Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/321060813
CITATIONS READS
9 7,541
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Tugba Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan on 04 August 2021.
This study aims to determine innovation capacity of a firm and to investigate the
correlations between performance outcomes and innovation types. In this study, a
questionnaire-based survey was conducted to classify firms with respect to different
novelty degrees of innovation activities in developing new products and the magnitude of
market impact shortly after innovations have been introduced and then appraise the as-
sociation between innovation types and performance outcomes. The data obtained from the
Turkish industrial clusters show that the higher firm innovativeness in product and market
with a wide-spread diffusion effect of innovations, the greater is the market and production
performance. To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the few studies applying
the product-market growth matrix to determine/manage innovation portfolio of firms.
Introduction
The traditional rhetoric of efficiency-driven economy spreading throughout the
20th century has been shifting towards a knowledge-based and innovation-driven
competitiveness and economic development in the 21st century. A new paradigm
of economy is grounded in a long-run vision for the firm that seeks to create
sustainable value for its all stakeholders at the expense of short-run profit max-
imisation (Roos and Pike, 2008). Entrepreneurs occupy a central position in such
⁄
Corresponding author.
1850039-1
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
market segment of the global economy (Song and Montoya-Weiss, 1998). Radical
innovations are discontinuous to every customer segment, as they comprise new to
the world products. Hence, innovation can be described along several dimensions
including the impact of innovation on the economic activities of firms in the target
market and its market coverage (e.g., new to the firm/new to the market/new to the
industry/. . . :/new to the world) as well as the magnitude of changes in new
product development activities.
Today’s theoretical and practical knowledge endowment shows that innovation
is an iterative process of change that evolves from discovering some new ideas
covering the whole spectrum of activities to diffusion of new and economically
useful knowledge among individuals, social networks and organisations. Diffusion
of innovation creates a turning effect produced by spreading a new idea or product
through a social system (Rogers, 2003; Tidd and Bessant, 2009). The diffusion
speed of innovation is considered in introducing product life cycle as the decisive
tool for lifespan extension of a specific product from design to obsolescence.
Although strategic choice influences the profitability of a product at each stage,
innovations come in different degrees due to the diffusion speed or market
potential. In connection with this, a relationship exists between the technological
maturity or product life cycle stages and different types of innovation: radical
(introduction), incremental (growth), (product- and market-based) breakthrough
initiatives of innovation (transformation). In this study, we use a modified version
of the Ansoff growth matrix for innovation strategy. This framework of innovation
evaluates a fit between product-market strategies and different types of innovation
strategy Kalbach (2012) defines as incremental, breakthrough (/product-based
breakthrough), disruptive (/market-based breakthrough) and game-changer (/rad-
ical). Such a categorisation enables us to have a better understanding of firms’
strategic innovation decisions on new product development.
Performance outcomes are correlated with the strategic innovation decisions on
new product development process. According to the historical performance record,
1850039-3
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
firms can allocate resources across innovation types in the most efficient way.
Based on the innovation-based growth model, this study aims to classify firms
from the macroeconomic perspective of equilibrium and then investigate the
correlations between performance outcomes and innovation types. By doing so, it
would be possible to determine which innovation types varying in innovative
capacity for corporate growth lead to a substantial increase in firm performance.
Although different types of innovation have been extensively studied in recent
years, their correlation with performance outcomes (limited to measure market
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
perspective, the innovation concept is a “black box” because the lack of feedback
loops from the market needs and from the product development process in R&D
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
of absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Zahra and George, 2002). In
the new economy, strategy processes and performance outcomes of the firms are
affected by a complex set of systemic factors (politic, technological, ecological,
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
economic and social factors) at the local, regional, national and international
levels. The interdependence of systems makes innovation and entrepreneurship
catalyzers of collective competitiveness through networked management and
sustainability. In this study, innovation is dealt as an interactive process limited to
the user–producer interaction.
product development process. Other studies, based on the firm perspective, con-
sidered the newness of the product and the newness of the target market as
measurement indicators to the novelty of innovation. The dimensions of product
newness were included as (a) product changes in terms of functional design and
engineering, features and overall benefits (i.e., the product technology is new to
the organisation) and (b) changes in the production and delivery systems (i.e., the
process technology is new to the organisation), whereas market newness was
supposed to become one-dimensional that covers changes in the market applica-
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
tions for which the new product is targeted (i.e., the target market is new to the
organisation) (Ziamou, 1999). Among those studies, Balachandra and Friar
(1997), Christensen (1997) and Crawford (1997) reflected a more product-based
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
impact), disruptive (low tech progress, high market impact) and game-changer (high
tech progress, high market impact). He suggests a 5:2:2:1 ratio for organisations’
innovation investments across these four types. The first dimension of innovation
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
first to bring a specific product or service to market. Despite the high R&D
expenses incurred by first movers, the competitive position of non-innovators
would obviously be disrupted in the near future (Basu, 2014). To overcome this
problem, it is critical importance of understanding the product-market framework
within which each innovation type finds an appropriate space. Ansoff’s (1970)
product-market matrix is a conceptual framework for strategy development that
enables a firm to move in two major directions in seeking future growth: expansion
of its current businesses and activities or diversification into new businesses (Boyd
et al., 1995). The first alternative direction for strategy development is to expand
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
(e.g., product line extensions and new product offerings for existing customers)
and market development strategies (e.g., geographic expansion and targeting new
segments). In contrast, the second alternative for corporate growth is to allow the
firm to expand its activities by operating in new lines of business that are different
from current operations. Firms in this second strategic direction seek growth by
diversifying their operations and hence new opportunities in dealing with unfa-
miliar customer groups. Ansoff Matrix also allows for classifying firms according
to different degrees of novelty associated with the innovation (Fig. 1).
Based on the Kalbach’s model of innovation (2012) used in this study, a fit can
be deduced between innovation type and growth strategies consistent with the
product-market characteristics (Table 1). Market penetration strategies with the
modest changes in existing products result in incremental innovation. Minor
improvements and small changes such as color and size are applied to the form and
Fig. 1. “Ansoff Matrix” modified for innovation typology (/strategy) (Kalbach, 2012).
1850039-9
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
function of the existing product. The main strategy here is to increase market share
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
of the existing product. Growth strategies to the pursuit of developing new markets
with the radical changes to existing products produce really new products by
changing the way of how people act and communicate with the product features.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Although operating in new lines of business transforms market and even society,
this kind of (revolutionary) innovation is called as “game changer”. Such as radical
shifts in business offerings with new functions cause technological transformation
of products and markets. Other combinations (existing markets with new products
and new markets with existing products) produce moderately new products that
can share some common characteristics of both core (incremental innovation) and
transformational (radical/game-changing innovation) innovations. Breakthrough
innovation is a consequence of significant improvements in product function and
therefore requires high investments in research and development. On the other
side, disruptive innovation with minor change in technological function generates
new revenue streams by either providing solutions to a new set of customer needs
or significant improvements in product performance.
Methodology
This research study classifies firms operating within industrial clusters according
to the capacity to innovate in the expanded coverage of innovations from product
and process (technological innovation) to include marketing and organisational
innovation (non-technological innovation) and its impact on the target market.
Hence, the authors aim at identifying different types of innovation strategy and
then investigating the correlations between performance outcomes and innovation
types (Fig. 2). In order to do so, this study uses a 2 2 matrix encompassing four
basic types of innovation. Dimensions are determined by firm innovativeness and
market impact consistent with the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005), which offers an
integrative framework for understanding the innovation ecosystem as a whole.
Although the impact of innovations can exert considerable influence over the
market structure through competition for market shares, broaden the target market
1850039-10
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
or render existing products and services obsolete, its disruptive influence increases
with the geographical coverage of the diffusion from a particular customer market
to quickly spread around the world. An innovation would not create any economic
impact without its diffusion from the first implementation to different firms,
markets, industries, regions and countries. Consistent with the diffusion theory of
innovation, the novelty of innovation depends on the scope-related impact of
innovations beyond the changes on products that involve a significant degree
of novelty for the firm. In the modified version of Ansoff Matrix, we consider firm
innovativeness (:positioning axis product) as a measure of the degree of newness
of innovations in the new product development process when its impact on the
target market (:positioning axis market) represents the effect size of innovations
created in the demand market. As firm innovativeness increases at the higher levels
of market effect, game changer strategy of innovation tends to be implemented.
Measurement
The clustering criteria of this study cover two input sets (firm innovativeness and
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
market impact) to divide innovation into four specific segments and hence depict
the distribution of the firms located in the organised industrial district of Antalya in
terms of capacity for innovation. Following the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005)
framework, firm innovativeness in new product development process was mea-
sured with 16 items to capture the extent of which positive changes (/innovations)
a firm has been making on new product development activities over the last three
years. According to the measurement of this construct, executives were asked to
rate firm innovativeness on the value chain activities (i.e., technical product spe-
cifications and functional characteristics, ergonomic product design features,
components and materials, production techniques and procedures, inward and
outward logistics methods and procedures, supporting activities such as purchas-
ing, accounting, computing and maintenance, product aesthetic design, product
packaging, product placement, product promotion and pricing, business practices,
information processing systems, workplace organisation and managing external
relationships) consisting of production, marketing and the infrastructure of the firm
such as organisational structure and control systems using a 5-point scale ranging
from (1) no change, (2) minor improvements, (3) minor but continuous
improvements, (4) major/remarkable improvements and (5) radical/transforma-
tional improvements. Cronbach’s alpha for the firm innovativeness in new product
development process ( ¼ 0:90) is well above the recommended threshold level
of 0.70.
As the second dimension of the matrix for innovation typology, market impact
of innovations concerns the degree to which innovations have a significant impact
on a particular market that indicates magnitude of change in the economic activity
of firms in the market after the introduction of new or substantially improved
products. This indicator was assessed using a four-point scale for the market
impact of innovations a firm has been making on new product development
activities over the last three years ranging from: (1) no impact on the market or
economic activities of the firms operating in the related market, (2) changing the
1850039-12
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
structure of the market (shifts in the distribution of market shares), (3) extending
the boundaries of the market and (4) creating new customer needs and markets
(rendering existing products obsolete). Following the methodological approach of
Garcia and Calantone (2002, p. 118), the distinction between micro- and macro-
perspectives of innovation is of great importance in determining product inno-
vativeness correlated with capacity of a firm since it identifies newness of
innovation to whom. From a macro-perspective, innovativeness should be con-
sidered with the sources for technological advances that are exogenous to the firm.
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
market performance is 0.84, its value for production performance is 0.62 which is
compatible with the recommended threshold level of 0.60 (Hair et al., 1998). In
addition to the reliability test for the two main categories of the performance
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
outcomes for innovation, exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation was
conducted to check the validity of the constructs. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is 0.86 and the Bartlett test of sphericity is
highly significant (Bartlett’s test: 421.741; p ¼ 0:000), indicating that the data are
suitable for factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factor
solution accounting for 55.63% of the cumulative variance. Factor loadings of the
10 items are above 0.50 (Hair et al., 1998).
Results
The results of this study can be reported into two sub-sections. At the first stage,
we conducted a two-step cluster analysis to produce the clusters of greatest pos-
sible distinction and hence obtained a four-cluster solution based on the two input
features (magnitude of changes in innovation activities as the measure for firm
innovativeness and the impact of innovations on the target market). At the second
stage, we identified the performance differences among innovation clusters by
applying ANOVA.
1850039-14
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
1850039-15
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
(Fig. 6). The firms in Cluster (3) exhibited very low innovative capacity for
developing new products with incremental advances in existing products. The
capacity of those firms to innovate is limited to the structural changes in the
target market, which are linked at the local and regional levels. Inconsistent with
Cluster (3), we can state that the firms in Cluster (2) (with 14.4% of the cases) have
made remarkable changes (improvements) to new product development over the
last three years and hence creating breakthrough products with new customer
needs gave rise to reach growing target markets nationally. The firms within
Cluster 2 can be defined as game changer innovators of the industrial district.
Despite the restricted scope of the target market to the national scale, they have
more growth potential in radical and discontinuous leaps to completely novel
offerings and opening up new markets.
The other firms within Cluster (1) and Cluster (4) are the evolutionary inno-
vators of the industrial district (Fig. 7). The orientation of evolutionary innovators
is towards making continuous or incremental innovations for today’s customers
by identifying product and market growth trajectories. The results show that
Cluster (1) represented the vast majority (with 48.8%) of the cases. Such firms are
the disruptive innovators that create a new market by making some minor
improvements to an existing product and thereby converting non-customers into
1850039-16
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
customers. According to the findings, those firms produced an effect to expand the
activity coverage of the industrial district to national markets. Cluster (4) with 27
firms (21.6% of the cases) emerged somewhere at the interface of incremental and
breakthrough innovation. Breakthrough innovators of the industrial district laun-
ched new products for the existing product lines and hence reshaped the local/
regional market which included greater demands for improved products.
The results from a set of evaluation criteria on output/input indicators of in-
novation demonstrated that incremental innovation has the lowest R&D intensity
1850039-17
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
(as a ratio of R&D expenditures/total sales) among the other innovation strategies.
On the other side, firms who follow game changer innovation strategy allocate the
largest funds to R&D. Consistent with the output indicator of innovation, the
proportion of new product sales revenue is lower for incremental innovation.
Interestingly, sales income of new products is the highest (with a percentage of
26.11) in the type of breakthrough innovation. However, firms invest more in
research and development when they can produce a small number of new products
by following this strategy. Therefore, game changers can be evaluated more
advantageous according to the share of new product sales revenue (that corre-
sponds to 24.08%).
1850039-18
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
Total
Conclusion
The major assumption underlying this research study is that performance outcomes
of cluster members may differ according to firm capacity for innovation, even if
firms in an industrial district can exploit some locally embedded systemic
resources. To investigate the correlations between performance outcomes and
innovation types, we apply the well-known growth matrix of Igor Ansoff in its
modified version for innovation strategy. First, this study is briefly elaborated on
how the understanding of the innovation process has evolved over time. Evolu-
tionary change of innovation models triggered by paradigm shifts for survival in
the knowledge economy has disclosed that organisational success and longevity
can be accomplished from the macroeconomic perspective of innovation in which
actors are enacted in an iterative process of action, reaction and counteraction
through networks of social relations. Despite the limited focus of the current study
on pluralistic utilitarianism nurturing innovation and value creation in entrepre-
neurial firms, we consider technology-push and market-pull impulses to be
1850039-19
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
been done before” needs to advance in innovation practices that create a trans-
formative influence on global market demand.
Based on the data obtained from the industrial district of Antalya, the firms with
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
the highest firm innovativeness and market impact are the cluster members of
which innovation capacities are limited to create revolutionary transformation on
the national market. This cluster group is called “game changer” of the industrial
district in this study. Remarkable improvements in the new product development
process enable them to create/add new consumers around the Turkish market.
They have relatively higher market and production performance rather than the
other three firm clusters labelled as incremental, breakthrough and disruptive.
Game changer creates a very similar market impact with the disruptive type of
innovation in expanding the national coverage to markets. In the disruptive in-
novation type, firms make some minor improvements to an existing product and
hence follow growth strategy through market expansion. It becomes the most
dominant form of innovation in the industrial district of Antalya. Breakthrough
innovators are the second biggest cluster, but their market performance is at the
lowest level. In addition to this, they need to make more research and development
investments for developing a small number of new products. This situation also
creates a diminishing effect on production performance. However, firms can fol-
low the strategy of breakthrough innovation due to the high sales revenue in this
category. Similar to the breakthrough innovation, the market impact of incremental
innovations covers local market. However, breakthrough innovation with major
improvement of existing products or development of new product lines leads to a
more pronounced effect in changing structural market dynamics. The most notable
feature of incremental innovators has relatively low levels of R&D intensity.
Despite this handicap in terms of input indicators of innovation, minor improve-
ments of incremental innovators in product development process result in more
new products than disruptive and breakthrough innovators. Depending on the
advantages of short lead times for new product introduction, incremental inno-
vators can perform better than breakthrough innovators. In conclusion, the firms
1850039-20
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
who intend to increase the firm performance must develop their capabilities that
support activities in the cluster of game changer.
This study indicates that innovation-dependent differences in performance
outcomes can be discovered through couplings between the novelty degree of
innovations in activities such as technical and functional product designs, pro-
duction techniques and procedures, logistics operations procedures, marketing
methods, work routines and procedures, organisational structure, information
processing in the new product development process and the magnitude/coverage
of the impact on the target market the product innovativeness of a firm has been
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
originated. The higher firm innovativeness in product and market with the diffu-
sion effect of innovations to the worldwide markets, the greater is the market and
costs performance. In turn, this effect leads to enhanced firm performance through
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Acknowledgement
This paper was prepared from the Project TR61/15/DFD/0010 supported by West
Mediterranean Development Agency.
1850039-21
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
Table A.1.
Radical
considerable differences in technology
compared to the existing product
Christensen (1997) Sustaining The degree of product functionality
existing product functionality for
existing markets
Disruptive
a new set of functions for different
market segments
Veryzer (1998) Continuous The differences in new product
generic product development process development process (that
with minor modification covers the phases of dynamic
Discontinuous drifting, convergence,
formulation of a new product formulation, preliminary
application from emerging technologies design, evaluation preparation,
formative prototype, testing and
design modification, prototype
and commercialization) for
developing discontinuous new
products, including extremely
high degree of technological
and market uncertainty
Rice et al. (1998) Incremental Improvements in performance
Breakthrough compared to existing products
“game changer” products with the
potential for a 5–10 times improvement
in performance and a 30–50%
reduction in cost compared to existing
products, and the new-to-the-world
performance features
1850039-22
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
Triadic categorization
1850039-23
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
Moderate
moderate novelty products that are not
already new to both businesses and
consumers and achieved by the highest
levels of aesthetic preference
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
High
high novelty products/new products for
both businesses and customers
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Tetra-categorization
1850039-24
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
1850039-25
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
1850039-26
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
4-point scale for the market impact of innovations a firm has been making
on new product development activities over the last three years:
related market
2. changing the structure of the market (shifts in the distribution of market shares)
3. extending the boundaries of the market
4. creating new customer needs and markets (rendering existing products obsolete)
1850039-27
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
1. production costs
2. volume flexibility of production
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Number of new products: the number of new products launched by the firm
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
References
Abernathy, WJ and KB Clark (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative de-
struction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.
Andersen, ES (2013). Evolutionary Economics: Post-Schumpeterian Contributions. Park
Avenue South, New York: Routledge.
Ansoff, HI (1970). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for
Growth and Expansion. New York: Penguin Books.
Balachandra, R and JH Friar (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product
innovation: a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment, 44(3), 276–287.
Basu, S (2014). Product market strategies and innovation types: Finding the fit!. Strategic
Direction, 30(3), 28–31.
Boyd, H, O Walker and JC Larreche (1995). Marketing Management: A Global Strategic
Approach. Chicago, IL: RD Irwin.
Castellaci, F, S Grodal, S Mendonca and M Wibe (2005). Advances and challenges in
innovation studies. Journal of Economic Issues, 39(1), 91–121.
Chandy, RK and GJ Tellis (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical
product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.
1850039-28
Applying Ansoff’s Growth Strategy Matrix
Chesbrough, HW (2003). The Era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44, 35–41.
Christensen, C (1997). Innovators Dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Čiutienė, R and EW Thattakath (2015). Influence of dynamic capabilities in creating
disruptive innovation. Economics and Business, 26, 15–21.
Cohen, WM and DA Levinthal (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Courvisanos, J (2006). Galbraith and the political economy of technological innovation:
Critical perspectives and a heterodox synthesis. In Innovation, Evolution and Eco-
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
nomic Change: New Ideas in the Tradition of Galbraith, B Laperche, J Galbraith and
D Uzunidis (Eds.), pp. 205–228. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Crawford, M (1997). New Products Management. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
1850039-29
T. Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan & S. Aksoy
Norman, DA and R Verganti (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research
vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96.
OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data.
France: OECD Publishing.
Oh, C, Y Cho and W Kim (2015). The effect of a firm’s strategic innovation decisions on
its market performance. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 27(1),
39–53.
Ohr, RC and F Mattes (2013). Balancing innovation via organizational ambidexterity.
Available at https://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/07/11/balancing-in-
by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY CENTRAL LIBRARY on 11/19/17. For personal use only.
Robertson, TS (1971). Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Rogers, EM (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edn. New York: Free Press.
Roos, G and S Pike (2008). An intellectual capital view of business model innovation. In
Organizational Capital: A Modelling, Measuring and Contextualising, A Bounfour
(Ed.), Vol. 12, pp. 40–62. Taylor & Francis: Crown Land South Australia.
Rothwell, R and W Zegveld (1985). Reindustrialization and Technology. NY: ME Sharpe.
Schuh, G and D Guo (2015). Framework for developing a context-based technology
planning approach for managing discontinuous technological change. In Int. Asso-
ciation for Management of Technology IAMOT 2015 Conf. Proc., Fraunhofer Insti-
tute for Production Technology, pp. 698–716.
Schumpeter, JA (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest, and The Business Cycle, Vol. 55. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Song, XM and MM Montoya-Weiss (1998). Critical development activities for really new
versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2),
124–135.
Tidd, J and J Bessant (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market
and Organizational Change, 4th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Veryzer, RW (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321.
Zahra, SA and G George (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and
extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
Ziamou, PL (1999). The effect of the degree of newness of a really new product on
consumers’ judgments. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 368–371.
1850039-30