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

net/publication/347244800

Introduction to Innovation Management

Preprint · October 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25436.00646

CITATIONS READS
0 21,350

1 author:

Ramakrishnan Ramachandran
Vivin Consultants Chennai India
81 PUBLICATIONS 248 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramakrishnan Ramachandran on 15 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Title of submission:
Name of the author
Mailing address:
E-mail:
Phone Mobile:
Introduction to Innovation Management
Dr. R Ramakrishnan Chief Consultant,
Vivin Consultants, Chennai
J108 S & P Living Spaces, Kamarajar Street,
Ayanambakkam Chennai 600095
ramakrish54@gmail.com or consultvivin@gmail.com
+919952669656

Dr. Ramakrishnan, PhD in Stakeholder Management is diplomat turned

passionate research oriented teacher with wide and varied experience in Indian
Government /Private Enterprise. He has been associated with the founding of 4 B
schools. Author of six books ranging from TQM to Environmental Science to
Ethics, he has written close to 100 papers. His research work
(http://ssrn.com/author=646193) ranges from Mentoring to Marketing as he tries
to give shape to the future managers of India though corporate training on
CSR/TQM/ 5S etc. as well as workshop to students for making them employable

ABSTRACT

Innovation is vital for all organizations and is the lifeblood for their existence and
growth. Ultimate aim of all Innovations are to add value for consumers. Innovation enhances
the growth and survival of firms on one hand while it is a very complex and risky process, with
low success rates, and sometimes-lethal effects. Innovation can be represented by the
following equations
Innovation = Creativity * Risk Taking
Innovation = Idea Generation + Development of Concept + Implementation +
Exploitation.

The main aim of Innovations are to add value for consumers. In order to adopt a new
process, firm must utilize technological and process capabilities successfully. Innovation can
be analyzed through many dimensions like the different generations and contexts. The articles
traces out these generations and contexts then looks at the stage gate model of innovation and
the importance of digitalization.

*************

Page 1 of 15
 Introduction to Innovation Management
Innovation is the activity of bringing something new into the world- an act of
introducing a new device, method or material for application to commercial or practical
objectives. It is vital for all organizations and is the lifeblood for their existence and growth.
Ultimate aim of all Innovations are to add value for consumers.
Innovation enhances the growth and survival of firms on one hand while it is a very
complex and risky process, with low success rates, and sometimes-lethal effects. Creativity is
an essential for achieving an innovation. Creativity refers to the production of novel and useful
ideas, and innovation is the successful implementation of these ideas within an organization.
Byrd and Brown (2003)1 defined Innovation with a mathematical equation as

Innovation = Creativity * Risk Taking

Davila, Epstein and Shelton (2012)2 opines that Innovation is a management process
that requires specific tools, rules and discipline, like many business functions.
Innovation is doing anything in a better or smarter way like introduction of a new
product or new technology or a new method of production. It can also be an improvement in
the existing product or method. An innovative product or process stands apart from previous
ones by its uniqueness in form, function or behaviour. Successful innovation is thus part of
everyday work and its need is imperative. We need to manage, support and nurture innovation.
Innovation is a key element for competitiveness and economic growth and a major
component in developing technology among firms. Innovation management facilitate
organizations to focus on competitiveness and successful performance.

Innovation = Idea Generation + Development of Concept + Implementation +

Exploitation.

Business press attributes a failure rate of 80% or more of all new products and
innovations. Many scholars takes these figures in their analysis and put them in their articles.

1 Byrd, J., & Brown, P. L. (2003). The innovation equation: Building creativity and risk taking in your organization. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
2 Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2012). Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. FT press.

Page 2 of 15
Crawford (1979)3 tracked all these articles about high failure rates of new products from 1945
to 1979 and found that, they were not supported by any facts and only personal opinion He put
35% as the likely failure rate of new products. This is in line with the report of Booz, Allen
and Hamilton (1968)4 that almost 1 3 of all product development projects commercialized by
firms were failures, independent of industry. Bessant et al. (2005)5 represents innovation as the
core renewal process in any organization, as it is crucial in creating value and sustaining
competitive advantage. .
Crawford (1987)6 was surprised to find that the failure rate has remained more or less
same over the years. Castellion and Markham (2013)7 confirms that the success rate has not
improved significantly even in 2012. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a need for better
management of innovation.
The main aim of Innovations are to add value for consumers. In order to adopt a new
process, firm must utilize technological and process capabilities successfully. Innovation is the
ongoing process of improving by initiating, developing, and operating.
High growth companies derive the ability to innovate mainly from the human capital
of the company's entrepreneurs. Three key components widely recognized as common and
important elements of the innovation are entrepreneur, knowledge and network.
The changing business and societal environment make organizations to adapt
innovation management. Historically this development has been evolutionary in nature. These
evolutionary forces bring innovative changes in innovation management itself.
Innovation management is organizing and managing these innovation processes.
Research and development (R&D) management encompasses invention processes along with
innovation processes. Various activities happen at every stage of development of innovation,
.Innovation processes refer to the way innovation actually takes place.
West and Farr (1990)8 viewed innovation as a circular loop with four phases of
Recognition, Initiation, Implementation and stabilization.

3 Crawford, C. M. (1979). New product failure rates—facts and fallacies. Research Management, 22(5), 9-13.
4 Booz, & Allen & Hamilton. (1968). Management of new products. Booz, Allen & Hamilton.
5 Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation, 25(12), 1366-1376.
6 Crawford, C. M. (1987). New product failure rates: a reprise. Research management, 30(4), 20-24.
7 Castellion, G., & Markham, S. K. (2013). Perspective: New Product Failure Rates: Influence of Argumentum ad Populum and Self‐
Interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 976-979.
8 West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (Eds.). (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psycological and Organizational Strategies. John Wiley.

Page 3 of 15
  Recognition: In this first phase, organizations recognize the potential for an
innovation. Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek (1973)9, classifies the source of
innovation as programmed and un-programmed.
 Initiation: In this second phase, Innovation planning and development takes
place. After evaluation it may be accepted for development or abandoned
 Implementation: This is time consuming phase where physical change are
visible and disrupt the operations
 Stabilization: Innovation is established now as part of the organizations systems
and the process returns to the recognition phase making it a continuous loop.
Innovation is complex, context-specific and multi-dimensional phenomenon. We can
analyze Innovation through many dimensions. One of the popular dimension is importance of
the generation and management of knowledge cycles in order to create and sustain innovation.
Many researchers have tried to figure out the evolution of Innovation management in
terms of Innovation management generations considering the best practices in innovation
management at different times requiring different types of innovation processes in different
context.
Cooper (1994)10 divides the evolution of innovation processes or new product processes
or development into three generations while Niosi (1999),11 Miller (2001),12 Liyanage,
Greenfield and Don (1999),13and Ortt & Van der Duin (2008)14 classifies them into four
generations. Rogers (1996)15 and Rothwell (1994)16 make them as five shifts or generations,
while Kotesmir and Meissner, (2013)17 adds Open innovation model of Chesbrough (2003)18
as the sixth and final phase in innovation generation models.

9 Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
10 Cooper, R. G. (1994). Third‐generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication
of the Product Development & Management Association, 11(1), 3-14.
11 Niosi, J. (1999). Fourth-generation R&D: From linear models to flexible innovation. Journal of business research, 45(2), 111-117.
12 Miller, W. L. (2001). Innovation for business growth. Research-Technology Management, 44(5), 26-41.
13 Liyanage, S., Greenfield, P. F., & Don, R. (1999). Towards a fourth generation R&D management model-research networks in knowledge
management. International journal of technology management, 18(3-4), 372-393.
14 Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European journal of
innovation management.
15 Rogers, D. M. A. (1996). The challenge of fifth generation R&D. Research-Technology Management, 39(4), 33-41.
16 Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth‐generation innovation process. International marketing review.
17 Kotsemir, M., & Meissner, D. (2013). Conceptualizing the innovation process. High School of Economics Research Paper, WP BPR
10/STI.
18 Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Page 4 of 15
 The table below gives the Characteristics, strengths and weakness of the six generations
of the Innovation management based on these researchers
Generation Model Characteristic Strengths Weaknesses
Lack of feedbacks,
No market attention,
Simple, Linear sequential
First Technolog Simple and No networked
process, emphasis on
1950s to y/Science Radical interactions,
R&D and scientific
mid-60s Push innovation No project leader,
discovery
No technological
instruments
Lack of feedbacks ,
Simple linear sequential
Market No technology research,
Second process, emphasis on Simple and
Pull No networked
Mid 60s to marketing, source of Incremental
(Need interactions ,
early 70s new ideas for R&D is innovation
Pull) No technological
from the market
instruments
Focus on product or
Simple, process innovation and
Interaction between
Market Radical and not on market and
different elements and
Third Pull and incremental organizational
feedback loops between
Early 70s to Technolog innovation, innovations
them, emphasis on
mid 80s y Push Feedbacks No networked
integrating R&D and
combined between interactions yet,
marketing
phases No technological
instruments
Presence of both push
Parallel Complexity increment
Fourth Parallel and pull models,
phases of reliability.
Mid 80s to line or Integration within firm,
Actor No technological
early 90s Interactive Emphasis on external
networking, instruments
linkages and alliances
Pervasive
innovation,
Emphasis on Use of
accumulation of sophisticated
Fifth knowledge and external technologica Complexity increment
Network
90s linkages, systems l of reliability
integration and extensive instruments,
networking Networking
to pursue
innovation
Combination
Internal and external
of Internal
Ideas as well as internal Assumes willingness to
and external
and external paths to collaborate and
Sixth ideas as well
Open market can be combined network, and Capacity.
2000s as internal
to advance the Risks of external
and external
development of new collaboration
paths to
technologies
market
(Compiled from the researches quoted)

Page 5 of 15
 Innovation management was based on Technology push in the first phase. There was
no attention to feedback from customers or market here. In the second phase, Market Pull takes
over from the technology push but again there was lack of feedback. The third phase sees the
effect of feedbacks leading to integration of R&D with marketing etc. The fourth phase only
we have interactive elements combining the push and pull mechanisms before it moves to the
network in the fifth phase. In the final stage of open innovation, there is combination of both
internal and external ideas. Open innovation marks a paradigm shift. These generations of
innovation management requiring different types of processes emerged at different times and
in entirely different contexts.
Contrary to the assumption in the notion of innovation generations, companies do not
manage their innovation processes in a formal way. According Griffin (1997),19 and Nessim
et.al (1995),20 many companies successfully continue to innovate as late as the 1990s by
intuition and informal ways.
Enkel Gassmann & Chesbrough (2009)21 differentiates three core processes in open
innovation:
 The outside-in process: Improving upon an enterprise’s own knowledge base by
integrating external knowledge of suppliers, customers etc.
 The inside-out process: Bringing ideas to market faster than internal development,
using licensing IP and/or multiplying technology, joint ventures, and spin-offs and
securing commercial/revenue benefits.
 The coupled process: Linking outside-in and inside-out with partners through
alliances, cooperation, and reciprocal joint ventures with consequent thinking along
the whole value chain
Organizations can introduce innovation: either by copying others’ innovations or by
developing their own. The first approach can be useful where companies enjoy competitive
advantages for short-term benefits. To obtain sustainable competitive advantage, the second
approach is better. Successful innovation, an integral part of management process occurs daily
as:
 Flow of ideas occurs both within as well as from outside the organization.

19 Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of
Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of The Product Development & Management Association, 14(6), 429-458.
20 Hanna, N., Ayers, D. J., Ridnour, R. E., & Gordon, G. L. (1995). New product development practices in consumer versus business products
organizations. Journal of Product & Brand Management.
21 Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&d Management, 39(4),
311-316.

Page 6 of 15
  There is a well-defined social mechanism selecting ideas taking into consideration
of the customer.
 There is encouragement and nurturing of the idea by providing required funding.
 The idea is taken to the market in one go or in phases for actual testing.
 Unsuccessful Ideas are killed or given lower priority.
De Liso & Metcalfe (1996)22 viewed innovation as a set of interrelated, yet independent,
sub-systems. They contribute collectively toward the development of an innovation that by
means of interactive learning. Each sub-system will be pursuing its own design configurations
even though there must be some level of compatibility within each system. Structural tensions
limits System’s abilities by resulting in “interrelatedness constraints”. This approach
emphasizes the significance of interactive learning in shaping innovations through diffusion.
Of sharing of knowledge between a variety of organizations and institutions.
Empirical research by Van den Elst et al (2006)23 and Verloop (2006)24 indicates that
same company may adopt different approaches to innovation. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997)25
have pointed out that companies may adopt widely different approaches to innovation, even
when they develop similar innovations. This shows that the concept of innovation management
generations is outdated and a single mainstream approach to innovation management is out of
practice.
Zahra and Covin (1994)26 examined the relationships of both the types and sources of
innovation to financial performance. Taking a holistic view of fit between strategy and
innovation types and sources asserts that different strategies are associated with distinct
patterns of innovation types and sources.
Drucker (2002 27asserts that Innovation is mainly the work of knowing rather than doing
and it can and need to be managed like any other corporate function. He identified seven areas
of opportunities. Four of them are within the organization
 Unexpected occurrences,

22 De Liso, N., & Metcalfe, S. (1996). On technological systems and technological paradigms: some recent developments in the understanding
of technological change. Behavioral norms, technological progress, and economic dynamics: Studies in Schumpeterian economics, 71-95.
23 Van Den Elst, J., Tol, R., & Smits, R. (2006). Innovation in practice: Philips applied technologies. International Journal of Technology
Management, 34(3-4), 217-231.
24 Verloop, J. (2006). The Shell way to innovate. International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3-4), 243-259.
25 Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly
shifting organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-34.
26 Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1994). The financial implications of fit between competitive strategy and innovation types and sources. The
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5(2), 183-211.
27 Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard business review, 80, 95-104.

Page 7 of 15
  Incongruities,
 Process needs, and
 Industry and market changes.
The three external ones are Demographic changes, Changes in perception, and new
knowledge. Of course, these opportunities overlap
Tidd, Bessant and Pavitt (2008)28, relates innovation to the organizations’ ability to
recognize the market opportunities and establishment of commercial relationships that make
them economically viable. Considering several combination on the type of innovation, product
or industry, innovation management process might differ. Testing and managing them is quite
challenging for most organizations.
Technological problems are not the only ones that confront innovation managers.
Oerlemans, Meeus & Boekema (1998)29, identifies the following problems based on a review
of research in innovation in SMEs.
 Generation of Ideas -21%
 Economic Feasibility (23%),
 Technical Feasibility (20%),
 Technical Realization (37%),
 Implementation (30%) and
 Up scaling and Market Introduction (25%).
Firms usually innovate when there is a need to change. Firm need to utilize
technological and process capabilities in order to adopt a new process. Decisions are made
during the innovation process at the operational level, as they have a direct influence on the
shape of the innovation process. Urban and Hauser (1993)30 opines that customers are more
demanding for products with high-technological newness and a high degree of newness to
market and innovation, processes require investments with an uncertain result; they constitute
a risk for companies.
Teece (1997)31 shows that Structure and Strategy of the organization that are important
aspects of its internal environment. Impacts innovation management. The external

28 Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2018). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.
29 Oerlemans, L. A., Meeus, M. T., & Boekema, F. W. (2001). Firm clustering and innovation: Determinants and effects. Papers in regional
science, 80(3), 337-356.
30 Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products (Разработка и маркетинг новых продуктов).
31 Teece, D. J. (1988). Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration, strategic partnering, and licensing
decisions. Interfaces, 18(3), 46-61.

Page 8 of 15
environment of an organization (for example the proprietary regime in the country in which is
located) also affects it.
Choi & Lim (2017)32 examined the relationship between firms’ innovation performance
and its drivers in terms of firm’s internal and contextual factors. The internal factors are
 Firms R& D Expenditure
 Firms Employees with higher degree
 Firms global strategies
 Firms Structure
 Firms culture and control activities
 Characteristics of organizational members
 Functional assets and strategies
The Contextual factors are
 Firms industry
 Firms Region
 Networking
 External Resources
 Knowledge/Technology Acquisition
 Government and Public Policies
 Surrounding Culture
Ortt & Van der Duin (2008) 33distinguish four different contextual factors of innovation
processes,
(1) Type of innovation (incremental, radical, and transformational).
(2) Type of organization (centralized, decentralized, functional, and organic).
(3) Type of industry (high-tech, supplier-driven, fast moving consumer goods).
(4) Type of country/culture (egalitarian, authoritative).
To select the best approach in a given context, one need to analyze the various
innovation management approaches and their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Contextual innovation requires adoption of innovation practices and decisions. It is impossible
to identify a simple and widely applicable algorithm with regard to the application of contextual
innovation due to complex interaction between the various parts of the context.

32 Choi, Y. S., & Lim, U. (2017). Contextual factors affecting the innovation performance of manufacturing SMEs in Korea: A structural
equation modeling approach. Sustainability, 9(7), 1193.
33 Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards contextual innovation. European journal of
innovation management

Page 9 of 15
 A contextual framework must have multiple levels of detail for making strategic and
operational decisions. It must adopt a systematic approach, simultaneously relating the various
contextual factors and address the complementary innovation processes. It also needs to be
flexible to accommodate trial and error of various complex processes. Disadvantage of
contextual innovation is that companies may find it difficult to manage innovation processes
when they have different approaches to innovation management.
Van Den Elst Tol & Smits (2006)34, identifies seven different innovation approaches of
contextual innovation applied by Philips. Philips has their division positioned in a different
business context, and has designed its innovation process accordingly. They are
 Lead customer-driven innovation
 Consumer-driven innovation
 Functionally specialized environments innovation
 Scientific research based innovation
 Business alliances context innovation
 Through the Philips technology incubator Innovation
 Through corporate venturing innovation.
Cooper (2013)35 based on results of various studies ranks the most important
discriminators between new product winners and losers as
(1) Understanding of user’s needs
(2) Attention to marketing and launch publicity
(3) Efficiency of development
(4) Effective use of external scientific communication and outside technology
Cooper (2008)36 developed Stage-Gate from research that modeled what these winners
do, based on the experiences and observations of a large number of managers and firms. It is a
“Roadmap” or ‘‘Playbook,’’ or ‘‘Game plan,’’ to guide new-product projects from idea to
launch based on stage and gate format.
Stage-Gate process breaks the product innovation process into a predetermined set of
five or six discrete and identifiable stages. Stages include best practices defined by the

34 Van Den Elst, J., Tol, R., & Smits, R. (2006). Innovation in practice: Philips applied technologies. International Journal of Technology
Management, 34(3-4), 217-231.
35 Cooper, R. G. (2013). New products: What separates the winners from the losers and what drives success. PDMA handbook of new product
development, 3-34.
36 Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage‐gate® idea‐to‐launch process—update, what's new, and nexgen systems. Journal of product
innovation management, 25(3), 213-232.

Page 10 of 15
activities within them and refer to the place where project team members execute key tasks to
gather information needed to advance the project to the next gate. Each stage consists of a set
of prescribed, cross-functional and parallel activities undertaken by people from different
functional areas within the firm, working together as a team under a project team leader. There
is no separate stage for R&D or Marketing.
Gates are the entrance to each stage, and control the process. They are the points where
the team converges and all new information are brought together. Gates points where the path
forward for the next stage of the process is decided. They serve as quality-control checkpoints,
and as Go/Kill and prioritization decision points. Stage-Gate process uses incremental
commitments with each stage costing more than the preceding one. As uncertainties decreases
and risk is managed higher amounts is allocated
The first Discovery Stage consists of idea generation of new-product. This is done from
understanding the unmet needs of the customer from the voice of the customer, fundamental
technical research of improving and adding value to a product, soliciting ideas from the
employees, welcoming ideas and suggestions from outside the company etc., The generation
of ideas are vital and trigger to the process, and they make or break the process.
The first gate or Idea Screen subjects the project to key must-meet and should-meet
criteria. These criteria deal with strategic alignment, competitive advantage, synergy with the
business’s resources, feasibility of the project, magnitude of opportunity and market
attractiveness, all aligned with company policies. Project is born at this point with the first
decision to commit resources. Financial criteria are not part of this screen due to non-
availability of reliable financial data here,
The next stage of Scoping or Preliminary Investigation determines the project’s
technical and marketplace merits based on a preliminary market assessment to determine
market size, market potential and likely market acceptance and a preliminary technical
assessment to assess development and manufacturing routes. This includes source of supply,
time and cost to execute, technical and operations feasibility, and technical, legal, and
regulatory risks.
With new information obtained in Stage 1, the project next proceeds to more rigorous
screen at Gate 2, where the project is reevaluated. If the decision is Go, the project moves into
a heavier spending stage after a checklist and scoring model.
In the next stage of detailed Investigation Business, case is constructed by opening the
door to product development. This stage verifies the attractiveness of the project prior to heavy
spending with detailed investigation. Here, customer needs are translated into a technically and

Page 11 of 15
economically feasible solution on paper – preliminary design after appraising the technical
feasibility of the project. This is followed by investigation of the source of supply, costs, and
investment required and other issues of manufacturability. To remove risks and map out the
required actions, detailed legal, patent, and regulatory assessment work is also done.
According to De Jong, Marston& Roth (2015)37 Innovation is a complex and company-
wide endeavor and requires the following essentials
 Aspire = Realistic aspiration or vision that acts as a catalyst to stimulate action
 Choose = Companies need to make the right choose among the many ideas that
come
 Discover = Actionable insights in a combination of a valuable problem using a
technology with a business model that generates money.
 Evolve = Evolve business model innovations that deliver value to priority groups
of new customers using business intelligence
 Accelerate = Making the crucial decisions in a timely manner decision with Cross-
functional collaboration thus creating competitive advantage and avoiding
unnecessary risk
 Scale = Scaling resources and capabilities of appropriate magnitude and reach of a
given idea delivered quickly at the desired volume and quality.
 Extend = Smart collaboration with external true partners of choice by accessing
the skills and talents of others and
 Mobilize = Find ways to embed innovation into the fibers of their culture, from the
core to the periphery.
Major internal barriers include rigid organisational arrangements and procedures,
hierarchical and formal communication structures, conservatism, conformity and lack of
vision, resistance to change, and lack of motivation and risk-avoiding attitudes. Some of the
external barriers to innovation include the lack of proper infrastructure, deficiencies in
education and training systems and an overall neglect and misuse of talents in society.
In recent times, innovation management is undergoing a major transformation among
manufacturing firms from being closed to being increasingly open, getting more integrated and
being smart with digitalization offering endless opportunities for new functionality, utilization,
and capabilities. Digitalization speeds up the development process. Users also leverage digital
technologies, components, or platforms to create products and services beyond original design

37 De Jong, M., Marston, N., & Roth, E. (2015). The eight essentials of innovation. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 1-12.

Page 12 of 15
intentions. Digital technologies are breaking traditional roles and responsibilities of central
control and planning. Creating innovation culture characterized by improvising.
**************
REFERENCE
Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the
steady state. Technovation, 25(12), 1366-1376.

Booz, & Allen & Hamilton. (1968). Management of new products. Booz, Allen & Hamilton.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative science
quarterly, 1-34.

Byrd, J., & Brown, P. L. (2003). The innovation equation: Building creativity and risk taking
in your organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Castellion, G., & Markham, S. K. (2013). Perspective: New Product Failure Rates: Influence
of Argumentum ad Populum and Self‐Interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
30(5), 976-979.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Choi, Y. S., & Lim, U. (2017). Contextual factors affecting the innovation performance of
manufacturing SMEs in Korea: A structural equation modeling approach. Sustainability, 9(7),
1193.

Cooper, R. G. (1994). Third‐generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation

Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management
Association, 11(1), 3-14.

Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage‐gate® idea‐to‐launch process—update, what's

new, and nexgen systems. Journal of product innovation management, 25(3), 213-232.

Cooper, R. G. (2013). New products: What separates the winners from the losers and what
drives success. PDMA handbook of new product development, 3-34.

Crawford, C. M. (1979). New product failure rates—facts and fallacies. Research Management,
22(5), 9-13.

Crawford, C. M. (1987). New product failure rates: a reprise. Research management, 30(4),
20-24.

Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2012). Making innovation work: How to manage it,
measure it, and profit from it. FT press.

De Jong, M., Marston, N., & Roth, E. (2015). The eight essentials of innovation. McKinsey
Quarterly, 2, 1-12.

Page 13 of 15
De Liso, N., & Metcalfe, S. (1996). On technological systems and technological paradigms:
some recent developments in the understanding of technological change. Behavioral norms,
technological progress, and economic dynamics: Studies in Schumpeterian economics, 71-95.

Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard business review, 80, 95-104.

Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the phenomenon. R&d Management, 39(4), 311-316.

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends
and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International
Publication of The Product Development & Management Association, 14(6), 429-458.

Hanna, N., Ayers, D. J., Ridnour, R. E., & Gordon, G. L. (1995). New product development
practices in consumer versus business products organizations. Journal of Product & Brand
Management.

Kotsemir, M., & Meissner, D. (2013). Conceptualizing the innovation process. High School of
Economics Research Paper, WP BPR 10/STI.

Liyanage, S., Greenfield, P. F., & Don, R. (1999). Towards a fourth generation R&D
management model-research networks in knowledge management. International journal of
technology management, 18(3-4), 372-393.

Miller, W. L. (2001). Innovation for business growth. Research-Technology Management,

44(5), 26-41.

Niosi, J. (1999). Fourth-generation R&D: From linear models to flexible innovation. Journal
of business research, 45(2), 111-117.

Oerlemans, L. A., Meeus, M. T., & Boekema, F. W. (2001). Firm clustering and innovation:
Determinants and effects. Papers in regional science, 80(3), 337-356.

Ortt, J. R., & van der Duin, P. A. (2008). The evolution of innovation management towards
contextual innovation. European journal of innovation management

Ramakrishnan, Dr. (2020). Stakeholder Management and Innovation. Available at SSRN

3559471.

Rogers, D. M. A. (1996). The challenge of fifth generation R&D. Research-Technology

Management, 39(4), 33-41.

Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth‐generation innovation process. International marketing

review.

Teece, D. J. (1988). Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration, strategic

partnering, and licensing decisions. Interfaces, 18(3), 46-61.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2018). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and
organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.

Page 14 of 15
 Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products (Разработка и
маркетинг новых продуктов).

Van Den Elst, J., Tol, R., & Smits, R. (2006). Innovation in practice: Philips applied
technologies. International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3-4), 217-231.

Verloop, J. (2006). The Shell way to innovate. International Journal of Technology

Management, 34(3-4), 243-259.

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (Eds.). (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psycological and
Organizational Strategies. John Wiley.

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1994). The financial implications of fit between competitive
strategy and innovation types and sources. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 5(2), 183-211.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. John Wiley &
Sons.
*******************

Page 15 of 15

View publication stats