to
understand new forms of innovation that differ from the traditional ones.
The so-called Community Innovation
Surveys, CIS, have been an important source of information regarding data on
non-technological innovation. Some studies based on these data have compared
the relevance of technological and non-technological innovation activities. Schmidt
& Rammer (2007) have compared, using German CIS4 data, non-technological
innovations (organisational and marketing) with technological ones. 60% of all
manufacturing firms introduced technological innovations and also 60%
introduced non-technological innovations. For knowledge intensive services the
resultant figures are 52% and 66%, and for other services 37% and 48%. Arundel
et al. (2008) confirmed the same for 25 EU member states. More particularly, a
lower percentage of all service sector firms (34.0%) than all manufacturing
firms (39.3%) are technical innovators (introducing product or process
innovation) (ARUNDEL et al., 2007) There are no differences in the percentage
of all industrial and service sector firms that introduced an organizational
and/or marketing innovation, according to CIS4 data.
Firms with an intermediate market
share are deliberate to have a broad innovation strategy consisting of both
marketing and product/process innovations. A particularly weak or particularly
dominant position on the market tends to become pure organizational or
marketing innovators. The larger the resource base (information, human,
capital, etc) of the firm, the greater is the probability of introduction of
organizational and marketing innovations.
Concluding, we can say that an
increasingly important role has been assigned to non-technological innovation,
organizational innovation in particularly, due to the necessity of
understanding its impacts on firms´ competitiveness. Nowadays there is an
increasing consciousness of the significance of organizational innovation,
although the empirical basis for its measurement still lags behind. The PORCH
(Patterns of organizational Change in Europe Industry) Project has developed
attempts to strengthen the empirical basis of policy and research of
organizational innovation. According to these Project findings the majority of
organizational innovations surveyed have a different impact on output
dimensions although there is no sector specific importance. Moreover it is
perhaps not prudent to think of organizational innovations as a homogeneous
phenomenon and to measure them in an excessively standardized way.
Organizational innovation various effects on firms´ processes and structures
have to be understood when measuring organizational innovation.
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The measurement of organizational
innovation and its effects is methodologically challenging due to the
complexity and variety of organizational innovations. The relationships between
non-technological innovation and technological innovation are in need of
further exploration. Research approaches understand organizational innovation
either as a necessary adaptation to the introduction of new technologies, or as
a precondition for successful product or technical process innovations. In
fact, it will be important to understand how and under which circumstances
organizations change.
Definitions of innovation have
altered a number of times and also the indicators in the several Community Innovation
Surveys (CIS). Indicators measuring marketing and organizational innovation
were added to indicators of product and process innovation. Indicators of
marketing and organizational innovation reflect non-technological innovation,
although the distinction between the two types may be oversimplified because
probably they are related, and both technological and non-technological
activity and knowledge may be part of any form of innovation. Moreover, the way
in which innovations are perceived may vary between size classes and sectors of
economy.
Research in defining and measuring
organizational innovation still lags behind compared to indicators of tangible
innovation. Comparing the approaches to measuring organizational innovations in
the existing surveys by the CIS there are four main implications for measuring
organizational innovation: life-cycle of organizational innovation; complexity
of organizational innovation; quality of organizational innovation and extent
of use of organizational innovations In order to effectively survey firms’
innovativeness as it regards the adoption of organizational concepts these four
points should be taken into consideration when measuring organizational
innovation.
It will also be of great interest to
cover strategies (i.e. role of innovation and costs), structural (hierarchy,
functional lines, and organizational boundaries), and behavioural dimensions.
Work processes including the use of different production inputs, the flow of
work, job design, work allocation, and use of suppliers and subcontractors;
human resource management practices including hiring and firing and the firms´
relation practices involving the strategies and institutional structures
affecting the labour-management relationship should also be investigated. In
addition, the restructuring of production processes, which includes business
re-engineering, downsizing, flexible work arrangements outsourcing, greater
integration among functional lines, and decentralization; human resource
management practices, which include performance-based pay, flexible job design
and employee involvement, improving employees’ skills, and institutional
structures affecting labour-management relations; and product/service
quality-related practices emphasizing total quality management (TQM) and
improving coordination with customers/suppliers should be emphasized.
Shapiro (2006) argues that
innovation measurement needs to be dynamic. In fact, novelty is required for
innovation measurement in order to make it possible to catch up with changes in
the innovation field. The need to update innovation metrics’ is evident also in
the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) editions revised every year. Referring
to Hollanders; Cruysen (2008), future editions of the EIS are expected to deal with
four challenges: assessing overall innovation performance; improving
comparability at national, regional and international level; measuring new
forms of innovation; measuring progress and changes over time.
A new EIS methodology that confirms
the importance of non-R&D innovation is needed to develop due to a stronger
focus on non-technological aspects, on outputs of innovation demands and on
services.
The outcomes of organizational
innovations are difficult to define and measure and specific (new) set of
performance indicators are necessary for the organizational innovations´
measurement.
In face of the market orientation of
firms, innovation has become more market driven. A broader scope has been taken
by innovation policy increasing emphasis on non-technological forms of
innovation, knowledge transfer and firm’s capacity to capture and use knowledge
and market driven innovation. The use of non-R&D data for innovation
measurement is of great importance. R&D inputs are not sufficient to assure
that innovation activities will end up with the market introduction of new
products.
Innovation is in fact much more than
R & D. Firms can achieve competitiveness through different innovation paths
(non-technological innovation- organizational and marketing innovation).
Nowadays the current innovation
indicator systems focus more on technological innovation and on R&D.
Non-technological innovation needs to be properly measured.
Organizational innovations can be
understood both as enablers for other types of innovations and as a distinct
form of innovation (direct source of competitive advantage). The measurement of
organizational innovations and their effects is methodologically challenging
due to the complexity of organizational innovations. In fact, organisational
innovation is a multidimensional phenomenon including different aggregation
levels with longer life cycles than of product or service innovations (e.g.,
novelty less important). It is also important to point out the multidimensional
relationship between organizational innovations and their outcomes (e.g.,
complementarity vs. conflicting effects).
Research directions should lead to
attain detailed contextual information, principally about non-technological
innovation activities and their impacts. It will be helpful to use methods such
as interviews and questionnaire instrument as a means of building construct
validity.
The interviewees will have an
important role in the data collection methodology, as they will be asked to
assess the importance of each non-technological innovation for the industry
sector they are familiar with. The assessment of importance will be based on
the estimation of impact (low, moderate, strong) of the above mentioned
non-technological innovations on output dimensions.
Analysis will be based on the
information gathered by these questionnaires. Comparisons between small and
large firms, high-tech and low-tech firms, between sectors and /or clusters and
between countries will be made. These comparisons will allow a deep comprehension
of the inter-relations between New Forms of Innovation (NFI) and their
respective impacts in their multiple forms, and it will allow the
identification of as many as possible of the relevant variables.
In the end, a set of criteria and
indicators will be presented, translating the dimensions of NFI, which
ultimately will allow the development of a framework or a model to assess and
compare the impact of NFI.
Research should also investigate the
impact of firm size on non-technological activity strategies to enhance
performance as far as technological innovation is concerned.
It is hoped that the successful
concretization of this framework will contribute to the improvement of the
practices of less successful innovating firms. The results of this research
will be useful to entrepreneurs of various sectors, to the scientific community
and to policy makers. Additionally the relationship between innovation and
economic performance will be better understood. It will be important to
identify the main impacts of NFI decisions and to take advantage of the best
practices to be found in the most successful innovating firms, in order to
diffuse them to less successful innovating firms. This diffusion will surely
lead to the improvement of the competitiveness of the later, and to overall
competitiveness.
REFERENCES
Armbruster, H.; Bikfalvib, A.; Kinkela, S.; Lay, G. (2008) Organizational
innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale
surveys, Technovation, n. 28, p. 644–657.
Arundel, A.; Kanerva, M.;
Cruysen, V. A.; Hollanders, H. (2007) Innovation Statistics for the
European Service Sector, INNO Metrics,
p. 1-43.
Arundel, A.; C. Bordoy; M. Kanerva (2008) Neglected innovators: how do innovative
firms that do not perform R&D innovate? Results of an analysis of the Innobarometer 2007 Survey, 215,
MERIT.
Ali-Yrkkö, J. A.;
Martikainen, O. (2008) The impact of technological and non-technological
innovations on firm growth, ETLA, Working Paper, 1165.
Anderson, N. R.; King, N.
(1993) Innovation in Organizations, in C L Cooper & I T
Robertson (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
n. 8, p. 1-34.
Baranano, A.M. (2003) The
non-technological side of technological innovation: State-of-the-art and
guidelines for further empirical research. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, n. 3, p. 107-125.
Boer, H.; During, W.E. (2001) A
comparison between product, process and organizational innovation, International Journal of Technology Management,
n. 22, p. 83-107.
Bresnahan, T. F.; Brynjolfsson, E.; Hitt, L.
M. (2002) Information Technology, Workplace Organization and the Demand for
Skilled Labour: Firm–Level Evidence, Quarterly Journal of Economics, n. 117, p. 339–376.
BRULAND, K.; MOWERY, D. (2004) Innovation through time in Fagerberg, J.,
Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BRYNJOLFSSON, E.; RENSHAW, A.; VAN ALSTYNE, M. (1997) The Matrix of
Change, Sloan
Management Review, Winter.
BRYNJOLFSSON, E.; HITT, L. (2000) Beyond Computation: Information
Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, v. 14, n. 4, p. 23–48.
CHANDLER, A., (1962), Strategy
and Structure, Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
CHESBROUGH, H.
W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press.
COZZARIN, B.; PERCIVAL J. (2006) Complementarities
between organizational strategies and innovation, Economics of Innovation and
New Technology, n. 15,
p. 195-217.
DAFT, R. L. (1978) A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation, Academy of Management Journal, v. 21, n. 2, p. 193–210.
DAMANPOUR, F., (1987) The Adoption of Technological, Administrative and
Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors, Journal
of Management, v. 13, n. 4, p. 675–688.
DAMANPOUR, F.; SZABAT, K.A.; EVAN W.M. (1987) The
Relationship between Types of Innovation and Organizational Performance, Journal
of Management Studies, n. 26, p. 587-601.
DAMANPOUR, F. (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of
effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management
Journal, v. 34, n. 3, p. 555–590.
DESOUZA,
K. C.; DOMBROWSKI, C.; AWAZU, Y.; BALOH, P.; SANGAREDDY, S. R. P.; JHA, S.; KIM,
J. Y. (2009) Crafting
Organizational Innovation Processes. Innovation: Management, Policy
& Practice, v. 11, n. 1, p. 6–33.
DRUCKER,
P. F. (1986) Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice
and principles, New
York: Simon and Schuster.
EDQUIST, C.; HOMMEN, L.; MCKELVEY,
M. (2001) Innovation
and Employment: Process versus Product Innovation, Cheltenham: Elgar.
EVANGELISTA,
R. (2000) Sectoral Patterns of Technological Change in Services, Economics
of Innovation and New Technology, n. 9, p.183-221.
FAGERBERG, J. (2004) Innovation:
A guide to the literature” in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FAGERBERG, J.; VERSPAGEN, J. (2009)
Innovation studies – The emerging structure of a new scientific field, Research Policy, v. 38, n. 2, p. 218-233.
FREEMAN, C. (1995) The National System of Innovation in Historical
Perspective, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, n. 19, p. 5–24.
FRUCTUOSO, V. V. (2009) Improving the understanding of innovation by using test techniques.
Statistics, Netherlands, Discussion paper (09021), p. 1-43. Retrieved from
www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/94B5663B-E076-4947.../200921x10pub.pdf
GALLOUJ, F.; WEINSTEIN, O. (1997) Innovation in
services, Research Policy n. 26, p. 537-556.
FLIKKEMA, M.; JANSEN, P.; VAN DER SLUIS L. (2007) Identifying Neo-Schumpeterian
Innovation in Service Firms: A Conceptual Essay with a Novel Classification, Economics of Innovation and New Technology v. 16, n. 7, p. 541-558.
GERA, S.; GU, W. (2004) The effect of organizational
innovation and information and Communications technology on firms’ performance,
International Productivity Monitor, n.
9, p. 37-51.
GRIFFIN, A.; HAUSER, J. R. (2001) Integrating R&D and Marketing: A
Review and Analysis of the Literature, Journal of Product Innovation Management, n. 13, p. 191–215.
HERTOG, P. DEN. (2000) Knowledge-Intensive Business
Services as Co-producers of Innovation, International
Journal of Innovation Management, n. 4, p. 491-528.
HOLLANDERS, H.; CRUYSEN, V. A. (2008) Rethinking the European Innovation
Scoreboard: Recommendations for further improvements, Input paper for the
workshop on Improving the European Innovation Scoreboard methodology,
Maastricht.
JARUZELSKI,
B.; DEHOFF, K. (2010) The global innovation 1000: how the top innovators keep
winning, Strategy and Business, n. 61, p. 1–14.
JENSEN, M. B.; JOHNSON, B.; LORENZ, E.; LUNDVALL, B.
A. (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Research Policy, v. 36, n.9, p. 680-693.
KIMBERLY, J. R.; EVANISKO, M. J. (1981) Organizational Innovation: The influence of individual,
Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological
and Administrative Innovation, Academy
of Management Journal, v. 24, n. 4, p. 689–713.
LAM, A. (2004) Organizational
Innovation in Fagerberg, J., MOWERY, D., NELSON, R. (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MOORE, G. A. (2005) Dealing with Darwin: how great companies innovate at every
phase of their evolution, Portfolio.
MORONE, P.; TESTA, G. (2008) Firms growth, size and innovation: an investigation in the Italian
manufacturing sector. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,
v. 17, n. 4, p. 311–329.
MOTHE, C.; THI, T. (2010) The impact
of non-technological innovation on technological innovation: do services differ from manufacturing? An
empirical analysis of Luxembourg firms, Working Paper Nº 2010-01, CEPS/INSTEAD - Enterprises, Luxembourg.
NELSON, R. R. (1991) Why do
firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, n. 12,
p. 61–74.
OECD; EUROSTAT (2005) Oslo Manual - Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and
Interpreting Technological Innovation Data -
3rd Edition, Paris.
OECD,
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, (2009) Working party on Innovation and Technology
Policy- New Forms of Innovation: Challenges for Policy Making. OECD,
Headquarters, Paris.
O´SULLIVAN D.;
DOOLEY, L. (2009) Applying Innovation.
Sage, Los Angeles. United States of America.
PETTIGREW, A. M.; FENTON,
E. M. (2000) The
Innovating Organization, London: SAGE.
POHLE,
G.; CHAPMAN, M. (2006) IBM’s global
CEO report 2006: business mode innovation matters. Strategy & Leadership, v. 34, n. 5, p. 34–40.
PORTER,
M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press. Innovation–
Southeast Asia (IKI-SEA).
ROMERO, F. (2010) The social dimension of the integration of manufacturing systems: the role
of institutions. International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, v. 23, n. 8-9, p. 806-818.
SAWHNEY, M.
WOLCOTT, R. C.; ARRONIZ, I. (2006) The
12 Different Ways for Companies to Innovate,
MIT Sloan Management Review, v. 47,
n. 3.
SCHMIDT, T. RAMMER, C. (2006) The determinants and
effects of technological and non-technological innovations – Evidence from
the German CIS IV. Shortened version. 1-26. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/43/37450197.pdf
SCHMIDT, T.
RAMMER, C. (2007) Non-technological and Technological
Innovation: Strange Bedfellows? ZEW Discussion Paper 07-052.
SCHUMPETER, JOSEPH A. (1939) Business Cycles: A
Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New
York. Taylor & Francis.
SORENSEN, J. B.; STUART, T. E. (2000) ge, Obsolescence, and
Organizational Innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, v. 45, n. 1, p. 81–112.
SHAPIRO, R. A. (2006) Measuring innovation: beyond
revenue from new products, Research Technology Management, v. 49,
n. 6, p. 42-51.
SVETINA, A. C.;
PRODAN I. (2008) How internal and external sources of knowledge
contribute to firms innovation performance. Managing Global Transitions,
University of Primorska, Faculty of
Management Koper, v. 6, n. 3, p. 277-299.
SUNDBO, J. (1997)
Management of innovation in services,
The Service Industries
Journal, v. 17, n. 3, p. 432-455.
TEECE, D. J. (1980) The
Diffusion of an Administrative Innovation.
Management
Science, v. 26, n. 5, p. 464–470.
TEECE D. J.; PISANO, G.; SHUEN, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, v. 18, n. 7, p. 509-533.
TETHER, B.S. (2005)
Do Services Innovation (Differently)? Insights for the European
Innobarometer Survey. Industry and Innovation, v. 12,
n. 2, p.153-184.
TIDD, J. J.; BESSANT, K.; PAVITT (2001) Managing
Innovation: Integrating Technological,
Market and Organizational Change, 2nd edition, Chichester: Wiley.
TOTTERDELL, P.; LEACH, D.; BIRDI, K.; CLEGG, C.; WALL,
T. (2002) An investigation of the contents and consequences of major
organizational innovations, International Journal of Innovation
Management, n. 6, p.
343-368.
WU, Y. (2009) The analysis of innovation efficiency and
non-technological factors of manufacturing companies in the Pearl River Delta
of China, PhD Thesis, School of
Statistics, the Center for Applied Statistics, Renmin University of China.
WILLIAMSON, O.E. (2010) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A
Study in the Economics of Internal Organization,
University of California, Berkeley Business
& Public Policy Group.