Description
To prepare for this Discussion, reflect on the research you have reviewed, the presentations you have made and evaluated, and the Discussions in which you have engaged over the last 7 weeks of this course..
Post an assessment of the seminar content and evaluation of the research design. Your assessment should address the following:
How does the research and content presented in this course inform or relate to your individual Doctoral Study? What research methods or strategic analysis approaches might be useful in answering the questions that you have posed?
Consider the articles you have read and evaluate how the methods of data collection, research statistics employed, and overall research designs have enlightened your individual approach to research. Is there anything about your approach to your individual research that the literature in this seminar has reinforced or confirmed?
Were you exposed to any new sources of data that will be useful in your Doctoral Study? Be specific in your answer.
How do you view yourself as a global change agent in light of the topics covered in this seminar course?
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional scholarly source.
LEARNING RESOURCES
Recommended Readings
Important Note: Some of the readings found in this course are more than 5 years old. Although we strive to use current references whenever possible, many of the seminal articles/resources found in this course are from the theorists who created the original theory/theories.
Note: To access this week’s required Harvard Business Review resources, select the article link below or go back to Harvard Business Articles Module from the Modules page.
Brown, B., & Anthony, S. D. (2011). How P&G tripled its innovation success rate. Harvard Business Publishing, 89(6), 64–72.
Eggers, J. P., & Kaul, A. (2016). When big firms are most likely to innovate.
Hogenhuis, B. N., van den Hende, E. A., & Hultink, E. J. (2016). When should large firms collaborate with young ventures? Links to an external site.Research Technology Management, 59(1), 39–46. doi:10.1080/08956308.2016.1117329
Martin-Rios, C., & Parga-Dans, E. (2016).The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese: Non-technological innovation in creative industriesLinks to an external site.. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 6–17. doi:10.1111/caim.12131.
Nagy, D., Schuessler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and identifying disruptive innovationsLinks to an external site.. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 119–126. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.017
Prajogo, D. I. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies and business environment in delivering business performance.Links to an external site. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 241–249. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.037
Ringel, M., Taylor, A., & Zablit, H. (2016). The world’s most innovative companies: 4 things that differentiate them.
Sinfield, J. V., & Solis, F. (2016). Finding a lower-risk path to high-impact innovations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 79–89.
Agnihotri, A. (2016). Extending boundaries of Blue Ocean StrategyLinks to an external site.. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(6), 519–528. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2015.1069882
Bettencourt, L. A., & Ulwick, A. W. (2008). The customer-centered innovation map. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 109–114.
Chien, C., Kerh, R., Lin, K., & Yu, A. P. (2016). Data-driven innovation to capture user- experience product design: An empirical study for notebook visual aesthetics design.Links to an external site. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 99, 162–173. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.07.006
Christensen, C. M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Know your customers’ “jobs to be done”. Harvard Business Review, 94(9), 54–62.
Dahlander, L., & Piezunka, H. (2017, February 21). Why some crowdsourcing efforts work and others don’t. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–4.
Di Fiore, A., Vetter, J., & Capur, D. R. (2017, Winter). Collaborative innovation: How to avoid the four traps. Rotman Management, 40–45.
Fixson, S., & Marion, T. (2016, December 15). A case study of crowdsourcing gone wrong. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5.
Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., & Cricelli, L. (2016).An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performanceLinks to an external site.. European Management Journal, 34(5), 501–516. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.008
Kirsner, S. (2016, August 16). The barriers big companies face when they try to act like lean startups. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–6.
Lages, L. F. (2016). VCW—Value Creation Wheel: Innovation, technology, business, and societyLinks to an external site.. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4849–4855. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.042
Meyer, M. H., Crane, F. G., & Lee, C. (2016). Connecting ethnography to the business of innovationLinks to an external site.. Business Horizons, 59(6), 699–711. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.07.001
Palacios, M., Martinez-Corral, A., Nisar, A., & Grijalvo, M. (2016). Crowdsourcing and organizational forms: Emerging trends and research implications. Links to an external site.Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1834–1839. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.065
Rock, D., & Davis, J. (2016, October 12). 4 steps to having more “Aha” moments. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Otalora, M. L., & Ramirez, G. C. (2017). How to create a realistic customer journey mapLinks to an external site.. Business Horizons, 60(1), 143–150. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.010
Optional Resources
Gamble, J. R., Brennan, M., & McAdam, R. (2016). A contemporary and systematic literature review of user-centric innovation: a consumer perspective. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(01), 1–45. doi:10.1142/S1363919616500110
Szymańska, K. (2016). Organisational culture as a part in the development of open innovation – the perspective of small and medium-sized enterprises. Management, 20(1), 142–154. doi:10.1515/manment-2015-0030
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Sustainability-Driven Innovation
Philippe Livingston
DBA, Walden University
COURSE 8511: Seminar in Innovation Management
Dr. Chad
February 12, 2024
Incorporation and Analysis
• Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make up around
90% of the world’s businesses, employing 50–60% of the
world’s population (Dey et al., 2018)
• SMEs have a higher chance of skill shortages and large
employee turnover (Dey et al., 2018)
• Innovation was found to be a critical factor in businesses’ longterm success (Maier et al., 2020)
• Innovation has become an essential research topic for scholars
and business leaders because of the globalization it initiates
(Berry, 2014).
SDI
• Sustainability-oriented innovation could be achieved
through product, process, and organizational
innovation (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014).
• Process innovation is defined as implementing new
or improved production, such as adjustments in
techniques, equipment, and software (Adams et al.,
2016).
• Green production is an example of process
innovation influencing environmental sustainability.
Principle Schools of Thought
A 2005 study by Arthur D. Little
extended the discussion on innovation,
coining the term sustainability-driven
innovation, defined as creating new
market space, products, and services or
processes driven by social,
environmental, or sustainability issues
(Keeble et al., 2005).
Innovation has become an essential
research topic for scholars and business
leaders because of the globalization it
initiates (Berry, 2014).
Statistics
Figure 1
2010-2019 Published articles
containing innovation and
sustainability
Maier, D., Maier, A., Așchilean, I.,
Anastasiu, L., & Gavriș, O. (2020). The
Relationship between Innovation and
Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review of
the Literature. Sustainability, 12(10),
4083.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104083
Academic Literature
• Adams et al. (2016) present a model for
achieving SDI; they reveal that it can be
initiated through product, process, and
organization-level innovation to attain higher
sustainability performance.
• Operational optimization (eco-efficiency),
organizational transformation (new market
opportunities), and system building (societal
change) are essential business factors that
lead to SDI.
•
Hart argued that competitive advantage is based
on a firm’s relationship to the natural
environment along three factors: pollution
reduction, product stewardship, and sustainable
development (Metz et al., 2016).
Main Concepts
• Leaders shepherd creativity through productivity
• Valuable innovation can be measured and coached
• Creative and proactive leaders must also consider the
distinguishing behaviors of substance and character within
innovative activities
• Establishing a context in which an organization can innovate
is the innovative leaders’ primary role (Atkins & Seitchik,
2016)
• Economic performance is a pillar of sustainability
performance equivalent to business performance (Dey et al.,
2020)
Research Gaps
• Obtaining competitive advantage and
differentiation over competitors
• Using product and service sustainability
to reach new customers or markets
• Obtaining higher prices and margins for
a more profitable business
• Getting products and services to market
faster than competitors (Metz et al.,
2016)
References
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., and Overy, P. (2016). Sustainabilityoriented innovation: a systematic review, International Journal of Management
Reviews, 18, pp. 180–205.
Arkader, R. (2001). The perspective of suppliers on lean supply in a developing country
context, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, pp. 87–93.
Atkins, A., & Seitchik, M. (2016). So you think you can innovate? Rothman
Management, 33–37.
Berry, H. (2014). Global integration and innovation: multicountry knowledge
generation within MNCs, Strategic Management Journal, 35(6), pp. 869-890.
Bonini, S., and Görner, S. (2011). The Business of Sustainability Global Survey:
McKinsey Global Survey Results. October.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_
materials/the_business_of_sustainability_mckinsey_global_ survey_results
References (continue)
Boons, F., C. Montalvo, J. Quist and M. Wagner (2013). ‘Sustainable innovation,
business models and economic performance: an overview’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 45, pp. 1–8.
Dey, P. K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S., and Abdelaziz, F. B. (2020). The Impact of
Lean Management Practices and Sustainably-Oriented Innovation on
Sustainability Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Empirical
Evidence from the UK. British Journal of Management, 31(1), 141–161.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12388.
Hart, S. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy Management
Review 20(4): 986–1014.
Kavadias, S., Ladas, K., & Loch, C. (2016). The transformative business model. Harvard
Business Review, 94(10), 90–98.
References
Keeble, J., Lyon, D., Vassallo, D., Hedstrom, G., and Sanchez, H. (2005). Innovation High
Ground Report: How Leading Companies Are Using Sustainability-Driven
Innovation to Win Tomorrow’s Customers. Arthur D. Little. http://www.
adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlreports/ADL_Innovation_
High_Ground_report_03.pdf
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., and Goh, E. (2013). The Innovation
Bottom Line. MIT Sloan Management Review Research Report,
Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E. G. (2014). ‘Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a
systematic review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, pp. 57–75.
Metz, P., Burek, S., Hultgren, T. R., Kogan, S., and Schwartz, L. (2016). The Path to
Sustainability-Driven Innovation, Research-Technology Management, 59:3, 50-61,
DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2016.1161409
Innovation Management Strategy
Doctor of Business Administration, Walden
University
DDBA 8511-1:Seminar in Innovation
Management
Walden University
Introduction
There is a discrepancy between managers’ conceptions and the
actual requirements for innovative success
7% of participants knew the research’s primary conclusions, and
only 50% of them had made an effort to put the findings into
practice (Pisano, 2019).
Despite major changes in the business environment, organizations’
innovation processes have not altered much (Nagy, et al., 2016)
Innovation is far greater than this, and it need to be considered a
strategic component of the company on par with any other major
division (West & Bogers, 2019).
Background
Organizations must use an innovation management approach to
successfully navigate the changing business environment of today
(Ringel, Taylor & Zablit, 2016).
Companies effectively incorporate breakthroughs like AI and
blockchain, personalize goods for varied markets, and harness data
for strategic decision-making (West & Bogers, 2014)
Firms looking to succeed over the long term in the face of ongoing
change and competition need to have a solid innovation
management plan.
Review of Literature
The innovation or business concept is a shifting objective.
Before anything becomes innovative, it goes through several
modifications (Sinfield & Solis, 2016).
A broad, reversible framework for organizing novel
experiences is called a “cognitive map“ (Prajogo, 2016).
The innovation cycle reproduces them collectively.
If the interaction mechanisms are not included, strategies for
creating or altering innovation networks have to be conscious
that concentrating (Ringel Taylor & Zablit, 2016).
Principle School of Thought
The Spillover effect
❖ Neoclassical Economics
❖ Ecology and Environmental Economics
❖ Policy Implementation
Tendencies in the Academic Literature
An increasing understanding of spillover effects’ complex and
interwoven nature
Understanding how spillovers affect market dynamics, resource
allocation, and policy efficacy (Goffin & Mitchell, 2017).
The literature on environmental science emphasizes the importance
of spillovers on a global scale and places a strong emphasis on
transboundary and cooperative responses to problems like climate
change (Goffin & Mitchell,2017).
Research on public policy is becoming more and more interested in
unintended consequences, which highlights the intricacy of
Commonalities in Academic Scholarship
Several sources demonstrate that while research on the innovation
management phenomenon is growing, it is still not coherent.
According to a number of academics, the subject of academic study on
innovation management is still relatively young.
An overemphasis on practicality rather than adopting a meta-theoretical
approach impedes the advancement of innovation strategy research in
theory formation.
It is valuable to look at the state of academic research on innovation
approach, paying close attention to its tenets, patterns, categories, and
impending challenges.
Main Concepts for Application in Business
Management
Strategic planning (Nylén & Holmström, 2018).
Leadership and management
Risk management
Human resource management planning (Nylén & Holmström,
2018)
Implications for Social Change
Social innovators encounter many of the same issues as corporate
innovators and investors (Lettice & Parekh, 2019).
These challenges are frequently exacerbated by an increasing
sophistication owing to a bigger network of different stakeholders
(Leonidou et al., 2020).
Corporate innovation is a better developed sector with potentially
useful answers for socially conscious entrepreneurs (Lettice &
Parekh, 2019).
Gaps in the Literature
The integration of emerging technologies
Cross-industry comparative analysis
Long-term impact and sustainability
Conclusion
The organizational framework, innovation culture, and innovation
strategies all greatly improved business innovation performance.
The problem here is the ability to transfer technology and
organizational structures while integrating innovative methods.
Managers should develop a fresh perspective of innovation
management by concentrating on the less obvious signs of
innovation.
References
Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Innovation management. London,
UK: Red Globe Press.
Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2019). The social innovation process:
themes, challenges and implications for practice. International Journal
of Technology Management, 51(1), 139-158.
Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2020). An
integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation
management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of Business
Research, 119, 245-258.
References
Montoro‐Sánchez, A., Ortiz‐de‐Urbina‐Criado, M., & Mora‐Valentín,
E. M. (2020). Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and
collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of knowledge
management, 15(6), 948-970.
Nagy, D., Schuessler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and
identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing
Management, 57, 119–126. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.017
Nylén, D., & Holmström, J. (2018). Digital innovation strategy: A
framework for diagnosing and improving digital product and service
innovation. Business horizons, 58(1), 57-67.
References
Pisano, G. P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard business
review, 93(6), 44-54.
Prajogo, D. I. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies
and business environment in delivering business performance.Links to
an external site. International Journal of Production Economics, 171,
241–249. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.037
Ringel, M., Taylor, A., & Zablit, H. (2016). The world’s most
innovative companies: 4 things that differentiate them.
References
Sinfield, J. V., & Solis, F. (2016). Finding a lower-risk path to highimpact innovations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 79–89.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of
innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of
product innovation management, 31(4), 814-831.
Innovation Management Strategy
Doctor of Business Administration, Walden University
DDBA 8511-1:Seminar in Innovation Management
Charles Amankwaa
Walden University
Introduction
There is a discrepancy between managers’ conceptions and the
actual requirements for innovative success
7% of participants knew the research’s primary conclusions, and
only 50% of them had made an effort to put the findings into
practice (Pisano, 2019).
Despite major changes in the business environment, organizations’
innovation processes have not altered much (Nagy, et al., 2016)
Innovation is far greater than this, and it need to be considered a
strategic component of the company on par with any other major
division (West & Bogers, 2019).
Background
Organizations must use an innovation management approach to
successfully navigate the changing business environment of today
(Ringel, Taylor & Zablit, 2016).
Companies effectively incorporate breakthroughs like AI and
blockchain, personalize goods for varied markets, and harness data
for strategic decision-making (West & Bogers, 2014)
Firms looking to succeed over the long term in the face of ongoing
change and competition need to have a solid innovation
management plan.
Review of Literature
The innovation or business concept is a shifting objective.
Before anything becomes innovative, it goes through several
modifications (Sinfield & Solis, 2016).
A broad, reversible framework for organizing novel
experiences is called a “cognitive map“ (Prajogo, 2016).
The innovation cycle reproduces them collectively.
If the interaction mechanisms are not included, strategies for
creating or altering innovation networks have to be conscious
that concentrating (Ringel Taylor & Zablit, 2016).
Principle School of Thought
The Spillover effect
❖ Neoclassical Economics
❖ Ecology and Environmental Economics
❖ Policy Implementation
Tendencies in the Academic Literature
An increasing understanding of spillover effects’ complex and interwoven
nature
Understanding how spillovers affect market dynamics, resource
allocation, and policy efficacy (Goffin & Mitchell, 2017).
The literature on environmental science emphasizes the importance of
spillovers on a global scale and places a strong emphasis on
transboundary and cooperative responses to problems like climate change
(Goffin & Mitchell,2017).
Research on public policy is becoming more and more interested in
unintended consequences, which highlights the intricacy of governance
Commonalities in Academic Scholarship
Several sources demonstrate that while research on the innovation
management phenomenon is growing, it is still not coherent.
According to a number of academics, the subject of academic study on
innovation management is still relatively young.
An overemphasis on practicality rather than adopting a meta-theoretical
approach impedes the advancement of innovation strategy research in
theory formation.
It is valuable to look at the state of academic research on innovation
approach, paying close attention to its tenets, patterns, categories, and
impending challenges.
Main Concepts for Application in Business
Management
Strategic planning (Nylén & Holmström, 2018).
Leadership and management
Risk management
Human resource management planning (Nylén & Holmström,
2018)
Implications for Social Change
Social innovators encounter many of the same issues as corporate
innovators and investors (Lettice & Parekh, 2019).
These challenges are frequently exacerbated by an increasing
sophistication owing to a bigger network of different stakeholders
(Leonidou et al., 2020).
Corporate innovation is a better developed sector with potentially
useful answers for socially conscious entrepreneurs (Lettice &
Parekh, 2019).
Gaps in the Literature
The integration of emerging technologies
Cross-industry comparative analysis
Long-term impact and sustainability
Conclusion
The organizational framework, innovation culture, and innovation
strategies all greatly improved business innovation performance.
The problem here is the ability to transfer technology and
organizational structures while integrating innovative methods.
Managers should develop a fresh perspective of innovation
management by concentrating on the less obvious signs of
innovation.
References
Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Innovation management. London,
UK: Red Globe Press.
Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2019). The social innovation process:
themes, challenges and implications for practice. International Journal
of Technology Management, 51(1), 139-158.
Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2020). An
integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation
management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of Business
Research, 119, 245-258.
References
Montoro‐Sánchez, A., Ortiz‐de‐Urbina‐Criado, M., & Mora‐Valentín,
E. M. (2020). Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and
collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of knowledge
management, 15(6), 948-970.
Nagy, D., Schuessler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and
identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing
Management, 57, 119–126. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.017
Nylén, D., & Holmström, J. (2018). Digital innovation strategy: A
framework for diagnosing and improving digital product and service
innovation. Business horizons, 58(1), 57-67.
References
Pisano, G. P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard
business review, 93(6), 44-54.
Prajogo, D. I. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies
and business environment in delivering business performance.Links to
an external site. International Journal of Production Economics, 171,
241–249. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.037
Ringel, M., Taylor, A., & Zablit, H. (2016). The world’s most
innovative companies: 4 things that differentiate them.
References
Sinfield, J. V., & Solis, F. (2016). Finding a lower-risk path to highimpact innovations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 79–89.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of
innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of
product innovation management, 31(4), 814-831.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
