IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v11y2016i5p96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research

Author

Listed:
  • Onexy Quintana-Martinez
  • Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez

Abstract

The multidisciplinary character of the theories that support research in the discipline of Innovation Management (IM), the growing importance being attributed to the increasingly rigorous approach to IM studies by academics, and the impact of IM on the competitive advantage of firms are just some of the indicators demonstrating the relevance of this discipline in the broader field of management. These developments explain why a quantitative analysis of IM studies based on bibliometric techniques is particularly opportune.The aim of this paper is to analyze the dynamics of the intellectual structure of IM research throughout the last 20 years, to find out the main convergence axis within the field. The analysis of the intellectual structure shows that there are four convergence axes during the said period- (1) the study of how to manage innovation from the Strategic Management and Business Administration ambit; (2) New Products Development; (3) The importance of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management for IM; and (4) The importance of the technological change, supply of technology, innovation process and innovation model. The dynamic analysis of all this, shows that in the 90’s there was a predominance of the axis (1) and (2). Subsequently, the predominance changed during the first decade of the XXI century, because the axis (2) remained dominating, but axis (4) began to appear strongly. Finally, it’s evident the strengthening of the authority of axis (4) in the intellectual structure of the IM research during the last period of study.

Suggested Citation

  • Onexy Quintana-Martinez & Antonio-Rafael Ramos-Rodriguez, 2016. "Changes in the Axes of Convergence of Innovation Management Research," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-96, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/55099/31636
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/55099
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Van de Ven, Andrew R., 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Agricultural Research Policy Seminar 139708, University of Minnesota Extension.
    7. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    9. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    10. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    11. Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1986. "Central Problems in the Management of Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 590-607, May.
    12. Abbie Griffin & John R. Hauser, 1993. "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27.
    13. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    14. Beatriz Junquera & María Mitre, 2007. "Value of bibliometric analysis for research policy: A case study of Spanish research into innovation and technology management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 443-454, June.
    15. Voss, C. A., 1988. "Implementation: A key issue in manufacturing technology: The need for a field of study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 55-63, April.
    16. Rothwell, R. & Freeman, C. & Horlsey, A. & Jervis, V. T. P. & Robertson, A. B. & Townsend, J., 1974. "SAPPHO updated - project SAPPHO phase II," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 258-291, November.
    17. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    18. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    19. Katherine W. McCain, 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 433-443, September.
    20. Hammer, Michael & Champy, James, 1993. "Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 90-91.
    21. Eric von Hippel & Ralph Katz, 2002. "Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 821-833, July.
    22. Birger Wernerfelt, 1984. "A resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 171-180, April.
    23. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1982. "The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 114-132, March.
    24. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    25. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, 1988. "Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 251-267, October.
    26. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    27. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    28. Gann, David M. & Salter, Ammon J., 2000. "Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 955-972, August.
    29. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2003. "The dynamic resource‐based view: capability lifecycles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 997-1010, October.
    30. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    31. Von Hippel, Eric A. & Katz, Ralph, 2002. "Shifting Innovation to Users Via Toolkits," Working papers 4232-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    32. John E. Ettlie & William P. Bridges & Robert D. O'Keefe, 1984. "Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 682-695, June.
    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. Ávila-Robinson, Alfonso & Islam, Nazrul & Sengoku, Shintaro, 2022. "Exploring the knowledge base of innovation research: Towards an emerging innovation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    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. Dennys Eduardo Rossetto & Roberto Carlos Bernardes & Felipe Mendes Borini & Cristiane Chaves Gattaz, 2018. "Structure and evolution of innovation research in the last 60 years: review and future trends in the field of business through the citations and co-citations analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1329-1363, June.
    2. Peeters, T.J.G., 2013. "External knowledge search and use in new product development," Other publications TiSEM 300ebb34-b090-4210-b95e-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Forés, Beatriz & Camisón, César, 2016. "Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 831-848.
    4. Yu-Shan Su & Eric Tsang & Mike Peng, 2009. "How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 309-331, June.
    5. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    6. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    7. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    9. Zhang, Haisu & Wu, Fang & Cui, Anna Shaojie, 2015. "Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation: A contingency perspective," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 297-308.
    10. Singh, Shiwangi & Dhir, Sanjay & Das, V. Mukunda & Sharma, Anuj, 2020. "Bibliometric overview of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change journal: Analysis from 1970 to 2018," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Guo, Jingjing & Guo, Bin & Zhou, Jianghua & Wu, Xiaobo, 2020. "How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect firm innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects of knowledge attributes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    13. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    14. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    15. Stephan Manning & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters & Arie Y. Lewin, 2018. "The changing rationale for governance choices: Early vs. late adopters of global services sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 2303-2334, August.
    16. Jorge Ferreira & Sofia Cardim & Arnaldo Coelho, 2021. "Dynamic Capabilities and Mediating Effects of Innovation on the Competitive Advantage and Firm’s Performance: the Moderating Role of Organizational Learning Capability," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 620-644, June.
    17. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    19. Ming Piao & Edward J. Zajac, 2016. "How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1431-1447, July.
    20. Papachristos, George & Papadonikolaki, Eleni & Morgan, Bethan, 2024. "Projects as a speciation and aggregation mechanism in transitions: Bridging project management and transitions research in the digitalization of UK architecture, engineering, and construction industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:96. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.