Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T05:37:10.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Measuring innovation performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Riitta Katila
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor Stanford University, USA.
Andy Neely
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, UK
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Patents and patent citations are increasingly used as measures of innovation performance (e.g. Katila, 2002). However, confusion exists over the applicability of these measures and over the appropriate patent citation lag to be used. This chapter examines the measurement of innovation performance through patents, focusing especially on how to measure the radicality of innovations by using patent data.

The existing literature provides a wide array of definitions of “radical” innovations. In this contribution I propose that the previous definitions of radicality can be arranged into four broad categories – industry-, organization-, user- and technologically radical – each addressing a different dimension of radicality (see table 14.1). The first category of radical innovations defines “radical” as new or disruptive to the industry. Radical new products at the level of the industry dominate and make obsolete the previous products in established markets, can give rise to new industrial sectors (Achilladelis, Schwarzkopf and Cenes, 1990) and affect the market power relations in the industry (Henderson, 1993).

The second category of radical innovations defines radical as new to the organization. Organizationally radical innovation may be defined as innovation that incorporates, for example, a technology that is new to the firm but may be well understood by others (Green, Gavin and Aiman-Smith, 1995). Organizational radicality has also been described as a degree of change the innovation makes in the existing practices of the organization. The third category defines radical as new to the users.

Type
Chapter
Information
Business Performance Measurement
Unifying Theory and Integrating Practice
, pp. 304 - 317
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achilladelis, B., Schwarzkopf, A., and Cenes, M. (1990). The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the chemical industry. Research Policy, 19, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahuja, G. (1996). Collaboration and innovation: a longitudinal study of interfirm linkages and firm patenting performance in the global advanced materials industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Albert, M., Avery, D., Narin, F., and McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrial patents. Research Policy, 20, 251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P., and Tushman, M. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant design: a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora, A., and Gambardella, A. (1994). The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labor. Research Policy, 23(5), 523–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M., Narin, F., and Wolf, P. (1981). Citation rates and technologically important patents. World Patent Information, 3, 160–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, C. M., and Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker's advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2), 233–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutta, S., and Weiss, A. (1997). The relationships between a firm's level of technological innovativeness and its pattern of partnership agreements. Management Science, 43(3), 343–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, S., Gavin, M., and Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Z. (1984). Introduction. In Griliches, Z. (ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity, 1–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. Rand Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R., and Clark, K. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R., and Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Special Issue), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., and Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katila, R. (1997). Technology strategies for growth and innovation: a study of biotechnology ventures. In Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., Mason,, C. M., Davidsson, P., and McDougall, P. P. (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research – 1997, 405–18. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.Google Scholar
Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 995–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katila, R., and Mang, P. (2003). Exploiting technological opportunities: the timing of collaborations. Research Policy, 32(2), 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortum, S., and Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting?Research Policy, 28(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P., and Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–77.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. (1989). Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 208–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In Reenen, A. (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, 509–36. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, R., and Christensen, C. (1994) Technological discontinuities, organizational capabilities and strategic commitments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 655–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shan, W., Walker, G., and Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). Economic Analysis of Product Innovation: The Case of CV Scanners. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1995). Patents as Scientific and Technical Literature. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Measuring innovation performance
  • Edited by Andy Neely, Cranfield University, UK
  • Book: Business Performance Measurement
  • Online publication: 22 September 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488481.018
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Measuring innovation performance
  • Edited by Andy Neely, Cranfield University, UK
  • Book: Business Performance Measurement
  • Online publication: 22 September 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488481.018
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Measuring innovation performance
  • Edited by Andy Neely, Cranfield University, UK
  • Book: Business Performance Measurement
  • Online publication: 22 September 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488481.018
Available formats
×