IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joiaen/v6y2017i1d10.1186_s13731-017-0063-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the origin of innovations—the opportunity vacuum as a conceptual model for the explanation of innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Planing

    (Business School, Pforzheim University)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to transfer the innovation system (IS) approach to the microeconomic level, creating a conceptual framework which helps individual actors to explain, identify, and predict the origin of innovations. Based on the ongoing discussion about the applicability of boundedly rational search and, in particular, the metaphor of an opportunity landscape, the author has developed a conceptual framework for the origin of economic innovations, structured along three dimensions. First, the adjacent possible defines a narrow space of potential first-order combinations of exiting knowledge, which is the trajectory for the new developments in technology and science. Second, the adjacent feasible defines an area of expected cost reduction which enables the exploitation of the new technologies within a threshold. Finally, the adjacent acceptable represents a small area on the current edges of socially accepted behavior, which currently only innovators embrace, but soon will reach the early majority of adopters. It is, however, the moment when all three dimensions achieve an intersecting area, when the opportunity vacuum (OV) is created. The OV is a space, which strongly attracts innovation and often creates multiple inventions at the same time emerging independently. While this model is aimed at explaining the origin of economic innovations in retrospective, it can also be applied as a framing method to anticipate future economic novelty.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Planing, 2017. "On the origin of innovations—the opportunity vacuum as a conceptual model for the explanation of innovation," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joiaen:v:6:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-017-0063-2
    DOI: 10.1186/s13731-017-0063-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13731-017-0063-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13731-017-0063-2?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. Sharon A. Alvarez & Jay B. Barney & Philip Anderson, 2013. "Forming and Exploiting Opportunities: The Implications of Discovery and Creation Processes for Entrepreneurial and Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 301-317, February.
    2. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Diffusion of science-based inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 66-77.
    3. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    4. Teppo Felin & Stuart Kauffman & Roger Koppl & Giuseppe Longo, 2014. "Economic Opportunity and Evolution: Beyond Landscapes and Bounded Rationality," Post-Print hal-01415115, HAL.
    5. Iizuka, Michiko, 2013. "Innovation systems framework: still useful in the new global context?," MERIT Working Papers 2013-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Sidney G. Winter, 2012. "Purpose and Progress in the Theory of Strategy: Comments on Gavetti," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 288-297, February.
    7. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    8. Fred Gault, 2012. "User innovation and the market," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 118-128, February.
    9. Andy Hall, 2005. "Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: an innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 611-630.
    10. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Béla Nagy & J Doyne Farmer & Quan M Bui & Jessika E Trancik, 2013. "Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, February.
    12. Christophe Van den Bulte, 2000. "New Product Diffusion Acceleration: Measurement and Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 366-380, June.
    13. Freeman, Chris, 1994. "The Economics of Technical Change," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 18(5), pages 463-514, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Havas, Attila, 2014. "Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations: Implications for measurement and policy," MPRA Paper 65908, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 May 2015.
    2. Andrea Renda, 2016. "Selecting and Designing European ICT Innovation Policies," JRC Research Reports JRC103661, Joint Research Centre.
    3. 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.
    4. Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2001. "Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design—The Case for Incentive Alignment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 225-239, September.
    5. Federica Rossi & Ainurul Rosli, 2013. "Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey," Working Papers 13, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Aug 2013.
    6. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    7. Giovanni Dosi & Patrick Llerena & Mauro Sylos Labin, 2005. "Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ”European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe," Working Papers of BETA 2005-11, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Mario Coccia, 2006. "Classifications of innovations: Survey and future directions," CERIS Working Paper 200602, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    9. Mario Coccia, 2004. "Analysis of the scientific research structures: taxonomy and strategical behaviour," CERIS Working Paper 200406, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    10. Heeyong Noh & Sungjoo Lee, 2019. "Where technology transfer research originated and where it is going: a quantitative analysis of literature published between 1980 and 2015," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 700-740, June.
    11. Rahel Falk, 2006. "Measuring the Effects of Public Support Schemes on Firms' Innovation Activities. Survey Evidence from Austria," WIFO Working Papers 267, WIFO.
    12. Maëlle Della Peruta, 2015. "Mobile Money Adoption and Financial Inclusion Objectives: A Macroeconomic Approach through a Cluster Analysis," GREDEG Working Papers 2015-49, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    13. Fellnhofer, Katharina, 2022. "Entrepreneurial alertness toward responsible research and innovation: Digital technology makes the psychological heart of entrepreneurship pound," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    14. Frederick Betz & Whasik Min & Dong Shin, 2014. "Universities and Entrepreneurship in Asia: The Case of Nano," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(4), pages 803-819, December.
    15. Paola Cardamone & Valeria Pupo & Fernanda Ricotta, 2016. "Do Firms Benefit from University Research? Evidence from Italy," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 2(3), pages 445-471, November.
    16. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    17. Teppo Felin & Todd R. Zenger, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Strategy, Problems, and a Theory for the Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 222-231, February.
    18. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2006. "The Economics of University: a Knowledge Governance Approach," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200602, University of Turin.
    19. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    20. Zerzeri FERIEL, 2016. "Innovation, Cooperation Network and Economic Growth, a Tunisian Case," Journal of Economics Bibliography, KSP Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 53-70, 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:spr:joiaen:v:6:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-017-0063-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.