1 s2.0 S2096248718300249 Main

International Journal of Innovation Studies 2 (2018) 65e79
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Innovation Studies

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/in-
ternational-journal-of-innovation-studies
The nature and variety of innovation

nica Edwards-Schachter
Mo
Collaborator at Polytechnic University of Valencia, Camino de vera s/n. 46022, Valencia, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: What is our current understanding of innovation and how many types of innovation do we
Received 13 June 2018 know? Broadly, innovation landscapes are characterized by well-established categories, such
Accepted 2 August 2018 as product, process, organizational, and marketing innovation, explained and theorized in
Available online xxx
terms of their links with technological innovation. However global challenges and changes
in the structure of knowledge production, have led to diverse innovations, and recognizing
Keywords:
and classifying such innovations is more complex, fragmented, and geographically dispersed
Innovation
than ever before. The progressive incorporation of hidden and non-technological in-
Nature of innovation
Innovation types
novations, together with the emergence of the fourth industrial revolution, is contributing to
Knowledge society change our understanding of innovation and its measurement. This paper provides an
Technological innovation overview of the most salient types of innovation in recent decades, enabling both re-
Social innovation searchers and practitioners to navigate the complex web of innovation definitions and ty-
pologies. Innovation studies face the challenge of finding a comprehensive and inclusive
definition that captures the significance of innovation, and overcoming the terminological
‘Babel'ization and increased fragmentation of the field of innovation research.
© 2018 Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
The vast body of existing literature leaves little doubt about the relevant role of innovation to the dynamics of economic
growth and socioeconomic development (Chen, Yin, & Mei, 2018; Fagerberg, Martin, & Andersen, 2013; Lundvall, 2016).
Overall, innovation describes a sense of purpose to the evolution of humanity, explained in terms of creative capacity of
invention as a source of technological, social, and cultural change. At the same time, innovation has become a Holy Grail in
economic growth and sustainability agendas worldwide (OECD, 2016; Fagerberg, 2018). Despite the vast body of literature
available, it is very difficult to provide a comprehensive definition of the term and clearly describe its nature. Innovation is a
multidimensional concept that includes varied meanings and definitions from the perspective of different disciplines, some of
them co-exist in emergent fields such as innovation studies (IS) (Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009), while others are considered
“outsiders” (Chen et al., 2018; Cunningham, 2013; Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017).
Several authors have tried to capture the essentials of innovation and establish common innovation typologies (Garcia &
Calantone, 2002; Linton, 2009; Oke, 2007). However, as of yet innovation is an umbrella term involving a myriad of
innovation types described as “buzz words” or “container concepts.” Innovation is not only “technological” but also “social,”
“cultural,” “institutional,” “inclusive,” “green,” “eco,” “open,” “user-driven,” “lean,” “low-cost,” “grassroots,” “public,” and
“transformative” (Edwards-Schachter, 2016). The appearance of new definitions indicates evolution of the concept of inno-
vation and the influence of historical and sociocultural contexts where innovation types emerge (Fagerberg & Verspagen,
2009; Godin, 2015; Gupta et al., 2003).
E-mail address: monicaelizabethedwards@gmail.com.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2018.08.004
2096-2487/© 2018 Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
66 M. Edwards-Schachter / International Journal of Innovation Studies 2 (2018) 65e79
Recent contributions from mainstream Innovation Studies (IS) are stimulating a debate among innovation scholars about
the future of IS (Fagerberg et al., 2013; Lundvall, 2013; Martin, 2016; Fagerberg, 2018). This discussion involves the lack of
attention to the interrelationship between technological and non-technological factors that influence the generation and
diffusion of successful innovation, social dimensions of innovation processes, and the type of value generated, among others.
Martin (2016, p. 434) notices, “the growing amount of innovative activity that is going on but it is just not visible using
existing measurement instruments.” Furthermore, Fagerberg et al. (2013, p. 11) affirm that “the way in which we concep-
tualize, define, operationalize, and analyze ‘innovation’ is rooted in the past, leaving us less able to grapple with other less
visible forms of innovation” Martin (2013, p.11). uses the term “dark innovation” instead of the more common “hidden
innovation” (Miles & Green, 2008) to name innovations which, in his words, “have been ignored or are essentially ‘invisible’ in
terms of conventional indicators” (Martin, 2016, p. 434). Dark innovations include user innovations and innovations that are
based on design, branding, software or other intangible investments rather than R&D together with “below-the-radar”
innovation activities, particularly in developing economies in particular social innovation social innovation. Martin (2016)
concludes that “the challenge to the next generation of IS researchers is to conceptualize, define, and come up with
improved methods for measuring, analyzing and understanding ‘dark innovation.’”
This paper contributes in providing an overview of the most salient innovations in recent decades, some of them well
established, and others new entrants and evolving concepts. The principal purpose is to provide a “big picture” that enables
researchers and practitioners to navigate the complex web of meanings and types underlying the changing nature of
innovation.
2. Reviewing the nature of innovation process: some core aspects and new incumbents
Classical definitions of innovation derive from the economic and managerial strands of IS, being the principal focus the role
of technology and evolution in the production and application of scientific and technological knowledge (the couple research
and development, R&D) over time. According to Martin (2016, p. 434), innovation in the 1960s related exclusively to
manufacturing in developed countries, it was technology-based, involved prior R&D, developed by large companies, often on
the basis of R&D conducted in their own labs, and frequently involved patenting. He acknowledges that most indicators
developed to measure such innovations may be “missing” much of the innovative activity that is opposite, i.e., incremental,
not in the form of manufactured product innovations, involves little or no formal R&D, and is not patented.
“Invention,” “novelty,” and “change” describe the nature of innovation. Together, they comprise a set of characteristics
according to the process and elements involved, such as purposes, actors, drivers and resources, inputs, activities and out-
comes, value generation, structural and institutional context, and other contextual factors. It is noteworthy that all these
elements/aspects have experienced and continue to experience rapid changes that challenge the classical scope and definitions
of innovation as technological innovation.
2.1. Tangible versus intangible inventions as a source of innovation
Innovation is considered as both the process and outcome of creating or inventing something new and valuable that
produces broader effects in the economy and technological advances. In Nelson & Winter's classical essay (1977, p. 36), the
term innovation was used “as a portmanteau to cover the wide range of variegated processes by which man's technologies
evolve over time.” Freeman (1974, p. 22) defined innovation related to invention as intrinsic to technological change: “an
invention is an idea, a sketch, or a model for a new or improved device, product, process, or system.” Although closely linked,
invention and innovation are very distinct: a requisite is the successful introduction or commercialization and marketing of
an invention. Schumpeter (1934, p. 88) affirmed, “as long as they are not carried out into practice, inventions are economically
irrelevant” and, more explicitly, Freeman (1974, p. 22) maintains, “an innovation in the economic sense is accomplished only
with the first commercial transaction.”
Two aspects related to invention as a source of “dark innovations” should be considered. On the one hand, as Porter (1990)
highlighted, inventions need not result in something tangible. He defined innovation as “a new way of doing things (termed
invention by some authors) that is commercialized” (p. 780). Social inventions and service social inventions are not R&D
based technological inventions (Conger, 1974, 1984). Conger (1974) refers to “social service inventions” (p. 93) as social in-
novations to alleviate social needs.” On the other hand, the relevance of inventions is in terms of societal demand (the
emergent social market) and the production of social impact. One of the challenges to IS, as highlighted by Martin (2016), is
the transformation in the concept of progress and societal goals, “from innovation for wealth creation to innovation for
wellbeing (or from “more is better” to “enough is enough” (p. 436). Another related issue that needs more attention is the
difference between disruptive and radical innovations attending to the different types of inventions and the process of
introduction and/or recombination of ideas and the “degree of novelty.”
2.2. Purpose and responsibility of innovation: from economic growth to sustainability transition
A decade ago, a report published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) pointed out the
emergence of a “new nature of innovation” that differentiates it from innovation in the industrial era (Prahalad, McCracken, &
McCracken, 2009). According to this report, there are four trends or drivers that explain the gradual transformation of how
M. Edwards-Schachter / International Journal of Innovation Studies 2 (2018) 65e79 67
companies innovate, namely global challenges and changes in the public sector and welfare policies, global knowledge
sourcing, collaborative networks, and new ways of co-creating value with customers and tapping into knowledge concerning
users. A study covering six decades of social innovation (Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017) shows that the consolidation of
technological innovation was in parallel with the growth of environmental concerns, encompassing successive calls to our
innovation capacity to answer survival challenges (see, e.g., Fairweather, 1972; Meadows, Goldsmith, & Meadows, 1972). More
recently, such claims are referred to “grand challenges” involving “wicked” problems that are “complex, systemic, inter-
connected, and urgent” (Mazzucato, 2017, p. 5). Mazzucato (2017) highlights the need to establish “mission-oriented inno-
vation policies” and Fagerberg (2017, p. 3) affirms, “innovation must play an important role in the transition towards
sustainability” facing the challenge “to provide good models for how policy may help in mobilizing innovation for this
purpose.” Although many types of innovation have emerged since 1960, driven by the aspiration of changing our production
and consumption systems and global environmental concerns (Edwards-Schachter, 2016), mainstream attention is a recent
phenomenon focusing on technological solutions rather than the necessary changes in social practices; i.e., in social in-
novations (see, for e.g., the discussion paper Twenty challenges for innovation studies, Martin, 2016). Narrowly connected with
the double challenge represented by the global environmental crisis and the new wave of technological advancements
commensurate with the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) is the management of risks and generation of a new incumbent:
Responsible Innovation.
2.3. From the central role of firms to multi-stakeholder collaborative innovations
For the mainstream of IS and the early theories, in the so-called Schumpeter “Mark I” pattern, individual “heroic” en-
trepreneurs mostly develop innovations. However, the central agent of innovation processes, especially attending to their
economic effects, are large firms, considered by the Schumpeter “Mark II” pattern. Both scopes are central to entrepre-
neurship studies (Lundvall, 2013). At the macro level the Schumpeterian perspective links the notion of innovation to the
dynamic process of “creative destruction” by which old structures (and ideas) are replaced by new ones, which remains the
most influential aspect of the post-industrial society (Schumpeter, 1942).
Lundvall (2013, p. 33) suggests that innovation as interactive learning process should be the core of IS. In his words, “the
closest we get to such a core in innovation studies is the conceptualization of innovation as an interactive process involving
many actors and extending over time.” The analysis focuses on individuals with heterogeneous skills or organizations with
heterogeneous capabilities that interact with each other. They typically engage in information exchange, problem solving, and
mutual learning as part of the process of innovation. During this process, they establish “relationships” that may be inter-
preted as forming organizations, networks, clusters, or even “innovation systems.” Such “many actors” are not only individual
entrepreneurs and firms but also other agents belonging to the public and third sectors, e.g., activists, social entrepreneurs,
NGOs, government agencies, and states. Ample literature exists about cross-sector partnerships, but attention to “innovation
processes” is very recent. Garud, Tuertscher, and Van de Ven (2013) analyze innovation processes considering the partici-
pation of firms, multi-party networks, and communities. Additionally, intrinsic to the interactive process of learning is the
notion of social practice and the contribution of evolving social practices to both social and technological change, which lacks
in the mainstream IS field, and is studied in management but not linked with innovation (Edwards-Schachter & Wallace,
2017).
3. Innovation types
3.1. Technological innovation
The inheritance of Schumpeter's typology remains in the classic concept of innovation centered on technological inno-
vation. In his own words: “the opening of new domestic or foreign markets and the organizational development from the
craft shop and factory,” such as steelmaking, “illustrate a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the
economic structure from within, which is destroying the old structures and creating a new one” (Schumpeter, 1942, pp.
82e83). This concept with focus on the manufacturing sectors and strongly based on research and development (R&D) is
present in the categories established by manuals for statistical measurement of innovation in the business sector accom-
panied by non-technological forms of innovation (e.g., OECD, 2005; 2017).
The first and second editions of the Oslo Manual (1992,1997) used the technological product and process (TPP) definition
of innovation with a focus on technological development of new products and new production techniques by firms. The latest
edition of the Oslo Manual recognized the importance of innovation in less R&D-intensive industries, such as services and
low-technology manufacturing, and expanded the definition to include organizational and marketing innovations (non-
technological innovations). This edition, currently under revision, establishes that an innovation “is the implementation of a
new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational
method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations” (Oslo Manual, 2005, p. 46). These innovation
types represent the different ways by which firms make changes to improve their performance and economic outcomes, and
ultimately contribute to the accumulation of knowledge.
Ample literature has contributed to the understanding of the nature of technological innovation, particularly analyzing the
dynamics of technological change and technological innovation systems. Garcia and Calantone (2002) point out that
technological innovations have two “forces” from which discontinuities may originate, from a marketing direction, or from a
technological direction. They affirm, “product innovation may require new marketplaces to evolve, and/or new marketing
skills for the firm. Similarly, product innovation may require a paradigm shift in the state of science or technology embedded
in a product, new R&D resources, and/or new production processes for a firm. Some products, of course, may require dis-
continuities in both marketplace and technological factors.
As we commented earlier, typically, technological innovation is investigated by linking inputs in terms of investment in
R&D to outputs in terms of patents or new products and manufacturing processes. Being at the core of the National Inno-
vation System construct, a recent update recognizes the existence of a distortive implementation and “bias” that are “reflected
in studies of innovation that focus on science-based innovation and on the formal technological infrastructure and in policies
aiming almost exclusively at stimulating R&D efforts in hi-tech sectors”1 (Lundvall, 2016, p. 223).
Currently, a few interrelated trends related to technological innovations co-exist, as follows:
(i) New technological waves of the fourth industrial revolution(4IR). Mobility, cloud computing, the Internet of Things
(IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR) and big data are enabling a future of “smart everything” and
empowering businesses, consumers, and society as a whole (OECD, 2017). Some of these technologies are participating
in distributed manufacturing, or mixed activities between manufacturing and technological services and self-service
technologies (Meuter, Ostrom, Roundtree, & Bitner, 2000) and information and communication technology (ICT) or
tech-social innovations,
(ii) Pre-existent technological gaps between countries that could likely increase in the future. Digital transformation is not
affecting regions and sectors equally: headquarters of the top 2000 R&D corporations worldwide are concentrated in
just a few economiesdnotably the US, Japan and Chinadand about 70% of their total R&D spending is concentrated in
the top 200 firms (OECD, 2017). Such inequalities and attention to innovation processes in the context of developing
countries are considered by the notion of “inclusive innovation” (Cozzens & Sutz, 2012; Johnson & Andersen, 2012) and
“innovations below the radar” (Pansera & Owen, 2018).
(iii) Narrowly related to the above is the demand for innovation that is oriented toward sustainability (Pansera & Owen,
2018) and the need to study innovation beyond Western paradigms, considering paradigms and experiences from
emerging economies, such as China and India (Chen et al., 2018).
From other perspectives, Lam (2005) and Gault (2018) highlight the role of organizational innovation, considering that it
could be a necessary precondition for successful technical innovations. Organizational innovations focus on aspects that
improve organizational structures, learning processes, and their adaptation to the environment (including institutional
frameworks and markets). A diversity of organizational innovations, which are also mediated by technologies, affect the
organization's capabilities as well as the quality and efficiency of work, enhance exchange of information, and improve the
organization's ability to learn and utilize new knowledge and technologies.
With a broader scope, Tidd et al. (2005) refer to the “4Ps” of the innovation mix, which includes the two traditional
categories product and process, besides position and paradigm. Position-based innovations refer to changes in how a specific
product or process is perceived symbolically and how they are used. It comprises the re-positioning of an established product
or a brand, e.g., gaining reputation through innovative Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices or even in a “negative
sense,” as the rebranding of Volkswagen that launched an all-new Jetta compact car after the company's global emissions big
scandal (Jung, Chilton, & Valero, 2017). The last category, paradigm-based innovation, relates to the mental or cognitive
models that shape what an organization or business is about; considering their behavior regarding grand challenges and/or
sustainable development agenda. While the first two innovation types are unequivocally technological, the others may or
may not be mediated by a technology.
3.2. Product innovation
Product innovation is the most popular innovation type. Gault (2018, p. 619) defines product innovation as “a product,
made available to potential users, that is new or significantly changed with respect to its characteristics or intended uses.” The
author also accentuates the intrinsic interaction between product and process innovations, referring to production or delivery
innovation resulting from the implementation of a new or significantly changed production or delivery process, which in-
cludes significant changes in inputs, infrastructure within the institutional unit, and techniques. In a broader sense, the
innovation process describes the single phases of a complete product life cycle from invention and development until market
introduction and eventually followed by the product's broader diffusion. The creative phase (emergence and combination of
ideas) differs from the invention itself and the development of a product ready for “sale.” Depending on the organizational
behavior, e.g., decision-making processes and interrelationships with the surrounding environment, innovations may follow
1
A narrow perspective on systems of innovation can be differentiated from a broader perspective. The narrow perspective is focused on the science and
technology subsystem (which includes capacity-building, training, and formal education, plus science- and technology-related services) and its relationship
with the production and innovation subsystem (where firms mainly operate). The broader perspective includes other subsystems and contexts, namely
policy, promotion, representation, financing, demand (market segments) and the (geo) political and socio-economic contexts.
(more or less) linear procedures, be (more or less) planned or placed in closed or open settings. Currently, the general trend is
the application of new ideas to products that increase their economic and/or social value (at the core of the “value propo-
sition” of firms). This process is usually interactive and involves a diversity of actors and settings, e.g., developed in the context
of firms but also other organizations from the public or civil sectors, such as the case of a public spin-off, a social enterprise, or
a social start-up.
A major impact in the last decade related to product innovation is based on the seminal book Democratizing innovation
(Von Hippel, 2005). The author shifts attention from inside to firms' external actors, affirming that “users of products and
servicesdboth firms and individual consumersdare increasingly able to innovate for themselves.” He highlights the exis-
tence of great advantages of user-centered and user-led innovation processes over the manufacturer-centric innovation
systems applied for hundreds of years. In the “manufacturer-centered” approach, the mechanisms to protect inventions and
innovations as intellectual property (patents) are very relevant. Under the “user/consumer-centered” view, users are
considered to be the actual developers of most new products, and generally share their innovations freely.
User-driven, user-centered, or user-led innovations connect with the realm of market and social demand, steadily
increasing as enabling computing and communication technologies improve and, overall, increase social welfare (Baldwin &
Von Hippel, 2011; Von Hippel, 1976). Nevertheless, involving users in the development of products and services is not a new
concept. Several studies show the benefits of user/customer feedback and their integration into innovation processes, e.g.,
user involvement in living-labs for co-creating products or aiding users in tailoring standard product offerings for them. This
innovation way, however, is very different from the establishment of user innovation communities that totally supplant the
manufacturer/producer role (e.g., WikiHouse is an open source building system to design, print and assemble low-energy
homes, and Poppy is an open-source platform for the creation, use, and sharing of interactive 3D printed robots). Notably,
the progressive co-existence of a range of users' role in both product and service innovation together with the recent trends in
virtual customer environments and knowledge brokers for supporting the innovation process (Verona, Prandelli, & Sawhney,
2006) as well as the focus on design-driven innovations (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Verganti, 2008). In fact, mutual inter-
action between users and producers is seen as a strong driver of non-technological and social innovations (Edwards-
Schachter, Matti, & Alca ntara, 2012). Despite that, user-driven social innovation or products developed by new incumbents
are not explicitly addressed, the latest edition of the Oslo Manual recognized the “user friendliness” characteristic of a
product, and a recent paper of Gault (2018) emphasizes the role of users and customers as drivers of product innovation.
Bstieler et al. (2018) recently highlighted major “hot topics” and research trends in new product development (NPD) in
relation with open innovation2 and 3D printing, Internet of Things (IoT), big data/analytics, and sustainability-focused
innovation. Many companies (traditional and social enterprises) use some form of open innovation to tap outside knowl-
edge, expertise, or technologies that facilitate NPD (Chesbrough et al., 2014; West, Salter, Vanhaverbeke, & Chesbrough, 2014).
In this respect, open innovation constitutes a strategic tool that can enhance firms' NPD efforts either by enabling them to
source knowledge from external innovators (i.e., an outside-in approach) or by allowing their under-utilized ideas and
technologies to be incorporated into others' innovation processes (i.e., an inside-out approach). At the same time, open
innovation enables companies and other organizations to explore new market (and “social” market) opportunities while
minimizing risk and costs, gaining in flexibility and responsiveness.
3.3. Process innovation
Despite the fact that process innovation is one of the traditional categories defined by the Oslo Manual (2005) and is
closely related to product innovation, it has received very little attention in innovation literature (Hullova, Trott, & Simms,
2016; Reichstein & Salter, 2006). Various authors refer to the relationships between both product and process innovations,
as mutual sources of innovation, i.e., product innovation that creates the need for process innovation and vice versa, process
innovation that generates the need for a product (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 2001; Hullova et al., 2016).
Reichstein and Salter (2006, p. 653) define process innovation as “new elements introduced into an organization's pro-
duction or service operationsdinput materials, task specifications, work and information flow mechanisms, and equipment
used to produce a product or render a servicedwith the aim of achieving lower costs and/or higher product quality.” The
implementation of new or significantly improved production methods and techniques may involve changes in equipment or
production organization or both. Marketing methods to increase organizational productivity are also components of process
innovation.
A growing worldwide phenomenon associated with the improvement of process innovation in corporations and startups
is the emergence of design thinking and lean thinking, which includes the use of a wide range of new material-processing
technologies as well as new work practices on the coordination of human resources. Lean thinking and lean methodolo-
gies constitute a structured approach that helps in developing early-stage ideas and concepts (i.e., inventions) into
marketable products, processes, or services (Hines, Holweg, & Rich, 2004; Krafcik, 1988). Taj and Morosan (2011) highlight the
2
Chesbrough has defined open innovation as a paradigm, which assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and
internal and external paths to market, as firms look to advance their technology. More recently, he defined it as "a distributed innovation process based on
purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization's
business model" (Chesbrough et al., 2014).
relevance of lean manufacturing to the current adaption of corporations to short product life cycles, growing product
complexity, and rapid advances in technologies by continuously engaging in manufacturing process innovation.
Many industries have experienced a paradigm shift from standardized, big scale manufacturing to production that is more
flexible and low-volume manufacturing or rapid adaptation to market demand. Overall, lean manufacturing and
manufacturing process innovation are new methods that organizations can adopt to innovate with limited resources in the
context of accelerating pace of technological development. Related with other emergent innovation practices, such as open
production and open innovation, the lean approach is used by early-stage firms or companies to bring products and services
to market sooner and with fewer resources, minimizing risk while increasing customer value (Lager, Tano, & Anastasijevic,
2015; Schuh, Lenders, & Hieber, 2011).
3.4. Service innovation
Given the relevance of services to the largest part of employment and output in economic growth, innovation in services
has lately been noted but not considered as extensively as in manufacturing (Gallouj & Toivonen, 2011; Gallouj & Weinstein,
1997; Linton, 2009). Innovation in service sectors can differ substantially from innovation in many manufacturing-oriented
sectors, being often less formally organized, more incremental in nature, and less technological (Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997;
Oslo Manual, 2005). Overall, to produce a service is to organize a solution to a problem (a treatment, an operation), which
does not principally involve supplying a good, being usually intangible combinations of processes, people skills, and materials
(Goldstein, Johnston, Duffy, & Rao, 2002). Services innovation comprises activities, such as transport and logistics, infor-
mation and knowledge-based services, food, healthcare, education, among other. Broadly, services are characterized by
intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability, and perishability, referred to as IHIP characteristics.
Goldstein et al. (2002) admit that the concept of service includes the service strategy of what to deliver and how the service
delivery system is designed. Furthermore, they present the view that the concept of service t is the core element of service
design, since it ensures integration between strategy and customer needs, as well as functions as a mediator between
customer needs and the strategic intent of the organization. Service innovation comprises both innovation in specific services
and service systems, which embodies the structure of the system that generates the service, namely the organization and the
environment. Nevertheless, the inclusion or not of a technology and the “intangibility” in service innovation are often blurred,
for instance, technological services such as cloud computing and banking technological services, self-service technologies,
among others. (Evangelista, 2000; Meuter et al., 2000). Evangelista (2000) analyzed sectoral patterns of technological change
in the services sectors and Castellacci (2008) proposed a taxonomy that combines the manufacturing and service industries.
The knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) sector is attracting greater interest in recent years. These firms (KIBS)
serve other companies when they intend to design, produce, offer, and sell complex service and product combinations. These
firms play a significant role in designing and re-designing services with the application of the latest enabling technologies
(Hertog, 2000; Muller & Zenker, 2001). In addition, the historical development of social innovation shows that the services
sector is at the core of social innovations and, in some cases, intertwined with technological innovations (Edwards-Schachter
& Wallace, 2017).
Debates on service innovation influence not only service companies but also traditional manufacturing firms, which have
increasingly started to realize the role of services as a possibility to differentiate their products and gain competitive
advantage. Consequently, developing services has become a new strategy for firms across different industries and innovative
services have emerged as strategies for achieving sustainable competitive advantage. This type of innovation is often asso-
ciated with other innovations that are attracting the attention of practitioners and researchers as instruments to foster
innovation: innovation in business models.
3.5. Business model innovation
Business model (BM) is considered an important vehicle for innovation but also a source of innovation in and of itself,
namely a “BM innovation.” Many authors point out that business model innovation represents a new dimension of inno-
vation, distinct, albeit complementary, to traditional dimensions of innovation, such as product, process, or organizational
(Amit & Zott, 2012; Massa & Tucci, 2013, pp. 420e441). Although firms have always operated according to a business model,
they traditionally followed similar logics typical of an industrial firm that produces a product or service (in relation with its
suppliers) and delivers to customers, and collects revenue. These functions are being transformed by innovative business
models emerging from firms and, indirectly, civil society. Several scholars argue that the Internet together with other ad-
vancements in information and communication technologies (ICT) acted as catalysts for BM experimentation and innovation
(Tidd et al., 2005; Amit & Zott, 2001; 2012).
Firm capacity to innovate correlates with the different functions of its business model, comprising of various aspects/
components: value proposition that identifies a market segment and revenue generation mechanism (i.e., utility and purpose
of a technology); structure of the value chain required to create and distribute the offering and complementary assets;
revenue mechanisms to pay for the offering; estimation of the cost structure and profit potential for a given value proposition
and value chain structure; position of the firm within the value network linking suppliers and customers, and formulation of
the competitive strategy (Chesbrough, 2010).
Business model innovation is the conscious change of an existing business model or the creation of a new business model
that improves its functions and satisfies customer needs better than the existing business models. In this respect, organi-
zational and marketing innovations are central to the introduction of uniqueness in business models. Gault (2018, p. 619)
defines an organizational innovation as “the implementation of a new or significantly changed organizational method in the
business practice, workplace organization or external relations of the institutional unit.” Fig. 1 shows the scheme of a
popularized business model among firms and other organizations: a canvas business model useful to develop the business
plan and the exploration of innovation opportunities in the different dimensions or components (Joyce & Paquin, 2016).
Innovative business models and the different ways firms “do business” has being coming up following other global
changes:
(i) advent of post-industrial technologies, as observed in the emergence of innovation through platforms that favor
collaborative and cross-sector innovations, such as digital social innovations (DSI);
(ii) orientation of the corporate sector to enter new markets in developing countries and reaching the bottom-of-the-
pyramid (BoP) customers. This is observed in BoP innovations (Prahalad, 2004; 2012); frugal innovation (Zeschky,
Winterhalter, & Gassmann, 2014), reverse innovation (Zedtwitz, Corsi, Søberg, & Frega, 2015), among others. These
“low-cost innovations” focus on the development of technological and social innovations by the poor and deprived
populations to maximize value for customers and minimize inessential costs; and
(iii) sustainability “orientation” represented by the demand of global challenges and the social market. For instance, in
Europe there are specific initiatives to foster social innovations through cooperation between traditional businesses
and the social economy sector. Business model innovations are also present in some cases of green innovations and eco-
innovations, for instance, in grassroots green innovation (Dentchev et al., 2016; Gupta, 2010).
The untapped market of the world's poor countries and certain sectors in developing countries represent a large op-
portunity for companies to serve customers and make profit with social impact. Such business opportunities challenge
conventional ways of doing business and companies are urged to rethink every step in their supply chain and develop novel
BMs due to the fundamentally different social, economic, and cultural environments that characterize emerging markets. In
this respect, digitalization plays a crucial role in the implementation of business model innovations, particularly in digital
transformations of the value chain and marketing. Chesbrough (2010, p. 354) argued, “a mediocre technology pursued within
a great business model may be more valuable than a great technology exploited via a mediocre business model.” Business
model innovations are at the core of current disruptive innovations, widening the classical scope on disruptive technologies
(Christensen, 1997; Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015).
3.6. Disruptive innovation
In his seminal book titled The Innovator's Dilemma, Christensen (1997) describes the notion of disruptive technologies as
those that produce a market disruption. This occurs when a new product, notwithstanding its inferior performance on focal
Fig. 1. Canvas business model (Source: Adapted from Joyce & Paquin, 2016).
attributes valued by existing customers, displaces the mainstream product in the mainstream market. The two preconditions
for a disruptive innovation include a performance overshoot on the mainstream attributes of the existing product, and
asymmetric incentives between an existing healthy business model and the potentially disruptive business model.
The initial term “disruptive technology” was further replaced by “disruptive innovation,” broadening the application of
this theoretical insight to include not only technological products but also a variety of services and business model in-
novations (Christensen et al., 2015; Hang, Chen, & Subramanian, 2010; Wan, Williamson, & Yin, 2015; Yu & Hang, 2010). In
this context, any change in a business model that enables superior or novel value to be delivered to consumers and adopted by
them constitutes a disruptive innovation. According to Markides (2006), disruptive innovations can be technological, business
models, and radical product innovations. Despite the existence of similarities in the disruptive effects on incumbent firms,
these three categories arise in different ways and may have different competitive effects and market responses. Notably,
innovations do not have to embody radical advances in either technology or product functionality in order to be disruptive
innovations. In fact, disruption refers more to a market/business phenomenon rather than a major technical breakthrough.
Breakthroughs are called “radical” in Christenson's model and may or may not be disruptive, while minor or “incremental”
innovations can be massively disruptive.
Many innovations, which can be described as “imitative” can be disruptive because they challenge existing value prop-
ositions and business models in the market. There are several examples of different types of innovations that Asian firms had
introduced, which proved to be disruptive in the market, such as “cost innovation” (reengineering the cost structure in novel
ways to offer customers adequate quality and similar or higher value for less cost); “application innovation” (finding inno-
vative applications for existing technologies or products); and “business model innovation,” adjusting aspects/functions that
can be changed quickly and at a minimal cost (Hang et al., 2010; 2015).
The key point to remember is that disruption is a market/business phenomenon and has little to do with technology per se.
3.7. Radical innovation
In contrast to disruptive or sustaining innovation, radical innovation “changes the rules of the game” and occurs outside
the familiar realms of standardized. Sustaining innovation refers to the maintenance of a product or service in a market, e.g.
certain technology, through relative incremental developments or improvements (incremental innovations). While both
incremental and sustaining innovations exploit “the existing,” radical innovation is exploratory and operates with higher
levels of uncertainties. Utterback (1994e1996) defined radical innovations or discontinuous change as “change that sweeps
away much of a firm's existing investments in technical skills and knowledge, designs, production technique, plant and
equipment.”
According to Murmann and Frenken (2006), radical innovations can be defined either in terms of their antecedents (the
scope of new knowledge required) or their consequences (the increased performance they make possible). Given these two
different characteristics of radicalness, an innovation could be incremental in terms of the new knowledge required but
radical in terms of the additional performance achieved, and vice versa. A complete radical innovation requires large amounts
of new knowledge and, at the same time, creates large performance improvements to transform industrial structures.
Dahlin and Behrens (2005) developed three criteria that an innovation has to fulfill to be considered radical: (i) existence
of a novel invention, (ii) invention must be unique, and (iii) must be able to influence future inventions. Furthermore, for an
innovation to be considered radical, the emphasis is a dramatic departure from existing products. Nevertheless, most radical
innovations do not satisfy these requirements but take considerable time to become accepted. For instance, a radical inno-
vation is Apple's development of multi-touch interfaces and their associated gestures to control handheld and desktop
systems, despite the fact that Apple did not invent them. Multi-touch systems have existed in computer and design labo-
ratories for over 20 years and gestures have a long history. Even other companies had products on the market using multi-
touch before Apple. In this example, radicalness is represented by the third condition attributable to the major shift produced
in the market; however, it is in the interaction with people that products obtain their meaning (Norman & Verganti, 2014, p.
83).
Such type of innovation studies focus on models and methods used to describe and measure the radicalness of techno-
logical innovation, in other words, technological breakthroughs that take place at the “global knowledge frontier.” Examples
are the analysis of technology cycles, s-curves, technological trajectories, and technology adoption (Dahlin & Behrens, 2005).
A vast body of literature on radical innovations attempts to explain the conditions and factors that influence a firm's capacity
for developing radical innovations. Factors such as firm size, age, expertise, skills and dynamic capabilities, R&D teams, re-
sources, technological trajectories, among others, have been extensively analyzed. Notwithstanding that the results are not
conclusive, we can observe radical innovations introduced by large corporations and small teams or individual entrepreneurs,
supported by private investment or using a crowdsourcing platform. Research shows that radical technological innovation is
performed by a formally educated labor force in R&D-intensive companies and is likely to be competence-destroying, often
making existent skills (Marvel & Lumpkin, 2007).
Sharma, Thomas, and Konsynski (2017) argue that most radical innovations are analyzed from the developer's perspective,
suggesting that radicalness is an objective characteristic, inherent to the technology. Contrary to this view, they consider that
radicalness depends on the adopters.
Another distinctive dimension that becomes a relevant driver to current potential radical innovations is design. Such
innovations are labeled as design-driven innovations. In fact, radical innovation is the center of attention of design studies,
and is taught in design schools and advocated by people discussing innovation related to not only “design thinking” and
“engineering design” but also social innovations driven by strategic design (Manzini, 2014; Verganti, 2009). In this respect,
radical innovativeness is not exclusive of technological innovations but also social innovations and other forms of non-
technological innovations, namely cultural innovations that produce disruptive social changes.
3.8. Design-driven innovation
Design practice, as a driver of innovations, was influenced by the changing landscape of human-centered design research.
This approach, which began in the 1970s and became widespread by the 1990s, proved most useful in the design and
development of products and services (Sanders, 1992). In a design-driven strategy, the crucial aspect of innovation concerns
the skill to understand, anticipate, and influence the emergence of new product and service meanings.
A technology-push innovation starts due to radical changes in technology without any changes in the meaning of products
(e.g., color TV sets replacing existing black and white TV sets). Design contributes to meaning-driven innovations, starting
from the comprehension of subtle and unspoken dynamics in socio-cultural models and results in radically new meanings
and languages, often implying a change in sociocultural regimes. The invention of the mini-skirt in the 1960s is an example:
not simply a different skirt, but a radically new symbol of women's freedom that recognizes a radical change in society where
no new technology was involved.
What really matters to radical design-driven innovations is the novelty of message and design language, which is sig-
nificant and prevalent compared to the novelty of functionality and technology (Norman & Verganti, 2014; Utterback et al.,
2006; Verganti, 2008). Therefore, to produce design-driven innovations, a company should be able to interpret the meaning
that a customer gives to products in a determined sociocultural context.
Norman and Verganti (2014) describe other mechanisms for design-driven innovations labeled as technology epiphanies
and market-pull innovations. Technology epiphanies bring a radical change in meaning enabled by the emergence of new
technologies or the use of existing technologies in new contexts (e.g., the Wii video game console and the Swatch watch).
“Epiphany” is interpreted as “a meaning that exists at a superior position and a perception of the essential nature or meaning
of something.” This superior application of a technology does not come from users. Moreover, it is not visible at first because it
does not satisfy existing needs. Rather, a quiescent meaning is revealed only when a design challenges the dominant
interpretation and creates a new need around this novel meaning.
Market-pull innovation starts from an analysis of user needs and then develops products to satisfy them, usually in co-
creation processes (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Here products may introduce a new meaning or deal with a design that re-
places a previous dominant design. Henderson & Clark (1990) introduced the concept of modular innovation, which involves
the introduction of new technologies where links to the surroundings are relatively untouched and architectural innovations
where components are combined in a new way, implying that the links are disrupted. Another relevant trend in design-driven
innovations is the application of design for addressing social needs and providing socially responsible solutions, linked with
both technological and social innovations (Morelli, 2007; Manzini, 2014).
3.9. Social innovation
Being a marginalized topic in both economic and sociological theories of innovation,3 social innovation (SI) is gaining
recognition from mainstream innovation research. Historically, the notion predates technological innovation and is isolated
from the traditional scope on scientific inventions, patents, and technological breakthroughs (Godin, 2015; Moulaert,
MacCallum, Mehmood, & Hamdouch, 2013). However, most literature refers to SI as a new phenomenon that emerged in
the last decades as innovation research field.
A recent paper analyzing 252 definitions and using the term over the last half century has identified core aspects within
three interrelated meanings across time (Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017). The core aspect deals with innovation purpose.
It is the orientation of SI to solve societal needs through changes in social practices that contribute to broader changes in
socio-technical systems, and the development of non-technological innovations (e.g., social inventions are two women's
suffrage laws in 1918 and 1928, introduced and diffused into society by a social movement in the UK). Another central aspect
is “who innovates,” being a requisite the participation of civil society actors, social activists, social movements, social en-
trepreneurs, and NGOs, among others. The development of SIs by the third sector (alone or in collaboration with other actors
from the private and public sectors) is contributing to the process of social change. It is responding to the essential problem of
how to change the patterns of production and consumption towards sustainable development and the provision of service
innovations (with or without technology), especially societal problems concerning most disempowered and frail social
groups.
Edwards-Schachter and Wallace (2017) define SI as “a collective process of learning” that involves “the distinctive
participation of civil society actors aimed to solve a societal need through change in social practices that produce change in
3
Despite publications on the topic in the most representative academic journals, the term remains separate from mainstream. One example is the lack of
mention and references to the term social innovation in the book Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges edited by Fagerberg et al., in 2013,
where other expressions like “frugal innovation” or “inclusive innovation” are explicit.
social relationships, systems, and structures, contributing to large socio-technical change.” Mumford (2002), from the field of
creativity, defines SI as “the generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal
activities, or social interactions, to meet one or more common goals.” He states that, similar “to other forms of innovation,
products resulting from social innovation may vary with regard to their breadth and impact” and “may involve the creation of
new kinds of social institutions, formation of new ideas about the government, or the development of new social move-
ments.” (p. 253).
The relationship between “traditional technological” innovation and SI is currently debated. The mainstream recognizes
the relevance of SI in producing change in social practices, but its role has been relegated to being a “subsidiary,” a “com-
plement,” or an “inductor” of technological innovation. One of the most influential authors is Gershuny (1982, 1987), who
focused on how changes in social practices complement (or favor) technological innovation configuring the emergence of
what may be called the “communal,” “household” and “underground” production on a small scale; in other words, the
informal economy including voluntary and religious organizations and cooperatives.
A recent book updating innovation systems from Lundvall also presents SI as a “social recipe” that favors the adoption of
technological innovations through institutional change, namely “social innovation as the basis for technical innovation,”
Lundvall (2016, p. 80). Lundvall argues, “In a period characterized by radical change in the technological basis of the economy,
established organizational and institutional patterns might prove to be important obstacles to the exploitation of the full
potential of new technology. In such a period, social innovations might become more important for the wealth of nations than
technical innovations” […] “institutional change, strengthening the competence and the power of final users, might be one of
the social innovations that can give national systems of innovation a stronger position in the world economy.”
A crucial aspect to distinguish between “pure” forms of SI from technological innovation, service innovation, and other
mixed forms is the generation of values, being social values and social impact inherent to SI but not necessarily or even absent
in the other cases, where economic value prevails. Technological innovation and service innovation may also produce well-
being and social impact but they are incentivized by expected profits, while SIs put social benefits at the forefront and seek to
empower underserved populations. In this respect, indicators on social impact enable the distinction between SIs from other
innovation types (Mulgan, Joseph, & Norman, 2013).
In sum, to date SI is perceived as an independent innovation type but also is seen in inter-dependence with other
innovation forms (technological, product, service, organizational, business, and design-driven innovations). Furthermore,
multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral cooperation either develops or introduces SI between the public and private actors, in
collaboration with civil society. The emergence of many “mixed” or “hybrid” forms of SI is observed in the last decade. For
instance, “grassroots social innovations” (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012) with focus on “green” (pro-environmental) innovations,
which in most cases comprise specific institutionalization processes (change in consumption patterns, environmental reg-
ulations, different types of incentives and “rules of the game” local institutional context.) where the “place” for social practices
and changes in social systems appear intertwined with technological inventions and innovations. “Open social innovation”
(Chesbrough & Di Minin, 2014) attends to firms' strategies in front of social demand. “Social inclusive open innovation”
(Gupta, Dey, & Singh, 2017) emphasize both a firm's openness and the inclusion of poor population segments. “ICT-enabled”
and “Digital social innovations” consider the opportunities that offer digital technologies and the Internet to address some of
society's biggest challenges (Misuraca, Colombo, Radescu, & Bacigalupo, 2015; The Manifesto for Digital Social Innovation
(DSI), 2017).4
Over the past decade, a plethora of non-profit incubators, social accelerators, and hybrid platforms have fueled SI. A recent
example is the hub/platform Social Innovation Europe (SIE) created in 2011 to scale-up SI around European countries followed
by a recent project to establish a wider social Innovation community of researchers, social innovators, end users (citizens) and
policy-makers (EC, 2015). Recent European policies and initiatives fostering the Single Social Market and cooperation be-
tween the social economy and business together with social incubation and scaling initiatives are opening the door to new
hybrid types of SI (e.g., tech social startups and SI units in large corporations, as part of their CSR practices).
3.10. Responsible innovation
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) and Responsible innovation (RI) represent a meta-category of innovation that
emerged in Europe and the United States (US) in the past decade. The European Commission (EC) introduced RRI as a
crosscutting issue to open a debate about collective responsibility in the production and applicability of knowledge facing the
current global challenges and dilemmas related to the fourth industrial revolution (EC, 2012; Owen, , Bessant, , & Heintz,
2013; Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013; Von Schomberg, 2011). Responsible innovation (RI) is rooted in notions such as
“responsible development” “responsible research,” and “responsible knowledge-based innovation,” and earlier discussions in
programs such as the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) related to the Human Genome Project in 1988. It is also
present in the Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA) and responsible nano-science programs in the US and Europe
€m, 2003; Owen et al., 2013). Fagerberg et al. (2013) explicitly refers to the need for “socially responsible innovation,”
(Hellstro
as part of the challenges of the field of SI.
4
https://www.dsimanifesto.eu/about/.
The most popular definition of RRI was proposed by von Schomberg as “a transparent, interactive process by which so-
cietal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustain-
ability, and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products.” Overall, RRI claims co-responsibility of
societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, businesses, third-sector organizations), in an expected participatory
process, in which technological and scientific advances and innovation become more transparent and properly embedded in
society. A normative framework proposed by the EC is used for implementing RRI, and includes six interrelated dimensions or
“components,” such as science literacy and scientific education, public engagement, gender equality, open access to scientific
knowledge, governance, and ethics. All are being implemented under the Horizon2020 Program.
Despite reaching a consensus on the relevance of RRI, the term has sparked many controversies regarding content and
scope on technological innovation, practical implementation, and the limited attention paid to gaps between developed and
developing countries (Blok & Lemmens, 2015; Macnaghten et al., 2014). Lubberink, Blok, van Ophem, and Omta (2017)
conducted a systematic review of the field in a business context, concluding that RRI overlaps other innovation types in
addressing grand societal challenges and the focus on sustainability as a desirable outcome of innovation. Examples are
innovations in the green and circular economy, sharing economy, and social economy, aiming to develop responsible and
sustainable innovations. The authors argue that RRI may provide opportunities to enable participation of stakeholders from
the private, public, and civil society to steer innovation processes and outcomes towards more sustainable, societally
desirable, and ethically acceptable solutions. Responsible innovation not only demands new corporate practices in terms of
innovation activities (as corporate social responsibility, CSR and corporate social innovation, CSI) but also in firms' business
models and their roles and responsibilities for the political and socio-economic system in which they operate attending to
dimensions of social justice/inclusion and sustainability.
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) and Responsible innovation (RI) may have great influence over innovation
systems considering that their implications to the governance of innovation processes are crucial for the formation of RRI
capabilities through formal and informal education. One emergent associated form of innovation is transformative innovation,
defined as a high system-level innovation that attempts to transform socio-technological innovation systems and the entire
economy. “Transformative innovations” can be distinguished from “radical innovations” in that while the latter disrupt
existing technical competences, the former also involve substantial changes in markets and linkages with users in direct
integration with “transformative” innovation policies (Scrase, Stirling, Geels, Smith, & Van Zwanenberg, 2009, p. 15).
The educational implications of RRI in the context of knowledge and learning in society indicate that new approaches may
reinforce previous efforts to integrate awareness on collective responsibility, such as science, technology, society, and
environment (STSE), sustainability education and Nature of Science (NOS), and Nature of Science and Technology (NoST)
(DeVries, 2005; Hodson, 2014; Lederman, 2013). However, to date, efforts to integrate such approaches do not deal with
innovation. In fact, the concept of innovation is practically missing or misunderstood in formal education, with the exception
of specific higher educational programs (Edwards-Schachter & Greca, Forthcoming). Typically, NOS refers to the epistemology
of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development
(Lederman, 1992; 2013). In this respect, RRI provides the opportunity to debate about the role of innovation and enables a
deeper understanding of the interrelationships between technological innovation and the broad nature of innovation, con-
tent, and the boundaries of the Nature of Science, Technology, and Innovation (NoSTI). From my perspective, NoSTI comprises
three interrelated but different “natures” embedded in social, economic, cultural, and political contexts: (i) “nature” of science
and scientific production; (ii) “nature” of technology and technological knowledge production, and (iii) “nature” of innova-
tion, which in turn involves technological and non-technological innovations.
Integration of the NoSTI approach from the RRI perspective to educational settings enables a better understanding of the
meaning of innovation and innovation typologies and, at the same time, favors a renewed perspective on sustainability and
the practical implementation of transformative governance, which are crucial for every country in the 21st century.
4. Final remarks
Overall, the most accepted interpretation of the nature of innovation deals with the notion of “novelty” through the
generation and successful implementation of ideas transformed into products and services that are more or less “tangible,”
namely technological and non-technological inventions. Despite the differences between IS communities, especially those
between entrepreneurship and mainstream innovation scholars, innovation embraces the notion of change in individuals
(“mindsets”), organizations, and broader systems. Innovation is an approach organizations use to introduce changes to
survive and thrive during uncertain and turbulent conditions. The word “organizations” connotes a variety of for-profit and
non-profit oriented, private-, public-, third-sector, and hybrid firms (e.g., social enterprises).
From an epistemological perspective, change is perceived as essential to innovation, being part of the dynamics of human
evolution and central to how humans produce knowledge, and change and “institutionalize” their social practices over time.
To innovate is to introduce “something new” that produces change, but innovation also refers to “the process” (the method)
by which a change occurs and sustains with time. Innovation includes both revolutionary changes (the Internet) and small
incremental changes (the latest version of an app) (Dodgson, 2018).
Intrinsic to the nature of innovation is the purpose or intent; change can be planned, provoked, or unintentional. Change
may originate in the need to solve a problem or a “societal need.” In this respect, as Martin (2016, p. 435) pointed out, “under
different policies, innovation can take different directions, or assume different forms, or involve different processes, or bring
in different actors and bodies of knowledge.” Thus, a crucial aspect to understand the nature of innovation is identifying the
agent that produces the change: “who” are innovators? Those who develop innovations? For decades, innovation scholars
considered firms as the principal actors, being instruments of innovation (firm “ability” or “capability”) for gaining
competitive advantage in the immediate complex and uncertain environments. However, it is necessary that IS acknowledge
the contribution of the so-called “dark” or “hidden” innovations, significant innovations coming from the third sector, public
institutions, multi-stakeholders and, lately, cross-sectoral collaborations that result in a new “form” of product, service, user
and design-driven disruptive innovations and other innovation types. Indeed, the nature of innovation currently stresses the
immense impact of non-technological and both pure and hybrid social innovations (Edwards-Schachter et al., 2012; Roth,
2009).
Other issues that claim IS research include many of the novel disruptive innovations introduced by new economic sectors
such as the social economy, green and blue economies, silver economy, and gig economy. Examples of the gig economy
include the Airbnb or Uber business platform models, called “marketplaces,” that enable and support transactions between
independent supply- and demand-side participants; these models are challenging not only production systems, but also
regulations and macroeconomic and social policies (Burtch, Carnahan, & Greenwood, 2018).
A remarkable feature of the nature of innovation is its astonishing diversity, fueled by the growth of cross-sector coop-
eration. On the one hand, there is a growing trend of “mixed modes of innovation” (OECD, 2017, p. 154) and hybrid innovation
that reconfigure markets and blur boundaries between technology, society, and culture. On the other hand, fast-changing
digital technology landscapes and innovations are emerging from the fourth industrial revolution and the changes form-
ing the scientific and technological basis of knowledge and innovation systems. Nevertheless, much of the world is tech-
nologically backward or excluded, and is neither able to innovate nor adopt and adapt to new technologies. It is in this regard
that initiatives such as the Global Social Innovation Index (GII)5 enable to capture the nature of SI and illustrate the innovation
performance of developing economies. In this respect, to distinguish the types of innovation, it is necessary to understand
organizations' innovative behavior and attend to their different characteristics and modes of operation as a pre-requisite to
innovation measurement.
Overall, innovation is a complex socio-cultural process involving diverse actors and sources of knowledge. It is not only
about improving and sustaining the competitive advantage of firms and organizations but also about addressing the major
social challenges of the 21st century. In doing so, the nature of innovation is evolving from innovation for economic pro-
ductivity to innovation for sustainability, from risky innovation to socially responsible innovation, from narrow conceptu-
alizations to broadening the socio-techno-cultural perspectives of innovations. The field of innovation faces the key challenge
of capturing the complete picture of innovation with a comprehensive definition and suitable metrics, overcoming the
terminological ‘Babel'ization and fragmentation of the field of innovation research.
References
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6e7), 493e520.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41.
Baldwin, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science,
22(6), 1399e1417.
Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation
of the concept of innovation. In B. J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. Van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2. Concept, ap-
proaches, and applications (pp. 19e36). UK: Springer.
Bstieler, L., Gruen, T., Akdeniz, B., Brick, D., Du, S., Guo, L., et al. (2018). Emerging research themes in innovation and new product development: Insights
from the 2017 PDMA-UNH doctoral consortium (guest editorial). Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 300e307.
Burtch, G., Carnahan, S., & Greenwood, B. N. (2018). Can you gig it? An empirical examination of the gig economy and entrepreneurial activity. Management
Science, 64(2), 495e981. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2916.
Castellacci, F. (2008). Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy. Research Policy, 37,
978e994.
Chen, J., Yin, X., & Mei, L. (2018). Holistic innovation: An emerging innovation paradigm. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 2(1), 1e13. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijis.2018.02.001.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 354e363.
Chesbrough, H., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Open social innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp.
169e188). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2014). New frontiers in open innovation. UK: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. Boston (US): Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44e53.
Conger, S. D. (1974). Social inventions. Prince albert. Canada: Saskatchewan Newstart.
Conger, S. (1984). Social, scientific and technical inventions. In C. G. Heden, & A. King (Eds.), Social innovations for development (pp. 33e52). Oxford (UK):
Pergamon Press.
Cozzens, S., & Sutz, J. (2012). Innovation in informal settings: A research agenda. Ottawa: IDRC.
Cunningham, S. (2013). Hidden innovation: Policy, industry and the creative sector. Australia: University of Queensland Press.
Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34, 717e737.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovation in organizations. Journal of Management
Studies, 38(1), 45e65.
5
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2017.pdf.
Dentchev, N., Baumgartner, R., Dieleman, H., Jo hannsdo ttir, L., Jonker, J., Nyberg, T., … van Hoof, B. (2016). Embracing the variety of sustainable business
models: Social Entrepreneurship, Corporate Intrapreneurship, Creativity, Innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 113(1), 1e4.
Dodgson, M. (Ed.). (2018). Innovation management. A research overview. New York(US): Routledge.
Edwards-Schachter, M. (2016). Challenges for firms' collaborative innovation in the innovation babel tower. In L. Al-Hakim, X. Wu, A. Koronios, & Y. Shou
(Eds.), Handbook of research on driving competitive advantage through lean and disruptive innovation (pp. 204e227). US: IGI Global.
Edwards-Schachter, M., & Greca, I. Embedding responsible research and innovation in science and technological education (Forthcoming).
Edwards-Schachter, M., Matti, C., & Alca ntara, E. (2012). Fostering quality of life through social innovation: A living lab methodology study case. The Review
of Policy Research, 29(6), 672e692.
Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M. L. (2017). ‘Shaken but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 119, 64e79.
European Commission. (2012). Responsible research and innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/
responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf.
European Commission (EC). (2015). The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/
2030-agenda-sustainable-development_en.
Evangelista, R. (2000). Sectoral patterns of technological change in services. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9(3), 183e222.
Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., & Andersen, E. S. (2013). Innovation studies: Evolution and future challenges. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studiesdthe emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218e233.
Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497e512.
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mission (im)possible? The role of innovation (and innovation policy) in supporting structural change & sustainability transitions. In TIK
WORKING PAPERS on innovation studies No. 20180216. https://www.sv.uio.no/tik/InnoWP/tik_working_paper_20180216.pdf.
Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Social change: The challenge to survival. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Freeman, C. (1974). The economics of industrial innovation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Gallouj, F., & Toivonen, M. (2011). Elaborating the characteristics-based approach to service innovation: Making the service process visible. Journal of
Innovation Economics & Management, 8(2), 33e58.
Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26(4e5), 537e556.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19(2), 110e132.
Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775e819.
Gault, F. (2018). Defining and measuring innovation in all sectors of the economy. Research Policy, 47(3), 617e622.
Gershuny, J. I. (1982). Social innovation: Change in the mode of provision of services. Futures, 14(6), 496e516.
Gershuny, J. I. (1987). Technology, social innovation, and the informal economy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 493,
47e63.
Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested. The idea of innovation over the centuries. New York (US): Routledge.
Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: The missing link in service design research? Journal of Operations Management,
20(2), 121e134.
Gupta, A. K. (2010). Grassroots green innovations for inclusive, sustainable development. The innovation for development report 2009e2010. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gupta, A., Dey, A., & Singh, G. (2017). Connecting corporations and communities: Towards a theory of social inclusive open innovation. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(1), 17.
Gupta, A. K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., Rohit, P., et al. (2003). Mobilizing grassroots' technological innovations and traditional knowledge,
values and institutions: Articulating social and ethical capital. Futures, 35(9), 975e987.
Hang, C. C., Chen, J., & Subramanian, A. M. (2010). Developing disruptive products for emerging economies: Lessons from asian cases. Research-technology
Management, 21e26.
Hang, C. C., Garnsey, E., & Ruan, Y. (2015). Opportunities for disruption. Technovation, 39, 83e93.
€ m, T. (2003). Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society, 25, 369e384.
Hellstro
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9e30.
Hertog, P. D. (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 491e528.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 24(10), 994e1011.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In International handbook of
research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911e970). Netherlands: Springer.
Hullova, D., Trott, P., & Simms, C. D. (2016). Uncovering the reciprocal complementarity between product and process innovation. Research Policy, 45(5),
929e940.
Johnson, B., & Andersen, A. D. (2012). Learning, innovation and inclusive development e New perspectives on economic development strategy and development
aid. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.
Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production,
135, 1474e1486.
Jung, K., Chilton, K., & Valero, J. N. (2017). Uncovering stakeholders in publiceprivate relations on social media: A case study of the 2015 volkswagen scandal.
Quality and Quantity, 51(3), 1113.
Krafcik, J. F. (1988). The triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41e51.
Lager, T., Tano, K., & Anastasijevic, N. (2015). Open innovation and open production: A case of a technology supplier/user collaboration in the process
industries. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(02), 1550022.
Lam, A. (2005). Organizational innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lederman, N. G. (2013). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 845e894). New York (US): Routledge.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4),
331e359.
Linton, J. D. (2009). De-babelizing the language of innovation. Technovation, 29(11), 29e737.
Lubberink, R., Blok, V., van Ophem, J., & Omta, O. (2017). Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: A systematic literature review of
responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability, 9(5), 721.
Lundvall, B. A. (2013). Innovation studies: A personal interpretation of ‘the state of the art’. In Fagerberg (pp. 21e70).
Lundvall, B. A. (2016). The learning economy and the economics of hope. UK, USA: Anthem Press.
Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., de Campos, A., et al. (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: Tensions, paradoxes and
possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 191e199.
Manzini, E. (2014). Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57e66.
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19e25.
Martin, B. R. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432e450.
Martin, B. R. (2013). Innovation studies: An emerging agenda. Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges, 168e186.
Marvel, M. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2007). Technology entrepreneurs' human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 31(6), 807e828.
Massa, L., & Tucci, C. L. (2013). Business model innovation. The oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazzucato, M. (2017). Mission-oriented innovation policy: Challenges and opportunities. Working paper IIPP WP 2017-01. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/
public-purpose/sites/public-purpose/files/moip-challenges-and-opportunities-working-paper-2017-1.pdf.
Meadows, D. H., Goldsmith, E. I., & Meadows, P. (1972). The limits to growth. London, UK: Earth Island Limited.
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Roundtree, R. I., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Self-service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based
service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50e64.
Miles, I., & Green, L. (2008). Hidden innovation in the creative industries. Research Report. NESTA. July 2008.
Misuraca, G., Colombo, C., Radescu, R., & Bacigalupo, M. (2015). Mapping and analysis of ICT-enabled social innovation initiatives promoting social in-
vestment. In Integrated approaches to the provision of social services, european commission's joint research centre, institute for prospective technological
studies, JRC technical reports series.
Morelli, N. (2007). Social innovation and new industrial contexts: Can designers industrialize socially responsible solutions? Design Issues, 23(4), 3e21.
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and
transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar Pub.
Mulgan, J., Joseph, K., & Norman, W. (2013). Indicators for social innovation. In F. Gault (Ed.), Handbook of innovation indicators and measurement (pp.
420e440). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems.
Research Policy, 30(9), 1501e1516.
Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social innovation: Ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253e266.
Murmann, J. P., & Frenken, K. (2006). Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change.
Research Policy, 35(7), 925e952.
Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78e96.
OECD. (2015). The innovation imperative: Contributing to productivity, growth and WellBeing. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). Better policies for 2030. An OECD action plan on the sustainable development goals. https://www.oecd.org/dac/Better%20Policies%20for%202030.
pdf.
OECD. (2017). Science, technology and industry scoreboard 2017. The digital transformation. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789264268821-en.
Oke, A. (2007). Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
27(6), 564e587.
Oslo Manual. (1992). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf.
Oslo Manual. (1997). Correspond to the cite OECD/Eurostat (1997), OECD Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data e
Oslo Manual. Paris: OECD.
Oslo Manual (2005). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264013100-en.pdf?expires¼1538602574&id¼id&accname¼guest&checksum¼
B02BBC2F1FBFA14308E2EEE74909C12C.
Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible Innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. UK: A John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47(1),
23e34.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Prahalad, C. K. (2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 6e12.
Prahalad, C. K., McCracken, P., & McCracken, R. (2009). The new nature of innovation. Report for OECD. Copenhagen: FORA.
Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2006). Investigating the sources of process innovation among UK manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(4),
653e682.
Roth, S. (2009). Non-technological and non-economic innovations: Contributions to a theory of robust innovation. New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, Bern.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5e18.
Sanders, E. B. N. (1992). Converging perspectives: Product development research for the 1990s. Design Management Journal, 3(4), 49e54.
Schuh, G., Lenders, M., & Hieber, S. (2011). Lean InnovationeIntroducing value systems to product development. International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, 8(01), 41e54.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic. Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). In Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 1994. London: Routledge.
Scrase, I., Stirling, A., Geels, F. W., Smith, A., & Van Zwanenberg, P. (2009). Transformative innovation: A report to the department for environment, food and
rural affairs, SPRU - science and technology policy research. University of Sussex.
Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy
transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381e400.
Sharma, A., Thomas, D., & Konsynski, B. (2017). Finding the “radicalness” in radical innovation adoption. Journal of Information Systems Applied Research,
10(2), 12.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568e1580.
Taj, S., & Morosan, C. (2011). The impact of lean operations on the Chinese manufacturing performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
22(2), 223e240.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). In Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (3rd ed.). Haddington, UK: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Utterback, J. M. (1994e1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard University Business School Press.
Utterback, J. M., Vedin, B. A., Alvarez, E., Ekman, S., Sanderson, S., Tether, B., et al. (2006). Design inspired innovation. New York: World Scientific Publishing.
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5),
436e456.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Harvard Business Press.
Verona, G., Prandelli, E., & Sawhney, M. (2006). Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6),
765e788.
Von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5(3), 212e239.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. USA: The MIT Press.
Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields.
Brussels: European Commission.
de Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: Philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 15(2), 149e154.
Wan, F., Williamson, P. J., & Yin, E. (2015). Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation: Evidence from China. Technovation, 39, 94e104.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 5(43), 805e811.
Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435e452.
Zedtwitz, M., Corsi, S., Søberg, P. V., & Frega, R. (2015). A typology of reverse innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 12e28.
Zeschky, M. B., Winterhalter, S., & Gassmann, O. (2014). From cost to frugal and reverse innovation: Mapping the field and implications for global
competitiveness. Research-technology Management, 57(4), 20e27.
Further reading
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2014). Design thinking: Exploring values and effects from an innovation capability perspective. The Design Journal,
17(3), 403e423.
Ettlie, J. E., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2011). Service versus manufacturing innovation. Europe's ability to respond to societal challenges. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 28(2), 285e299.
Gallouj, F., & Savona, M. (2009). Innovation in services: A review of the debate and a research agenda. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(2), 149e172.
Mascitelli, R. (2000). From experience: Harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve breakthrough innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3),
179e193.

1 s2.0 S2096248718300249 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2096248718300249 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Innovation Studies 2 (2018) 65e79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Innovation Studies

The nature and variety of innovation

E-mail address: monicaelizabethedwards@gmail.com.

2.1. Tangible versus intangible inventions as a source of innovation

2.3. From the central role of ﬁrms to multi-stakeholder collaborative innovations

3.1. Technological innovation

3.2. Product innovation

3.3. Process innovation

3.4. Service innovation

3.5. Business model innovation

3.6. Disruptive innovation

3.7. Radical innovation

3.8. Design-driven innovation

3.9. Social innovation

3.10. Responsible innovation

You might also like