Innovation: Difference between revisions

[[Image:Edison and phonograph edit2.jpg|thumb|190px|[[Thomas Edison]] with [[phonograph]] in the late 1870s. Edison was one of the most prolific inventors in history, holding [[List of Edison patents|1,093 U.S. patents in his name]].]]

'''Innovation''' is the practical implementation of [[ideas]] that result in the introduction of new [[goods]] or [[service (economics)|services]] or improvement in offering goods or services.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1883–1950|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8493721|title=The theory of economic development : an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle|others=Opie, Redvers,, Elliott, John E.|year=1983|isbn=0-87855-698-2|location=New Brunswick, New Jersey|oclc=8493721}}</ref> [[ISO TC 279]] in the standard ISO 56000:2020 defines innovation as "a new or changed entity, realizing or redistributing [[value (economics)|value]]".<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:56000:ed-1:v1:en:term:3.1.1| title = ISO 56000:2020(en)Innovation management — Fundamentals and vocabulary | date = 2020| work = ISO }}</ref> defines innovation as "a new or changed entity realizing or redistributing [[value (economics)|value]]". Others have different definitions; a common element in the definitions is a focus on newness, improvement, and spread of ideas or technologies.

| isbn = 9789492095589978-94-92095-58-9

or [[business model]]s that '''innovators''' make available to [[Market (economics)|market]]s, [[government]]s and [[society]].

Innovation is related to, but not the same as, [[invention]]:<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation-2012-4 | title = This Is The Difference Between 'Invention' And 'Innovation' | first = Kim | last = Bhasin | date = 2 April 2012 | work = Business Insider }}</ref> innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention (i.e. new / improved ability) to make a meaningful impact in a market or society,<ref>{{citation | url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/09/10/whats-the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation/ | title= What's the Difference Between Invention and Innovation?|magazine= Forbes|date= 10 September 2015}}</ref> and not all innovations require a new invention.<ref>

Surveys of the literature on innovation have found a variety of definitions. In 2009, Baregheh et al. found around 60 definitions in different scientific papers, while a 2014 survey found over 40.<ref name="Henry2014" /> Based on their survey, Baragheh et al. attempted to defineformulate a multidisciplinary definition and arrived at the following definition:<blockquote>"Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace"<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Baregheh|first1=Anahita|last2=Rowley|first2=Jennifer|last3=Sambrook|first3=Sally|date=2009-09-04|title=Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation|url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00251740910984578/full/html|journal=Management Decision|language=en|volume=47|issue=8|pages=1323–1339|doi=10.1108/00251740910984578|issn=0025-1747}}</ref></blockquote>

In ana industrial surveystudy of how the [[software industry]] definedconsiders innovation, the following definition given by Crossan and Apaydin was considered to be the most complete,. which buildsCrossan and Apaydin built on the definition given in the [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)]] manual'sOslo definitionManual:<ref name="Henry2014">Edison, H., Ali, N.B., & Torkar, R. (2014). [https://torkar.github.io/pdfs/jss-edisonNT13.pdf Towards innovation measurement in the software industry]. ''Journal of Systems and Software'' 86(5), 1390–407.</ref> {{blockquote|Innovation is production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and the establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome.|title=|source=}}

American sociologist [[Everett Rogers]], defined it as follows:<blockquote>"An idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption"<ref>{{Cite book|last=Rogers, Everett M.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52030797|title=Diffusion of innovations|date=2003|publisher=Free Press|isbn=0-7432-2209-1|edition=5th|location=New York|oclc=52030797}}</ref></blockquote>

According to Alan Altshuler and Robert D. Behn, innovation includes original invention and creative use. and definesThese writers define innovation as a generation, admission and realization of new ideas, products, services and processes.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Innovation in American Government: Challenges, Opportunities, and Dilemmas|publisher=Brookings Inst Pr|isbn=9780815703587978-0-8157-0358-7|date=1 June 1997|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/innovationinamer0000unse}}</ref>

Two main dimensions of innovation are degree of [[novelty]] (i.e. whether an innovation is new to the firm, new to the market, new to the industry, or new to the world) and kind of innovation (i.e. whether it is process or [[product-service system]] innovation).<ref name="Henry2014" /> In organizational scholarship,Organizational researchers have also distinguished innovation to be separateseparately from creativity, by providing an updated definition of these two related constructs:{{blockquote|Workplace creativity concerns the cognitive and behavioral processes applied when attempting to generate novel ideas. Workplace innovation concerns the processes applied when attempting to implement new ideas. Specifically, innovation involves some combination of problem/opportunity identification, the introduction, adoption or modification of new ideas germane to organizational needs, the promotion of these ideas, and the practical implementation of these ideas.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hughes|first1=D. J.|last2=Lee|first2=A.|last3=Tian|first3=A. W.|last4=Newman|first4=A.|last5=Legood|first5=A.|year=2018|title=Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations|journal=The Leadership Quarterly|volume=29|issue=5|pages=549–569|doi=10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001|hdl=10871/32289|s2cid=149671044|url=https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/33129/1/LQfinalversionR2_2018.02.22.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224045013/https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/33129/1/LQfinalversionR2_2018.02.22.pdf |archive-date=2019-12-24 |url-status=live|hdl-access=free}}</ref>|title=|source=}}

In general, innovation is distinguished from [[creativity]] by its emphasis on the implementation of creative ideas in an economic setting. [[Teresa Amabile|Amabile]] and Pratt in 2016, drawing on the literature, distinguish between creativity ("the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individuals working together") and innovation ("the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization").<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Amabile |first1=Teresa M. |last2=Pratt |first2=Michael G. |title=The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning |journal=Research in Organizational Behavior |year=2016 |volume=36 |pages=157–183 |doi=10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001|s2cid=44444992 }}</ref>

Disruptive innovation is often enabled by disruptive technology. [[Marco Iansiti]] and [[Karim R. Lakhani]] define foundational technology as having the potential to create new foundations for global technology systems over the longer term. Foundational technology tends to transform business [[operating model]]s as entirely new business models [[emergence|emerge]] over many years, with gradual and steady adoption of the innovation leading to waves of [[technological change|technological]] and [[institution]]al change that gain momentum more slowly.<ref name="hbr201701">

=== Four types of innovation model ===

One type of innovation that has been the focus of recent literature is [[open innovation]] or "[[Crowdsourcing|crowd sourcing]]." Open innovation refers to the use of individuals outside of an organizational context who have no expertise in a given area to solve complex problems.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Amabile |first=Teresa |date=December 2017 |title=In Pursuit of Everyday Creativity |url=https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/18-002_ee708f75-293f-4494-bf93-df5cd96b48a6.pdf |journal=Journal of Creative Behavior |pages=2-32–3 |via=Harvard Business School}}</ref>

TheInnovation wordmust "innovation"be onceunderstood hadin athe quitehistorical differentsetting meaningin which its processes were and are taking place.<ref name=":6"/> The first full-length discussion about innovation iswas the account{{which?|date=February 2022}}published by the Greek philosopher and historian [[Xenophon]] (430–355 BCE). He viewed the concept as multifaceted and connected it to political action. The word for innovation that he uses, ''kainotomia'', had previously occurred in two plays by [[Aristophanes]] ({{circa |446}} – {{circa | 386}} BCE). [[Plato]] (died {{circa | 348}} BCE) discussed innovation in his [[Laws (dialogue) | ''Laws'']] dialogue and was not very fond of the concept. He was skeptical to it both in culture (dancing and art) and in education (he did not believe in introducing new games and toys to the kids).<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Godin, Benoit|url= https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/903958473|title=Innovation contested : the idea of innovation over the centuries |year= 2015 |isbnpublisher=Routledge 978-1-315-85560-8|locationisbn= New York, New9781315855608 York|oclc= 903958473}}</ref> [[Aristotle]] (384–322 BCE) did not like organizational innovations: he believed that all possible forms of organization had been discovered.<ref>Politics II as cited by [[Benoît Godin]] (2015).</ref>

[[Niccolò Machiavelli| Machiavelli]]'s ''[[The Prince]]'' (1513), discusses innovation in a political setting. Machiavelli portrays it as a strategy a Prince may employ in order to cope with a constantly changing world as well as the corruption within it. Here innovation is described as introducing change in government (new laws and institutions); Machiavelli's later book ''The Discourses'' (1528) characterises innovation as imitation, as a return to the original that has been corrupted by people and by time.{{cncitation needed|date=February 2022}} Thus for Machiavelli innovation came with positive connotations. This is however an exception in the usage of the concept of innovation from the 16th century and onward. No innovator from the renaissance until the late 19th century ever thought of applying the word innovator upon themselves, it was a word used to attack enemies.<ref name=":0" />

From the 1400s{{citation needed|date=September 2020}} through the 1600s, the concept of innovation was pejorative – the term was an [[Early Modern English| early-modern]] synonym for "rebellion", "revolt" and "[[heresy]]".<ref name="Mazzaferro">{{cite journal| last1= Mazzaferro|first1= Alexander| year= 2018| title= Such a Murmur": Innovation, Rebellion, and Sovereignty in William Strachey's "True Reportory| journal=Early American Literature|volume= 53 |issue= 1| pages=3–32| doi=10.1353/eal.2018.0001| s2cid=166005186}}</ref><ref name="Diss">{{cite thesis| last1= Mazzaferro| first1=Alexander McLean| url=https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/55583/| title="No newe enterprize" (Doctoral dissertation)| date=2017| publisher=Rutgers University|location=Camden, New Jersey|doi= 10.7282/T38W3HFQ| access-date=19 February 2019}}</ref><ref name="Lepore">{{cite magazine| last1= Lepore| first1= Jill | date= 23 June 2014 | title=The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong | magazine=The New Yorker |url= https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine | access-date=19 February 2019|quote= The word 'innovate'—to make new—used to have chiefly negative connotations: it signified excessive novelty, without purpose or end. [[Edmund Burke]] called the French Revolution a 'revolt of innovation'; [[Federalists]] declared themselves to be 'enemies to innovation.' [[George Washington]], on his deathbed, was said to have uttered these words: 'Beware of innovation in politics.' Noah Webster warned in his dictionary, in 1828, 'It is often dangerous to innovate on the customs of a nation.'}}</ref><ref name="Green">{{cite news| last1= Green |first1= Emma |date= 20 June 2013 | title=Innovation: The History of a Buzzword |work publisher=The Atlantic | url= https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/innovation-the-history-of-a-buzzword/277067/ | access-date=19 February 2019}}

</ref> In the 1800s{{TimeframeClarify timeframe|date=February 2022}} people promoting [[capitalism]] saw [[socialism]] as an innovation and spent a lot of energy working against it. For instance, [[Goldwin Smith]] (1823-1910) saw the spread of social innovations as an attack on money and banks. These social innovations were socialism, communism, nationalization, cooperative associations.<ref name=":0" />

In the 20th century, the concept of innovation did not become popular until after the Second World War of 1939-19451939–1945. This is the point in time when people started to talk about ''technological'' product innovation and tie it to the idea of economic growth and competitive advantage.<ref>{{Cite book|last author1=Benoit Godin, Benoit|url= https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1125747489|title= The invention of technological innovation : languages, discourses and ideology in historical perspective|others publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing| year=2019| isbn=978-1-78990-334-89781789903348|location= Cheltenham, UK|oclc=1125747489}}</ref> [[Joseph Schumpeter]] (1883–1950), iswho often{{quantify|date=Februarycontributed 2022}}greatly to the study of [[innovation economics]], is creditedseen as the one who made the term popular. Schumpeter argued that industries must incessantly revolutionize the economic structure from within, that is: innovate with better or more effective processes and products, as well as with market distribution (such as the transition from the craft shop to factory). He famously asserted that "[[creative destruction]] is the essential fact about [[capitalism]]".<ref name="capsocdem">{{cite book |author=Schumpeter, J. A. |title=Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy |publisher=Routledge |year=1943 |isbn=9780415107624 |edition=6 |pages=81–84 |author-link=Joseph heSchumpeter}}</ref> contributedIn greatly[[commerce|business]] and in [[economics]], innovation can provide a catalyst for growth when [[entrepreneur]]s continuously search for better ways to satisfy their [[Consumer demand|consumer base]] with improved quality, durability, service and price - searches which may come to fruition in innovation with advanced technologies and organizational strategies.<ref>Heyne, P., Boettke, P. J., and Prychitko, D. L. (2010). ''The Economic Way of Thinking''. Prentice Hall, 12th ed. pp. 163, 317–18.</ref> Schumpeter's findings coincided with rapid advances in [[transportation]] and [[communications]] in the studybeginning of the 20th century, which had huge impacts for the economic concepts of [[innovationfactor economicsendowment]]s and [[comparative advantage]] as new combinations of resources or production techniques constantly transform markets to satisfy consumer needs. Hence, innovative behaviour becomes relevant for economic success.<ref>{{Citation |last=Swedberg |first=Richard |title=Rebuilding Schumpeter's Theory of Entrepreneurship |date=2009-01-30 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781848446168.00018 |work=Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution |access-date=2023-12-25 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |doi=10.4337/9781848446168.00018 |isbn=978-1-84844-616-8}}</ref>

An early model included only three phases of innovation. According to Utterback (1971), these phases were: 1) idea generation, 2) problem solving, and 3) implementation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Utterback|first=James|year=1971|title=The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=14|issue=1|pagespage=78|doi=10.2307/254712 |jstor=254712 }}</ref> By the time one completed phase 2, one had an invention, but until one got it to the point of having an economic impact, one did not have an innovation. Diffusion was not considered a phase of innovation. Focus at this point in time was on manufacturing.

For instance, former Mayor [[Martin O’MalleyO'Malley]] pushed the [[City of Baltimore]] to use [[CitiStat]], a [[Performance measurement|performance-measurement]] data and management system that allows city officials to maintain statistics on several areas from crime trends to the conditions of [[pothole]]s. This system aided in better evaluation of policies and procedures with accountability and efficiency in terms of time and money. In its first year, CitiStat saved the city $13.2 million.<ref>Perez, T. and Rushing R. (2007). [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/reports/2007/04/23/2911/the-citistat-model-how-data-driven-government-can-increase-efficiency-and-effectiveness/ "The CitiStat Model: How Data-Driven Government Can Increase Efficiency and Effectiveness"]. ''Center for American Progress Report''. pp. 1–18.</ref> Even [[mass transit]] systems have innovated with [[hybrid vehicle|hybrid]] bus fleets to [[Real-time locating system|real-time tracking]] at bus stands. In addition, the growing use of [[mobile data terminal]]s in vehicles, that serve as communication hubs between vehicles and a control center, automatically send data on location, passenger counts, engine performance, mileage and other information. This tool helps to deliver and manage transportation systems.<ref>Transportation Research Board (2007). "Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 70: Mobile Data Terminals". pp. 1–5. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_70.pdf TCRP (PDF)].</ref>

Still other innovative strategies include [[hospital]]s digitizing medical information in [[electronic medical records]]. For example, the [[United States Department of Housing and Urban Development|U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development]]'s [[HOPE VI]] initiatives turned severely distressed [[public housing]] in urban areas into [[Urban renewal|revitalized]], mixed-income environments; the [[Harlem Children’sChildren's Zone]] used a community-based approach to educate local area children; and the [[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]]'s [[Brownfield regulation and development|brownfield grants]] facilitates turning over [[brownfield]]s for [[environmental protection]], [[Open space reserve|green spaces]], [[Community development|community]] and [[Commerce|commercial development]].

[[File:TechnologicalLinear Changemodel of innovation.jpgsvg|thumb|Original model of three phases of the process of Technological Change]]

In the simplest [[linear model of innovation]] the traditionally recognized source is ''manufacturer innovation''. This is where an agenta (person or business) innovates in order to sell the innovation. Specifically, R&D measurement is the commonly used input for innovation, in particular in the business sector, named Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) that grew over the years on the expenses of the declining R&D invested by the public sector.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=H. Rubin|first=Tzameret|year=2015|title=The Achilles heel of a strong private knowledge sector: evidence from Israel|url=http://nimbusvault.net/publications/koala/inimpact/papers/inkt14-011.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161224031822/http://nimbusvault.net/publications/koala/inimpact/papers/inkt14-011.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-24 |url-status=live|journal=The Journal of Innovation Impact|volume=7 |issue=1|pages=80–99}}</ref>

Another source of innovation, only now becoming widely recognized, is ''end-user innovation''. This is where ana agent (person or company) develops an innovation for their own (personal or in-house) use because existing products do not meet their needs. [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] economist [[Eric von Hippel]] has identified end-user innovation as, by far, the most important and criticalsource in his classic book on the subject, ''"The Sources of Innovation"''.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/sources/SofI.pdf |title=The Sources of Innovation |last=Von Hippel |first=Eric |author-link=Eric von Hippel |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=1988 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061012160410/http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/sources/SofI.pdf |archive-date=12 October 2006 |access-date=3 December 2015}}</ref>

An important innovation factor includes customers buying products or using services. As a result, organizations may incorporate users in [[focus group]]s (user centered approach), work closely with so-called [[lead users]] (lead user approach), or users might adapt their products themselves. The lead user method focuses on idea generation based on leading users to develop breakthrough innovations. U-STIR, a project to innovate [[Europe]]'s surface [[transportation]] system, employs such workshops.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.u-stir.eu/index.phtml?id=2537&ID1=2537&sprache=en |title=U-STIR |publisher=U-stir.eu |access-date=7 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110918055455/http://www.u-stir.eu/index.phtml?id=2537&ID1=2537&sprache=en |archive-date=18 September 2011}}</ref> Regarding this [[user innovation]], a great deal of innovation is done by those actually implementing and using technologies and products as part of their normal activities. Sometimes user-innovators may become [[entrepreneur]]s, selling their product, they may choose to trade their innovation in exchange for other innovations, or they may be adopted by their suppliers. Nowadays, they may also choose to freely reveal their innovations, using methods like [[Open-source model|open source]]. In such networks of innovation the users or communities of users can further develop technologies and reinvent their social meaning.<ref>Tuomi, I. (2002). ''Networks of Innovation''. Oxford University Press. [http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199256983 Networks of Innovation] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071105071932/http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199256983 |date=5 November 2007 }}</ref><ref>Siltala, R. (2010). [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/innovativity-cooperative-learning-business-life-teaching-siltala ''Innovativity and cooperative learning in business life and teaching'']. PhD thesis. University of Turku.</ref>

=== Goals and failures= of innovation ==

ProgramsScholars have argued that the main purpose for innovation today is [[profit maximization]] and [[Valorisation|capital valorisation]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=MacKenzie |first=Donald |date=1984 |title=Marx and the Machine |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3104202 |journal=Technology and Culture |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=473–502 |doi=10.2307/3104202 |jstor=3104202 |s2cid=113106929 |issn=0040-165X}}</ref><ref name=":6"/> Consequently, programs of organizational innovation are typically tightly linked to organizational goals and growth objectives, to the [[business plan]], and to [[Market (economics)|market]] [[Competition (companies)|competitive positioning]]. Davila et al. (2006) note, "Companies cannot grow through cost reduction and reengineering alone... Innovation is the key element in providing aggressive top-line growth, and for increasing bottom-line results".<ref name="Making Innovation Work">Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., and Shelton, R. (2006). "Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It." Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.</ref> One survey across a large number of manufacturing and services organizations found that systematic programs of organizational innovation are most frequently driven by: improved [[quality (business)|quality]], creation of new [[Market (economics)|market]]s, extension of the [[product (business)|product]] range, reduced [[labor cost]]s, improved [[production process]]es, reduced materials cost, reduced [[environmental damage]], replacement of [[product (business)|product]]s/[[Service (economics)|services]], reduced [[energy]] consumption, and conformance to [[regulation]]s.<ref name="Making Innovation Work" />

Measuring innovation is inherently difficult as it implies commensurability so that comparisons can be made in quantitative terms. Innovation, however, is by definition novelty. Comparisons are thus often meaningless across products or service.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Oxford handbook of innovation|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|others=Fagerberg, Jan., Mowery, David C., Nelson, Richard R.|isbn=9780199264551978-0-19-926455-1|location=Oxford|oclc=56655392}}</ref> Nevertheless, Edison et al.<ref name="Henry2013">{{cite journal|last1=Edison|first1=H.|last2=Ali|first2=N.B.|last3=Torkar|first3=R.|year=2013|title=Towards innovation measurement in the software industry|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256991991|journal=Journal of Systems and Software|volume=86|issue=5|pages=1390–1407|doi=10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.013|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> in their review of literature on [[innovation management]] found 232 innovation metrics. They categorized these measures along five dimensions; i.e. inputs to the innovation process, output from the innovation process, effect of the innovation output, measures to access the activities in an innovation process and availability of factors that facilitate such a process.<ref name="Henry2013" />

Other ways of measuring innovation have traditionally been expenditure, for example, investment in R&D (Research and Development) as percentage of GNP (Gross National Product). Whether this is a good measurement of innovation has been widely discussed and the Oslo Manual has incorporated some of the critique against earlier methods of measuring. The traditional methods of measuring still inform many policy decisions. The EU [[Lisbon Strategy]] has set as a goal that their average expenditure on R&D should be 3% of GDP.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/ |title=Industrial innovation – Enterprise and Industry |publisher=European Commission |access-date=7 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110827125633/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/ |archive-date=27 August 2011}}</ref>

A common industry view (unsupported by empirical evidence) is that comparative [[cost-effectiveness]] research is a form of [[price controls|price control]] which reduces returns to industry, and thus limits R&D expenditure, stifles future innovation and compromises new products access to markets.<ref>{{cite journal|pmid=19523121|pmc=2881450|year=2009|last1=Chalkidou|first1=K.|title=Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: Experience from four countries|journal=The Milbank Quarterly|volume=87|issue=2|pages=339–67|last2=Tunis|first2=S.|last3=Lopert|first3=R.|last4=Rochaix|first4=L.|last5=Sawicki|first5=P. T.|last6=Nasser|first6=M.|last7=Xerri|first7=B.|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00560.x}}</ref>

An Australian academic developed the case that national comparative [[cost-effectiveness analysis]] systems should be viewed as measuring "health innovation" as an [[evidence-based policy]] concept for valuing innovation distinct from valuing through competitive markets, a method which requires strong [[anti-trust]] laws to be effective, on the basis that both methods of assessing [[pharmaceutical innovations]] are mentioned in annex 2C.1 of the [[AUSFTA|Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Faunce |first1=T. |last2=Bai |first2=J. |last3=Nguyen |first3=D. |title=Impact of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement on Australian medicines regulation and prices |journal=[[Journal of Generic Medicines]] |year=2010 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=18–29 |doi=10.1057/jgm.2009.40 |s2cid=154433476 |url=https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/51254/9/Faunce_Journal_Evidence_JGM.pdf.jpg |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416220209/https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/51254/9/Faunce_Journal_Evidence_JGM.pdf.jpg |archive-date=2021-04-16 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Faunce TA|title=Global intellectual property protection of 'innovative' pharmaceuticals: Challenges for bioethics and health law in B Bennett and G Tomossy|website=Law.anu.edu.au|publisher=Globalization and Health Springer|year=2006|url=http://law.anu.edu.au/StaffUploads/236-Ch%20Globalisation%20and%20Health%20Fau.pdf|access-date=18 June 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110414040804/http://law.anu.edu.au/StaffUploads/236-Ch%20Globalisation%20and%20Health%20Fau.pdf|archive-date=14 April 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Faunce |first=T. A. |title=Reference pricing for pharmaceuticals: is the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement affecting Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? |journal=Medical Journal of Australia |year=2007 |volume=187 |issue=4 |pages=240–42|pmid=17564579 |doi=10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01209.x |s2cid=578533 }}</ref>

* [[Bloomberg Innovation Index]]

* "Bogota Manual"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ricyt.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=149&Itemid=2 |title=Bogota Manual. Standardisation of Indicators of Technological Innovation in Latin American and Caribbean Countries |authorsauthor=Hernán Jaramillo, |author2=Gustavo Lugones, |author3=Mónica Salazar |date=March 2001 |publisher=Iberoamerican Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT) Organisation of American States (OAS) / CYTED PROGRAM COLCIENCIAS/OCYT |page=87 |language=en}}</ref> similar to the Oslo Manual, is focused on Latin America and the Caribbean countries.{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}

* "Creative Class" developed by [[Richard Florida]]{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}

* [[EIU Innovation Ranking]]<ref>{{Cite news|title=Social Innovation Index 2016|url=https://eiuperspectives.economist.com/technology-innovation/old-problems-new-solutions-measuring-capacity-social-innovation-across-world-0|access-date=2021-04-07|newspaper=Economist Impact &#124; Perspectives|language=en}}</ref>

* [[Global Competitiveness Report]]

* [[Global Innovation Index]] (GII), by [[INSEAD]]<ref>{{cite web|website=INSEAD|url=http://knowledge.insead.edu/entrepreneurship-innovation/global-innovation-index-2930|title=The INSEAD Global Innovation Index (GII)|date=28 October 2013}}</ref>

* [[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation|Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Index]]

* [https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/subtopics/inn?country=USA Innovation 360] – From the World Bank. Aggregates innovation indicators (and more) from a number of different public sources

* Innovation Capacity Index (ICI) published by a large number of international professors working in a collaborative fashion. The top scorers of ICI 2009–2010 were: 1. Sweden 82.2; 2. Finland 77.8; and 3. United States 77.5<ref>{{cite web|website=Innovation Capacity Index|title=Home page|url=http://www.innovationfordevelopmentreport.org/ici.html}}</ref>

* Innovation Union Scoreboard, developed by the [[European Union]]

* [[innovationsindikator]] for Germany, developed by the [[:de:Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie|Federation of German Industries]] (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) in 2005<ref>[http://www.innovationsindikator.de Innovations Indikator] retrieved 7 March 2017</ref>

* [[INSEAD]] Innovation Efficacy Index<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511446/the-innovation-efficiency-index/|work=Technology Review|title=The INSEAD Innovation Efficiency Inndex|date=February 2016}}</ref>

* [[International Innovation Index]], produced jointly by [[The Boston Consulting Group]], the [[National Association of Manufacturers]] (NAM) and its nonpartisan research affiliate The Manufacturing Institute, is a worldwide index measuring the level of innovation in a country; NAM describes it as the "largest and most comprehensive global index of its kind"{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Adsule|first=Anil|year=2015|title=INNOVATION LEADING THE WAY TO REVOLUTION|url=http://msmspune.com/images_New/Research/pepars/2015/02-2015-Dr.Joe_Lopez.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801213556/http://msmspune.com/images_New/Research/pepars/2015/02-2015-Dr.Joe_Lopez.pdf |archive-date=2020-08-01 |url-status=live|journal=International Journal of Business and Administration Research Review|volume= 2, Issue.11|via=Google scholar}}</ref>

* Management Innovation Index – Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index<ref>{{Cite book|chapter=Model for Managing Intangibility of Organizational Creativity: Management Innovation Index|journalpages= 1300–1307|author=Kerle, Ralph |title=Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship|pages= 1300–1307|author=Kerle, Ralph |doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_35|year = 2013|isbn = 978-1-4614-3857-1}}</ref>

* [[World Competitiveness Scoreboard]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.imd.org/uupload/IMD.WebSite/wcc/WCYResults/1/scoreboard_2014.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140630000343/http://www.imd.org/uupload/IMD.WebSite/wcc/WCYResults/1/scoreboard_2014.pdf |archive-date=2014-06-30 |url-status=live|website=IMD.org|year=2014 |title=The World Competitiveness Scoreboard 2014}}</ref>

Common areas of focus include: [[high-tech]] companies, [[manufacturing]], [[patent]]s, [[post secondary education]], [[research and development]], and research personnel. The left ranking of the top 10 countries below is based on the 2020 [[Bloomberg Innovation Index]].<ref>{{Cite news|title=Germany Breaks Korea's Six-Year Streak as Most Innovative Nation|publisher=Bloomberg L.P.|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-18/germany-breaks-korea-s-six-year-streak-as-most-innovative-nation|url-status=live|access-date=17 March 2021}}</ref> However, studies may vary widely; for example the [[Global Innovation Index]] 2016 ranks [[Switzerland]] as number one wherein countries like [[South Korea]], [[Japan]], and [[China]] do not even make the top ten.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://de.statista.com/infografik/5509/die-10-innovativsten-laender-weltweit-nach-dem-global-innovation-index/|title=Infografik: Schweiz bleibt globaler Innovationsführer|website=Statista Infografiken|publisher=Statista (In German)|access-date=25 November 2016}}</ref>

{{Columns-start|width=50%}}

|83.93

{{Column}}

{{Column}}

In 2005 [[Jonathan Huebner]], a [[physicist]] working at the [[Pentagon Building|Pentagon]]'s [[Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake|Naval Air Warfare Center]], argued on the basis of both U.S. [[patent]]s and world technological breakthroughs, per capita, that the rate of human technological innovation peaked in 1873 and has been slowing ever since.<ref name=Huebner>{{Cite journal | last1 = Huebner | first1 = J. | title = A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation | doi = 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003 | journal = [[Technological Forecasting and Social Change]] | volume = 72 | issue = 8 | pages = 980–986 | year = 2005 | url = https://zenodo.org/record/1259385 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050707/7inventor.htm|title=Science: Wanna be an inventor? Don't bother|last=Hayden|first=Thomas|date=7 July 2005|work=U.S. News & World Report|access-date=10 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101195406/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050707/7inventor.htm|archive-date=1 November 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> In his article, he asked "Will the level of technology reach a maximum and then decline as in the Dark Ages?"<ref name=Huebner/> In later comments to ''[[New Scientist]]'' magazine, Huebner clarified that while he believed that we will reach a rate of innovation in 2024 equivalent to that of the [[Dark Ages (historiography)|Dark Ages]], he was not predicting the reoccurrence of the Dark Ages themselves.<ref>{{cite news|last=Adler|first=Robert|title=Entering a dark age of innovation|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7616-entering-a-dark-age-of-innovation.html|access-date=30 May 2013|newspaper=New Scientist|date=2 July 2005}}</ref>

John Smart criticized the claim and asserted that [[technological singularity]] researcher [[Ray Kurzweil]] and others showed a "clear trend of acceleration, not deceleration" when it came to innovations.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Smart | first1 = J. | title = Discussion of Huebner article | doi = 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.07.001 | journal = [[Technological Forecasting and Social Change]] | volume = 72 | issue = 8 | pages = 988–995 | year = 2005 }}</ref> The foundation replied to Huebner the journal his article was published in, citing [[Second Life]] and [[eHarmony]] as proof of accelerating innovation; to which Huebner replied.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Huebner|first1=Jonathan|title=Response by the Authors|journal=[[Technological Forecasting and Social Change]]|volume=72|issue=8|pages=995–1000|doi=10.1016/j.techfore.2005.05.008|year=2005}}</ref>

However, Huebner's findings were confirmed in 2010 with [[U.S. Patent Office]] data.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Strumsky | first1 = D. | last2 = Lobo | first2 = J. | last3 = Tainter | first3 = J. A. | doi = 10.1002/sres.1057 | title = Complexity and the productivity of innovation | journal = Systems Research and Behavioral Science | volume = 27 | issue = 5 | page = 496 | year = 2010 | doi-access = free }}</ref> and in a 2012 paper.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gordon |first1=Robert J. |title=Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds |journal=NBER Working Paper No. 18315 |year=2012 |doi=10.3386/w18315 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

The theme of innovation as a tool to disrupting patterns of poverty has gained momentum since the mid-2000s among major [[international development]] actors such as [[DFID]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dfid.blog.gov.uk/author/jonathan-wong-head-of-dfids-innovation-hub/ |title=Jonathan Wong, Head of DFID's Innovation Hub &#124; DFID bloggers |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |date=24 September 2014 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> [[Gates Foundation]]'s use of the [[Grand Challenge]] funding model,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2014/10/Gates-Foundation-Grand-Challenges-Breakthrough-Science |title=Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Grand Challenge Partners Commit to Innovation with New Investments in Breakthrough Science – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |website=Gatesfoundation.org |date=7 October 2014 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> and [[USAID]]'s Global Development Lab.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usaid.gov/GlobalDevLab |title=Global Development Lab &#124; U.S. Agency for International Development |website=Usaid.gov |date=5 August 2015 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> Networks have been established to support innovation in development, such as D-Lab at [[MIT]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://d-lab.mit.edu/idin |title=International Development Innovation Network (IDIN) &#124; D-Lab |website=D-lab.mit.edu |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> Investment funds have been established to identify and catalyze innovations in [[developing countries]], such as DFID's [[Global Innovation Fund]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/international-development-funding/global-innovation-fund |title=Global Innovation Fund International development funding |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> [[Human Development Innovation Fund]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hdif-tz.org |title=Human Development Innovation Fund (HDIF) |website=Hdif-tz.org |date=14 August 2015 |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> and (in partnership with USAID) the Global Development Innovation Ventures.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/usaid-and-dfid-announce-global-development-innovation-ventures |title=USAID and DFID Announce Global Development Innovation Ventures to Invest in Breakthrough Solutions to World Poverty &#124; U.S. Agency for International Development |website=Usaid.gov |date=6 June 2013 |access-date=14 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504030509/https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/usaid-and-dfid-announce-global-development-innovation-ventures |archive-date=4 May 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The United States has to continue to play on the same level of playing field as its competitors in federal research. This can be achieved being strategically innovative through investment in basic research and science".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/article/21121160/declining-federal-research-undercuts-the-us-strategy-of-innovation|title=StackPath|website=industryweek.com|date=22 January 2020 |access-date=28 April 2020}}</ref>

For instance, experts are advocating that the U.S. federal government launch a National Infrastructure Foundation, a nimble, collaborative strategic intervention organization that will house innovations programs from fragmented silos under one entity, inform federal officials on innovation [[performance measurement|performance metrics]], strengthen industry-university partnerships, and support innovation [[economic development]] initiatives, especially to strengthen [[business cluster|regional clusters]]. Because clusters are the geographic incubators of innovative products and processes, a cluster development grant program would also be targeted for implementation. By focusing on innovating in such areas as precision [[manufacturing]], [[information technology]], and [[clean energy]], other areas of national concern would be tackled including [[government debt]], [[carbon footprint]], and [[oil dependence]].<ref name="MetroPolicy"/> The U.S. [[Economic Development Administration]] understand this reality in their continued Regional Innovation Clusters initiative.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eda.gov/PDF/EDA_FY_2010_Annual_Report.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110922001813/http://www.eda.gov/PDF/EDA_FY_2010_Annual_Report.pdf |archive-date=2011-09-22 |url-status=live |title=U.S. Economic Development Administration : Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report |website=Eda.gov |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref> The United States also has to integrate her supply-chain and improve her applies research capability and downstream process innovation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/05/the-american-way-of-innovation-and-its-deficiencies/|title=The American Way of Innovation and Its Deficiencies|date=20 May 2018|website=American Affairs Journal|language=en-US|access-date=28 April 2020}}</ref>

Many countries recognize the importance of innovation including Japan's [[Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology]] (MEXT);<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mext.go.jp/english/a06.htm |title=Science and Technology |publisher=MEXT |access-date=7 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110905171421/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/a06.htm |archive-date=5 September 2011}}</ref> Germany's [[Federal Ministry of Education and Research]];<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmbf.de/en/Ministry.php |title=BMBF " Ministry |publisher=Bmbf.de |access-date=7 September 2011}}</ref> and the [[Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China|Ministry of Science and Technology]] in the People's Republic of China. Russia's innovation programme is the [[Medvedev modernisation programme]] which aims to create a diversified economy based on high technology and innovation. The [[Government of Western Australia]] has established a number of innovation incentives for government departments. [[Landgate]] was the first Western Australian government agency to establish its Innovation Program.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/innovation |title=Home |website=Landgate.wa.gov.au |publisher=Landgate Innovation Program |access-date=14 March 2016}}</ref>

Some [[regions]] have taken a proactive role in supporting innovation. Many regional governments are setting up innovation agencies to strengthen regional capabilities.<ref>Morisson, A. & Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science,6(1),101–116. https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21681376.2019.1578257.</ref> In 2009, the municipality of [[Medellin]],Business [[Colombiaincubator]]s createdwere [[Rutafirst N]]introduced toin transform1959 theand citysubsequently intonurtured aby knowledgegovernments cityaround the world.<ref>{{Cite journalSuch |"incubators", doi=10.1080/23792949.2018.1538702|titlelocated =close Knowledgeto Gatekeepersknowledge andclusters Path(mostly Developmentresearch-based) onlike theuniversities Knowledgeor Periphery:other Thegovernment Case[[Center of Rutaexcellence|excellence Ncentre]]s in– Medellin,aim Colombia|primarily journal=Areato Developmentchannel andgenerated Policy|volumeknowledge =to 4|applied pages=98–115|yearinnovation =outcomes 2018|last1in =order Morisson|first1to =stimulate Arnault|s2cidregional =or 169689111}}national [[economic growth]].</ref>

{{wiktwiktionary | innovation}}

* {{cite book |title=Where Good Ideas Come From |author=Steven Johnson |publisher=Riverhead Books |isbn=9781594485381978-1-59448-538-1 |year=2011}}

* {{cite book| title=Stretch: Unlock the Power of Less and Achieve More Than You Ever Imagined |year=2017 |first=Scott |last=Sonenshein |publisher=Harper Business |isbn=978-00624572260-06-245722-6}}