You are on page 1of 12

First International Conference on Economics and Banking (ICEB-15)

Defining Mainstreams Of Innovation: A

Literature Review
Edy Suroso1, Yudi Azis2
Doctoral program student of Department of Management Padjadjaran University Bandung Indonesia /Department of
Management Siliwangi University Tasikmalaya Indonesia
Department of Management Padjadjaran University Bandung Indonesia

Abstract-The importance of innovation in current current state to investigate and analysis the key findings of
business justifies the increasing interest that researchers are these studies in order to identify where the conclusions
taking in it. This propose of this article is to identify and organize converge and diverge. This will help to advance our knowledge
the overall innovation research current state to investigate and of innovative performance in companies. Third, we identify
analysis the key findings of these studies.The method used in this
limitation of these studies for future research direction.
article was systematic review of empirical and conceptual article
published in scholarly reviews on topic of innovation.The findings The structure of the article is as follows. First, we
shows (1) There are three mainstreams innovation typologies describe the literature on innovation. Next, we will describe the
approach dominant: incremental versus radical innovation; method used to locate and select the relevant literature, and
technological versus marketing innovation; and product versus present some general reviewed studies.We will then present
process innovation. (2) The literature research in innovation and discuss the result of our review, and finish with the main
measurement can be divided into two mainstream of innovation conclusions, implications and recommendations.
measurement; Input and output measurement; Metric and
methodologies measurement. 2. Literature Review
Innovation is widely acknowledged as key to
Keyword: Innovation, Innovation typologies, Innovation
measurement economic development, since it potentially leads to
productivity and competitive gains (Abrunhosa&ESa,
2008).There are several definitions of innovation. According to
Schumpeter (1983) “innovation is the commercial or industrial
application of something new-a new product, process or
1. Introduction method of production; a new market or sources of supply; a
The expression “innovate or die” has been an accepted new form of commercial business or financial organization.
phrase in the popular business environment (Kavadas and The European Commission defines innovation as the
Chao, 2007). Innovation is one of most important sources of renewal and enlargement of the range of products and services
competitive advantage (Hansen, 2014; Damanpour et al, 2009; and the associated markets; the establishment of new methods
Gunday et al, 2011; Lin et al, 2007; Abidin et al, 2013).The of production, supply and distribution; the introduction of
study of innovation hardly needs justification as scholars, changes in management, work organization, and the working
practitioners and policy makers maintain that innovation is a conditions and skills of the work force (CEC, 1995).
primary source of competitive advantage, industrial change and In the simple terms, innovation involves the
economic growth (Boyne et al, 2006). exploitation of new ideas. Innovation is term that may refer to
The undeniable importance of innovation in current process, an attribute, or an end result. There is a difference
business justifies the increasing interest that researchers are between innovation and invention. Innovationshould not be
taking in it. However, if the number of papers on the topic has equated to invention; an invention may not necessarily lead on
evolved exponentially, there is still no precise prescription for to innovation. This distinction is made clear by Freeman (1982)
successful innovation (Becheikh et al, 2005; Rosenbusch et al, when he note that: “an invention is a idea, a sketch or model for
2010). Several researchers have tested the effect of a large a new or improved device, product, process or system” whereas
number of innovation-related variables. However, even thought “an innovation in the economic sense is accomplished only
they tested similar variables, they discovereddiffering degrees with the first commercial transaction involving the new
of association with the rate of innovation (Carayannis and product, process, system or device..”
Provance, 2008; Kostopoulos et al, 2010; Projogo and Sohal, Different definitions of innovation included in the
2006; Auken et al, 2008). The innovation process still poorly literature. “Innovation has been consistently defined as the
understood and the current state of the literature contributes adoption of idea or behavior that is new to the organization
little to improving our understanding of phenomenon. (Bon & Mustafa, 2013). Thus, innovation does not exclusively
The contribution of this articleis threefold. First, we result from R&D; it is a multidimensional process, with
identify and organize relevant work into innovation domains by multiple sources, most of the time coming from complex
following literature review designed to understand innovations interactions among individuals, organization and the
context. Second, we assess the overall innovation research institutional setting.

© 2015. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press 387

The method of innovation is to develop ideas, refine 3. Methodology
them into a useful form, and bring them to fruition in the The review method used in this article was systematic
market where they will achieve increased efficiencies (Morris, review of empirical and conceptual article published in referred
2008). Innovation definitely creates business value. The value scholarly reviews on topic of innovation. Before specifying the
manifest itself in different form, e.g., there could be value from methodological details of the study, it is worthwhile answering
radical innovation leading to entirely new products as well as first the question: why to do a systematic review? In the
from incremental innovation leading to improvement in management field, the traditional narrative literature review
existing products. have been widely criticized for the lack of relevance due to the
Innovation is important because in this knowledge era, use of personal, and usually subjective and biased methodology
many companies see it as a strong contributor and means for by authors (fink, 1998; Hart, 1998). To mitigate this gap,
generating business and profitable growth that will improve an Transfield et al (2003) propose to apply the specific principles
organization‟s performance and competitiveness (Potters, of the systematic review methodology usually use in medical
2009). Sustainable and profitable growth in a company requires science. The main difference between a systematic review and
sustainable innovation activities (Gupta, 2007) a traditional narrative review is that, contrary to the later, the
From a micro point of view, innovation is former uses a rigorour, replicable, scientific and transparent
management discipline: it focus on he organization‟s mission, process (Cook et al., 1997).
searches for unique opportunities, determines whether they fit A systematic review is, however different from a
the organization‟s strategic direction, defines the measures for meta-analysis in the sense that is does not use statistical and
success, and continually reassesses opportunities (Gaynor, 2002 econometric procedures for synthesizing findings and analyzing
in Lin and Chen 2007). data (Transfieldet. Al., 2003).The main purpose of a systematic
In general, innovation research can be approached review is to identify key findings and contributions to a field or
from the perspectives of an individual, an organization, and a question and its results are often descriptively presented and
nation, focusing on personal traits, innovation management, discussed. Applying the principles of the systematic review will
and nation‟s source of competitiveness, respectively. Scholars then help to limit bias (systematic errors), reduce chance
from various disciplines have explored innovation from effects, enhance the legimitacy and authority of the ensuing
different perspectives. They have enriched this area of study evidence and provide more reliable results upon which to draw
and enable other researchers to gain a better understanding of conclusions and make decisions. Two steps are particularly
the nature of innovation (Lin and Chen, 2007). important when doing a systematic review: (1) the setting of
inclusion criteria and (2) the strategy of locating and selecting
the potential studies (Alderson et al, 2004).

4. Findings and Discussion

Innovation Typologies

Table1. The Mainstreams of Innovation Typologies

Mainstreams of Key Characteristics Prominent Authors
Radical versus - Radical innovation are the ones that are new to the world Abrunhosa and E Sa
Incremental and are exceptionally different from existing products and (2008), Lin andChen
Innovation services (2007), Prajogo and
- Incremental Innovation involves revisions or alterations to Sohal (2003),
existing products or service Forsman and Temel
Technological - Technological innovation is the adoption of new Rosenbusch (2011),
versus Marketing technologies that are incorporated into processes or product Damanpour et al
innovation - Marketing innovation is associated with internal processes (2009), Auken et al
supporting the delivery of a service or product (2008), Bon and
Mustafa (2013)
Product versus - Product innovation are creating a new or improved good or Gunday et al (2011),
process innovation service Sigh and Smith
- Process Innovation are focuses on improving the (2004), Prajogo and
effectiveness and efficiency of production Sohal (2006)

Radical versus Incremental Innovation at the heart of operations; such innovations influence the flow
One commonly studied typology draws the distinction of product or process operation (Damanpour, 2009).
between radical and incremental innovations (Abrunhosa and E Technological innovation often associated with opportunities
Sa, 2008; Lin and Chen, 2007; Prajogo and Sohal, 2003, available to the organization as a result of advance in
Forsman and Temel, 2011). Radical innovation represent technology. Marketing innovation bring change to structure of
entirely new and different offering through which enterprises the organization. Marketing innovation as pertaining to change
aim to get create new markets (Garcia and Calantone, 2002). in the organizational structure and the people who populate the
Radical innovation have been considered as risky actions since organization. These innovations are assumed to originate in the
they need the time financial resources and expensive more peripheral, marketing core of organization.
knowledge (Cainelli et al., 2006 in Forsman and Temel, 2011). Marketing innovation is the implementation of a new
Looking at the big picture, it is usual to classify marketing method involving significant changes in product
innovations as radical or incremental, although, what we have design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or
in fact is much more a continuum. at one extreme, we can find pricing. Marketing innovations target a addressing customer
those innovations that are so great that they result in a need better, opening up new markets, or newly positioning a
fundamental change in the very nature of a business. Whereas, firm‟s product on the market with the innovation increase
at the other extreme, there are some innovations that are so firm‟s sales. Marketing innovations are strongly related to
minor they are barely perceived as change (Gilbert, 1994 in pricing strategies, product package design properties, product
Abrunhosa and E sa, 2008). If the first perspective is adopted, placement and promotion activities along the lines of four P‟s
radical innovation represents the creation f a novelty with marketing.
commercial-value to the world. In line with this, incremental
innovations come in the form of improvements and adaptations Product versus Process Innovation
that occur as radical innovations are diffused in economic Another common typology used in most innovation
system. studies is the distinction between product and process
Radical innovations are new and diverse from innovations. Product and process innovations are closely
previous innovations while incremental innovations alter related to the concept of technological developments. Product
existing products. Radical innovations to be radical it has to be innovation reflect change in end product or services, and
sole and novel and from present innovations or it has influence process innovation represent change in the way an enterprise
on the future innovations or both. The most radical innovations produces products and services (Dibrell et al, 2008 in Forsman
are the ones that are new to be the world and are exceptionally and Temel, 2011). A product innovation is the introduction of a
different from existing products and services. Whereare good or service that is new or significantly improved regarding
incremental innovations involves revisions or alternations to its characteristics or intended uses. Product innovations can
existing products or service. Incremental innovation includes utilize new knowledge or technologies, or can be based on new
addition of elements of the service, product, or process. This uses or combinations of existing knowledge or technologies. A
additions improve the way that achieving and increasing process innovation is the implementation of new or
customer satisfaction.Incremental innovations represent minor significantly improved production or delivery method. Process
improvement to the existing products, services and processes innovations can be intended to decrease unit costs of
trough which enterprises often pursue to enhance processes, production or delivery, to increase quality, or to produce or
make operations more effective, improve the quality and deliver new or significantly improved product (Gunday et al,
decrease costs (Sewar and Dutton, 1986 in Forsman and Temel, 2011).Both of product innovation and process innovation are
2011). under technological innovation type. product innovation is
creating a new good or service or improved on existing gods or
Technological versus Marketing Innovation services. Process innovations, on the other hand, are focuses on
Technological innovation relating to new products, improving the effectiveness and efficiencies of production.
processes or services, while marketing innovation involves Product innovation concerned with the development
change to social structure of the organization (Rosenbusch, new product and services for the market while process
2011; Damanpour et al, 2009; Auken et al, 2008; Bon and innovation relates to ways of undertaking production or
Mustafa, 2013). Technological innovation is the adaption of services operations. Product innovation aim to present a new or
new technologies that incorporated into processes or products improved product or service for the customers and customers
(Damanpour et al, 2009), Technological innovation provides see the impact of such innovation in the products or services
long-term success in market through high competitive they receive, while process innovations change or improve the
advantage (Grover et al, 2007 in Bon and Mustafa, 2013). way organizations perform.
While marketing innovation refers to implementation of new Product innovations can utilize new knowledge or
ideas improve organizational processes, routines, structures, or technologies, or combinations of existing knowledge or
systems (Elenkov et al, 2005 in Bon and Mustafa, 2013) technologies. The term product covers both goods and services.
marketing innovation is associated with internal processes Product innovation is a difficult process driven by advancing
supporting the delivery of a service or product. technologies, changing customer needs, shortening product life
Technological innovation refer to any type of cycles, and increasing global competition. Process innovation is
innovation structure from a technical viewpoint and which lies a new or significantly improved production or delivery method.

This includes significant change in techniques, equipment Product innovation can be used to strategically
and/or software. Process innovations can be intended to differentiate an organization‟s product offerings in the
decrease unit costs of production or delivery, to increase marketplace, thereby satisfying market demands, building
quality, or to produce or deliver new or significantly improved customer loyalty, and improving firm performance. Process
products. innovation denotes a process of renewal within organizations
(Huang and Rice, 2012).

Innovation Measurements
Table 2. The Mainstreams of Innovation Measurements
Mainstreams of Key Characteristics Prominent Authors
Input and output Researcher stress the importance of output Azis&Osada (2009),
measurement indicators in measurement, but most of the Azis&Osada (2013), Gunday et
research is still predominantly focused on al (2011), Auken et al (2008),
input Hoang and Igel(2006), Sigh and
Smith (2004), Prajogo and
Sohal (2003), Prajogo and Sohal
(2006), Bon and Mustafa
Metric and Surveys, questionnaires, balance scorecard, Abidin et al (2011),Damanpur
methodologies various mathematical model, and other (2009), Lin and Chen (2007),
measurement methods have been developed to measure Abrunhosa (2008), Carpinetti et
innovation. Different standards and al (2007), Carayannis and
methodologies are being used in different Provance (2008), Siguaw et al
companies or organization (2006), Rosenbusch (2011),
Abidin et al (2013), Adams et al

Measuring Innovation has attracted many researcher, Inputs indicators mainly measure resources that are
who have conducted studies to measure innovation by using put into the innovation process. These inputs include
different methodologies and indicators. some measure intellectual, human and technological capital. Outputs
innovation based on single indicator, while others focus on indicators represent the realized, shorter term success of
several indicators. The literature research in innovation innovative activity. Indicators of this group count patent
measurement can be divided into two mainstreams. numbers and rates, patent quotes, number of new product,
percentage of sales with innovations and others.
Input and output Measurement Outputs are uncontrollable and unpredictable while
First, Input and output measurement, the literature inputs and processes can be managed and controlled by the
search shows that many companies measure their innovation by company. Measuring something that can be controlled and
considering a combination of input and output indicators. The manage from within the firm biased the results. For example, a
focus of the most of the research is on specific area such as company can increase their R&D expenditures as high as it
high-tech industry, service industry, private and public sectors, wants; however, that increase does not necessarily assure that
knowledge-based firms, forest industry, and pharmaceutical. In the company is highly innovate. Simply having high inputs may
the existing literature, it was identified that the measurement or may not produce high outputs.
has always focus on input indicators, some times combined Many studies use a single input or output indicators to
with output indicators. However, measuring innovation by determine the innovative performance of firm. It has been
taking inputs into account bring bias into the results since shown, however, that there are measurement problems with
inputs are controllable. Output demonstrates the results of innovation, especially with input indicators. Critical issues
innovation while input is just an enabler of innovation. include: (1) some input measurements that do not capture
process efficiency, (2) single measurements that do not reflect

economic or qualitative value, (3) lack of indication of importance of each indicator to the innovativeness of a
technological complexity in the inputs. company.
Output indicators that are based on patents might be
problematic because technological level and the economic 5. Conclusion
value of patents are highly heterogeneous, the nature of the Understanding and knowing innovation typologies are
patent content varies widely across countries, not all essential for organizations and researcherasserted that typology
innovations are patented, not all patent become innovations and of innovation many and varies between studies. The concept of
the propensity to patent varies Great with firm size. type of innovation is central to innovations research and
Furthermore, output indicators shows limitations due industry practice, and therefore received considerable attention from
level antecedents when multiple industries or firm sizes are many authors. This paper has undertaken a through literature
compared. Advancing the criticism, we have identified three review to surface key characteristics, typologies and definitions
limitations of the existing literature. The emphasis is primarily of the various types of innovation. There are three mainstreams
put on: (1) the manufacturing sector, (2) product innovations, innovation typologies approach dominant: incremental versus
while ignoring, (3) process variables. radical innovation; technological versus marketing innovation;
In the existing literature, it was identified that the and product versus process innovation.
measurement has always focused on input indicators, Radical innovation are the ones that are new to the
sometimes combined with output indicators. However, world and are exceptionally different from existing products
measuring innovation by taking inputs into account bring bias and services, while incremental Innovation involves revisions
into the results since inputs are controllable. Output or alterations to existing products or services. Technological
demonstrates the results of innovation while input is enabler of innovation is the adoption of new technologies that are
innovation. incorporated into processes or products, while marketing
The literature emphasizes the need for identifying innovation is associated with internal processes supporting the
more output indicators and a measurement framework that is delivery of a service or product. Product innovation are creating
based merely on output indicators. Some research by a new or improved good or service, while process Innovation
practitioners measures innovativenessby taking several are focuses on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
indicators into account. However, the research failed to identify production.
that not all indicators have the same importance for assessing This paper makes a contribution to understanding of
he innovativeness of a company. innovation typologies by offering some insights into term and
terminology associated with types of innovation. These
Metric and Methodologies Measurement innovation typologies can be used by both academics and
The Second mainstream of innovation measurement practitioners as a guide and repository of innovation typologies.
focuses on metric and the methodologies to measure This paper highlights the lack of research under the notions of
innovativeness. Numerous studies have been conducted to position and specifically paradigm innovation this pose a
measure innovation of a firm, each ne using different metricand challenge/opportunity for scholars to further study and explore
methodologies.Literature research has also identified numerous these innovation typologies.
methodologies to measure innovativeness. However, it is very Measuring Innovation has attracted many researchers,
difficult for a company to measure and benchmark itself with who have conducted studies to measure innovation by using
others if everybody is using different methodologies. The different methodologies and indicators. The literature research
literature has identified the need to have a general conceptual in innovation measurement can be divided into two mainstream
framework to measure innovativeness. of innovation measurement; Input and output measurement;
Lin and Chen (2007), Abrunhosa (2008), Carpinetti et Metric and methodologies measurement.This fact, coupled with
al (2007), Carayannis and Provance (2008) identifies metric for the diversity of the measurements used by researchers, make
measurement and categories them into corporate metrics and analyzing and understanding this phenomenon challenging and
business metric in their report, They also stresses that different ay attempt to compare and generalize the result difficult.
sectors might have different measurement mechanisms and
highlights the importance of attaching the input indicators to
the output indicators. The methodologies being used to measure References
innovativeness by scholars and practitioner are literature
review, interviews, factor analysis, cluster analysis, Survey, Abidin, S.Z., Mokhtar, S.S., Yusoff, R. Z., (2011), Systematic
case study, and Delphi method. Analysis of Innovation Studies: A Proposed
Some research by practitioner measure innovativeness Framework on Relationship Between Innovation
by taking several indicators into account. However, the Process and Firm‟s Performance, The Asian Journal
research failed to identify that not all indicators have the same of Technology Management, Vol. 4 No. 2 pp. 65-
importance for assessing the innovativeness of a company. The 83.
relative importance of the indicators was assessed by Abidin, S.Z., Mohtar, S.S., Yusoff, R.Z., (2013) Innovation
comparing two indicators at the same time. The pairwise process from the perspective of measurement,
comparison method was utilized to determine the relative International journal of innovation and applied
Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1 pp. 255-261.

Abrunhosa, A., E Sa‟, P.M, (2008), Are TQM principles Carayannis, E.G., Provance, M., (2008), Measuring firm
supporting innovation in Portuguese footwear innovativeness: towards a composite innovation
industry, Journal of technovation, Vol. 28 pp. 208 - index built on firm innovative posture, propensity
221. and performance attributes, International Journal of
Adams, R., Bessant J., Phelps, R., (2006), Innovation Innovation and Regional Development, Vol. 1 No. 1
management measurement: A review, International pp. 90-107.
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 Issue 1 pp. CEC, (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, COM (95) 688
21-47 Cook, D.J., Mulrow, C.D., Haynes, R.B., 1997, Systematic
Alderson, P., Green, S., Higgins, J.P.T., (Eds), 2004, Cochrane reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical
Reviews‟ Handbook 4.2.2. Cochrane Library, decisions. Annals of internal Medecine 126 (5) 379-
IssueI. Wiley, Chichester, UK. 380.
Anton MulyonoAzis, YudiAzis (2013), Foundation and Basic Damanpour, F., Walker, R.M., Avellaneda, C.N., (2009),
Information in Designing Performance Management Combinative effects of Innovation Types and
System, International Journal of Innovations in Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study
Business, vol 2, no 4, pp 327-349 of Service Organizations, Journal of Management
Aoun, M., Hasnan, N. (2013), Lean Production and TQM: Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4 pp. 650-675.
Complementary or Contradictory Driving Forces of Ehigie, B. O., McAndrew, E. B., (2005), Innovation, diffusion
Innovation Performance?, International Journal of and adoption of total quality management (TQM),
Innovation Science Vol. 5 No.4 pp. 237 – 252. Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 6 pp. 925-940.
Auken, H., Guijarro, A.M., Lema, D.G., (2008), Innovation and Fink, A, 1998, Conducting Research Literature Reviews: from
performance in Spanish manufacturing SMEs, paper to the internet. Sage Publication, London
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Freeman, C., (1982), The economics of industrial innovation,
Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 1 pp. 36-56 London: Frances Pinter
Azis, Y., &Osada, H. (2010). Innovation in management Forsman, H. and Temel, S., 2011. Innovation and Business
system by Six Sigma: an empirical study of Performance in Small Enterprises. An Enterprises-
world-class companies. International Journal of Level Analysis, International Journal of Innovation
Lean Six Sigma, 1(3), 172-190. Management, Vol. 15 No. 3 pp. 641-665
Azis, Y and Osada, H (2013), Managing Innovation Using Gamarra, J.T. &Zawislak P.A. (2013) Transactional Capability:
Design For Six Sigma (Dfss) Approach In Innovation‟s missing link, Journal of Economics,
Healthcare Service Organizations,International Finance and Administrative Science, Vol. 18 No. 34
Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, pp. 2-8
vol 10, no 3 Garcia, R. and Calantone, R., 2002, A Critical look at
Azis, Y and Hiroshi Osada (2009), Six Sigma impact on technological innovation typology and
innovation of management system and its innovativeness terminology; A literature review.
comparison with TQM, Proceedings of the 7th ANQ Journal of Product Innovation Mnagement, 19 (2)
congress Tokyo pp. 110 - 132
Becheikh, N., Landry, R., Amara, N. (2006), Lessons from Gufta, P., (2007), Firm Specific Measure of Innovation,
innovation empirical studies in he manufacturing Chicago
sector: A systematic review of literature from 1993 Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., Alpkan, L., (2011), Effects
– 2003, Technovation Vol. 26 pp. 644-664Gamarra, of Innovation Types on Firm Performance,
J.T., Zawislak P.A. (2013) Transactional Capability: International Journal of Production Economic, Vol.
Innovation‟s missing link, Journal of Economics, 133 pp. 662-676.
Finance and Administrative Science, Vo. 18 No. 34 Hansen, E., 2014, Innovativeness in the face of decline
pp 2-8. performance implication, International Journal of
Bon, A.T., Mustafa, E.M.A., (2013), Impact of Total Quality Innovation Management, Vol 18. N0. 5 pp.
Management on Innovation in Service 1450039-1 - 20
Organizations: Literature review and New Hart, C., 1998, Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social
Conceptual Framework, Procedia Engineering, Vol. Science Research Imagination. Sage Publications,
53 pp. 516-529. London.
Boyne, G. A., Meier, K. J., O‟Tole, L. J. Jr. and Walker, R. M. Hoang, T.D., Igel, B., (2005), The Impact of total quality
(2006), Public Service Performance, Perspectives on management on innovation Findings from a
Measurement and Management. Cambridge: developing country, International Journal of Quality
Cambridge University Press & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 9 pp. 1092-
Carpinetti, L. C. R., Gerolamo, M. C. G., Galda‟mez, E. V. C., 1117.
(2007), Continuous Innovation and Performance Huang, F., Rice, J., 2012, Openness in product and process
Management of SME Clusters, Creativity and innovation, International Journal of innovation
Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 4 pp. 376-385. Management, Vol. 16 No. 4 pp. 1250020 -1 -24.

Kari, H., Tapani, T., (2014), The Innovation Funnel Fallacy, Prajogo, D.I., Sohal, A.S., (2006), The integration of TQM and
International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 6 technology/R&D management in determining
No. 2 pp. 63-71. quality and innovation performance, The
Kim, S.K., (2014), Explicit Design of Innovation Performance International Journal of Management Science, Vol.
Metrics by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process 34 pp. 296-312
Expansion, International Journal of Mathematics Prajogo, D.I., Sohal, A.S., (2003), The relationship between
and Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 2014 pp. 1-7. TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation
Kavadas, S., Chao, R.O., (2007), Resources Allocation and performance, International Journal of Quality &
New Product Development Portfolio Management, Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No.8 pp. 901-918.
in Handbook of New Product Development Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., Bausch, A., (2009), Is
Research, Oxport:Elsevier/Butterworth innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of
Kostopoulus, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., Loannou, the relationship between innovation and
G., (2010), Absorptive capacity, innovation, and performance in SMEs, Journal of Business
financial performance, Journal of Business Research Venturing, Vol. 26 pp. 441-457.
JBR-07093; No of Pages 9. Rowley, J., Baregheh, A., Smbrook, S., 2011, Towards an
Lin C.Y, Chen Y.C., (2007), Does innovation lead to innovation-type mapping tool, Management
performance? An empirical study of SME‟s in Decision, Vol. 49 No. 1 pp. 73-86.
Taiwan, Management research news, Vol. 30 No. 2 Schumpeter, J. A., and Opie, R., (1983), The theory of
pp. 115 -132. economic development: An inquiry into profits,
Lawson, B., Samson, D., (2001), Developing Innovation capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New
Capability in organization: A dynamic capability Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Book.
approach, International Journal of Innovation Siguaw, J.A. (2006), Conceptualizing Innovation orientation: A
Management, Vol. 5 No. 3 pp. 377-400 framework for study and integration on Innovation
Maleyeff, J., (2011), Factors Impacting Innovation in New research, The Journal of Product Innovation
Service Offerings, Journal of Service Science and Management, Vo. 23 pp. 556 – 57.
Management, Vol. 4 pp. 111-117. Singh, P.J., Smith, A.J.R., (2004), Relationship between TQM
Musthaq, N., Peng W. W., Lin, S. ., (2011), Exploring the Lost and Innovation: an empirical study, Journal of
Link Between TQM, Innovation and Organization Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15
Financial Performance through Non Financial No. 5 pp. 394-401.
Measure, IPEDR Vol. 14 pp. 27-33. Trasfield, D.,Denyer, D., Palminder, S., 2003, Towards a
Parast, M.M., (2011), The Effects of Six Sigma projects on methodology for developing evidence-informed
innovation and firm performance, International management knowledge by means of systematic
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 pp. 45-55. review. British Journal of Management 14, 996-
Potters, L., (2009), Innovation Input and Output: Differences 1004
among sector, Communities No. 10 pp. 38 Zehir, C., Ertosun, O.G., Zehir. S., Muceldili, B., (2012), Total
Philips. J. (2010), Open Innovation Typology, International Quality Management Practices' effects on Quality
Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 pp. 175- Performance and Innovation Performance, Procedia
183 Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 41 pp. 273-

Appendix. The Raw material of literature review

Authors (Year) Method Key Finding Limitation Future Research

Aoun&Hasan (2013) Literature The authors shows that there - Method of - Using a systematic
Review from is a Complementary literature review method in
recent studies relationship between lean aren‟t literature study;
production and TQM as explained Confirmatory
driving forces of innovation testing using
performance statistical method
- Sources of - using more reliable
literature sources of
mostly from literature i.e.
proceeding referred journal
and blog
- no specific - potential
application application in
has been SME‟s
Gamarra&Zawislak Literature The identification of limited as Investigate
(2013) Review transactional capability as theoretical operasionalization of
the missing in innovation paper in which framework using
no empirical survey study
Siguaw et al (2006) Literature - examines the vast - no standard - Development of a
Review past 35 innovation literature to measurement standard measure of
years arrive at a clear definition of innovation innovation
of innovation orientation orientation orientation based on
construct to provide a the elements
consistent defined in this study
conceptualization for - limited as
future research theoretical - Examine
- develops a comprehensive, paper in empirically the
organized framework for which no effects of
understanding innovation empirical innovation
orientation and its effects evidence orientation on
Becheikh et al (2006) Systematic Confirmedthe complexity of process investigate this
review of innovation process by innovations are particular type of
empirical assessing he main internal largely innovation
studies and contextual variables understudied
published which influence he
between 1993 innovative capacity of
and 2003 manufacturing firm
Lin et al (2007) Telephone - About 80% of he with telephone Large-scale survey
Survey from surveyed companies survey,valuable
877 SMEs in implemented some sort of information
Taiwan innovation may have been
- The role administrative lost with such
innovation plays in simple answer
relation to company sales
- Firm size appear to
explain a major portion
of company sales
Authors (Year) Method Key Finding Limitation Future Research
Abidin et al (2013) Literature Propose two kinds of Limited Adding sources of
review from measurements: objective and sources of lierature
previous studies subjective innovation literaure
process measure
Abrunhosa& E Sa Regression Give support to the view in - Being - conducted in other
(2008) fact TQM principles have a concentrated industries
positive association with the in a particular
adoption of technological industry
innvation - Relies on - Based on multiple
perceptual respondent
from top
Prajogo&Sohal Survey of 194 - TQM significantly and examination in Conducted in
(2003) managers in positively contributes to develop developing country
Australian contributes t innovation country
industry performance
encompassing - Positive and significant
both relationship between
manufacturing quality performance and
and non- innovation performance
sectors, SEM
Adams et al (2006) Literature - Develop a framework of No reliability Examine reliability
review he innovation process and validity and validity asessment
consisting of seven asessment
Lawson & Samson Literature Proposed innovation No validity & Refine validated and
(2001) review & case capability‟s construct with empirical tested using surveys
study on Cisco seven element testing
Bn& Mustafa (2013) Literature Studies on TQM and Limited as Examine empirically
review Innovation relationship are propose of TQM and
still scarce in literature conceptual Innovation
framework and relationship
Mushtaq et al (2011) Literature There exist a link between Has no been A SEM modeling
review TQM, innovation and firm‟s studied approach would be the
non financial and financial explicitly in most appropriate
performance literature and method to investigate
therefore this relationship
requires more
Abidin et al (2011) Literature Proposes six constructs Limited as Examine empirically
review which can be used to propose model the effects of the
examine the innovation to research relationship between
implementation at firm level innovation process,
Reference model to research innovation outcome
the relationship between and firm‟s
innovation process, performance
innovation outcome and
firm‟s performance
Authors (Year) Method Key Finding Limitation Future Research
Projogi&Sohal (2006) Structural TQM shows a strong Limited as a Requires longitudinal
Equation predictive power against period time data
Modeling quality performance but no
(SEM) significant relationship
technique against innovation
performance on the other
hand technology and R&D
management shows a

significant relationship with
quality performance but at a
lower level than that of
TQM, and shows much
stronger relationship with
innovation performance
Singh & Smith (2004) Survey of 418 There is insufficient simple linear Examine if indeed
Australian statistical evidence to relationship there is empirical
manufacturing suggest that TQM is related model support for these more
organizations, to innovation complex models
Hoang &Igel (2005) Confirmatory - Has a positive impact on - The sample - select different
factor analysis, the firm‟s innovativeness was not random sample to
empirical - Not all TQM practices random allow for more
analysis in enhance firm generalization of
Vietnam innovativeness only the result
leadership and people - assessed - should measure
management, process and concept of newness within the
strategic management and newness with boundaries of the
open organization showed company specific industry
a positive impact on the boundaries
firm‟s innovation
Ehigie&McAndrew The approach - From reviews made it is The main Encouraged for other
(2005) for data argued that, although source of sources of literature to
collection is TQM looks faddish in literature for be explored
basically graphical presentation of presentation is
secondary articles on TQM, it cannot the ABI-
sources be concluded that it is now INFORM
a management fad. database
- Thought report on TQM
seem to diminish among
popular press but
academic scholars are still
very much angrossed with
empirical studies on TQM.
- This is based on the fact
that many organization
still adopt and implement
TQM and its diffusion is
on the increase globally

Authors (Year) Method Key Finding Limitation Future Research

Kostopoulus et al - Survey in a - Directed related t - Some Data - Collecting objective
(2010) sample of absorptive capacity and are of self- financial
461 Greek indirectly related to report performance data
enterprises innovation and financial from a different
- Using path performance surce
analysis - Test - examine other
concerns of country
Carpinetti et al (2007) Literature - Despite some difficulties Limited as Examine empirical
review in developing and using conceptual studies
performance indicator in model
- Propose model can help to

foster cooperation and
maturity in continuous
innovation in cluster f
Carayannis&Provance - Composite - Provided conceptual and Limited Contingent variations
(2008) index empirical framework that indicators of Composite
- ANOVA test advance the literature on Innovation Index (CII)
- 172 measurement of
Innovative organizational innovation
(TOP 100 - Proposes a „3P‟ construct
Project in of innovation
Germany) measurement that
simultaneously considers
the Posture, Propensity
and Performance
Auken et al (2008) Survey in - Innovation positively The data was A longitudinal study
Spanish impacts SMEs also collected could provide
manufacturing performance in low and at a single evidence on he
SMEs high technology industries point in time changes in evaluation
- Innovation was more over time
important to achieving a
competitive to high
technology firms than low
technology firms
- These result support
innovation as being
important to a firm‟s
sustainable competitive
Rosenbusch et al Meta-analysis - Innovation-performance A number of Can be directed at
Synthesizes relationship is context importance uncovering other
dependent contextual moderators and
- Factor such as the age of factor illustrating specific
the firm, the type of mechanism hw
innovation, and he cultural innovation affect firm
context affect he impact of success
innovation on firm
performance large extent
Authors (Year) Method Key Finding Limitation Future Research
Gunday e al (2011) A questionnaire - The positive effects of Limited as a Requires longitudinal
was developed innovations on firm period time data
and a survey performance in
was conducted manufacturing industry
in the years - Organizational
2006/2007 innovations play a
within of 7 fundamental role for
months innovative capabilities as
it has greatest regression
coefficient with innovative
Maleyeff (2011) Analyzed based - although personal Not very strong Need to be
on Field characteristics, process incentives implemented in
research results type, or customer type do organizations to
from 84 service not affect the level of ensure that employees
innovation innovation, organizations develop more radical
project with a strong lean six innovations
sigma orientation had a

lower incidence of radical
Damanpour et al Longitudinal - Focus on adopting a Test concern in Examine in
(2009) study specific type of innovation service manufacturing
A panel data of every year is detrimental, organization organization
428 public consistency in adopting
service the same composition of
organizations in innovation type could
UK over four possibly be beneficial to
years organization performance