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

Abstract

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.

Defining the term knowledge worker: Toward improved ontology and operationalization

“…Next, we will present some uses of the terms we observed as consistent and in keeping with the logical construction used to establish links between KW and the action of exploration (KW‐exploration) and the other actors with the action of exploitation (IW‐exploitation): Davenport (1996, p. 55) defined the work of KW as non‐routine: “characterized by variety and exception rather than routine”. Gregor and Hevner (2013, 2014), when working on innovation according to the paradigm of DSR, indicated that innovations occur in three different quadrants of the “routine design” quadrant (Gregor & Hevner, 2013). They later renamed the “routine design” quadrant as “exploitation” (Gregor & Hevner, 2014).…”

“…The texts on innovation, more specifically those focusing on the design of innovative artifacts according to the paradigm of Design Science Research (DSR), presented three scenarios associated with innovative designs (Gregor & Hevner, 2013, 2014). These scenarios were characterized by the crossing of the level of domain of two dimensions of the proposed artifact: (a) the domain with the problem that is being solved (problem domain maturity); and (b) the domain with the technical solution (solution maturity) that is being adopted.…”

“…These scenarios were characterized by the crossing of the level of domain of two dimensions of the proposed artifact: (a) the domain with the problem that is being solved (problem domain maturity); and (b) the domain with the technical solution (solution maturity) that is being adopted. The quadrant characterized by the high domain of the two dimensions, both the technique to be applied and what must be done and resolved, was initially denominated by Gregor and Hevner (2013) as “routine design” and later as “exploitation” (Gregor & Hevner, 2014). Goes (2014) highlighted scientific academia's lack of interest in the publication of texts that present artifacts of the “exploitation” quadrant due to their focus on known problems and widely mastered techniques (solutions).…”

“…Goes (2014) highlighted scientific academia's lack of interest in the publication of texts that present artifacts of the “exploitation” quadrant due to their focus on known problems and widely mastered techniques (solutions). Conversely, Goes (2014) highlighted academia's interest in the three other quadrants of the model proposed by Gregor and Hevner (2013, 2014), known as invention, improvement, and exaptation. These three types present innovation in at least one of the two dimensions of the model; in other words, innovators in some sense and, therefore, in contrast with the exploitation mechanism, which has no innovations.…”

Design Science Research in Practice: What Can We Learn from a Longitudinal Analysis of the Development of Published Artifacts?

“…In this context, where everything is new, it is not always possible to define very clearly who the agent is that will operationalize the artifact. Given that inventions are rare events and that most artifacts are improvements of existing artifacts (Gregor & Hevner, 2014), the target public of an artifact is expected to be clearly defined for the vast majority of applied DSR projects. In one-off situations, when artifacts are classified as inventions, we are more likely to see a further demonstration of the artifact than an evaluation.…”