Innovation in itself is a broad concept utilised in different disciplines and across multiple levels. The frequency of the utilisation of the term as well as its implication for economic, social and environmental purposes has caused confusion in what innovation means at present (Hall and Williams 2008). Even though the focus of this study is in particular on social innovation it is of importance to clarify the meaning of innovation in general for the purpose of this research and to provide a general understanding of the field.
A typical challenge in providing a concise overview of the literature is the identification of the core publications since there is no consensus on it across disciplines (Cooper 1998; Adams et al. 2006; Hall and Williams 2008; Hjalager 2010; Shafique 2013). The publications discussed here are chosen due to representing seminal ideas and their number of citations.
Whilst the term innovation may not have explicitly been used, activities and processes associated with innovation are as old as humankind (Fagerberg and Verspagen 2009). However, it was not until the beginning of the 20th century before the Austrian American economist Joseph Schumpeter officially coined the term innovation. Since then a proliferation of research on innovation can be identified. Whilst innovation has been at the focus of attention to both practitioners and academics for more than a century, a general consensus on a single definition is still absent from the current literature (Wolfe 1994; Adams et al. 2006; Shafique 2013). Baregheh et al. (2009) posit the differences in perspectives across disciplines demands discipline-specific definitions. However, this also results in a variety of ontological and epistemological perspectives complicating the development of an all-encompassing definition of the complex and multidimensional term (Wolfe 1994). While gaining an understanding of innovation is of importance to this research, proving a definition of innovation is not at the focus of attention. Therefore, the following section solely discusses the most prominent definitions of innovation while the table presents an outline of alternative understandings, sorted by date and academic discipline.
The word innovation finds its origin in the Latin word innovat - renewed or altered - and from the verb innovare from in - into, and novare - make new (Oxford Dictionaries 2010) and is thus related to making something new (Weiermair 2006). This comes forward in the seminal definition of innovation by Schumpeter (1939, p.87) defining it “as a new combination of means of production, that is, as a change in the factors of production (inputs) to produce products (outcomes)” that continually interfere with the equilibrium (Nelson and Winter 1982). Novelty, newness and doing things different to achieve creative destruction (i.e. new production units replace the outdated ones) are what Schumpeter (1939) considered as essential to capitalism. However, Schumpeter (1939) also emphasised innovation does not equal invention and therefore a distinction should be made. Whereas invention refers to the first occurrence of the idea, innovation is concerned with the first attempt to put it into practise (Hjalager 1997). While invention and innovation can be closely linked, a considerable time span between the two in not uncommon (Rogers 2010). The work of Schumpeter on innovation has been revolutionary, and the Schumpeterian approach towards it is still widely used (Hjalager 2010; Shafique 2013). Even though numerous alternative definitions of the term are currently available, Baregheh et al. (2009), in an extensive literature review, illustrate new is an across disciplines agreed upon key distinguishing feature of innovation (Slappendel 1996).
Thus, in its simplest form innovation relates to newness. A more compelling definition often used within the tourism discourse is provided by Kanter (1984, p.20) stating:“Innovation refers to the process of bringing any new, problem solving idea into use. Ideas for reorganizing, cutting cost, putting in new budgetary systems improving communication or assembling products in teams are also innovations. Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services.”While Kanter (1984) incorporates the newness indicator of innovation, she modifies the definition of Schumpeter (1939) by discussion innovation as a process that contains different stages. From an organisational perspective the much-quoted definition by Damanpour (1996, p.694) supports this view and introduces innovation as “a process that includes the generation, development, and implementation of new ideas or behaviors.” Further, also a closer look at the overview of definitions provided in the table indicates innovation is across disciplines defined as a process. Newness and process are thus two key distinguishing attributes of innovation (Baregheh et al. 2009). The questions what should be new and how the stages of the process are identified is further discussed below.
| Author (year) | Definition | Discipline |
|---|---|---|
| Thompson (1965) | Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services | Political Science |
| Knight (1967) | An innovation is the adoption of a change which is new to on organization and to the relevant environment | Organzational Studies |
| Drucker (1985) | Innovation is the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth. | Management |
| Van de Ven (1986) | Innovation is defined as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional order. | Management |
| West and Farr (1990) | Recently, innovation has been defined as the introduction and application, within a group, organization, or wider society, of processes, products, or procedures new to the relevant unit of adoption and intended to benefit the group, individual, or wider society | Psychology |
| OECD (1991) | Innovation is an iterative process initiated by the perception of a new market and/or new service opportunity for a technology based invention which leads to development, production, and marketing tasks striving for the commercial success of the invention. | |
| Damanpour (1996) | A process that includes the generation, development, and implementation of new ideas or behaviors. Further, innovation is conceived as a means of changing an organization, either as a responce to changes in the external environment or as a preemptive action to influence the environment. Hence innocation is here broadly defined to encompass a range of types, including new products or services, new process technologies, new organizational structures or administrative systems, or new plans or programs pertaining to organizational members. | Organizational Studies |
| Harkema (2003) | Innovation is a process wherein knowledge is acquired, shared and assimilated with the aim to create new knowledge. | Oranizational Studies |
| OECD (2005) | An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method inbusiness practices, workplace organisation or external relations. | |
| Plessis (2007) | Innovation as the creation of new knowledge and ideas to facilitate new business outcomes, aimed at improving internal business processes and structures and to create market driven products and services. Innovation encompasses both radical and incremental innovation. | Knowledge Management |
| Baregheh, Rowley and Sambrook (2009) | Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organitations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or process, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace. | Management & Organizational Studies |
| Shafique (2013) | Innovation essentially involves the creation of new knowledge based on existing knowledge | Strategic Management |
| Vaughan (2014) | At its heart, an idea or concept; fulfilled, it's the idea realized, the end result, an effected change meant to make something - or introduced something - better. Bettter could mean more efficient, more enjoyable, more appealing, more useful, more ..."wow". |
Source: Boes (2015, unpublished PhD)
Whilst a general consensus regarding the importance of innovation for growth and development can be identified (Schumpeter 1939; Porter 1990), an agreement on the typology of innovation is to date absent from the literature (Rowley et al. 2011). Still, differentiating between the types of innovation is essential to the development of theories of innovations (Damanpour 1987; Kelley and Littman 2006). Whereas a variety of publications discussing the typology of innovation can be identified, only the most essential frameworks and models are reviewed in the following sections.
Differentiating between four types Knight (1967, p.482) was one of the first to provide categorisations of innovation.
While this typology early on recognised four categories, the majority of the innovation studies between the 60’s and 80’s had a binary focus; the administrative/technological innovation combination (Evan 1966). Within this typology technological innovations were tangible, had a direct effect on the general outcome of the organisation and were directly noticeable by the relevant unit of adoption (i.e. the user). Due to the importance of the user, technological innovation was in general represented as a bottom-up innovation process (Daft 1978). On the other hand, administrative innovations were intabgible, commonly connected to internal organisational changes (OECD 2015a) and originated mostly at the top of the hierarchy from where they followed their way down along the organisational structure (Daft 1978).
In line with the tangible technological innovation, the product/process binary categorisation was formed by scholars such as Utterback and Abernathy (1975). Along the lines of Knight (1967) product innovation focussed on the development of new outcomes directly aimed towards the customers, whereas process innovation was concerned with new ways of production and development of products (Cooper 1998). Whilst administrative/technological and product/process innovations were aimed at identifying different outcomes, the concept of radical and incremental innovation was implemented to classify the degree of newness (Rowley et al. 2011). Dewar and Dutton (1986, p.1423) differentiated between to two by stating “the labels radical and incremental is the degree of novel technological process content embodied in the innovation and hence, the degree of new knowledge embedded in the innovation”. Where incremental innovation is connected to doing things better and improvement (Ettlie et al. 1984), radical innovation implies discontinuity with the past (Garcia and Calantone 2002) and doing what has not been done before (Norman and Verganti 2014). While the radical/incremental dichotomy has been of importance to the adoption of innovation literature (Dewar and Dutton 1986; Rogers 2010), it has also been perceived as an attribute of innovation rather than a particular type (Rowley et al. 2011). Administrative/technological and product/process innovation represent types of innovation whereas incremental/radical represent the level of differentiation within the typology. Still, distinquishing between the two is vital since both ask for distinct methods (Ettlie et al. 1984; Norman and Verganti 2014). Whilst radical innovation is often sought for, incremental innovation is mostly achieved (Hjalager 2010). The difficulty in proceeding radical innovation has been connected to the requirement for a combination of internal and external heterogeneous knowledge perceived as a challenging practise in organisations (Slater et al. 2014).
While the dualities of the innovation types results in the multidimensionality of the field (Cooper 1998), contemporary studies increasingly focus on broader categorisations such as for instance the one proposed by Knight (1967). A generally accepted categorisation in line with Knight (1967) is provided by the OECD (2015a) differentiating between product, process, marketing and organisational innovation. In a similar vein, Francis and Bessant (2005, p.172) posit the “4Ps” including products, processes, positioning and paradigm. From a tourism perspective Hjalager (2010) slightly modifies the typology and proposes product/service, process, managerial, marketing and organisational innovations. Even though different disciplines provide diverse typologies of innovation, a general consensus on the understanding of the different categories can be identified. Overall, the majority of the publications agree on the differentiation between product and/or service, and process innovation (Baregheh et al. 2009; Rowley et al. 2011; OECD 2015a). Further, whilst the term might differ across publications, internal managerial innovations and external institutional innovations are recognised by different scholars (Schumpeter 1934; Francis and Bessant 2005; Hjalager 2010). Due to its relevance to the tourism context the typology developed by Hjalager (2010) provides the foundation for this research.
However, the typology of innovation does not consist of tight categories and have rather fuzzy boundaries (Damanpour 1996). Additionally, they are neither alternatives since multiple innovations can be pursued at the same time (Francis and Bessant 2005). Frequently, the outcome is a combination of different innovations (Hjalager 2015) or are administrative innovations effecting technological innovation (Knight 1967; Damanpour 1987; Francis and Bessant 2005). Still, the typology of innovation presented by Hjalager (2010) provides a structure to explore different innovation and examine their opportunities.
Formele omschrijving
Critical discussion of the literature on innovation. Extracted from the chapter on social innovation of the unpublished PhD from Kim Boes. Fields: Business, technology, tourism, management
Schema: ZHDSM scheme,
Context: ZHDSM context