Models of innovation

How we see innovation Determines what we do to encourage it . . . And our impact on the business

First generation (linear) model or Technology push

If innovation is seen as . . .the result of a linear process which channels R&D to the marketplace. What we do. . . fund more scientific understanding R&D The result is . . . scientific results and technologies which fail to meet user needs, innovations which fail to harness scientific and technological developments outside the disciplinary/firm boundary

Technology push

First generation linear model market pull

If innovation is seen as. . . the result of activities which 'pull' market needs from the R&D laboratory. We . . . fund more market understanding: do more market research on consumer needs The result can be . . . relatively poor capabilities in science and technology, which discourage innovation, innovations which fail to meet future needs.

Market pull

Second generation coupling model

Innovation is. . . the result of technology push/market pull combinations with feedback loops. R&D and marketing are more in balance. Encourage 2-way interaction between R&D and marketing Innovations which fail to harness scientific and technological developments outside the disciplinary/firm boundary, innovations which fail to meet future needs, or the current needs of those who do not participate in the R&D/marketing interactions.

Coupling model

Fourth generation integration model

Thoughts about innovation

annotate in class what are the likely impacts of attitudes such as these?
Its about R&D It is done by boffins It is about. . . meeting customer needs . . .technology advances . . . large firms . . .breakthrough changes . . . someone else . . . about us . . . about them See Tidd, Bessant, Pavitt p31, Last item on reading list

Developing countries (Hobday 2005)

None of the five generations of models attempt to deal with the issue of catch up from behind the technology frontier. Most models implicitly assume firms with leadership status (or ambitions) and most are oriented towards large firms (e.g. with R&D departments and elaborate organisational divisions of labour), rather than medium or small firms that might operate with more informal processes (with perhaps no official R&D or engineering department).

But we all agree that . . .

Innovation is a process, not a single event, and it needs to be managed as such It involves people, organisations and the wider environment that exert incentives and pressures These influences can be manipulated to affect the outcome, that is, they can be managed.

Quote from Machiavelli:

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. . . . From The Prince (1513)

References:
Hobday, M. (2005) Firm-level Innovation Models: Perspectives on Research in Developed and Developing Countries, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, 121 146, June. Tidd, J. Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester

"Linear model"
invention
BASIC RESEARCH APPLIED RESEARCH

innovation
DEVELOPPMENT "ON THE MARKET" Production Sales

diffusion
USE BY NONINNOVATORS Imitatosr, Adopters clients

technology push science technology market demand pull the "holy sequence" of clearly distinct steps fit with classic distinctions : Nature of knowledge (public vs private), repartition of roles (State univ - PROs vs firms), incentive mechanisms (Merton vs market)