The concept of 'open innovation' has received a considerable amount of coverage within the academic literature and beyond. Much of this seems to have been without much critical analysis of the evidence. In this paper, we show how Chesbrough creates a false dichotomy by arguing that open innovation is the only alternative to a closed innovation model. We systematically examine the six principles of the open innovation concept and show how the Open Innovation paradigm has created a partial perception by describing something which is undoubtedly true in itself (the limitations of closed innovation principles), but false in conveying the wrong impression that firms today follow these principles. We hope that our examination and scrutiny of the 'open innovation' concept contributes to the debate on innovation management and helps enrich our understanding.
This article provides a systematic review of the empirical literature on barriers within public sector innovation processes, based on data from 63 articles. We investigate the nature of barriers. The studies were analysed based on four dimensions of barriers: i) their classification; ii) their interrelations; iii) whether they play distinct roles within stages of innovation process and iv) whether they vary in the types of innovations. We develop an empirically based framework to capture the complex nature of barriers. For this purpose, a new classification is also introduced to show that interaction-specific barriers emerge during the collaborative innovation process. Significantly we identify that the nature of barriers are more complex than has previously been recognized: they differ in process stages and innovation types. Moreover, they show interrelations across the innovation process by reinforcing each other. The findings show there is an emphasis on organizational barriers and implementation phase studies. We conclude with a discussion on how future research use quantitative and cross-national methods to examine: (1) interaction specific barriers, in particular, barriers with businesses and political bodies (2) design and sustainment phases of innovation (3) interrelations between barriers. 4 the concept of innovation in a normative positive way. Similarly, we do not approach the concept of barriers in a normative negative way. The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The first section details the methodology used for the systematic review. The second section and its subsections detail the results of the systematic review, initially providing details of the studies included and subsequently exploring the nature of barriers by examining their types, process characteristics, interrelations, and distinct variations on types of innovation. Finally, from our findings, we reach conclusions and provide a research agenda on barriers to PSI. METHODOLOGY Database Search Three strategies were used to identify eligible articles. First, we carried out an electronic search in Web of Science restricted to Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in title, abstract and keywords of articles. The term [innov*] was searched along with the terms for barriers: [obstacle* OR barrier* OR challeng* OR hinder* OR deter* OR difficult* OR bottleneck* OR problem* OR setback* OR hurdle* OR hamper* OR imped* OR obstruct*]. To define the public sector character of innovation we use the following terms: [municipal* OR "public administrat*" OR "public organi$ation*" OR "public management" OR government* OR "public service" OR "local government*" OR "e-govern*" OR "egovern* OR governance OR "public sphere" OR "public sector"]. Public or policy entrepreneurship has been studied connected with innovation (Roberts and King 1996) and so we searched the terms for barriers and public sector with the combination of [entrepreneur*]. This strategy resulted in a total of 3,524 articles. Second we selected EBSCO Business Source database ...
This study deepens our knowledge of organisational routines and activities in the innovation process of low-and medium-technology (LMT) industries. To accomplish this, it explores how the innovation process in the packaged foods sector of the UK food industry depends on a learning-by-doing, by using and by interacting (DUI) mode of innovation including activities such as technology adaptation and the use of external firm sources. The empirical analysis is based on four case studies of new product innovation taken from a cross section of the packaged foods sector. Our findings support the view that LMT industries rely on nonformal Research and Development (R&D) activities such as firm interaction and shared experiences. We develop a set of propositions which help to explore evidence in practice of how these external sources influence the innovation process. Our research contributes to theory in the areas of innovation processes in low-and medium-technology (LMT) industries and DUI industrial modes of innovation.
Packaging plays a key role in product success, particularly in the fast moving consumer goods industry (Wansink and Huffman, 2001) and can affect consumers’ purchasing decisions at the point of sale (Sara, 1990). However, relatively little has been written about packaging in the marketing literature (Johnsson, 1998; Saghir, 2002; Rundh, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework with which to examine how packaging contributes to marketing in general and new product development (NPD) in particular. The paper reviews the literature and develops a unique framework that can be used to evaluate more fully the needs of all parties that are relevant to the development of packaging, including members of the distribution channel. This framework aims to provide new insight into the creation of new product opportunities through packaging development in a more systematic way than has been evidenced in the past.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.