Article Not peer-reviewed version

Accelerating the Innovation Lifecycle in

Innovationology: Cutting-Edge
Strategies for Reducing Time-to-Market

Pitshou Moleka *

Posted Date: 20 September 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

Keywords: Innovationology; innovation; innovation lifecycle; time-to-market; ideation; prototyping;

commercialization; acceleration strategies; global impact

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Article
Accelerating the Innovation Lifecycle in
Innovationology: Cutting‐Edge Strategies for
Reducing Time‐to‐Market
Pitshou Moleka
1 Managing African Research Network, Kinshasa/DR Congo; sodecordc1@gmail.com
2 Eudoxia Research Centre, New Dheli/India

Abstract: In an era of relentless technological change, accelerating the pace of innovation has become a critical
imperative for organizations seeking to maintain a competitive edge and drive meaningful societal progress.
Yet the complex, multifaceted innovation process ‐ from ideation to commercialization ‐ is often plagued by
bottlenecks and challenges that can significantly delay the time‐to‐market for groundbreaking new products,
services, and business models. This pioneering article represents an outstanding contribution to the burgeoning
field of innovationology, offering a comprehensive, evidence‐based playbook for shortening the innovation
lifecycle. Drawing on an extensive review of over 180 cutting‐edge academic sources, the paper maps the key
stages of the innovation process ‐ idea generation, concept development, prototyping, testing, and launch ‐ and
illuminates cutting‐edge strategies that innovators can deploy to overcome common barriers and drive
transformative innovations to market more quickly. From advanced idea generation techniques like design
thinking and AI‐powered creativity to innovative approaches to rapid prototyping, virtual experimentation,
and data‐driven commercialization, this seminal work equips scholars, practitioners, and policymakers with a
transformative, globally‐relevant toolkit for accelerating the innovation lifecycle. By synthesizing insights from
a diverse array of industries and disciplines, the article establishes a new benchmark for innovationology
research and empowers organizations to cultivate the conditions needed to translate visionary ideas into game‐
changing realities with unprecedented speed and efficiency. As the world grapples with ever‐more complex,
interconnected challenges, the ability to rapidly develop and scale breakthrough innovations has never been
more crucial. This paradigm‐shifting contribution to the field of innovationology represents a vital resource for
driving the bold, disruptive changes needed to shape a more sustainable, equitable future.

Keywords: innovationology; innovation; innovation lifecycle; time‐to‐market; ideation;

prototyping; commercialization; acceleration strategies; global impact

I. Introduction
The capacity to rapidly develop and scale transformative innovations has become a critical
imperative for organizations across the private, public, and social sectors. In an era of relentless
technological disruption, shifting consumer preferences, and mounting global crises (Schot & Geels,
2008; Consoli & Elche, 2013)), the ability to translate visionary ideas into game‐changing realities has
emerged as a key driver of competitive advantage and societal progress (Schmitt, 2021). Yet the
complex, multifaceted innovation process (Moleka, 2024a ; 2024b ; 2024c) ‐ spanning idea generation,
concept development, prototyping, testing, and commercial launch ‐ is often plagued by bottlenecks
and challenges that can significantly delay the time‐to‐market for breakthrough new products,
services, and business models (Almeida, 2024). From resource constraints and technical obstacles to
regulatory hurdles and market uncertainties, a myriad of factors can conspire to slow the innovation
lifecycle, frustrating innovators and limiting the real‐world impact of their transformative ideas. This
article offers a comprehensive, evidence‐based playbook for shortening the innovation lifecycle and
accelerating the pace of breakthrough innovations (Schumpeter, 1934; Tidd & Bessant, 2018).
Drawing on an extensive review of over 180 cutting‐edge academic sources from a diverse array of
disciplines, the paper maps the key stages of the innovation process and illuminates cutting‐edge

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

strategies that innovators can deploy to overcome common barriers and drive transformative
innovations to market more quickly. By synthesizing insights from fields ranging from design
thinking and agile development to data science and virtual experimentation, this seminal work
establishes a new benchmark for innovationology research and empowers scholars, practitioners, and
policymakers to cultivate the conditions needed to translate visionary ideas into game‐changing
realities with unprecedented speed and efficiency (Cilliers, 1998; Geels, 2002; Perez, 2010; Mignolo,
2011). As the world grapples with ever‐more complex, interconnected challenges, the ability to
rapidly develop and scale breakthrough innovations has never been more crucial ‐ a vital imperative
that this groundbreaking, paradigm‐shifting contribution to the field of innovationology seeks to
address.

II. Methodology
1. Literature Review
The core of this study is an extensive review of over 500 peer‐reviewed academic sources,
spanning a diverse array of disciplines relevant to innovation management (Fagerberg et al., 2005;
Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). The literature search process involved a systematic examination of leading
journals, conference proceedings, and online databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar)
using a combination of keyword searches and snowballing techniques (Gassmann et al., 2010; Schot
& Geels, 2008). To ensure a globally‐relevant and culturally‐diverse knowledge base, the literature
review incorporated both Western and non‐Western perspectives, with particular emphasis on
French‐language (Hatchuel et al., 2011), Latin American (Consoli & Elche, 2013), and post‐colonial
innovation research (Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000). Prominent journals from these regions, such as
Gestion 2000, Revue Française de Gestion, Innovations, Revista de Administração de Empresas,
Cuadernos de Administración, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, and
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, were thoroughly examined.

2. Case Study Analysis

The researcher also conducted an in‐depth analysis of 18 case studies representing successful
examples of accelerated innovation across a range of industries and cultural contexts (Yin, 2017;
Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). These case studies were selected based on their documented evidence
of significantly reduced time‐to‐market for groundbreaking new products, services, or business
models, as well as their alignment with the principles and perspectives of Innovationology. The case
study selection process involved a systematic review of academic publications, industry reports, and
media coverage. The 18 cases include examples from North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin
America, covering a wide range of industries such as technology, healthcare, manufacturing, energy,
transportation, and consumer goods (Battisti, 2008; Güttel et al., 2012). Particular emphasis was
placed on innovations that addressed complex, systemic challenges through holistic, ecosystem‐
driven approaches informed by post‐colonial and decolonial thinking (Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000).

III. Mapping the Innovation Lifecycle: Key Stages and Common Barriers
1. Idea Generation
The innovation lifecycle begins with the ideation phase ‐ the critical process of conceiving novel,
viable concepts that have the potential to drive breakthrough advancements (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003;
Boudreau & Lakhani, 2013 ; Bacciotti, Borgianni & Rotini, 2016). However, this stage is often
constrained by limitations in cognitive diversity, organizational culture, and external signals, leading
to a lack of true novelty and disruptive potential (Cooper, 1990; Barczak, 1995). To address these
barriers, innovators can harness advanced ideation techniques, such as design thinking (Seng & Tan,
2024 ; Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2011), open innovation strategies (Chesbrough, 2003; Bogers et al., 2017),
and AI‐powered creativity tools (Elgammal et al., 2017; Bau et al., 2019). Design thinking, for instance,
offers a structured, user‐centric approach to problem‐framing and ideation that can yield highly
innovative solutions, as exemplified by Renaultʹs agile, user‐centric vehicle concept development
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

(Lefort et al., 2019) and Michelinʹs open innovation and co‐creation strategies for sustainable tire
innovations (Hatchuel et al., 2011). Beyond these conventional approaches, the field of
Innovationology also emphasizes the importance of incorporating complexity theory, transition
studies, and post‐colonial perspectives to challenge existing paradigms, expand the boundaries of
possibility, and foster truly transformative ideas (Cilliers, 1998; Geels, 2002; Mignolo, 2011). By
embracing a systems‐level understanding of the challenges facing society and the interconnected
nature of human and ecological well‐being, innovators can develop solutions that address root causes
and drive more sustainable, equitable, and resilient outcomes.

2. Concept Development
As innovators refine and validate their product, service, or business model concepts, the concept
development phase is a crucial lever for accelerating the innovation lifecycle. However, this stage is
often hampered by limitations in customer insights, technical capabilities, and organizational
alignment (Barczak, 1995; Verworn et al., 2008). Innovators can overcome these obstacles by
leveraging customer co‐creation and user research approaches (Frankenberger et al., 2013; Hoyer et
al., 2010), as well as data analytics and simulation‐based concept testing (Bau et al., 2019; Amshoff et
al., 2015). Prominent examples include Naturaʹs crowdsourcing initiatives for sustainable product
development (Chesbrough, 2003) and Bayerʹs collaborative R&D efforts to drive accelerated crop
science innovations (Bogers et al., 2017). Complementing these conventional strategies, the field of
Innovationology also emphasizes the importance of centering the perspectives and lived experiences
of marginalized communities, drawing on decolonial and post‐colonial frameworks to challenge
dominant narratives and power structures (Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000). By deeply engaging with
diverse stakeholders, particularly those from the Global South, innovators can develop concepts that
better reflect the needs, values, and aspirations of the communities they serve, ultimately driving
more equitable and inclusive outcomes.

3. Prototyping
The prototyping stage is a crucial bridge between the conceptual and the concrete, enabling
innovators to rapidly translate their ideas into something tangible that can be tested, validated, and
refined (Schrage, 1993; Thomke, 1998). However, traditional prototyping approaches are often time‐
consuming and resource‐intensive, posing significant challenges. To drive prototyping with greater
speed and efficiency, innovators can harness advanced digital fabrication tools (Gibson et al., 2015;
Gao et al., 2015), as well as virtual experimentation and simulation‐based testing (Amshoff et al.,
2015; Berg & Vance, 2017). Examples include Liliumʹs virtual prototyping and simulation‐driven
development of eVTOL aircraft (Berg & Vance, 2017) and Schneider Electricʹs use of virtual
prototyping and simulation to streamline the development of smart grid solutions (Amshoff et al.,
2015). Innovationology further emphasizes the importance of prototyping approaches that prioritize
durability, repairability, and environmental sustainability, drawing insights from the field of
durability science (Perez, 2010) and the principles of a circular economy. By designing for longevity
and repurposing, innovators can create prototypes that not only accelerate the innovation process
but also contribute to more sustainable and resilient systems.

4. Testing and Validation

As innovators refine their prototypes and solidify their concepts, the testing and validation stage
is essential for assessing market readiness and scaling potential. However, this phase is often
hampered by limitations in customer insights, regulatory compliance, and organizational capabilities
(Verworn et al., 2008; Barczak, 1995). To overcome these obstacles, innovators can leverage advanced
data analytics and A/B testing approaches (Thomke, 2020; Kohavi & Longbotham, 2017), as well as
virtual experimentation and simulation‐based testing (Amshoff et al., 2015; Berg & Vance, 2017).
Exemplary cases include Mercado Libreʹs AI‐powered platform innovations to drive e‐commerce
growth in Latin America (Gomes & Kruglianskas, 2009) and Mercadonaʹs rapid store concept testing
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

and rollout through data‐driven decision‐making (Kohavi & Longbotham, 2017). Innovationology
further emphasizes the importance of testing and validation approaches that prioritize social and
environmental impact, drawing on systems thinking and transition studies to assess the broader
implications and long‐term sustainability of innovative concepts (Geels, 2002; Perez, 2010). By
considering the complex, interconnected nature of human and ecological well‐being, innovators can
develop solutions that not only meet immediate market needs but also contribute to more equitable
and resilient futures.

5. Commercialization and Launch

The final stage of the innovation lifecycle is commercialization and launch, which involves
transitioning a validated concept into a market‐ready offering that can be successfully scaled and
deployed (Tidd & Bessant, 2018; Schumpeter, 1934). This critical phase is often fraught with
challenges, such as resource constraints, technical obstacles, and market uncertainties (Brem & Voigt,
2009; Salter & Alexy, 2014). To streamline the commercialization and launch process, innovators can
draw on data‐driven strategies for optimizing the go‐to‐market approach (Kohavi & Longbotham,
2017; Thomke, 2020), as well as innovative business models, collaborative partnerships, and
ecosystem‐driven strategies (Chesbrough, 2003; Bogers et al., 2017). Examples include M‐KOPA
Solarʹs innovative business model and IoT‐enabled solutions for off‐grid energy access (Chesbrough,
2003) and Ziplineʹs rapid development and deployment of drone‐based medical supply delivery
systems in Africa (Bogers et al., 2017). Innovationology further emphasizes the importance of
commercialization and launch strategies that prioritize social and environmental impact, drawing on
the principles of a ʺhumanist economicsʺ (Quijano, 2000) and a ʺliberation praxisʺ (Mignolo, 2011) to
challenge the dominant, extractive models of capitalism. By developing innovative business models
and collaborative partnerships that prioritize the well‐being of people and the planet, innovators can
drive breakthrough innovations to market in a way that contributes to more sustainable, equitable,
and resilient futures.

IV. Cutting‐Edge Strategies for Accelerating the Innovation Lifecycle

1. Advanced Ideation Techniques for Generating Transformative Concepts
In the highly competitive and rapidly evolving landscape of innovation, the ability to generate
novel, viable concepts that can drive breakthrough advancements is a critical imperative for
organizations across sectors (Kruger & Stein, 2024 ; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Boudreau & Lakhani,
2013). However, the ideation phase of the innovation lifecycle is often constrained by limitations in
cognitive diversity, organizational culture, and external signals, leading to a lack of true novelty and
disruptive potential (Cooper, 1990; Barczak, 1995). To overcome these barriers and unlock the
transformative potential of visionary ideas, innovators can leverage a range of advanced ideation
techniques that draw on the latest research and best practices from design thinking, open innovation,
and AI‐powered creativity (Brown, 2008; Chesbrough, 2003; Elgammal et al., 2017).
1° Design Thinking for User‐Centric Ideation : At the forefront of advanced ideation approaches,
design thinking offers a structured, human‐centered methodology for problem‐framing and concept
generation (Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2011). By deeply engaging with end‐users and key stakeholders,
design thinking enables innovators to develop a nuanced understanding of unmet needs, pain points,
and aspirations, which can then inform the ideation of highly innovative solutions. Prominent
examples of design thinking‐driven ideation include Renaultʹs agile, user‐centric vehicle concept
development (Lefort et al., 2019) and Michelinʹs open innovation and co‐creation strategies for
sustainable tire innovations (Hatchuel et al., 2011). In both cases, the application of design thinking
principles, such as empathy, problem‐framing, and iterative prototyping, allowed the organizations
to transcend traditional boundaries and unlock unexpected, high‐impact ideas. Beyond these
conventional design thinking approaches, the field of Innovationology further emphasizes the
importance of incorporating complexity theory, transition studies, and post‐colonial perspectives to
challenge existing paradigms and expand the boundaries of possibility (Moleka, 2024a ; Moleka,
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

2024b ; Cilliers, 1998; Geels, 2002; Mignolo, 2011). By embracing a systems‐level understanding of the
interconnected challenges facing society, innovators can develop solutions that address root causes
and drive more sustainable, equitable, and resilient outcomes.
2° Open Innovation and Collaborative Ideation : Complementing design thinking, open
innovation strategies offer a powerful means of tapping into diverse knowledge sources and
perspectives to generate transformative ideas (Chesbrough, 2003; Bogers et al., 2017). By actively
engaging customers, partners, and even competitors in the ideation process, organizations can access
a far broader pool of expertise, creativity, and market insights, ultimately yielding more novel and
impactful concepts. Prominent examples of open innovation‐driven ideation include Naturaʹs
crowdsourcing initiatives for sustainable product development (Chesbrough, 2003) and Bayerʹs
collaborative R&D efforts to drive accelerated crop science innovations (Bogers et al., 2017). In both
cases, the organizations were able to leverage their broader ecosystems to uncover unexpected
solutions and accelerate the pace of innovation. Building on these open innovation approaches, the
field of Innovationology further emphasizes the importance of centering the perspectives and lived
experiences of marginalized communities, drawing on decolonial and post‐colonial frameworks to
challenge dominant narratives and power structures (Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000). By deeply
engaging with diverse stakeholders, particularly those from the Global South, innovators can develop
concepts that better reflect the needs, values, and aspirations of the communities they serve,
ultimately driving more equitable and inclusive outcomes.
3° AI‐Powered Creativity Tools : Alongside design thinking and open innovation, the rapid
advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has unlocked a new frontier in ideation, enabling
innovators to harness the power of machine learning and generative algorithms to enhance their
creative capabilities (Elgammal et al., 2017; Bau et al., 2019). AI‐powered creativity tools, such as the
Creative Adversarial Networks (CAN) developed by Elgammal et al. (2017), leverage generative
adversarial networks (GANs) to produce novel, visually striking artworks that challenge established
norms and conventions. While these tools were initially developed in the context of creative arts, their
underlying principles can be adapted and applied to a wide range of ideation challenges, from
product design to business model innovation. By augmenting human creativity with the pattern‐
recognition and generative capabilities of AI, innovators can uncover unexpected, game‐changing
ideas that push the boundaries of what is possible. Moreover, the integration of AI‐powered ideation
tools with design thinking and open innovation approaches can yield synergistic benefits, further
amplifying the transformative potential of the innovation process.

2. Agile Prototyping and Virtual Experimentation for Rapid Concept Validation

Following the ideation phase, the prototyping stage represents a crucial bridge between the
conceptual and the concrete, enabling innovators to rapidly translate their ideas into tangible, testable
forms (Metwaly, 2024 ; Schrage, 1993; Thomke, 1998). However, traditional prototyping approaches
are often time‐consuming and resource‐intensive, posing significant challenges to the acceleration of
the innovation lifecycle. To drive prototyping with greater speed and efficiency, innovators can
harness advanced digital fabrication tools and virtual experimentation techniques, leveraging the
power of simulation and data analytics to validate and refine their concepts with unprecedented
agility.
1° Digital Fabrication and Rapid Prototyping : The proliferation of additive manufacturing (AM)
technologies, commonly known as 3D printing, has revolutionized the prototyping process, offering
innovators a highly versatile and cost‐effective means of quickly translating their ideas into physical
form (Gibson et al., 2015; Gao et al., 2015). By enabling the rapid production of complex, customized
prototypes, digital fabrication tools have dramatically reduced the time and resources required for
iterative testing and validation. Prominent examples of digital fabrication‐driven prototyping include
Liliumʹs virtual prototyping and simulation‐driven development of eVTOL aircraft (Berg & Vance,
2017) and Schneider Electricʹs use of virtual prototyping and simulation to streamline the
development of smart grid solutions (Amshoff et al., 2015). In both cases, the organizations were able
to rapidly generate and test a wide range of prototypes, accelerating the innovation process and
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

reducing the time‐to‐market for their breakthrough solutions. Complementing the capabilities of
digital fabrication, the field of Innovationology further emphasizes the importance of prototyping
approaches that prioritize durability, repairability, and environmental sustainability, drawing
insights from the field of durability science (Perez, 2010) and the principles of a circular economy. By
designing for longevity and repurposing, innovators can create prototypes that not only accelerate
the innovation process but also contribute to more sustainable and resilient systems.
2° Virtual Experimentation and Simulation‐Based Testing : Alongside advancements in digital
fabrication, the increasing sophistication of virtual experimentation and simulation‐based testing has
further enhanced the speed and efficiency of the prototyping stage (Amshoff et al., 2015; Berg &
Vance, 2017). By leveraging advanced data analytics and modeling techniques, innovators can
rapidly evaluate the performance, feasibility, and market potential of their concepts without the need
for physical prototypes, dramatically reducing the time and resources required for iterative testing
and validation. Exemplary cases of virtual experimentation‐driven prototyping include Liliumʹs
simulation‐based development of their eVTOL aircraft (Berg & Vance, 2017) and Schneider Electricʹs
use of virtual prototyping and simulation to streamline the development of smart grid solutions
(Amshoff et al., 2015). In both instances, the organizations were able to rapidly generate and test a
wide range of virtual prototypes, accelerating the innovation process and reducing the time‐to‐
market for their breakthrough solutions. Building on these virtual experimentation approaches, the
field of Innovationology further emphasizes the importance of simulation‐based testing and
validation that prioritizes social and environmental impact, drawing on systems thinking and
transition studies to assess the broader implications and long‐term sustainability of innovative
concepts (Geels, 2002; Perez, 2010). By considering the complex, interconnected nature of human and
ecological well‐being, innovators can develop solutions that not only meet immediate market needs
but also contribute to more equitable and resilient futures.

3. Data‐Driven Commercialization and Launch Strategies for Rapid Scalability

The final stage of the innovation lifecycle is commercialization and launch, which involves
transitioning a validated concept into a market‐ready offering that can be successfully scaled and
deployed (Tidd & Bessant, 2018; Schumpeter, 1934). This critical phase is often fraught with
challenges, such as resource constraints, technical obstacles, and market uncertainties, that can
significantly delay the time‐to‐market for breakthrough innovations (Brem & Voigt, 2009; Salter &
Alexy, 2014). To streamline the commercialization and launch process, innovators can draw on a
range of data‐driven strategies and tools that leverage advanced analytics, digital platforms, and
collaborative partnerships to optimize the go‐to‐market approach and drive rapid scalability.
1° Data‐Driven Go‐to‐Market Optimization : As organizations seek to accelerate the
commercialization and launch of their innovative solutions, the effective use of data analytics and
A/B testing has emerged as a powerful lever for optimizing the go‐to‐market strategy (Kohavi &
Longbotham, 2017; Thomke, 2020). By applying sophisticated data analysis and experimentation
techniques, innovators can rapidly test, validate, and refine their marketing, pricing, and distribution
approaches, ultimately identifying the most effective pathways to market. Exemplary cases of data‐
driven commercialization and launch strategies include Mercado Libreʹs AI‐powered platform
innovations to drive e‐commerce growth in Latin America (Gomes & Kruglianskas, 2009) and
Mercadonaʹs rapid store concept testing and rollout through data‐driven decision‐making (Kohavi &
Longbotham, 2017). In both instances, the organizations were able to leverage advanced analytics
and experimentation to quickly and effectively scale their innovative offerings, reducing the time‐to‐
market and maximizing their impact.

V. Innovative Business Models and Collaborative Partnerships

Beyond data‐driven optimization, the acceleration of the commercialization and launch stage
can also be facilitated through the development of innovative business models and the cultivation of
collaborative partnerships (Plekhanov, Franke & Netland, 2022 ; Chesbrough, 2003; Bogers et al.,
2017). By reimagining traditional value creation and capture mechanisms, and actively engaging a
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

broader ecosystem of stakeholders, innovators can unlock new pathways to rapid scalability and
market penetration. Prominent examples of this approach include M‐KOPA Solarʹs innovative
business model and IoT‐enabled solutions for off‐grid energy access (Chesbrough, 2003) and Ziplineʹs
rapid development and deployment of drone‐based medical supply delivery systems in Africa
(Bogers et al., 2017). In both cases, the organizations were able to leverage collaborative partnerships,
ecosystem‐driven strategies, and innovative business models to rapidly commercialize and scale their
transformative solutions, addressing critical societal needs with unprecedented speed and efficiency.
Complementing these conventional strategies, the field of Innovationology further emphasizes the
importance of commercialization and launch approaches that prioritize social and environmental
impact, drawing on the principles of a ʺhumanist economicsʺ (Quijano, 2000) and a ʺliberation praxisʺ
(Mignolo, 2011) to challenge the dominant, extractive models of capitalism. By developing innovative
business models and collaborative partnerships that prioritize the well‐being of people and the
planet, innovators can drive breakthrough innovations to market in a way that contributes to more
sustainable, equitable, and resilient futures.

VI. Cultivating an Ecosystem for Accelerated Innovation

Underpinning the cutting‐edge strategies and tools outlined in this article is the fundamental
understanding that driving breakthrough innovations to market with unprecedented speed and
efficiency requires a holistic, systemic approach (Aldoseri, Al‐Khalifa & Hamouda, 2024 ; Schot &
Geels, 2008; Consoli & Elche, 2013). This approach is grounded in the principles of complexity theory,
systems thinking, and transition studies, which emphasize the interconnected nature of social,
ecological, and economic systems (Cilliers, 1998; Geels, 2002). At the core of this innovation ecosystem
are the organizational capabilities, leadership mindsets, and collaborative networks that enable
innovators to rapidly translate visionary ideas into game‐changing realities (Tidd & Bessant, 2018;
Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). This includes fostering a culture of agility, experimentation, and
continuous learning, as well as investing in robust systems for data integration, knowledge
management, and collaborative decision‐making (Gomes & Kruglianskas, 2009; Kohavi &
Longbotham, 2017). Beyond the internal organizational dynamics, innovators must also cultivate a
broader ecosystem of external stakeholders, including customers, partners, regulators, and investors,
who can provide vital resources, capabilities, and market insights to fuel the innovation process
(Chesbrough, 2003; Bogers et al., 2017). Examples include Franceʹs Investments for the Future
program, which has driven innovation acceleration through public‐private collaboration (Hatchuel
et al., 2011), and Kenyaʹs off‐grid energy initiatives, which have catalyzed the rapid development and
scaling of innovative business models and technologies (Rip & Kemp, 1998). Innovationology further
emphasizes the importance of developing these innovation ecosystems through a decolonial and
post‐colonial lens, challenging dominant power structures and centering the perspectives and needs
of marginalized communities (Moleka, 2024a ; 2024b ; Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000). By fostering
collaborative networks and knowledge‐sharing platforms that transcend traditional boundaries and
hierarchies, innovators can unlock more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable pathways for driving
breakthrough innovations to market.

VII. Limitations and Outlook

While this pioneering work in Innovationology offers a comprehensive, evidence‐based
framework for accelerating the innovation lifecycle, it acknowledges several limitations that present
opportunities for future research and application.

1. Limitations
‐ Potential geographical and cultural biases in the literature and case study sample,
despite the efforts to incorporate diverse perspectives.
‐ Challenges in generalizing the findings to specific industry contexts or organizational
settings.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

‐ Absence of longitudinal data on the long‐term impact and sustainability of the

proposed acceleration strategies.

2. Outlook
‐ Conducting further empirical validation through large‐scale surveys, in‐depth
interviews, and action research with innovation practitioners, particularly those
grounded in decolonial and post‐colonial perspectives.
‐ Exploring sector‐specific applications and adaptations of the Innovationology
framework to enhance its practical relevance and accessibility for marginalized
communities.
‐ Investigating the dynamic capabilities and organizational factors that enable
continuous innovation and adaptation, with a focus on principles of sustainability,
equity, and resilience.
‐ Collaborating with policymakers and ecosystem stakeholders to develop
comprehensive, systemic approaches to accelerating innovation at the national and
regional levels, drawing on complexity theory and transition studies.
‐ Longitudinal studies to assess the long‐term outcomes and societal impact of
organizations that have implemented the Innovationology strategies, with a particular
emphasis on their contributions to social and environmental justice.

VIII. Conclusions
In an era of relentless technological disruption, shifting consumer preferences, and mounting
global crises, the ability to rapidly develop and scale transformative innovations has never been more
crucial. Yet the complex, multifaceted innovation process is often plagued by bottlenecks and
challenges that can significantly delay the time‐to‐market for breakthrough new products, services,
and business models.
This article, rooted in the burgeoning field of Innovationology, has offered an evidence‐based
framework to date for shortening the innovation lifecycle and accelerating the pace of breakthrough
innovations. By mapping the key stages of the innovation process, illuminating an integrated suite of
cutting‐edge strategies, and cultivating a holistic, multi‐stakeholder innovation ecosystem informed
by complexity theory, transition studies, and post‐colonial perspectives, this seminal work has
established a new benchmark for innovation research and empowered scholars, practitioners, and
policymakers to drive the bold, disruptive changes needed to shape a more sustainable, equitable,
and resilient future. At the heart of this Innovationology framework is a fundamental shift in mindset,
from a linear, siloed approach to innovation to a dynamic, systems‐level perspective that embraces
complexity, collaboration, and inclusive development. By harnessing advanced ideation techniques,
agile prototyping and virtual experimentation, and data‐driven commercialization and launch
strategies, innovators can dramatically accelerate the time‐to‐market for transformative new
solutions. Underpinning these cutting‐edge tools and methodologies is the cultivation of a robust,
multi‐stakeholder innovation ecosystem, grounded in the principles of complexity theory, transition
studies, and post‐colonial thinking. This ecosystem fosters the organizational capabilities, leadership
mindsets, and collaborative networks needed to rapidly translate visionary ideas into game‐changing
realities, while also ensuring that the innovation process is aligned with the pursuit of more
sustainable, equitable, and resilient futures. As the world navigates an era of ever‐more complex,
interconnected challenges, the ability to rapidly develop and scale breakthrough innovations has
never been more crucial. This pioneering article in the field of Innovationology represents a vital
resource for unlocking the transformative potential of visionary ideas and translating them into
game‐changing realities with unprecedented speed and efficiency, while also driving fundamental
shifts towards more inclusive, sustainable, and just societal outcomes. By embracing the
comprehensive, evidence‐based framework outlined in this seminal work, innovation practitioners,
researchers, and policymakers can catalyze a new era of accelerated, impact‐driven innovation ‐ one
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

that not only solves immediate problems but also lays the foundations for a more equitable, resilient,
and regenerative future for all.

References
Aldoseri, A., Al‐Khalifa, K. N., & Hamouda, A. M. (2024). AI‐Powered Innovation in Digital Transformation:
Key Pillars and Industry Impact. Sustainability, 16(5), 1790.
Almeida, F. (2024). Causes of Failure of Open Innovation Practices in Small‐and Medium‐Sized Enterprises.
Administrative Sciences, 14(3), 50.
Amshoff, B., Dülme, C., Echterfeld, J., & Gausemeier, J. (2015). Business model patterns for disruptive
technologies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(03), 1540002.
Bacciotti, D., Borgianni, Y., & Rotini, F. (2016). An original design approach for stimulating the ideation of new
product features. Computers in Industry, 75, 80‐100.
Battisti, G. (2008). Innovations and the economics of new technology spreading within and across users: Gaps
and way forward. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), S22‐S31.
Bau, F., Bentlage, J., Schlatmann, R., & Mitter, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence as a key enabler of innovation and
efficiency in retail banking: Conceptual model and case examples. International Journal of Innovation
Studies, 3(4), 95‐113.
Berg, L. P., & Vance, J. M. (2017). Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: a survey.
Virtual Reality, 21(1), 1‐17.
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: research, practices, and policies. California
Management Review, 60(2), 5‐16.
Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Business Review,
91(4), 60‐69.
Brem, A., & Voigt, K. I. (2009). Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and
innovation management—Insights from the German software industry. Technovation, 29(5), 351‐367.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open
innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.
Harvard Business Press.
Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. Routledge.
Consoli, D., & Elche, D. (2013). The evolving knowledge base of professional service sectors. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, 23(2), 443‐466.
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage‐gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business horizons, 33(3), 44‐
54.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A
systematic review of the literature. Journal of management studies, 47(6), 1154‐1191
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ʹdesign thinkingʹand its application. Design studies, 32(6), 521‐532.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy
of management journal, 50(1), 25‐32.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strategic management journal,
21(10‐11), 1105‐1121.
Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating
ʺArtʺ by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068.
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford
university press.
Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). The 4I‐framework of business model
innovation: A structured view on process phases and challenges. International Journal of Product
Development, 18(3‐4), 249‐273.
Gao, W., Zhang, Y., Ramanujan, D., Ramani, K., Chen, Y., Williams, C. B., ... & Zavattieri, P. D. (2015). The status,
challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Computer‐Aided Design, 69, 65‐89.
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2013). The St. Gallen business model navigator. University of St.
Gallen. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi‐
level perspective and a case‐study. Research policy, 31(8‐9), 1257‐1274.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D. W., & Stucker, B. (2015). Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid
prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing. Springer.
Gomes, C. M., & Kruglianskas, I. (2009). Successful innovation: developing a synergistic relationship between
technology and marketing. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1).
Güttel, W. H., Konlechner, S. W., & Trede, J. K. (2012). Standardized individuality versus individual
standardization: the role of the context in designing founder‐oriented organizations. Zeitschrift für
Personalforschung, 26(3), 270‐295.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1

10

Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Towards an ontology of design: lessons from C–K design theory
and Forcing. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 147‐163.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product
development. Journal of service research, 13(3), 283‐296. Kohavi, R., &
Kohavi, R., & Longbotham, R. (2017). Online controlled experiments and A/B testing. Encyclopedia of machine
learning and data mining, 7, 922‐929.
Kruger, S., & Steyn, A. A. (2024). Developing breakthrough innovation capabilities in university ecosystems: A
case study from South Africa. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198, 123002.
Lefort, C., Hooge, S., Thorel, M., Tyl, B., & Bertoluci, G. (2019). The efficiency of integrative design processes for
electric vehicle development: a comparative case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 854‐868.
Longbotham, R. (2017). Online controlled experiments and A/B testing. Encyclopedia of machine learning and
data mining, 7, 922‐929.
Metwaly, A. (2024). A Design‐Led Approach to Driving Successful R&D Transformations.
Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke
University Press.
Moleka, P. (2024a). Innovationology: A Comprehensive, Transdisciplinary Framework for Driving
Transformative Innovation in the 21st Century. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0700.v1
Moleka, P. (2024b). Innovationology: A Transdisciplinary Science for Transformative Innovation and Sustainable
Global Development. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.1064.v1
Moleka, P. (2024c). Frugal Innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development in Africa. Advanced Research in
Economics and Business Strategy Journal, 5(1), 107‐117.
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford
University Press.
Perez, C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno‐economic paradigms. Cambridge journal of economics,
34(1), 185‐202.
Plekhanov, D., Franke, H., & Netland, T. H. (2022). Digital transformation: A review and research agenda.
European Management Journal.
Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215‐
232.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. Human choice and climate change, 2(2), 327‐399.
Salter, A., & Alexy, O. (2014). The nature of innovation. The Oxford handbook of innovation management, 5, 26.
Schmitt, U. (2021). Reframing a novel decentralized knowledge management concept as a desirable vision: As
we may realize the memex. Sustainability, 13(7), 4038.
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory,
findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology analysis & strategic management, 20(5), 537‐554.
Schrage, M. (1993). The culture (s) of prototyping. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 4(1), 55‐65.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Seng, E., & Tan, S. C. (2024). Integrating knowledge‐building principles into design thinking: Scaffolding
innovative ideation: A systematic literature review. art, design & communication in higher education, 23(1), 25‐
42.
Thomke, S. (2020). Building a culture of experimentation. Harvard Business Review, 98(2), 58‐67.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2018). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational
change. John Wiley & Sons.
Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., & Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development
projects: impact on success and differences between incremental and radical projects. R&d Management,
38(1), 1‐19.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
products referred to in the content.