Modes of innovation, resources and their influence on product innovation: Empirical evidence from R&amp;D active firms in Norway

Clausen, Tommy Høyvarde; Korneliussen, Tor; Madsen, Einar Lier

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.02.002

Cited by 48 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, firm age is considered as a possible determinant of innovativeness. Whereas research by Cruz-C azares et al (2013), Clausen et al (2013), Paunov (2012), Tomlinson (2010) and Freel (2003) represent a non-significant or negative impact of age upon the innovativeness of firms. The studies by Mart ın-de Castro et al (2013), Wu (2012), Love et al (2011), and Kumar and Saqib (1996) use this variable and verify a positive impact of firm age on innovative activity.…”

Section: Stream 1: Internal Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…This is because external agents, business entities, and competitors develop new knowledge at a fast pace and on a large scale (Vanhaverbeke et al, 2008). The research by Tether and Tajar (2008), Clausen et al (2013), Souitaris (2002), and Lokshin et al (2011) found a significant positive effect, while Tang (2006), Tether andTajar (2008), andFrank et al (2016) observe a negative relationship between technology and/or knowledge acquisition and innovation. With regard to these variables, we observe mixed results.…”

Section: Stream 3: Contextual Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical Studies on Innovation Performance in the Manufacturing and Service Sectors Since 1995: A Systematic Review

Kolluru

Mukhopadhaya

2017

J of App Econs and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the literature on firm innovation performance from 1995 until 2016. The empirical literature on this topic has been growing continuously over the last few decades. Previous research has investigated the explanatory variables and their impact on firm innovativeness separately. The present systematic review brings together all explanatory variables explored in the literature, classified according to their direction of causality and impact on innovation. These are represented in a comprehensive framework that includes three major research streams: internal, external and contextual indicators, and examines how they influence the innovative capabilities of firms. In addition to this re-examination, the study shows that the majority of these variables are inter-linked with other variables in explaining the relationship with innovation, which is represented in a comprehensive theoretical model. The aim of this review is to draw a general picture of the standing of the research on innovation performance, specifically in areas where unanimous results have already been achieved, and to highlight the opportunities for future research.

show abstract

Section: Stream 1: Internal Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Stream 3: Contextual Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Empirical Studies on Innovation Performance in the Manufacturing and Service Sectors Since 1995: A Systematic Review

Kolluru

Mukhopadhaya

2017

J of App Econs and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Noticeable are terms related to knowledge management: CAPABILITY, EXPLORATION, EXPLOITATION and KNOWLEDGE (e.g., Clausen et al 2013;Noguera et al 2013) and entrepreneurship: ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE (e.g., Knošková 2015). In addition, other terms appear that are related to results: GROWTH and PERFORMANCE (e.g., Lassala et al 2013;Zhao et al 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Research Agenda on Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Co-Word Analysis

Ortiz‐de‐Urbina‐Criado

Sánchez

Mora-Valentín

2018

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the literature on open innovation and entrepreneurship. Several studies have applied bibliometric methods to innovation and entrepreneurship separately. However, no study has considered these fields in combination while using a bibliometric approach. The main aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between open innovation and entrepreneurship. We develop a descriptive analysis, focusing on temporal evolution, journals, authors, universities, countries, and keywords, and a co-word analysis.

show abstract

“…In a world of distributed knowledge, "open innovation" means organizations do not rely entirely on their own research and development, but rather via innovation transfer between the organization and its environment (Chesbrough, 2003;Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007;Clausen, Korneliussen, & Madsen, 2013). As an illustration, approximately two-thirds of leading innovations in recent years are estimated to have come from collaborative partnerships involving business and government, including government funded labs and university research (Block & Keller, 2008).…”

Section: Unifying the Innovation Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

The Knowledge Innovation Matrix (KIM): A Clarifying Lens for Innovation

Gregor

Hevner

2014

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation is often understood in terms such as radical versus incremental, or exploratory versus exploitative, yet these terms are used loosely with little precision as to the type or amount of 'newness' found in the innovation. We suggest that innovations be judged on the basis of original knowledge contribution and needs addressed. Based on this fundamental definition, we propose a formal typology for categorizing innovations and the levels of both new knowledge contribution and real-world impact. The Knowledge Innovation Matrix (KIM) results from a classification of innovations and knowledge contributions on the two dimensions of application knowledge maturity and domain maturity. KIM provides a clarifying lens through which stakeholders can strategically manage innovation in multiple contexts. The matrix has four distinct quadrants termed (1) Invention, (2) Improvement, (3) Exaptation, and (4) Exploitation. We position this research in relation to existing innovation perspectives and briefly analyze the value propositions for innovations found in each of the quadrants in relation to the goals of the various innovation stakeholders in academia, industry, and government. Our aim is to produce a practical guide for developing a common understanding and a common language among academic researchers aiming at advancing knowledge, industrial managers aiming at new product and services, and government officials aiming at increasing the public welfare.

show abstract

Modes of innovation, resources and their influence on product innovation: Empirical evidence from R&D active firms in Norway

Cited by 48 publications

References 50 publications

Empirical Studies on Innovation Performance in the Manufacturing and Service Sectors Since 1995: A Systematic Review

Empirical Studies on Innovation Performance in the Manufacturing and Service Sectors Since 1995: A Systematic Review

A Research Agenda on Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Co-Word Analysis

The Knowledge Innovation Matrix (KIM): A Clarifying Lens for Innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About