Content uploaded by Inga Stankevičė
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Inga Stankevičė on Mar 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
24
ISSN 1392 – 0758 SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI. 2010. Nr. 3 (69)
Innovation Strategy: an Integrated Theoretical Framework
Inga Stankevice and Giedrius Jucevicius
Kaunas University of Technology
Donelaicio 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania
Abstract
The variety of approaches towards the terms
innovation and strategy has unfortunately led to a lack
of scrutiny in using the concept of innovation strategy.
Though the scientific literature employing the term is
not structurally consistent enough, it has attained a
widely spread implementation-based response in the
shape of national and regional innovation systems, as
well as other innovation fostering initiatives. Therefore,
the paper aims to contribute to the development of the
concept of innovation strategy.
The process of designing a conceptual model of
innovation strategy is based on a comparative analysis
of the five-element model of a general strategy
developed within the area of strategic management,
and innovation types and innovation strategies.
However, the analysis shows that the descriptions and
definitions of innovation strategies provided in the
explored scientific literature are only partly consistent
with the conceptual model of innovation strategy.
Moreover, some of the descriptions and definitions
reflect innovation characteristics more than innovation
strategies.
Nevertheless, the model does not claim for
conceptual completeness and is open for refinement.
The results reveal that innovation strategies, when
analyzed in connection with their environment, show a
higher level of congruity with the model. Thus, the best
way to further develop it is to analyze innovation
strategies in a broader economic, institutional and
cultural context.
Keywords: innovation strategy, innovation types,
innovation characteristics, conceptual model.
Introduction
A concept of innovation strategy has appeared as a
synergetic result of scholarly studies on innovation and
strategy which both have proliferated in the recent decades.
Innovation is perceived differently by various disciplinary
groups: economists, for example, emphasize its impact on
economic growth and competitiveness, while sociologists
are more concerned with its interaction with social forces
and geographers on its diffusion pattern (Dickson and
Hadjimanolis, 1998). The concept of strategy is not less
multipartite: if to follow Johnson’s, Scholes’s and
Whittington’s (2008) definition of a strategy, a number of
keywords can be distinguished in it – direction and scope
of an organization, configuration of resources, competitive
advantage, environment, markets, stakeholder
expectations. Moreover, there is a plethora of different
strategic management schools representing sometimes
contrasting understandings of what a strategy is or should
be (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998).
Such a variety of attitudes towards innovation and
strategy might unfortunately lead to a lack of scrutiny in
using the concept of innovation strategy. For example, Li
and Atuaheme-Gima (2001) treat product innovation as a
synonym to product innovation strategy. By analogy,
Kohler (2008) uses almost synonymously innovation
strategies and profit strategies. Whitley, despite his solid
input into the development of the approach of systems of
innovation, has also introduced some ambiguity in the
usage of the term. In his earlier paper, Whitley (1998)
introduces descriptions of five types of innovation; two
years later (2000), almost the same five descriptions get
new names and are referred to as innovation strategies
instead of remaining the types of innovation. Thus, the
usage of the concept of innovation strategy is becoming
dependent on the aim of a research project and might
represent not a strategy of innovation itself but a
composition of some of its elements.
On the one hand, pluralism in social sciences is
welcome, and quite many scholars are led by the principle
‘live-and-let-live’ (Argyris, 2005). Such a variety of
approaches to innovation strategy enables the raise of new
ideas and the deeper investigation of separate elements of
an innovation strategy or, at least, its imaginary vision. On
the other hand, the scholarly input, encompassing the
usage of the concept of innovation strategy, has attained a
too widely spread response within practical
implementation to remain conceptually under-structured.
Innovation strategies have become extremely
important in the context of both national and regional
policy-making, while it is increasingly difficult to clearly
distinguish the concept of innovation strategy from
numerous works on industrial districts (Goodman,
Bamford and Saynor, 1989; Pyke and Sengenberger,
1992), innovative milieus (Camagni, 1991; Ratti, Bramanti
and Gordon, 1997), new industrial spaces (Scott, 1988),
local nodes in global networks (Amin and Thrift, 1992),
clusters (Porter, 1990; 2000; Bathelt, Malmberg and
Maskell, 2002), sectoral systems (Malerba, 2002), regional
innovation systems (Cooke, Uranga and Etxebarria, 1997;
Doloureux, 2002), national systems of innovation (e.g.
Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993), varieties of capitalism
(Hall and Soskice, 2001), business systems (Whitley,
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
25
1992; 1999), and technological systems (Carlsson and
Stankiewicz, 1991; Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000).
Although the application of the concept of innovation
strategy within the above-mentioned variety can help
mobilize regional actors and initiate programs to
strengthen production and innovation, there is a danger that
it is used by both policy-makers and academics as an
empty phrase without prior conceptual scrutiny (Bathelt,
2003). In the light of this, we raise the research questions:
• what should the concept of innovation strategy look
like?
• what kind of elements should it encompass? are the
elements already present in the scientific literature?
and, if so,
• how can they be structured in order to get a solid
conceptual model?
So this paper aims to provide an integrated theoretical
framework, capable of explaining the complex
phenomenon, such as innovation strategy.
The research methodology rests on the application of
the conceptual model of strategy, developed by Hambrick
and Fredrickson (2005), to relevant studies on innovation.
Because the model has been developed within the area of
strategic management, it needs substantial modifications in
order to be regarded as a model of innovation strategy. The
modifications are object of the first part of our article. The
second part of the paper is dedicated to comparative
analysis of the model with some of the existing innovation
strategies analyzed in scientific literature. Finally, the
conclusions are drawn.
Developing the model of innovation strategy
Hambrick and Fredrickson (2005, p. 51) define a
strategy as ‘an integrated, overarching concept of how the
business will achieve its objectives’. Following the
definition, a strategy is a concept derived from a respective
objective or their combination. If so, an innovation strategy
should also be developed as a means to achieve concrete
objectives.
Jakubavicius et al. (2008) present three types of
innovation strategy. Offensive innovation strategy is
typical of the companies which create a new product and
are the first which appear with it in the market. Defensive
innovation strategy is aimed at maintaining the company’s
existing positions. Finally, imitative innovation strategy is
typical of the companies which modify products already
existing in the markets of the interest.
Markard and Truffer (2006), though based on different
criteria (priority level of innovations within the company
and diffusion of innovation-based activities), distinguish
similar innovation strategies – leading innovation strategy,
learning innovation strategy and shaping profile innovation
strategy. The scholars have found that the contribution of
the different innovation strategies to the functions of the
respective innovation system differs, respectively, from the
highest to the lowest level through five parameters:
creation and diffusion of new knowledge, guidance of the
direction of search, supply of resources, creation of
positive external economies, and formation of market(s).
Nonetheless, are the above mentioned descriptions
complete enough to be regarded as strategies? From
plentiful scientific works within the area of strategic
management one can distinguish such strategic aims as
creation of a new market by companies which are often
called either ‘stars’ or ‘question marks’; keeping existing
positions by companies which are often shadowed as
‘cows’; and imitating leaders and/or just competitors by
companies which are often regarded as ‘dogs’ (Mintzberg,
Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998).
Appealing to these considerations, the three
descriptions should be understood more as a representation
of objectives of innovation strategies, rather than the
strategies themselves. Thus, the innovation strategies
provided by Jakubavicius et al. (2008) are not complete but
represent the most important prerequisites for an
innovation strategy – its objectives. Though some of the
innovation strategies mentioned take into account the
scope of innovation (from novelty to imitation) and include
a mention of resources used for innovating, they fail to
capture other underlying elements of an innovation
strategy as a concept (Table 1).
In addition to objectives, Hambrick and Fredrickson
(2005) distinguish five essential parts of the concept of
strategy – arenas, vehicles, differentiators, staging and
economic logic. Let us consider each of them separately.
Hambrick and Fredrickson (2005) identify arenas by
asking: ‘Where will we be active?’ They suggest also
supporting questions applying to decisions about product
categories, technologies, geographic areas, markets and
value-creation stages. When we convert the main question
to ‘where will we innovate?’, literature on innovations
provides us with four answers: product, process,
organization and technology.
The four answers have been derived from relevant
classifications applied to innovations in scientific
literature. The distinction between product technology and
production technology is well known (Schmookler, 1966).
The former type can be defined as knowledge about how to
create or improve products, and the latter as knowledge
about how to produce them. Similarly, the terms product
innovation and process innovation have been used to
characterize the occurrence of new or improved goods or
services, and improvements in the ways to produce these
goods and services, respectively. Edquist, Hommen and
McKelvey (2001) suggested dividing the category of
process innovation into technological process innovations
and organizational process innovations, the former related
to new types of machinery, and the latter to new ways to
organize work. Thus, we get four categories: product,
process, organization and technology.
The second part of the concept of strategy is,
according to Hambrick and Fredrickson (2005), vehicles,
and is defined by the question: ‘How will we get there?’
The suggested answers include internal development, joint
ventures, licensing/franchising and acquisitions. If to
convert the main question to a question regarding an
innovation strategy, it would sound like: ‘What will enable
us to become/remain innovative?’ With no doubt, the
answers can be found in academic literature of two major
approaches.
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
26
On the one side, system perspective is relevant. The
defining characteristics of a system of innovation require
that its components are connected for different invention
and innovation purposes. In a healthy economy, there
would be a good number of specialized innovation systems
generated at the microlevel, ‘systems that are born and
decay as new innovation problems are posed and solved’
(Foray, 2009, p. 3). On the other side, the answers are also
linked with the resource-based view of a firm, which
stresses the relevance of resources (both internal and
external, both human and material) for an innovation
strategy (Whitley, 2000).
Each of the approaches is too conceptually complex to
present it in one article, but with regard to the question
within the context of innovation, a company’s innovative
capacity is central. In addition to internal resources of a
company (including its absorptive capacity), networks
advantage its innovative capacity through a revelation of
new resources and knowledge dissemination (Lipnack and
Stamps, 1996). Accordingly, two major criteria for
defining vehicles in the concept of an innovation strategy
can be distinguished: level of openness in regard to new
resources, and level of uncertainty in regard to knowledge
dissemination.
As to the level of openness, Visser and Atzema (2007)
propose three types of innovation strategies. The stand-
alone innovation strategy is characterized by internal
sources of knowledge. The local buzz innovation strategy
draws necessary knowledge from external local resources.
Finally, the global pipeline strategy uses knowledge from
multiple globally external resources.
Similarly, Srivastava (2006) leans on differences
between national, European and global R&D approaches
(and national, European and global innovation policies) in
Switzerland, and indicates three innovation strategies
within telecommunications’ sector, respectively: secretive
innovation strategy, cautious innovation strategy and
sharing innovation strategy.
The first strategy is defined by single relationship,
integrated value chain between terminal equipment and
incumbent telecom operator, 100 percent government
ownership, monopoly, as well as control, build and develop
principles in R&D (100 percent). The second strategy
reflects a higher level of openness: multilateral
collaboration along the value chain, disintegrated value
chain, progressive ‘regulated’ competition, more than 50
percent government ownership, build and buy in R&D (50
percent). Finally, the third strategy is characterized by
global partnerships and R&D hubs, converging value chain
within the industry, competitive market, less than 30
percent government ownership, partnerships and
outsourcing in R&D.
What is also important within the framework of this
paper is Srivastava’s (2006) attempt to establish
connections between the two elements of the concept of
innovation strategy – arenas and vehicles. She ties in
secretive innovation strategy with product innovation
model, cautious innovation strategy with process
innovation model across the value chain, and sharing
innovation strategy with business innovation model, or
organizational innovation. This fact confirms that,
regardless of what the object of analysis is – either general
strategy or innovation strategy, - the elements in the model
must anyway demonstrate a sufficient interplay.
A company’s openness with regard to its innovation
strategy is closely related to the level of process,
technology and market uncertainty (Jakubavicius et al.,
2008; Whitley, 2000). Feller et al. (2009) have explored
the ways in which firms utilize hierarchical relationships
and the market system to supply and acquire intellectual
property and/or innovation capabilities from sources
external to the firm. The authors conclude that the
appropriateness of hierarchical/market relationships or
intermediaries to source IP and/or innovation capability is
dependent on the information asymmetry in relation to the
existence and availability of potential solutions/solvers.
Inter-organisational relationships that facilitate open
innovation are categorized on the basis of whether they are
mediated or direct, and who seeks to exchange intellectual
property or innovation capability. Thus, four inter-
organisational governance structures have been
distinguished: solution hierarchy, solver market, solution
brokerage and solver brokerage. Feller et al. (2009)
indicate also ten characteristics for identifying the
structures.
The third element of the concept of a strategy is
differentiators, and the authors (Hambrick and
Fredrickson, 2005) ask: ‘How will we win – by image,
customization, price, styling, or product reliability?’ With
regard to innovation strategy, the question is: ‘How will
we bring our innovation to our customers?’ In this case, it
is a question of marketing. The latter depends heavily on
the objectives of the innovation strategy, as well as its
elements. On the other hand, innovative marketing
solutions can be a core of an innovation strategy
themselves, but, again, this might imply innovations in
process, organization or technology, as well as alter the
inter-organisational governance structure and/or the level
of the company’s openness.
The fourth component of the concept of a strategy is
staging which is defined by the following question: ‘What
will be our speed and sequence of move?’ (Hambrick and
Fredrickson, 2005). If we convert the main question to
‘what will the speed and scope of innovation be?’,
literature on innovations provides us with a couple of
sequences of the possible answers: from incremental to
revolutionary/disruptive, and from novelty to imitation.
A common dichotomy distinguishes radical and
incremental innovation. Incremental innovations are
improvements of existing products, processes or services,
within the context of a dominant design, product
architecture or existing demand. Radical innovations, on
the other hand, involve a radical break from existing
products and processes and often open up new industries
and new markets. Radical and incremental innovations can
be seen as extreme archetypes, but in practice it may be
difficult to distinguish them. Often a distinction can only
be made ex-post, since the impact that an innovation has
on the economic system generally cannot be known ex-
ante, and since all innovations, even radical ones, build to
some extent on the existing knowledge base (Rossi, 2002).
Some scholars distinguish revolutionary innovations as a
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
27
separate category. These consist of a cluster of innovations
which together have a very far reaching impact (Fagerberg,
2005).
It is still a question of how to take different contexts
into account. It is a question of unclear distinction between
invention and innovation, and imitation and innovation
(Fagerberg, 2005). What is not considered as an innovation
in one context might become an innovation in another one.
Such kind of innovative transfer can be referred to as
cross-fertilization. One can distinguish four types of it: 1)
technology transferability; 2) competences transferability;
3) principles transferability; 4) connecting the principles
from multiple domains. Imitative innovation refers to
market followers who imitate existing products in the
market, but as a totally new experience for these imitative
firms (Huang, Chou and Lee, 2010).
Finally, the last element of the conceptual model of a
strategy is general economic logic (Hambrick and
Fredrickson, 2005). In the context of innovation strategy,
the general logic ties together the four other components of
the innovation strategy and the strategy’s objectives.
Moreover, general logic secures the meaningful link
between a general strategy and a corresponding innovation
strategy. The whole model of innovation strategy is
illustrated by Figure 1.
Application of the investigated innovation strategies,
types and characteristics to the model
As the above analysis implies, the scholars have
mostly emphasized certain elements of the model of
innovation strategy. However, one can also find more
embracing conceptual understandings of innovation
strategies (Table 1).
Kohler (2008) distinguishes three types of innovation
strategy. The ‘volume and diversity’ strategy is aimed at
answering how one can obtain economies of scale by
increasing the variety of models offered. By the example
of General Motors in 1930s, the author shows that the
innovative capabilities of this strategy are centred in
design, marketing and ‘commonization’ (component
sharing of different models), whereas the productive
organisation follows traditional mass production patterns.
Thus, ‘volume and diversity’ strategy includes three of the
elements: arenas (product, technology), differentiators
(innovative marketing) and scope (novelty).
The ‘innovation and flexibility’ strategy (Kohler,
2008) consists in designing products that respond to
emerging expectations or demands, and to mass produce
them immediately if demand corresponds to expectations,
or, if demand does not materialise, to abandon production
rapidly and at the least cost.
Figure 1. The conceptual model of innovation strategy
Note. The design of the model from ‘Are you sure you have a strategy?’ by Hambrick and Fredrickson (2005).
What is the speed and scope
of innovation?
Incremental?
Radical?
Revolutionary/disruptive?
Novelty?
Modification?
Imitation?
What to innovate?
Product?
Process?
Organization?
Technology?
How to enable innovation?
Level of openness:
Stand-alone IS? Secretive IS?
Local buzz IS? Cautious IS?
Global Pipeline IS? Sharing IS?
Level of uncertainty:
Solution hierarchy?
Solver market?
Solution brokerage?
Solver brokerage
How to bring innovations to the customers?
Traditional marketing?
Innovative marketing?
Connection to arenas, vehicles and staging is
essential
General logic ensures:
Link between the elements
Link between the objectives and
content of the innovation strategy
Link between the general and the
innovation strategies
Arenas/
object
Vehicles/
resources
Differentiators
Speed/
scope
General
logic
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
28
It also requires that the firm adopting this strategy is
financially independent so as to take the necessary risks. In
addition, the firm must not be bound to its suppliers, so
that it can rapidly change from one form to another if a
type of production is to be changed. Last but not least, the
firm must have an easily convertible production set-up and
labour force that allows it to be innovative both with
regards to the product and the production process. Thus,
the ‘innovation and flexibility’ strategy encompasses all
the five elements of the model: arenas (product and
process), vehicles (internal resources), differentiators
(traditional marketing channels), speed and scope (radical
modification), and general logic (mass but flexible
production oriented at emerging customer needs and
enabled by internal resources).
The ‘diversity and flexibility’ (Kohler, 2008) strategy
responds to a ‘balkanized’ market characterized by highly
differentiated customers (economically and socially) with
pronounced identity demands. Homogeneity, coherence,
and often mechanical excellence characterize this strategy.
Table 1
Innovation strategies and innovation types/characteristics* within the conceptual model of innovation strategy
Author(s) Innovation
strategy/types
Strategy’s
objectives
Arenas/o
objects
Vehicles/
resources Differentiators Speed/
scope
General
logic
Offensive + +
Defensive +
Jakubavicius
et al. (2008) Imitation + +
Leading + +
Learning + +
Markard and
Truffer (2006) Shaping profile + +
Product
technology +
Schmookler
(1966)* Production
technology +
Technological
process
innovations
+ Edquist,
Hommen and
McKelvey
(2001)* Organizational
process
innovations
+
Stand-alone +
Local buzz +
Visser and
Atzema
(2007) Global pipeline +
Secretive + +
Cautious + +
Srivastava
(2006) Sharing + +
Solution
hierarchy +
Solver market +
Solution
brokerage +
Feller et al.
(2009)
Solver
brokerage +
Incremental +
Rossi (2002)* Radical +
Fagerberg
(2005)* Revolutionary +
Technology
transferability +
Competences
transferability +
Principles
transferability +
Huang, Chou
and Lee
(2010)*
Multiple
connection +
Volume and
diversity + + +
Innovation and
flexibility + + + + +
Kohler (2008)
Diversity and
flexibility + + + + +
Dependent + +
Craft-based + + +
Generic + + +
Complex + + + +
Whitley
(2000)
Transformative + + + + + +
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
29
The strategy requires permanent innovation in the
organisation of production and products, and therefore a
highly qualified work force, fluent supplier relations and a
participative governance model. The ‘diversity and
flexibility’ strategy thus includes arenas (product and
organization), vehicles (sharing innovation strategy, at
least local buzz, and solver market), differentiators
(excellence, reliable marketing channels), speed and scope
(incremental either novelty or modification).
In order to explore the connection between innovation
strategies, types of firms and business systems, Whitley
(2000) suggests that there are five characteristics outlining
the shape of an innovation strategy: technical and user
uncertainty, dedicated and differentiated product qualities,
reliance on current organizational competences, reliance on
formal codified knowledge, and reliance on complex and
varied knowledge base. Five innovation strategies appear
as a result of the particular combinations of the
characteristics.
Dependent innovation strategies organize relatively
well-known product qualities within widely understood
frameworks, they rarely involve the development of
radically new elements, and goods and services from
current and closely related components are combined and
targeted to specific user groups (Whitley, 2000). This
strategy thus involves arenas (mostly product), and speed
and scope (mostly incremental modifications or
imitations).
Craft-based responsive innovation strategies develop
new product qualities, focus on improving technologies for
meeting the specific needs of particular user groups; firms
and individuals here pursue innovations continuously and
compete to a considerable extent on the basis of their
reputations (Whitley, 2000). Thus, the strategy is
concerned with arenas (product and technology),
differentiators (reputation), and speed/scope (incremental
either modifications or novelties).
Generic innovation strategies focus on incremental
improvements of the components of technologies, and on
developing standardized products and services for largely
anonymous users, and reducing costs by routinizing
process improvements; knowledge is highly codified
(Whitley, 2000). The strategy therefore can be defined in
terms of arenas (process, technology), vehicles (secretive
strategy), and speed/scope (incremental modifications
mostly).
Complex and risky innovation strategies involve
developing new product qualities that have a wide range of
uses and may lead to market restructuring as previous
products become obsolete. Firms developing these
strategies seek to dominate markets by introducing new
products; a wide variety of sources is often required.
Additionally, these innovation strategies involve changes
in established organizational structures and routines
(Whitley, 2000). Thus, this strategy encompasses
objectives (dominate markets), arenas (product,
organization), vehicles (local buzz), and speed/scope
(incremental novelty).
Finally, transformative innovation strategies are
competence destroying, and often involve establishment of
new industries. The major organizational competence is
cognitive and organizational dynamics, and the capacity to
appropriate and integrate new knowledge. A further
necessity for these strategies to succeed is to educate
potential user groups and create shared understandings. In
other words, the strategy is defined by the presence of its
objectives (establish new industries), arenas (organization,
maybe process), vehicles (sharing strategy, or cautious
strategy/local buzz at least), differentiators (educating
potential users), speed/scope (both incremental and radical
novelty), and since all the necessary elements are present
and the strategy’s description seems to be logically well
rigged up, we presume that general logic is also present in
this strategy.
Further in his article Whitley (2000) reveals the
connection of all the strategies to firm profiles, institutional
features and correspondent business systems, thus filling in
the missing links of the distinguished strategies to their
objectives and elements. However, the provided strategies’
descriptions themselves are not fully compatible with the
model of innovation strategy, and reflect innovation types
and characteristics more than innovation strategies, except
for the description of transformative innovation strategy.
Concluding remarks
A variety of attitudes towards innovation and strategy
has unfortunately led to a lack of scrutiny in using the term
of innovation strategy. Having invoked the conceptual
model of a general strategy and taken into account the
necessity to incorporate a strategy’s objectives, an
analogous model has been constructed for the concept of
innovation strategy.
In most of the cases, the research literature revealed
that the descriptions and definitions of innovation
strategies are only partly consistent with the conceptual
model of innovation strategy, and some of the descriptions
and definitions reflect innovation typologies or
characteristics more than innovation strategies. Therefore,
the provided model is a sufficient pivot for scholars
analyzing innovation strategies and practitioners designing
them.
However, the model does not claim for conceptual
completeness. Taken into account the wealth of scientific
literature regarding innovations and strategic management,
it can successfully be supplemented with new elements
and/or connections between them. Moreover, it might be a
good idea to separate some of the existing elements. For
instance, both level of openness and level of uncertainty
are referred to as vehicles in the model; speed and scope
are also combined into one element. Thus, the model
remains open for refinement.
The analysis shows that innovation strategies which
have been connected to a broader context, such as a firm’s
profile, ways to gain profits or a corresponding
institutional environment, manage to capture more
elements of the model than the strategies analyzed in
relatively tighter frameworks. This makes us believe that
the model can best be developed by establishing
connections of innovation strategies to their cultural,
economic and institutional environments.
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
30
References
1. Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (1992). Neo-Marshallian nodes in global
networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
16, (4), 571-587.
2. Argyris, Ch. (2005). Actionable knowledge. In Tsoukas, H.,
Knudsen, Ch. (Eds.). Oxford handbook of organization theory:
Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 423-452). NY: Oxford
University Press.
3. Bathelt, H. (2003). Geographies of production: growth regimes in
spatial perspective 1 – innovation, institutions and social systems.
Progress in Human Geography, 27, (6), 763–778.
4. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. (2002, January). Clusters
and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of
knowledge creation, DRUID working paper, Aalborg, Denmark.
5. Camagni, R. (1991). Local ‘milieu’, uncertainty and innovation
networks: Towards a new dynamic theory of economic space. In
Camagni, R. (Ed.). Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives (pp.
121-144). London, NY: Belhaven Stress.
6. Carlsson, B. & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function,
and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, 1, (2), 93-118.
7. Cooke, P., Uranga, M.G. & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional
innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions.
Research Policy, 26, (4-5), 475-491.
8. Dickson, K.E. & Hadjimanolis, A. (1998). Innovation and
networking amongst small manufacturing firms in Cyprus.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 4,
(1), 5-17.
9. Doloureux, D. (2002). What we should know about regional
systems of innovation. Technology in Society, 24, (3), 243-263.
10. Edquist, C., Hommen, L. & McKelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and
employment: Process versus product innovation. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
11. Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In J.
Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (Eds.). The Oxford
handbook of innovation (pp. 1-27). NY: Oxford University Press.
12. Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Hayes, J. & O’Reilly, P. (2009).
Institutionalising information asymmetry: Governance structures
for open innovation. Information Technology & People, 22, (4),
297-316.
13. Foray, D. (2009, April). Research, innovation and economic
growth: What does really matter? In FutuRIS conference Public
Support for Innovation: Efficiency and Future Prospects, Paris,
France.
14. Goodman, E., Bamford, J. & Saynor, P. (1989). Small firms and
industrial districts in Italy. London: Routledge.
15. Hall, P. & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
16. Hambrick, D.C. & Fredrickson, J.W. (2005). Are you sure you
have a strategy? Academy of Management Executive, 19, (4), 51-
62.
17. Huang, J.-Y., Chou, T.-C. & Lee, G.G. (2010). Imitative
innovation strategies: Understanding resource management of
competent followers. Management Decision, 48, (6), 952-975.
18. Jacobsson, S. & Johnson, A. (2000). The diffusion of renewable
energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for
research. Energy Policy, 28, (9), 625-640.
19. Jakubavičius, A., Jucevičius, R., Jucevičius, G., Kriaučionien÷, M.
ir Keršys, M. (2008). Inovacijos versle: Procesai, parama,
tinklaveika. Vilnius: Lietuvos inovacijų centras.
20. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring
corporate strategy: Text and cases (8
th
ed.). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
21. Kohler, H.-D. (2008). Profit and innovation strategies in low-tech
firms. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 26, (3), 73-87.
22. Li, H. & Atuaheme-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy
and the performance of new technology ventures in China.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, (6), 1123-1134.
23. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1996). The age of the network:
Organizing principles for the 21st century. John Wiley & Sons.
24. Lundvall, B. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a
theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
25. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production.
Research Policy, 31, (2), 247-264.
26. Markard, J. & Truffer, B. (2006, June). Actor oriented analysis of
innovation systems: findings from a case study on stationary fuel
cells. In DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
27. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari:
A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. London:
The Free Press.
28. Nelson, R.R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative
study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. NY:
The Free Press.
30. Porter, M.E. (2000). Location, competition and economic
development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic
Development Quarterly, 14, (1), 15-34.
31. Pyke, F. & Sengenberger, W. (1992). Industrial districts and local
regeneration. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
32. Ratti, R., Bramanti, A. & Gordon, R. (1997). The dynamics of
innovative regions: The GREMI approach. Aldershot: Ashgate.
33. Rossi, F. (2002). An introductory overview of innovation studies.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universita’ di Modena e Reggio
Emilia, Italy.
34. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth.
Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press.
35. Scott, A.J. (1988). New industrial spaces: Flexible production
organization and regional development in North America and
Western Europe. London: Pion.
36. Srivastava, J.V. (2006). Incumbent firms’ innovation strategies and
organizational restructuring during industry deregulation and
technological change. In IAMOT 2006, 15th International
Conference on Management of Technology, Beijing, China.
37. Visser, A.-J. & Atzema, O. (2007). With or without clusters:
Facilitating innovation through a differentiated and combined
network approach. European Planning Studies, 16, (9), 1169-1188.
38. Whitley, R. (1992). European business systems: Firms and markets
in their national context. London: Sage.
39. Whitley, R. (1998, September). Innovation strategies, business
systems and organization of research. In Sociology of Sciences
Yearbook Meeting, Krusenberg, Sweden.
40. Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring
and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Whitley, R. (2000). The Institutional Structuring of Innovation
Strategies: Business Systems, Firm Types and Patterns of
Technical Change in Different Market Economies. Organization
Studies, 21, (5), 855-886.
I. Stankevič÷, G. Jucevičius
Inovacijų strategija: integruotas modelis
Santrauka
Inovacijų strategija n÷ra aiškiai konceptualiai apibr÷žtas
konstruktas. Ir apie inovacijas, ir apie strategiją atskirai gausu skirtingus
požiūrius reprezentuojančios mokslin÷s literatūros, kas, deja, kartais
lemia netikslų inovacijų strategijos supratimą ir/arba vartojimą.
Pavyzdžiui, Li ir Atuaheme-Gima (2001) vartoja terminus „produkto
inovacija“ ir „produkto inovacijų strategija“ sinonimiškai. Analogiškai
Kohler (2008) beveik neatskiria inovacijų ir pelno strategijų. Whitley,
nepaisant jo svaraus ind÷lio į inovacijų sistemų prieigos vystymą, taip pat
traktuoja inovacijų strategijas nevienareikšmiai. Savo ankstesniame
straipsnyje Whitley (1998) pateikia penkių inovacijų tipų aprašymus,
tačiau dviem metais v÷liau mokslininkas (2000) tuos pačius aprašus
„apdovanoja“ naujais pavadinimais ir vadina jau nebe inovacijų tipais, o
inovacijų strategijomis.
Šie faktai liudija, kad inovacijų strategijos samprata kartais priklauso
nuo tyr÷jo ir jo tyrimo tikslo, o konceptualaus šio teorinio konstrukto
modelio stokojama. Viena vertus, toks pliuralizmas socialiniuose
moksluose gali būti sveikintinas (Argyris, 2005), tačiau, kita vertus,
inovacijų strategijų terminas sulauk÷ per daug plataus atgarsio įvairiose
įgyvendinimo praktikose (visų pirma – regionin÷se ir nacionalin÷se
inovacijų sistemose), kad ir toliau išliktų nepakankamai struktūriškai
organizuotas (Bathelt, 2003).
Tod÷l šio straipsnio tikslas yra prisid÷ti prie inovacijų strategijos
kocepto vystymo, sukuriant jo teorinį modelį. Modelio dizainas remiasi
Hambrick ir Fredrickson (2005) penkių elementų strategijos modeliu,
sukurtu strateginio valdymo disciplinoje. Taigi tam, kad modelį galima
būtų taikyti inovacijų strategijoms, būtinos svarbios modifikacijos.
Pastarosios įgyvendinamos analizuojant mokslinę literatūrą, apimančią
Social Sciences / I. Stankevice, G. Jucevicius. Innovation Strategy: an Integrated
Socialiniai mokslai. 2010. Nr. 3 (69) Theoretical Framework
31
inovacijų strategijas ir inovacijų tipologijas, bei susiejant kiekvieną
modelio elementą su jį atitinkančiomis inovacijų strategijomis ir
charakteristikomis.
Straipsnyje teigiama, kad Markard ir Truffer (2006) bei
Jakubavičiaus ir kt. (2008) išskirtos inovacijų strategijos reprezentuoja ne
pačias inovacijų strategijas kaip tokias, bet esminę jų atsiradimo
prielaidą – inovacijų strategijos tikslą. Toliau atskirai analizuojant
Hambrick ir Fredrickson (2005) modelio elementus, kiekvienu atveju
bendros strategijos modelio dalį apibūdinantis klausimas konvertuojamas
į klausimą, skirtą identifikuoti inovacijų strategijos modelio elementams.
Taigi klausimas, „kur mes būsime aktyvūs?“, paverčiamas klausimu,
„kur mes būsime inovatyvūs?“ arba, tiksliau, „ką mes inovuosime?“.
Literatūra inovacijų tematika (Schmookler, 1966; Edquist, Hommen ir
McKelvey, 2001) sufleruoja atsakymus: inovuosime produktą, procesą,
organizavimą arba technologiją. Analogiškai nustatomos ir kitos
inovacijų strategijos modelio sudedamosios: inovacinio atvirumo laipsnis,
išreiškiamas per mokslininkų (Srivastava, 2006; Visser ir Atzema, 2007)
identifikuotus inovacijų strategijų tipus; inovacinio netikrumo laipsnis,
išreiškiamas keturiomis skirtingomis informacijos valdymo struktūromis
(Feller ir kt., 2009); diferenciatoriai arba būdai, kuriais inovacija leis
pasiekti vartotojus; bei inovacijos greitis ir mastas, išreiškiamas teoriniais
spektrais atitinkamai nuo inkrementinių iki radikalių pokyčių (Rossi,
2002; Fagerberg, 2005) ir nuo prek÷s ar paslaugos imitacijos iki naujov÷s
sukūrimo (Huang, Chou ir Lee, 2010). Galiausiai, būtina modelio
komponent÷ yra bendra logika, kuri ne tik sujungia visus elementus tarp
savęs ir su inovacijų strategijos tikslais, bet ir su išorine inovacijų
strategijos aplinka, visų pirma, - su bendra organizacijos strategija.
Sukonstravus modelį, papildomai išanalizuotos dar aštuonios
inovacijų strategijos. Rezultatai rodo, kad dauguma tirtų inovacijų
strategijų geriausiu atveju pretenduoja į inovacijų tipų arba inovacijų
charakteristikų statusą, tačiau neapr÷pia visų inovacijų strategijos modelio
elementų. Taip pat svarbu pasteb÷ti, kad tos inovacijų strategijos, kurios
analizuojamos platesniuose teoriniuose ir/arba praktiniuose r÷muose
(Kohler, 2008; Whitley, 2000), linkusios atliepti santykinai daugiau
modelio elementų.
Apibendrinant galima teigti, kad sukonstruotas modelis yra
fundamentalus atsparos taškas mokslininkams, tiriantiems inovacijų
strategijas, bei praktikams, šias strategijas kuriantiems. Visgi modelis
nepretenduoja į užbaigtumą konceptualumo prasme ir tod÷l yra atviras
tobulinimui. Geriausias būdas toliau jį vystyti - analizuoti inovacijų
strategijas siejant jas su jų instituciniu, ekonominiu ir kultūriniu
kontekstu.
Raktiniai žodžiai: inovacijų strategija, inovacijų tipai, inovacijų
charakteristikos, integruotas modelis.
First received: August, 2010
Accepted for publication: September, 2010
