See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332350186

Product Innovation – A Theoretical Framework of the Concept

Article · January 2019

CITATION READS

1 12,250

2 authors, including:

Viorel Cornescu
University of Bucharest
19 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roxana Adam on 06 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

International Conference on
Economics and Administration

(8-9 June 2018, Bucharest, Romania)

Editor
Camelia Cojocaru

FILODIRITTO
INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

Log in to find out all the titles of our catalogue

Follow Filodiritto Publisher on Facebook to learn about our new products

ISBN 978-88-85813-36-6

First Edition January 2019

© Copyright 2019 Filodiritto Publisher

filodirittoeditore.com
inFOROmatica srl, Via Castiglione, 81, 40124 Bologna (Italy)
inforomatica.it
tel. 051 9843125 - Fax 051 9843529 - commerciale@filodiritto.com

Translation, total or partial adaptation, reproduction by any means (including films, microfilms, photocopies), as
well as electronic storage, are reserved for all the countries. Photocopies for personal use of the reader can be
made in the 15% limits for each volume upon payment to SIAE of the expected compensation as per the Art. 68,
commi 4 and 5, of the law 22 April 1941 n. 633. Photocopies used for purposes of professional, economic or
commercial nature, or however for different needs from personal ones, can be carried out only after express
authorization issued by CLEA Redi, Centro Licenze e Autorizzazione per le Riproduzioni Editoriali, Corso di
Porta Romana, 108 - 20122 Milano.
e-mail: autorizzazioni@clearedi.org, sito web: www.clearedi.org

2
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

Product Innovation – A Theoretical Framework of the Concept

ADAM Roxana1, CORNESCU Viorel2

1University of Bucharest (ROMANIA)
2“Nicolae Titulescu” University (ROMANIA)
Email: roxanac.adam@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper aims to set a general theoretical framework on the concept of product innovation
from an economical perspective. The taxonomy of innovation is confusing moreover and
researchers are using different words when they refer to innovative products, even if the used
definitions are similar. Innovative product refers to a new or significantly improved product,
and the basics are driven from the literature of the new product development and innovation. A
distinction is made between innovation and invention in the innovation process, economically
speaking the difference is explained mainly by the commercialization of the product. Other
theoretical aspects regard the innovative product lifecycle and the typologies of innovative
products, classified by three dimensions: core concepts, linkages between core concepts and
components and the cost-effective threshold of the innovation. The paper should be seen as
starting point for a wider discussion.
Keywords: innovation, product innovation, innovative product lifecycle, types of innovative products

Introduction

The spectrum of “innovation” terminology is widely used in professional and academic field
to describe something new or different. Different senses and taxonomies of innovation are used
in various fields such as: engineering, business, academia, medical care and other. Product
innovation can be attributed to companies’ needs to maintain a competitive position in the
market-place; this is why the syntax “product innovation” becomes more common in the
business area, rather being used in the engineering field. Even if the “product innovation”
definitions are slightly different, when we refer to economics or business filled the main
understanding is the same. The paper tries to broaden the view on what “product innovation”
means from an economical perspective and attempts to derive a common sense of it in order to
avoid using multiple terms to express the same thing.
A first motivation of the research is related to the concept of new product development and
to product innovation process; both refers to the process of developing a new product for the
market, even though the semantics of words is confusing sometimes do to a lack of an accepted
convention on novelty degree. As Bhuiyan [1] emphasize, a new product lunched on the market
develops over a sequence of stages, starting with an initial product concept or idea that is
evaluated, developed, tested and launched on the market [2, 3]. The sequences of stages are
similar in the new product development theory and in product innovation theory. To avoid
semantic misunderstandings, the paper highlights the accordance and differences between the
terms innovation, invention, product development and innovation, and attempts to embrace a
common sense for innovative products from an economical perspective.

81
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

Innovation vs. invention – an economical point of view

Analyzing innovation theme from the perspective of Economic Development Theory,

Lazzarotti et al., [4] underline evidence of the use of the term innovation with the meaning of
something unusual since the late 1880s [5, 6], but as the authors recognize none of the
precursors of innovation studies have been as influential as the economist Joseph Alois
Schumpeter. The Schumpeterian [7] trilogy of invention, innovation, and diffusion it’s the most
common approach in economics and researchers [8, 9] described shortly the three stages as:
first stage (the invention) creative response or entrepreneur phase, new ideas are generated; the
second stage (the innovation process stage) new ideas are used to develop or transform new
products or processes and the third stage (diffusion stage) is concentrated on the penetration
and on the spread across the potential market of these new products or processes.
Nowadays, the technological advances and the rapid development of markets put the
spotlight on innovation in all research domains, such as: technological studies, business
environment, market studies and more. In the most common sense, the people are associating
the term invention with a new product or device, while innovation is associated with a change
or improvement of an existing product. This is the simple definition one may find in the
explanatory dictionary of various languages but it doesn’t cover the economical component.
Summing up, one might say that invention is the development of a new or improved good,
and innovation is its application to the market, but in the absence of a clear definition from
economically perspective it is confusing to distinct between the terms: innovation vs. invention.
For greater clarity in the field of economics, for the study of innovation we adapt Schumpeter
theory and described it with reference to commercialization, a process between producer and
consumer. From consumer perspective “innovation” means a product or service perceived as
new or significantly improved, while the producer should be aware that an innovation,
economically speaking, is: (1) idea + (2) implementation + (3) commercialization. In order to
be able to speak about innovation, one should take into account both players: producer
(organization) and consumer (client). Fig. 1 captures the scheme of the innovation process and
distinguishes between innovation and intention.

82
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

Fig. 1. The innovation processes. Innovation vs. Invention

The idea

The first main stage is defined by the new ideas that arise at the producer level. It is divided
in: creating ideas, selecting ideas, followed by the development of the chosen ideas.

Stage 1.1: Creativity (appearance of the idea)

Scarborough and Cornwall [10] are defining creativity as the ability to develop new ideas
and to discover new ways of looking at the problems and opportunities, while innovation,
according to the same authors is the ability to apply creative solutions to those problems and
opportunities to enhance or enrich people’s lives. The new idea arise due to the creative process,
a response to the stimuli perceived by the organization, opportunities emerging from research
processes and/or the need to grow at the level of competitors. At this stage, the individuals
creativity is revealed inside organization, the ideas may arise due to external sources
(consumer/client; competitors/competition; stakeholders) or to internal sources (operative
departments; decision departments; other employees). Creativity has been defined in various
ways [11, 12, 13, 14, 15], but a particular definition that fits to our view is “the production of
novel, appropriate ideas in any realm of human activity from science, to the arts, to education,
to business or to everyday life” [16].

83
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

Stage 1.2: Selecting ideas

As a next step, the best ideas must be recognized and selected for future development and
implementation. In the contrast with researchers’ expectation, Rietzschel, Nijstad and Stroebe
[17] says that even if it assumed that participants to sessions of selecting ideas (e.g.:
brainstorming) would be able to identify the most creative idea, people perform very poorly at
selecting creative ideas [18, 19]. Individuals working together as a team, working independently
or combining it, can do the evaluation of ideas inside the organization. Diehl and Stroebe [20]
have criticized team processes as relatively ineffective, while other studies [21, 22] suggest
combining the merits of individual and team approaches as a solution for more ideas and to
higher satisfaction. The organization desideratum is that following the documentation and the
exploration of the ideas, to choose the idea that matches the best company goals.

Stage 1.3: Developing ideas

The creation and selection of ideas has been subject of many researches on product
development [3; 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. After the company adopts the idea, the R&D department
will develop it and improve, if it is the case. This is an analytical approach necessary for the
implementation in practice of the creativity. Furthermore, the ideas are developed usually on
the basis of multidisciplinary participants’ expertise in the innovation process, in order to ensure
company movement from idea to its realization.
During this stage the producer should decide whether to use the idea for commercial purpose
(innovation) or non-commercial purpose (invention). The process of preparation of product
development it is also known in the literature as Fuzzy-Front End [28] or Front-End of
Innovation [29].

Implementation

The management department will develop the innovation intended to drive up successful
rates on the market. Through this stage, the final innovation will be ready to be lunched on the
market after the company’s validation related to the production, marketing and innovation’s
commercial viability [30].

2.1: Implementation
The pre-development work consist in setting the path for the future product and include
activities such as resources and financial analysis, business analysis, strategic approaches and
vision on innovation contribution to company’s goals. Innovative companies usually have
innovated also in the past and constantly innovate to retain or to gain new market share. Those
who do not dare to innovate often don’t know how to manage different risks and uncertainties,
and this recall the need of an innovation strategy. Companies must give strategic directions to
innovative activities [31], furthermore the strategic focus at this point should regard cost
analysis, return-on-investment expected, profitability or the economic value of the innovation.
Avoiding innovation failure or increasing its success can be achieved though interventional
coordination and effectively sharing a new product strategy across departments [1, 32]. After
creating the outline and the basic feature of the innovation within a proper financial analysis,
its development can effectively start.

Stage 2.2: Product development

The moment when the innovative product materialize and operate as it was designed. Any
discordance between theory and practice is eliminated, the product is improved or the idea is
updated. The concept of the innovative product is developed and the R&D team transforms it
into physical product [33]. The first prototype of the product is developed and tested with small

84
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

samples of customers as a continuous process whenever improvement is required. Theoretically

we can distinct between product development and product testing as phases of innovation
implementation, but in practice a clear distinction between it is difficult or impossible. At this
stage customer feedback is vital and until the last version of the product is decided for the
lunched on the market, the final users’ input (customer feedback) is highly recommended for
keeping the development on the right direction [34].

Stage 2.3: Product testing

The testing should be continuously, and not restricted only to this stage [35]. At this stage
the company will need to evaluate and predict the future of the innovation after the product
launch. The market testing is used often at this stage, looking for product testing in the user’s
real environment before releasing it into the market. It is carried to ensure that all of the
innovation design goals have been met and to test the reaction of potential consumers on the
market. Among innovation characteristics, the R&D team should give priority to customer
feedback and characteristics that bring value to the customer and not the product itself.
Following Kotler and Armstrong [36], at this is the stage we can emphasized that the
innovative product and the marketing program are tested in more realistic market settings.

Commercialization

Commercialization can be defined in a simple way as presenting or introducing the new or

improved product to market. Is the stage that differentiates the company view on the product,
where we can differentiate between innovation and invention. If a new or improved product
was developed but not released on the market (no economic value), the company may call it
invention due to is degree of change or novelty comparing to the existing products. Shall the
company lunch the product on the market and be adopted by consumers, we can call it
innovation. Adding the economic value to the new or improved product transforms it,
economically speaking, in innovation. If it isn’t accepted (bought) by the costumers then the
economic value is lost and the new or improved product turns to be called invention, again
economically speaking.

Stage 3.1: Commercialization test

The commercialization starting point: the product is launched on the market. It gains
economic value and this stage for the company represents a real market test process, where it
keeps track of sales, impact on the market, consumers’ behavior and any potential risk. The first
months of the product on the market are critically for the measurement of the return-on-
investment. If the company comes out in losses instead of profitability, it is a signal for
analyzing the future of the product on the market. The previous tests on the product have been
conducted on groups of potential customers specifically chosen for this purpose, while
interaction with the real consumers, in terms of statistical population, is noticed just at this
stage, the product life cycle being directly affected by consumer behavior. Therefore, the future
of the product no longer depends only on the manufacturer’s decisions, things change, and now
the consumers have a great influence on the organization’s decisions, which can lead also to
product changes. Jobber and Lancaster [37] emphasize a number of major environmental
(behavioral and technological) and managerial forces impact on how selling and sales
management are and will be carried out [38, 39], among which the most important for
consumers is rising customer expectations and being concerned with fulfilling more than basic
needs.

85
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

Stage 3.2: Resistance to innovation

At a certain point during the commercialization stage consumers’ behavior dictates the future
of the product, either continuing the commercialization or drop off from the market. The
company’s balance of cost-benefits will tilt in favor of a single action in base of financial
analysis and its expectations. This is not a stage itself, is more a decision making process at
company level, in a certain moment during the commercialization, a decision influenced by the
consumer reaction to change, measured at personal level. The consumer reaction may take the
form of accepting (buying) or opposing the change (not buying or even protest against it), either
because the product has created potential changes to a satisfactory “status que” or because it is
in conflict with consumer beliefs. Consumer resistance plays an important role in the success
of an innovation, can certainly inhibit or delay the consumer adoption [40].

Stage 3.3: Effective commercialization

It is the starting point for the “mass” commercialization of innovation. This stage is
synonymous with what many authors [41, 42, 43] have described as the adoption of innovation.
However, there are cases where companies artificially support certain products on the
market, without initially exceeding consumer resistance, while future versions might be
accepted by the consumers (after the improvement of the unsatisfactory characteristics of the
initial innovation). In this case, any new version of the product should be analyzed as a distinct
innovation, even if it only refers to improvement of core concepts or a change in linkages
between core concepts and components. More information related to innovative products types
are discussed in the third part of the paper. Prior to that, the innovative product life cycle is
presented.

The innovative product and its life cycle

The first influential papers from classical product life cycle theory dates from the end 1950s
[44, 45], even so the concept is still in the area of research interest and have been shaped under
different models. The product’s life cycle moreover consists five major phases: product
development, product lunch on the market, product growth, product maturity and product
decline. Once on the market, the innovative product follows a life cycle as the rest of the
products which once were innovations too.
An unconventional model is proposed by Steffens [46], the author developed an over-arching
conceptual product life cycle model and a managerial tool for consumer durables, in a four-
phased: innovation → imitation → repeat → substitute, where new marketing strategy
implications emerge for each phase due to the additional focus on consumers. In the line with
the classical perspective, Cao and Folan [47] present the product lifecycle theory after Levitt
[48], in four stages: market development, growth, maturity and decline, reported on the axis of
sales volume and time.
Each innovative product on the market tend to be characterized by a high degree of
uncertainty [49] and the product lifecycle theory it is useful to theorize where is situated the
product in different moments and where it should have been situated according to company’s
forecasting.
Our view on the innovative product lifecycle starts from the structure of the model proposed
by Karlsson [50] and Cao and Folan [47] and highlights the idea of innovation from an
economical perspective (see Fig. 2).

86
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

where: t = equilibrium point; t0 = launching time; and t, t1, tn etc. = evaluation period: the difference between
the company’s forecast and the actual market situation.
Fig. 2. Innovative product lifecycle

Fig. 2 shows the life cycle of innovative products and it is divided into commercialization
test and effective commercialization, according to the innovation process figure developed in
the first section of the paper (see Fig. 1). In the product lifecycle, it is noted the double split of
the commercialization stage; the growth, maturity and decline being part of the effective
commercialization. The novelty element is introduced in the first part of the innovation
lifecycle, Fig. 2 illustrates the purchasing behavior of individuals (green color) that varies from
one individual to another, and summing up all these individual behaviors represents consumer
overall buying behavior measured in sales volume. If the innovative product doesn’t face
consumer resistance or the percentage of consumers that adopt (buy) the innovation ensures the
profits for the company, then the product will move to the “mass” commercialization and follow
the classical stages of product lifecycle, starting with growth stage.

Types of innovative products

Innovations are frequently classified into typologies as a means of identifying their

innovative characteristics or degree of innovativeness [51]. Until the 1980s, it was used a simple
classification of types of innovation, the traditional categorization was: incremental and radical
innovation. Radical innovation was defined as a product, process or service with unprecedented
performance characteristics or familiar features that offer significant performance or cost
improvements, that transform existing markets or create new ones [52], while incremental
innovation refers to the normal technical progress, which is concretized by the continuous and
successive improvement of an already existing radical innovation.
Researchers classified innovation from different perspective into: niche creation,
architectural, regular and revolutionary [53]; low innovativeness, moderate innovativeness and
high innovativeness [54]; original and reformulated [55], discontinuous and continuous [56]
and many others.
Referring to innovative products one should take into account the technical change and a
cost-effective threshold of the innovation. Freeman and Soete [57] categorize the types of
innovation in base of the technical change as follows: incremental innovations, radical
innovations, new technological systems and changes of techno-economic paradigm
(technological revolutions). Later, focusing on the product development and following
Schumpeter’s emphasis on creative destruction, Henderson and Clark [58] classifies
innovations in: incremental, modular, architectural and radical innovations. The Henderson and
Clark’s classification has two dimensions: the horizontal one captures an innovation’s impact
on components; while the vertical dimension captures the impact on the linkages between

87
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

components. Following the literature, we consider that the Henderson and Clark [58]
classification is the best captures of the innovation typology base on the technical change. In
order to surprise the economic value of the innovation, we introduced the cost-effective
threshold and classify the innovative products in three dimensions (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. The innovative products classification by three dimensions

The definitions of the four types of innovative product (modular, radical, architectural and
incremental) are unchanged, and by introducing the cost-effective threshold of the innovation
are sorted into subsets by company’s financial earnings (+) and losses (-).
Incremental innovation reflects the improvement of the assembly. Modular innovation
involves only changing the fundamental concept. There is a change to the foundation of the
product, but the use remains the same. Architectural innovation involves changing only the
links between the components of the product. Several components are combined with different
benefits in order to bring the improvement as a degree of novelty; taken individually, these
components remain at the same level of novelty. Radical innovation involves the creation of
both new fundamental concepts and new connections. It is about creating new products that
have never been done before or known.

Conclusions

This article outlines from an economical point of view the background, theory and authors
perspective on innovative products. The paper should be seen as starting point on harmonizing
the definitions of product development and innovation. A wider discussion related to a common
perception of innovative products in economics, is requested in order to set a general framework
for future research.
It is necessary to be reminded that the field of innovation is very broad and the ability to
develop innovative products has become a priority for many companies, do to innovation
competitive advantage on the market. In the line with these aspects, researchers should try to
define innovative products in a conventional way, widely accepted by economists.
The paper consists in some new approaches proposed to be taken into account by researchers,
which can be used also inside the companies orientated toward innovative products. In the
article it is built the outline of product innovation starting from three main stages: idea,
implementation and commercialization. The selling of innovation was marked in the
commercialization test stage and evidenced in the product life cycle. And finally, for increasing
the comprehension of the current proposal, the innovative products have been divided four
types: modular, radical, architectural and incremental, aggregate in two groups by the cost-

88
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

effective threshold of innovation as: company’s financial earnings and losses. The important
requirements for future successful debates are: a flexible approach and open mind realistic
orientation.

REFERENCES

1. Bhuiyan, N. (2011). A framework for successful new product development. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management 4(4), pp. 746-770.
2. Booz, Allen and Hamilton. (1982). New product management for the 1980’s. New York: Booz, Allen &
Hamilton, Inc.
3. Cooper, R. G. (2008). The Stage-Gate Idea-to-Launch Process-Update, What’s New and NexGen
Systems. J. Product Innovation Management 25(3), pp. 213-232.
4. Lazzarotti, F., Dalfovo, M. S. and Hoffmann, V. E. (2011). A Bibliometric Study of Innovation Based on
Schumpeter. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 6(4).
5. Walker, J. (1888). Harvard Law Review, New York. ZHENG, W.; Khoury, A. E.; Grobmeier, C. (2010).
How do leadership and context matter in R&D team innovation? A multiple case study. Human Resource
Development International 13 (3), pp. 265-283.
6. Andrews, E.B. (1890). Macvane’s political economy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 4(3), pp. 331-339.
7. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The Creative Response in Economic History. The Journal of Economic History
7(2), pp. 149-159.
8. Beck, R. (2006). The Network(ed) Economy. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, eBook ISBN 978-3-8350-
9213-6.
9. Cantwell, J. (2001). Innovation, Profits and Growth: Schumpeter and Penrose. Working paper no. 427
Reading England University of Reading, Department of Economics.
10. Scarborough, N. M. and Cornwall, J. R. (2016). Essentials of the entrepreneurship and small business
management, Eight edition, Global Edition.
11. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(2), pp. 357-377.
12. Ford, C. M. (1996). A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains. Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), pp. 1112-1142.
13. Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing Creative People: Strategies and Tactics for Innovation. Human
Resource Management Review, 10(3), pp. 313-351.
14. Yusuf, S. (2007). From Creativity to Innovation. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4262.
15. Fillis, I. and Rentschler, R. (2010). The Role of Creativity in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, 18(1), pp. 49-82.
16. Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what
you do (Creativity in Management). California Management Review 40(1), pp. 39-58.
17. Rietzschel1, E.F., Nijstad B. A. and Stroebe, W. (2010). The selection of creative ideas after individual
idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact, British Journal of Psychology 101, pp. 47-68.
18. Faure, C. (2004). Beyond brainstorming: Effects of different group procedures on selection of ideas and
satisfaction with the process. Journal of Creative Behavior 38, pp. 13-34.
19. Rietzschel1, E.F., Nijstad B. A. and Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of
interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 42, pp. 244-251.
20. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups – Tracking Down the
Blocking Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, pp. 392-403.
21. Robbins, S. P. and Judge T. A. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Paulus, P. B., Brown, V. and Ortega, A. H. (1996). Group Creativity. Social Creativity in Organizations,
ed. by R. E. Pursuer, and A. Montuori. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.
23. Hansen, M. T. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008). The innovation value chain. HB Review 85(1), pp. 213-232.
24. Hirschmann, T., and Mueller, K. (2011). Social value creation: Outline and first application of a resource
management approach to innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development,
5(2-3), pp. 276-294.
25. Westerski, A., Iglesias, C. A. and Nagle, T. (2011). The Road from Community Ideas to Organisational
Innovation: A Life Cycle Survay of Idea Management Systems. IJWBC 7(4), pp. 493-506.
26. Messerle et al., 2012; Messerle, M., Binz, H. and Roth, D. (2012). Existing problems of idea evaluations
and possible areas of improvement. Proceedings of 12th International Design Conference - Design 2012,
Dubrovnik – Croatia, pp. 1917-1928.

89
 © Filodiritto Editore – Proceedings

27. Roussel et al., 2012 Roussel, B., Bary, R. and Ferioli, M. (2012). Method of creativity including an ideas
evaluation tools: application in an international workshop. Proceedings of 12th International Design
Conference – Design 2012, Dubrovnik – Croatia, pp. 1941-1950.
28. Smith, P. and Reinertsen, D. (1991). The Strategist’s Role in shortening Product Development. The
Journal of Business Strategy, pp. 18-22.
29. Koen, P. (2004). The Fuzzy Front End for Incremental, Platform, and Breakthrough Products, In Kahn,
K. B. (ed.), The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp.
81-91.
30. Cooper, R.G., and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987). New products: What separates winners from losers? Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), pp. 169-184.
31. Cottam, A., Ensor, J. and Band, C. (2001). A benchmark study of strategic commitment to innovation.
European Journal of Innovation Management 4, pp. 88-94.
32. Cooper, R. (1999). From experience: The invisible success factors in product innovation. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 16, pp. 115-133.
33. Kotler, P. Armstrong, G., Harris, L. C. and Piercy, N. (2013). Principles of Marketing. 6 th ed. Pearson
Education Limited. Harlow.
34. Cooper, R. G. (2001). Wining at new products. Persus Publishing. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
35. Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. P. (2012). Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill. New York.
36. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G.M. (2010). Principles of Marketing (13rd Ed). Prentice Hall.
37. Jobber, D. and Lancaster, G. (2009). Selling and sales management. 8 th ed., Prentice Hall, Pearson
Education.
38. Anderson, R. E. (1996). Personal selling and sales management in the new millennium. Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management 16 (4), pp. 17-52.
39. Magrath, A. J. (1997). A comment on “personal selling and sales management in the new millennium”.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 17 (1), pp. 45-47.
40. Cornescu, V. and Adam, R. (2013). The Consumer Resistance Behavior towards Innovation. Procedia
Economics and Finance 6, pp. 457-465.
41. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
42. Tan and Teo, 2000 Tan, M. and Teo, T (2000). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Internet Banking.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 1(1).
43. Valente, T. and Davis, R. (1999). Accelerating the Diffusion of Innovations Using Opinion Leaders.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 566(1), pp. 55-67.
44. Forrester, J. W. (1958). Industrial dynamics. Harvard Business Review 36(4), pp. 37-66.
45. Patton, A. (1959). Stretch your products’ earning years. Management Review 38, pp. 67-79.
46. Steffens, P. R. (2002). The Product Life Cycle Concept: Buried or Resurrected by the Diffusion
Literature? Academy of Management Conference, Technology and Innovation Management Division,
Denver.
47. Cao, H. and Folan, P. (2012). Product life cycle: the evolution of a paradigm and literature review from
1950-2009. Production Planning & Control 23(8), pp. 641-662
48. Levitt, T. (1965) Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business Review 43, pp. 81-94.
49. Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review 80,
pp. 41-47
50. Karlsson, C. (1988). Innovation adoption and the product life cycle. Umea Economic Studies 185.
51. Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19, pp. 110-
132
52. Assink, M. (2006). The inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European
Journal of Innovation Management 9(2), pp. 215-233.
53. Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation. mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research
Policy 14(1), pp. 3-22.
54. Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Cooper, R.G. (1991). The impact of product innovativeness on performance.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 8, pp. 240-251.
55. Yoon, E. and Lilien, G.L. (1985). New industrial product performance: the effect of market characteristics
and strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management 3, pp. 134-144.
56. Anderson, P. and Tushman, M.L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical
model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, pp. 604-633.
57. Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (1987). Technical Change and full Employment (eds.), Basic Blackwell.
58. Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing
product technologies, and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, pp. 9-30.

90

View publication stats