Chapter II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents an intensive review of the literature on individual

innovativeness particularly on the theories governing its occurrences and select

studies relative to the conduct of the current study. Cohort

Diffusion Theory. The diffusion theory shows how evidences and ideas

from a wide range of underpinning disciplines are drawn together. These

disciplines include anthropology, education, geography, and sociology. These

underpinning disciplines provide a range of perspectives on the diffusion of

innovation. Although different, the perspectives and emphases of these research

traditions complement each other.

Diffusion theories have their origins in the explanation of technological

change by farmers (Rogers, 1995). The first edition of Rogers’ influential text on

the diffusion of innovation was published in 1962. Since then, the scope of

diffusion theories and associated empirical research have broadened. While

diffusion literature largely covers innovations in industrial and service settings, a

good deal of attention has now also been paid to public service and public policy

innovations, with considerable emphasis on the diffusion of innovations in the

health care and education fields (Nutley et al., 2002).

Rogers (1995) pointed out that diffusion is not a single, all-encompassing

theory. It is several theoretical perspectives that relate to the overall concept of

diffusion; it is a Meta-Theory (Yates, 2001). There are four factors that influence
the adoption of an innovation: (1) the innovation itself, (2) the communication

channels used to spread information about the innovation, (3) time, and (4) the

nature of the society to whom it is introduced. These factors are exhibited in the

following theories:

Innovation-decision Process Theory. This theory is based on time and

five distinct stages. The first stage is knowledge. Potential adopters must first

learn about the innovation. Second, they must be persuaded as to the merits of

the innovation. Third, they must decide to adopt the innovation. Fourth, once they

adopt the innovation, they must implement it. Fifth, they must confirm that their

decision to adopt was the appropriate decision. Diffusion results once these

stages are achieved.

Individual Innovativeness Theory. This theory is based on who adopts

the innovation and when. It was noted that individual innovativeness is

apportioned at the individual level in a variety of external or social conditions that

may accelerate or slow the diffusion process:

1. Whether the decision is made collectively by individuals or by a central

authority;

2. The communication channels used to acquire information about an

innovation, whether mass media or interpersonal;

3. The nature of the social system in which the potential adopters are

embedded (as identified by its norms) and the degree of

interconnectedness; and
 4. The extent of change agents’ promotion efforts advertisers, development

agencies, among others.

Theory of Rate of Adoption. This theory suggests that the adoption of

innovations is best represented by an s-curve on a graph. They theory holds that

adoption of an innovation grows slowly and gradually in the beginning. It will then

have a period of rapid growth that will taper off and become stable and eventually

declines.

Another aspect of importance in the adoption process is time. Innovations

are seen to be communicated across space and through time. Time has been

identified as being significant in the diffusion of innovations in the following

tenets: (1) the adoption of an innovation is viewed as a mental process that

evolves over time starting and initial awareness and initial knowledge about an

innovation w which evolves into an attitude towards the innovations. This

influences the decision of whether to adopt or reject the innovation; (2) the rate of

adoption among individuals differs throughout the social system. This starts of

slowly with only a minority of people adopting the innovation increasing over time

eventually reaching the rate where enough individuals have adopted the

innovation and the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining; and (3) time is

involved in the rate of adoption or rather the relative speed that members of a

social system adopt innovations.

Technological manipulativeness boosts individual innovativeness.

Technology has been an integral part of everyday life; the concepts of innovation,

and innovative and diffusion of innovation are widely used (Dadura & Lee, 2011).
Increasing the speed and quality of life, they are appreciated globally and are

concerned as the indicators of “being in front” (Kilicer & Odabasi, 2010).

Thus, innovation takes place when an individual’s manipulativeness

converges with technologies. Innovators are the first ones who adopt innovations

in the social system. They are such individuals who differ from others in the

social system in terms of their contrary properties and who likes trying out new

ideas and risk-taking and have vision (Rogers, 1995; 2003).

Innovativeness is considered as an umbrella concept which hosts the

characteristics of such term of risk-taking, openness to experience, creativeness,

and thought leadership. Accordingly, individuals in society differ from each other

in the context of innovativeness in terms of their characteristics (Rogers, 1995;

2004). There is always new information within the social system and that this

new information is processed by adopters (Rogers, 1995; 2003).

Innovativeness is related to differences among individuals based on their

reactions. Accordingly, innovativeness is classified as a behavioral characteristic,

a general personality characteristic and a specific area characteristic. The

behavioral approach highlights the time factor in adopting an innovation. The

general personality characteristic reveals the desires to experience innovation.

On the other hand, the specific area characteristic is the level which an individual

adopts an innovation in a specific area they are interested in. An innovative

individual is open to experiences, go after original suggestion, transform

information, and put ideas into practice (Hall & Eliot, 2003).
 In today’s world, a new technology penetrates into our daily lives every

day. Technological innovations force individuals to renovate themselves. In order

to be successful in business life, institutions, and individuals should keep up with

these innovations (Sabherwal, Hirscheim, & Goles, 2001).

Innovativeness as exhibited in the foregoing instances through modelling

is seen in two perspectives: determinism (developer-based) and instrumentalism

(adapter-based). The deterministic characteristics include the state of being

quick, guiding the society, becoming a leader in using technologies, and doing

innovations in the process of production are considered important factors that

may have impinged people who adopt and adapt innovations towards a certain

goal or task - service standpoints and practices.

On the other hand, the instrumentalism characteristics include the state of

being adaptive and adoptive to change from among the members of their niche

or social systems. Innovativeness is described as the tendency to adopt and

adapt innovation earlier than other members of their niche and the society where

they live in.

As applied in the dynamic workplace setting, employees need to update

themselves in the realms of individual innovativeness – the climate that puts

every productive employee to become receptive towards change particularly to

their service standpoints and practices. Employees who infuse innovations in

their work stations are most likely to produce innovative output (Celik, 2013;

Cocklar, 2012; Soffer et al., 2010; Ali, 2007). Hence, there is a need to

recalibrate employees on their technological-manipulative skills in order for them

to exude innovation in their tasks. It was claimed further that professionals who

are computer literate and internet butterflies are more innovative than those who

are reluctant in using such technologies and portals (Cocklar, 2012).

Individual innovativeness influences workplace behavior and

performance. Workplace behavior and performance are claimed to be

influenced by the individuals’ innovativeness. The concordances of individuals to

innovation are paramount to their adherence to efficacy in the workplace;

however, it was also claimed that there are other factors that might be

considered like institutional politics, management style of administrators,

motivations of the employees, among others. Hence, individual innovativeness is

found to be a strong determinant of task performances and individual efficacy

(Ali, 2017; Parlar & Cansoy, 2017).

Core concepts in innovation management. Building on this body of

extensive research, innovation management is now a subject which can be

taught and there is a stable body of knowledge around such courses and

textbooks (Trott, 2011; Tidd & Bessant, 2013). Relevant core concepts include

the following:

Innovation is a process not an event. There are many similar models of

the innovation journey and representations of the key stages and different

management challenges associated with them. As shown in Figure 4, typical

stages in this process or journey are:

 search;

 select;
  implement; and

 capture value.

This process is shaped and influenced by key contextual factors such as:

 strategic direction and targeting; and

 enabling and supportive organizations.

Figure 4. The Innovation Process

Innovation management as a learning process. Learning to innovate is

achieved by building behavioral routines and then embedding them in structures,

procedures, and policies. These are viewed as ways of carrying out the

innovation process and repeating it (Pavitt, 2002; Zollo & Winter, 2002). The

processes through which organizations learn are varied. They include learning by

doing, learning by collaborating, learning from interaction with users, learning

through failure, learning through using (the learning curve effect), learning by

exporting, among others. All offer opportunities for capturing and embedding

behavioral patterns – routines – which enable innovation to be organized,

managed, and repeated. From this discussion emerged the concept of innovation

as dynamic capability: mobilizing resources and processes in support of

innovation but also having the ability to reconfigure them in a changing

environment (Zollo & Winter, 2002; Teece, 2009).

Closely linked to this was the notion of absorptive capacity: the ability of

an organization to find and make use of new external knowledge to create

innovations (Todorova & Durisin, 2007). Absorptive capability is something

which is learned and built up over time, essentially acquiring, and embedding the

routines which constitute an innovation management capability (Bessant et al.,

2007).

Innovation as a spectrum of novelty. The spectrum of innovations

typically runs from incremental to radical. Most innovation is viewed as

incremental in nature and has its impact through accumulation. Radical

innovation is higher risk and requires different approaches to search and

selection. A major challenge is striking a balance between exploit and explore:

these terms illustrate the differences in search behavior, selection approaches

and organizing for implementation around do better (incremental) and do

different (radical) (Nicholas et al., 2013).

Multiple pathways through the innovation space. Following

Schumpeter’s original discussion there are many ways in which value can be

created through innovation, ranging from new offerings, processes, supply chain

reconfiguration, among others. We can think of an innovation space (Francis &

Bessant, 2006) with core dimensions around what we offer the world (product

innovation), how we create and deliver that offering (process innovation), where

we target and deliver that innovation (position innovation), and the underlying
mental models that govern our approaches to innovation and variety (paradigm

innovation).

These multiple pathways are important because they move attention from

products (what an organization offers the world) and processes (how it creates

and delivers those offerings) to other ways in which innovation can create value

and other groups for whom this can take place. Innovation strategy becomes a

search through the innovation space (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005), with a range of

possible directions in which to explore.

Creativity and problem solving as a core discipline. Creativity and

problem solving need to be applied in a systematic fashion rather than the light

bulb or genius model that typifies many innovation anecdotes. Innovation needs

to be seen as an organized process - applying focused creativity. Many

representations see this process as a mixture of divergent and explorative cycles

interspersed with convergent integrative ones (Kelley et al., 2005). Different

stages in the process require different approaches, e.g., the concept of the

innovation value chain (Birkinshaw et al., 2007).

Innovation as entrepreneurship. Innovative behavior is often associated

with entrepreneurship. Although there is an extensive literature on this subject,

until recently much of this focused-on start-ups and small business (Burns, 2011)

and not on innovation per se.

Understanding entrepreneurs and how they enact the innovation process

has been an important stream in the literature and moves us away from the lone

instinctive inventor and towards a learned set of skills and process (Bessant &
Tidd, 2011). Models of the entrepreneurial process are essentially similar to the

generic innovation journey with key stages typically being:

 opportunity recognition (either via discovery or creation);

 assembling resources;

 developing the venture; and

 capturing value.

The emphasis is placed upon learning and feedback: a process of

discovery, probe, and learn rather than grand strategy (Sarasvathy, 2008).

Entrepreneurs learn to operate in uncertain environments by flexibility, tolerance

of ambiguity, adaptability and equifinality (multiple pathways to the same goal).

Prototyping and learning via interaction around experiments is a core feature of

innovation entrepreneurship, and multiple fast failures are characteristic of the

behavior that generate viable solutions (Ries, 2011; Blank, 2013).

Recently there has also been considerable focus on intrapreneurs – the

internal entrepreneurs within organizations who help to renew organizations

(Burns, 2008; Sarasvathy, 2008). Corporate entrepreneurship of this kind is

becoming a central means by which established or mature organizations create

new directions and enable radical innovation (Leifer et al., 2008). A number of

notable examples are widely used as examples such as 3M, Corning, and more

recently Google (Iyer & Davenport, 2008).

Another growing field of relevance is social entrepreneurship where the

emphasis is on creating social value rather than, or as well as, commercial value

(Gruber & Fauchart, 2011).

 Innovations are path dependent. The trajectories of innovation in any

given sector tend to be profoundly shaped by the pathways laid down by early

pioneers who, knowingly or unwittingly, created a dominant design in the

innovation space. Abernathy and Utterback’s influential model of the innovation

life cycle suggests there are different phases of innovation, each of which is

associated with different types of activity. In the early stages of a particular

innovation space, in the fluid phase, there is considerable experimentation

around different possible innovation configurations. Much of this activity leads to

failure but eventually there is convergence around a dominant design which

becomes the standard that others work with and the variant which achieves

widespread adoption.

In the transitional phase emphasis shifts towards process innovation,

trying to stabilize around the dominant design and developing processes which

can produce it reliably and to cost targets. Finally, there is a phase associated

with maturity in which emphasis is on incremental improvement innovation

around that dominant design, establishing a trajectory which may persist for

extended periods before some new trigger, e.g., new technology, new market

configuration, ushers in a new fluid phase. This sets up the conditions under

which entrepreneurs working at the edge can disrupt industries and challenge

existing incumbents (Bessant et al., 2013).

The challenge of path dependent technological trajectories is that while

they both provide a guide and focus for innovation strategies, the dominant

designs that result can also act as a constraint on exploration for radical
alternatives. Established organizations are well-suited to incremental

improvements and some limited exploration in this space but there are powerful

internal resistances which can inhibit the search for radical innovation (Von

Stamm, 2003).

As an illustration, Henry Ford, was a comparative latecomer to the

emerging automobile industry but whose Model T and accompanying

manufacturing process became the dominant design in America and Europe and

persisted through until the 1980s when Japanese learn manufacturing

techniques offered radical new options and brought about a new wave of

experimentation and change.

Innovation as a multi-actor process. While individual entrepreneurs,

inventors, scientists, engineers, or designers certainly have an important part to

play, the study of innovation has progressively recognized the numerous people

and organizations typically involved in the process. Innovation is necessarily a

multiparty activity. Even the lone entrepreneur seeking to get a new idea to

market is unlikely to be able to do this entirely on their own. They will usually rely

on others for financial backing, specialist knowledge of technologies, equipment,

distribution and marketing, legal advice. Ultimately, they will depend on their

prospective users and customers to complete the innovation process by actually

using the product, service, or process that has been developed. Innovation,

therefore, necessarily depends on a complex network of actors and activities.

There have been growing attempts to understand different aspects of

these networks as a central determining factor of successful innovation

processes. Early discussion of national innovation systems looked at key

relationships such as those between firms and government, finance and

education (Lopez-Martinez & Piccaluga, 2000). Also, of interest were emergent

models of local and regional innovation systems and their connection to

economic geography via clusters and collective efficiency (Cooke, 2001; Howells

& Bessant, 2012). The concept of focal or keystone firms and managed

networks have become important in our understanding of innovation systems, as

are notions of platforms and ecosystems (Davies & Hobday, 2005; Durst &

Poutanen, 2013).

Diffusion of innovation. Innovation only has real impact when it can be

scaled across a population of users. Understanding of adoption and diffusion has

been a focus of study for a long time but is now an increasingly important part of

the picture. Diffusion studies cover different types of innovation. These include

product innovation where marketing studies have revealed a lot about buyer

behavior and influences on the process, and process innovation where adoption

of new farming methods as an example shows the influences such as social

flows of knowledge (Kotler, 2003). Everett Rogers carried out pioneering work in

mapping this field and identified a widely used framework for analysis and action.

Unbeknownst to many in the aid world, his original work was funded by USAID,

and examined adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries. His

core model framed diffusion as being based on a process of communication and

influence, in which a mix of factors influencing the adoption decision of different

actors. These factors form a checklist with which to think about and configure

innovations for effective diffusion. Key elements are:

 innovation characteristics (relative advantage, complexity,

observability, trialability and compatibility)

 innovator characteristics (who is trying to introduce the change)

 adopter characteristics (typically distributed across a population in

terms of readiness to take on new ideas)

 environmental/contextual characteristics

Change management offers another key strand of literature in this space,

exploring the challenge of planning for successful adoption of internal process

changes. These studies repeatedly highlight the importance of engaging users

early and actively in order to secure acceptance and adoption. The literature

includes extensive work on take up of new processes and methods and

acceptance of new technologies. This has been a key theme running through

discussion of socio-technical systems, through participative design and to current

understanding of user involvement in design of systems which will actually be

used.

Role of leadership in innovation. Among the number of key elements for

managing innovative environments in organizations, the literature highlights top

management support and commitment for innovation as being crucial for

successful innovation. The issue of leadership is even more important when

innovation is concerned with radical change as it requires a level of learning and

change that is often disruptive, risky and costly. This requires energy (resources
and power), which is primarily owned and controlled by top management, to

overcome organizational inertia. Researchers argue that it is the far-sighted

leaders who make the difference by making an aggressive exploitation of new

technologies. The other significant role of leadership, in relation to innovation, is

in shaping a ‘fertile’ environment (i.e. organizational culture) to nurture

innovation.

People and culture for innovation. The literature on organizational

innovation, both anecdotal and empirical, emphasizes the importance of culture

as a major determinant in innovation performance. In creating a supportive

organizational environment for innovation, several practices relating to managing

people have been identified in the literature. While, in general, it is necessary for

management to provide a quality of working life for its employees that serves

their needs in terms of overall wellbeing, skills development, and career paths,

there are several specific key practices aimed at building innovative behaviors;

among these are empowerment and involvement. Empowerment should make

people feel they possess a certain degree of autonomy, feel less constrained by

technical or rule-bound aspects and self-efficaciousness in enacting their work;

and in combination these features enable people to be innovative. Empirically,

research findings support the notion that empowerment is positively related to

innovative behaviors. This point is further strengthened by findings that show that

the concept of empowerment is closely associated with the concept of

decentralization or organic structure (Reigle, 2001), which is deemed to be one

of the most important predictors of innovation. Similarly, employee involvement is

also held as the antecedent of organizational innovation (Prather & Turrell,

2002). As innovation is essentially about converting ideas into something

profitable, encouragement to supply ideas needs to be substantial in order to

channel the creative ability of the employees to convert ideas into innovations.

Therefore, organizations need to facilitate innovation by creating and maintaining

an environment that supports idea generation and creativity. Such enabling

conditions include the provision of resources and opportunities as well as

minimizing constraints which could impede individual creativity. In addition, the

literature on innovation also suggests the importance of combining different

perspectives in a form of cross-functional teamwork in order to stimulate

creativity. This is because cross-functional teamwork is one of the most effective

channels of communication, which has been recognized as primary determinant

of organizational innovation. Specifically, studies emphasize the distinction

between cross-functional interaction and collaboration in organizations and their

impact on product innovation performance. Kahn suggests that cross-

departmental collaborations play a more important role in determining innovation

performance than do interactions which only stress meetings and documented

information exchange. His findings have been corroborated by the subsequent

studies addressing the impact of interdepartmental coordination on innovation.

Further to this, innovation scholars suggest that extrinsic reward is necessary for

encouraging innovation. However, money is not the sole or the best form. As

researchers argue, recognition of achievement (i.e. intrinsic reward) is also a

strong and important motivator. In particular, one of the greatest challenges in

management of innovation is the readiness of management to acknowledge that

only a small portion of creative ideas will be successful in market place. At a

highly innovative company like 3M, for example, nearly 60% of the creative ideas

fail. Clearly, under such an environment if punitive reward systems are in place

they will very easily discourage people from taking risks (Prajogo & Ahmed,

2006).

Managing knowledge. Another human-related factor that recently has

gained recognition as an antecedent of innovation, of relevance here, deals with

managing knowledge. The essence of knowledge management (KM) with

respect to innovation is that it provides a framework for management in their

attempt to develop and enhance their organizational capability to innovate.

Cohen and Levinthal (1990) label this as absorptive capacity. It defines the ability

of an organization to recognize the value of new external information and

knowledge, assimilate, and apply them, and this ability is critical in determining

innovative output. Augmenting this concept, researchers strongly argue that the

potential of organizations to generate (innovation) outcomes is dependent on the

prior accumulation of knowledge they have absorbed. The emergence of KM

therefore has enhanced the reciprocity between innovation and knowledge in the

sense that innovative efforts are a byproduct of effort and investment in

knowledge and knowledge workers. By the same token, outcomes from

innovation processes and systems in terms of new products and processes

embody new knowledge (Carneiro, 2000). Examining key literature in this area

leads to identification of several major practices for managing knowledge within a

firm. At the strategic level, top management should appreciate the intellectual

capital of companies as a key part of their organizational innovation

infrastructure. As such, firms need to develop an intellectual asset management

strategy that focuses on enterprise-level management of specific intellectual

assets, such as patents and technologies. At the operational level, organizations

need to stimulate and improve the knowledge of their human capital and provide

their knowledge workers with adequate means to communicate and share the

information. From this it transpires that information sharing should be stimulated

because it is one of the most important tools of creativity. What makes

information sharing more important is that intellectual assets, unlike physical

assets, increase in value with use (Carneiro, 2000). By and large, the human

factors of innovation management aim at two primary goals. First, it creates an

organizational context for innovation by minimizing constraints, promoting

flexibility, and maintaining organic-style organizational structure. The term

context, however, is often defined in a ‘passive’ manner, in that it is used to

describe the current or existing conditions of an organizational environment.

Viewing the term as such is, unfortunately, not enough if the concern is to drive

innovation. Enabling innovation to happen requires an active definition of context,

such that it incorporates the practices and actions that drive innovation. This

points to the importance for organizations to develop managerial practices and

actions that function as a stimulus for encouraging and energizing people to

innovate through development and accumulation of ideas and knowledge

(Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006).

 Studies on innovation and innovativeness in related literature date back to

1965 and 1970s; yet they have generally focused on the field of business. Most

of these studies were carried out to determine the characteristics of adjustment

to innovation and innovativeness in organizations (Damanpour & Schneider,

2009).

It was also seen that some studies in related literature focused on a

certain innovation. The study conducted by Cumming and Owen (2001)

examined teachers’ perceptions of innovations in learning environments with

respect to such variables as years of teaching, gender and the number of

courses taught. In relation to some other studies, a certain technology,

technologies in general, was considered as an innovation parallel to

technological developments. Moreover, one study examined how features

perceived as MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) differed with respect to

categories of innovativeness (Hsu, Lu, & Hsu, 2007). Another study was

conducted to investigate the innovativeness profiles of faculty regarding the

adoption of new instructional technology into the instructional process (Hall &

Elliott, 2003).

Similarly, in another study, the relationship between the categories of

innovativeness and technology use of faculty members for instructional purposes

are determined (Sahin & Thompson, 2006). The study concluded that the

innovativeness of the respondents is linked to their strong desire to investigate

technological adaption vis-à-vis technological developments.

 On the other hand, the study of Bautista et al. (2018) suggested the need

to rationalize every learning encounters of the pre-service elementary grade

teachers in managing change through capacity building programs like seminar-

workshops, personalized counselling program, among others, as a way of

enriching their technical and professional know-how as teachers. Manipulative

skills, which is a characteristic of a 21 st century teacher, should be modelled and

practiced by them in the university as they will soon showcase it among their

students.

Moreover, the study of Esteban et al. (2019) to a senior class of pre-

service elementary teachers concluded that the respondents are receptive to

innovation and change when proper intervention program is conducted. The

respondents’ willingness to adopt and adapt change is rekindled in a dogmatic

manner of implementing the Project GABAY. Project GABAY is the intervention

program of the study to which the respondents’ innovativeness is attributed. It

was further recommended that the close mentoring program be adopted in

ensuring that pre-service teachers may become receptible to change; thus,

making them innovators.

Apparently, the study of Bautista et al. (nd) titled Project KINANG

Improves the Individual Innovativeness of Pre-service Secondary School

Teachers introduced the concepts of Keen and Innovative scaffolding in Ne Plus

Ultra Sessions through Active and Notable Groupings. It was found out that the

respondents’ innovativeness was bolstered by the intervention program thereby

making them innovators in their own classes during their Student Teaching
program. Furthermore, the ne plus ultra sessions introduced in the process was

notably lifted their spirit in exuding innovations in all their tasks as Student-

Teachers. On the other hand, the active and notable groupings stimulated their

enigma to become innovators in adopting and adapting to the changes that they

faced in their student teaching. This study concluded that Project KINANG is an

effective tool in rekindling innovation among pre-service secondary school

teachers.

All these studies concluded similar results: the innovativeness of the

teacher-respondents is paramount to their performances in class and is equated

to their abilities of showcasing innovation to their students; however, no strong

quantifiable evidences are established as to the innovativeness of their students.