Innovation defined: a survey1

Innovation defined: a survey1 B.J.G. van der Kooij, Guest at the University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Proloque ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Searching for definitions ..................................................................................................................... 6

Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Common elements .............................................................................................................................. 9

Creating the variables ....................................................................................................................... 10

Classification of definitions ............................................................................................................... 11

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Absolute scores ................................................................................................................................. 13

Observations ................................................................................................................................ 13

Definition profiles ......................................................................................................................... 16

First evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 21

Relative scores .................................................................................................................................. 22

Relative to what? ......................................................................................................................... 22

Observations ................................................................................................................................ 23

Definition profiles ......................................................................................................................... 25

Second evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 28

Interpretation ............................................................................................................................ 29

Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................ 29

Primary hypothesis ....................................................................................................................... 29

Secondary hypothesis .................................................................................................................. 30

Falsification ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 33

Epiloque .................................................................................................................................... 34

April 2013. Last update: 4/27/2013 1:03:00 PM. Versie 1.0E .

1 This non-published article is based on research report EUT/BDK/33, University of Technology, Eindhoven, 1988. Available at: http://repository.tue.nl/305860

Van der Kooij/Definitions of Innovation/2

2

Addendum ................................................................................................................................. 41

1988-collection of definitions ........................................................................................................... 41

Before 1960 .................................................................................................................................. 41

1961-1970 .................................................................................................................................... 41

1971-1980 .................................................................................................................................... 43

1981-1988 .................................................................................................................................... 45

Tinnesand definitions ........................................................................................................................ 46

Tekst bevat 13626 woorden op 48 pagina’s


3

ABSTRACT

This paper focusses on the definition of the word ‘innovation’ as used in scholarly manuscripts

(books and articles) about the Innovation. The research was done in 1988, and reported in the Dutch

Language in a Research Paper of the University of Eindhoven (The Netherlands). As preparation for a

comparable larger study in 2013, the original material is reprocessed, updated and presented here in

the English language. 2

The basis for this analysis is a group of 76 definitions from the period 1952 – 1988 (and

Schumpeter’s definition from 1934). They resulted from a total of 300 manuscripts covering the

subject Innovation. This population had been classified according to eight variables that were

created from the keywords found in the definitions themselves. Variables like ‘’Subject’, ‘Stimulus’,

‘Moment’, ‘Novelty’, ‘Change’, ‘Object’, ‘Reference’,’ Success’. Of each of the definitions the year,

nation and field of origin was registered.

This paper consists out of five segments. In the Prologue we describe why we initiated the survey

and the method used for searching for definitions of the word ’Innovation’. In the second part we

describe the way we classified the found definitions. In the third part we present our observations

for both the individual variables and for the definition profiles. In the fourth part we define and

falsify the hypotheses. Finally in the Epilogue we try to reach an overall conclusion about what could

be considered the abstract version of a definition. The Addendum gives all the definitions and their

citations.

Basically the definitions are about changing something: ‘old thing’ plus ‘creating change’ is ‘new

thing’. It is a human induced and implemented activity. Innovation is for the authors defining

innovation (in the period 1950s -1980s) considered to be an activity or range of activities that are

primarily related to a product or (production) process. From the 1970s they also included changes in

(organizational) structures. Dominantly innovation definitions are about new products that become

in existence when the change into new is implemented. However, not too many definitions specify

the novelty-aspect (what is new?) and the reference-aspect (new in relation to what?). We conclude

with an abstract interpretation that innovation is a discontinuity that appears as a stepwise change

in the function of a system.

2 Author: Drs.Ir.Ing. B.J.G.van der Kooij (1947) is former professor in ‘Management of Innovation’ at the

University of Technology in Eindhoven. He has two degrees from the University of Technology in Delft (the Netherlands) in electrical engineering (B.S.E.E and M.S.E.E.), and a degree in management (M.S.B.A.) from the Erasmas University in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). He currently working on his Ph.D.dissertation.


4

PROLOQUE

In 1986 we were appointed a part time professorship at the University of Technology in

Eindhoven, Holland. The chair was in the “The Management of innovation processes”, so our

interest was certainly focused on the subject ‘Innovation’. Earlier we already had noticed that

many publications about innovation did not define to clearly the main subject of their interest.

Whole publications talked about ‘innovation’’ without spending any word on what ‘innovation’’

was to them. It often looked like the word ‘innovation’ was just a replacement for the word ‘new’

as in ‘new product’ and ‘new technology’. Maybe understandable in popular, mass oriented

publications, but not expected in the scholarly articles oriented at more professional readers. And

certainly not in research based publications that were drawing serious conclusions related to

innovation. With effects on governmental ‘innovation policy’ or on firms ‘creating the innovative

organization’.

Well, the topic of innovation is certainly a complex one as eloquently described by Patrick Kelly

and Melvin Krantz when they reported in 1978 on the current status of current knowledge of

innovation (Kelly & Krantzberg, 1978). Technological innovations result often in a new product

(product innovation), a new (production)process (process-innovation) or a new structure

(organizational innovation). The change may be earthshaking (radical innovation), it may be a

breakthrough (basic innovation), disrupting the existing order (disruptive innovation), just be an

improvement (incremental innovation) or it even may be an imitation (imitative innovations). So

there is quite diversity in innovations themselves. But it is even more complex when we look at the

dimensions of the process in which innovations are conceived, developed, introduced and diffused.

Looking at the organizational dimensions this multi phased process is complex involving different

parts of organizations (organizational change). Looking form a social point of view at the process of

innovation (all the activities that result in an innovation), it can be completely new to the

organization, disrupting the existing organizational culture (social change). From the economic point

of view, innovation needs the considerable commitments of resources; investments in knowhow and

new techniques (economic change). The word innovation covers quite a multidimensional concept.

But there is more as we realize that Innovation takes place in small and large organizations within a

specific context defined by internal and external factors. Internal factors like the corporate structure

and strategy, R&D facilities, internal resistance to change. External factors like the institutions

related to the market and industry structure, competition from other companies and the influence

of government policy. This all illustrates the natural complexity of (technological) innovation as a


5

multidimensional topic which attracted the attention scholars with completely different

backgrounds. And they all use the one word ‘innovation’, sometimes just the word ‘innovation’,

sometimes as ’an innovation’3, that is always about changes. Changes that result in the creation of

something new. In simple terms: ‘old’ plus ‘change’ creates ‘new’.

So much for the complexity of innovation. Now let’s go back to our definition-issue. How can a

scholar write an article about innovation, using the word innovation more than 150 times, also in the

title, without even to try and defining it? Sure often, by knowing other work of this author, on can

assume how he would interpretate innovation. In 1967 Becker and Whisler stated, after quoting

other scholar’s definitions of (organizational) innovation: “In these definitions clear distinction is

seldom made between innovation, invention, and change or adaptation. We believe that such

distinction is necessary.” (Selwyn W. Becker & Whisler, 1967, pp. 462-463). Even worse is the

resulting confusion as noted by Downs and Mohr: “Perhaps the most alarming characteristic of the

body of empirical study of innovation is the extreme variance among its findings, what we call

instability. Factors found to be important for innovation in one study are found to be considerably

less important, not important at all, or even inversely important in another study. This phenomenon

occurs with relentless regularity. [...] Despite - or perhaps because of - the involvement of a diverse

group of researchers, results at the empirical level often are non-comparable and occasionally

contradictory.” (Downs & Mohr, 1976, p. 700).

The problem is clear, let’s try and find out more about definitions of innovation. We decided on a

small exploratory literature search looking for some serious definitions of the word ‘innovation’. The

project of 1988 was presented in a Research Paper in the Dutch language. In 2013, preparing for a

more extensive study on the same subject, we redid the research and you find it here presented in

the English language. By the way, some twenty odd years later the same problem exists as noted in

1996 by Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour: “However, researchers within each discipline conceptualize

innovation differently, and have quite different views of its impact on an industry or a firm's

productivity, survival, growth, and performance. Thus, the theoretical and practical value of research

from one field is not entirely clear for another because of differences in research focus and variations

in the way innovation is defined. [...] Our overview of the dimensions of innovation establishes that

there is no one commonly accepted definition of innovation.” (Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997,

pp. 15, 19).

3 This is quite similar to the use of the word ‘organization’: sometimes it is just meant as ‘organization’,

sometimes it is meant as ‘an organization’


6

Searching for definitions

So we started looking for some serious definitions of the word ‘innovation’. Considering that, if

an author decided to use the word ‘innovation’ (or it’s derivate like ‘innovator’, ‘innovating’) in the

title of his/her publication, one can assume that ‘innovation’ is an important subject in the

discourse. A second assumption was, that given the word ‘innovation’ in the title, the body of the

manuscript would be about (1) innovation as a subject itself (as in: ‘a study about innovation’ from

an scientific point of view), (2) innovation as a practice (as in: ‘introducing innovation into the firm’)

or (3) about the results of, the experiences with innovation (as in: ‘the description of the new

product/process itself’ from a practical point of view). Certainly in the first group – with titles like:

“Designing the innovating organization ...” (Galbraith, 1982) or “Successful industrial innovations...”

(Myers & Marquis, 1969)- we expected to find the most definitions. Maybe less in the second group

that would also include thinkers, gurus, consultants, managers, etc. paying attention to innovation.

Like Peter Drucker in: ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ (1985). The third group would encompass

(auto)biographic writers practically active in the field of innovation itself (with titles as ‘My years at

General Motors/Ford/Xerox/Lockheed’). Knowing that also quite some authors in non-scientific

publications used the word innovation to stimulate the sales of their work, we tried to exclude that

type of manuscripts as much as possible.

In a first search round, in the keyword file system of the library of the University of Eindhoven,

some 240 publications with the keyword ‘innovation’ in their title were identified4. In the second

round the publications of authors cited in those primarily identified publications were investigated,

together with publications already known to us from earlier work (Kooij, 1983). These included for

example publications on ‘techn(olog)ical change’, ‘organizational change’, ‘management of change’.

In total some 300 publications were identified, found and investigated. By ‘investigated’ meaning

that we looked in the table of contents, the abstracts (if available) and the index for an indication of

the keywords ‘definition’, ‘defined’, ‘consider to be’, ‘For us [innovation] is ........’. We also included

those situations when we felt that a chapter title justified more attention (I.e. ‘concept of

innovation’, ‘theory of innovation’, ‘innovation model’). In 100 publications we found some form of a

definition. And by ‘definition’ we mean a description like ”An innovation is...”, not a discourse of

several pages describing innovation at length without concluding in a usable definition. As quite a

4 This work was done manually as we were in the pre-internet days without Google Scholar and other

electronic search facilities.


7

few authors referred in their description to a definition created by another author (like ‘based on

Schmookler’s, Schumpeter’s, Mansfield, etc.), we were left with 53 usable definitions.

During the search we found a PhD dissertation by B.Tinnesand (1973) which revealed a collection

of definitions from the period 1951-1971 from literature on innovation in economics, marketing5,

psychology, social-psychology, sociology and business administration. He reported that, after

reviewing 188 sources, 108 sources were failing to present a formal definition. In Table 1 his

breakdown is shown where he related the definitions to the groups of literature sources and to their

major characteristic.

Table 1: Usage of the concept of innovation 1951-1971 (Tinnesand; Table 2)

Groups:

Definition: Ec

on

om

ics

Ma

rke

tin

g

Ps

yc

ho

log

y &

So

cio

log

y

Bu

sin

ess

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

To

tal

No definition available 33 36 14 25 108 Innovation as...

...New idea 2 8 1 2 13

...Introduction/application of a new idea 11 4 7 7 29 …Invention 3 1 2 1 7 …Introduction/application of invention 8 0 0 3 11 …qualitatively different form existing form 0 6 2 3 11 ...Introduction/adoption of disruptive idea 1 5 1 2 9

Subtotal 25 24 13 18 80

Total 58 60 27 43 188 Source: (Tinnesand, 1973, p. 17)

Among the 80 sources left he observed a lot of ‘new idea’ related definitions (13 sources) or

‘introduction or application of a new idea’ related definitions (29 sources): i.e. “... an idea perceived

as new by the individual”. He also observed ‘synonymously with invention’ related definitions (7

sources) or ‘introduction/application of an invention’ related definitions (11 sources): i.e. “....the

process of bringing an invention into use.” From the rest he found 11 sources to consider innovation

qualitatively different from an existing form; i.e. “Innovation is the fundamental change in a

significant number of tasks”. And 9 sources related innovation to the introduction/adoption of a

disruptive idea: i.e. “An innovation is anything perceived to be new by the potential trier, the

adoption of which would tend to alter significantly his existing patterns of behavior.” (Tinnesand,

1973, pp. 16-17).

5 Like books published by the American Marketing Association.


8

He concluded that “[....] most writers fail to present a formal definition of the concept”. He

additionally stated, obviously being a follower of Schumpeter’s creative destruction concept

(discontinuities disrupting the equilibrium): “We are of the opinion that the disequilibrium of

disturbance creating force of innovation, as suggested by Schumpeter, is the essential characteristic

of an innovation on which an appropriate definition of the concept should be based.” (Tinnesand,

1973, pp. 16, 26).

This Tinnesand study added (in 1988) another 23 usable definitions (including his own definition)

to our population of definitions. So we ended up with a population of 76 definitions. In Figure 1 for

the total population of definitions the breakdown into the ‘nation of origin’ and the ‘field or origin’ is

shown.

Figure 1: Total population: field of origin (left) and nation of origin (right)

Figure 2: Number of definitions found in a given year

6

26

8 6

3

11

0 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Economic Organizational Marketing Technical

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

USA Europe

56

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

USA Europe

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

0

1 1

2

0 0 0

1 1

0 0 0 0

5

0

5

1

10

5

4

5

4

2 2

5

1 1

0

2 2 2

0

2 2

6

0

1

2

19

50

19

51

19

52

19

53

19

54

19

55

19

56

19

57

19

58

19

59

19

60

19

61

19

62

19

63

19

64

19

65

19

66

19

67

19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

19

72

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87


9

ANALYSIS

So we had our collection of definitions. A range of totally different descriptions of innovations.

Some hardly usable, like Sach’s definition: “[...] far reaching basic changes.” (Sachs, 1963) and

Casinco’s definition: “[...] a drastic change to something different.”(Casinco, 1963). The one word

(=element) they have in common is ‘change’ of a certain kind.

Common elements

To analyze the definitions, we scanned the definitions for their contributing elements (aka

keywords). We looked for similar elements to create variables. Take for example Knight’s definition:

“An innovation is the adoption of a change which is new to the organization and to the relevant

environment.” (Knight, 1967, p. 1). This definition is not about a new product nor about a new

technology. It has the keywords ‘adoption’, ‘change’, ‘new’, ‘to the organization’ and ‘to the relevant

environment’. Totally different from Mansfeld’s definition: “An invention, when applied for the first

time, is called an innovation” (Mansfield, 1968, p. 99). This definition has the keywords ‘invention’

and ‘first time’. This scanning of the definitions resulted in a range of elements that were grouped.

For example, the elements that were related to object-definitions, activity-definitions and process-

definitions were group under the label ‘subject’. Or the elements that were related to the aspect

‘new’: new in absolute terms (i.e. ‘... is something new...’), new in relational terms (i.e. ‘... new to the

market’) that were grouped under the label ‘novelty’. And so on. Thus we were following a rather

pragmatic approach.

We realized that a specific definition has to be seen within its context. A context that is more or

less identifiable by the characteristics of the author and the period in time of the publication. Or the

author is telling us the context: “Since we are interested in innovation as a social process rather than

a product of a scientific discovery,[...].” (Carroll, 1967, p. 532). Using the two examples, we identified

Knight as a 1963 Ph.D.-student at the Carnegie Institute of Technology and assistant professor at the

Graduate School of Business at Stanford University around 1967 (publication year), and Mansfield as

a professor of economics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania around 1968

(publication year). Reading his article, Knights definition certainly was related to ‘organizational

innovation’ and Mansfield’s definition was related to – the diffusion of – ‘technological innovation’.

Earlier Mansfield published an impressing article on twelve innovations in bituminous coal (i.e.

continuous mining machine), in iron and steel (i.e. continuous wide strip mill), in brewing (i.e. high

speed bottle filler) and in railroads (i.e. the diesel locomotive, centralized traffic control and car

retarders), without seeing the need for any form of definition (Mansfield, 1961).


10

Creating the variables

Finally we constructed, after a trial round, eight variables which covered the elements of the

definitions. For each variable we decided upon the values they could have when a certain element

was identified :

1. Subject: What is defined by the definition? What is the subject of the definition? Is it a (physical,

nonphysical) object (an innovation), an activity (to innovate) or process (as in a range of

innovative activities)? So the values for this variable are: [object, activity, process].

2. Stimulus: What initiated the innovation the definition refers to? Is it an internal cause (‘initiated

by discovery...” or is it an external cause (“... in response to a need or an opportunity....”)? So

the values for this variable are: [internal, external].

3. Moment: What is the moment of innovation? Was it the time of its initiation (of the idea), its

adaption (of the idea), its realization (in something tangible like a prototype) or was it the time

of its implementation (into the organization, marketplace)? So the values for this variable are:

[initiation, adoption, realization, implementation].

4. Novelty: What is the novelty aspect of the innovation? Is it ‘new’ in absolute terms or is it ‘new’

in relative terms (i.e. new to the market, organization)? So the values for this variable are:

[absolute, relative].

5. Change: What is the use of the change-element? Is it just ‘any change’ or is it a specific change

(i.e. a discontinuity)? So the values for this variable are: [any change, discontinuity].

6. Object: What is the object of the definition? Is it a (physical/nonphysical) product, a (production)

process, an (organizational) structure? So the values for this variable are: [product, process,

structure].

7. Reference: What is the point of reference? Is it internal oriented (new for the person, the

organization) of external orientated (new to the market, industry, world)? So the values for this

variable are: [internal, external].

8. Success: Is there some form of value judgment? This relates to the use of elements like

‘successful’, ‘useful’. So the value for this variable is: [judgment]

In addition to the above mentioned variables we added variables like year of publication, nation

of origin and field or origin:

9. Year of origin: This is the year of actual publication as indicated in the publication itself. So the

value of this variable is [year].


11

10. Nation of origin: We identified the authors as having an American or European nation or origin.

(Maybe a more appropriate term would be ‘continent of origin’). This, however, is quite a

subjective interpretation as illustrated by a Austrian educated professor, working on Austrian,

German and American Universities: is the origin of his work European or American? As we

expect that his major influence would be during his work on the American University, we would

identify this as ‘USA’. In only one cases (Schumpeter who we actually had in mind describing this

example), we would consider the nation of origin both European (early work: Schumpeter I) and

American (later work: Schumpeter II). So the values for this variable are: [USA, Europe].

11. Field of origin: Here we tried to distinguish between Economic, Organizational, Managerial and

Technical. Sometimes depending on the publication in which the article appeared, but also other

indicators (i.e. the title itself) were used. Again, this is all quite subjective as illustrated by an

economist writing about the organization of R&D in a management publication. So the values for

this variable are: [Economics, Organizational, Marketing, Technical].

12. Topic idea/invention6: Because Tinnesand observed a certain dominance of the ‘idea’-element

and the ‘invention’-element in many of the definitions he collected, we included a variable

relating to the use of the word idea/invention in the definition (i.e. “[...] the commercial

introduction of an invention.” ). So the values for this variable are [idea, invention].

Concluding, the creation of this set of variables is not based on any specific theory or standard

available methodology. It is based on the grouping of elements found in the collection of definitions

itself.

Classification of definitions

We then proceeded to classify each of the available definitions7. This is quite a subjective activity

which has a high intuitive content. The original 1988-scores were taken and each was evaluated.

Sometimes leading to adaptations in the scores (indicated red in table). This means that the resulting

conclusions in this 2013 interpretation can be (slightly) different from the 1988-study. Thus each of

the 76 definitions was evaluated and scored according to the before mentioned 12 variables: 8

primary variables for the definition itself and 4 secondary variables for others use. For each variable

a dataset was created. Thus creating 76 individual definition profiles based on 12 datasets of the

type [0010]. To give some examples:

6 This variable was not reported on in the original 1988-study. It is added in the 2013 version.

7 The classification was registered in a spreadsheet where each definition and its classification was occupying a

row. The values for the variable were placed in columns. So a ‘0’ or ‘1’ in a cell would indicate as a score for a certain variable for a given definition.


12

Table 2: Example of classification methodology

Variable:

S

ub

jec

t

Sti

mu

lus

Mo

me

nt

No

ve

lty

Ch

an

ge

Ob

jec

t

Re

fere

nc

e

Su

cc

ess

Ye

ar

Na

tio

n

Fie

ld

To

pic

Values:

Ob

ject

,

acti

vity

pro

ces

Inte

rnal

ex

trn

al

init

iati

on

, ad

op

tio

n,

real

izat

ion

,

imp

lem

enta

tio

n

abso

lute

, re

lati

ve

any

chan

ge,

dis

con

tin

uit

y

pro

du

ct,

pro

cess

, st

ruct

ure

inte

rnal

,

exte

rnal

jud

gmen

t

USA

,

Euro

pe

Eco

no

mic

s,

Org

aniz

atio

nal

,

Mar

keti

ng,

Te

chn

ical

,

idea

,

inve

nti

on

“The implementation of new procedures or ideas, whether a product of invention or discovery , will be referred to [...] as innovation.” (Evan & Black, 1967)

Act

ivit

y

-

imp

lem

en

tati

on

abso

lute

- - - -

19

67

USA

Eco

no

mic

s

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Idea

inve

nti

on

Definition profile [0,1,0] [0,0] [0,0,0,1] [1,0] [0,0] [0,0,0] [0,0] [0] [1967] [1,0] [1,0,0,0,0] [1,1]

“Innovation is the process of applying a new idea to create a new process or product” [Galbraith, 1982]

pro

cess

- -

abso

lute

-

Pro

du

ct, p

roce

ss

- -

19

82

USA

Eco

no

mic

s

Idea

Definition profile [0,0,1] [0,0] [0,0,0,0] [1,0] [0,0] [1,1,0] [0,0] [0] [1982] [1,0] [1,0,0,0,0] [1,0]

Using the definitions found in our 1988 study, we checked again every definition and its citation

(in 2013) on its correctness. Some sources however could not be found anymore, or where not

available for a check-up (mostly books not available in electronic form).

Every definition was placed in a worksheet and classified. For some definitions a realistic

classification based on the variables was nearly impossible. Like Cyert & March’s definition: " […]

new solutions to a problem that currently faces the organization."; Shephard’s definition: “When an

organization learns (not) to do things it did not know how to do before, and then proceeds (not) to do

so in a sustained way, a process of innovation has occurred.”; Tannenbaum’s definition: "Technical

innovation is the novel application of physical knowledge and technique to make premeditated

changes in the physical aspects of the environment.”; Drucker’s definition: "It can be defined as

changing the yield of resources. Or, [….], as changing the satisfaction obtained from resources by the

customer. "; Casinco’s definition: “[...] a drastic change to something different.” ; Carter’s definition:

“Innovation is the application of knowledge.” ; McNair’s definition: "[...] a bright new idea.”. We

tried to classify them keeping the context of the definition in mind.


13

RESULTS

In the following we will present the results of the qualification of the definitions. We will start

with observations for the variables, followed by definition profiles for the total of variables. The

results are shown in an absolute way; the number of

scores for a specific variable.

Absolute scores

Observations

Observation 1: The definitions are focusing on

innovation as a) an activity or b) a range of

activities (innovation as a process) and c) not that

much on innovation as an object.

As shown in Figure 3 most (58/76) of the

classifiable definitions were considering innovation

to be a) an activity (32/76) or b) a range of activities

(26/76).

Observation 2: The definitions do not pay attention to

what initiated the innovation.

Only 8 out of the 76 definitions (Figure 4) had an

explicit reference if the innovation was initiated by

a need (from the market) or an opportunity (from

the technology).

Observation 3: The majority of the definitions are

considering the moment of implementation as

decisive.

As shown in Figure 5 most (28/40) of the

classifiable definitions consider the moment when

one can talk about the change being an innovation,

to be the moment of implementation (in the

organization, in the marketplace).

Figure 3: The Subject-variable

13

32

26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Object Activity ProcessN

um

be

r o

f d

efi

nit

ion

s

Figure 4: The stimulus-variable

6 2 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Internal External

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

tio

ns

Figure 5: The moment in time-variable

4 5 3

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns


14

Observation 4: The majority of the definitions are

considering the novelty aspect, mostly in absolute

terms (Figure 6).

Many definitions (48/76) refer to the novelty

aspect without explain what they mean by new. It

is mostly (39/76) used in an absolute way: ‘new’ is

just ‘new’. Some (9/76) indicated the newness to

be related to the organization or the market.

Observation 5: A minority of the definitions refer to the

element of change (Figure 7).

Implicitly innovation is a change in something. But

what kind of change: gradually, drastic, substantial

disturbance? Only 8/76 definitions relate to a

‘discontinuity’.

Observation 6: The object of the definitions is either a

product or a process. For a minority it also can be a

structure (Figure 8).

For a majority of the definitions an innovation is

either a product-innovation (32/76) or a

(production) process-innovation (21/76). A

minority also considers an organizational

innovation (7/76).

Observation 7: For a minority of the definitions a point

of reference is given (Figure 9).

An innovation can be a change that is new

‘internally’ (for the individual, for the organization

itself), or it can be new ‘externally’ (for the

market, for the world). Only 9 out of 76 definitions

refer to this element.

Figure 6: The novelty-variable

39

9 0

10

20

30

40

Absolute Relative

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Figure 7: The change-variable

11 8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Any change Discontinuity

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Figure 8: The object-variable

32

21

7 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Product Process Structure

Nu

mb

er

of

De

fin

itio

ns

Figure 9: The reference-variable

6 3 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Internal External

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns


15

Observation 8: The success-element is not a relevant

factor in the definitions. (no graph)

Only 6/76 definitions use the word ‘success’.

Those were the observations about the definitions

and the primary variables. We next analyzed the

definitions also for the secondary variables: their year,

nation and field or origin.

Observation 9: The field of origin-element is a

relevant factor in analyzing the definitions.

As 70/76 definitions can be attributed to their field

of origin (Figure 10) and the definitions originating

from authors in the ‘organizational’ field, this

variable is quite important.

Observation 10: The nation of origin-element is a

relevant factor in analyzing the definitions.

As shown in Figure 11 76/76 definitions can be

attributed to their nation of origin (USA or

Europe).

Observation 11: Tinnesands observation of

idea/invention can be confirmed

Tinnesand noted (see Table 1) the dominant use of

the words ‘idea’ and ‘invention’ in his definitions.

For the totality of our definitions (which include a

part of Tinnesands definitions) the word ‘idea’

scores 16/76 and the word ‘invention’ 12/76

(Figure 12).

Figure 10: The field of origin-variable

13

39

10 8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Eco

no

mic

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Mar

keti

ng

Tech

nic

al

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Figure 11: The nation of origin-variable

56

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

USA Europe

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Figure 12: The topic idea/invention variable

10 8

6 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Idea Invention

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Definitions Tinnesand

Definitions 1988-study


16

Definition profiles

Combining the totality of the 8 primary variables and the result of the classification we next

created ‘definition profiles’. This definition profile gives a visual representation of the totality of the

scores for all the varaibles. In the following we will present our observations about the profiles.

Profile 1: General profile of totality of definitions

In Figure 13 such a definition profile for the totality of the 76 definitions is shown.

Observation A: Innovation is seen as an activity (32 scores) or a range of activities = process

(26 scores). In fact it considers more ‘the act of innovating’ that the ‘innovation’ itself.

Observation B: One talks about innovation when it is implemented.

Observation C: Innovation is related to the absolute ‘new’, but ‘new in relation to what’ is

hardly an issue.

Observation D: When innovation is spoken about, it mostly relates to product-innovation and

(production)process-innovation.

Figure 13: General profile of the totality of definitions.

13

32

26

6

2 4

5 3

28

39

9 11

8

32

21

7 6

3

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Ob

ject

Act

ivit

y

Pro

cess

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Init

iati

on

Ad

op

tio

n

Re

aliz

atio

n

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Ab

solu

te

Re

lati

ve

An

y ch

ange

Dis

con

tin

uit

y

Pro

du

ct

Pro

cess

Stru

ctu

re

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Jud

gmen

t

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

A B C D


17

Profile 2: ‘Field of origin’ profile of totality of definitions

When we break down the totality of the definitions into the professional background of the

author (see Figure 14 where we use the ,economic, organizational, marketing or technical

background of the author), we can observe the following:

Observation E: The authors with an organizational background seem to dominate the general

definition profile. However, we have to realize that the classification of this variable is

quite subjective (Figure 14).

Figure 14: ‘Field or origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.

2

7

3 0 0 0 1 0

8 6

1 2 1

10 7

3 0 0 0

3

5

0

1 0 1 0 0

2 4

1 0 4

1

1

0

1 0 0

1

4

3

1 0

0 0 0

4 3

1 2

1

2

2

1

1 0 0

6

13

17

5

2 2 3

3

11

23

5 6 2

16

10

3 4

3 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ob

ject

Act

ivit

y

Pro

cess

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Init

iati

on

Ad

op

tio

n

Re

aliz

atio

n

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Ab

solu

te

Re

lati

ve

An

y ch

ange

Dis

con

tin

uit

y

Pro

du

ct

Pro

cess

Stru

ctu

re

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Jud

gmen

t

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Economic Marketing Technical OrganizationalE


18

Profile 3: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of totality of definitions

When we break down the totality of the definitions by ‘nation of origin’ (see Figure 15, where

we distinguished between the continents USA and Europe) we can make the following

observations:

Observation F: As this classification is quite solid we can conclude that the authors with an

American background dominate the definition profile. There seems to be a slight

difference in orientation though, where ‘European’ definitions focus on innovation as a

process and ‘American’ definitions focus on innovation as an activity (Figure 15).

Figure 15: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.

3

6

12

1 0

1 0 0

8 9

2 2 1

13

6

2 3

0

3

10

26

14

5

2 3

5

3

20

30

7

9

7

19

15

5

3 3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ob

ject

Act

ivit

y

Pro

cess

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Init

iati

on

Ad

op

tio

n

Re

aliz

atio

n

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Ab

solu

te

Re

lati

ve

An

y ch

ange

Dis

con

tin

uit

y

Pro

du

ct

Pro

cess

Stru

ctu

re

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Jud

gmen

t

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Europe USA

F


19

Profile 4: ‘Period of origin’ profile of totality of definitions

The total number of definitions has about the same amount of definitions before 1970 as after

1970. So, when we break down the totality of the definitions over two different periods (see

Figure 16 where we distinguish the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period) we can make

the following observations:

Observation G: The past-1970 definition-profile see innovation as a activity and process, and

seems to differ from the pre-1970 profile where the definitions focus on the innovation as

an activity.

Observation H: The past-1970 definition profile seem to consider the novelty-element even

more in absolute terms than the pre-1970 definitions.

Observation I: In the past-1970 period innovation is more and more related to product and

production-processes than in the pre-1970 period.

Figure 16: ‘Period of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.

7

15

10

1 0

2

4

1

11

15

5 5 6

11

8

2 1

2 2

6

17 16

5

2 2 1

2

17

24

4

6

2

21

13

5 5

1

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ob

ject

Act

ivit

y

Pro

cess

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Init

iati

on

Ad

op

tio

n

Re

aliz

atio

n

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Ab

solu

te

Re

lati

ve

An

y ch

ange

Dis

con

tin

uit

y

Pro

du

ct

Pro

cess

Stru

ctu

re

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Jud

gmen

t

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Definitions <1970 Defintions >=1970

G H I


20

Profile 5: ‘Idea/Invention origin’ profile of totality of definitions

Tinnesand noted that in his collection of usable definitions quite a few used either the word

‘idea’ or ‘invention’ (Table 1). As his definitions are from the 1951-1973 period they indicate a

specific character of the definitions in this period. Looking at the score for the elements

‘invention’ and ‘idea’ we observe the following

Observation J: Both the idea-definitions and the invention-definitions are focusing on

innovation as a range of activities (= process).

Observation K: For both groups of definitions the moment of implementation is decisive.

Observation L: The idea-definitions are considering the novelty element more as absolute new

than the inventions-definitions.

Observation M: Both the idea-definitions and the invention-definitions are focusing on

product innovation.

Figure 17: ‘Idea/Invention origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.

4

3

4

1

0 0

1

0

6

3

0 0 0

8

1

0 0 0

1

2

5

8

2

0

3

1 1

6

10

0

2

1

8

5

1

0

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Ob

ject

Act

ivit

y

Pro

cess

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Init

iati

on

Ad

op

tio

n

Re

aliz

atio

n

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Ab

solu

te

Re

lati

ve

An

y ch

ange

Dis

con

tin

uit

y

Pro

du

ct

Pro

cess

Stru

ctu

re

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

Jud

gmen

t

Nu

mb

er

of

de

fin

itio

ns

Origin is invention Origin is idea

JG

K L M


21

First evaluation

We presented the observations and the definition-profiles for the total population of definitions

in absolute terms. Looking at the profiles with their absolute scores for the 8 variables (Figure 13) we

can conclude that only the following variables seem to be important in the totality of the definitions:

The variable ‘subject’: This variable scores 71 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this

variable is quite relevant.

The variable ‘moment’: This variable scores 40 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this

variable has some relevance.

The variable ‘novelty’: This variable scores 48 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this


The variable ‘object’: This variable scores 50 out of the total of 76 definitions indicating this


The other primary variables have scores so low that these variables seem not to be that relevant.

This is shown in Table 3 where the low scores are marked in red.

Looking at the secondary variables we can conclude the following:

The variable ‘Field of origin’: This variable, being quite subjective when the scores were

made, scores 70 times for the 76 definitions. It seems to be an indicator of the influence of

authors with an ‘organizational’ background.

The variable ‘Nation of origin’: This variable scores also 70 times for the 76 definitions. It

seems to be indicator for the dominance of authors with a USA-background.

The variable ‘Idea/Invention origin’: The dominance of definitions using the idea- or

invention- element, as indicated by Tinnesand, is not recognizable in the totality of the

definitions with the score of 16/76 resp. 12/76.

Table 3: Overview of scores for each of the variables

Subject Stimulus Moment Novelty Change Object Reference Success

Total score 71/76 8/76 40/76 48/76 19/76 50/76 9/76 6/76 Percentage 93% 11% 53% 63% 25% 66% 12% 8%


22

Relative scores

In the preceding observations the results were presented in an absolute way. The vertical axe

was the number of definitions that had a score for the item classified. Now, for each of the relevant

primary variables we will present the analysis based on the percentages. Thus we are creating

relative scores. As we are looking for a shift over time in the definitions, we will relate to the ‘year of

origin’ by creating a pre-1970 period and a past-1970 period. These two periods have a comparable

amount of definitions in the total population.

Relative to what?

As explained before, the result of the classification is the creation of datasets for each definition.

A dataset is the score for a variable: like [0,1,1], [1,0,0], etc. for the variable ‘subject’. Remember, a

dataset can be empty [0,0,0] when the definition does not justify a score.

Table 4 is showing a part the total result of the classification just for the variable ‘subject’. It

shows in the top segment the absolute score for the 76 definitions and the scores for the variable

‘subject’ to be [13, 32, 26]. (This totals to 71 scores and not 100 scores because the empty datasets.)

When we want to analyze for ‘period of origin’ the breakdown into the pre-1970 and the past-1970

period gives us two datasets: [7, 15, 10] for the pre-1970 period and [6, 17, 16] for the past-1970

period. From this can be concluded that the activity-element and process-element of the variable

‘Subject’ are – in absolute terms- more important than the object-element in the definitions for both

periods.

Next it shows in the lower segment the percentages of the scores where the total of the column

is 100%. This results in [54%, 47%,

38%] for the pre-1970 period and

[46%, 53%, 62%]. From this can be

more clearly concluded that the

process-element of the variable

subject is more important in the

past-1970 definitions (because is

score 62% compared to 38%). So the

initial conclusion of the absolute

importance of the process-element is

supported by the relative importance

Table 4: Scores for the variable 'Subject' broken down for pre-1970 and past-1970

Absolute number of definitions

Object Activity Process

Definitions <1970 37 7 15 10

Definitions >=1970 39 6 17 16

Total of definitions 76 13 32 26

Percentage relative to total of definitions (1)

Definitions <1970 49% 54% 47% 38%

Definitions >=1970 51% 46% 53% 62%

Total of definitions 100% 100% 100% 100% (1) each cell is relative to the 100% cell in same column


23

of the process-element in the past-1970 definitions. This interpretation is visualized in Figure 18 and

illustrates that the relative score helps to determine if the score has an importance in relation to the

other scores.

Observations

Now we will present the observations

for the relative analysis of the relevant

variable ‘subject’, ‘moment’, ‘novelty’

and ‘object’.

Observation N: Concerning the variable

‘Subject’ we concluded, explaining

before the use of the relatives scores,

that this variable is certainly relevant

for the definitions. The relative scores

supports this conclusion and

underscores that the definitions of

innovation are considering innovation

as an activity or a proces (= range of

activities). It also showed that the

past 1970-definitions put more

emphasis on the process-element

(see Figure 18).

Observation O: Concerning the variable

‘Moment’ Figure 19 shows that the

moment of adoprtion is important in

the pre-1970 definitions. In the past-

1970 definitions this changed to the

moment of realization and

implementation.

Figure 19: The relative scores for the variable 'moment' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

50%

80%

33% 39%

50%

20%

67% 61%

Pe

rce

tnag

e

Definitions <1970 Definitions >=1970

Figure 18: The relative scores for the variable 'subject' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

ObjectActivity

Process

54%

47%

38%

46% 53% 62%

Pe

rce

nta

ge



24

Observation P: Concerning the variable

‘Novelty’ Figure 20 showes that

novelty changed from a ‘relative new’

(i.e. for the organization) in the pre-

1970 definitions, to an ‘absolut new’

in the past-1970 definitions.

Observation Q: Concerning the variable

‘Object’ one can certainly observe

that the past-1970 definitions put

more emphasis on the objet of the

innovation (both product, process and

structure). Figure 21 shows that all of

the past-1970 scores are considerably

higher that the pre-1970 scores.

Figure 20: The relative scores for the variable 'Novelty' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

AbsoluteRelative

38%

56%

62%

44%

Pe

rce

nta

ge


Figure 21: The relative scores for the variable 'object' for the pre-1970 period and the past-1970 period.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

ProductProcess

Structure

34% 38%

29%

66% 62%

71%

Pe

rce

nta

ge



25

Definition profiles

Like we did for the absolute scores, we will now create defintion profiles using the relative scores.

Profile 6: General profile of totality of definitions

For the general profile we will distinguish between two periods: the pre-1970 period and the

past-1970 period (Figure 22).

Observation R: Innovation is seen as an activity or a range of activities. In the past-1970

period the focus was even more on the process of innovation.

Observation S: The moment of implementation is already the decisive moment and the past-

1970 definitions even put more emphasis on the moment of implementation.

Observation T: Novelty is a key element in the definitions and Innovation is dominantly related

to the ‘absolute new’, even more in the past-1970 period.

Observation U: When innovation is spoken about, it mostly relates to product-innovation and

(production)process-innovation. This is even more so in the past-1970 period.

Figure 22: General profile of the totality of the definitions fort two distinct periods.

Figure 23: General profile of totality of definitions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


R S T

U


26

Profile 7: ‘Field of origin’ profile of totality of definitions

When we break down the totality of the definitions by ‘field of origin’ (see Figure 24, where we

distinguished between the economic, marketing, technical and organizational backgrounds) we

can make the following observation:

Observation V: The authors with an ‘organizational’ background dominate the definitions.

However, we have to remind here that the classification of this variabled is quite subjective

and not too reliable, as stated before8.

8 The classification of this variable is not reliable. We could not find details on the professional background of

many authors (especially the not well known authors). And for those we found, the information that they were academics working at a certain university did not supply solid information to decide on this variable in a reliable way.

Figure 24: ‘Field of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Economic Marketing Technical Organizational


27

Profile 8: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of totality of definitions

When we break down the totality of the definitions by ‘nation of origin’ (see Figure 25, where we

distinguished between the continents USA and Europe) we can make the following observation:

Observation W: Definitions created by authors with an American background are dominating

the totality of the population of definitions.

Figure 25: ‘Nation of origin’ profile of the totality of definitions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Europe USA


28

Second evaluation

In the preceding part we classified the definitions and showed the results of the classification in

absolute and relative terms. In the first round of evaluation we determined that some of the

primary variables were not that relevant for the overall definition-profile. Now we will try and give

for the relevant variables an evaluation based on the relative scores.

Variable subject: This variable relates to the subject of the definition: is innovation an

object/artifact, an activity or a process? From the absolute scores (see Figure 3) we can conclude

that the majority of the definitions consider innovations to be a) an activity or b) a range of

interrelated activities (process). From the relative scores we can conclude that the process-

element became more dominant in the past-1970 period and the object-element became

(slightly) less dominant (Figure 18).

Variable moment: This variable relates to the moment the innovation came into existence. When

was the innovation ‘there’?9 Was it the time of its initiation (the conception of the idea), its

adaption (the birth of the idea), its realization (in something tangible like a prototype) or was it

the time of its implementation (into the organization, marketplace). From the absolute scores

(Figure 5) we can conclude that the moment of implementation is considered to be the ‘moment

of existence’ of the innovation. From the relative scores we can conclude that in the past-1970

definitions both the realization and implementation moments became more relevant (Figure 19).

Variable novelty: This variable relates to the novelty-element in the definition: innovation is

something new, but new for whom (the user, the organization) or what (the market, the industry,

the world)? From the absolute scores (Figure 6) we can conclude that the element ‘new’ is

dominantly used in an absolute way. From the relative scores we can conclude that this

dominance of ‘absolute novelty’ increased in the past-1970 period (Figure 20).

Variable object: This variable relates to the object of the definition: a (physical) product, a

(production) process, an (organizational) structure? From the absolute scores (Figure 8) we can

conclude that the definitions in majority related to products and next to (production) processes.

From the relative scores we can conclude that this changed in the past-1970 period as innovation

in structures (like ‘organizational innovation’) became more dominant in the definitions (Figure

21).

9 The analogy of ‘human life’ comes to mind here. In the establishment of the moment of the existence of a

new human being, quite some discussions can being held. Some consider the moment of the existence of a human being the moment of its conception, others the embryonic stage, others the moment of birth.


29

INTERPRETATION

We have to realize that the total population of definitions is small in statistical terms. Too small

to apply a statistical analysis. We used a more intuitive method to analyze this small population by

breaking them down in their defining elements based on keywords. These elements were used to

create variables. Then we looked at the scores for the variables in both an absolute way and a

relative way. And we presented our observations in detail so you, reader, can check our

qualifications. The next step is the interpretation of our findings by the creation of hypothesis, trying

to falsify them and reaching conclusions.

Hypothesis

We started with the initial assumption that innovation is always about changes. Changes that

result in the creation of something new. In simple terms: ‘old’ plus ‘change’ creates ‘new’ (so our

assumption is: old + change = new). From this we drew the proposition that ‘innovation is the

creation of something new’. In simple terms: ‘something old’ plus ‘creating change’ becomes

‘something new’ at a given moment (so our implicit proposition is: old thing + creating change = new

thing). Note that ‘creating change’ is an activity initiated, executed and implemented by humans. It

is not a mutation that occurs in biology. Looking at the collected definitions our assumption seems

to be shared, but from there on the diversification in definitions - as described in the Prologue -

started. The ‘thing’ could be a product but also production process or even an organizational

structure. The change could be drastic, disruptive or incremental. And so on.

From the observations we concluded that in the total population of the definitions only some of

the eight primary variables played a significant role. These were the variables ‘Subject’. ‘Moment’,

‘Novelty’ and ‘Object’. These variables we will now use for the hypothesis building.

Primary hypothesis

Using these four primary variables we constructed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Based on the variable ‘subject’ and ‘novelty’ we were inclined to find out if the authors

considered ‘innovation’ as something physical of more as a process of change? Typical definitions

would be: “An innovation is (some ‘thing’) new” versus “Innovation is the activity that results in

something new....”.

H1: The definition of innovation considers innovation as an activity resulting in something new.

The ‘something’ is not, or hardly, specified.


30

Hypothesis 2: Based on the variables ‘subject’, ‘novelty’ and ‘object’ we were inclined to find out if

innovation for the authors was mostly a process that results in new products. A typical definition

would be: “Innovation is the process that results in new products.”

H2: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a range of activities, a process, which results in new products.

Hypothesis 3: Based on the variable ‘subject’, ‘moment’, ‘novelty’ and ‘object’ we were inclined to

find out if the authors considered innovation at the moment of its implementation. A typical

definition would be: “Innovation is the process of activities that creates products that are new

when introduced.”

H3: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a process in which new products and processes are implemented.

The reader will note that the preceding hypothesis is formulated in such a way that they are each

time using more of the relevant variables and thus focusing more and more on a tight definition.

Secondary hypothesis

As we were interested in finding out if a shift over time in the focus of the definitions could be

detected, we related the definitions to their ‘year of origin’. The same goes for the influence of the

‘nation of origin’. Can a difference in definitions made by European or American authors be

detected?

Hypothesis 4: Based on the variable ‘year of origin’ we were inclined to find out if one could detect a

shift over time in the general character of the definitions. Like: before the 1970s innovation was

related to invention which confirms the in that period active R&D approach to innovation. That

would mean that after the 1970s innovation was more seen as an activity of a firm not related to

‘invention’ but more to market pull and technology push aspects.

H4: Over the years a shift appeared in the definitions of innovation.

Hypothesis 5: Based on the variable ‘nation of origin’ we were inclined to find out if the American

authors had different definitions from the European authors.

H5: The background of the author (geographically and professionally) influences the definition.


31

Falsification

In scientific terms the appearance of one definition which relates to innovation as an artifact

would falsify the hypothesis that innovation is seen as an activity (analogy: one black swan falsifies

the hypothesis that all swans are white). Our falsifying process is not that strict. We will refer back to

the variable and the conclusion we reached observing that variable. So we falsify on the level of the

variables.

An example: We observed with the variable ‘object’ (Figure 8) that innovation definitions

relate to a (material/immaterial) product or production process (53 out of 76 definitions

scored on product or process). So the majority (about 70%) of the scores for this variable

‘object’ does support the conclusion that ‘innovations are about products and production

processes’. Given this conclusion, for us ‘this swan is white’.

H1: The definition of innovation considers innovation as an activity resulting in something new. The ‘something’ is not, or hardly, specified.

This hypothesis narrows the definition to any activity that leads to ‘some thing’ (literally whatever

‘thing’) new. The results of the analysis of the variable ‘subject’ (Figure 3) indicates, that for the

population of the definitions classified, it can be concluded that innovation is considered to be an

activity or a range of interrelated activities (process). The result of the analysis of the variable

‘novelty’ (Figure 6) indicates that ‘new’ is dominantly seen in absolute terms, not related to

indigenous or exogenous elements. The result of the analysis of the variable ‘object’ (Figure 8)

indicates that the object – the ‘something’ – is specified as being either a product or a process. So

the second part of this hypothesis falsifies the hypothesis H1. Innovation is for the authors related to

a product, (production)process or (organizational) structure.

H2: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a range of activities, a process, which results in new products.

This hypothesis narrows the definition to the process of product innovation. Again, the results of

the analysis of the variable ‘subject’ indicates that it can be concluded that innovation is considered

to be an activity or a range of interrelated activities (process). The result of the analysis of the

variable ‘novelty’ indicates that ‘new’ is dominantly seen in absolute terms, not related to

indigenous or exogenous elements. The result of the analysis of the variable ‘object’ indicates that

the object – the something – is specified as being either a product or a process. So this hypothesis

can be falsified. Innovation is for the authors not dominantly related to products, but also includes

(production) processes.


32

H3: The definition of innovation considers innovation as a process in which at the moment of implementation new products and processes are realized.

This hypothesis focusses on the process that leads to new products and/or productions processes

at the moment of their implementation. Again, the results of the analysis of the variable ‘subject’

indicates that it can be concluded that innovation is considered to be an activity or a range of

interrelated activities (process). The result of the analysis of the variable ‘novelty’ indicates that

‘new’ is dominantly seen in absolute terms, not related to indigenous or exogenous elements. The

result of the analysis of the variable ‘object’ indicates that the object – the something – is specified

as being either a product or a process. And, the variable ‘Moment’ (Figure 5) indicates that the

implementation is a specific element of the definition. Innovation is for the authors there when the

change into new is implemented.

H4: Over the years a shift appeared in the definitions of innovation.

This hypothesis would be falsified when the definitions had a constant profile for different time

periods in the range 1950-1988. As illustrated in the profiles shown in Figure 18 through Figure 21

and the related observations, this is not the case. Over the 1950s-1980s period there is a change in

the subject of the definitions: form artifact dominated definitions they become more process

oriented definitions. The object of the definitions have broadened from being focused on new

products and new production processes to include new (organizational) structures. So this

hypothesis can not be falsified.

H5: The background of the author (geographically and professionally) influences the definition.

Looking at the absolute score of the definitions originated from USA-based authors (Figure 11)

we see they dominate the definitions. The absolute scores resulting in a profile (Figure 15) suggest a

difference between European originated and American originated definitions. The relative score

(Figure 25) seem to support this. From the small sample of European definitions we find it hard to

conclude on a difference between American and European definitions. So we falsify this hypothesis.


33

Conclusions

The starting question for the survey was about the definition of the word ‘innovation’ in scholarly

manuscripts. From our analysis it is clear that there is not one specific definition that can be

considered as a kind of general applicable definition; no such thing as ‘one size fits all’.

That being said, we can conclude that the definitions do not consider innovation to be related to

‘an innovation’ (the object) as well as about ‘to innovate’ (the activity). The majority of the

definitions consider innovation as an activity or range of activities that result in new products or new

(production) processes. Certainly, implicitly they all consider innovation is a change into something

new. That something can be concluded to be a product, process or structure. The change always has

the aspect of novelty related to the preceding situation. It is a new product, a new production

process or a new organizational structure. In addition, innovation is considered to be realized at the

moment of its implementation. Which can be the moment of market/commercial introduction for a

product, the moment the new production process is started, or the moment the organizational

structure is implemented. Finally, over the 1950s-1980s period one can detect a shift from

innovation as an activity to innovation as a range of interrelated activities. Also over this period the

object of the definitions has broadened to incorporate organizational innovations.

Given this general conclusion the definitions of innovation formulated by the authors show a

great diversity. Some – a minority - relate it to an invention (which can be a quite solid physical

‘thing’), others relate it to ‘an idea’(which is more of a mental construct). The majority stick to

products and production processes. Some consider it to be new for the organization, other new to

the organizational environment (market, industry, world). But the majority just considers ‘new’ to be

new without any point of reference. Some consider it to be a drastic change with a revolutionary

character; others consider also minor changes with an incremental character. Most consider it to be

just a change.


34

EPILOQUE

We have been looking at the formulated definitions of innovation over the period 1951-1988

quite in detail. Now, trying to interpretate more at an abstract level the totality of the definitions,

one can observe the following.

Looking at the subject of the definitions we concluded that they seemed to be based on the

assumption ‘old’ plus ‘change’ is ‘new’. This goes for the artifact-based interpretation of innovation

However, we observed many definitions that consider innovation to be an activity or a range of

activities. So the assumption changes to ‘old thing’ plus ‘creating change’ is ‘new thing’. The ‘thing’ is

the object we will discuss next, but the activity is ‘creating change’ as a single activity or a process of

interrelated activities. This is different from pure ‘change’ (Table 5).

Table 5: The subject of definitions

Innovation as an artifact Innovation as an activity Innovation as a range of activities

Innovation type Product innovation Innovation Innovation process Example “[...] the commercial

introduction of an invention.” (Maclaurin, 1953)

“Innovation is the introduction of new things or methods.” (Steele, 1975)

“The process by which an invention or idea is translated into the economy”. (Twiss, 1980)

When we looked at change in the definitions we concluded that many definitions used it in an

absolute way; a change is just a change (Table 6). Some authors used it relatively; a change in

relation to the individual, the organization, the market. Other saw it as something drastic, a

discontinuity. The general dominator is that a change can be understood as a step: be it a small step

or a big step compared to the existing situation. This existing situation creates a point of reference

(the individual, the organization, the environment).

Table 6: The change element in definitions

Innovation as an absolute change

Innovation as a relative change

Innovation as a discontinuity

Innovation type Just ’change’ ‘Change’ in relation to ‘Change’ as drastic Example "It can be defined as changing

the yield of resources. Or, [….], as changing the satisfaction obtained from resources by the customer. " (Drucker, 1987)

“An innovation is the adoption of a change which is new to the organization and to the relevant environment.” (Knight, 1967)

“Product innovation involves the development of radically or incrementally new products.” (Johne, 1984)

Then we looked at the objects of the definitions that makes it a product innovation, a process

innovation or an organizational innovation. The object of these definitions is always a ‘function’: it


35

can be product function10, a production function11 or an organizational function12. And these

functions are realized by a system. Like a product system, a production system or an organizational

system (Table 7).

Table 7: The object of the definitions

Product Process Structure

Innovation type Product innovation Process innovation Organizational innovation Example Electronic watch Micro electronics

technology Introducing a new technology into existing firm

Function Product function Production function Organizational function Example Timekeeping function

as realized in a watch Production of electronic systems

Manufacturing of watches

System Product system Production system Organizational system Example Watch Watch assembly line Watch manufacturer

This leads us to the conclusion that - at an abstract level - innovation is a discontinuity that

appears as a stepwise change in the function of a system. So a product innovation is a stepwise

change in the ‘product system’: for example the timekeeping function of the mechanical watch that

is realized in the electronic watch. The process innovation is a stepwise change in the production

function like an assembly line: for example the assembly of electronic watches as the micro-

electronic technology realizes the production of electronic systems used in electronic watches. The

organizational innovation is the stepwise change in organizations that develop, make and market

products like (electronic) watches. For example the changes implemented by existing manufacturers

(i.e. traditional mechanical watch industry) or the new startup of manufacturers (i.e. electronic

industries) that use the new technology to realize new products.

Innovation is related to changing the type, number and properties of the variables of the

function, not the values of the variables themselves. As the function of a system does exist out of

different variables, a change in the number of, the type and properties of these variables constitutes

an innovation. Just the change of a value of a variable does not encompass a stepwise change

resulting in an innovation. Take the example of a specific automobile where the existing variables of

the product function - like ’body color’, ‘headlight shape’, ‘upholstering material’, etc. - are changed

10

The function of a product like a watch is ‘timekeeping’, the function realized by a telephone is ‘two way communication’. It can be more complex as we look at the primary function of a car to be ‘individual transportation’, the secondary function to be the ‘tool of status’. 11

Here we refer to the term used by the macro-economist when the look at the role or organizations in the economy. 12

An organization can be considered to be a system with different and/or more complex functions: the production function realizing product functions but also ‘service’ functions, the commercial function realizing the marketing and sales of the products and services.


36

(a red car, square headlights, leather upholstery) . This does not result in an innovation as they relate

more or less to design changes. Taking the variable ‘motorization’ and adding to the petrol-based

combustion motor a battery powered electromotor, constitutes quite an innovation resulting in the

hybrid automobile. Even more, the drastic and disruptive change where horsepower was replaced

by ‘combustion power’ constitutes the creation of a new system called the automobile. A

discontinuity that is considered to be an invention. See Table 8.

Table 8: Innovation between invention and design

Invention Innovation Design

Function Individual transportation Individual transportation Individual transportation The invention of the

combustion powered automobile

The innovation of the hybrid automobile

The yearly new models of an automobile

System Totally new system based on new knowledge

Changing, adapting, enlarging the existing system

Modifying the existing system

The creation of a combustion powered vehicle that replaces the horse powered carriages.

Hybrid motorization: adding a battery powered electromotor in a combustion powered automobile

Different colors, shapes, upholstery of an automobile

Variables Completely unknown variables combined with existing variables

Adding variables of different types

Changing the values of existing variables

The existing carriage where the dominant subsystem ‘combustion motor’ was added

The existing automobile where the subsystem ‘electromotor’ was added

The yearly changing models of an automobile where the design of the existing car change

We recognize this in Schumpeters interpretation when he reflects on innovation: “We will now

define innovation more rigorously by means of the production function previously introduced. This

function describes the way in which quantity of product varies if quantities of factors vary. If, instead

of quantities of factors, we vary the form of the function, we have an innovation” […] Therefore, we

will simply define innovation as the setting up of a new production function. This covers the case of a

new commodity, as well as those of a new form of organization such as a merger, of the opening up

of new markets, and so on.” (Schumpeter, 1939, p. 84). So we agree with Tinnesand when he stated

(see quote on page 8):“We are of the opinion that the disequilibrium of disturbance creating force of

innovation, as suggested by Schumpeter, is the essential characteristic of an innovation on which an

appropriate definition of the concept should be based.” (Tinnesand, 1973, pp. 16, 26).


37

For us it is clear that the solution to create a more general usable definition for innovation can be

found in applying an abstract ‘system approach’. But that is a subject outside the scope of this

survey we have been addressing after 1988 (Kooij, 1989).


38

Bibliography: Alderson, W. (1965). Marketing Innovations and the Problem Solver. New Directions in Marketing,

53-61. Archer, L. B. (1971). Technological innovation-a methodology: Inforlink Limited for Science Policy

Foundation Limited. Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: The basis of cultural change (Vol. 1): McGraw-Hill New York. Becker, S. W., & Stafford, F. (1967). Some determinants of organizational success. The Journal of

Business, 40(4), 511-518. Becker, S. W., & Whisler, T. L. (1967). The Innovative Organization: A Selective View of Current

Theory and Research. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 462-469. doi: 10.2307/2351628 Beckers, P. J. M. (1974). Innovatieprocessen in de Nederlandse industrie: Nijverheidsorganisatie TNO. Botter, C. H. (1988). Industrie en organisatie: een overzicht en uitzicht: Kluwer. Bright, J. R. (1969). Some management lessons from technological innovation research. Long Range

Planning, 2(1), 36-41. Buijs, J. A. (1984). Innovatie en interventie. Burgelman, R. A., & Sayles, L. R. (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure, and

Managerial Skills: Free Press. Carroll, J. (1967). A note on departmental autonomy and innovation in medical schools. The Journal

of Business, 40(4), 531-534. Carter, C. F. (1958). Investment in innovation / C.F. Carter and B.R. Williams, on behalf of the Science

and Industry Committee. London :: Oxford University Press. Casinco, A. E. (1963). Continous innovation in Customer Service. In H. Gomez (Ed.), Innovation: Key

to marketing Progress (pp. 673-683): American Marketing Association. Converse, P. D. (1965). Marketing Innovations, Inventions, techniques, Institutions. In F. F. Webster

(Ed.), New Directions in Marketing (pp. 35-14): American Marketing Association. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2. Davies, S. (1979). Diffusion Process Innvtns: Cambridge, Eng.; New York: Cambridge University Press. Dijck, J. J. J. v. (1972). Organisatie in verandering: sociologische modellen van veranderingsprocessen

in organisaties. Rotterdam, Universitaire Pers Rotterdam. Downs, G. W., Jr., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700-714. doi: 10.2307/2391725 Drucker, P. F. (1987). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Newbridge Communications. During, W. (1986). Innovatieproblematiek in kleine industriële bedrijven. Enschede. Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1969). Word-of-Mouth Communication by the

Innovator. Journal of Marketing, 33(3), 15-19. doi: 10.2307/1248475 Evan, W. M., & Black, G. (1967). Innovation in business organizations: some factors associated with

success or failure of staff proposals. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 519-530. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Galbraith, J. R. (1982). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics, 10(3), 5-25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(82)90033-X

Gobeli, D. H., & Brown, D. J. (1987). Analyzing product innovations. Research Management, 30(4), 25-31.

Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega, 25(1), 15-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00043-6

Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 501-522.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1970). Social change in complex organizations: Random House New York.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(82)90033-X

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00043-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00043-6


39

Hinterhuber, H. H. (1975). Innovationsdynamik und Unternehmungsführung: Springer-Verl. Hodgen, M. T. (1952). Change and history. A study of dated distributions of technological innovations

in England, AD, 1000-1899. Holt, K. (1988). Product innovation management (Vol. 2): Butterworths. Humphrey, W. S. (1987). Managing for innovation: Leading technical people: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Johne, F. A. (1984). How experienced product innovators organize. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 1(4), 210-223. Kanter, R. M. (1982). The middle manager as innovator. Harvard business review, 60(4), 95. Kanter, R. M. (1984). Innovation--the only hope for times ahead? Sloan Management Review,

Summer, 51-55. Kelly, P., & Krantzberg, M. (1978). Technological Innovation: A Critical Review Of Current Knowledge

San Francisco Press. Knight, K. E. (1967). A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. The Journal of Business,

40(4), 478-496. Kooij, B. J. G. v. d. (1983). Management van Innovatie. Deventer (Holland): Kluwer. Kooij, B. J. G. v. d. (1989). Innovatie: van onbehagen tot durf. Hoogezand: Stubeg. Koprowski, E. J. (1967). Towards innovative leadership. Business Horizons, 10(Winter 1967), 79-88. Kunkel, J. H. (1970). Society and economic growth: A behavioral perspective of social change: Oxford

University Press New York. Maclaurin, W. R. (1953). The sequence from invention to innovation and its relation to economic

growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 67(1), 97-111. Mansfield, E. (1961). Technical change and the rate of imitation. Econometrica: Journal of the

Econometric Society, 741-766. Mansfield, E. (1968). The Economics of Technological Change: Norton. Martin, M. J. (1984). Managing technological innovation and entrepreneurship: Reston Publishing

Company Reston, VA. Mason, E. S. (1951). Schumpeter on monopoly and the large firm. The Review of Economics and

Statistics, 33(2), 139-144. McCammon, B. C. (1963). Alternative explanations of institutional change and channel evolution.

Toward Scientific Marketing, 477-490. McLoughlin, W. G. (1970). Fundamentals of research management: American Management

Association. McNair, M. P. (1969). Competitve Dynamics Behind Retaling Trends. In J. H. Westing, G. Albaum & P.

Lewin (Eds.), Modern marketing thought. New York: Macmillan Company. Meeuwese, W. A. T. (1983). Techniek, innovatie en maatschappij: Spectrum. Meijer, A. d., & Clercq, J. d. (1983). Technische innovatie en organisatie. Tijdschrift voor economie en

management, XXVIII(Nr.2). Morton, J. A. (1971). Organizing for innovation: McGraw-Hill. Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful industrial innovations: a study of factors underlying

innovation in selected firms: US Government Printing Office. National science foundation. Phillips, B. D. (1968). Scientific Research, Innovation and Economic Growth: a possible relationship.

Grahamstown: Institute of Social and Economic Research, Rhodes University. Quinn, J. B. (1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy: Amos Tuck School of

Business Administration, Dartmouth College. Robertson, T. S. (1967). The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. The Journal of

Marketing, 14-19. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach:

The Free Press, 866 Third Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10022.


40

Rothwell, R. (1972). Factors for success in industrial innovations from project SAPPHO-A comparative study of success and failure in industrial innovation. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Sachs, W. S. (1963). Catching up with Statistical Innovation. In H. Gomez (Ed.), Innovation, key to Marketing progress (pp. 207-213): American Marketing Association.

Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth (Vol. 26): Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.

Schon, D. A. (1967). Technology and change: The new Heraclitus: Seymour Lawrence. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles; a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the

capitalist process (1st ed.). New York, London,: McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc. Schumpeter, J. A. (1964). Business cycles; a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the

capitalist process. New York,: McGraw-Hill. Shepard, H. A. (1967). Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing organizations. The Journal of

Business, 40(4), 470-477. Silk, A. J., & Stern, L. W. (1963). The Changing Nature of Innovation in Marketing: A Study of Selected

Business Leaders, 1852-1958. Business History Review, 37(03), 182-199. Stanton, W. J., Etzel, M. J., & Walker, B. J. (1994). Fundamentals of marketing (Vol. 10): McGraw-Hill

New York. Steele, L. W. (1975). Innovation in Big Business. New York: Elsevier North-Holland, Inc. Tannenbaum, M. (1970). A boooming technology, a better environment. Can we have both? Bell

Telephone Magazine, May/June. Thom, N., & Grochla, E. (1980). Grundlagen des betrieblichen Innovationsmanagements: Peter

Hanstein VerlagGmbH. Thomason, G. F., & Thomason George, F. (1970). The management of research and development

(Vol. 118): Batsford. Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 1-20.

doi: 10.2307/2391646 Tinnesand, B. (1973). Towards a general theory of industrial innovation. (PhD Business

Administration), University of Wisconsin. Twiss, B. C. (1980). Managing technological innovation (Vol. 2): Longman London. Uhlmann. (1976). Science Indicators 1976. Washington: National Science Foundation 1978, . Utterback, J. M. (1976). The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm. Academy of

management Journal, 14(1), 75-88. Wilson, A. H. (1968). Science, technology and innovation: Economic Council of Canada. Wilson, J. Q. (1965). Innovation in organization: notes toward a theory: Center for the Advanced

Study of Educational Administration. Zaltman, G., & Massy, W. F. (1965). Marketing: Contributions from the behavioral sciences: Harcourt,

Brace & World.


41

ADDENDUM

1988-collection of definitions

Reproduced from 1988 study, checked and annotated in 2013,

Before 1960

1. Schumpeter (1939): “We will simply define innovation as the setting up of a new production function. The production function is a datum and invariant form.” (Schumpeter, 1964, pp. 15, 16, 62)

Typology: USA, Academic, Economist

2. Hodgen (1952): "Technical innovation has taken place when a tool, a device, a skill or a technique, however unknown or well-known elsewhere, is adopted by an individual in a particular community and is regarded as new by the members of that community" (Hodgen, 1952)

Typology: USA, Academic, Anthropology

3. Barnett (1953): "An innovation is here defined as any though, behavior, or thing, that is new because its qualitively different from existing forms […] a comprehensive term covering all kinds of mental constructs, whether, they can be given sensible representation or not." (Barnett, 1953, p. 7)

Typology: USA, Academic, Professor of Anthropology

1961-1970

4. Cyert & March (1963): " […] new solutions to a problem that currently faces the organization." (Cyert & March, 1963, p. 278)

Typology: USA, Academics, Organizational Behavior

5. Shephard (1967): “When an organization learns (not) to do things it did not know how to do before, and then proceeds (not) to do so in a sustained way, a process of innovation has occurred.” (Shepard, 1967, p. 470)

Typology: USA, Academic?, Case Institute of Technology. University of Cleveland?

6. Becker & Whisler, (1967): “Innovation is the first or early use of an idea by one of a set of organizations with similar goals". (Selwyn W. Becker & Whisler, 1967, p. 463)

Typology: USA, Academic, Psychology/Industrial Relations,

7. Knight (1967): “An innovation is the adoption of a change which is new to the organization and to the relevant environment.” (Knight, 1967, p. 478)

Typology: USA, Academic, PhD. Carnegie Institute of Technology.

8. Carroll (1967): "Since we are interested in innovation as a social process rather than a product of a scientific discovery, it was necessary to use some identifiable major changes in the school's structure or procedure as an indication of innovation." (Carroll, 1967, p. 532)

Typology: USA, Academic, PhD, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.


42

9. Mohr, (1967): “Innovation is the successful introduction, into an applied situation, of means and ends that are new to that situation.”

Typology: USA, National Science Foundation 1967. (Source unavailable in 2013)

10. Evan & Black (1967): “The implementation of new procedures or ideas, whether a product of invention or discovery , will be referred to [...] as innovation.” (Evan & Black, 1967)

Typology: USA, Academic, Prof of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania. Council of economic advisors

11. Robertson (1967): “Innovation takes place via a process whereby a new thought, behavior, or thing, which is qualitatively different from the existing forms, is conceived and brought into existence.” (Robertson, 1967, p. 14)

Typology: USA, Schumpeterian, Marketing

12. Bright (1968): “The process of translating technical knowledge into economic reality. [...] A unique chronological process [...] is the medium that translates scientific knowledge into physical realities that are changing society.” (Bright, 1969)

Typology: USA, student University of Texas

13. Mansfield (1968): "An invention, when applied for the first time, is called an innovation." (Mansfield, 1968, p. 99)

Typologie: USA. Academic, Professor of Economics, Wharton School, University of Pensylvannia.

14. HSMO 1968: “The technical and commercial steps which lead to the marketing of new manufactured products and commercial use of new technical processes and equipment.”

Typology: UK, Central Advisory Council on Science and Technology: Technological innovation in Britain, HMSO, London, 1968]

15. Myers & Marquis (1969): “Technological innovation is a complex activity which proceeds from conceptualization of a new idea to a solution of the problem and then to the actual utilization of a new item of economic or social value [...] it is not a single action but a total process of interrelated sub processes.” (Myers & Marquis, 1969)

Typology: USA, National Science Foundation. (Source unavailable in 2013)

16. Kunkel (1970): ”The essence of innovation is, in the area of materiel, the novel combination of existing elements and/or the inventions of new elements. In the behavioral areas, innovation is the expression of new activities.” (Kunkel, 1970, p. 256)

Typology: USA, Antropology, Author, teacher

17. McLoughin (1970): “Innovation is the introduction of something new and noval relative to something already understood and in existence.” (McLoughlin, 1970, p. 21)

Typology: USA, Academic, manager, engineer, professor at Braniff School of Management.

18. Thomasson (1970): “Innovation, by which something new is actually produced and offered for sale [...] ” (Thomason & Thomason George, 1970, p. 68)

Typology: UK, Academic, Professor of Industrial Relations, University of South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff.

19. Tannenbaum (1970): “Technical innovation is the novel application of physical knowledge and technique to make premeditated changes in the physical aspects of the environment.” (Tannenbaum, 1970)


43

Typology: USA, ?

20. Hagen & Aiken (1970): “[...] products produced by organizations (among which service-oriented), that, when first adopted, represented a new program, that is, an innovation.” (Hage & Aiken, 1970, p. 140)

Typologie: USA, Academic, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin.

1971-1980

21. Rogers & Shoemaker (1971): “An innovation is an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual. The newness aspect of an innovation may be expressed in knowledge, in attitude, or a decision to use it.” (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p. 19)

Typology: USA, Academic, Sociologist

22. Morton (1971): “It means the improvement of the old and the development of new capabilities of people and their existing organizations [...], it is the adaptive change and improvement of existing systems.” (Morton, 1971)

Typology: USA, Bell Laboratories

23. Archer (1971): “Technological innovation: [...] initiated by: discovery/invention, phase 1: adoption, phase 2: refinement or aborted, phase 3, generalization [...], terminated by: diffusion/supersession.” (Archer, 1971, p. 1)

Typology: UK, Academic, Professor of Design Research,

24. Sappho (1972): “Innovation involves the commercial application of the results of previous inventive work and experimental development.” (Rothwell, 1972, p. 7)

Typology: UK, Academic, Project at University of Sussex.

25. Haeffner (1972): “Innovation is in most cases an irrational process in which the creative element, the invention idea appears first and a complete product results after an often long and circuitous development route.”

Typology: Sweden, Institut for Innovationstechnik. (Source unavailable in 2013)

26. Batelle (1973): “It is a complex series of activities beginning at first conception, when the original idea is conceived; [...]; and ending at first realization when an industrially succesfull product, which may actually a thing, a technique, or a process, is adapted in the marketplace.”

Typology: USA, National Science Foundation. Business Consultants. (Source unavailable in 2013)

27. Freeman (1974): “An innovation in the economic sense is accomplished only with the first commercial transaction involving the new product, process, system or device, although the word is used also to describe the whole process.” (Freeman, 1982, p. 22)

Typology: UK, Academic, Professor of Science policy, University of Sussex

28. Hinterhuber (1974): “1. Jede anderung von Bedeutung in den Interaktionen oder Wechselwirkungen der Unternehmung mit der naturlichen und socialen Umwelt uber: a) die Einfuhrung neuer oder verbesserter Produkte und Dienstleisitungen auf den Markt, b) die Anwendung neuere oder verbesserter Produktionsverfahren und c) die Beseitigung der schadlichen Aufswirkungen der Verfahren, Produkte und Dienstleistungen auf die naturlichen und socialen Umwelt. 2. In der innneren Struktur der Unternehemung durch Anderungen der


44

Organisationsstruktur. 3. In den Subsystemene der Unternehmung, realisation einer, neuenen Product-Markt-Kombinationen.” (Hinterhuber, 1975, p. 26)

Typology: Austria, Academic, Economist

29. Van Dijk (1974): "Een innovatieproces is een proces waarbij individueel en collectief geïntervenieerd wordt bij het oplossen van een organisationele probleemsituatie." (Dijck, 1972, p. 111)

Typology: NL. Academic,

30. Beckers (1974): “Innovatie is het met succes invoeren van iets nieuws” (Beckers, 1974, p. 18)

Typology: NL, TNO, Consultants

31. Twiss (1974): “The process by which an invention or idea is translated into the economy”. (Twiss, 1980, p. 6)

Typology: UK, Academic?, Management/Education

32. Steele (1975): “Innovation is the introduction of new things or methods.” (Steele, 1975, p. 19)

Typology: USA, ?, R&D General Electric

33. Utterback (1976): “Thus, innovation will be defined to refer to an invention which has reached market introduction in the case of a new product, or first use in a production process, in the case of a process innovation.“ (Utterback, 1976, p. 77)

Typology: USA, Academic, Business Administration, MIT

34. Kelly & Krantzberg (1978): “The process of innovation is (1) a response to either a need or on opportunity, that is, it is context dependent; (2) depends on creative effort and, if successful, results in the introduction of a novelty; (3) brings about or induces the need for further change. Something can be new only in relation to some frame of reference. In the innovation phase it is the current state of the art.” (Kelly & Krantzberg, 1978, p. 6)

Typology: USA, Academic, Department of Social Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

35. Uhlmann (1978): “Technological innovation represents the conversion of the idea into new or improved products, processes, and their dissemination into general use.” (Uhlmann, 1976, p. 20)

Typology: USA, ?

36. Quinn (1979): “Innovation – creating and introducing original solutions for new and already identified needs.” (Quinn, 1979, p. 19)

Typology: USA, Academic, Darthmouth College, Professor of Management.

37. Davies (1979): "The innovation stage occurs, when, and if, the invention is first commercially introduced by a firm." (Davies, 1979, p. 1)

Typology: UK, Academic, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sheffield Cambridge University.

38. Thom (1980): “Innovationen sind […] geplante Prozesse die zu Veranderungen fuhren sollen die im Wertystem des innovators wunschenwert erschienen. Merkmale: Neuigkeitsgrad, - Unischerheit/Risiko, - Komplexitat, - Konfliktgehalt.” (Thom & Grochla, 1980, pp. 25, 26, 23-31)

Typology: Germany/Zwitserland, Academic, Sociology, Professor University of Bern.


45

39. Botter (1980): "Het begrip technische innovatie gebruikte men voor het met succes op de markt brengen van nieuwe of gewijzigde producten, waarin nieuwe technische vindingen of combinaties van vindingen zijn verwerkt. " (Botter, 1988, p. 229)

Typology: NL, Academic, Professor University of Technology, Eindhoven.

1981-1988

40. Galbraith (1982): “Innovation is the process of applying a new idea to create a new process or product.” (Galbraith, 1982, p. 6).

Typology: USA, Academic, Professor in Business Administration.

41. Kanter (1982): “Innovation is the introduction of new methods, structures, or products that increasesd the company’s capacity.” (Kanter, 1982, p. 5)

Typlogy: USA, Academic, Professor of Sociology, Organization and management. Yale University.

42. De Meijer (1983): “Technische innovatie is […] het proces dat leidt tot de economisch succesvolle introduktie van een nieuw produkt of de succesvolle implementatie van een nieuw produktieproces, en waarbij de onderneming zich een haar onvertrouwde technologie heeft moeten eigen maken, of een aantal gekende technieken op een nieuwe wijze heeft moeten combineren.” (Meijer & Clercq, 1983)

Typology: Belgie, Academic,

43. Meeuwese (1983): “Innovatie is een proces waarin technologie en marketing worden gecombineerd.” (Meeuwese, 1983, p. 127)

Typology: NL, Academic, University of Technology Eindhoven

44. Holt (1983): “innovation is a process which covers the use of knowledge or relevant information for creation and introduction of something that is new and useful.” (Holt, 1988, p. 13)

Typology: Norway, Academic, Professor Industrial Management, University of Trondheim.

45. Kanter (1984): “Innovation thus refers to the process of bringing any new, problem-solving or opportunity-adressing idea into use” (Kanter, 1984)

Typology: USA, Academic, Professor of Sociology, Organization and management. Yale University.

46. Martin (1984): “An invention only becomes an innovation when it is transformed into a socially usable product.” (Martin, 1984)

Typology: UK, Academic, University of Exeter.

47. During (1984): "Industriële innovatie is het geheel van activiteiten gericht op het voortbrengen van producten, het invoeren van productiewijzen, dan wel het bedienen van markten die afzonderlijk of in combinatie nieuw zijn voor de desbetreffende organisatie." (During, 1986, p. 9)

Typology: NL, Academic. Professor at the University of Technology Twente, Holland

48. Drucker (1985): "It can be defined as changing the yield of resources. Or, [….], as changing the satisfaction obtained from resources by the customer. " (Drucker, 1987, p. 30)

Typology: Austrian/USA, Academic, Professor, Business Consultant.

49. Burgelman (1986): "Innovation refers to a company's effort in instituting new methods of production and/or bringing new products or services to market.” (Burgelman & Sayles, 1986, p. 10).


46

Typology: USA. Academic, Professor of Management at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business

50. Buijs (1984): "Innovatie is een sprongsgewijze verandering in een product-markt-technologie-combinatie van bestaande (industriële) bedrijven." (Buijs, 1984, p. 31)

Typology: NL, Academic, Professor at the University of Technology Delft.

51. Johne (1984): “Product innovation involves the development of radically or incrementally new products.” (Johne, 1984, p. 2)

Typology: UK, Academic, Ph.D.

52. Gobeli & Brown (1987): “From the producer’s view, an innovation is the first or early use of a perceived, significantly new technology by one of a set of organizations in the same or related industries.” (Gobeli & Brown, 1987)

Typology: USA, Academic, Professor in Management, Professor in Marketing. Oregon State University.

53. Humphrey (1987): “Innovation is the process of turning ideas into manufacturable and marketable form.” (Humphrey, 1987, p. 91)

Typology: USA, Vice-President, working at IBM, Software Engineering Institute.

Tinnesand definitions

Reproduced from 1988 study, checked and corrected in 2013 54. Converse (1965): “[....] the change must be of a magnitude to affect the economy or the

competitive situation in a segment of the economy.” (Converse, 1965)

Typology: USA, Marketing

55. McCammon (1969): “[...] Abrupt departures from status quo disrupting prevailing patters of competition.”. (McCammon, 1963, p. 65)


56. Tinnesand (1973): “The implementation of a new idea in connection with a product, process or system which creates a substantial economic and/or social disturbance in the relevant environment into which is introduced, thereby necessitating a process of extensive adaptations and imitations.” (Tinnesand, 1973, p. 26)

Typology: USA, Management/Business Administration, Economic, Schumpeterian.

57. Kegereis (1969): “An innovation is anything perceived to be new by the potential trier and whose adoption would tend to alter significantly the trier's patterns of behavior. “ (Engel, Kegerreis, & Blackwell, 1969, p. 673)

Typology: USA, Marketing, Diffusion process, Professors of marketing

58. Schon (1967): “Innovation is the process of bringing invention into use.” (Schon, 1967, p. 1)

Typology: USA, Yale/Harvard educated, Researcher and consultant

59. Wilson, A.H. (1968): “[...] the practical implementation of an invention” (A. H. Wilson, 1968, p. 16)

Typology: Canada/UK, mechanical engineer, Economic Council of Canada Special Study, 8.

60. Casinco (1963): “[...] a drastic change to something different.” (Casinco, 1963, p. 674)


47


61. Wilson, J.Q. (1965): “Innovation is a fundamental change in a significant number of tasks.” (J. Q. Wilson, 1965, p. 196)

Typology: Canada, ... ?

62. Sachs (1963): “[...] far reaching basic changes.” (Sachs, 1963, p. 207)


63. Thompson (1965): “By innovation is meant the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services. Innovation therefore implies the capacity to change or adapt.” (Thompson, 1965, p. 2)

Typology: USA, Academic, Professor, Political Science

64. Becker (1967): “Innovation is the first or early use of an idea by organizations.” (Selwyn W Becker & Stafford, 1967, p. 511)

Typology: USA, ...?

65. Carter (1958): “Innovation is the application of knowledge.” (Carter, 1958, p. 7)

Typologie: UK, Academic, Economist, Professor of Political Economy, Manchester University

66. Griliches, (1957): “Innovation is the process of adopting and distributing a particular invention to different markets and its acceptance by entrepreneurs.” (Griliches, 1957, p. 522)

Typologie; USA, Academic, Economist, PhD, Harvard University, first endogenous treatment of new technology.

67. MacLaurin (1953): “[...] the commercial introduction of an invention.” (Maclaurin, 1953)

Typology: USA, Economist

68. McNair (1969): “[...] a bright new idea.” (McNair, 1969, p. 94)


69. Koprowski (1967): “[...] new or better products and processes.” (Koprowski, 1967, p. 79)

Typology: USA, Academic, Professor of Management and Organization, University of Colorado

70. Stanton (1971): “[...] anything – product, service, idea – which is perceived by a person as being new.” (Stanton, Etzel, & Walker, 1994, p. 205)

Typology: USA, Academic

71. Zaltman (1965): “[...] new ideas concerning entirely new product, improvements in existing products, new markets for existing product and new marketing methods.” (Zaltman & Massy, 1965, p. 65)


72. Silk & Stem (1963): “[...] novelty or newness in business activity.” (Silk & Stern, 1963, p. 183)


73. Mason (1951): “[...] the introduction of new, i.e. untried processes or products.” (Mason, 1951)

Typology: USA, Academic, Economist


48

74. Philips (1968): “[...] the introduction of new and improved processes and products into the economy.” (Phillips, 1968, p. 48)

Typology: USA, Academic, US Small Business Administration, Washington

75. Schmookler (1966): “When an enterprise produces a good or a service or uses a method or input that is new to it, it makes a technical change. The first enterprise to make a given technical change is an innovator. Its action is innovation.” (Schmookler, 1966, p. 2)

Typology: USA, Academic, Economist, Professor of Economics Minnesota University

76. Alderson (1965): “[...] the actual installation of e new idea in a going concern.” (Alderson, 1965, p. 59)

Typology: USA, Marketing.

- - - - -

Innovation defined: a survey1

Documents