Management Decision

Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation

Anahita Baregheh Jennifer Rowley Sally Sambrook

Article information:

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Anahita Baregheh Jennifer Rowley Sally Sambrook, (2009),"Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation", Management Decision, Vol. 47 Iss 8 pp. 1323 - 1339
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578
Downloaded on: 27 April 2016, At: 20:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 84 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17805 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2003),"Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation", European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 64-74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060310456337
(2001),"Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom?", European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 4 Iss 1 pp. 20-31 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060110365547
(2007),"Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies", International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 564-587 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570710750268

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:231834 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Towards a multidisciplinary
definition of innovation

Towards a
definition of
innovation

Anahita Baregheh
Bangor University, Bangor, UK

1323

Jennifer Rowley
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, and

Sally Sambrook

Received November 2008

Revised February 2009
Accepted February 2009

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Bangor University, Bangor, UK

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to undertake a content analysis of extant definitions of innovation as a
basis for proposing an integrative definition of organizational innovation.
Design/methodology/approach A literature review was used to generate a representative pool of
definitions of organizational innovation, including definitions from the different disciplinary
literatures of economics, innovation and entrepreneurship, business and management, and technology,
science and engineering. A content analysis of these definitions was conducted in order to surface the
key attributes mentioned in the definitions, and to profile the descriptors used in relation to each
attribute.
Findings The key attributes in the paper present in definitions were identified as: nature of
innovation; type of innovation; stages of innovation, social context; means of innovation; and aim of
innovation. These attributes are defined, descriptors assigned to them, and both a diagrammatic
definition and a textual definition of organizational innovation are proposed.
Originality/value As a concept that is owned and discussed by many business disciplines,
innovation has many different definitions that align with the dominant paradigm of the respective
disciplines. Building on these diverse definitions, this paper proposes a general and integrative
definition of organizational innovation that encompasses the different perspectives on, and aspects
of, innovation, and captures its essence.
Keywords Innovation, Organizational innovation, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
This paper focuses on innovation within business organisations and environments. As
marketplaces become more dynamic, interest in innovation, its processes and
management has escalated. Organizations need to innovate in response to changing
customer demands and lifestyles and in order to capitalise on opportunities offered by
technology and changing marketplaces, structures and dynamics. Organizational
innovation can be performed in relation to products, services, operations, processes,
and people. As long ago as Schumpeter, 1950 argued that organisations should
innovate in order to renew the value of their asset endowment. Even before this, whilst
the term innovation may not have been used extensively, processes that are associated
with innovation and economic and technological change were perceived as being
important (Lorenzi et al., 1912; Veblen, 1899; Schumpeter, 1934). Although we recognise
this, in this paper we focus only on explicit definitions of innovation. Zahra and Covin

Management Decision
Vol. 47 No. 8, 2009
pp. 1323-1339
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740910984578

MD
47,8

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

1324

(1994, p. 183) suggest that Innovation is widely considered as the life blood of
corporate survival and growth. Innovation is recognised to play a central role in
creating value and sustaining competitive advantage. Bessant et al. (2005, p. 1366) on
the role of innovation in renewal and growth emphasise Innovation represents the
core renewal process in any organization. Unless it changes what it offers the world
and the way in which it creates and delivers those offerings it risks its survival and
growth prospects.
The significance of innovation is not restricted to business organizations. The US
has a Department for Innovation (2008), and in the UK there has been widespread and
ongoing acknowledgement of the importance of innovation. In 2003, the Department of
Trade commented on the link between continuous innovation and jobs, profit and
standard of living: If UK-based companies fail to innovate, jobs and profits will suffer,
and our standard of living will fall compared with other countries. More recently, the
UKs Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (2008) commented on the wider
implications of innovation in the face of globalisation and environmental challenges by
highlighting the importance of all types of innovation in creating and maintaining
competencies and responding to environmental and demographic restrictions. There is
agreement that in order to both sustain their competitive position and to strengthen it,
organizations and economies must innovate and promote innovation. Innovation is a
key policy and strategic issue.
Innovation is tightly coupled to change, as organizations use innovation as a tool in
order to influence an environment or due to their changing environments (internal and
external) (Damanpour, 1991). However, innovation may involve a wide range of
different types of change depending on the organizations resources, capabilities,
strategies, and requirements. Common types of innovation relate to new products,
materials, new processes, new services, and new organizational forms (Ettlie and Reza,
1992). These different forms of innovation draw to varying extents on different teams,
departments, and professional disciplines. Therefore, innovation is of interest to
practitioners and researchers across a range of business and management disciplines,
and has been discussed variously in, for example, the literature on human resource
management, operations management, entrepreneurship, research and development,
information technology, engineering and product design, and marketing and strategy.
Each of these different disciplines proposes definitions for innovation that align with
the dominant paradigm of the discipline. As Damanpour and Schneider (2006, p. 216)
state: Innovation is studied in many disciplines and has been defined from different
perspectives.
Whilst there is some overlap between the various definitions of innovation, overall
the number and diversity of definitions leads to a situation in which there is no clear
and authoritative definition of innovation. As early as 1984, Ettlie et al. (1984)
commented on the problems for research and practice of innovation arising from this
disciplinary void. More recently, both Zairi (1994) and Cooper (1998) have suggested
that one of the challenges of innovation is the lack of a common definition, which
undermines understanding of the nature of innovation. A general definition adaptable
to different disciplines and covering different aspects of innovation would be beneficial
as the term innovation is notoriously ambiguous and lacks either a single definition
or measure (Adams et al., 2006, p. 22).

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Our emerging research questions draw on the work of Kahn et al. (2003), p. 197) who
highlight the requirements for clarification of defining innovation beyond just the
typical extremes of incremental and radical innovation? Also, Danneels and
Kleinschmidt (2003) emphasize the importance of a better understanding of product
innovativeness. So, what are the key definitions of innovation? How do these vary
between different disciplines? What are the similarities and differences? Is it possible
and helpful to construct a universal definition? In this paper, our aim is to identify one
multi-disciplinary definition of innovation Addressing these research questions, we
suggest that one common clarified definition of innovation will not only provide a
better understanding of the notion of innovation for the diverse range of practitioners
within organisations, but will also enable researchers to collaborate more closely to
more holistically investigate this complex concept. The purpose of this article is to
further develop understanding of the concept of innovation and to arrive at an
integrative definition, based on a content analysis of previous definitions. A particular
and important contribution of this article is that our analysis is based on 60 definitions
from different disciplinary traditions and paradigms, thus providing a first attempt to
capture the essence and produce an integrative, cross-disciplinary definition of
innovation. Another important question, but beyond the scope of this article is: How do
definitions of innovation vary over time? We hope to address this in a future paper.
Our paper is structured as follows. First, we present a short literature review,
reflecting on some of the previous definitions of innovation in order to illustrate the
similarities and differences, the next section explains the methodology associated with
the collection of the definitions, and the content analysis of the 60 distinct definitions
that have been identified. This is followed by a findings section, which reports on the
key attributes of the innovation definitions and the frequency of occurrence of
descriptors to describe those attributes. On this basis, a model for the definition of
innovation, together with a succinct textual definition of innovation is proposed. We
conclude with recommendations and a brief discussion of the limitations of the paper.
Literature review
To demonstrate the diversity of the definitions of innovation and to press the case for
the development of an integrative definition, we offer a few examples of definitions of
organizational innovation where some emphasize different aspects of innovation and
others are dedicated to a discipline. Thompsons (1965, p. 2) early and straightforward
definition simply states: Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implementation
of new ideas, processes products or services. A similar definition of innovation was
proposed more recently by West and Anderson (1996) and quoted as recently as 2008
by Wong et al. (2008, p. 2): Innovation can be defined as the effective application of
processes and products new to the organization and designed to benefit it and its
stakeholders. On the other hand, Kimberly (1981, p. 108) defines innovation from a
different perspective which embraces different forms of innovation: There are three
stages of innovation: innovation as a process, innovation as a discrete item including,
products, programs or services; and innovation as an attribute of organizations. Some
scholars place emphasis on the degree of newness. For instance, quoting Van du Ven
et al. (1986) state that, As long as the idea is perceived as new to the people involved, it
is an innovation even though it may appear to others to be an imitation of something

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1325

MD
47,8

1326

that exists elsewhere. Newness is also associated with change. Damanpour (1996,
p. 694) provides a detailed definition of innovation, which is much quoted:
Innovation is conceived as a means of changing an organization, either as a response to
changes in the external environment or as a pre-emptive action to influence the environment.
Hence, innovation is here broadly defined to encompass a range of types, including new
product or service, new process technology, new organization structure or administrative
systems, or new plans or program pertaining to organization members.

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Other variations in the definition of innovation arise from different disciplinary

perspectives. For example in knowledge management, the focus is on knowledge being
vital for innovation or even a type of innovation. As Plessis (2007, p. 21) notes:
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.

In technologically related definitions, the main focus is on innovation being a product

related to new technology (Nord and Tucker, 1987).
Methodology
Aims
This study aims to:
.
Identify the recurring attributes of innovation that are included in diverse
definitions of innovation.
.
Propose both a diagrammatic model and a simple textual definition which
together act as a basis for summarizing the essence of innovation.
Gathering definitions
The first stage in the research was to collect as many definitions as possible of the term
innovation. In this process, it was important to achieve representation over time and
across disciplines. The definitions were gathered through a thorough literature review
of articles on innovation, and innovation types and processes, using online databases,
journals and books. In addition, as the number of definitions identified in some areas is
far less than others, the relevant journals for those specific areas were further reviewed
and the text of each article on innovation was examined to see whether they proposed a
new definition; for example, in the area of organization studies, key journals such as
Management Science, Journal of Management Studies, Organization Science and
Administrative Science Quarterly were reviewed. However, in general, articles in these
journals refer to definitions of innovation proposed elsewhere rather than offering their
own definition.
Ultimately some 60 definitions of innovation were collected from the various
disciplinary literatures, as shown in the following:
.
Business and management: 18 definitions from 1966 to 2007.
.
Economics: nine definitions from 1934 to 2004.
.
Organization studies: six definitions from 1953 to 2008.
.
Innovation and entrepreneurship: nine definitions from 1953 to 2007.
.
Technology, science and engineering: 13 definitions from 1969 to 2005.

.
.

Knowledge management: three definitions from 1999 to 2007.

Marketing: two definitions from 1994 to 2004.

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Table I presents the authors, the year and the discipline of the gathered definitions.
Full citations of each of these papers are listed in the references at the end of the article.
Analysis
A content analysis was conducted of the collected definitions in order to surface the
key attributes mentioned in these definitions considering the disciplinary variations,
and to profile the descriptors used in relation to each attribute.
Content analysis is defined as a research technique for the objective, systematic
and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication (Berelson,
1952, p. 8), or any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically
identifying specified characteristics of messages (Holsti, 1969, p. 14). We considered
the definitions of innovation to be forms of communication and messages and we were
seeking to identify the specified characteristics or attributes of these. Various
phenomena can be counted in a content analysis, including, for example, actors, words
or themes. What we were counting were the words, rather than authors or disciplines,
although these do feature in our analysis. Content analysis was selected as the most
appropriate as it is an approach to the analysis of documents and texts . . . that seeks
to quantify content in terms of predetermined categories and in a systematic and
replicable manner (Bryman, 2001, p. 177). Definitions of innovation are considered as
sections of text, which are amenable to deconstruction into component attributes,
which can be categorized and counted. However, from our search of the literature, there
were no predetermined categories available. Therefore, we used a modified approach to
content analysis, which enabled the construction of categories. This is similar to
qualitative or ethnographic content analysis (Altheide, 1996; Bryman, 2001), where
there is an emphasis on allowing categories to emerge out of the text. However, the
categories emerged through transparent quantification (as demonstrated in the
following) rather than the researchers simply generating these. In addition, care was
taken with coding (to ensure discrete dimensions and mutually exclusive categories)
and interpretation of meaning to ensure consistency, reliability and validity.
To be more precise, the following steps have been taken in the content analysis:
(1) Classification of definitions of innovation by their disciplinary orientation.
(2) Cleaning the text in order to simplify the word frequency count process. For
example, the word process has been used as two different concepts: process as
a type of innovation; and, process as procedures or set of routines. To resolve
this complication in the content analysis, process as a type of innovation
remained the same but process as routine was changed to procedure.
Another example is the words technological and technical, both referring to
the same type of innovation; they have been used interchangeably and hence
occurrences of these two terms have been merged and in the proposed definition
the preferred term is technical.
(3) Counting of word frequencies The number of times words appeared in each
set of definitions (disciplinary group) was counted using the word frequency
query option of NVIVO8 software.

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1327

Table I.
List of sources of
definitions categorized by
disciplines

Innovation and entrepreneurship

(Barnett, 1953)
(Drucker, 1985)
(Kuhn, 1985)
(Urabe and Child, 1988)
(Lundvall, 1992)
(Cumming, 1998)
(Salavou, 2004)
(Alves et al., 2005)
(John Bessant and Tidd, 2007)
Management
(Swan et al., 1999)
(Cardinal et al., 2001)
(Plessis, 2007)
Marketing
(Porter, 1990)
(Berthon et al., 2004)

Business and management

(Karger and Murdick, 1966)
(Knight, 1967)
(Caroll, 1967)
(Becker and Whisler, 1967)
(Shepard, 1967)
(Daft, 1978)
(Van de Ven, 1986)
(Tushman and Nadler, 1986)
(Lewis and Seibold, 1993)
(Wolfe, 1994)
(Brown, 1994)
(Damanpour, 1996)
(Klein and Sorra, 1996)
(McGrath et al., 1996)
(Mone et al., 1998)
(Trott, 2005)
(J. Freeman and Engel, 2007)
(Damanpour, 1996)

Organization study
(Barnett, 1953)
(Thompson, 1965)
(Zaltman et al., 1973)
(Kimberly, 1981}
(M.A. West and Farr, 1991)
(Garca-Morales et al., 2008)

Technology, science and engineering

(Myers and Marquis, 1969)
(Roy Rothwell and Gardiner, 1985)
(During, 1986)
(Nord and Tucker, 1987)
(Badawy, 1988)
(Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 1998)
(Udwadia, 1990)
(Sundbo, 1996)
(Dunphy et al., 1996)
(Tang, 1998)
(Figueroa and Conceicao, 2000)
(Smits, 2002)
(Francis and Bessant, 2005)

1328

Economy
(Schumpeter, 1934)
(Mansfield, 1963)
(C. Freeman, 1974)
(Nelson and Winter, 1982; OECD, 1981)
(Nelson and Winter, 1982)
(Dosi, 1990)
(Baumol, 2002)
(Chen et al., 2004)
(Roper and Love, 2004)

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

MD
47,8

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

(4) Grouping of words with the same stem (e.g. implement, implementing, and
implementation) in the word frequency results.
(5) Elimination of the words, which appeared only once or twice in their set of
definitions, or words, which are of no value, such as pronouns. It should be
mentioned that for those disciplines that have fewer definitions such as
knowledge management or marketing, the elimination process was performed
more flexibly and cautiously. For example if the word product (that has been
repeated frequently in the other disciplines) was represented in knowledge
management definitions only once, it was not eliminated because its lack of
repetition is a result of the few number of definitions in this discipline.
(6) Identification of the innovation attributes from the word frequency counts. This
process commenced with the definitions of innovation in business-management
and economics disciplines as they have the greatest number of definitions in
this study.
(7) Clustering of the descriptors used in connection with each attribute for each
discipline as shown in Table II.
(8) Cross disciplinary analysis of the descriptors used for each attribute. For each
attribute those words that have been used in common between a number of
disciplines (suggesting similarity) were selected, and are highlighted in bold in
Table II, and extracted and displayed in Table III.
(9) The proposal of a diagrammatic and text definition of innovation.
It should be noted in Table III, the counts for some descriptors exceed the total number
of definitions; for example new has been repeated 76 times where there are only 60
definitions of innovation. This is due to the fact that the word new has appeared in
some definitions more than once, for example:
Innovation concerns processes of learning and discovery about new products, new production
processes and new forms of economic organization, about which, ex ante, economic actors often
possess only rather unstructured beliefs on some unexploited opportunities, and which, ex post,
are generally checked and selected, in non centrally planned economies, by some competitive
interactions, of whatever form in product market (Dosi, 1990, p. 299).

Hence, out of the 76 times the term new has been used, on 34 occasions there has been
repetition of the word in the same definition. Similarly, the term organization has
been repeated more than once in some of the definitions, for instance:
Innovation is a process that follows invention, being separated from invention in time.
Invention is the creative act, while innovation is the first or early employment of an idea by one
organization or a set of organizations with similar goals (Becker and Whisler, 1967, p. 463).

Table IV summarises the total number of occurrences of words in the database of

definitions, relative to the total number of definitions in which that word appears.
Findings and discussion
Tables II and III show the attributes of innovation definitions that have been identified
through the content analysis. These six attributes form the basis for an integrative
definition of innovation, since they have been surfaced from key definitions drawn
from different disciplinary areas. It is important to note that these attributes are all in

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1329

Table II.
Result of first phase of
innovation content
analysis, word frequency
count based on sector and
attributes

Product, 7
Process, 5
Service, 5
Program, 2

Adoption, 3
Creation, 4
Design, 2
Implementation, 2
Development, 2

Organization, 7
Firm, 6
Customer, 2
Developer, 2
External, 2
System, 2
Users, 2
Idea, 5
Resource, 4
Invention, 3
Technology, 3
Investment, 2
Market, 2
Creativity, 1
Superior, 4
Advantage, 2
Value, 2
Competition, 2
Influence, 2
Sustain, 2
Differentiation, 2

Type

Stages

Environment

Aims

Superior, 1

Business, 1
Economic, 2
Success, 2
Differentiation, 1

Economy, 2
Need, 2
Compete, 2
Success, 2

Economic, 2
Compete, 3

Idea, 3
Innovativeness, 3

Technology, 1
Invention, 1
Knowledge, 2
Idea, 1
Market, 1
Market, 6
Technology, 6
Creativity, 4
Invention, 4
Idea, 2
Innovativeness, 1

Idea, 5
Creativity, 5
Invention, 2
Innovativeness, 1

Economy, 2
Equipment, 2
Idea, 2
Industry, 2
Market, 2
Technology, 2

Firm, 5
Organization, 4
Group, 2
Unit, 2

Organization, 1

Product, 4
Process, 3
Service, 3

New, 4

Organization study

Group, 1
Internal, 1
Organization, 1

Organization, 2
Users, 2
Customers, 1
Employee, 2

Organization, 2
Actor, 1
Consumer, 1
Customer, 1
Social system, 1

New, 3
Change, 2
Improve, 1
Product, 2
Process, 1
Service, 1

Marketing

Adoption, 3
Application, 2
Development, 2
Program, 2

Generation, 3
Application, 2
evelopment, 2
Implementation, 2
Acceptance, 1
Creation, 1

Production, 4
Introduction, 3
Manufacturing, 3
Development, 2
Commercialization, 3

Product, 2
Incremental, 1
Process, 1
Radical, 1
Service, 1
Technical, 1
Creation, 2
Decision, 1
Design, 1
Development, 1

New, 2
Improve, 1

Knowledge
management

Learning, 1
Communication, 1

Adoption, 7
Development, 3
Generation, 7
Implementation, 2
ntroduction, 2
Commercialization, 4
Creation, 2
Organization, 12

Product, 4
Service, 4
Technical, 3

Product, 9
Process, 6
Service, 3
Technical, 3

New, 11
Challenge, 2
Change, 2
Product, 10
Service, 8
Process, 7
Technical, 3

Technology/science/
engineering

New, 10
Change, 2

Innovation and
entrepreneurship

New, 24
Improved, 4

Economy

1330

Means

New, 16
Change, 4

Nature

Business and
management

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

MD
47,8

Attribute

Word frequency count

Nature of innovation

New, 76
Change, 10
Improve, 6
Product, 40
Service, 25
Process, 23
Technical, 10
Competition, 7
Success, 6
Economy, 6
Superiority, 5
Differentiation, 3
Advantage, 2
Value, 2
Organization, 29
Firm, 11
Customer, 4
Group, 3
Unit, 2
Developer, 2
Employee, 2
External environment 2
Social system, 2
Workforce, 1
Consumer, 1
Internal environment, 1
Idea, 22
Invention, 12
Technology, 12
Market, 11
Creativity, 10
Adoption, 13
Development, 13
Creation, 9
Implementation, 6
Commercialization, 7

Type of innovation

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Aim of innovation

Social context

Means of innovation

Stages of innovation

Summary of attributes frequency

Type of innovation, 98
Nature of innovation, 92
Means of innovation, 69
Innovation and people, 60
Stages of innovation, 48
Aim of innovation, 31

strong evidence not merely in discursive expositions on innovation management, but

also in the definitions of the basic concept of innovation. These attributes are defined
as follows:
.
Nature of innovation refers to the form of innovation as in something new or
improved.
.
Type of innovation refers to the kind of innovation as in the type of output or the
result of innovation, e.g. product or service.

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1331

Table III.
Summary of word
frequencies grouped by
attributes

MD
47,8

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

1332

Table IV.
Total word frequency
versus number of times
words has appeared by
definition

New
Organization
Product
Firm
Service
Idea
Invention
Superior
Improve
Process
Technical
Market
Creativity
Change
Implement
Group
Development
Commercialization
Technology
Value
Economic
Success

Total number of occurrences

Number of occurrences in
distinct definitions

76
29
40
11
25
22
12
5
6
23
10
11
10
10
6
3
13
7
12
2
6
6

42
15
33
4
21
18
8
2
4
21
8
9
8
9
5
2
12
6
11
1
5
5

Stages of innovation refers to all the steps taken during an innovation process
which usually start from idea generation and end with commercialization.
Social context refers to any social entity, system or group of people involved in
the innovation process or environmental factors affecting it.
Means of innovation refers to the necessary resources (e.g. technical, creative,
financial) that need to be in place for innovation.
Aim of innovation is the overall result that the organizations want to achieve
through innovation.

In arriving at this final list of attributes two issues have been taken into consideration:
(1) One of the attributes of innovation, which only occurs in three of definitions
relates to the time of innovation implementation or adoption in the context of
specific industries. In this analysis, there are two definitions, which have paid
attention to time of innovation by mentioning first or early use of innovation and
there is one definition, which highlights the first use of innovation by the
organization adopting it. For example, Rothwell (1992, p. 221) quotes Freeman as:
The technical, design, manufacturing, management and commercial activities involved
in the marketing of a new (or improved) product or the first use of a new (or improved)
manufacturing process or equipment.

Owing to the limited number of definitions considering the time of innovation,

this attribute has been excluded from the definition proposed in this study.

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

(2) Another term which occurs quite frequently is the word process which during
the content analysis was replaced by procedure for simplification. Usage of
this word was an indication of the fact that innovation is a process not a discrete
act.
(3) Analysis of Table III demonstrates that in defining innovation, scholars have
paid more attention to type, means, social context and stages of innovation and
have made relatively limited reference to the aim of innovation. This may
potentially be evidence of a serious disconnection between the rhetoric of
innovation and its strategic context. On the other hand, most research reports
and articles on innovation start by explaining the strategic importance of
innovation. So, thus perhaps this is simply an oversight in the definitions or a
taken-for-granted assumption.

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1333

On the basis of the key attributes of definitions of innovation and the descriptors used
by those definitions to characterise the attributes, a diagrammatic definition of
innovation is proposed in Figure 1. The diagram incorporates the six attributes
identified as being common to the various disciplinary definitions of innovation. We do
not suggest that this is the actual or ideal flow, or that the flow is linear. We do not give
greater importance to stages or aim but simply suggest that these are six common,
and therefore important, attributes of innovation. The model seeks to present the
essence of innovation, no matter the organizational or disciplinary context. The six
components of the model do not only describe the possible flow of the innovation
process, they also indicate various starting points within the innovation process. This
might be influenced by disciplinary background. For example, engineers might begin
with a focus on the technical possibilities of a new product, whereas as marketing
specialists might concentrate on identifying potential new markets. Individuals within
organisations may choose different starting points on the journey to innovation. The
chosen starting point might also have a strong relationship to the way innovation is
achieved, or not.
In order to capture and articulate the diagrammatic definition in Figure 1 in words
by means of interpretation, we propose that:

Figure 1.
A diagrammatic definition
of innovation

MD
47,8

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

1334

Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into

new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and
differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace.

Our definition begins with the term multi stage process as most of the definitions
presented earlier have highlighted that innovation is not a discrete act and is a process.
Secondly, we focus on business organisations in this paper, although we have not
explicitly articulated in our textual definition that innovation can occur in various
social entities and contexts. Third, as shown in the diagram, many definitions have
focused on the means of innovation, that is the ways in which ideas have been
transformed into new, improved and changed entities, whether products or services,
for example, for new markets. Therefore, a multi stage process together with
transforming ideas into new/improved products . . . not only captures all the stages
that different scholars have identified or referred to in their definition of innovation, it
also highlights the fact that ideas are used and transformed (together with other means
of innovation) to result in New/improved products, services or processes, the main
types of innovation identified together with the level of change they involve. Finally,
although not often explicitly mentioned in extant definitions, we include the aim of
innovation as successfully advancing (referring to process innovations) and
competing and differentiating to reflect both the overall strategic aim of innovation
and the potentially diverse social and environmental contexts in which innovation
occurs. These diagrammatic and textual definitions, which seek to subsume and
supersede earlier definitions with their specific disciplinary biases, recognize that an
all-embracing definition of innovation needs to encompass a number of aspects of the
essence of innovation.
Conclusions and recommendations
Innovation, and how it is managed, is a key strategic issue. It is of interest to both
practitioners and researchers across a range of business and management disciplines.
Having conducted a comprehensive content analysis, we have identified how different
disciplines view innovation from a different standpoint and propose distinct
definitions. It could be argued that each discipline requires it own discipline-specific
definition. However, as business and research become more inter- and
multi-disciplinary, we suggest there is a need for a more generic, integrative
definition. This is to enable the development of common meaning and shared
understanding of the various dimensions of innovation, identified in our proposed
definition. We suggest that the number and diversity of current definitions of
innovation creates ambiguity and confusion and we support McAdam et al.s (2004)
view that the absence of a consensual definition of innovation is problematic.
To address this, on the basis of a content analysis of existing definitions of
innovation, extracted from a number of different disciplines, we have proposed a
succinct and arguably intuitive textual definition of innovation. The text version of the
definition is supplemented by a diagrammatic definition, which identifies the
descriptors that can be used to provide a more detailed definition. Such a definition
should assist in crossing disciplinary boundaries, and act as a basis for more
transparent sharing and transfer of knowledge relating to innovation and its processes.
The objective in proposing a general definition of innovation has been to seek to
offer a multidisciplinary definition for a multidisciplinary concept. There is evident

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

need for such a definition and it has the potential to inform both practice and research.
A consensus on the definition of innovation offers a way forward for the identification
of innovation within organizations and countries. The typology of innovation, implicit
in our diagrammatic definition offers a means of classifying innovations. For example,
there is the opportunity to classify definitions on the basis of whether they bring
forward something new, or improve an existing aspect of the organization (nature).
Similarly, innovations may be classified as product, service, process or technical (type),
and the resources or means used to drive and support innovation can be identified in
respect of the balance of technology, ideas, inventions, creativity, and market (means).
This type of analysis would be useful for businesses in strategy and planning, and
would offer a useful framework for comparing different innovation processes in
different organizations, towards knowledge-building.
However, there are limitations with our paper. As a conceptual paper, we have
produced our textual and diagrammatic definitions drawing on existing theoretical
work from a range of business disciplines. In addition, although beyond the scope of
this paper, we have noted there is evidence that the nature and focus of innovation has
changed over time. Therefore, we propose adopting a chronological perspective in
future research to explore how meanings of innovation have evolved, generally and
specifically within disciplines. There is further empirical work to do to validate the
proposed definition in terms of its suitability, usefulness and acceptability across
different disciplinary groups and this is a clear agenda for further research.
References
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006), Innovation management measurement: a review,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-47.
Altheide, D.L. (1996), Qualitative Media Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Alves, J., Marques, M.J., Saur, I. and Marques, P. (2005), Building creative ideas for successful
new product development, paper presented at the 9th European Conference on Creativity
and Innovation, Poland.
Badawy, M.K. (1988), How to prevent creativity mismanagement, IEEE Engineering
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 63-8.
Barnett, H. (1953), Innovation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Baumol, W.J. (2002), The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of
Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Becker, S.W. and Whisler, T.L. (1967), The innovative organization: a selective review of current
theory and research, The Journal of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 462-9.
Berelson, B. (1952), Content Analysis in Communication Research, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pitt, L. (2004), Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical
investigation, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 9/10, pp. 1065-90.
Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2007), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H. and Phillips, W. (2005), Managing innovation beyond the
steady state, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1366-76.
Brown, M. (1994), Introduction to Innovation Managing Ideas into Action, Henley Management
Center/Price Waterhouse, London.
Bryman, A. (2001), Social Research Method, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1335

MD
47,8

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

1336

Cardinal, L.B., Alessandri, T.M. and Turner, S.F. (2001), Knowledge codifiability, resources, and
science-based innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Caroll, J. (1967), A note on departmental autonomy and innovation in medical schools,
The Journal of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 531-4.
Chen, J., Zhaohui, Z. and Xie, H.Y. (2004), Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and
empirical study, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 195-212.
Cooper, J.R. (1998), A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation, Management
Decision, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 493-502.
Cumming, B.S. (1998), Innovation overview and future challenges, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 21-9.
Daft, R.L. (1978), Dual-core model of organizational innovation, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-210.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational innovation a meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Damanpour, F. (1996), Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing
multiple contingency models, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 693-716.
Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998), Theories of organizational structure and
innovation adoption: the role of environmental change, Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M. (2006), Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations:
effects of environment, organization and top managers, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 215-36.
Danneels, E. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2003), Product innovativeness from the firms perspective:
its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 357-73.
Department for Innovation, US (2008), Innovation Nation, Department for Innovation, US,
Washington, DC.
Department of Trade (2003), Innovation Report, Department of Trade, London.
Dosi, G. (1990), Finance, innovation and industrial change, Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 299-319.
Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Dunphy, S.M., Herbig, P.R. and Howes, M.E. (1996), The innovation funnel, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 279-92.
During, W.E. (1986), Project-management and management of innovation in small industrial
firms, Technovation, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 269-78.
Ettlie, J.E. and Reza, E.M. (1992), Organizational integration and process innovation, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 795-827.
Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P. and OKeefe, R.D. (1984), Organizational strategy and structural
differences for radical versus incremental innovation, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 682-95.
Figueroa, E. and Conceicao, P. (2000), Rethinking the innovation process in large organizations:
a case study of 3M, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 93-109.
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005), Targeting innovation and implications for capability
development, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 171-83.

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Freeman, C. (1974), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Freeman, J. and Engel, J.S. (2007), Models of innovation: start-ups and mature corporations,
California Management Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 94-119.
Garca-Morales, V.J., Matas-Reche, F. and Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008), Influence of
transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending
on the level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 188-212.
Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Kahn, K.B., Franzak, F., Griffin, A., Kohn, S. and Miller, C.W. (2003), Editorial: Identification and
consideration of emerging research questions, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 193-201.
Karger, D.W. and Murdick, R.G. (1966), Product design, marketing, and manufacturing
innovation, California Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 33-42.
Kimberly, J.R. (1981), Managerial innovation, in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Hand
Book of Organization Design, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996), The challenge of innovation implementation, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1055-80.
Knight, K.E. (1967), A descriptive model of intra-firm innovation process, Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 478-96.
Kuhn, R.L. (1985), Frontiers in Creative and Innovative, Ballinger, Cambridge.
Lewis, L.K. and Seibold, D.R. (1993), Innovation modification during intraorganizational
adoption, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 322-54.
Lorenzi, N.M., Mantel, M.I. and Riley, R.T. (1912), Preparing your organization for technological
change, Healthcare Informatics.
Lundvall, B.A. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, Frances Printer, London.
McAdam, R., Reid, R. and Gibson, D. (2004), Innovation and organisational size in Irish SMEs:
an empirical study, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 147-65.
McGrath, R.G., Tsai, M.-H., Venkataraman, S. and MacMillan, I.C. (1996), Innovation,
competitive advantage and rent: a model and test, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 389-403.
Mansfield, E. (1963), Size of firm, market structure and innovation, Journal of Political
Economics, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 556-76.
Mone, M.A., McKinley, W. and Barker, V.L. (1998), Organizational decline and innovation:
a contingency framework, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 115-32.
Myers, S. and Marquis, D.G. (1969), Successful Industrial Innovations: A Study of Factors
Underlying Innovation in Selected Firms, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nord, W. and Tucker, S. (1987), Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
OECD (1981), The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Organizations, Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1337

MD
47,8

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

1338

Plessis, M.D. (2007), The role of knowledge management in innovation, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 20-9.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Roper, S. and Love, J. (2004), The organization of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and
multi-functional groups in UK and German manufacturing, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 26-41.
Rothwell, R. (1992), Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s, R&D
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 221-37.
Rothwell, R. and Gardiner, P. (1985), Invention, innovation, re-innovation and the role of the
user, Technovation, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 167-86.
Salavou, H. (2004), The concept of innovativeness: should we need to focus?, European Journal
of Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Shepard, H.A. (1967), Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing organizations, The Journal
of Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 470-7.
Smits, R. (2002), Innovation studies in the twenty-first century: questions from a users
perspective, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 69 No. 9, pp. 861-83.
Sundbo, J. (1996), The balancing of empowerment a strategic resource based model of
organizing innovation activities in service and low-tech firms, Technovation, Vol. 16 No. 8,
pp. 397-409.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Hislop, D. (1999), Knowledge management and
innovation: networks and networking, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 262-75.
Tang, H.K. (1998), An integrative model of innovation in organizations, Technovation, Vol. 18
No. 5, pp. 297-309.
Thompson, V.A. (1965), Bureaucracy and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10,
pp. 1-20.
Trott, P. (2005), Innovation Management and New Product Development, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Harlow.
Tushman, M. and Nadler, D. (1986), Organizing for innovation, California Management Review,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 74-92.
Udwadia, F.E. (1990), Creativity and innovation in organizations, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 66.
Urabe, K. and Child, J. (1988), Innovation and Management, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Van de Ven, A. (1986), Central problems in the management of innovation, Management
Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 590-607.
Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Unwin,
London.
West, M.A. and Anderson, N.R. (1996), Innovation in top management teams, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 680-93.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1991), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Wolfe, R.A. (1994), Organizational innovation review, critique and suggested research
directions, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 405-31.
Wong, A., Tjosvold, D. and Liu, C. (2008), Innovation by teams in Shanghai, China: cooperative
goals for group confidence and persistence, British Journal of Management, available at:
www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120123993/HTMLSTART (accessed
August 15, 2008).
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1994), The financial implications of fit between competitive strategy
and innovation types and sources, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Zairi, M. (1994), Innovation or innovativeness? Results of a benchmarking study,
TQM Magazine, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 10-16.
Zaltman, F.E., Duncan, R.B. and Holbek, J. (1973), Innovations and Organizations, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Further reading
Jayanthi, S. and Kingshuk, S.K. (1998), Innovation implementation in high technology
manufacturing: a chaos-theoretic empirical analysis, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 471-94.
Pouder, R. and StJohn, C.H. (1996), Hot spots and blind spots: geographical clusters of firms and
innovation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1192-225.
Corresponding author
Anahita Baragheh can be contacted at: anahita@bangor.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Towards a
definition of
innovation
1339

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Dirk Meissner, Maxim Kotsemir. 2016. Conceptualizing the innovation process towards the active
innovation paradigmtrends and outlook. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 5. . [CrossRef]
2. Mingguo Li, Atreyi Kankanhalli, Seung Hyun Kim. 2016. Which ideas are more likely to be implemented
in online user innovation communities? An empirical analysis. Decision Support Systems 84, 28-40.
[CrossRef]
3. Ashish Kumar Jha, Indranil Bose. 2016. Innovation research in information systems: A commentary on
contemporary trends and issues. Information & Management 53, 297-306. [CrossRef]
4. Simone Franceschini, Loureno G.D. Faria, Roman Jurowetzki. 2016. Unveiling scientific communities
about sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable terms. Journal of Cleaner
Production . [CrossRef]
5. Jos A. Garca-Avils, Miguel Carvajal-Prieto, Alicia De Lara-Gonzlez, Flix Arias-Robles. 2016.
Developing an Index of Media Innovation in a National Market. Journalism Studies 1-18. [CrossRef]
6. Julia C. Schmid, Andrea Knierim, Ulrike Knuth. 2016. Policy-induced innovations networks on climate
change adaptation An ex-post analysis of collaboration success and its influencing factors. Environmental
Science & Policy 56, 67-79. [CrossRef]
7. Tanya Bondarouk, Dustin Schilling, Huub Rul. 2016. eHRM adoption in emerging economies: The case
of subsidiaries of multinational corporations in Indonesia. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences /
Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
8. Aloke Ghosh, Christo Karuna, Feng Tian. 2015. Causes and Consequences of the CEO Also Being the
Chair of the Board. Journal of Management Accounting Research 27, 197-223. [CrossRef]
9. Anil Nair, Orhun Guldiken, Stav Fainshmidt, Amir Pezeshkan. 2015. Innovation in India: A review of
past research and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 32, 925-958. [CrossRef]
10. Sascha Kraus, Chris Richter, Savvas Papagiannidis, Susanne Durst. 2015. Innovating and Exploiting
Entrepreneurial Opportunities in Smart Cities: Evidence from Germany. Creativity and Innovation
Management 24, 601-616. [CrossRef]
11. Marjory Williams, Miriam Bender. 2015. Growing and Sustaining the Clinical Nurse Leader Initiative.
JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration 45, 540-543. [CrossRef]
12. Christine Winberg, Shaun Pather, Mike du PlessisSupporting a culture of innovation at a new university
of technology 1-6. [CrossRef]
13. Larena Hoeber, Alison Doherty, Orland Hoeber, Richard Wolfe. 2015. The nature of innovation in
community sport organizations. European Sport Management Quarterly 15, 518-534. [CrossRef]
14. Malte Stefan Ackermann Department of Technology and Innovation Management, Philipps-University of
Marburg, Marburg, Germany Michael Stephan Department of Technology and Innovation Management,
Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany John M. Penrose Department of Management
Information Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, United States . 2015. Assessing
organizational innovativeness evidence from corporate narratives. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal 20:4, 399-414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. I. D. da S. Souza, T. L. Almeida, V. P. Takahashi. 2015. Proposal of a classification system for opportunities
to innovate in skin care products. International Journal of Cosmetic Science 37:10.1111/ics.2015.37.issue-5,
479-488. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

16. GLENN BROPHEY, ANAHITA BAREGHEH, DAVID HEMSWORTH, MARK WACHOWIAK,

DEAN HAY, SOUMAYA BEN DHAOU. 2015. THE "EVERYTHING'S DIFFERENT, EVERY
TIME" INNOVATION MANAGEMENT PROBLEM: A PROMISING MODEL DEVELOPMENT.
International Journal of Innovation Management 19, 1550057. [CrossRef]
17. Marco Nardello, James Lapalme, Gustav Toppenberg, John GotzeHow Does Enterprise Architecture
Support Innovation? 192-199. [CrossRef]
18. Isto Huvila School of Business and Economics; bo Akademi University; bo; Finland. . 2015. Situational
appropriation of information. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67:5, 492-504. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
19. Rafael Cceres, Joaquin Guzmn. 2015. Seeking an innovation structure common to both manufacturing
and services. Service Business 9, 361-379. [CrossRef]
20. References 235-238. [CrossRef]
21. NHA NGUYEN, GILLES MARCOUX, IZOLD GUIHUR. 2015. DETERMINANTS OF
THE CUSTOMER'S PERCEPTION OF INNOVATIVENESS: AN INVESTIGATION IN
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES. International Journal of Innovation Management 19, 1550032. [CrossRef]
22. Gabriella Arcese, Serena Flammini, Maria Lucchetti, Olimpia Martucci. 2015. Evidence and Experience
of Open Sustainability Innovation Practices in the Food Sector. Sustainability 7, 8067-8090. [CrossRef]
23. Matteo Pedrini, Valentina Bramanti, Laura Maria Ferri, Marco Minciullo. 2015. The Role of Social Capital
in the Start-Up of Non-profit Organisations: The Case of Fondazione Welfare Ambrosiano. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations . [CrossRef]
24. Mark Bieraugel Robert E. Kennedy Library, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,
California, USA . 2015. Managing library innovation using the lean startup method. Library Management
36:4/5, 351-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Lisa K. Gundry, Angeles Muoz-Fernandez, Laurel F. Ofstein, Teresa Ortega-Egea. 2015. Innovating in
Organizations: A Model of Climate Components Facilitating the Creation of New Value. Creativity and
Innovation Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
26. Helena Gerard, Daan Six, Enrique Rivero PuenteInnovation by Distribution System Operators: More
than a question of remuneration 1-5. [CrossRef]
27. Anne-Karen Hueske, Edeltraud Guenther. 2015. What hampers innovation? External stakeholders, the
organization, groups and individuals: a systematic review of empirical barrier research. Management Review
Quarterly 65, 113-148. [CrossRef]
28. Klas Palm Department of Quality Technology and Management, Mid Sweden University, Knivsta, Sweden
Johan Lilja Department of Quality Technology and Management, Mid Sweden University, Knivsta,
Sweden Hkan Wiklund Department of Quality Technology and Management, Mid Sweden University,
Knivsta, Sweden . 2015. Agencies, its time to innovate!. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences
7:1, 34-49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Latchezar Hristov Department of Marketing, Audencia Nantes School of Management, Nantes, France.
Jonathan Reynolds Said Business School, Oxford Institute of Retail Management, University of Oxford,
Oxford, United Kingdom. . 2015. Perceptions and practices of innovation in retailing. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management 43:2, 126-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Emanuele Brancati. 2015. Innovation financing and the role of relationship lending for SMEs. Small
Business Economics 44, 449-473. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

31. Gonzalo Lizarralde, Mario Bourgault, Nathalie Drouin, Laurent VielStakeholder Integration Champions
and Innovation in the Built Environment 47-63. [CrossRef]
32. Ali Taheri, Denis Cavallucci, David Oget. 2015. Measuring Inventive Performance of R&D Teams.
Procedia Engineering 131, 514-521. [CrossRef]
33. Mervi Huhtelin, Suvi Nenonen. 2015. A Co-creation Centre for UniversityIndustry Collaboration A
Framework for Concept Development. Procedia Economics and Finance 21, 137-145. [CrossRef]
34. Anne-Karen Hueske, Jan Endrikat, Edeltraud Guenther. 2015. External environment, the innovating
organization, and its individuals: A multilevel model for identifying innovation barriers accounting for
social uncertainties. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 35, 45-70. [CrossRef]
35. Arif Hartono. 2015. Developing New Ideas & Capability-based Framework for Innovation Process: Firm
Analysis for Indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 169, 161-169. [CrossRef]
36. Lena HylvingCompeting Values in the Era of Digitalization 4161-4170. [CrossRef]
37. Rachel C. Granger. 2014. SpatialRelational Mapping in Socio-Institutional Perspectives of Innovation.
European Planning Studies 22, 2477-2489. [CrossRef]
38. Anat BarNir Department of Management, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA . 2014.
Pre-venture managerial experience and new venture innovation. Management Decision 52:10, 1981-2001.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Muhammad Shakeel Sadiq Jajja Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management
Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan Shaukat Ali Brah Karachi School of Business and Leadership, Karachi, Pakistan
Syed Zahoor Hassan Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences,
Lahore, Pakistan Vijay R. Kannan Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, Logan,
Utah, USA . 2014. An examination of product innovation and buyer-supplier relationship in Pakistani
firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:8, 1031-1045. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
40. Lisa K. Gundry, Laurel F. Ofstein, Jill R. Kickul. 2014. Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in
entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. The International Journal of Management
Education 12, 529-538. [CrossRef]
41. Staci M. Zavattaro Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Mississippi State
University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA . 2014. Re-imagining the sustainability narrative in US cities.
Journal of Place Management and Development 7:3, 189-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Ravi Shankar Saripalle, P. V. Kumar, Rao Tatavarti. 2014. Individual Innovation Index (I 3 ): Assessment
and Enhancement. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 11, 1450036.
[CrossRef]
43. Ulkar Bayramova, Mart Laanpere, Peeter NormakStrategic planning of e-learning innovation: Interplay
between national and institutional levels 1-5. [CrossRef]
44. K. Surya, S. K. Mathew, F. LehnerInnovation and the Cloud: A review of literature 193-198. [CrossRef]
45. Elina Riivari, Anna-Maija Lms. 2014. Does it Pay to Be Ethical? Examining the Relationship Between
Organisations Ethical Culture and Innovativeness. Journal of Business Ethics 124, 1-17. [CrossRef]
46. Ian Kessler, Karen Spilsbury, Paul Heron. 2014. Developing a high-performance support workforce
in acute care: innovation, evaluation and engagement. Health Services and Delivery Research 2, 1-186.
[CrossRef]
47. Professor Simone Guercini Caryn Conley Department of Information Technology and Operations
Management, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA Jennifer Tosti-Kharas Management

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

Department, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA . 2014. Crowdsourcing
content analysis for managerial research. Management Decision 52:4, 675-688. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
48. Dilek Karahoca, Aya Kurnaz. 2014. Qualification Perception of Academics in Universities for Innovation
Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131, 211-217. [CrossRef]
49. Mihai Lisetchi, Laura Brancu. 2014. The Entrepreneurship Concept as a Subject of Social Innovation.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 124, 87-92. [CrossRef]
50. Horia Liviu Popa. 2014. Integrative Innovation as Core Determinant for Sustainable Progress. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 124, 460-467. [CrossRef]
51. Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu College of Business Administration, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United
Arab Emirates . 2014. Employees' involvement in developing service product innovations in Islamic banks.
International Journal of Commerce and Management 24:1, 85-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Udechukwu Ojiako, Maxwell Chipulu, Alasdair Marshall, Poonam Baboolall. 2014. Thematic elements
underlying risk perception amongst small and medium enterprise owner-managers. Acta Commercii 14. .
[CrossRef]
53. Margus Pedaste, Kllike Pedaste, Karin Lukk, Pille Villems, Raili Allas. 2014. A Model of Innovation
Schools: Estonian Case-study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112, 418-427. [CrossRef]
54. Lilibeth Rodriguez, Jessica Diaz, Juan Garbajosa, Jennifer Perez, Agustin YagueA Framework for
Positioning and Assessing Innovation Capability from an Organizational Perspective 3564-3573.
[CrossRef]
55. Lisa K Gundry, Jill R Kickul, Tatiana Iakovleva, Alan L Carsrud. 2014. Women-owned family businesses
in transitional economies: key influences on firm innovativeness and sustainability. Journal of Innovation
and Entrepreneurship 3, 8. [CrossRef]
56. Jonas Sjstrm, Louise von Essen, Helena Grnqvist. 2014. The Origin and Impact of Ideals in eHealth
Research: Experiences From the U-CARE Research Environment. JMIR Research Protocols 3, e28.
[CrossRef]
57. Xiao Xiao, Christopher B Califf, Saonee Sarker, Suprateek Sarker. 2013. ICT innovation in emerging
economies: a review of the existing literature and a framework for future research. Journal of Information
Technology 28, 264-278. [CrossRef]
58. Arnaz P. Binsardi, Jan Green, Graham Jackson. 2013. Exploring the impact of a companys web
technological development on its innovation activity: a case study of small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) in North Wales. Global Business Perspectives 1, 488-514. [CrossRef]
59. Josephine L. Illingworth, Howard Ring. 2013. Conceptual distinctions between reflex and nonreflex
precipitated seizures in the epilepsies: A systematic review of definitions employed in the research
literature. Epilepsia 54, 2036-2047. [CrossRef]
60. Martin Federico Alba, Jose Mara Garca lvarez-Coque, Francisco Mas-Verd. 2013. New firm
creation and innovation: industrial patterns and inter-sectoral linkages. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 9, 501-519. [CrossRef]
61. Alessandro Brun Federico Caniato Politecnico di Milano, Management, Economics, and Industrial
Engineering Department, Milan, Italy Antonella Moretto Management, Economics, and Industrial
Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Maria Caridi Politecnico di Milano, Management,
Economics, and Industrial Engineering Department, Milan, Italy . 2013. Dynamic capabilities for fashion-

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

luxury supply chain innovation. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 41:11/12,
940-960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Janet C.N. Wee Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore, Singapore Alton Y.K. Chua Division of
Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological
University of Singapore, Singapore . 2013. The peculiarities of knowledge management processes in
SMEs: the case of Singapore. Journal of Knowledge Management 17:6, 958-972. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
63. References 169-170. [CrossRef]
64. Gilbert Lenssen, Mollie Painter, Aileen Ionescu-Somers and Simon Pickard Francisco Szekely Sandoz
Family Foundation Professor of Leadership and Sustainability at the Global Center for Sustainability
Leadership, IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland Heidi Strebel Research Associate at the Global Center for
Sustainability Leadership, IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland . 2013. Incremental, radical and game-changing:
strategic innovation for sustainability. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society
13:5, 467-481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Dr Francesco Schiavone, Dr Sylvaine Castellano, Dr Malaoui Adnane and Dr Imen Safraou Laurence
Fort-Rioche ESC Rennes School of Business, Rennes Cedex, France Claire-Lise Ackermann ESC Rennes
School of Business, Rennes Cedex, France . 2013. Consumer innovativeness, perceived innovation and
attitude towards neo-retro-product design. European Journal of Innovation Management 16:4, 495-516.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Tengku Adil Tengku Izhar, Torab Torabi, M. Ishaq Bhatti, Fei Liu. 2013. Recent developments in
the organization goals conformance using ontology. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 4252-4267.
[CrossRef]
67. R. Barrena-Figueroa, T. Garcia-Lopez-de-Meneses. 2013. The effect of consumer innovativeness in the
acceptance of a new food product. An application for the coffee market in Spain. Spanish Journal of
Agricultural Research 11, 578. [CrossRef]
68. Erik Jippes, Marjolein C. Achterkamp, Jan Pols, Paul L.P. Brand, Jo M.L. van Engelen. 2013. Diffusing
(let it happen) or disseminating (make it happen) innovations in health care. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management 30, 246-263. [CrossRef]
69. Frank E.P. Dievernich, Kim Oliver TokarskiInnovative Management Development in the Automotive
Supply Industry - A Preliminary Case Study for the Development of an Innovative Approach to Innovation
Management 69-91. [CrossRef]
70. Thomas Macagno. 2013. A Model for Managing Corporate Sustainability. Business and Society Review
118:10.1111/basr.2013.118.issue-2, 223-252. [CrossRef]
71. Laura GengaApplication of process mining techniques for innovation analysis and support 584-587.
[CrossRef]
72. Jeroen van den HovenValue Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation 75-83. [CrossRef]
73. References 183-184. [CrossRef]
74. Janice L. Thomas, Svetlana Cicmil, Stella George. 2012. Learning From Project Management
Implementation by Applying a Management Innovation Lens. Project Management Journal 43:10.1002/
pmj.v43.6, 70-87. [CrossRef]
75. Matthew Murphy, Francois Perrot, Miguel Rivera-Santos. 2012. New perspectives on learning and
innovation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research 65, 1700-1709. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

76. Anahita BareghehBangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK Jennifer RowleyDepartment
of Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Sally
SambrookBangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK Dafydd DaviesBIC Innovation,
Bangor, UK. 2012. Food sector SMEs and innovation types. British Food Journal 114:11, 1640-1653.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Nathalie Duval-Couetil 1 , Michael Dyrenfurth 1 1 Department of Technology Leadership and Innovation
West Lafayette, Purdue University, IN 47906 . 2012. Teaching Students to be Innovators: Examining
Competencies and Approaches Across Disciplines. International Journal of Innovation Science 4:3, 143-154.
[Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF]
78. Domingo Ribeiro SorianoJorge Alberto Gmez GutirrezFaculty of Administration, La Salle University,
Bogota, Colombia Jos Manuel Saiz lvarezDepartment of Economics and Business Studies, Faculty
of Social Sciences, Nebrija University, Madrid, Spain. 2012. Change management for Colombian
entrepreneurs in displacement situation. Journal of Organizational Change Management 25:5, 709-720.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Elina RiivariOpen University, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland AnnaMaija LmsSchool of
Business and Economics, University of Jyvskyl, Jyvskyl, Finland Johanna KujalaSchool of Economics
and Business Administration, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Erika HeiskanenJuuriharja
Consulting Group Oy, Helsinki, Finland. 2012. The ethical culture of organisations and organisational
innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management 15:3, 310-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Edward BrookerThe Foresight Management Group, St Catharines, Canada Marion JoppeUniversity
of Guelph, Guelph, Canada Michael C.G. DavidsonGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia Kathy
MarlesGriffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. 2012. Innovation within the Australian outdoor
hospitality parks industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24:5, 682-700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Eugenio Pellicer, Christian Luis Correa, Vctor Yepes, Luis Fernando Alarcn. 2012. Organizational
Improvement Through Standardization of the Innovation Process in Construction Firms. Engineering
Management Journal 24, 40-53. [CrossRef]
82. Anahita BareghehBangor University, Bangor, UK Jennifer RowleyDepartment of Information and
Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Sally SambrookBangor
University, Bangor, UK Daffyd DaviesBIC Innovation, Bangor, UK. 2012. Innovation in food sector
SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 19:2, 300-321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Davina VoraSchool of Business, State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, New York, USA Jay
VoraSt Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota, USA Douglas PolleySt Cloud State University, St
Cloud, Minnesota, USA. 2012. Applying entrepreneurial orientation to a medium sized firm. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 18:3, 352-379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Gven Alpay, Muzaffer Bodur, Cengiz Yilmaz, Pinar Bykbalci. 2012. How does innovativeness yield
superior firm performance? The role of marketing effectiveness. Innovation: Management, Policy &
Practice 14, 107-128. [CrossRef]
85. TE FU CHEN. 2012. TRANSFORMING KNOWLEDGE INTO ACTION TO REACH
INNOVATION CAPACITY IN HIGH-TECH SMES. International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management 09, 1250005. [CrossRef]
86. SONNY S. ARISS, VAFA SABOORI DEILAMI. 2012. AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR
THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management 09, 1250003. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

87. Hee-Joo Kang, Seung-Ryul Jeong, Hyun-Chul Ahn. 2011. A Study on the Effect of the Fit between the
Type of Business Process Change and Organizational Culture on the Business Process Change Success.
The Journal of Information Systems 20, 49-72. [CrossRef]
88. Carlos A. Devece, Daniel Palacios-Marques, Rocio Fernandez. 2011. Entrepreneurship research in service
industries: a literature classification and trend analysis. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal 7, 479-493. [CrossRef]
89. Mara de la Cruz Snchez-Escobedo, Juan Carlos Daz-Casero, Ricardo Hernndez-Mogolln, Mara
Victoria Postigo-Jimnez. 2011. Perceptions and attitudes towards entrepreneurship. An analysis of
gender among university students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 443-463.
[CrossRef]
90. Seongbae Lim, Alejandro Zegarra Saldaa, Pablo E. Zegarra Saldaa. 2011. Do market oriented firms
adopt Web 2.0 technologies? An empirical study in hospitality firms. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal 7, 465-477. [CrossRef]
91. Mariel Fornoni, Ivn Arribas, Jos E. Vila. 2011. Measurement of an individual entrepreneurs social
capital: a multidimensional model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 495-507.
[CrossRef]
92. Isabel GallegolvarezFacultad de Economa y Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain Jos
Manuel PradoLorenzoFacultad de Economa y Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
IsabelMara GarcaSnchezFacultad de Economa y Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca,
Spain. 2011. Corporate social responsibility and innovation: a resourcebased theory. Management Decision
49:10, 1709-1727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Jaka LindiFaculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Carlos Marques da SilvaFaculty of
Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. 2011. Value proposition as a catalyst for a customer focused
innovation. Management Decision 49:10, 1694-1708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Carlos Lassala NavarrUniversity of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 2011. Advances in Mergers and
Acquisitions. Management Decision 49:8, 1395-1400. [Citation] [Full Text]
95. Jos E. Farins, Begoa Herrero, Miguel A. Latorre. 2011. Corporate entrepreneurship and acquisitions:
creating firm wealth. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 325-339. [CrossRef]
96. Mara del Mar Benavides Espinosa, Antonia Mohedano Suanes. 2011. Corporate entrepreneurship through
joint venture. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 413-430. [CrossRef]
97. Edward Nissan, Miguel-ngel Galindo Martn, Mara-Teresa Mndez Picazo. 2011. Relationship between
organizations, institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth process. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal 7, 311-324. [CrossRef]
98. Francisco Lin, Francisco J. Santos, Jose Fernndez. 2011. The influence of perceptions on potential
entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 373-390. [CrossRef]
99. Helena Knorr, Dolores Garzn, Daniel Martnez. 2011. Motivations and differences upon reconciling
professional and personal life: an empirical study of businesswomen and businessmen in the Valencian
Community. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7, 391-412. [CrossRef]
100. Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, Ma Angeles Montoro-Sanchez. 2011. Introduction: The Challenges of
Defining and Studying Contemporary Entrepreneurship. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences /
Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 28, 297-301. [CrossRef]
101. Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu. 2011. Academic publications on innovation management in banks (19982008):
A research note. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 13, 236-260. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universiti Sains Malaysia At 20:13 27 April 2016 (PT)

102. Jennifer RowleyDepartment of Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University,

Manchester, UK. 2011. Should your library have an innovation strategy?. Library Management 32:4/5,
251-265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. Bo-Christer Bjrk. 2011. A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals. Journal of
Medical Internet Research 13, e115. [CrossRef]
104. Alasdair Marshall, Udechukwu Ojiako. 2010. From the myth of Prometheus to strategic resilience: two
cognitive paradigms linking risk and innovation. Prometheus 28, 343-360. [CrossRef]
105. Erik Jippes, Marjolein C. Achterkamp, Paul L.P. Brand, Derk Jan Kiewiet, Jan Pols, Jo M.L. van Engelen.
2010. Disseminating educational innovations in health care practice: Training versus social networks.
Social Science & Medicine 70, 1509-1517. [CrossRef]
106. Mateusz LewandowskiIntroduction to Academic Entrepreneurship 1-28. [CrossRef]
107. Maria Ortelinda Barros Gonalves, Paula Cristina Remoaldo, Paulo J. A. da Cunha, Nair
SilvaEntrepreneurship and Innovation: 726-753. [CrossRef]
108. Ana-Cristina IonescuHow can Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Innovation Enhance Enterprise
Performance? 163-197. [CrossRef]
109. Steven CavaleriToward a More Pragmatic Knowledge Management 327-346. [CrossRef]
110. Mateusz LewandowskiIntroduction to Academic Entrepreneurship 53-81. [CrossRef]
111. Joo M. S. CarvalhoSocial Innovation and Entrepreneurship: 539-573. [CrossRef]
112. Gary W. WhiteThe Library as a Center for Innovation: 68-86. [CrossRef]