M.I.T.
L®RARIE8 - DEWEY
Dewe3
HD28
.M414
MIT LIBRARIES
llllllllilllll
I
IMi:
lIlllH
lllllll
3 9080 00932 7526
A Research Retrospective of Innovation
Inception and Success:
The Technology -Push Demand-Pull Question
Shyam Qiidamber
Henry Kon
March 1993
WP#3767
PROFIT #93-06
From Information Technology
"PROFTT" Research Initiative
Sloan School of Management
Productivity
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge,
MA 02139 USA
(617)253-8584
Fax: (617)258-7579
Copyright Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology 1993. The research described
herein has been supported (in whole or in part) by the Productivity
Technology (PROFIT) Research
PROFIT
sponsor firms.
Initiative at
MIT. This copy
is
From
Information
for the exclusive use of
Productivity
From Information Technology
(PROFIT)
The Productivity From Information Technology (PROFIT) Initiative was established
on October 23, 1992 by MIT President Charles Vest and Provost Mark Wrighton "to
study the use of information technology in both the private and public sectors and
to enhance productivity in areas ranging from finance to transportation, and from
manufacturing to telecommunications." At the time of its inception, PROFIT took
over the Composite Information Systems Laboratory and Handwritten Character
Recognition Laboratory. These two laboratories are now involved in research related to context mediation and imaging respectively.
OF TECHNOLOGY
MAY 2 3
1995
LIBRARIES
In addition, PROFIT has undertaken joint efforts with a number of research centers,
laboratories, and programs at MIT, and the results of these efforts are documented
in Discussion Papers published by PROFIT and/or the collaborating MIT entity.
Correspondence can be addressed
to:
The "PROFIT" Initiative
RoomE53-310, MIT
50 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, MA 02142-1247
Tel: (617) 253-8584
Fax: (617) 258-7579
E-Mail: profit@mit.edu
A
Research Retrospective of Innovation Inception and Success:
The Technology-Push Demand-Pull Question
Shyam R Chidamber
Henry B Kon
MIT
Sloan School of Management
Room E53-314
30 Wadsworth Street, Cambridge,
MA
02139,
USA
March, 1993
(Forthcoming
in
the International Journal of Technology
The authors would
Schrader
like to
Management
Vol. 9, No.
1,
acknowledge the insightful comments of Stephan
1994)
Abstract
Innovation researchers have frequently debated whether organizational innovation
by market demand or by technological
shifts.
is
driven
The market demand school of thought suggests
that
organizations innovate based on market needs, whereas the technology proponents claim that
change
in
technology
is
the primary driver of innovation. Collectively, empirical research studies
on technological innovation are inconclusive regarding
debate. Eight key studies relevant to this issue are
caveats, to establish a structured
way
this
technology-push demand-pull (TPDP)
examined
for their
methods, implications, and
of interpreting the various results.
The philosophical
underpinnings of market demand and technology factors as drivers of innovation are also
examined.
This paper suggests that
push findings
conclusion
is
is
due
much of the
that there exists a clear relationship
may be
demand
to different research objectives, definitions,
and the outcomes observed, suggesting
constructs
contention between the
between the research models used
that differences in
examined
in light
and technology
and models.
The main
in these studies
problem statement and research
causing the apparent incongruity in research findings.
national policy level issues are also
pull
Organizational and
of the finding that different levels of analysis
lead to different results.
Key Words: technology
impUcations
push,
demand
pull, innovation, levels
of analysis, research models, policy
achieve widely varying
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
The
R
and why
's
the
explanatory power of individual variables
is unstable across them.
push
technology
demand
pull
Additionally,
Langrish, et
[1972], in a study
al.
research question
frequently quoted for
The Technology Push-Demand
question constitutes a dialogue
Pull
among
suggests that innovation
is
demand
pull write:
makes us skeptical of attempts to define
unique origins for particular innovations.
Different workers select different 'origins'
The point was
for given innovations.
It
innovation
researchers about the underlying motivations and
The push argument
driving forces behind innovation.
support of
its
(TPDP)
home to us when we
provided each other with given sets offacts
and asked each other 'What was the origin
of this innovation?' or 'Where did the
forcibly brought
driven by science, which
,
in turn drives
The
technology and application.
pull
come from?' Even among
technical idea
argument suggests the opposite,
that user
factor and that markets,
the primary
demand
is
different answers were
forthcoming. In view of this uncertainty,
ourselves,
users and
the concept of a
applications are, or should be, the key drivers of
and innovation
innovation.
is
a linear model of the innovation
process with science
at
one end and markets or users
at the other.
ramification at
many
levels
of inquiry ranging from understanding the source of
is
a hazy one,
Unfortunately, as
human
...
is
typical in the study of
organizations or social processes, there are
for
an
individual
inventor,
to
Not only
issue.
The
any universal one
exists, is that
factors influence the innovation process,
and
many
that only
and levels of analysis can
meaningful distinctions be made.
Downs and Mohr
is
a
'chicken and egg" quality to the
Confounding the problem
so that even
if
types were developed, cumulation of results would
still
be difficult due to the fragmentation of studies
and
to the inherent
uniqueness
each piece of work
is,
'in
in scientific projects.
science and technology,
by definition, unique.
previous research indicates that
...
determinants important for one innovation
are not necessarily important for others.
problem has been solved before,
Perhaps the most straight forward way of
accounting for this empirical instability
and managers there continues
and
evidence
theoretical confusion (in innovation)
is
a unitary theory of
The existence of
empirically distinguishable categories of
innovations and their associated models
would help to explain why studies
employing roughly the same predictors
to reject the notion that
innovation exists.
the fact that
a well catalogued set of innovation
Allen [1984] suggests
[1976] suggest:
is
TPDP
research goals of related studies are slightly different,
through bounding the question, and working within a
tighter set of definitions
complex and
inter-related, but they are in a sense unobservable;
there
strategy among companies and nations.
are the underlying processes
the
establishment of economic policy and competitive
if
exploitation
its
serious obstacles to obtaining generalizable results.
The question has
"answer",
between a
cmd
Implicit in a pure version of either side
of the debate
inspiration
'time-lag'
discovery or invention
research.'
And
it
is
no longer
so, unfortunately for policy
to
at several different level
If the
makers
be a lack of hard
of analysis.
This situation summarizes, to a large extent,
...
the state of related research at this point; different
studies concentrate
sometimes due
on different facets of the question,
to different research
goals, and
to unsubstantiated conclusions.
sometimes due
empirical studies at the firm or project level there
appears commonality
results
in
suggesting that
market pull may be a more significant factor
in the
Yet
success of an innovation than technology push.
at
both higher levels of analysis such as economic,
and lower levels of analysis such as isolated case
mixed
studies there are
were
become
Difficulties
Much
research results
demand
much
of the work
in
the area is a project-centric ex post analysis of those
innovation
which have reached some
projects
particular stage of the
some
development process or had
of impact on an industry's activity. This
level
approach has some hidden biases and assumptions. In
short,
this
approach ignores the possibility that
which failed might have been major
products
successes had the market had more time to adapt to
declared failed, there
Empirical Research
in
feature of
and eventually adopt the product.
clearer.
technical or market
may
When
a product
is
be other factors than
which caused
it
to
and
fail,
of the empirical research related to the
For example, many of
topic lacks definitional rigor.
the
If
more consistent, managerial and policy
implications could
1.2
results.
A conjjjion
In
pull studies
compare successful and
products least likely to offer short term profitability
(non market pull products) would be the
cut from an
unsuccessful innovations and suggest that user needs
are important to success
[SAPPHO,
R&D
budget
technical difficulty.
in
first to
get
times of managerial or
Thus a strong
bias exists in the
Utterback]. This
definition of products along their success-failure
is
unlikely that companies
that are not sensitive to user
needs could succeed, and
seems tautological, as
it
dimension towards market oriented products.
Van de Ven and Poole [1989] remind
whether the observed relationships are due
to
us of
cause or
the difficulty in doing an ex post analysis of products
effect
is
unclear.
The TPDP question might
which are known
better
to
have failed or
approached with user needs as a given and not an
recognized that knowledge of the success or failure of
an innovation invariably leads
important
variable
measure,
to
or
at
not: "it is widely
be
to bias."
This might
least
suggest that quantitative ex post data collection
acknowledging the interaction between technology
techniques such as those used
push and market
pull.
may simply be an
of
demand and
the a
in project
SAPPHO
Issues such as the specificity
prion definition of the
inadequate research model for the
target
topic.
market are poorly addressed
in existing research.
Defining commercial success as a binary outcome
2.
variable misses
some of
Survey of empirical work
the underlying subtleties in
This section includes a summary of the eight
Sensitivity could be gained by using
innovation.
studies analyzed.
quantitative
empirical
understanding /low
research,
much of
such
as
The
studies are broken out by their
by
push versus pull orientation.
For each of the push
a success an innovation
and the pull sides there are three empirically based
was.
can
Firm
level financial
provide
much
and accounting
statistics
papers. In addition,
of this
information
two meta-analyses of demand
side
fairly
research are included; one which refutes
demand
pull,
objectively.
and one which supports
found
in
it.
These meta-analyses are
Mowery and Rosenberg, who go
to great
lengths to point out the underlying definitional and
technology push, or scientifically novel innovation,
empirical weaknesses
would generally have poorly or undefined markets.
Utterback,
who
pull-side research, and
in the
A comment made
aggregates the findings of previous
empirical studies, confirming the importance of
SAPPHO
market demand.
failures
Demand
2.1
studies are four of the major
studies referred to as demand-pull studies.
based on
post
ex
distinguishing
All are
characteristics
of
related
successful
analysis confirming the findings of the other three.
draw
the conclusion that attention to market
demand, or information from market sources, and not
technical sources,
was
major factor for the
the
that "failure
was frequently associated
There are two interesting
[p 276].
hypotheses that might follow from
first is that in
good
rival
this observation.
times of managerial difficulty there
to
innovations, with Utterback's [1974] aggregate meta-
All
was
management"
The
collection
data
study based on the qualitative analysis of
with neglect of relatively elementary rules of
pull studies
The following
by the authors of the
may
be upper management bias, when funding
limited, towards canceling funding of leading
is
edge
innovation more quickly than innovation for which a
SAPPHO
clearly defined market exists.
measure managerial competence
at
authors only
a higher level: that
of "the innovating organization" (as opposed, for
example, to the
successful innovations.
R&D
and marketing organizations),
though they conclude that basic mismanagement was
2.7.7
Project
SAPPHO
1974
a
major problem for most failed innovations and
suggest that there
SAPPHO
Project
demand
intent
is
high quality and
pull supporting study,
though
its
original
also
was an empirical cataloging of
process along
many
the innovation
The
different dimensions.
research study includes detailed data collection of
paired successful and unsuccessful innovations
in the
hope of eliminating mono-operation bias
(i.e.,
studying successful innovations only).
is
corresponding role of science
is
uninvestigated.
in
in
and thus the
the innovation
Indeed the fact that paired
comparisons were based on
their competition for the
same market [SAPPHO] might screen out
possibility of technology
The second
ability.
management of
technology
the
sample,
R&D function is often
specialists
management
the
in
rival hypothesis,
who have
that
handled by
little
formal
a
higher
'mortality rate"
on more
training,
mismanagement based
is
placing
advanced products.
no evidence that technology push
differentially affected failure or success,
process
no substitute for managers of
caused by a bias
While the
study demonstrates the importance of user focus
success, there
is
heavily cited as a
The
do not indicate the lack of
importance of technology. Rather, the data seems to
argue
for
a
balance
between
organizational
competencies and firm level focus on the
marketing interface for greater success.
representing ten aggregate index variables,
R&DIn data
two of
the
leading four determinants of success are scientifically
the
push even being correctly
results
oriented.
(These
were:
communications with outside
represented as a core concept in the study since true
contacts.)
level,
an
R&D
strength
and
scientific or technical
This would indicate that
at the
aggregate
R&D focus is at worst a close second behind
a marketing focus in defining an innovation's success.
to
Even though these two
only commercially successful innovations as the
second
in the
variables
overall relevance,
made of the importance of the
two
came
little
in first
and
discussion
interaction
is
between the
innovation process.
in the
overcome
the empirical
study claims
"success
financial criteria,
sample,
is
however,
some
at
innovations, the
yet be in the future."
The
weak along
that
slightly
is
looking
in
not judged solely by
that for
...
may
financial returns
weakness
Meyers and Marquis 1969
2.1.2
dimension as the Queen's Awards (Britain)
Results of this study are many, but the
dimensions of innovation differentiation are of
The study provides
particular relevance.
However,
this
research
than a prescriptive
themselves
is
acknowledge
descriptive and does not
reason
more
a statement of fact,
of conclusions.
list
The main
the quantitative data.
that
show
the
The authors
research
show
for an innovation
would have
less
Those
organizations that do apply will likely be biased
towards a heavier marketing or public relations focus.
Most of
the innovations
sampled turn out
to
be
financial successes.
The authors mirror
the sentiments of several
is
of the other demand pull supporters
difficulty in
finding in the study, and the
is
in that there is
going beyond descriptive studies, and that
in
making any claims of causation.
that in
only twenty-one percent of the successful innovations
More fundamentally,
the authors note that
through effective marketing
technical opportunity a primary
factor in the innovation.
their
causality.
cited as a pull supporting study
was recognition of a
submitted
motivation to apply for such an award.
problems exist
it is
which
given to
innovations for judgment, and organizations with no
profit to
and does so through interviews, so qualitative
some of
organizations
a strong
record of the innovations within real organizations,
information backs up
those
is
Market
factors
were reported
as the primary factor in forty-five percent of the
innovations and manufacturing in thirty percent
was
project success
likely to
-
R&D
it
interaction that
come, and
that project
success was a meeting of a technical need.
authors credit the technology push in
in
indirect ways, but
was
all
one comment
The
of the cases
in
particular
indicating, according to the authors, that three-quarters
illustrated
a point:
suggest that because
they
of the innovations could be classified as responses to
demand
recognition.
A
direct
recommendation made by the authors
managerial
is
that
R&D
manufacturing could not exist without
electricity,
then only through the invention of electricity could
innovation have
come
some sense by
definition
labs should pay attention to needs for innovation in
about, thus technology push in
is
always present. [1972]
addition to maintaining technical competencies. This
is at
best anecdotal evidence and not a very strong
They
also suggest one possible firm level definition
by which
statement regarding larger issues of market pull.
it
may be
push from demand
2.1.3 Langrish
1972
that
in its definitions
et.al.[\912\
study was clearer
and samples. The authors attempt
4
pull: "if
a sales manager realizes
a product needs a particular new property, then
the innovation
The Langrish
possible to tease apart technology
is
'need pull' type."
y
Technology push studies
2.2
2.1.4
Ulterback 1974
The following
Utterback states strongly that
percent of the cases
demand was
in
in
60
80
to
market
his meta-analysis,
representative study which supports the technology
push concept.
the motivating force in the innovation.
Mowery & Rosenberg 1979
2.2.1
Although he qualifies
this
conclusion
that very little research is available
sense
in the
on the adoption
decisions by firms, suggesting that firm biases
make ex post
research questionable.
may
is
thought to be an increasing function
of firms
proportion
using
already
the
innovation, and naturally, the higher the risk factor
the less likely the decision to adopt.
the lag
an application
This time period
is
The
eight to fifteen years.
critical for innovation studies as
the time frames of the
unspecified.
is
most innovations studied are
result of this
is
that there
is
market pull results would skew public policy making
to favor
a pre-
towards successful market pull innovations which are
able to get to
degree
of
in shorter
periods of time.
The
between existing company and
fit
management processes and a new technology
Thus, push innovations are predestined to
not proper
management
there
attention placed in the
effective dissemination of information related to the
product.
This
research. There
is
an element missing from the
seems
to
be
little
interest (or
great difficulty) in measuring managerial
and competence with respect
to
perhaps
commitment
an innovation.
and show
purpose
is
that these studies
variables.
do not measure the
They
not to deny that market
state that
"our
demand plays an
indispensable role in the development of successful
innovations. Rather, that the role of demand has been
overextended and misinterpreted
Their study
is
a meta-analysis of eight
empirical studies that are most frequently cited as
evidence for the demand pull argument. They suggest
that every
the
fail if
Their primary goal was to critically
same dependent
are cited
as inhibitors to effective diffusion of technologies.
is
continued disinvestment in basic research and
evaluate the major studies that supported market pull
selection bias in the collection of research data
market
had
Their concern was that the preponderance of the
results
in
that market-pull factors
significant influence over the innovation process.
time measured between an innovation's
used
number of empirical
is
stimulating information being generated and the time
it is
[1979] were distressed
results of a
which showed
development.
interesting note in that this research
& Rosenberg
by the uniformity of
studies
an innovation
An
Mowery
Importantly, he
states that the probability that a given firm will adopt
of the
four sections each cover one
one of the demand pull studies suffers from
problem of confusing the
insatiable
infinite
number of
human wants with market demand and
propose a more rigorous definition of demand pull to
be a demonstrable
shift in the
demand curve faced by
the firm. This meta-analysis has significance
that of casting doubts
pull argument.
It
on the
validity of the
adds an entirely
new
beyond
demand
level of
analysis for innovation research in general, by
suggesting that the effects observed at the firm level
may
not apply or be consistent with, effects observed
at the industry
or the national level.
In other words.
"
what
is
may
for General Motors,
good
America or even
for
"
not be
good
the auto industry.
High fructose
com
syrup was a radical innovation
the industrial sweetener business, since
it
in
made
it
possible for U.S. industrial consumers to obtain a
Freeman 1982
2.2.2
less
&
Mowery
Rosenberg
importance of studying the
stressed
TPDP question
the
Freeman [1982] study
The data
analysis.
macro-economic
collection
is
focused on more
such
issues
as
Besides macro-economic
Freeman seems
to
have been influenced
from
economic progress
high.
restricted to a single firm.
scientific journals
economic data from 1932
to
and industry
1972 were used to piece
summary
Casey, unequivocally states that "the innovation
in
high fructose corn syrup was not due to product
focused research, but because of medically oriented
biological studies in cell metabolism.
Besides being a ringing testimony for the
by Schumpeterian ' thinking, and echoes the notion
that without scientific progress,
was not
in
data, the study also uses qualitative data to support
the findings.
was very
The
case history of a single innovation,
the data collected
Instead, records
this innovation
together a historical retrospective. In his
changes
occupational levels in different industries instead of
projects in specific firms.
this is a
a higher
an example of such an
is
commercial payoff of
Though
at
of analysis than the firm alone, and this
level
expensive domestic substitute for sucrose.
technology push argument, the Casey study raises
two important
issues.
First, to truly
understand the
will grind to a halt.
The
results of the
Freeman study
effects of technology push, time
seems
to be an
indicate
important factor. Casey looked at data from a variety
that
in
the long term,
a strong
scientific
base
contributes to economic progress through the process
of sources that was archived over forty years.
The
time factor could partly explain the preponderance of
of innovation.
of the
TPDP
This study illustrates the complexity
demand
argument and the need
multi-construct studies to examine issues related to
Freeman acknowledges
technological innovation.
that
many
findings
pull
in
inherently shorter
the
for multi-method,
duration cross-sectional studies done at the firm
project level,
where current employees are asked
to
identify the largest innovations in recent years.
issues are
still
open by
stating that
"this
Second, the research method and level of analysis
book
reflects the relatively
elementary state of our
demand
pull studies
in organizational settings,
whereas the
influences the results.
All the
present knowledge. The generalizations are tentative
because they have been insufficiently tested and
seem
to
done
technology push studies do not use firm level data.
corroborated by applied research.
2.2.4
2.2.3
1971
Pavitt's [1971]
Casey [1976] traced the sequence of events
from basic discovery and conception of a new,
revolutionary sweetener to
1
Pavitt
Casey 1976
refers
to
the
Schumpeter, which
its
briefly
Cooperation and Development
(OECD)
macro-economic study, aimed
providing a basis for
at
report
is
a
commercialization.
economic philosophy of
is
Organization for Economic
oudined
J. A.
in section 3
governmental
policy
making
was
response to a request from the
in
at the
level.
The study
OECD council
on
report
to
TPDP
or disprove either of the
the
to gather data
OECD
conditions
The goal was not
technological innovation.
simply
and
factors
the
to
for
prove
on technological innovation
in
examine
the
government
innovation.
study, this
of industry,
role
universities
and
for
rigor.
shifts in user
needs and not current trends
should operationalize
activity,
arguments
in
demand
all
that the existing
acceptable and thus
in industrial
demand
of the
industrial
may deserve
There are
pull.
pull
method
is
Given
emulation.
technological
slowed productivity growth and an increasingly
not an academic research
competitive and changing world technologically,
an example of the examination an
models of past corporate success may not apply well
Though
innovation issue
process
the
in
is
divided into three parts that
is
measure
as a
As suggested by Mowery and Rosenberg,
implicit assumptions
to help in their interpretation.
report
market demand lacks definitional
arguments, but
countries and provide statistical analyses
The
comes from? Second, user needs
it
is
of
multiple levels, using a variety of
at
today.
In
summary,
all
authors are willing to state
measures and a mix of both quantitative analyses and
their preference for either
qualitative data. This study suggests that incremental
but leave to the reader the conceptual building of the
innovations in organizations are driven by market
relationship between market indicators
pull factors, v^hile at national levels, basic research in
changes
universities,
capability are necessary conditions for innovation
is
the continuing need for
Research validity issues
2.4
the four basic measures of research
and
perhaps only the
component
statistical validity
rigorously satisfied in the research
Causality
is
not
shown and
statistical,
is
Summary
of research models
TPDP
The
discussion
is
a
because of the inherent difficulty
making
constructs,
complex one
in
measurements,
Since
the
conduct experiments, none of the studies can claim to
have a causal framework for explanation of
hypothesis.
headway.
The Casey study was
Attention to user needs, shifts in the
retrospective
flow are used as proxies for sources of innovation.
Langrish,
This leaves two issues not addressed.
were ex post analyses of projects
unclear where information
SAPPHO
level of analysis.
make some
largely a historical
innovation.
of a particular
technical environment, or patterns of information
First, for
their
Researchers have instead resorted to a
and project activity are viewed as substitutes for
is
and
not possible to
variety of methodologies, in an effort to
it
defining
external validity
is
it
unobservability of the invention process, innovation
information flows,
alone
unavailability of data.
Constructs are poorly defmed; given the
invention.
is
studies reviewed
limited by the types of innovations or industries
studied.
success, but have not demonstrated that either
a sufficient condition.
research.
validities: construct, internal, external,
is
They have
base.
The
mixed methods and multi-level
above.
and underlying
demonstrated that both market need and technical
lesson, methodologically,
Of
the technological
factors,
government laboratories and individual
firms have impact on overall economic progress.
2.3
in
market or technical
The
and Meyers and Marquis studies
Only
at the organizational
SAPPHO
used matched pairs
of successful and unsuccessful innovations for the
study, while the other
statistical
two studies conducted ex post
analyses of projects
in a
small
number of
Both the Pavitt and Freeman studies show
industries.
the usefulness of a multiple
method approach.
Pavitt
economy.
national
Another advantage
which can increase the external
indusu-ies,
The major disadvantage of
qualitative information to study innovation at the
inherent
industry and national levels while Freeman used
successful innovations.
economic
analysis.
macro-
Mowery
Utterback and
Rosenberg conducted meta-analyses, but
&
interestingly,
different
validity of
the hypothesis.
used a combination of macro-economic analyses and
historical retrospectives in conjunction with
many
possibility of obtaining data across
the
is
towards
bias
method
this
the
is
commercially
studying
Managers are unlikely
suggest that the successful innovation was driven
more by
their
the technical
own
and
astute reading of
scientific forces than
market signals.
problem
discussion to the industry or national levels as did
information compared to scientific information
&
Rosenberg.
the opposite conclusions
The following
that
is
the
immediacy of
the
skew responses from even
by
Another
Utterback did not convincingly raise the level of the
Mowery
to
market
is
This might partially explain
likely
drawn
objective managers are prone to cite market pull
in the
two
studies.
sections give a brief
summary
to
more
the
Respondents are more aware of recent
factors.
of the different research methodologies of studies
market-based information about the innovation than
referenced.
the earlier, slower scientific information.
cross sectional study
2.4. 1
Ex post
cross sectional project focus
cross-sectional data represents a single snap-shot in
ex post project focused analysis deals
exclusively
with data from different completed
projects in different organizations.
post studies reviewed
most of the ex
In
time.
this
factors such as
and time
to
market are run
against independent variables such as project
manager
responses on questionnaire items.
The major advantage of
it
The
paper
significant.
Case study: Innovation focused
A case study (or case history)
record of a specific innovation.
qualitative
this
method
is
the
objective
Data
is
mainly
and obtained through interviews, public
analyses like contingency tables.
is
to present a
more vivid
Case studies have the
The
picture of the
distinct advantage of
providing rich details of the underlying process that
independent variables and control for a number of
being observed.
factors such as maturity of the industry and the
TPDP
8
a systematic
innovation over a longer time horizon.
large sample size also
possible to explore a wide variety of
is
records and archival data supplemented with simple
statistical
large sample size and the consequent statistical
validity of the results.
more
in this
ex
commercial
Typically, regression analysis of variables such as
profits,
pull factors to be
the
all
paper, structured
success and profit are innovation outcome measures.
market success,
probably no coincidence that
showed market
in
2.4.2
Market
is
It
post cross sectional studies reviewed
interviews with project managers constitute the bulk
makes
inherently not suited for
observation of slow, long term impacts, because
An
of the data.
is
The ex post
This
is
is
particularly useful in the
research question, because of the slow and
often subtle influences of science on the innovation
level
process are difficult to observe with traditional cross
national levels.
sectional
The
studies.
retrospective
historical
effectively "normalizes" for the difference in time-lags
between the
effects are observable at the
It
also help policy
industry and
makers decide on
public investments that encourage technological
innovation.
market and the effects of
effects of the
2.4.4
Meta Analysis
science.
The disadvantages
are of course, the lack of
A
meta-analysis
is
a critical overview or a
However,
and findings.
generalizability of results
quantitative aggregation of several different studies.
TPDP
since
research
still
lacks causal frameworks,
the insight developed from case histories can help in
the
development of
The
results of different studies are integrated
generalizability of certain findings
is
and the
investigated.
A
better theory in this area.
meta-analysis typically also addresses the deficiencies
of research in the particular area and suggests the
2.4.3 Economic/National level statistical analysis
adoption of specific definitions of variables and
This type of study
statistical
gathered
based on rigorous
is
analyses of aggregate level data
at the industry
of analysis
is
or national level).
(i.e.
data
The
unit
and longer term diffusion
level of analysis
is
on
study of this sort
on large scale
Since, the
patterns.
above the firm or innovation
sample
reasonable
&
Mowery
level
the
sizes,
observations have reasonable external and statistical
question
in
is
Rosenberg have noted
definitions of constructs for
may
not convey
is
that aggregate level
important firm level
information, for example, national
GNP
figures
do
meta-
demand and technology.
Another important advantage of a meta-analysis, as
shown by
the
& Rosenberg study,
Mowery
results at a higher level
of analysis can shed
is
that the
new
light
on the research question.
The disadvantage of
The disadvanuge
in their
analyses that different studies have very different
validity.
statistics
TPDP
observing consistency of results. Both Utterback and
the ability to observe and report
based
examining the controversial
in
economy. These studies
The primary advantage of a
and
The advantage of a meta-analysis
pulling together different studies in this area and
have a distinct macro-economic focus.
effects
whole can progress.
not a project or an innovation but an
entire industry or national
is
constructs, so that the field as a
method of study
this
is
the reliance on secondary sources of data and the
possibility of misinterpretation of constructs
results.
and
However, both Utterback and Mowery
&
not convey the profitability of individual companies.
Rosenberg have been frequently cited for the
Also, the reliability of aggregate data
thoroughness of their analyses and interpretations.
which
is
one reason
is
that Pavitt in his
often suspect,
OECD
report
included qualitative data in the interpretation of the
results.
2.5
Constructs
research, since
it
is
valuable
in
TPDP
can help determine whether
firm
in
existing
research
Innovation
This methodology
missing
addressed
variables
in the current research
which are poorly
models, yet were cited
as important variables throughout the studies are:
The relationship between
(10)
(1)
The
component
time
innovations
inception
innovation
to
different
from
(time
success
diffusion
patterns
and
or
innovation success.
termination)
as
variable
a
the
in
(11)
The importance of sample
bias in research
analysis.
results.
(2)
Treatment of the innovation process as a
"birth" process in
impact of a never "grown" innovation
is
unknown.
(3)
The decision making of
How
firms
the inventors
and
in
for
both long and
whole
reason for the lack of decisive knowledge about the
issue lies in this inability to
multiple-methodology
An
completely.
do perform
rigorously
studies
and
alternative to the idea of creating a
the multiple levels could be researched independently,
Organizational processes, such as the
between
strategy,
R&D
and
as
done
in the
on
focus
marketing groups of a given firm as
a
determinants.
organization.
The dual
nature of lead users as both users
line
demand
in
ability to
the innovation
The
strategic motivations of the firm, as
What has been
the
internal
mechanisms of
on
focus
is
the
There has been extensive focus on the
innovation as a marketable entity, and
the
organizational
much
activities
less
and
competencies that bring them about.
stronger in the field
is in
to
making
the research
stronger definitions.
denunciation of the "other side's
little
process.
the possibility that
eight studies reviewed.
Certainly a critical part
The importance of the customers'
state their
is
missing, however, even in such single level studies
pull situations.
'
The
research results does
advance the understanding of innovation
methodologies.
There
is
needed a more rigorous
and such issues as
suggested by Schumpeterian destruction
distinction of levels of analysis,
of existing capital through substitution,
distinguishing innovation from invention, science
and
the
role
incumbency
of
and
Effect
of market environment
oligopolistic
vs
(e.g.,
monopolistic)
3.
on
innovation investment, including the
role
of complementary
from technology, and market demand from a
resourceful matching of capability with needs.
competitive position.
(9)
the contrary, the
constraints.
between technology push and demand
(8)
To
in
single cross-level analytic tool
and innovators, which blurs the
(7)
somehow be embodied
short term opportunities given resource
interaction
(6)
not intended to suggest that
of these variables could
TPDP
make optimal choices
innovation investment
(5)
all
list is
a single research design.
the innovators themselves.
(4)
The above
which the eventual
assets
and
defense of existing competencies.
Philosophical
TPDP
underpinnings
of
the
debate
Academic study of
relatively recent
technical advance
phenomenon, beginning
end of World War
II.
at
is
a
about the
However, the 18th century
French mathematician and philosopher Leibnitz
10
[Rescher, 1978]
said to have conceived of science
is
The
industries.
basic
argument of
as an economically productive enterprise, dealing with
a firm's research staff
"putting science on a businesslike basis."
innovation.
1937,
Adam
Smith [1937]
acknowledged
advancement
seeking truth for
ingredients that
The
men of
own
its
make
independent means,
technical advance an
first is that scientific
the investment of time and
to
scientific
combine
the
is
economic
advances have
that they required
money.
He
two ingredients
brought to
in basic science are
The market has
minor
relatively
role in determining the
a
pace and
direction of innovation within the firm.
The evidence given
in
support of this
argument are major breakthroughs such
as lasers,
paper copiers and microelectronics which were
originally developed for relatively
immature or
an
proceeded to have widespread use and turned out to be
into
immensely
The technology push
profitable.
hypothesis
is
who showed
further supported by
Merton [1973]
contemporaneous nature of many
the
classical economists continued to ignore
(according
suggesting
the
to
of economic progress, choosing instead to
view technology as a means of changing the factors
of
the primary initiator of
is
for possible commercialization.
discoveries,
this aspect
that
undetermined markets. These remarkable innovations
Schumpeter's view: technology push
The
is
failed,
integrated theory.
3.1.
Advances
school
the attention of the organization by the research staff
sake and identified two
economic value and the second
however,
and
economic progress. Smith saw major
advances coming from
activity.
Wealth of Nations
in
the role of technological
in
Later, in
this
production,
and technical advancement as
Schumpeterian view)
almost
inevitable
that certain discoveries are
in
course
the
development. Phillips [1971]
later
of
human
acknowledged the
serendipity (being at the right place, at the right
time).
It
was Schumpeter, who
influence
in his three
of market
on innovation by
forces
books.
The Theory of Economic Development [1961],
incorporating a strong feedback loop from the market
success
(or
failure)
of innovations
on future
Business Cycles [1964], and Capitalism, Socialism
and Democracy [1975]
role of
economic agents
innovation
most
innovation activity in the firm.
In other words, the
clearly articulated the active
in innovation.
commonly
The notion of
associated
with
firm changes
its
innovation partially in response to
market signals. However, the fundamental belief
in
the primacy of basic science remains unaltered.
Schumpeter
is
the idea that
destruction"; he
push argument.
is
it is
a "process of creative
a proponent of the technology
In Schumpeter's
view the pace and
3.2.
Schmookler's view
:
demand
Schmookler's [1966] studies on patented
direction of innovation activity will be determined by
inventions across different industries
the advances in the underlying scientific base.
industries
The Schumpeterian view of technology push
is
corroborated by Phillips [1966]
emphasis on the role of
who
scientific
pull
showed
which had more patents were more oriented
towards the market, supporting his demand pull
The
basic premise of the argument
places a major
hypothesis.
knowledge
that firms perceive profit opportunities in the
in
that
order to maximize profit.
is
market
Thus
the
innovation based on studies of patents, competition
and innovate
and technical progress
market, and not the scientific base, becomes the
in
selected manufacturing
11
in
The Schmooklerian
prime mover of innovation.
view extends the demand
pull
argument beyond the
confines of a single organization to the macro-
economic
economy
level as well,
demand
are
provided to support
is
i.e,
innovations
all
Many examples
driven.
this view.
in the
For example,
are
AT&T
said to have developed the transistor in response to
need for smaller, more efficient switching
the
The demand
systems.
pull studies by
Meyers
&
Marquis and Langrish support Schmooklerian
arguments that innovation
is
a response to profit
The demand
pull
argument borders on being
tautological.
There
innovating
order to decrease profits.
in
is
little
possibility of firms
Firms do
innovate in order to reduce losses, but that too
application studies have been questioned by
Rosenberg on the basis
is
Schmookler's patent
rational profit-saving behavior.
that
most patents never
many commercial
furthermore that
innovations are
never patented. Another argument against the demand
argument
back
far
fulfilling
market
that
is
enough
most inventions can be traced
some
to
basic advance in scientific
are
orientation only as a necessary,
and not as a sufficient
Many
of the studies draw
condition to success.
conclusions beyond those which directly follow from
For example, market
the research results at hand.
pull studies
which show
that successful innovations
were driven by market need
scientific
tells
us nothing about any
precedence that may have enabled those
innovations.
Conversely, technology push studies of
about organizational dynamics.
Given
that
little
none of
the research directly addresses cause and effect issues,
conclusions are necessarily conjectural
True experimentation
is
infeasible,
nature.
in
and solid quasi-
experimentation has not been done.
Both Freeman and Pavitt look
indicators,
and both conclude that
at
economic
at national levels,
over the long term, scientific discovery occurs
spurts,
commercial innovations. Cross-sectional innovation
based
studies,
on
the
other
hand,
conclude
consistently that the linkage between science
Based on these differences
is
at
and iu
most occasional.
in findings, the
two
sides
synthesis possible?
Is
appear to be irreconcilable, but the differences
3.3. 1
definitions used in the
TPDP
spectrum
differences in empirical results.
Mowery and Rosenberg
across the push and pull sides are inconsistent and
perhaps do not even address the same underlying
concepts,
making synthesis of
Technology push
is
results
defined as supported
difficult.
when
shifts
underlying scientific activity evoke shifts
innovation activity.
Demand
pull,
demand
curve,
is
in
however, instead
of being correspondingly represented by a
shift in the
considered supported
in
research methodology seem likely to explain the
Different Research Uses Different Definitions
The
in
in
and fuels a number of more market oriented,
application in technology
knowledge.
3.3
demands than
unsuccessful innovations. This demonstrates market
Mowery
reach the stage of commercial exploitation and
pull
towards
more oriented
a correlational and economic nature can say
opportunities.
&
successful innovations are differentially
when
12
the research supporting
demand
convincingly rebut
pull as
based on poor
constructs, tautological research models, and lack of
experimental design.
varieties of technology
At the same time, the two
push studies (case history and
economic analysis) are also both unable
causality, or
Case
make
histories
to
show
definitive policy recommendations.
which examine the long term
effects of
a particular innovation
have a
built in bias in that
it
only successful inventions that are studied, offering
is
little
help in the project selection and management
Because of the
process.
project
difficulties in capturing
dynamics and human interactions
in
scale data collection, aggregate measures are
of capturing organizational dynamics
is
made apparent by
all that
The importance
are available at this level of analysis.
measure
large
in the
research
the consistent statement
was creating
the
computer
it
was completely unable
to predict the level of societal diffusion the
would eventually reach, by many orders of magnitude
underestimating the eventual market size and impact.
The computer, which was
many dimensions of
the result of integration of
scientific activity (in logic, solid
state physics, etc.), taught
people an entirely new
way of managing and wanting information which,
prior to the computer,
would have been unthinkable.
by research authors that project member's capabilities
Such
and organizational interfaces are
innovations, which include the electric
critical to project
success.
ubiquity
the telephone,
Market and technical forces are frequently
cast as opposite ends of a spectrum in the research
literature;
suggesting
somehow
but not both can be present
project.
was repeated
It
in
in
a given innovation
of the research
all
conclusions that combining
market need with
of
scientific
"infrastructure"
power
advanced transportation systems,
grid,
etc.,
seemingly makes immaterial any arguments based on
the particulars of a given firm level innovation.
one or the other,
that
computer
If
is
it
presumed
that the different research
methodologies are addressing the same issues, then
must be concluded
young
to
be of
that the research is
much
it
simply too
value (due to conflicting results)
technological capability was perhaps the single
and
that the subject is not yet well understood.
need
may
also be, however, that both sides of the research
largest critical underlying factor, illustrating the
for a
combined technology-market
successful innovation.
Unfortunately, the power of
such interaction effects are
lost
comparisons of success and
market or technical
interaction for
in
failure
factors
binary
the
and labeling
stimulating
as
an
innovation, as done in cross sectional studies.
New
new
for
new
many examples can be given
discoveries driving
examples
of
particularly
technology
serve
as
needs.
push
synthetic
in
microelectronics,
new
some eventually unsuccessful
countless other uses.
instances have
Some
and
materials
occasions in which scientific activity,
at
Classic
innovations,
fitting
that
the
results
contradictory.
literature to
becomes
mixed
market needs can, by definition, drive
solutions, but also
issue are correct within their respective
are
is
and
much
not
research
back up both sides of the debate,
this
the most appealing interpretation of the
results.
The reason
for the paradox
research flaws, but rather
issue being addressed.
integrating findings
it
may be
may
not be
in the specific
This suggests that the key to
is in
understanding exactly which
portions of the innovation processes the different
research models pertain
to.
examples of
initially
aimed
application, enables
3.3.2 Results Integration
Though
the
TPDP
of these technology push
as a debate,
become so ubiquitous
domains and
complementary
Because there
It
it's
existence
discussion has been cast
may
actually reflect the
as to be ignored
simple inability to integrate apparently inconsistent
for their scientific origins.
For example, when
IBM
13
results.
may be an
It
of looking
artifact
complex
from many levels of analysis, and
social process
trying to reduce
to a single, objective declaration.
it
While each side acknowledges the
importance, there
models of
at a
is little
and
other's merits
attempt to integrate the two
strategy
response to a changing environment,
in
attempting
to
profitability.
follow
An
most
environmental
come from
can
shift
either technical or market opportunity,
benefit from either type.
avenues of
likely
and a firm can
Again missing from
this
dynamic models
model are issues of organizational competencies and
encompassing both organizational and economic
market conditions; these constructs are hidden the
policy levels are created, synthesis must remain a
notion of opportunity.
activity into one.
No
fragmented process.
to resolve the
research to date has been able
apparent disagreement between the
economic and the project
and
Until
organizational
implications for the
level of analysis.
levels
TPDP
Economic
have
both
remain unclear, as the dynamic interaction between
the structural orientation of the firm,
linkage with the environment
One
direct
question, but clearly they
The policy implications may
the
thing
short term,
comes
is
and
its
dynamic
unclear.
clear for
the studies: in
all
incremental innovations, which
answer different types of research questions, and thus
constitute the bulk of successful innovations, are
can not be easily combined.
launched into existing markets, or markets whose
For true cumulation and comparison of
demand
results across studies,
the
pull should be held to
same standards of defmitional
push.
Where
rigor as technology
shifts in the scientific
supply curve or
input of scientific information defines technology
demand
push, shifts in the
curve, not attention to
customer needs, should be the
innovation as
demand
that value to the
push
is
pull.
customer
criteria for defining
is critical,
but technology
operationalized as a discrete event such as
scientific
information stimulating an innovation,
where market pull
An
is
model of innovation
activity
which might synthesize notions of technology push
and demand pull
summarized
is
Rosenberg [1979]
in
in
Mowery
entities
&
commonly
innovation
companies
.
sit
technologically
in
nature
than
making
based,
those
them
of
proportionately less long term value.
The
situation
is
murkier for cumulation of
long term results associated with more radical
innovations since market
demand
is
a less well
defined construct in this context. Most of the study's
authors
agree
that
there
is
some confusion
and commercial application which confounds or
potentially invalidates research data. For example,
studies
all
which do an ex post analysis of successful and
innovations which were aborted early in their
of increased returns through
In this model, at any given time,
at
incremental
to
which
market opportunity, but rather are
in pursuit
that,
unsuccessful innovations have a built in bias against
are neither in pursuit of specifically technical nor
specifically
more
a
that
which they suggest
companies essentially exist as dynamic
found
market based successful innovations tended
overall,
be
it is
is
surrounding the time-lag between scientific discovery
more loosely defined.
alluring
clear requisite to success. In addition,
an
All of the authors agree
demand
near term needs are well known; market
an equilibrium point, changing
14
development. This
is
a problem as there
is
no way
to
estimate the long term potential of those innovations,
resulting in a bias against any innovation
not have immediate market application.
which does
Although the researchers on the two sides of
the debate disagree as to their respective positions,
there exists a unifying
framework which allow
both results to coexist.
As suggested
in the
for
encourage
R&D
order to stimulate the economy,
in
since scientific progress
is
the harbinger of
economic
progress.
previous
Ultimately, the objective of the research
is
paragraph, the crux of the difference between the two
to
guide policy direction, so as a benchmark, theory
micro versus macro level of
is
inadequate until
may
sides
lie
in the
it
can assist
in
decision making.
analysis and the temporal dimension or time-lag
Until research models are tested for their predictive
issues between scientific discovery and commercial
power, however, they will remain more
application.
It
may
indeed be true that the majority
framework than
the
in
the
model category, offering merely
of commercially successful innovations are market
novel ways of thinking about the issue without
dependent or immediately inspired by market
offering any concrete policy implications.
information, but this does not
show
not founded upon
some
knowledge.
were the case, as
If this
existing scientific base of
is
suggested by
Casey, then both the science and the market forces
would be
critical
in
complementary
Technology push innovations are fewer
but they
may
fuel a larger
The
were
that they
following
two
sections
discuss
synthesized (but unproven) implications as specific to
organization and industrial/national policy.
4.1
Implications
organizations
for
fashion.
in
number,
Importance of
R&D
number of incremental
Though not
stated explicitly
by the demand
innovations.
pull studies,
many major
The
science and technology.
4.
innovations are driven by
current microelectronics
Theoretical and practical relevance
The
TPDP
revolution, superconductivity and biotechnology
debate
seem
significant
has
as likely to
change existing markets or create new
implications for managers of organizations as well as
markets than to grow into current ones. These major
public policy makers.
pull
is
If the
primacy of the market
established, organizations
the nature and role of
may need
innovations can have significant long term economic
to rethink
R&D efforts and increase their
payoffs for individuals, firms, and nations.
in order to catch
is
some components
therefore, in the interest of at least
market orientation
It
market signals
of an economic system to continue investment in
earlier.
The fmancial
fortunes of the firm depend on
R&D,
whether that be through investment by
the firm's ability to innovate in response to the
individual firms or at a
more aggregate
level
such as
market; there would theoretically exist declining
consortia.
returns to purely scientific research.
On
the
prime
the other hand,
if
science
mover of successful
is
shown
to
be
organizations would have to increase spending on
long term
R&D or
at least
have close
ties to centers
of fundamental research such as universities.
national level, policy makers
R&D Strategy depends on firm size
innovations,
would have
At the
to actively
15
Since larger fums have more resources, they
can invest
in basic
term benefits.
research in the interests of long
This
is
the classic Schumpeterian
hypothesis on the advantage of large firms. The
counter-argument to
large firms
may have
mover advantages by
first
innovations and
may be
it
continue investment
that
is
obsolescence of existing
to
Large firms could
competencies.
however,
a disincentive to invest in
due
radical innovation
gain
this hypothesis,
still
potentially
initiating
major
in their best interests to
basic research based
in
on a
"deep pocket" competitive research advantage.
Smaller firms on the other hand,
to maintain close ties with
may
be more prone
the pace
and quality of innovation, which can
market losses.
in significant
This
is,
result
however, not
an easy task given the apparently conflicting demands
between basic research and marketing.
for resources
As Mowery
&
Rosenberg suggest, individual firms
need to be aware that they are
in
an equilibrium
at
any
given point in time and need to respond effectively to
both scientific and market opportunities.
4.2 Lessons learned
and future research
major research centers
Individually, each of the research studies
(e.g.,
government laboratories)
universities,
new
leverage
scientific
and
to
advanced our understanding of innovation and the
technological
TPDP
question in particular only incrementally.
breakthroughs.
post studies such as
histories
As
suggests,
Pavitt
breakthroughs do not occur
major
scientific
at regular intervals,
so
Meyers
market pull arguments.
reiterated the
Market focus may fuel incremental innovation
SAPPHO and
&
Ex
Marquis
The case
by Casey and Freeman provided longitudinal
data on specific innovations, and the meta-2malyses by
Utterback and
Mowery
&
Rosenberg came up with
firms cannot afford to neglect incremental innovations
opposite results. Collectively, however, there were
which can be a
several important lessons learned from the
profits.
potential source of steady revenues
and
This implies that firms must continue to be
research studies.
receptive to market signals, which are a necessary
condition for successful incremental innovations.
mean
closer ties between
R&D
TPDP
First,
innovation can be studied at different
levels of analysis; at the firm project level, single
and
innovation level, and industry /national level. Results
marketing within the organization and increased use
obtained at one level are often inconsistent with
This could
The
of market research.
individual firm has to be
results at another.
Second, there
is
a need for multi-
capable of responding quickly with innovations that
construct, multi-method studies of innovation.
meet specific market needs, while simultaneously
is
exploring basic research areas for potentially major
employed tends
innovations that can more significantly alter the
studies.
market landscape.
constructs,
particularly important since the research
results
Managing Innovation
Many
Langrish,
of
is
important
the
SAPPHO)
TPDP
With
to bias the results
methods and
the inconsistency in observed
might be better understood.
First principles are hard
measure as related
studies
method
of the different
the use of multiple
some of
This
both to define and to
to innovation inception.
Several
(Pavitt,
of the papers reviewed here include a subjective
have found
that
managing
the
assessment by the authors of the current state of the
process of innovation
function.
is
an important organizational
Poor management practices can slow down
16
research in the area.
Most suggest
that in order to
gain a fuller understanding, integrated models will be
of trying to understand the factors that determine
necessary which venture
innovation success.
economic
activity
to
tie
organizational to
towards managing the multi-faceted
nature of the problem.
Mowery and Rosenberg
suggest that the research to date on the topic has been
of a "black-box" orientation,
which the firm
in
is
analytically reduced to an innovation production
function
which
in
inputs
are
mysteriously
transformed into outputs. This criticism could apply
of the research models, except perhaps the
to all four
case
model but there again predictive
history
capability
is lost
enough
tractable
may
techniques
that the innovation process is
to
study through retrospective
be underestimating the underlying
As suggested by Utterback [1974,
complexity.
p625], case studies
may
continue to be a source of
ideas and hypotheses for further research, but they
A
model
is
can be seen that answers to the
TPDP
research
question seem to depend strongly on the research
methodology and
to
The
the level of analysis.
inability
perform experiments, coupled with the high cost of
makes research progress
multiple methods
difficult.
Meta-analyses and anecdotal evidence by experts
the field appear to be the
most interesting firm
information available. The evidence
is
correlational and potentially biased.
This
in
level
retrospective,
may
likely
models or frameworks are developed. This needs
be kept
more comprehensive empirical research
needed which includes variables from
in
mind by both
of technological
innovation
as
to
and researchers
practitioners
the
impact of
innovation research on the innovation process
is
particularly important in competitive markets.
Comparing or
do
not offer a better understanding of the innovation
process.
the issues are complex,
continue to be the case until more comprehensive
due lack of a causal research model.
The notion
it
Though
integrating the
TPDP
research
with the more general innovation literature
There are few frameworks,
difficult process.
that fall directly
is
a
if
any,
from the papers reviewed.
If
anything, these papers demonstrate the difficulty in
individual to organizational and national levels.
obtaining empirical data in a complex domain.
5.
Where much of
Conclusion:
The
issue
fact that the
were completed
TPDP
major studies on the
in the 1970's raises the question
as to whether they are applicable today.
The
1950's
and 1960's, for example, were a period of heavy
investment
1970's
in
R&D,
so innovation activity in the
may have been skewed
towards market oriented
managerial
scientific research.
Changes
in
world
markets and technological competition may have
shifted the situation over time, calling for
new
studies
TPDP
action.
The TPDP research
many
studies actually address
different issues, but share the
common
element
17
and impacts, such as
among
certain groups,
research largely ignores the organizational
dynamics, with
little
prescription for managerial
The reader
is
left
to
draw concrete
conclusions.
The complex
interaction
between markets
and science are well summarized by quotes from two
prominent individuals involved
opposite ends of the
1984].
to revisit innovation inception issues.
implications
increased communications
incremental innovations built on market foundations
from previous
the innovation literature has clear
Thomas
TPDP
in
what appear
to be
spectrum [Shanklin,
Edison, the quintessential American
inventor writes: "First be sure a thing
needed, then go ahead.
"
is
wanted or
While Akio Morita,
CEO of
SONY
corporation,
oriented
company
not
surveyed",
a
states:
highly
consumer market
"Markets must be created,
with Sony's advertising slogan
reading: ""Research
Makes The Difference ."
Clearly
both technology and markets play significant roles in
defining the innovation process.
18
6.
Bibliography:
Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and Dissemination of
J.
Technological Information within the R&D Organization", MIT press, Cambridge, Mass., p. 12,
1984.
Allen, T.
R&D
IEEE
Productivity",
Allen, T.J., "Organization Structure, Information Technology, and
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol EM-33 No 4, November, 1986.
High Fructose
September 1976, pp 27-33.
Casey, James
P.
;
Com
Downs, George W, and Lawrence
Syrup
B.
-
A
Case History of Innovation, Research Management,
Mohr, "Conceptual Issues
in
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 21, pp 700-714, December 1976
the Study of Innovation",
.
Freeman, Christopher, "The Economics of Industrial Innovation", 2nd edition,
MIT
press,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1982.
Gibbons, M. and Johnston, R.
,
The Roles of Science
in
Technological Innovation, Research Policy,
November, 1974.
Gilfillian, S.C. (1935),
Langrish,
Merton, R.K.
&
"Wealth From Knowledge", John Wiley
et ai,
J.,
The Sociology of Invention, Cambridge, MIT
Sons,
Press, 1970.
New
York, 1972.
The Sociology of Science, Chicago: University of Chicago
,
Press, 1973.
Meyers, S. and D.G. Marquis, Successful Industrial Innovation (Washington, DC; National Science
Foundation) 1969.
Mowery, David and Rosenberg, Nathan, "The influence of market demand upon innovation:
review of some recent empirical studies". Research Policy 8 (1979) pp 102-153.
Pavitt, Keith,
The Conditions
Phillips, L.
Patents, Potential Competition and Technical Progress,
,
for success in technological innovation,
OECD
1971, (Paris:
A
critical
OECD).
American Economic Review, 56,
pp 301-310, 1966.
Research in Chapter 5 in Effects of Industrial Concentration: A Cross Sectional Analysis
for the Common Market, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp 119-142. 1971.
Phillips, L.
,
Rescher, N, Scientific Progress
,
Pittsburgh,
PA, University of Pittsburgh
Press. 1978.
291, North Holland Publishers, 1974.
"SAPPHO
Rothwell, et ai
Schmookler,
J.,
updated- project
SAPPHO
J.
A.
Schumpeter, J.A.
,
,
Business Cycles,
New
York,
Adam, The Wealth of
Urban, Glenn
Products",.
L.,
New
McGraw
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,
Shanklin, Williams, and John K. Ryans,
Lexington, Mass, 1984.
Smith,
3,
pp 258-291.
Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1966.
Schumpeter, J.A., Theory of Economic Development,
Schumpeter,
Phase U", Research Policy
Nations,
New
Jr.,
York,
York, Oxford University Press, 1961.
Hill,
New
1964.
York, Harper Row, 1975.
Marketing High Technology, Lexington Books,
Modem
Library, 1937.
and Eric von Hippel, Lead User Analysis for the Development of
Science, pp 569-582, Vol 34 no. 5, May, 1988.
New
Industrial
Management
Utterback, James
Febmary 1974.
,
Innovation
Van de Ven, Andrew
in
Industry and the diffusion of Technology, Science, Vol 183,
H., and Marshall Scott Poole,
1989.
19
"Methods
for Studying Innovation Processes",
:
Appendix
SAPPHO
1
updated
-
project
SAPPHO phase
974
GOAL:
A systematic attempt to discover differences between successful
RESEARCH METHODS, VARIABLES & SAMPLE SIZES:
and unsuccessful innovations.
Studies 43 paired successful and unsuccessful innovations quantitatively.
Follow up interview with 34 of the
failed innovation's firms
122 questions per innovation
Compared
successful innovations to unsuccessful innovations along several dimensions.
-
degree of risk taken by organization
management of the organization
-
strength of
-
structure of the organizations
-
efficiency of marketing research and precise understanding of user need
-
organic vs mechanistic
of familiarity of the firm with technical problems and market problems
-
level
-
strength of the development
-
effectiveness of the organizations communications network with outside technical and scientific
-
level of pressure facing the organization
-
a measure of the marketing effort put out by the organization
work concerned with
the innovation
communities
Comparisons made on a trichotomized
and
its
innovation
basis as to the differential across successful and unsuccessful firms.
less than, equal to or greater than
Innovation success defined by net monetary gain, market share, and alignment with company strategy.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Successful innovators seen to have better understanding of user needs
Successful innovators pay more attention to marketing and publicity
- Successful innovators work more efficiently, but not necessarily faster
- Successful innovators make more use of outside technical and scientific information
-For successful innovators, the responsible individual on the project was of greater
seniority and had greater responsibility
-
Conclusion is that the factors which emerge as important to success are those related to
user needs, and
important to maintain interaction with customer.
It is
No
substitute for quality
management.
Marketing/R&D interface important.
Quoted as a DEI^ND PULL study
CAVEATS
-
-
Market pull defined in terms of user needs
The authors make no negative statements about the importance
of technical and
and technical contact was among the
between success and failure.
scientific input to the project, in fact scientific
•
higher of the differentials
Predominantly process innovations.
20
Marquis
Meyers
and
969
1
GOAL:
A
systematic study of
how
innovation
is
spawned, nurtured, financed, and managed into new business.
RESEARCH METHODS. VARIABLES & SAMPLES:
-
Studies 567 innovations at 121 firms in 5 industries
-
Stated as a novel study due
-
Uses extensive, semi-stractured. reu-ospective interviews of people close to the innovation
Innovations identified as most successful in several years - no strict definition of success, but
-
Uses extensive
-
Define innovation as the introduction by a firm of technical change
-
Studied: nature of innovations, primary factors in their initiation, information used in formulation and
commercial was most
solution,
to:
wide range of innovation types, inclusion of adopted innovation.
common
result.
statistical analysis
in
process or product.
and sources and channels of information.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
-
Recognition of
demand
is
a more frequent factor
in
innovation than recognition of
technical potential.
-
-
Adopted innovations contribute significantly to success.
Ideas for innovation may be evoked by information inputs
Most information which led to the solution of existing technical problems was widely
available.
Quoted as a
DEMAND PULL study
CAVEATS:
-
-
Innovations were mostly minor - market forces greater
Producer-goods industries only - housing, railroad and computers
No classification of firms as high or low tech
No measure of the impact of the innovation
All innovations were successes, no "control" group
21
J
Langrish,
972
Gibbons,
Evans, and Jones
1
GOAL:
To
build up a fuller descriptive "natural history" of the innovation
In particular to relate the technological to organizational
phenomenon through
detailed accounts.
and other aspects.
RESEARCH METHODS. VARIABLES & SAMPLES:
Award
as the innovative sample
-
Used
-
In theory giving both financial returns
the British Queen's
and technical advancement opportunity
to be included in the
sample
-
Various industries, mostly manufacturing
-
84 innovations
-
Ex post surveys and extensive interviews of successful innovations
total,
-
Case history based
-
Thorough data
-
Some
mostly incremental
collection
and verification
of the innovations were expected to generate financial returns yet only
in the future
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
-
-
35
%
of innovations driven
by discovery push, 65
%
by need
Scientific input into the innovation process, through real,
pull.
comes
largely through
indirect channels.
No support for the key individual hypothesis (p 11)
Simple linear models of innovation do not apply.
- There are multiple sources of information leading to innovation.
- Larger innovations were more on the technology push side.
Quoted as a DEMAND PULL study
•
-
CAVEATS:
•
-
Innovations were self-selected for submittal to Queen's judges for award, possibly
leading to a marketing-heavy sample of innovations
Technology push rigorously defined as material to fill a graduate level science course
-
-
a rough measure.
Need
not distinguished from
demand.
22
GOAL;
Summarize "what we know" about the process of innovations by firms.
How do characteristics of the environment affect the firm?
What do we know about the acceptance of innovations in the market and about
the creation of
new
firms
based on technology.
RESEARCH METHODS. VARIABLES & SAMPLES:
-
Meta-analytic study of 17 previous empirically based innovation studies
-
Covering over 2000 innovations
Innovation seen as distinct from invention and dioscovery
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
-60-80 %
of the innovations studied
have been
in
response
to
market demands and
user needs
-
Strong similarity between US and UK empirical findings
Architecture (geographic distance) plays a large part
patterns
-
-
the communications
A research need
exists for understanding and measuring interfirm and interindustry
innovation
Author believes that market activity, as opposed to tax incentives or patent laws,
will be the more critical factor in stimulating innovation
Definitive answers will require experiments in the field, but expense will
necessarily leave control out of the hands of the experimenter.
activity
-
in
among employees
in
CAVEATS:
-
-
Subject to tall of the same definitional and sample biases that the other market pull
studies are only successful innovations, ex post, correlational, cross sectional
studies
.(stated by the author) Problems are raised by the distinctly nonrepresentative
nature of samples used.
23
Mowery & Rosenberg
1
979
GOAL:
-Critical analysis
of empirical studies
-Demonstrate the inconsistency of constructs
-Propose a more rigorous definition of demand pull
RESEARCH METHODS, VARIABLES & SAMPLE
SIZES:
-Meta Analysis
-Eight empirical studies analyzed
-Analysis
is
a theoretical critique of the different studies
RESULTS AND CONCLUSOMS
no consistency between the studies on constructs
frequently interpreted as demand
-Ex-post analyses and surveys bias the results
-Some studies are not valid, since they study military procurement
-Pull studies say very little about direction and pace of innovation
-There is insufficient appreciation for the small, continually occurring technology
changes
-Demand pull assumes perfect market signalling
-Shift in demand curve is proposed as definition of demand pull
-The debate should be examined at the industry & national level
-Simple linear models of innovation may no longer be appropriate
-Innovation in firms is in a dynamic balance
•Basic research affects commercial innovations in complex non-linear ways
-There
is
-Human needs
CAVEATS
a purely theoretical argument
do not prove technology push, only cast doubts on demand pull
•The suggested construct for demand pull, cannot be easily measured
•This
is
M&R
24
Freeman
1982
GOAL:
-To stimulate "new thinking and research"
in
the area of
RESEARCH METHODS, VARIABLES & SAMPLE
-Historical analyses of a
-Data
is
SIZES:
number of different innovations ranging from
gathered at the industry and national levels on
of patents
economic and policy analysis
plastics to genetics
R&D expenditures,
number of researchers, number
etc.
-Data on variables such as
R&D expenses gathered across
-Statistical analyses using
contingency tables, regression
nations as well
etc.
complemented with
historical narrative of
particular innovations and particular industries
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
-Long term scientific research contributes to commercial innovation
-Technology develops in spurts and fuels a series of incremental innovations
-A healthy mix of "pure" invention and application is needed
-Strong in-house R&D needed for successful innovations
are required with those conducting basic R&D
-Larger scale producers have inherent advantages in innovation
-Ties R&D to the notion of risk and suggests that fundamental research is always risky
-In
absence
of strong
R&D, close
ties
CAVEATS
-The studies are
possibility of
all
correlational studies using different levels of data, there
missing organizational level dynamics
in
is
a
the study
-Prescriptions for organizations are based on industry and national level data
-There is no coherency in mixing and matching qualitative data with statistical
ang.yses
25
Casey
1
976
GOALS:
-Trace the evolution of the high fructose
com
syrup from research to commercialization (1932 to 1972)
-Learn more about the innovation process
RESEARCH METHODS, VARIABLES & SAMPLE
SIZES:
-Case history of a particular innovation
-Sample
size
is
obviously
1
-Data gathered from multiple sources: scientific journals, press reports, government and industry data
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
-Basic research is important to commercial innovation
-Basic research should be done in-house
-Sources of information can be from outside the industry
-Long intervals separate major innovations in mature industries
•Confluence of market & technological opportunity offers special rewards
CAVEATS
is a case history, not a large sample study
-The paper does not articulate the details of the data collected
-The results are more like opinions of the researcher than results from analysis
-Though this case history is said to support TP, the author himself says that "if early
market research had shown, the potential, perhaps the results may have been different
-This
26
Pavitt
1971
:
GOAL;
-Study of technological innovation
in
20
OECD countries
-Understand the impact of industry, government and universities on the innovation process
-Provide an analysis which can be used for policy making
RESEARCH METHODS, VARIABLES & SAMPLE
SIZES:
-Combination of statistical analyses on econometric data, surveys and interviews
-545 innovations over a 25 year period were studied in 13 different industries
-Number of scientific
-Level of
abstracts and
Nobel prized analyzed
R&D expenditure over 25
for
20 countries
years analyzed for 20 countries
-Measures of GNP, per capita income, education
levels,
govt
R&D etc
were collected as used
regression analysis
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
-Incremental innovations are driven by market pull factors
-Research activity varies across industries
-Both large and small firms are innovative
-Size of national markets is a weak indicator of innovation strength
-University and govt, sponsored research contribute to innovation in firms
-Government
policies
can change
direction
and pace
of innovation
CAVEATS
and conceptual shortcomings
-In some of the analyses, only USA data was used
-It is not clear whether currency and inflation adjustments were made
-Aggregate level data may not cast light on individual level constructs
-The study was not based on any theoretical foundations
-Many
of the variables
have
statistical
27
in
MIT LIBRARIES
3 9080 00932 7526
197
^
97
Date Due
NOV.
23199S
Lib-26-67