Towards an innovation-typemapping tool

Jennifer RowleyDepartment of Information and Communications,

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, and

Anahita Baregheh and Sally SambrookBangor Business School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

Abstract

Purpose – Seeking to distil and integrate a range of previous definitions, models, frameworks andclassifications relating to types of innovation, this paper aims to make a contribution to clarity ininnovation research and practice through offering insights into the definitions of the different types ofinnovation, and, specifically, the relationships between them.

Design/methodology/approach – This theoretical paper is based on a review of extant models andframeworks of types of innovation, which includes earlier foundation models, and more recentintegrative models.

Findings – This distillation results in a diagrammatic representation of the key frameworks, whichis used as a platform to propose a new framework of types of innovation.

Originality/value – This paper draws on all the terminologies used for types of innovation andcreates an innovation type-mapping tool that can be used to clarify the various definitions andterminologies of the innovation type concept.

Keywords Innovation, Organizational innovation, Classification

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThere is a widespread recognition of the increasing importance of innovation toorganizations and economies as marketplaces become ever more dynamic.Organizations need to innovate in response to changing customer demands andlifestyles and in order to capitalize on opportunities offered by technology andchanging marketplaces, structures and dynamics. As long ago as 1950, Schumpeterargued that organizations should innovate in order to renew the value of their assetendowment. Zahra and Covin (1994) suggest that:

Innovation is widely considered as the life blood of corporate survival and growth (p. 183).

Innovation is recognized to play a central role in creating value and sustainingcompetitive advantage. Bessant et al. (2005) when discussing the role of innovation inrenewal and growth emphasize:

Innovation represents the core renewal process in any organization. Unless it changes what itoffers the world and the way in which it creates and delivers those offerings it risks itssurvival and growth prospects (p. 1366).

A key concept in the literature of innovation is that of “type of innovation”. Yet, theplethora of models, frameworks, classifications, and definitions of types of innovationmake it difficult to understand the different type definitions used by different

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

73

Management DecisionVol. 49 No. 1, 2011

pp. 73-86q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0025-1747DOI 10.1108/00251741111094446

researchers and the relationships between the various proposed types of innovation.For example, an early model by Knight (1967) proposes the following types ofinnovation: organizational structure, production process, people, and product/service.Various binary models proposed in the 1970s and 1980s discuss administrative,technical, incremental, radical, product, and process, as types of innovation (e.g. Banteland Jackson, 1989; Daft, 1978; Damanpour, 1991; Damanpour and Evan, 1984; Evan,1966). More recently a number of integrative models have been proposed all of whichidentify a number of different types of innovation. For example, Oke et al. (2007)discuss the following types of innovation: product (including radical and incremental),service, and process (including administrative, service and production); and, Francisand Bessant (2005) discuss position, process, product, and paradigm innovation. In theinterests of both building a coherent knowledge base around the concept of innovation,and the practice and execution of innovation in organizations, it is important to have aclear framework of the different types of innovation and the relationships betweenthem.

Over 20 years ago, Damanpour (1987) argued for a clear understanding of types ofinnovation:

Differentiation between types of innovations and stages of adoption is essential in developingrealistic theories of organizational innovations (p. 675).

More recently, Kelley and Littman (2006) in suggesting that organizations need tovalue all types of innovation, implicitly support the need for a clear framework of typesof innovation:

A great product can be one important element in the formula for business success, butcompanies that want to succeed in today’s competitive environment need much more, theyneed innovation at every point of the compass, in all aspects of the business and among everyteam member. Building an environment fully engaged in positive change, and a culture richin creativity and renewal, means creating a company with 360 degrees of innovation (p. 6).

This article, then seeks to identify the range of types of innovation and to clarify therelationships between them by:

. undertaking a thorough literature review to gather together discussion,frameworks, and models relevant to the exploration of types of innovation;

. analyzing the labels used for different types of innovation by different authorsand their respective definitions;

. creating a diagram, which summarizes some of the key models or frameworks oftypes of innovation and the relationships between types of innovation; and

. proposing a innovation-type mapping tool that shows the various different typesof innovation discussed by other authors mapped onto Francis and Bessant’s(2005) types of innovation model.

The remainder of this article explains this process. First a brief explanation of the aimand approach is offered. This is followed by a distillation of the literature on modelsand frameworks of types of innovation, including earlier foundation models, and, morerecent integrative models. This distillation results in a diagrammatic representation ofthe key frameworks. The next section proposes an integrative framework of types ofinnovation. Finally conclusions and recommendations for further research are offered.

MD49,1

74

ApproachThe aim of this paper is to:

. make a contribution to clarity in innovation research and practice throughoffering insights into the definitions of the different types of innovation, and,specifically the relationships between them; and

. propose an innovation-type mapping tool, building on Francis and Bessant’s(2005) types of innovation model.

The approach adopted by this study included the following three stages:

Literature reviewA thorough literature review was undertaken to gather together discussion,frameworks and models relevant to the exploration of types of innovation. Theliterature review started with a search using keywords such as “type * and innovation”,“innovation and (type or topology)”, “(innovation and type) or (innovationmanagement)” in online electronic journal databases, including JSTOR, Web ofKnowledge, Science Direct, Wiley InterScience, and books. The literature review wasfurther continued and enhanced by tracking citations leading to other articles until nonew documents were identified.

Analysis of innovation frameworks and identification of types of innovationThe sources identified in the literature review were analyzed, both to populate a list oftypes of innovation and to identify key models in the development of the discussion ofinnovation. This process surfaced two main categories of frameworks, as discussed inthe following, foundation models, which generally consider only two or three types ofinnovation, and, integrative models which emphasize the need to manage a number ofdifferent types of innovation in parallel.

The proposal of an integrated frameworkAn innovation-type mapping tool is developed based on Francis and Bessant’s (2005)model of types of innovation. This model has been selected as the basis for the toolproposed in this paper because:

. it is a relatively recent model, whose development has been informed by earliermodels, and frameworks;

. other classifications and frameworks can be mapped onto this model;

. it is the only model to introduce the important concepts of position and paradigminnovation; and

. there is lack of research on innovation based on this model.

Models and frameworks of “types of innovation”Different innovation processes result in different outputs. Some result in tangibleproducts or changes to those products, while others result in changes to services or inthe way the organization performs its tasks. If organizations want to survive they needto invest in different types of innovation, since different types of innovation influenceorganizations in different ways and achieve different outcomes and impacts (Siguawet al., 2006).

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

75

This section discusses some of the main types and typologies and classifications ofinnovations. The discussion is divided into two sub-sections, covering, respectively,foundation models and frameworks, and, integrated models and frameworks.Integrated models are typically based on and developed from foundation models.

Foundation models and frameworksOne of the early models of types of innovation was that proposed by Knight, 1967. Hesuggested that there were four different types of innovation:

(1) Product or service innovation, concerned with the organization’s new product orservice offerings.

(2) Production-process innovation, referring to the changes to organizationaloperations and production; this is also usually initiated by technologicaladvancements.

(3) Organizational structure innovation, concerned with the organization’s“authority relations, communication systems, or formal reward systems”(Knight, 1967, p. 482).

(4) People innovation, relating to changes to the people (staff) within anorganization, including changes in staffing levels, personnel, job roles,cultures, and behaviours.

Other early studies of innovation types had a binary focus (pair wise) such asproduct/process, administrative/technical and radical/incremental as discussed in thefollowing.

Administrative innovation and technical innovation is a binary model of types ofinnovation, with technical innovation relating to new products, processes or services,while administrative innovation involves changes to the social structure of theorganization (Evan, 1966) such as “policies of recruitment, allocation of resources, andthe structuring of tasks, authority and reward” (Daft, 1978, p 198).

Technical innovation refers to any type of innovation structured from a technicalviewpoint and which lies at the heart of operations; such innovations influence the flowof product or process operations (Damanpour, 1991). Technical innovation may take anumber of different forms. Bantel and Jackson (1989) suggest:

Technical innovations pertain to products and services as well as production processes andoperations related to the central activities of the organization (design and delivery ofproducts, services, marketing, and office operations); such innovations are assumed to beoriginated in the technical core of the organization (p. 108).

Another widely used term that is often confused with technical innovation istechnological innovation; technological innovations are those innovations initiated byuse of technology; they are often associated with the opportunities available to theorganization as a result of advances in technology. Technical innovation, on the otherhand, describes more generally innovation that relates to the technical system of theorganization and its primary activities (Damanpour and Evan, 1984).

Administrative innovation brings change to the structure or administration of theorganization. Bantel and Jackson (1989) see administrative innovations as pertaining to“change in the organizational structure and the people who populate the organization(staffing, employee survey, strategic planning, compensation system and training

MD49,1

76

programs); these innovations are assumed to originate in the more peripheral,administrative core of the organization” (p. 108).

Product innovation and process innovation is another binary categorization of typesof innovation. Although based on Knight’s (1967) classification discussed earlier thiscategorization is identified separately here because it has received considerableattention in the literature. In such models or frameworks innovation is either a productinnovation or process innovation (Knight, 1967; Utterback, 1971). Product innovation isconcerned with the development of new products and services for the market(customers) while process innovation relates to ways of undertaking production orservice operations. Product innovations aim to present a new or improved product orservice for the customers and customers see the impact of such innovation in theproducts or services they receive, while process innovations change or improve theway organizations perform.

Radical innovation and incremental innovation is a third binary classification. Thisclassification or framework is based on the degree of change and newness of theinnovation. Radical innovation is a “fundamental change” (Dewar and Dutton, 1986,p. 1422) while incremental innovation is an add-on to a previous innovation withoutchanging its essential concept (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Incremental innovation could,for example, take the form of changing the materials used to make a product,improving the product through an updated design, or adding additional features oroptions.

In this paper, radical and incremental innovations will not be regarded as types ofinnovation, but rather as an attribute of any of the innovation types. The labels radicaland incremental innovation, represent the degree of change the innovation brings and,as such, they could be attributes of any of the other types of innovation such asproduct, process, administrative, or technical.

Integrative models and frameworksIn recognition of the increasing importance for organizations of managing across therange of different types of innovation, recently a number of integrative models ofinnovation have been proposed. This section draws together a number of these modelsand frameworks, and other concepts that have surfaced in recent years, such as hybridinnovations.

Damanpour (1987) further expanded his research on types of innovation byintroducing ancillary innovation in addition to technical and administrativeinnovations. He suggested that, there is a requirement to distinguish ancillaryinnovations, which are those types of innovation that require the involvement of boththe organization and some of its clients. Accordingly, ancillary innovations arecustomer dependent innovations such as “customer active programs for product-ideageneration and “point-of-purchase” or fashion videos” (Damanpour, 1987, p. 678). Thisstudy does not include ancillary innovations further as classifications of ancillaryinnovations are based on the degree of involvement of different parties within aninnovation.

Cooper (1998) proposed a multidimensional integrative model of innovation, whichdrew together the types of innovation embedded in three of the earlier binaryclassifications, viz, administrative, technical, process, product, radical, and incrementalinnovation (see Figure 1). His view is that any one innovation can have some aspects ofany of the six types of innovation. On the role of this model, he states “a

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

77

multidimensional model of innovation means that by defining innovations morenarrowly in terms of the attribute combinations they possess (e.g.process-administration-radical), researchers should be more successful in describingrelationships between organizational variables and the adoption of innovation”(p. 501).

Other authors, while not always seeking to identify and embed all types ofinnovation in their models and research have, nevertheless, also emphasized therelationships between types of innovation. For example, Boer and During (2001) defineinnovation as “creation of a new product-market-technology-organizationcombination” (p. 84). They identified the following types of innovation: product,process, and organizational; they suggested that process innovation is concerned withmanufacturing, which organizational innovation is any other change to the way theorganization operates such as, say, the introduction of Total Quality Management.Johannessen et al. (2001) present yet another model of types of innovation, operating ata more detailed level than most other models; they discuss six types of innovativeactivities: new products, new services, new methods of production, opening newmarkets, new sources of supply, and new ways of organizing.

Hovgaard and Hansen (2004) offer another classification of types of innovation.Their classification includes three types of innovation: product, process, and businesssystems. Since they view ‘business systems’ as referring to all of those innovations“that do not fall under product or process” (p. 27), their concept of business system isclose to Boer and During’s (2001) concept of organizational innovation. Examples ofbusiness system innovation could be in marketing or customer orientation. They alsoseek to align their innovation categories with those used by other authors. They arguethat “technical refers to product and process innovation and administrative refers toinnovation in business systems or processes”. (p. 27)

Trott (2005), recognizing the complexity and diversity of the classifications andtypologies of innovation, has brought some of these typologies together. In addition toproduct, process, and service innovation he also points to the following types ofinnovation:

. organizational innovation is a new venture division, a new internalcommunication system, introduction of a new accounting procedure;

Figure 1.A multidimensional modelof innovation

MD49,1

78

. management innovation represents systems such as TQM (total qualitymanagement), BPR (business process reengineering);

. production innovation consists of Quality Circles, just-in-time ( JIT)manufacturing system, new production planning software such as MRPII; and

. commercial/marketing innovation is represented by new financing arrangements;new sales approached as Direct Marketing (p. 17).

Another type of innovation, which could be added to the previously mentionedcategorization is hybrid products also known as product/service systems. Hybridproducts are integrated solutions, which are a mix of product and service (Velamuriet al., 2008). Such forms of innovation are becoming increasingly important asorganizations are recognising the need to innovate in both product and servicecharacteristics. Hybrid products are “the result of an innovation strategy, shifting thebusiness focus from designing and selling physical products to selling a combinedsystem of products and services which are jointly capable of fulfilling specific clientdemand.” (Velamuri et al., 2008, p. 2, quoting Manzini and Vezzoli, 2002). Figure 2shows product service systems.

Two recent integrative models are those proposed recently by Oke et al. (2007), andFrancis and Bessant (2005). Oke et al. (2007) identify three main types of innovation,process, product and service, thus distinguishing between product innovation, andservice innovation. They also mention organization innovation as being firm levelinnovations initiated by the management. Their framework makes links between thesemain types of innovation and other types of innovation. For example, they suggest thatproduct innovation results in incremental or radical innovations, whereas service

Figure 2.Product service systems

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

79

innovation results in improvement in the “delivery of the core product and making itmore attractive for customers” (p. 738) and, process innovation deals with production,service or administrative improvements.

Francis and Bessant (2005) view innovation from the perspective of the change thatcomes with innovation. On this basis, Bessant and Tidd (2007) propose the followingfour categories of innovation:

(1) Product innovation, changes in the things (products/services) which anorganization offers.

(2) Process innovation, changes in the way in which things (products/services) arecreated and delivered.

(3) Position innovation, changes in the context in which products / services areintroduced.

(4) Paradigm innovation, changes in the underlying mental models which framewhat the organization does (p. 13).

The most novel and interesting of these types of innovation are position and paradigminnovation. Position innovation concerns innovation’s role in exploiting new customerbases and markets and new ways of offering or introducing the innovation to thepotential customer. A position innovation changes the customer’s view orunderstanding of the products (Kim and Mauborgne, 1999). Also “positionalinnovation can change the characteristics of a market or create a market that doesnot exist” (Francis and Bessant, 2005, p. 175). Paradigm innovation, on the other hand,occurs when the way of looking at things is reframed. Examples of such innovationwould be “low-cost airlines, the provision of online insurance and other financialservices, and the repositioning of drinks like coffee and fruit juice as premium‘designer’ products” (Tidd et al., 2005, p. 11). In summary, whereas position innovationfocuses on the adaptation and development of a product for another market orcustomer group, paradigm innovation is associated with a significant shift inperceptions or markets. Both of these types of innovation may embed a number ofprocess and product innovations.

There are some parallels between the concepts of paradigm innovation anddiscontinuous innovation. Other than innovations being recognized by their type, theymay also be differentiated by the level of change they bring into the industry.Discontinuous innovations are innovations that bring a significant level of change, notjust to an organization, but, to a whole industry. They often appear together withtechnological changes. Once developed they change the industry and the resources,knowledge and expertise required for success (Anderson and Tushman, 1991).

Towards an innovation-type mapping toolThis section presents two diagrams which in different ways, seek to draw togetherearlier models, classifications, typologies and frameworks of “types of innovation”.

Figure 3 offers a diagrammatic overview of many of the frameworks discussed insection 3 of this paper. By placing simple representations of several of the typologies ofinnovation together in one diagram, Figure 3 makes it easier to understand some of thecomplexities associated with moving towards an agreed typology or framework of thetypes of innovation and the relationships between them. Clearly different authors focuson different types of innovation, and have different perspectives on the relationships

MD49,1

80

Figure 3.Typologies of innovation,

from past to present

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

81

between the types of innovation. Figure 3 also seeks to show the typologies on atime-line and to show the different focus in the literature at different points in time.Most important is the shift from the focus on binary frameworks of the 1970s and1980s towards twenty-first century frameworks that both recognise a wider range oftypes of innovation, and also emphasise the need to manage a range of different typesof innovation in parallel. The integrative models were developed from the binarymodels, influenced by each scholars’ own interpretations or perceptions; someparameters were changed, added or excluded from one model to another. Hence,models have some parameters in common; for example, product innovation, processinnovation, and administrative innovation feature in several models. Trott (2005)introduces marketing innovation, and Francis and Bessant (2005) propose the relatedconcept of position innovation. On the other hand, some types of innovation that aredistinct in some models are merged in others; for example, while some frameworksdistinguish between product innovation and service innovation, others subsume themboth under product innovation. There is also the difficulty in mapping the types ofinnovation identified by one author with those suggested by another author, onaccount of the inconsistencies in the use of terminology; for example, the termsorganization innovation, administrative innovation, and business system innovationused in different typologies have a considerable degree of shared meaning. Finally, it isimportant to note that even earlier frameworks continue to be widely used and theemergence of later topologies has not replaced usage of others.

Figure 4 shows our proposed development of Francis and Bessant (2005)classification of types of innovation. In developing our innovation-type mapping toolthe aim has been to distil and integrate the key types of innovation identified byprevious scholars and researchers. Specifically the unique types of innovationidentified in previous frameworks have been identified as:

Product, service, hybrid, technical, administrative, organizational structure, organizational,management, production, businesses system, commercial/marketing.

These types have then been mapped onto Francis and Bessant’s framework bymatching the definitions offered by previous authors and the definitions offered byFrancis and Bessant (2005). Therefore, the enhanced framework in Figure 4 can beused a mapping tool for types of innovation. In Figure 4 the double lined circles refer tothe four main innovation types defined by Francis and Bessant (2005) and the ovalsrepresent the other terms used to describe innovation types in various other studies.Moreover, this model reveals:

(1) Product innovation: Product, service and hybrid innovations can be groupedtogether under product innovation, and there is an obvious overlap betweenthem as a hybrid innovation is a mix between service and product innovation.

(2) Process innovation:. innovations in this category seem to be of two distinct natures: technical, or

organisational (administrative based);. there are many different terms for process innovation, including

administrative, technical, production, organisational, management, andbusiness system;

MD49,1

82

. there is an overlap between administrative, organisational, management andbusiness system innovations, as they all refer to innovations within theadministration and management side of organisational operations; and

. also technical and production innovations overlap, as they are bothconcerned with the technical side of operations.

(3) Position innovation: Position innovation has otherwise been described ascommercial or marketing innovation and to some extent business systeminnovation. There is an overlap between these two categories when businesssystems innovation is concerned with both administrative and marketing sideof the operations.

(4) Paradigm innovation: As can be noted, apart from the discussion around theconcept of discontinuous innovation, there has been no previous focus onparadigm innovation, which arguably is likely to generate further product,position, and process innovations. Accordingly, there has been little occasionfor the introduction of variant terms to describe this type of innovation.Paradigm innovation, in common with position innovation, would therefore,benefit from further study.

Figure 4.Innovation-type mapping

tool

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

83

(5) As reflected in Figure 4, not only is there an obvious overlap between differenttypes of innovation such as administrative, organisational structure, and people,there is also no clear distinction between the wider categories of innovation,e.g. product and process, as a product innovation may involve a number of processinnovations, or a position innovation might lead into product innovations.

Conclusion and recommendationsThe concept of type of innovation is central to innovation research and practice, andhas therefore received considerable attention from many authors. Unfortunately thishas led to a plethora of models, frameworks, classification and definitions of types ofinnovation, and it is therefore difficult to compare, contrast and integrate typedefinitions used by different authors. This paper has undertaken a thorough literaturereview to surface key models, typologies and frameworks and their associateddefinitions of the various types of innovation. On the basis of this literature review, asummary diagram of some key models has been compiled; placing simplerepresentations of several of the typologies of innovation together in one diagrammakes it easier to understand some of the complexities associated with movingtowards an agreed typology or framework of the types of innovation and therelationships between them. Finally, this paper offers a proposed innovation-typemapping tool based on Francis and Bessant’s (2005) classification of types ofinnovation. In developing this framework of types of innovation the aim has been todistil and integrate the key types of innovation identified by previous scholars andresearchers. These types have then been mapped onto Francis and Bessant’sframework by matching the definitions offered by previous authors and the definitions.

This paper makes a contribution to understanding of “types of innovation” byoffering some insights into terms and terminology associated with types of innovation.In doing so a clear relationship between several of different types of innovation hasbeen identified and an adaptive reference model based on Francis and Bessant’s (2005)has been created to provide an interpretation tool to review previous studies and offerguidance to future studies.

This innovation-type mapping tool, then, can be used by both academics, andpractitioners, as a guide, and repository of innovation types. The use of such a tool forthis purpose would have a number of benefits:

. it would help researchers and practitioners to interpret the existing knowledgebase on innovation, and to select research on the type of innovation of relevanceto their research or practice to inform their further developments;

. it is a basis for greater clarity in the use of terms to describe types of innovation,and could therefore enhance consistency in the use of terms used to refer toinnovation type in both research and practice in the future, and thereby enhancethe rigour and accessibility of the developing knowledge base on innovation; and

. while focusing on different types of innovation, the tool also highlights andmakes more explicit the relationships between the types of innovation.

In addition, by developing an innovation type-mapping tool drawn from the pastliterature this paper highlights the lack of research under the notions of position andspecifically paradigm innovation this poses a challenge/opportunity for scholars tofurther study and explore these innovation types.

MD49,1

84

There is considerably more work to be conducted in this area before bothresearchers and practitioners are able to communicate clearly about different types ofinnovation.

One of the potential difficulties in the identification of types of innovation arisesfrom the fact that no innovation is isolated, and that an innovation of one type is likelyto be associated with other types of innovation. The cynic might therefore argue thatthe pursuit of labels for specific types of innovation is destined to failure, since allinnovations can be regarded in some sense or other as strategic innovations thatchange the organization and its position in its marketplace.

However, a deeper understanding of innovation may derive from clear articulationof innovation types, or, in other words, a clear articulation of the priorities in theoutcomes of an innovation process. Only with a level of precise in the terminologyrelating to innovation types will it be possible for researchers to build a strongevidence and knowledge base to inform practice and further research, and willpractitioners be able to understand and manage the portfolio of inter-linkedinnovations of different types, which are essential to organizational success.

References

Anderson, P. and Tushman, M. (1991), “Managing through cycles of technological innovation”,Research and Technology Management, Vol. 34, pp. 26-31.

Bantel, K.A. and Jackson, S.E. (1989), “Top management and innovations in banking: does thecompetition of the top team make a difference?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10,pp. 107-24.

Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2007), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H. and Phillip, W. (2005), “Managing innovation beyond thesteady state”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1366-76.

Boer, H. and During, W.E. (2001), “Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product,process and organizational innovation”, International Journal of Technology Management,Vol. 22 Nos 1-3, pp. 83-107.

Cooper, J.R. (1998), “A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation”, ManagementDecision, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 493-502.

Daft, R.L. (1978), “Dual-core model of organizational innovation”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-210.

Damanpour, F. (1987), “The adoption of technological, administrative and ancillary innovations:impact of organizational factors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 675-88.

Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants andmoderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.

Damanpour, F. and Evan, W.M. (1984), “Organizational innovation and performance: the problemof ‘organizational lag’”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 392-402.

Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986), “The adoption of radical and incremental innovations:an empirical analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1422-33.

Evan, W.M. (1966), “Organizational lag”, Human Organizations, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 51-3.

Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005), “Targeting innovation and implications for capabilitydevelopment”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 171-83.

Hovgaard, A. and Hansen, E. (2004), “Innovativeness in the forest products industry”, ForestProducts Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 26-33.

Towards aninnovation-type

mapping tool

85

Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2001), “Innovation as newness: what is new, hownew, and new to whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 20-31.

Kelley, T. and Littman, J. (2006), The Ten Faces of Innovation: Strategies for HeighteningCreativity, Profile Books, London.

Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (1999), “Southwest airlines’ route to success”, Financial Times.

Knight, K.E. (1967), “A descriptive model of intra-firm innovation process”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 478-96.

Manzini, E. and Vezzoli, C. (2002), Product-Service Systems and Sustainability, United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), Paris.

Oke, A., Burke, G. and Myers, A. (2007), “Innovation types and performance in growing UKSMEs”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,pp. 735-53.

Siguaw, J.A., Simpson, P.M. and Enz, C.A. (2006), “Conceptualizing innovation orientation:a framework for study and integration of innovation research”, Journal of ProductInnovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 556-74.

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005), Managing Innovation, Integrating Technological,Market and Organizational Change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Trott, P. (2005), Innovation Management and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

Utterback, J.M. (1971), “The process of technological innovation within the firm”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-88.

Velamuri, V., Neyer, A.K. and Moeslein, K.M. (2008), “What influences the design of hybridproducts? Lessons learned from the preventive health-care industry”, paper presented atEURAM, Ljubljana, May.

Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1994), “The financial implications of fit between competitive strategyand innovation types and sources”, The Journal of High Technology ManagementResearch, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-211.

Further reading

Ettlie, J.E. (1988), Taking Charge of Manufacturing, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Tukker, A. (2004), “Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustainability?”,Experiences from SusProNet, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 246-60.

About the authorsJennifer Rowley is Professor in Information and Communications, at Manchester MetropolitanUniversity. Her research interests embrace knowledge management, innovation, entrepreneurialmarketing, branding, and information behaviour. Jennifer Rowley is the corresponding authorand can be contacted at: j.rowley@mmu.ac.uk

Anahita Baregheh is a PhD Student, at Bangor Business School, researching innovationmanagement in food sector SMEs.

Sally Sambook is Professor in Human Resource Development, at Bangor Business School.Her research interests embrace human resource development, public sector innovation, learning,and the student experience.

MD49,1

86

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints