IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v69y2016i11p5292-5298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The root cause of innovation system problems: Formative measures and causal configurations

Author

Listed:
  • Jenson, Ian
  • Leith, Peat
  • Doyle, Richard
  • West, Jonathan
  • Miles, Morgan P.

Abstract

Innovation systems provide a structured approach to understanding innovation performance and failure. Two innovation system theories, structural and functional, provide the basis for understanding the failures of projects within the single innovation system under investigation. Many indicators of the strength of conditions in the model are important to innovation system performance. Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis is suitable for the validation of formative measurement models. The survey instrument meets validity criteria to the extent of this research and is a useful diagnostic tool for innovation system performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenson, Ian & Leith, Peat & Doyle, Richard & West, Jonathan & Miles, Morgan P., 2016. "The root cause of innovation system problems: Formative measures and causal configurations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5292-5298.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:11:p:5292-5298
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296316303319
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.127?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Riefler, Petra & Roth, Katharina P., 2008. "Advancing formative measurement models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 1203-1218, December.
    2. Coltman, Tim & Devinney, Timothy M. & Midgley, David F. & Venaik, Sunil, 2008. "Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(12), pages 1250-1262, December.
    3. Jenson, Ian & Leith, Peat & Doyle, Richard & West, Jonathan & Miles, Morgan P., 2016. "Innovation system problems: Causal configurations of innovation failure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5408-5412.
    4. Woodside, Arch G., 2014. "Embrace•perform•model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2495-2503.
    5. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    6. Rosalinde J.A. Klein Woolthuis, 2010. "Sustainable Entrepreneurship in the Dutch Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Jenson, Ian & Leith, Peat & Doyle, Richard & West, Jonathan & Miles, Morgan P., 2016. "Testing innovation systems theory using Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1283-1287.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohsin Malik & Hadi Ghaderi & Amir Andargoli, 2021. "A resource orchestration view of supply chain traceability and transparency bundles for competitive advantage," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3866-3881, December.
    2. Li Li & Haifen Lin & Yibo Lyu, 2022. "Technology cluster coupling and invulnerability of industrial innovation networks: the role of centralized structure and technological turbulence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1209-1231, March.
    3. Jenson, Ian & Doyle, Richard & Miles, Morgan P., 2020. "An entrepreneurial marketing process perspective of the role of intermediaries in producing innovation outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 291-299.
    4. Rampersad, Giselle, 2020. "Robot will take your job: Innovation for an era of artificial intelligence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-74.
    5. Karabag, Solmaz Filiz, 2019. "Factors impacting firm failure and technological development: A study of three emerging-economy firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 462-474.
    6. Morgan P. Miles & Mark Morrison, 2020. "An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural entrepreneurial ecosystems," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 933-949, April.
    7. Cristina Caterina Amitrano & Marco Tregua & Tiziana Russo Spena & Francesco Bifulco, 2018. "On Technology in Innovation Systems and Innovation-Ecosystem Perspectives: A Cross-Linking Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jenson, Ian & Doyle, Richard & Miles, Morgan P., 2020. "An entrepreneurial marketing process perspective of the role of intermediaries in producing innovation outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 291-299.
    2. Jenson, Ian & Leith, Peat & Doyle, Richard & West, Jonathan & Miles, Morgan P., 2016. "Testing innovation systems theory using Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1283-1287.
    3. Jenson, Ian & Leith, Peat & Doyle, Richard & West, Jonathan & Miles, Morgan P., 2016. "Innovation system problems: Causal configurations of innovation failure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5408-5412.
    4. Claudio Vitari & Elisabetta Raguseo, 2016. "Big data value and financial performance: an empirical investigation [Digital data, dynamic capability and financial performance: an empirical investigation in the era of Big Data]," Post-Print halshs-01923271, HAL.
    5. Joseph A Crawford & Sarah Dawkins & Angela Martin & Gemma Lewis, 2020. "Putting the leader back into authentic leadership: Reconceptualising and rethinking leaders," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(1), pages 114-133, February.
    6. Justina GineikienÄ—, 2013. "Consumer Nostalgia Literature Review And An Alternative Measurement Perspective," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 4(2).
    7. Baxter, David & Trott, Paul & Ellwood, Paul, 2023. "Reconceptualising innovation failure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    8. Zhuomin Shi & Zaoying Kuang & Ning Yang, 2017. "Why it is hard to explain Chinese face?—FACE measurement models and its influence on ecological product preference," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. John S. Hill & Myung-Su Chae & Jinseo Park, 2012. "The Effects of Geography and Infrastructure on Economic Development and International Business Involvement," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 4(2), pages 91-113, December.
    10. José Manuel Cabello & Francisco Ruiz & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2021. "An Alternative Aggregation Process for Composite Indexes: An Application to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 153(2), pages 443-467, January.
    11. Sanz-Blas, Silvia & Buzova, Daniela & Pérez-Ruiz, Pilar, 2021. "Building relational worth in an online social community through virtual structural embeddedness and relational embeddedness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    12. Grahame R. Dowling & Tayo Otubanjo, 2011. "Corporate and organizational identity: two sides of the same coin," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 1(3), pages 171-182, December.
    13. Rogier van de Wetering & Tom Hendrickx & Sjaak Brinkkemper & Sherah Kurnia, 2021. "The Impact of EA-Driven Dynamic Capabilities, Innovativeness, and Structure on Organizational Benefits: A Variance and fsQCA Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    14. Baxter, Roger, 2009. "Reflective and formative metrics of relationship value: A commentary essay," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(12), pages 1370-1377, December.
    15. Dastane, Omkar & Goi, Chai Lee & Rabbanee, Fazlul, 2023. "The development and validation of a scale to measure perceived value of mobile commerce (MVAL-SCALE)," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Cheng, Yang & Matthiesen, Rikke & Farooq, Sami & Johansen, John & Hu, Haibo & Ma, Lei, 2018. "The evolution of investment patterns on advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) in manufacturing operations: A longitudinal analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 239-253.
    17. Niklas Fernqvist & Mats Lundqvist, 2021. "Entrepreneurial Sustainability Engagement of Insiders Initiating Energy System Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Piotr Białowolski, 2015. "Concepts of Confidence in Tendency Survey Research: An Assessment with Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 281-302, August.
    19. Niyati Jain & T. V. Raman, 2022. "A partial least squares approach to digital finance adoption," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(4), pages 308-321, December.
    20. Sascha Kraus & Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano & Miriam Schüssler, 2018. "Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research – the rise of a method," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 15-33, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:11:p:5292-5298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.