Innovation: Difference between revisions

'''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|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.

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>

The concept of innovation emerged after the Second World War, mostly thanks to the works of [[Joseph Schumpeter]] (1883–1950) who described the economic effects of innovation processes as ''[[Creative destruction|Constructive destruction]]''. Today, consistent neo-Schumpeterian scholars see innovation not as neutral or apolitical processes.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Jasanoff |first1=Sheila |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.001.0001 |title=Dreamscapes of Modernity |last2=Kim |first2=Sang-Hyun |date=2015 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |doi=10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.001.0001 |isbn=978-0-226-27652-6}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Papaioannou |first=Theo |date=2020-05-03 |title=Innovation, value-neutrality and the question of politics: unmasking the rhetorical and ideological abuse of evolutionary theory |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2019.1605484 |journal=Journal of Responsible Innovation |language=en |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=238–255 |doi=10.1080/23299460.2019.1605484 |s2cid=159275720 |issn=2329-9460}}</ref> Rather, innovation can be seen as socially constructed processes. Therefore, its conception depends on the political and societal context in which innovation is taking place.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1name=Robra |first1=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https":6"//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> According to Shannon Walsh, “innovation"innovation today is best understood as innovation under capital”capital" (p. &nbsp;346).<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Walsh |first=Shannon |date=2021-05-21 |title=Marx, subsumption and the critique of innovation |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13505084211015377 |journal=Organization |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=345–360 |doi=10.1177/13505084211015377 |s2cid=236375680 |issn=1350-5084}}</ref> This means that the current hegemonic purpose for innovation is capital valorisation and profit maximization, exemplified by the appropriation of knowledge (e.g., through [[Patent|patentingpatent]]ing), the widespread practice of [[Planned obsolescence]] (incl. lack of [[Repairability|repairability by design]]), and the [[Jevons paradox]], that describes negative consequences of eco-efficiency as energy-reducing effects tend to trigger mechanisms leading to energy-increasing effects.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lange |first1=Steffen |last2=Pohl |first2=Johanna |last3=Santarius |first3=Tilman |date=2020-10-01 |title=Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand? |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919320622 |journal=Ecological Economics |volume=176 |pages=106760 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106760 |bibcode=2020EcoEc.17606760L |s2cid=224947774 |issn=0921-8009}}</ref>

One framework proposed by [[Clayton Christensen]] draws a distinction between sustaining and [[disruptive innovation]]s.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Bower|first1=Joseph L.|last2=Christensen|first2=Clayton M.|date=1 January 1995|title=Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave|work=Harvard Business Review|issue=January–February 1995|url=https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave|access-date=16 August 2020|issn=0017-8012}}</ref> Sustaining innovation is the improvement of a product or service based on the known needs of current customers (e.g. faster microprocessors, flat screen televisions). The sustaining innovation is a continuous improvement over existing products in order to reap more profit from the existing customers. For example, shift of Desktop Computers to Laptop Computers then shifting to [[Virtual machine|Virtual Machines]] ([[Cloud computing|Cloud Computing]]). Disruptive innovation in contrast refers to a process by which a new product or service creates a new market (e.g. transistor radio, free crowdsourced encyclopedia, etc.), eventually displacing established competitors.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Christensen|first1=Clayton M.|last2=Raynor|first2=Michael E.|last3=McDonald|first3=Rory|date=1 December 2015|title=What Is Disruptive Innovation?|work=Harvard Business Review|issue=December 2015|url=https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation|access-date=16 August 2020|issn=0017-8012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Disruptive Innovations|url=https://www.christenseninstitute.org/disruptive-innovations/|access-date=16 August 2020|publisher=Christensen Institute|language=en-US}}</ref> According to Christensen, disruptive innovations are critical to long-term success in business.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Christensen, Clayton & Overdorf, Michael|year=2000|title=Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change|url=https://hbr.org/2000/03/meeting-the-challenge-of-disruptive-change|journal=Harvard Business Review}}</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=2–3 |via=Harvard Business School}}</ref>

Innovation must be understood in the historical setting in which its processes were and are taking place. <ref>{{Cite journal |last1name=Robra |first1=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https":6"//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> The first full-length discussion about innovation was 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 |title=Innovation contested: the idea of innovation over the centuries |year= 2015 |publisher=Routledge |isbn= 9781315855608 |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| 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 }}</ref><ref name="Green">{{cite news| last1= Green |first1= Emma |date= 20 June 2013 | title=Innovation: The History of a Buzzword | 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| author1=Benoit Godin| title= The invention of technological innovation: languages, discourses and ideology in historical perspective| publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing| year=2019| isbn=9781789903348| oclc=1125747489}}</ref> [[Joseph Schumpeter]] (1883–1950), who contributed greatly to the study of [[innovation economics]], is seen 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 Schumpeter}}</ref> In [[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 beginning of the 20th century, which had huge impacts for the economic concepts of [[factor endowment]]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|page=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.

A prime example of innovation involved the boom of [[Silicon Valley]] start-ups out of the [[Stanford Industrial Park]]. In 1957, dissatisfied employees of [[Shockley Semiconductor]], the company of [[Nobel laureate]] [[William Shockley]], co-inventor of the [[transistor]], left to form an independent firm, [[Fairchild Semiconductor]]. After several years, Fairchild developed into a formidable presence in the sector.{{which?|date=February 2022}} Eventually, these founders left to start their own companies based on their own unique ideas, and then leading employees started their own firms. Over the next 20 years this process resulted in the momentous [[startup company|startup-company]] explosion of [[information technology|information-technology]] firms.{{cncitation needed|date=February 2022}} Silicon Valley began as 65 new enterprises born out of Shockley's eight former employees.<ref>{{cite web |title=Silicon Valley History & Future |url=http://www.netvalley.com/svhistory.html |access-date=14 March 2016 |publisher=Netvalley.com}}</ref>

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

In the 21st century the [[Islamic State]] (IS) movement, while decrying [[Bidʻah | religious innovation]]s, has innovated in military tactics, recruitment, [[ideology]] and geopolitical activity.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hashim |first1=Ahmed S. |title=The Caliphate at War: The Ideological, Organisational and Military Innovations of Islamic State |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2018 |isbn=9781849046435 |page=7}}</ref><ref>

Scholars 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>{{Cite journal |last1name=Robra |first1=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https":6"//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> 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" />

Failure of organizational innovation programs has been widely researched and the causes vary considerably. Some causes are external to the organization and outside its influence of control. Others are internal and ultimately within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be divided into causes associated with the cultural infrastructure and causes associated with the innovation process itself. David O'Sullivan wrote that causes of failure within the innovation process in most organizations can be distilled into five types: poor goal definition, poor alignment of actions to goals, poor participation in teams, poor monitoring of results, and poor communication and [[access to information]].<ref>{{cite journal|author=O'Sullivan, David |year=2002|title=Framework for Managing Development in the Networked Organisations|journal=Journal of Computers in Industry|volume= 47|issue=1|pages=77–88|doi=10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00135-X}}</ref>

Innovation is generally framed as an inherently positive force, delivering growth and prosperity for all, and is often deemed as both inevitable and unstoppable.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1name=Robra |first1=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https":6"//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972}}</ref> In this sense, future innovations are often hailed as solutions to current problems, such as [[climate change]]. This business-as-usual approach would mean continued and increased [[globalization]] as well as quick innovation cycles which supposedly will maximize the competitiveness of processes, in the end leading to [[Eco-economic decoupling]] or [[Green growth]]. Yet, it is unclear whether innovative solutions will be capable of solving the climate crisis: According to Mario Giampietro and [[Silvio Funtowicz]] (2020), this positive framing of innovation "demonstrates [a] lack of understanding of the biophysical roots of the economic process and the seriousness of the sustainability crisis".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Giampietro |first1=Mario |last2=Funtowicz |first2=Silvio O. |date=2020-07-01 |title=From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 |journal=Environmental Science & Policy |volume=109 |pages=64–72 |doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.012 |issn=1462-9011|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020ESPol.109...64G |hdl=11250/2730163 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This is due to the fact that innovation can be understood in its specific historic and cultural context: The prevailing hegemonic view on innovation, as emphasized by Ben Robra et al. (2023), aligns closely with capitalist mode of production, shown by the mantra of 'innovate or die.'<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Robra |first1=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223000718 |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972|doi-access=free |hdl=11093/4788 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> From this viewpoint, innovation is primarily driven by the imperative of capital accumulation, serving the sole purpose of increasing returns, neglecting societal needs such as a clean environment or [[social equality]] and in general the biophysical limits of our planet.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hoekstra |first1=Arjen Y. |last2=Wiedmann |first2=Thomas O. |date=2014-06-06 |title=Humanity's unsustainable environmental footprint |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1248365 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=344 |issue=6188 |pages=1114–1117 |doi=10.1126/science.1248365 |pmid=24904155 |bibcode=2014Sci...344.1114H |s2cid=206553617 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rockström |first1=Johan |last2=Steffen |first2=Will |last3=Noone |first3=Kevin |last4=Persson |first4=Åsa |last5=Chapin |first5=F. Stuart |last6=Lambin |first6=Eric F. |last7=Lenton |first7=Timothy M. |last8=Scheffer |first8=Marten |last9=Folke |first9=Carl |last10=Schellnhuber |first10=Hans Joachim |last11=Nykvist |first11=Björn |last12=de Wit |first12=Cynthia A. |last13=Hughes |first13=Terry |last14=van der Leeuw |first14=Sander |last15=Rodhe |first15=Henning |date=September 2009 |title=A safe operating space for humanity |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=461 |issue=7263 |pages=472–475 |doi=10.1038/461472a |pmid=19779433 |bibcode=2009Natur.461..472R |issn=0028-0836}}</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>

* [[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 |author=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|pages= 1300–1307|author=Kerle, Ralph |title=Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship |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>

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

|83.93

{{Column}}

{{Column}}

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>

Innovation in the prevailing hegemonic view today mostly refers to 'innovation under capital',<ref name=":5" /> due to the prevailing capitalist nature of the global economy. In contrast, Robra et al. (2023) propose a counter-hegemonic view on innovation.<ref name=":6" /> This alternative lens revises the centrality of capital accumulation as the primary goal of innovation. Instead of being solely driven by profit motives, a counter-hegemonic understanding sees innovation as a means to create [[Use value|user-value]], with a focus on satisfying societal needs. This view on innovation is underpinned by [[open access]] to knowledge, adaptability, repairability, and maintenance of products as well as [[Eco-sufficiency]], defining progress not by efficiency but by staying within planetary boundaries, thereby challenging the hegemonic belief in [[The Limits to Growth|limitless growth]]. This perspective is exemplified by [[Commons-based peer production|commons-based peer production (CBPP)]], offering an alternative vision of innovation that prioritizes conviviality over relentless competition. In essence, this counter-hegemonic view describes a more socially and ecologically conscious approach to innovation, striving for a balance between technological progress and human wellbeing.

{{wiktwiktionary | innovation}}