2017
DOI: 10.21767/2394-3718.100022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Product Champion for Successful Innovation- A Review of the Previous Literature and Challenge for the Future

Abstract: Background: This paper aims to provide discussions on product champions that are indispensable for the implementation of innovation through reviews of previous studies, and to present the issues from previous studies and the direction of future studies. Studies on product champion (hereinafter abbreviated as PC) were pioneered by Schon in the 1960s. Although the results from many researchers have been accumulated afterwards, the analysis targets have not been unified, and various analysis results tend to be ha… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 36 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• Using a more in-depth assessment of content, based on the Step 4 criteria, an additional eleven sources were excluded: seven for being non-empirical papers (Mohi Uddin, 2000;Howell, 2005;Sipior, 2005;Coakes and Smith, 2007;Molloy and Kriz, 2012;Renken and Heeks, 2013;Renken and Heeks, 2014), one due to lack of evidence of peer review (Appolis and Alexander, 2013), three because the focus was on the championing of non-technological innovations (Lichtenthaler and Ernst, 2009;Bankins et al, 2017;Fujii, 2017). • A final collection of 22 sources was yielded and formed the basis of analysis.…”
Section: Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Using a more in-depth assessment of content, based on the Step 4 criteria, an additional eleven sources were excluded: seven for being non-empirical papers (Mohi Uddin, 2000;Howell, 2005;Sipior, 2005;Coakes and Smith, 2007;Molloy and Kriz, 2012;Renken and Heeks, 2013;Renken and Heeks, 2014), one due to lack of evidence of peer review (Appolis and Alexander, 2013), three because the focus was on the championing of non-technological innovations (Lichtenthaler and Ernst, 2009;Bankins et al, 2017;Fujii, 2017). • A final collection of 22 sources was yielded and formed the basis of analysis.…”
Section: Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%