Download Rethinking Innovation: Characterizing Dimensions of Impact

Paper ID #9284
Rethinking Innovation: Characterizing Dimensions of Impact
Freddy Solis, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Freddy Solis is a doctoral candidate in the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana. He holds a civil engineering degree from the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan,
Mexico, and M.Sc. in civil engineering and MBA degrees from Purdue University. His research focuses
on innovation, design, entrepreneurship, and engineering education.
Prof. Joseph V. Sinfield, Purdue University
Joseph V. Sinfield received a B.S. degree in civil engineering, summa cum laude, from Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, and M.S. and Sc.D. degrees in civil and environmental engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. He is an Associate Professor in the School of
Civil Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana and a Senior Partner at Innosight, LLC,
an innovation consulting and investment firm based in Lexington, Massachusetts in the United States. His
research, teaching and professional activities address two focal areas: 1) experimental methods, instrumentation, and sensor design, and 2) innovation management, particularly in the context of entrepreneurship and engineering education. Prior to Purdue and Innosight, he spent five years as a strategy consultant
with McKinsey & Company and also worked as a geotechnical engineer for Haley & Aldrich. Dr. Sinfield is a frequent speaker on the management principles that can be employed to more predictably drive
innovation and serves on the innovation advisory boards of multiple companies. He is the co-author of
The Innovator’s Guide to Growth: Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work (Harvard Business Press, 2008),
and has published in business periodicals such as Sloan Management Review, Marketing Management,
IndustryWeek, and Financial Executive, as well as in an array of peer reviewed scientific journals.
c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2014
Rethinking Innovation: Characterizing Dimensions of Impact
Abstract
Innovation – the introduction of novel or different ideas into use or practice that drive impact – is
receiving increased attention across many domains including engineering, science, business, and
government, and many schools of thought exist to characterize it. As a consequence, studies on
innovation have proliferated at multiple levels of analysis including individuals, organizations,
regions, nations, and society. Yet the study of innovation has been centered on the analysis of
change across meta-classification schemas such as change in form or function, change in
underlying technological performance, change in the systems that involve the innovation, or a
change in the perspective of the end user affected by the innovation, which all retain a local
focus around the object of the innovation.
This paper reframes the construct of innovation by unpacking a previously unexplored dimension
of focus – the impact caused by the object of innovation, which may span time, affected
stakeholders, and functional, social, and emotional implications. To do this, the paper reviews
the multiple historical dimensions that have been used to characterize innovation and frames the
pursuit and study of innovation that is impact-driven as an area of opportunity for practitioners
and researchers. The paper examines dimensions of impact using historical innovations as
evidence. This treatment provides support for the significance and reach of what are herein
termed “enabling innovations” compared to “progressive innovations” and thus underscores the
need to study ways to more predictably drive innovation of broad, enabling impact that facilitates
transformations across society. As such, the paper proposes an impact-based classification for the
study of innovations – differentiating between enabling innovations, and progressive innovations
– that complements current innovation schools of thought. The implications of an impact metaclassification of innovation for engineering education are discussed from the perspective of
embedding pattern recognition of innovation archetypes and proactive pursuit of these
archetypes into the engineering education eco-system of research, teaching, and learning. The
contribution of the paper is a new way to think about innovation and its implications on the
solutions to important, complex, and unaddressed societal challenges.
1. Introduction
Although there is considerable debate over the definition of an innovation1-4, one perspective that
is comprehensive defines innovation as the introduction of a novel or different idea into use or
practice that has a positive impact on society. Breaking this definition down, three key terms are
highlighted: novelty, differentiation, and impact. In this paper, novelty refers to knowledge that is
new (i.e., previously unknown), while different refers to insights that connect existing knowledge
in counterintuitive or nonobvious ways. Robust schools of thought exist to characterize
innovation novelty and differentiation, but little work has been done to comprehensively
characterize innovation impact in structured ways. Yet impact – herein defined as the degree to
which an innovation changes the way individuals, groups, and society live and act, – is arguably
one of the most important components to address truly complex “grand challenges5” or
“wicked problems6.”
With this in mind, as shown in Figure 1, this paper attempts to provide a comprehensive view of
innovation encompassing novelty, differentiation, and impact by: 1) synthesizing perspectives on
innovation to understand historical views of innovation patterns, especially from the
management sciences, which help describe novelty and differentiation, and 2) creating a new
framework that dimensionalizes innovation impact and puts forward a means to classify
innovations according to these impact dimensions. This impact framework puts forward two new
descriptors for innovation to separate “enabling innovations,” innovations with broad impact that
often cascades into multiple societal benefits, from more “progressive innovations,” which
generate impact but in more focused ways and only in select applications.
Figure 1. Characterizing Innovation Novelty, Differentiation, and Impact
2. Method
This work employed a mix of synthesis and integration activity7 with a review of case studies8 to
develop a comprehensive perspective of innovation patterns as shown in Figure 1. The work
reviews and integrates research on innovation patterns from the management, economics, and
engineering literature that have novelty and differentiation as a foundation. This integration
highlights four core themes in types of change driven by innovations: 1) changes in form, 2)
changes in underlying performance, 3) changes in existing systems, and 4) changes in
perspectives of end users. The paper then dimensionalizes innovation impact by introducing the
terms reach, significance, and paradigm change that can be used to identify enabling and
progressive innovations. The identified dimensions of reach, impact, and paradigm change stem
from the integration of literature that focuses on describing societal impact across fields such as
government, business, science, technology, and engineering9-18 and in-depth reviews of historical
innovations19-33 to establish new links between impact and innovation. Emphasis is placed on
reviewing cases that do not have a commercial orientation to underscore the importance of
becoming effective at describing innovation regardless of the nature of the innovative activity
(e.g., research, development, commercialization).
3. Patterns of Innovation based on Novelty and Differentiation
At a fundamental level, researchers have characterized innovation based on form, changes in
underlying performance, changes in components and interactions in systems, and perspectives of
end users, all of which effectively retain a local focus on the novelty of the object of innovation.
Effectively, these ways to describe innovation focus on change and substitution, since they
describe the novelty aspects of an innovation compared to a predecessor.
Early characterizations of innovation focused on the form that an innovation embodied,
differentiating “product” from “process” innovation34. Other forms of innovation have been
identified since, including “service”35 and “business model”36-38. Yet characterizing innovation
by its form only facilitates description of a relatively superficial aspect of a solution to
a challenge.
Researchers have also framed innovation based on the change in underlying technology, and
contrasted “radical” innovations with “incremental” innovations. Radical innovations are
revolutionary advances that significantly depart from current practice while incremental
innovations refer to minor improvement to current practice39-42. While the magnitude of the
advance to separate radical from incremental innovations varies across contexts, a key
differentiator between radical and incremental is the degree of new knowledge embodied in an
innovation40. This degree of novelty is typically manifested in the physical realm in terms of an
increase in performance along a predetermined critical measure or a decrease in cost at
traditional levels of performance as a result of the innovation43.
Still, other researchers have characterized innovation on the basis of locus and type of change in
existing systems, differentiating “core” from “peripheral”44, “generational” from
“architectural”45, 46, and “interdependent” from “modular”47. These constructs emerge from the
business literature that has analyzed technical systems and were developed to describe the basis
of changes to existing systems and historically dominant designs. A dominant design is defined
as a set of core design concepts that correspond to the major functions or features embodied in
components (of a system) and an architecture that defines ways in which these components are
linked in an artifact48. These concepts are typically not revised in subsequent iterations unless
there are changes to the dominant design. Core innovations refer to changes in primary
components of a dominant design, while peripheral innovations refer to changes in secondary
components of a dominant design. Architectural innovations refer to changes in system linkages
with minor to no changes in core components. Modular innovations refer to changes in
components without changes in system linkages. Interdependent innovations refer to changes in
both core components and system linkages. Generational innovations refer to changes in
subsystems in dominant designs.
A different model frames innovation from the perspective of end users and their evaluation of
dimensions of performance by contrasting “sustaining” and “disruptive” innovations49-52.
Dimensions of performance are defined as design features of a functional, social, or emotional
nature52. Functional dimensions of performance refer to the properties and characteristics (e.g.,
weight, speed) of a design artifact, social dimensions of performance refer to the perceptions of
stakeholders, while emotional dimensions of performance refer to the internal states experienced
by stakeholders when using a design52, 53. Sustaining innovations are those which “sustain” the
dimensions of performance of the predecessor via either small step-changes (incremental
sustaining innovations) or large step-changes (radical sustaining innovations). Sustaining
innovations lead to opportunities for “disruptive” innovations. From an end user perspective,
disruptive innovations offer solutions with lower, yet “good enough,” performance along
mainstream performance dimensions, but in exchange provide new benefits such as simplicity,
affordability, or accessibility51, 52. These tradeoffs enable provision of new benefits that are
typically better aligned with the preferences of a set of end users relative to the benefits offered
by more mainstream, sustaining innovations.
These characterizations of innovation, summarized in Table 1, can be used to frame the novelty
aspects of an idea from the perspective of a change in underlying technology, change in
dominant design, change in system components and interactions, and change in perspectives of
end users. These ways to characterize novelty can be used before an innovation is introduced into
practice, i.e., ex ante, as well as after an innovation is introduced, i.e., ex post. Further, each
archetype has success patterns of its own that can be further analyzed. For instance, modular
innovations depend on how effectively a novel component might operate with existing system
linkages, which emphasizes the need for flexibility and broad compatibility in an innovation. In
another example, the success of disruptive innovations depends upon trading-off or giving-up on
traditional performance dimensions otherwise the new benefits such as simplicity, accessibility,
convenience or affordability would simply make the innovation better than its predecessors and
it would be a sustaining innovation52.
Table 1. Characterizations of Innovation based on Novelty and Differentiation
Area of change
Innovation archetype
Definition
Form
Product
Process
Service
Business model
Incremental
Radical
Core
New products or changes in established products
New processes used in the generation of products
New or improved service concept taken into practice
New approaches to develop and deliver an offering
Minor departures from current practice
Significant departures from current practice
Changes to primary elements of a dominant design
Changes to secondary elements of a
dominant design
Changes to system components without affecting
system linkages
Changes to system linkages without affecting
system components
Changes to system components and linkages
Sustains predecessor performance dimensions with
small changes
Sustains predecessor performance dimensions with
significant step changes
Trades off performance dimensions in the pursuit of
simplicity, accessibility, convenience, or affordability
Underlying
performance
Systems
Peripheral
Modular
Architectural
Interdependent
End user
perspective
Incremental sustaining
Radical sustaining
Disruptive
4. Patterns of Innovation Based on Impact
Since innovation is herein defined as a new or different idea which when introduced to practice
generates impact, the development of innovation expertise might benefit from a language that
one can use to describe and infer the potential impact of ideas. Some innovations, for instance,
lasers30 or the C programming language, are inherently of higher impact than ideas with a purely
commercial scope (e.g., a new laser application, or a novel software). Thus, a language to
characterize/classify ideas based on impact – such as the one put forward in this paper – can help
evaluate and prioritize ideas with innovative potential.
Yet to date, impact perspectives have either had tenuous links to innovation or have been very
localized in language and scope. For example, many governmental agencies, such as the
OECD13, 14 and the United Nations10, 11, thoroughly discuss impact from a societal development
perspective, but with little to no link to innovation. In contrast, Abernathy and Clark16 describe
how innovations may enhance or destroy the competencies of organizations, Feland et al.15
describe a framework to characterize the impact of product design activities, and Christensen18
describes the impact of empowering, sustaining, and efficiency innovations in capitalist
economic systems. As such, these perspectives on the link between innovations and impact all
effectively retain a business/commercial scope. What is needed is a framework to
comprehensively characterize innovation impact in structured ways.
To address this gap, the authors herein introduce more explicit links between an innovation and
its impact. Effectively, the dimensions of reach, significance, and affect on accepted paradigms,
conceptually shown in Figure 2, can help characterize innovation impact.
Figure 2. Characterizations of Innovation based on Impact
Reach refers to the number of individuals, groups, and societal segments affected by an
innovation. As the reach of impact (i.e., individuals, groups, and society) increases, the reach of
an innovation will increase as well. Feland et al.15, for example, describe this concept as the
“impact ring” of an innovation. Atomic clocks, used in a variety of societal applications such as
GPS systems, are part of the reach of radar, particularly masers (the microwave-based
predecessor of the laser), and have high reach given their impact on multiple individuals, groups,
and society.
Significance refers to the magnitude of change in one or more elements of impact, implying that
the larger the number of impact elements primarily/directly affected by an innovation, the greater
its significance at the individual, group, and societal levels of analysis. For each level of
innovation reach, different elements of significance were identified through the integration of
impact perspectives throughout the government, business, science, and engineering literature9-18,
as shown in Figure 3. These elements of significance describe the changes in economics,
environment, health, and culture that can be affected by innovations. At the individual level, for
instance, an innovation can affect quality of life through improvements in physical, social, and
emotional health, the ability to control its environment, shift consumption patterns as a result of
income changes, and impact the nature of work through the creation of new opportunities for
entrepreneurs. At the group level, an innovation can, for example, create new knowledge that
results in new products and services, thus affecting a group’s relative role and positioning in
value networks and the way such groups are organized and interact both internally and
externally. At the societal level, an innovation can, for instance, spur macro measures of growth,
investment and productivity, thereby impacting trade and output, and shift macro measures of
demographics, infrastructure, natural resources, as well as policy frames. Multiple links exist
between these impact levels as benefits trickle down or up (e.g., an innovation that provides new
knowledge for a group can impact individuals’ socio-emotional health).
Figure 3. Levels of Reach and Elements of Significance of an Innovation
Paradigms describe a worldview of implicit or explicit rules that guide current thought and action
on a subject21, 23, 28, 29, 54, 55. Some innovations help establish new or different paradigms while
others rely on existing paradigms. For example, the assumption that a light source needed to
shine continuously (instead of being pulsed) was one of the early dominant paradigms in laser
technology. Similarly, advances based on quantum mechanics come from a different paradigm
than those based on classical mechanics. Further, in the financial system, a current paradigm
suggests that a potential higher risk in an investment must be rewarded with a commensurately
higher potential return56.
One might require a new way to frame innovations based on their reach, significance, and
paradigm change and thus the terms enabling and progressive are put forward herein to create a
taxonomy of innovation impact. Each of these types of innovation differs in its fundamental
components of significance, reach, and paradigm change and the terms enabling and progressive
thus provide a means to classify innovations based on their impact. On the scale of impact,
breakthroughs are discoveries or inventions that may be precursors to innovations of different
impact significance and reach, yet they are not innovations in and of themselves due to their lack
of use in practice. Effectively, evaluating impact based on the significance, reach, and paradigm
changes across impact elements allows one to differentiate between breakthroughs, enabling
innovations, and progressive innovations, as shown in Figure 4.
Breakthroughs denote fundamental discoveries or inventions, which do not yet have any
significant impact since they are often realized at early stages of the innovation process.
Breakthroughs are not innovations but represent the type of advance that is often sought-after to
address grand challenges given the opportunities they represent to change existing paradigms.
They typically come from basic research (i.e., searching for fundamental understanding), useinspired research (i.e., searching for fundamental understanding with an approach that is inspired
by or applicable to real-world problems), or applied research (i.e., seeking specific solutions to
targeted problems by applying known fundamental results)27, 57.
Figure 4. Breakthroughs, Enabling Innovations, and Progressive Innovations
The term herein defined as “enabling innovations” refers to innovations that exploit a new or
different paradigm and comprehensively impact individuals, groups, and society along multiple
dimensions. Because of their relatively high significance and broad reach, these innovations are
accompanied by a cascading effect that facilitates additional interconnected developments as a
result of externalities. Externalities are defined as costs or benefits incurred by others that are not
taken into account by a decision maker58. Spillover externalities are the benefits that an
individual, group, or society receives without having incurred the cost to develop them. Network
externalities represent the effect that a user of a good or service has on the value of such a good
or service to others59. These externalities result in cascading benefits to society, which would not
be possible without the innovative achievement and are the rationale for the high cumulative
impact of enabling innovations.
In contrast, the authors put forward the term “progressive innovations” to refer to innovations
that also facilitate impact in many of the aforementioned arenas (e.g., economics, health, well
being), yet with relatively lower significance and reach, and often without the ability to enable
cascading impact benefits in the form of additional developments. Progressive innovations often
exploit opportunities within an established paradigm and are focused in scope. Many of the
current schools of thought to characterize and/or develop an innovation fall into this type of
impact, due to their purely commercial scope and focused goals.
The differences in impact between breakthroughs, enabling innovations, and progressive
innovations are graphically summarized in Figure 5, in which the cumulative impact of enabling
innovations is conceptually shown. A broad array of cases present the pattern described in
Figures 4 and 5, and Table 2 presents example cases of breakthroughs, enabling innovations, and
progressive innovations, which were assembled by reviewing literature on the history of
discovery, invention, and innovation19-33. This table shows that in enabling innovations, the
cumulative impact of exploiting a novel paradigm is greater than the focused (yet still positive)
impact of progressive innovations. Effectively, many progressive innovations are dependent on
the historical breakthroughs and enabling innovations of society, suggesting that breakthroughs
and enabling innovations represent a potential avenue to better understand how to innovate
intentionally and address society’s complex challenges. However, the diagrams in Figures 4 and
5 and the cases in Table 2 do not imply a linear process of innovative impact. For example, the
laws of thermodynamics (a conceptual breakthrough) were derived through study of the
operations of steam engines (an enabling innovation)27.
Figure 5. Impact vs. Time of Breakthrough, Enabling, and Progressive Innovations
Table 2. Historical Cases on Innovation Impact
Breakthrough(s)
Enabling Innovation
Progressive Innovations1
Discovery of an etherbased gas that
produces insensibility
by inhalation
Use of first gas-based
forms of anesthesia
based on nitrous oxide,
ether, and chloroform
• Airway anesthesia
• Local anesthetics
• Intravenous
anesthetics
• Endotracheal
anesthesia
• Intubation techniques
• Anesthetic machines
• Anesthesia equipment
Discovery of the
principles and
invention of the first
piston engines
Adoption of the first
internal combustion
engine in drilling and
automobiles
•
•
•
•
Invention of the
Bessemer process as a
low-cost means to
manufacture steel
Steel manufacturing
• Mini mill steel
manufacturing
• Steel composition
variations (e.g.
galvanized, stainless)
• Electric arc furnaces
•
•
•
•
•
Discovery of the
possibilities for the
manipulation of light
Lasers
•
•
•
•
Instrumentation
Surveying equipment
Lasik surgery
Remote sensing
(LIDAR)
• Fiber optics
• Target tracking
• Etching
• Increases in health through
surgical precision
• Increases in productivity
• Creation of new firms
• Investment in new technologies
• Creation of new knowledge
• Changes to
communications equipment
• Increases in productivity due to
manufacturing changes
• Increases in defense capabilities
due to military equipment
Advances in solid state
physics and
semiconductors
Transistors
•
•
•
•
Radios
Computers
Processors
Communications
equipment
• Cell phones
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
Spark plugs
Ignition coils
Carburetors
Turbochargers
Cumulative Impact1
• Reduction in surgical
death rates
• Creation of a new profession
• Creation of new equipment
• Creation of new services
• Investment in anesthesiabased firms
• Improvement in socioemotional well being
• Increases in employment
• Investment and productivity
increases through
mechanization
• Changes in
transportation means
Increases productivity
Creation of new firms
Creation of new services
Creation of new employment
Increase in investment
Creation of new firms
Increases in productivity
Creation of new knowledge
Increase in employment
Increases in income
Comparative advantage
of nations
Not exhaustive due to the relatively large cumulative impact of enabling innovations
The history of lasers provides a concise example that illustrates the differences between enabling
and progressive innovations. Knowledge for the invention of lasers existed approximately 40
years before the conceptualization of the first laser yet the breakthrough for the concept of the
laser came from the realization that maser (the laser’s microwave-based predecessor) principles
could be applied to light manipulation30. However, many “generational” issues needed to be
solved regarding maser-laser artifacts. In 1960, the first laser was created and the enabling effect
of such an innovation spread rather quickly since laser technology triggered advances with broad
reach at the individual, group, and societal levels. The significance of lasers lies on its impact
across all elements in Figure 3. This innovation quickly triggered the creation of new firms
dedicated to commercialize the technology. Externalities were triggered and new knowledge
continued to emerge that resulted in applications in a broad array of fields, such as medicine
(particularly in surgery), manufacturing (particularly measurement), and science (particularly as
equipment). Entire new fields, such as lidar, a remote sensing technique that combines principles
of light and radar, with applications in geology, physics, geomatics, forestry, and seismology,
were enabled due to the introduction of the laser. Because of the new benefits to society, for
instance in surgical precision, additional secondary benefits such as socio-emotional well being
were realized. In this arena, developments enabled laser-based surgery, with Lasik, a procedure
for vision correction, being an example. While this surgical procedure, does stem from a
breakthrough (i.e., the discovery that lasers could etch living tissue without thermally affecting
surrounding areas), it is classified as a progressive innovation given its focused application,
compared to the broader, enabling effect of lasers and masers.
5. Discussion
Overall, the impact-based language to talk about innovation complements current innovation
schools of thought and can have a broad range of applications in the domains of practice,
research, teaching, and learning. In the domain of practice, awareness of the ways to frame
innovation described herein could improve design activities for complex problems. To date,
perspectives on the novelty and differentiation of innovative ideas exist but perspectives on
impact have been limited in scope and structure – a gap that the terms enabling and progressive
put forward herein by the authors intends to address. As one innovates, understanding the
different perspectives of innovation and the importance of impact can inform design choices and
steer ideas towards success based on this understanding. For engineering faculty and graduate
students in particular, who typically operate in the pursuit of breakthroughs and enabling
innovations, these views of innovation can be particularly useful as they provide a new language
and way to think about research activities. In the domain of teaching and learning, more research
is needed on the effect of making students aware of the ways to frame innovation innovation at
different educational levels as well as the most effective mechanisms to conduct such an
instruction. Instruction on the ways to frame innovation can come from a broad range of
pedagogical approaches, including direct lecture on the patterns, case studies, mentoring and
coaching in experiential learning settings, and online games and simulations. Finally, there is an
opportunity to encourage students and researchers to work on more complex problems and think
about reach, significance, and paradigm changes so that they can have greater impact on the
world. Yet, beyond encouragement, a more comprehensive perspective of innovation, such as the
one outlined herein, provides a language and structure that can be used to evaluate, prioritize,
and pursue ideas.
6. Conclusions
This paper reframed the construct of innovation by characterizing the elements of its definition.
The paper reviewed the current ways in which researchers, particularly within the management
sciences, have described and thought about innovation, which tend to focus on the novelty of
innovations. These views are complemented by concepts developed in this paper; namely, an
impact-based characterization of innovation that makes innovation impact dimensions explicit,
and differentiates between breakthroughs, enabling innovations, and progressive innovations.
This paper does not claim that these characterizations of innovation or the dimensions of impact
are the only ones that exist. Yet they provide a useful start in developing an impact-based
taxonomy of innovation that can complement current schools of thought on the subject. In
summary, these views of innovation contribute to the development of innovation expertise, since
they describe patterns that can be used to identify, characterize and evaluate ideas with
innovative potential. The varied degree of scale and complexity of engineering challenges calls
for different types of innovation and thus underscores the importance of clearly defining the
nature of the innovation needed from future engineers.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Baregheh, A., J. Rowley, and S. Sambrook, Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management
Decision, 2009. 47(8): p. 1323-1339.
Read, A., Determinants of successful organisational innovation: A review of current research. Journal of
Management Practice, 2000. 3(1): p. 95-119.
Committee for the Study of Science and Invention, Enhancing inventiveness for quality of life, competitiveness,
and sustainability. 2004, Report by the Lemelson-MIT Program and National Science Foundation.
Ferguson, D., et al., Engineering Innovativeness. Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 2013. 4(1): p. 1-16.
National Academy of Engineering, Grand Challenges for Engineering, G.C.f.E. Committee, Editor. 2008,
National Academy of Sciences on behalf of the National Academy of Engineering. p. 54.
Rittel, H. and M. Webber, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 1973. 4(2): p. 155-169.
Boyer, E., Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. 1990, Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching: Princeton, NJ. p. 151.
Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods 2009, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Godin, B. and C. Doré, Measuring the impacts of science: Beyond the economic dimension. History and
Sociology of S&T Statistics, 2004.
United Nations General Assembly, United Nations millennium declaration. United Nations General Assembly
Resolution A/RES/55/2, 2000, New York, New York.
United Nations General Assembly. Declaration on Social Progress and Development. 1969.
Manyika, J., et al., Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global
economy. 2013, McKinsey Global Institute.
OECD, How's Life? Measuring well-being. 2011, OECD Publishing. p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-en.
Gurría, A., The OECD at 50: Past Achievements, Present Challenges and Future Directions. Global Policy,
2011. 2(3): p. 318-321.
Feland, J., L. Leifer, and W. Cockayne, Comprehensive design engineering Designers taking responsibility.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 2004. 20(3): p. 416-423.
Abernathy, W. and K. Clark, Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 1985. 14:
p. 3-22.
Tushman, M. and P. Anderson, Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986. 36(3): p. 439 - 465.
Christensen, C., Christensen: We are living the capitalist's dilemma, in CNN. 2013. p.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/21/business/opinion-clayton-christensen/.
Basalla, G., The Evolution of Technology. 1988: Cambridge University Press.
20. Perez, C., Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. 2003,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publications.
21. Perez, C., Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms, in Working Papers in Technology,
Governance and Economic Dynamics. 2009, The Other Canon Foundation, Norway and Tallin University of
Technology, Tallinn. p. 15.
22. Challoner, J., 1001 Inventions That Changed the World. 2009: Barron's Educational Series, Incorporated.
23. Kuhn, T., The structure of scientific revolutions. 1962, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. American Institute of Physics. Bright idea: The first lasers. [cited 2013 10/01]; Available from:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/laser/sections/raydevices.html:.
25. Constable, G. and B. Somerville, A Century of Innovation: Twenty Engineering Achievements that Transformed
Our Lives. 2003: Joseph Henry Press.
26. Goddard, J., Concise History of Science & Invention: An Illustrated Time Line. 2010: National Geographic.
27. Dudley, J.M., Defending basic research. Nature Photonics, 2013. 7(5): p. 338-339.
28. Arthur, W.B., The Structure of Invention. Research Policy, 2007. 36: p. 274-287.
29. Arthur, W.B., The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves. 2009, New York, NY: Free Press.
30. Townes, C.H., How the Laser Happened: Adventures of a Scientist. 1999: OUP USA.
31. Watson, J.D. and G.S. Stent, Double Helix. 1998: Scribner.
32. Watson, J.D. and A. Berry, DNA: The Secret of Life. 2009: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
33. Robinson, D.H. and A.H. Toledo, Historical Development of Modern Anesthesia. Journal of Investigative
Surgery, 2012. 25(3): p. 141-149.
34. Utterback, J. and W. Abernathy, A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, The International
Journal of Management Science, 1975. 3(6): p. 639-656.
35. Miles, I., Services in the new industrial economy. Futures, 1993. 25(6): p. 653-672.
36. Shafer, S.M., H.J. Smith, and J.C. Linder, The power of business models. Business Horizons, 2005. 48(3): p.
199-207.
37. Johnson, M., C. Christensen, and H. Kagermann, Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review,
2008(December 2008): p. 51-59.
38. Sinfield, J., et al., How to identify new business models. MIT Sloan management review, 2012. 53(2): p. 85-90.
39. Ettlie, J., W. Bridges, and R. O'keefe, Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus
Incremental Innovation. Management Science, 1984. 30(6): p. 682 - 695.
40. Dewar, R. and J. Dutton, The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis.
Management Science, 1986. 32(11): p. 1422 - 1433.
41. Damanpour, F., Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency
Models. Management Science, 1996. 42(5): p. 693 - 716.
42. Duchesneau, T., S. Cohn, and D. Dutton, A study of innovation in manufacturing: determination, process and
methodological management science issues, in Vol. I, Social Science Research Institute. 1979, University of
Maine, Orono.
43. Leifer, R., et al., Radical innovation: how mature companies can outsmart upstarts. 2000, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Review Press.
44. Tushman, M. and J. Murmann, Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organizational Outcomes. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 1998. 20: p. 231 - 266.
45. Henderson, R. and K. Clark, Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies
and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990. 35(1): p. 9- 30.
46. Gatignon, H., et al., A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation
Locus, Type, and Characteristics. Management Science, 2002. 48(9): p. 1103.
47. Baldwin, C. and K. Clark, Design rules: the power of modularity. 2000, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
48. Abernathy, W. and J. Utterback, Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 1978. 80(7): p. 40-47.
49. Bower, J. and C. Christensen, Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review, 1995.
73(1): p. 43 - 53.
50. Christensen, C., The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. 1997: Harvard
Business Press.
51. Christensen, C. and M. Raynor, The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. 2003:
Harvard Business School Pr.
52. Anthony, S., et al., The innovator's guide to growth: putting disruptive innovation to work. 2008: Harvard
Business School Pr.
53. Solis, F., J.V. Sinfield, and D.M. Abraham, Hybrid Approach to the Study of Inter-Organization High
Performance Teams. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2013. 139(4): p. 379-392.
54. Dosi, G., Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 1982. 11(3): p. 147-162.
55. Christensen, C. and R. Rosenbloom, Explaining the attacker's advantage: technological paradigms,
organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 1995. 24(2): p. 233-257.
56. Myers, B., Principles of corporate finance. 2002: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
57. Stokes, D.E., Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. 1997: Brookings Institution
Press.
58. McConnell, C., S. Brue, and S. Flynn, Economics. 2011: McGraw-Hill Education.
59. Katz, M.L. and C. Shapiro, Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic
Review, 1985. 75(3): p. 424-440.