Submitted:
07 September 2024
Posted:
09 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Foundations of Innovationology
2.1. Defining Innovationology: A Transdisciplinary Perspective on Innovation
- Transdisciplinary Approach: Innovationology embraces a transdisciplinary perspective, integrating knowledge, methods, and frameworks from various academic fields, including management, psychology, sociology, economics, and technology studies. This synthesis of diverse disciplinary insights enables a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of innovation (Moleka, 2024d).
- Multilevel Analysis: Innovationology proposes a multilevel model that elucidates the individual, team, organizational, and ecosystem-level determinants of transformative innovation. This approach recognizes the complex, interdependent nature of innovation processes and outcomes (Ambos, Brandl, Perri, Scalera & Van Assche, 2021 ; Moleka, 2024d).
- Contextual Embeddedness: Innovationology acknowledges the critical role of broader socio-cultural, political, and environmental contexts in shaping the expression and impact of innovation. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the contextual factors that influence innovation dynamics (Zhang, Zeng, Liang, Xue & Cao, 2023).
- Practical Relevance: Innovationology aims to bridge the gap between theory and practice by generating insights that can inform the design of innovative talent management practices, organizational structures and processes, and ecosystem-level policies and initiatives (Moleka, 2024d).
- Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Innovationology encourages and facilitates collaboration among scholars and practitioners from diverse backgrounds, fostering the cross-pollination of ideas and the co-creation of innovative solutions. By establishing Innovationology as a distinct scientific discipline, this article sets the foundation for a more holistic, evidence-based understanding of the complex, multifaceted nature of innovation (Moleka, 2024d). The insights derived from this new science can empower a wide range of global stakeholders to navigate the challenges and unlock the transformative potential of innovation in the 21st century.
2.2. Epistemological Foundations of Innovationology
2.2.1. Transdisciplinary Epistemology
2.2.2. Holistic Epistemology
2.2.3. Pragmatic Epistemology
2.3. Objet of Innovationology
- Multilevel Determinants of Innovation: Innovationology aims to identify and explain the individual, team, organizational, and ecosystem-level factors that shape the emergence, development, and scaling of radical, game-changing innovations. This includes exploring the cognitive, behavioral, and motivational attributes of innovative individuals, the dynamics and structures that foster collaborative innovation within teams and organizations, and the ecosystem-level characteristics that catalyze the growth and diffusion of transformative innovations.
- Dynamic Interplay of Factors: Innovationology is concerned with understanding the complex, interdependent relationships between the various determinants of innovation. It seeks to elucidate how these factors interact and influence one another, leading to the generation and scaling of transformative innovations.
- Contextual Influences on Innovation: Innovationology emphasizes the critical role of broader socio-cultural, political, and environmental contexts in shaping innovation dynamics and outcomes. It aims to uncover the ways in which contextual factors, such as societal norms, institutional support, and resource availability, enable or constrain the innovation process.
- Practical Applications and Interventions: Innovationology is committed to bridging the gap between innovation theory and practice. It seeks to generate actionable insights and evidence-based strategies that can inform the design of innovative talent management practices, organizational systems, and ecosystem-level policies and initiatives. By establishing a comprehensive, transdisciplinary framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of innovation, Innovationology aspires to empower global organizations, institutions, and policymakers to unlock the transformative potential of innovation and address the complex, interconnected challenges of the 21st century.
3. A Multilevel Model of Innovationology
3.1. Individual-Level Determinants of Innovation
3.1.1. Cognitive Complexity and Divergent Thinking
3.1.2. Domain-Relevant Expertise and Skills
3.1.3. Entrepreneurial Orientation
3.1.4. Intrinsic Motivation and Passion
3.2. Team-level Determinants of Innovation
3.2.1. Psychological Safety
3.2.2. Functional Diversity
3.2.3. Knowledge Sharing and Integration
3.2.4. Collaborative Problem-Solving
3.3. Organizational-level Determinants of Innovation
3.3.1. Organizational Structure and Flexibility
3.3.2. Resource Allocation and Innovation Management
3.3.3. Ambidextrous Organizational Design
3.3.4. Innovation-supportive Culture
3.4. Ecosystem-level Determinants of Innovation
3.4.1. Innovative Ecosystem Configuration
3.4.2. Institutional Support and Regulation
3.4.3. Resource Munificence and Access
3.4.4. Ecosystem-Level Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration
5. The Contextual Embeddedness of Innovation
5.1. Socio-Cultural Influences on Innovation
5.2. The Role of Political and Regulatory Environments
5.3. Environmental and Technological Influences
6. Practical Applications of Innovationology
6.1. Cultivating Innovative Mindsets and Behaviors
6.2. Designing Innovation-conducive Organizational Structures and Processes
6.3. Navigating Innovative Ecosystems
6.4. Informing Innovation-oriented Policymaking
6.5. Advancing Innovation Scholarship
7. Future Research Directions
- Innovationology and the Future of Innovation: Looking ahead, Innovationology should engage in foresight activities and scenario planning to anticipate the long-term trends, challenges, and opportunities that will shape the future of innovation. This can involve the exploration of megatrends, such as climate change, demographic shifts, and geopolitical realignments, and their potential impact on the innovation landscape. By proactively considering the evolving innovation landscape, Innovationology can empower global stakeholders to develop strategic, future-oriented approaches to navigating the complexities of the 21st century (Moleka, 2024d; Rohrbeck et al., 2015).
- Longitudinal and Comparative Studies: To better elucidate the dynamic, context-dependent nature of innovation, Innovationology scholars should prioritize longitudinal and comparative research designs. Longitudinal studies can shed light on the evolving interplay of individual, team, organizational, and ecosystem-level factors over time, while comparative analyses across diverse contexts (e.g., industries, cultures, nations) can uncover the nuanced role of contextual influences on innovation trajectories (Pettigrew, 1990; Yin, 2018).
- Transdisciplinary Research in Innovationology: Innovationology should expand its disciplinary boundaries to incorporate insights from diverse fields, including the arts, fiction, and spirituality. This cross-pollination of ideas can foster more holistic, creative, and inclusive approaches to understanding and fostering innovation. Collaborations with artists, writers, and spiritual thinkers can uncover novel perspectives on the drivers, processes, and outcomes of transformative innovation (Frodeman et al., 2017; Moleka, 2024d).
- Innovation Metrics and Performance Evaluation: Innovationology should delve into the development of robust, multidimensional frameworks for measuring and evaluating the performance and impact of transformative innovations. This can include the exploration of both quantitative and qualitative metrics, as well as the assessment of financial, social, environmental, and ethical outcomes. Innovationology should also investigate innovative approaches to measuring intangible innovation-related assets, such as creativity, agility, and adaptability (Moleka, 2024e; Barney, 1991).
- –
- Traditional financial measures (e.g., revenue, profits, return on investment).
- –
- Innovation output measures (e.g., number of patents, new product introductions).
- –
- Productivity and efficiency metrics (e.g., time-to-market, cost of innovation).
- –
- Market performance indicators (e.g., market share, customer satisfaction).
- –
- Organizational culture and climate (e.g., risk-taking, psychological safety, learning orientation).
- –
- Employee engagement and motivation (e.g., job satisfaction, creativity, entrepreneurial mindset).
- –
- Ecosystem collaboration and knowledge sharing (e.g., network centrality, diversity of partnerships).
- –
- Societal impact and sustainability (e.g., environmental footprint, social equity, ethical considerations).
- 5.
- Multilevel Interactions and Feedback Loops: Innovationology research should delve deeper into the complex, nonlinear interactions and feedback loops between the various levels of analysis (individual, team, organizational, ecosystem). By adopting systems-oriented approaches, scholars can uncover the emergent, self-organizing properties that shape innovation dynamics and outcomes (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014; Moleka, 2024d).
- 6.
- Inclusive and Sustainable Innovation: Innovationology should expand its focus to explore the crucial role of inclusive and sustainable innovation in addressing the pressing global challenges of the 21st century. This line of inquiry can shed light on the socio-economic, environmental, and ethical implications of transformative innovations, as well as the design of innovation ecosystems that foster more equitable and sustainable development (Moleka, 2024b; Rosário et al., 2024).
- 7.
- Polycentric Governance of Innovation Ecosystems: Building on the ecosystem-level determinants of innovation, Innovationology research should investigate the potential of polycentric governance models to enhance the resilience, adaptability, and inclusiveness of innovative ecosystems. This can involve examining the interplay of multiple, nested decision-making centers and their impact on innovation outcomes (Moleka, 2024c; Ostrom, 2010).
- 8.
- Innovative Mindsets and Behaviors: Innovationology should delve deeper into the cognitive, motivational, and behavioral underpinnings of innovative individuals and teams. This can include the exploration of how specific training programs, job designs, and organizational interventions can cultivate creative problem-solving skills, entrepreneurial orientation, and a growth mindset (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Dul & Ceylan, 2014).
- 9.
- Knowledge Integration and Collaboration: Innovationology should further examine the processes and mechanisms by which diverse knowledge, expertise, and perspectives are effectively integrated and leveraged to drive collaborative innovation. This can involve studying the role of boundary-spanning individuals, cross-functional teams, and knowledge-sharing platforms in fostering the co-creation of innovative solutions (Boh et al., 2016; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006).
- 10.
- Digital Transformation and Technological Disruption: As emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things, continue to transform industries and societies, Innovationology should explore the impact of digital transformation on innovation dynamics. This can include investigating how novel technological capabilities can be leveraged to enhance innovation processes, as well as the challenges and opportunities posed by technological disruption (Nambisan, 2017; Acs et al., 2017).
8. Conclusions
References
- Acs, Z. J., Audretsch. National systems of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 2017, 49, 471–490. [Google Scholar]
- Adner, R. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management 2017, 43, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adner, R., & Kapoor. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal 2010, 31, 306–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amabile, T. M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 1988, 10, 123–167. [Google Scholar]
- Amabile, T. M., & Pratt. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior 2016, 36, 157–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambos, B., Brandl. The nature of innovation in global value chains. Journal of World Business 2021, 56, 101221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, N., Potočnik. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management 2014, 40, 1297–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argote, L., & Ingram. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2000, 82, 150–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autio, E., Kenney. Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy 2014, 43, 1097–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, E., Huang. The opening of China's economy and the effects on the worldwide economy: The Chinese puzzle and the global challenges. Chinese Economic Review 2016, 38, 137–153. [Google Scholar]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boh, W. F., Nguyen. Knowledge transfer across dissimilar cultures. Journal of Knowledge Management 2016, 20, 317–339. [Google Scholar]
- Borgatti, S. P., Everett. Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications. SAGE Publications, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, T., & Stalker. The management of innovation. Tavistock. 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Burt, R. S. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 2004, 110, 349–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carst, A. E. (2023). Complementors as Innovation Ecosystem Actors: Interactions, Capabilities, Challenges.
- Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Christensen, C. M. , & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Creswell, J. W. , & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Creswell, J. W. , & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Crossan, M. M., Lane. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review 1999, 24, 522–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. Henry Holt and Company.
- Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles.
- Dul, J., & Ceylan. The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm's product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2014, 31, 1254–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, J. H., & Singh. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 1998, 23, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edquist, C. Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change 2011, 20, 1725–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 1999, 44, 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ericsson, K. A., Prietula. The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review 2006, 84, 114–121. [Google Scholar]
- 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. 1-26). Oxford University Press.
- Frenken, K. A complexity-theoretic perspective on innovation policy. Complexity, Governance & Networks 2017, 3, 35–47. [Google Scholar]
- Frodeman, R., Klein. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Grant, A. M. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 2008, 93, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
- Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science 2006, 17, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology 2009, 94, 1128–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanter, R. M. The change masters. Simon and Schuster. Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal 1983, 21, 405–425. [Google Scholar]
- Khurana, I., & Dutta. From latent to emergent entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: The role of entrepreneurial learning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2021, 167, 120694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmann, T. , Stöckmann, C., Hensellek, S., & Kensbock, J. (2017). European startup monitor 2016. German Startups Association.
- Laranja, M. , Perianez-Forte, I., & Reimeris, R. (2022). Discovery processes for transformative innovation policy. JRC131330. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 1991, 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall.
- Moleka, P. Frugal Innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development in Africa. Advanced Research in Economics and Business Strategy Journal 2024, 5, 107–117. [Google Scholar]
- Moleka, P. (2024b). Léxique des Mots Techniques dans le Domaine d'Innovation. EUE.
- Moleka, P. (2024c). Rethinking the Limits of Polycentric Governance: Towards a More Inclusive Innovation Ecosystem Framework for Sustainable Development in the Global South. Preprints. [CrossRef]
- Moleka, P. (2024d). Inclusive Innovation for African Equitable and Sustain Development. GRIN: Verlag.
- Nambisan, S. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2017, 41, 1029–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, A., Donohue. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review 2017, 27, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O'Reilly, C. A. , & Tushman, M. L. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 2004, 82, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Oltra, V. , & Saint Jean, M. Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: An application to the French automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2009, 76, 567–583. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review 2010, 100, 641–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulus, P. B. , & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.
- Pettigrew, A. M. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science 1990, 1, 267–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition (Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 77-90). Harvard Business Review.
- Powell, W. W. , Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 1996, 41, 116–145. [Google Scholar]
- Ritala, P. , & Almpanopoulou, A. In defense of 'eco' in innovation ecosystem. Technovation 2017, 60, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
- Rohrbeck, R. , Battistella, C., & Huizingh, E. Corporate foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2015, 101, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Rorty, R. Consequences of pragmatism: Essays 1982, 1972-1980. University of Minnesota Press.
- Rosário, C. , Varum, C., & Botelho, A. Unlocking the Code to Continuous Innovation: A Study of Key Determinants for Serial Innovators. Administrative Sciences 2024, 14, 45. [Google Scholar]
- Rotolo, D. , Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. What is an emerging technology? Research Policy 2015, 44, 1827–1843. [Google Scholar]
- Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.
- Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
- Schot, J. , & Steinmueller, W. E. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 2018, 47, 1554–1567. [Google Scholar]
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge.
- Shane, S. Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing 1993, 8, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonton, D. K. Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry 1999, 10, 309–328. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton, R. I. , & Hargadon, A. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 1996, 41, 685–718. [Google Scholar]
- Tabilo, M. (2023). Knowledge Integration and Entrepreneurial Innovation, a multimethod approach.
- Tellis, G. J. , Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. Radical innovation across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing 2009, 73, 3–23. [Google Scholar]
- Tidd, J. , & Bessant, J. (2018). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (6th ed.). Wiley.
- Tushman, M. L. , & O'Reilly, C. A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 1996, 38, 8–29. [Google Scholar]
- Uhl-Bien, M. , Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 2014, 25, 83–104. [Google Scholar]
- van Knippenberg, D. , De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, 89, 1008–1022. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, K. M. , & Rohracher, H. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive 'failures' framework. Research policy 2012, 41, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Zhang, W. , Zeng, X., Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Cao, X. Understanding how organizational culture affects innovation performance: A management context perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6644. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).