Re‐innovation and robust designs: Producer and user benefits

Rothwell, Roy; Gardiner, Paul

doi:10.1080/0267257x.1988.9964053

Cited by 85 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Radical innovations are rare in occurrence. It has been suggested that only 10% of all new innovations fall into the category of radical innovations [6,22,49,63]. Although Rothwell and Gardiner have suggested that incremental innovations cover the 90% of the remaining cases, we do not agree with this conclusion.…”

Section: A Typogoly For Identifying Technological Innovationscontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…Rothwell and Gardiner [49] show that incremental innovations can occur at all stages of the new product development process. At the conceptualization stage, R&D may use existing technology to improve an existing product design.…”

Section: Incremental Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rothwell and Gardiner [49] focus on technological discontinuity, by emphasizing 'reinnovations' or improvements on existing innovations. Their dichotomy of 'innovations' and 'reinnovations' leads to several subcategories.…”

Section: Innovation Typology Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Y eight categories-reformulated/new parts/remerchandising/new improvements/new products/new user/ new market/new customers [29]; Y five categories-systematic/major/minor/incremental/ unrecorded [18]; Y tetra-categorization -incremental/modular/architectural/radical [27], niche creation/architectural/regular/ revolutionary [1], incremental/evolutionary market/ evolutionary technical/radical [42], incremental/ market breakthrough/technological breakthrough/ radical [7], incremental/architectural/fusion/ breakthrough [57]; Y triadic categorization-low innovativeness/moderate innovativeness/high innovativeness [31], incremental/ new generation/radically new [62] and, Y dichotomous categorization-discontinuous/continuous [3,47], instrumental/ultimate [23], variations/reorientations [43], true/adoption [37], original/reformulated [64], innovations/reinnovations [49], radical/ routine [38], evolutionary/revolutionary [59], sustaining/disruptive [9], really new/incremental [50,54], breakthrough/incremental [46], and radical/incremental [5,18,4,30,35,52,56].…”

Section: Innovation Typology Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review

Garcia

Calantone

2002

J of Product Innov Manag

1,427

775

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A plethora of definitions for innovation types has resulted in an ambiguity in the way the terms 'innovation' and 'innovativeness' are operationalized and utilized in the new product development literature. The terms radical, really-new, incremental and discontinuous are used ubiquitously to identify innovations. One must question, what is the difference between these different classifications? To date consistent definitions for these innovation types have not emerged from the new product research community. A review of the literature from the marketing, engineering, and new product development disciplines attempts to put some clarity and continuity to the use of these terms. This review shows that it is important to consider both a marketing and technological perspective as well as a macrolevel and microlevel perspective when identifying innovations. Additionally, it is shown when strict classifications from the extant literature are applied, a significant shortfall appears in empirical work directed toward radical and really new innovations. A method for classifying innovations is suggested so that practitioners and academics can talk with a common understanding of how a specific innovation type is identified and how the innovation process may be unique for that particular innovation type. A recommended list of measures based on extant literature is provided for future empirical research concerning technological innovations and innovativeness.

show abstract

Section: A Typogoly For Identifying Technological Innovationscontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Incremental Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Innovation Typology Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Innovation Typology Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review

Garcia

Calantone

2002

J of Product Innov Manag

1,427

775

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature on innovation measurement there are a number of shortcomings listed for with such aggregate, firm-level innovation data collected with questionnaires: 1) they are not completely objective as the respondent decides what an innovation is (Ratanawaraha and Polenske 2007), 2) indicators from surveys sometimes suffer from estimated answers and low response rates, as the burden is placed on responding firms to provide data, which may hamper regional comparisons (Kleinknecht et al 2002), 3) the technological novelty and economic value of reported innovations can be extremely heterogeneous (Rothwell and Gardiner 1988) and 4) innovation output measures are expensive to produce and the data availability is limited (Acs et al…”

Section: Direct Innovation Output Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking regional innovative performance: composite measures and direct innovation counts

Makkonen

Have

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a considerable amount of discussion, but still no consensus, about which indicator should be used to measure innovation. To participate in this debate, a unique innovation database, SFINNO, is introduced. Innovation counts from the database are used as the baseline, to show that innovation is a complex phenomenon which cannot be entirely explained through the use of proxy statistics, as the linkages between innovation input-and output-indicators are fuzzy.We also show that the strength of these linkages varies by field of technology. Furthermore, different innovation measures produce highly divergent rankings when they are used as benchmarking tools of regional innovative performance. Although the produced innovation indexes perform slightly better, their superiority is marginal. Therefore, caution should be taken before drawing too drastic policy conclusions depending on a single measure of regional innovative performance.

show abstract

Tradition as a resource: Robust and radical interpretations of operatic tradition in the Italian opera industry, 1989–2011

Cancellieri

Cattani²,

Ferriani

2022

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major challenge that organizations face in cultural industries in dealing with cherished traditions is how to best mediate between adherence to tradition and pursuit of innovation, how to accommodate renewal without stifling tradition. We address this conundrum by integrating ideas from consumer-oriented psychological research on evaluative judgments and designoriented innovation research. We show that firms can

show abstract

Re‐innovation and robust designs: Producer and user benefits

Cited by 85 publications

References 2 publications

A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review

A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review

Benchmarking regional innovative performance: composite measures and direct innovation counts

Tradition as a resource: Robust and radical interpretations of operatic tradition in the Italian opera industry, 1989–2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About