Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.