Construct · 6 fields · 11 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaninginventioncompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to innovation is invention.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The carrying out of new combinations (a new good, a new method of production, a new market, a new source of supply, a new form of organization) by an entrepreneur, which breaks the circular flow of the economy and drives development. Schumpeter fixed the definition in 1934 and separated innovation from invention: the invention is the idea, the innovation is its commercial execution. In 1942 he named the macro consequence creative destruction, the process by which new structures incessantly destroy old ones. The unit is the economy; the criterion is that something is new to the market and changes it.[1][2]
The capability of a network of institutions (firms, universities, government agencies, finance, education) whose interactions initiate, import, modify, and diffuse new technologies. Freeman coined the national system of innovation in 1987 to explain Japan's performance, and Lundvall's 1992 volume made interactive learning between users and producers the core mechanism. Innovation here is not an event or a product but a systemic capacity, and the policy question is how the institutions fit together.[3][4]
A new or improved product or business process that differs significantly from the unit's previous products or processes and has been made available to users or brought into use. The OECD and Eurostat's Oslo Manual fixed this as the statistical definition, and it deliberately counts things that are new only to the firm. Henderson and Clark supplied the engineering taxonomy in 1990: innovation can change a product's components, its architecture (how components link), both, or neither, and architectural change is the kind incumbents miss because their knowledge is organized around the old linkages. Both definitions treat innovation as an output that can be counted or classified.[5][6]
Two constructs share the word here. Christensen's disruptive innovation is a product that underperforms on the attributes mainstream customers value, wins a low-end or new market, and improves until it displaces the incumbent, a trajectory relative to existing customers, not a degree of technical novelty. Chesbrough's open innovation is a model of the firm's boundary: ideas flow in from outside and out to external paths to market, in contrast to the closed vertically integrated laboratory. Neither is about how new the thing is; both are about who commercializes it and along what path.[7][8]
The adoption of an idea or behaviour (a system, a policy, a program, a device) that is new to the adopting organization, whether or not it exists elsewhere. Damanpour's 1991 meta-analysis fixed this frame and asked what organizational determinants (specialization, slack, centralization) predict more adoptions. Swanson's 1994 typology of information systems innovation distinguished innovations confined to the IS function, those that change the business's administrative core, and those that change its products and services. The criterion is uptake by a firm, and invention by that firm is not required.[9][10]
An idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. Rogers's definition, carried unchanged through five editions, makes novelty a matter of perception, so a decades-old practice is an innovation to someone hearing of it now. The research object is diffusion (the process by which the innovation is communicated through channels over time among the members of a social system) and its signature is the S-shaped adoption curve and the adopter categories from innovators to laggards. Perceived relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability predict the rate.[11]
Next
See how innovation sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct