Mind mapping the topic of innovation
Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer
Hong
Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of innovation
is a main one in Business Management. This article makes use of the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the
knowledge structure of innovation. The finding of the review exercise is that
its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of
basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c)
Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to
practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from
the innovation literature review. The article offers some academic and
pedagogical values on the topics of innovation, literature review and the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.
Key words: Innovation, literature review, mind
map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach
Introduction
Innovation
is a main topic in Business Management. It is of academic and pedagogical
interest to the writer who has been a lecturer on Business Management subjects
for some tertiary education centres in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer
presents his literature review findings on innovation using the mind
mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by
this writer in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number
of topics, such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and
customer relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not
particularly novel as mind mapping has been employed in literature review since
its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:
1.
Render an image of the knowledge structure of
innovation via the application of the MMBLR approach;
2.
Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be
applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as innovation.
The findings from this literature review
exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in
the topics of innovation, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other than
that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on these
three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR
approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study innovation is
presented.
On the mind
mapping-based literature review approach
The mind mapping-based literature review
(MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use
of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page
and the Literature on literature review
Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic
analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of
the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR
approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is
not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature
review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. The MMBLR
approach is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers
with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will
select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e.,
step 1 of the MMBLR approach). Also, to conduct the approach, the reviewer
needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer
gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including
e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings
from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided
based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on innovation: step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on
the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this
is the innovation topic. The writer gathers some academic articles from some
universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar. With the academic
articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review on them to
assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called points
here). The points from the innovation literature are then grouped into four themes
here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight the key
concepts involved.
Theme
1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information
Point 1.1.
“The term ‘innovation’ has
been defined by the great Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter as: the
commercialization of all new combinations based upon the application of: new
materials and components; the introduction of new processes; the opening of new
markets; the introduction of new organizational forms” (Janszen, 2000);
Point 1.2.
“…invention relates to new ideas, novel
breakthroughs, and new discoveries. The key feature of an invention is its
newness and the fact that, as such, it is not normally immediately ready for
the market. Accordingly, innovations include not only the invention itself, but
also the activities and processes designed to commercialize these new ideas” (Arlbjøn, Haas and Munksgaard, 2011);
Point 1.3.
“Innovation processes
not only relate to processes of commercializing new ideas, but innovation also
refers to the broader capability of an organization to continuously renew itself” (Arlbjøn,
Haas and Munksgaard, 2011);
Point 1.4.
“The concept of creativity refers to the intention or creation or materialization of a new
concept/idea/thing that has a certain value. Normally, creativity is associated
with artwork and literary work and is linked with technology as well. A related concept
is that of innovation which is mostly associated with technology and is referred to as
the creation of better and more effective products, services, technologies,
etc.” (Bezergianni,
2013);
Point 1.5.
“The innovation orientation
culture arises from being externally
focused and being flexible. This
orientation is characterized by searching for new information in the external
environment, advocating changes, taking risks, creativity, competition,
anticipation, enough room for experimentation and a wish to be successful.
Power is primarily based on individual knowledge and the ability to solve
problems” (Das, 2003);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories
and thinking
Point 2.1.
“…technological
niches can be conceived as protected
socio-economic spaces where radical innovations are
developed and tested. In this context business incubation can occur, i.e. rooms
where the process of novelty (and its development) becomes a greatly valued
criterion and where there are quite different selection mechanisms with respect
to the normal environment” (Lopolito, Morone and Taylor, 2013);
Point 2.2.
“Among the different types
of innovation strategies that companies may choose, time-based strategies generate the most comments. There are two
opposing strategies: leadership—that is, being first on the market—and
followership—bringing out a better or cheaper product later through creative
imitation” (Bel, 2013);
Point 2.3.
“Cycles of hype and
disappointment are frequently observed in relation to new technologies. These
cycles involve proponents of a new technology promoting their positive
forecasts about the technology’s potential effects. Promotion of positive forecasts leads to
increasingly widespread enthusiastic expectations about the technology.
Subsequently, expectations fall and disappointment rises as positive
expectations cannot be met” (Fox, 2013);
Point 2.4.
“Firm size necessitates and
facilitates the adoption of organizational innovation …. Increasing size leads
to a corresponding increase in inherent differentiation
and complexity of the organization.
These increases, in turn, demand for innovative organizational methods to cope with
arising coordination problems” (Ganter
and Hecker, 2013);
Point 2.5.
“The literature on competing technologies during a transformative period exhibits a
consensus that a winning technology
emerges through the socio-political
dynamics among industry stakeholders, in particular those on the supply
side of technology” (Kim and Pennings, 2009);
Point 2.6.
“The NSI [National Systems of Innovation] concept rests on one fact and two well-established beliefs: (i)
countries exhibit systematic differences in terms of economic performance; (ii)
the latter largely depends on different technological and innovation
capabilities on the one side, and development of institutions on the other side
….; (iii) innovation and technology policies are an effective tool for
fostering innovation performance of countries” (Filippetti
and Archibugi, 2011);
Point 2.7.
“Top management can create an innovation
vision, formulate the strategy (the funding and resources dedicated to
innovation, the targets of innovation as well as the type of
innovation—products, services, solutions, business model), and support the
building of a company’s process from idea to market …, but it rarely matches
the strength of an entrepreneurship culture unleashing the creative and
innovative power of hundreds or thousands of employees” (Bel, 2013);
Point 2.8.
“What disrupts
incumbent firms in Christensen’s story is not their inability to conceive of
the disruptive technology: ….. he identifies the root of the tension in disruptive innovation as the conflict between the business model
already established for the existing technology, and that which may be required
to exploit the emerging, disruptive technology. Typically, the gross margins
for the emerging one are initially far below those of the established
technology” (Chesbrough,
2010);
Point 2.9.
“Whenever
something new is introduced into an organization, smooth functioning can only
be achieved when people actively participate in the introduction of the
innovation. Furthermore, innovation implementation
cannot be planned in such a way that no unexpected problems occur along the
way. Problems must therefore be anticipated and dealt with proactively and the
implementation itself often requires that people think about and use new
procedures with a self-starting sense” (Baer and Frese,
2003);
Point 2.10.
“…
two climate dimensions are of
particular importance in complementing the successful adoption of process
innovations. First, the organizational environment has to be supportive of an
active approach toward work….. Second,
the work environment has to be one in which people are safe to take
interpersonal risks and value each individual’s contribution to the work
process” (Baer and Frese, 2003);
Point 2.11.
“….for him [Schumpeter], innovation was very closely linked to
the emergence, growth and decline of
industries, which historically marked the development of capitalism” (Malerba, 2006);
Point 2.12.
“….knowledge sourcing and inter-organisational collaboration in geographical
proximity are especially important for industries that rely on a synthetic or
symbolic knowledge base since interpretation of the knowledge they deal with
tends to differ substantially from place to place” (James, Leiblein
and Lu, 2013);
Point 2.13.
“…organizational innovations usually reflect a high degree of idiosyncrasy and complexity. They are
typically specific to organizational context and tightly entangled with the
structures and resources of the implementing firm” (Ganter
and Hecker, 2013);
Point 2.14.
“A technological niche is successful when the firm that introduced the
innovation grows stronger and/or when other firms imitate the novel design. ….
this results in an attack on the stability of the dominant socio-technical
regime” (Lopolito,
Morone and Taylor, 2013);
Point 2.15.
“Choosing the business model as their unit of analysis,
they [Amit and Zott] identify novelty, lock-in complementarities and efficiency
as key aspects of business model innovation. However, these may often conflict
with the more traditional configurations of firm assets, whose managers are
likely to resist experiments that might threaten their ongoing value to the
company” (Chesbrough, 2010);
Point 2.16.
“Companies frequently attempt to gain a
competitive advantage in their market through innovation, yet this critical
factor is often elusive. Obtaining innovation requires both exploration to tap new opportunities and exploitation to enhance existing capabilities. The
ability to excel at these conflicting modes of innovation can be termed organisational ambidexterity” (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010);
Point 2.17.
“For managers, two questions need to be
answered in designing an innovation-focused
organization: (1) What is the locus of knowledge? (2) By which principles
do we integrate that knowledge?” (Wallin and Krogh, 2010);
Point 2.18.
“In Pavitt’s taxonomy,
professional, financial and business services belong for the most part to the
category of “supplier-dominated firms”
(i.e., supply of instruments and technical systems). The main characteristics
of this type of firm are as follows: they tend to be small, have no R-D
function and they may have difficulty in appropriating innovation through
technical means, which forces them to fall back on non-technical procedures,
such as branding, marketing, etc.” (Gallouj, 2002);
Point 2.19.
“Innovation
resistance is
the resistance offered by consumers to changes imposed by innovations. It is a
special version of resistance to change. It is normal response, not abnormal” (Dunphy and Herbig, 1995);
Point 2.20.
“Innovative
efforts not only create new markets …, but also bring existing industries to
new states, extend their life cycles, and reshape their competitive landscapes”
(Kim and Pennings, 2009);
Point 2.21.
“Making decisions about collective good is political almost by
definition. Hence, if the democratization
of innovation is relevant anywhere, then it certainly is in public services such as tram transport”
(Nahuis, 2005);
Point 2.22.
“Making decisions about
innovation occurs ever more frequently in complex
networks in which no dominant actors can be identified … And experts, consultants,
intermediaries, environmental and consumer organizations, and users themselves
have acquired considerable influence in the processes of innovation. Whether
the process succeeds or fails has become dependent on horizontal links and the
capacity to create intelligent alliances
with other actors” (Nahuis,
2005);
Point 2.23.
“Networks are critical not only for accessing knowledge to create in-house innovations, or for the
diffusion of technological innovation, but they are equally important for
learning about innovative work practices that other organizations have
developed or adopted” (Pittaway
et al., 2004);
Point 2.24.
“Notwithstanding
their benefits, alliances entail
mutual dependence on partners’ complementary resources, and this is
particularly true for vertical R&D alliances, where the development of
technological innovation depends largely on suppliers’ R&D results. In such
settings, alliances may be prone to rigidities when it comes to developing
breakthrough innovations” (Gassmann, Zeschky, Wolff and Stahl, 2010);
Point 2.25.
“Organisational ambidexterity is the ability to excel at exploration and exploitation e vital, but conflicting modes
of innovation.
Respectively,
these modes spark the imagination, invention and experimentation to create
future opportunities, and enhance current skills, specialisation and capacity
to meet today’s business demands” (Andriopoulos
and Lewis, 2010);
Point 2.26.
“Organizational innovation represents an important source of sustainable competitive
advantage …. This type of innovation has the potential to significantly increase firm performance. Reducing
production and transaction costs, improving labor productivity, helping to gain
access to non-tradable assets (such as non-codified external knowledge), and building of value adding capabilities
all contribute to achieving this goal” (Ganter and Hecker, 2013);
Point 2.27.
“Stevens and Burley …
developed a universal success
curve that is valid across most industries. They show that out of 3,000
initial ideas, 300 gave rise to experiments or patent files, out of which 125
became real projects, generating two product launches. Of these, only one
became a real commercial success” (Bel, 2013);
Point 2.28.
“Technology by itself has no single objective
value. The economic value of a technology remains latent until it is
commercialized in some way via a business model. The same technology
commercialized in two different ways will yield two different returns. In some
instances, an innovation can successfully employ a business model already
familiar to the firm” (Chesbrough,
2010);
Point 2.29.
“The
way firms innovate, search and learn over time, is … importantly affected
by a large array of institutions including the way labour market works,
industrial patterns of specialization, industrial relationships, education
system and financial structure” (Filippetti and
Archibugi, 2011);
Point 2.30.
“There
are two approaches to measuring
innovation at the level of the firm. One utilizes indicators available in
the public domain, such as R&D expenditure, number of patents and new
product announcements. The other uses survey instruments to capture a broader
range of indicators such as the proportion of technical, design or research
personnel, and proportion of sales or profits accounted for by products
launched in the past three or five years” (Tidd, 2001);
Point 2.31.
“When defining their innovation cooperation strategies,
firms search for two kinds of external partners: (a) those that allow them to
incrementally build on the firm’s existing internal knowledge and (b) those
that provide knowledge to aid defining trajectories that are new to the firm” (Faria, Lima and Santos, 2010);
Point 2.32.
“….factors
that affect the pace of the innovation
process are different for various industries. Innovation speed is
particularly important in environments characterized by competitive intensity …
and for firms facing rapid technological change and compressed product life
cycles … such high-technology (high-tech) industries” (Goktan and Miles, 2011);
Point 2.33.
“Whereas, inventions can be realized by an individual organization,
innovations are realized by efforts of a group of inter-related organizations
forming an industry. Successful breakthroughs or radical innovations require
endeavor of more than one organization, which facilitate each other’s work in
terms of skilled manpower, information, research, venture capital and
entrepreneurship” (Sabir and
Sabir, 2010);
Theme 3: Main research topics and
issues
Point 3.1.
“….innovation
management `best practice'
is contingent on a range of factors, and …… we need better characterizations of
the technological and market contingencies which affect the opportunity for,
and constraints on, innovation” (Tidd,
2001);
Point 3.2.
“…systematic
research and knowledge about supply
chain innovation (SCI) is little developed. There is a lack of common
terminology, of agreement about the conceptual understanding, and of related
empirical work” (Arlbjøn,
Haas and Munksgaard, 2011);
Point 3.3.
“Although product
innovation is a key tool for firms competing in the marketplace, innovating
firms often fail to obtain economic returns from their product innovations ….
Thus, how an innovating firm can profit from its product innovation represents
an important research question” (Su et al.,
2013);
Point 3.4.
“Over the past 25 years, the technology strategy literature has examined how four primary
mechanisms—patents, secrecy, lead time,
and complementary assets—influence
whether and to what extent firms capture value generated by their innovations.
Although this literature has had a profound impact on our understanding of how
firms capture value from innovation, we have yet to develop a robust theory
that allows us to unbundle the characteristics of institutions, industries,
firms, and individual technologies that affect the selection of particular
value capture mechanisms” (James, Leiblein and Lu,
2013);
Point 3.5.
“We expect that shared leadership will play a role in facilitating the teams’
ability to adapt to change and thus will be associated with team innovative
behavior…. Shared leadership reflects a
situation where multiple team members engage in leadership and is characterized
by collaborative decision-making and shared responsibility for outcomes” (Hoch, 2013);
Point 3.6.
“…many
innovative firms do not apply for patent
protection and that a patent application is not an innovation, but only one
of many possible innovation indicators. Though the use of patents as innovation
indicators has been debated, many scholars argue that it is a proper measure of
innovation” (Andersson
and Lööf, 2012);
Point 3.7.
“A
significant amount of study and research has been invested in describing traits
and differences between early adopters
and laggards but little effort has been made to understand the differences
between innovations and the potential adopter perception of attributes that are
most important in determining his rate of adoption” (Dunphy and Herbig, 1995);
Point 3.8.
“Although ambidexterity
studies have multiplied, together they provide an incomplete guide to
ambidexterity. Prescriptions remain fragmented and largely targeted toward top
management, in spite of claims that innovation tensions pervade organisations. James March described exploration-exploitation tensions as
nested across multiple levels, complicating management challenges” (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010);
Point 3.9.
“Conceptual
and empirical literature in the field of international management has long
suggested two distinct missions when it comes to transnational innovations …: One, focusing on the exploitation of
the firms’ existing capabilities, the other on the creation (augmentation,
exploration) of new capabilities” (Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2008);
Point 3.10.
“Conceptually, it is not
difficult to identify the contribution innovation can make to competitiveness
….. However, it is more difficult to establish a strong empirical relationship between innovation and performance. For
example, at firm level, the relationships between innovation inputs and outputs
is much weaker than at industry level. The weakness in the relationship may be
caused by methodological shortcomings or by the random unpredictability of
innovation” (Tidd, 2001);
Point 3.11.
“Concerning the relationship between
innovation and business cycles, two
extreme hypotheses can be outlined: according to the first, innovation is cyclical
and therefore firms tend to reduce their innovation efforts during
the downswing of the economy, while according to the second, it is instead counter-cyclical
and claims that recessions are a fertile environment for firms to
innovate” (Filippetti and Archibugi, 2011);
Point 3.12.
“Considerable attention has been focused on the ways in which emerging market firms can obtain and
mobilize the knowledge and resources required for innovation. Innovation is a
particular challenge in emerging markets because of inadequate external
institutions” (Chen et al., 2014);
Point 3.13.
“The notion of customer acceptance of a technological innovation
has largely been neglected in research on marketing. Of all of the ingredients
required for a successful innovation, the most important is customer need.
Businesses need to understand the reasons behind customer acceptance or
rejection in order to become more efficient in their development efforts, and
to recognize ways to improve competitiveness and profitability” (Dunphy and Herbig, 1995);
Point 3.14.
“The question of how firm size
is related to innovation has inspired scholars to produce one of the largest
bodies of literature in the field of industrial organization ….. Still, a
substantial part of this research may be associated with the two contrasting
Schumpeterian hypotheses—the importance of innovative activity increases or
decreases more than proportionately with firm size” (Andersson and Lööf, 2012);
Point 3.15.
“With few
exceptions, the study of innovation was long synonymous with the study of new
product and production process development. Recently, researchers increasingly
criticize such a narrow notion focusing exclusively on technological innovation” (Ganter and Hecker, 2013);
Point 3.16.
“… when
firms invite volunteer users to
contribute their knowledge to innovation, they cannot apply traditional
organizational hierarchy or leadership authority to directing, incentivizing,
and monitoring volunteers’ efforts. However, researchers have only begun to
focus on how managers can design their organizations to facilitate the use of outside knowledge in the
innovation process” (Wallin
and Krogh, 2010);
Point 3.17.
“There was a shift of attention away from transformation and
industrial dynamics towards the relationship between innovation and firm size,
on the one hand, and innovation and market
structure, on the other” (Malerba, 2006);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues
related to practices
Point 4.1.
“‘Innovation has become the industrial religion of the late 20th
century. Business sees it as the key to increasing profits and market share.
Governments automatically reach for it when trying to fix the economy’ …. In
particular, innovations aimed at enhancing organizational production and
service procedures and processes …. have been embraced by a wide variety of
businesses with increasing frequency” (Baer and Frese,
2003);
Point 4.2.
“According to the concept of national innovation system …, the
growth of a nation depends upon its capacity to produce innovative and
high-tech goods to be offered within and outside its territories. More and more
countries are focusing on enhancing their competitiveness through innovation
for development” (Sabir
and Sabir, 2010);
Point 4.3.
“Cooperative firms have, on average,
higher overall performance levels than do non-cooperative firms …. and a higher
R&D intensity …. since they are able to share investment costs and may take
advantage of partners’ resources and capabilities. The engagement in
cooperation activities, with the knowledge management it implies, also
increases the profitability of R&D” (Faria, Lima and Santos, 2010);
Point 4.4.
“Despite much talk of customer orientation, user insight, and
customer focus, the reality is that the user is often not at the core of the
innovation process. Manufacturers still believe that designing and
manufacturing a new product is a very complex task that cannot be left to
customers” (Bel, 2013);
Point 4.5.
“Innovative
products often generate controversy and uncertainty in the market ….
Initial offerings are often crude, show many shortcomings, and evoke doubts
about their potential benefits. In addition to technical uncertainty, there is
uncertainty as to whether a market for the innovative products exists and
whether users are willing to switch from their current products” (Kim
and Pennings, 2009);
Point 4.6.
“Over the past decade, an increasing number of
firms have started actively to involve customers, suppliers, and other parties
in product and process innovation. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as
‘‘open innovation.’’ Open innovation
can help firms by reducing the cost of product development and process
improvement, accelerating time to market for new products, improving product
quality, and accessing customer and supplier expertise outside the
organization” (Wallin and
Krogh, 2010);
Point 4.7.
“Process innovations are assumed to bring multiple benefits
to an organization and help an organization achieve competitive advantage.
However, a considerable number of businesses have adopted these practices
without much success” (Baer and Frese, 2003);
Point 4.8.
“Since the 1980s, the
increasing instability of the competitive environment, with shorter product and
technological life cycles, has forced firms to reconsider their innovation
strategy in order to widen their technology
base … In this context, cooperation has gained an important role in the
innovation process at the firm level, since innovation cooperation activities
are considered an efficient means for the industrial organization of complex
R&D and innovation processes” (Faria, Lima and Santos, 2010);
Point 4.9.
“The competences and quality of the
human resources, the specialization in the high technology sector, together
with the development of the financial system seem to be the structural factors
which are able to offset the effect of
the economic downturn on innovation investments of firms across Europe” (Filippetti and Archibugi, 2011);
Each of the four themes has a set of
associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together
they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the innovation
topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the writer’s
intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the innovation literature.
The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the readers where to
find the academic articles to learn more about the details on these points. Readers
are also referred to the Literature on innovation
studies Facebook page for additional information on this topic. The process
of conducting the thematic analysis is an exploratory as well as synthetic
learning endeavour on the topic’s literature. Once the structure of the themes,
sub-themes[1]
and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to
move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2
finding, i.e., a companion mind map on innovation, is presented in the next
section.
Mind
mapping-based literature review on innovation: step 2 (mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR
approach step 1 on innovation, the writer constructs a companion mind map shown
as Figure 1.
Referring to the mind map on innovation, the
topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four main
branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified in the
thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent the
points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in the
quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map renders
an image of the knowledge structure on innovation based on the thematic
analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning process on
literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and entertaining. The
resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and teaching material.
This mind mapping exercise confirms the writer’s previous experience using on
the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to the Literature on literature review Facebook
page and the Literature on mind
mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.
Concluding
remarks
The MMBLR approach to study innovation
provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have
been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016).
No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this
article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some
pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on innovation
in Business Management. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of
the knowledge structure on innovation in the form of a mind map should also be
of academic value to those who research on this topic.
Bibliography
1.
Ambos, B. and B.B. Schlegelmilch. 2008. “Innovation in
Multinational Firms: Does Cultural Fit Enhance Performance?” Management International Review 48:
189-206.
2.
Andersson,
M. and H. Lööf. 2012. “Small business innovation: firm level evidence from
Sweden” J Technol Transf 37,
Springer: 732-754.
3.
Andriopoulos,
C. and M.W. Lewis. 2010. “Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons
from Leading Product Design Companies” Long
Range Planning 43, Elsevier: 104-122.
4.
Arlbjøn, J.S., H.d. Haas and K.B. Munksgaard. 2011. “Exploring
supply chain innovation” Logist. Res.
3, Springer: 3-18.
5.
Baer, M. and M. Frese. 2003.
“Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety,
process innovations, and firm performance” Journal
of Organizational Behavior 24, Wiley: 45-68.
6.
Bel,
R. 2013. “Innovation: Misconceptions, Trends, and Directions” Global Business and Organizational
Excellence January/February: 71-87.
7.
Bezergianni,
S. 2013. “Conceiving, exploring, and exploiting innovative ideas: from waste
cooking oil to diesel” Journal of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2(9), Springer: 2-8.
8.
Chen,
V.Z., J. Li, D.M. Shapiro and X. Zhang. 2014. “Ownership structure and
innovation: An emerging market perspective” Asia Pac J Manag 31,Springer: 1-24.
9.
Chesbrough,
H. 2010. “Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers” Long Range Planning 43, Elsevier:
354-363.
10. Das, G.S. 2003. “Preparedness for
innovation: An Indian Perspective” Global
Business Review 4(1), Sage: 27-39.
11. Dunphy, S. and P.A. Herbig. 1995.
“Acceptance of innovations: The customer is the key!” The Journal of High Technology Management Research 6(2), JAI Press:
193-209.
12.
Faria,
R.d., F. Lima and R. Santos. 2010. “Cooperation in innovation activities: The
importance of partners” Research Policy
39, Elsevier: 1082-1092.
13. Filippetti, A. and D. Archibugi. 2011. “Innovation in times of
crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand” Research Policy 40, Elsevier: 179-192.
14. Fox, S. 2013. “The innovation big picture: Including effectiveness
dependencies, efficiency dependencies, and potential negative effects within
the framing of new technologies” Technology
in Society 35, Elsevier: 306-314.
15. Gallouj. F. 2002. “Innovation in
services and the attendant old and new myths” Journal of Socio-Economics 31, Elsevier Science Inc.,: 137-154.
16. Ganter, A. and A. Hecker. 2013.
“Deciphering antecedents of organizational innovation” Journal of Business Research 66, Elsevier: 575-584.
17. Gassmann, O., M. Zeschky, T.
Wolff and M. Stahl. 2010. “Crossing the Industry-Line: Breakthrough Innovation
through Cross-Industry Alliance with ‘Non-Suppliers’” Long Range Planning 43, Elsevier: 639-654.
18. Goktan, A.B. and G. Miles. 2011.
“Innovation speed and radicalness: are they inversely related?” Management Decision 49(4), Emerald:
533-547.
19. Ho,
J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature
review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
20. Hoch, J.E. 2013. “Shared
Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee
Integrity” J Bus Psychol 26,
Springer: 159-174.
21. James, S.D., M.J. Leiblein and S. Lu. 2013. “How Firms Capture
Value From Their Innovations” Journal of
Management 39(5) July, Springer: 1123-1155.
22.
Janszen,
F. 2000. The Age of Innovation,
Financial Times Prentice Hall, London.
23. Kim,
H.E. and J.M. Pennings. 2009. “Innovation and Strategic Renewal in Mature
Markets: A Study of the Tennis Racket Industry” Organization Science 20(2) March-April, INFORMS: 368-383.
24. Literature
on innovation studies Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-innovation-studies-601525926617090/).
25. Literature on literature review Facebook page,
maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
26. Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained
by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
27. Lopolito, A., P.
Morone and R. Taylor. 2013. “Emerging innovation niches: An agent based model” Research Policy 42, Elsevier: 1225-1238.
28. Malerba, F. 2006.
“Innovation and the evolution of industries” J Evol Econ 16, Springer: 3-23.
29.
Nahuis,
R. 2005. “The politics of innovation: Self-service on the Amsterdam trams” Technology
in Society 27, Elsevier: 229-241.
30. Pittaway, L., M. Robertson, K.
Munir, D. Denyer and A. Neely. 2004. “Networking and innovation: a systematic
review of the evidence” International Journal
of Management Reviews 5/6 (3&4): 137-168.
31. Sabir, R.I. and R.M. Sabir. 2010.
“Managing technological innovation: China’s strategy and challenges” Journal of Technology Management in China 5(3),
Emerald: 213-226.
32. Su, Z., E. Xie, H. Liu
and W. Sun. 2013. “Profiting from product innovation: The impact of legal,
marketing, and technological capabilities in different environmental
conditions” Mark Lett 24, Springer:
261-276.
33. Tidd, J. 2001. “Innovation management
in context: environment, organization and performance” International Journal of Management Reviews 3(3): 169-183.
34. Wallin, M.W. and G.V. Krogh. 2010.
“Organizing for Open Innovation: Focus on the Integration of Knowledge” Organizational Dynamics 39(2), Elsevier:
145-154.
Pdf version at : https://www.academia.edu/31258419/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_innovation
ReplyDelete