The concept of open innovation has attracted great interest from the academic and industrial sectors alike. Despite the ongoing debate, we can see some lack of consistency of its principles. The purpose of this paper is to set out a conceptual reflection on the foundations of innovation and its process and discuss new proposals from the literature on open innovation. We question whether this concept is really a new model, or if it is nothing more than a recent combination, sponsored by academics. We have examined Chesbrough's six principles of open innovation, showing how they are based on a false dichotomy that opposes necessarily closed innovation to open innovation. We show how this new paradigm lacks conceptual clarity confusing innovation with innovation process, resurrecting the linear view, and ignoring many earlier studies. We hope to contribute to the discussion on innovation management and to enrich understanding for all concerned.
This paper concerns an empirical study on the university-industry cooperation, with the motivation that incubators would function as a transfer technology mechanism. It describes the links relating to R&D, human resources and provision of services for a sample of 79 firms based in the 11 incubators and universities. The results confirm some factors that affect the strength of such links-size of firms, R&D activities and economic sector, and revealed two other factors-incubators' statutory situation and firm origin. It also emerges that while the university stake in the incubators' capital is quite small, and the involvement of firms in R&D activities is rare, there is a significant formal involvement with the society following a global trend towards "entrepreneurial university". This suggests that the university contribution to the development of firms' activities is more related to providing information that complements their technological endeavours, and less to creating innovations, ready for market.
Purpose
The main goal of innovation is to improve customer service and products and also customer satisfaction. Taking into account the four types of innovation recognized by organization for economic co-operation and development, the purpose of this research is to understand how innovation can influence customer satisfaction, specifically in the hotel industry.
Design/methodology/approach
The data collection was done through qualitative (interview) and quantitative methods (questionnaire). For the quantitative data processing, the Statistical Package for Social Science software was used through statistical inference methods.
Findings
The results show the influence of the four dimensions of innovation on customer satisfaction. These results confirm previous studies on the influence of service, marketing and process innovation on customer satisfaction. However, the results also show the positive relation between customer satisfaction and organizational innovation as well as the relationship between organizational innovation and the other types of innovation.
Research limitations/implications
The results of this study were based only on one hotel unit. The extension to other cases may strengthen the results.
Practical implications
The confirmation that customer satisfaction is associated with innovation, in its four dimensions, can contribute to better decision-making, not only for the hotel in the study but also for the sector.
Originality/value
Focusing on understanding the relation between the rate of innovation and its impact on customer satisfaction, the study expands the knowledge about the importance of services innovation on a specific hotel in Madeira.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.