Content deleted Content added
m formatting, replaced: “ → ", ” → ", typo(s) fixed: 1939-1945 → 1939–1945 |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
[[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|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>
Innovation often takes place through the development of more-effective [[product (business)|product]]s, processes, [[Service (economics)|service]]s, [[technologies]], [[art work]]s<ref>
Line 19:
}}
</ref>
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> {{cite book
| last1 = Schumpeter
Line 52 ⟶ 54:
In 1957 the economist [[Robert Solow]] was able to demonstrate that [[economic growth]] had two components. The first component could be attributed to growth in [[Production (economics)|production]] including [[wage labour]] and [[Capital (economics)|capital]]. The second component was found to be [[productivity]]. Ever since, economic historians have tried to explain the process of innovation itself, rather than assuming that technological inventions and technological progress result in productivity growth.<ref>{{cite book | author1=Leonard Dudley |title=Mothers of Innovation: How Expanding Social Networks Gave Birth to the Industrial Revolution |publisher= Cambridge Scholars Publishing |year=2012 |page=4 |isbn=9781443843126 }}</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 name=":6"/> According to Shannon Walsh, "innovation today is best understood as innovation under capital" (p. 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]]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>
== Types ==
Line 61 ⟶ 63:
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). 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">
{{cite news |last1=Iansiti|first1=Marco |last2=Lakhani|first2=Karim R. |url=https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchain |title=The Truth About Blockchain |work=[[Harvard Business Review]] |publisher=[[Harvard University]] |date=January 2017 |access-date=17 January 2017 |quote=a foundational technology: It has the potential to create new foundations for our economic and social systems. }}</ref>{{Additional citation needed|date=August 2020}} The advent of the [[packet-switched]] communication protocol [[TCP/IP]]—originally introduced in 1972 to support a single [[use case]] for [[United States Department of Defense]] electronic communication (email), and which gained widespread adoption only in the mid-1990s with the advent of the [[World Wide Web]]—is a foundational technology.<ref name="hbr201701" />
=== Four types of innovation model ===
Another framework was suggested by Henderson and Clark. They divide innovation into four types;
* '''Radical innovation''': "establishes a new dominant design and, hence, a new set of core design concepts embodied in components that are linked together in a new architecture." (p. 11)<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Henderson|first1=Rebecca M.|last2=Clark|first2=Kim B.|date=March 1990|title=Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms|journal=Administrative Science Quarterly|volume=35|issue=1|page=9|doi=10.2307/2393549|jstor=2393549|s2cid=6255046 |issn=0001-8392|url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37971074 }}</ref>
* '''Incremental innovation''': "refines and extends an established design. Improvement occurs in individual components, but the underlying core design concepts, and the links between them, remain the same." (p. 11)<ref name=":1" />
Line 75 ⟶ 76:
===Non-economic innovation===
As distinct from business-centric views of innovation concentrating on generating profit for a firm, other types of innovation include: [[social innovation]], religious innovation,<ref>
{{cite book
|editor-last1 = Williams
|editor-first1 = Michael A.
|editor-last2 = Cox
|editor-first2 = Collett
|editor-last3 = Jaffee
|editor-first3 = Martin S.
|year = 1992
|title = Innovation in Religious Traditions: Essays in the Interpretation of Religious Change
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=AD2hShiXNjEC
|series = Religion and society (volume 31)
|publication-place = Berlin
|publisher = Walter de Gruyter
|isbn = 9783110127805
|access-date = 16 February 2024
}}
</ref>
[[sustainable innovation]] (or [[green innovation]]),<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1= Schiederig|first1= Tim|last2= Tietze|first2= Frank|last3= Herstatt|first3= Cornelius|date= 22 February 2012|title= Green innovation in technology and innovation management – an exploratory literature review|journal= R&D Management|volume= 42|issue=2|pages= 180–192|doi= 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00672.x|s2cid=153958119|issn=0033-6807}}
</ref>
and [[responsible innovation]].<ref>
{{Citation|last1= Blok|first1= Vincent|year= 2015|work=Responsible Innovation 2|pages=19–35|place= Cham|publisher= Springer International Publishing|isbn=978-3-319-17307-8|last2=Lemmens|first2=Pieter|title=The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2|hdl=2066/150613|hdl-access=free}}
</ref>
=== Open innovation ===
Line 98 ⟶ 121:
== Process of innovation ==
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
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.{{citation 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>
Line 112 ⟶ 135:
Innovation may occur due to effort from a range of different agents, by chance, or as a result of a major system failure. According to [[Peter F. Drucker]], the general sources of innovations are changes in industry structure, in market structure, in local and global demographics, in human perception, in the amount of available scientific knowledge, etc.<ref name="Drucker" />
[[File:
In the simplest [[linear model of innovation]] the traditionally recognized source is ''manufacturer innovation''. This is where a person or business innovates in order to sell the innovation.
Line 149 ⟶ 172:
=== Environmental and social innovation failures ===
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 name=":6"/> 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
==Diffusion==
Line 184 ⟶ 207:
Many scholars claim that there is a great bias towards the "science and technology mode" (S&T-mode or STI-mode), while the "learning by doing, using and interacting mode" (DUI-mode) is ignored and measurements and research about it rarely done. For example, an institution may be high tech with the latest equipment, but lacks crucial doing, using and interacting tasks important for innovation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION - European Journal of Natural History (scientific magazine)|url=https://world-science.ru/en/article/view?id=33506|access-date=2021-04-07|website=world-science.ru}}</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>
Some academics claim cost-effectiveness research is a valuable value-based measure of innovation which accords "truly significant" therapeutic advances (i.e. providing "health gain") higher prices than free market mechanisms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roughead |first1=E. |last2=Lopert |first2=R. |last3=Sansom |first3=L. |title=Prices for innovative pharmaceutical products that provide health gain: a comparison between Australia and the United States |journal=Value in Health |year=2007 |volume=10 |issue=6 |pages=514–20 |doi=10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00206.x |pmid=17970935 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Such [[value-based pricing]] has been viewed as a means of indicating to industry the type of innovation that should be rewarded from the public purse.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hughes |first=B. |title=Payers Growing Influence on R&D Decision Making |journal=Nature Reviews Drug Discovery |year=2008 |volume=7 |issue= 11|pages=876–78 |doi=10.1038/nrd2749 |pmid=18974741 |s2cid=10217053 }}</ref>
Line 191 ⟶ 214:
===Indices===
Several indices attempt to measure innovation and rank entities based on these measures, such as:
* [[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 | 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 Index, developed by the [[Indiana Business Research Center]], to measure innovation capacity at the county or regional level in the United States<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/data.html |title=Tools |publisher=Statsamerica.org |access-date=7 September 2011}}</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>
* NYCEDC Innovation Index, by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, tracks New York City's "transformation into a center for high-tech innovation. It measures innovation in the City's growing science and technology industries and is designed to capture the effect of innovation on the City's economy"<ref>{{cite web|website=NYCEDC.com|url=http://www.nycedc.com/economic-data/innovation-index|title=Innovation Index}}</ref>
* OECD [[Oslo Manual]] is focused on North America, Europe, and other rich economies
* State Technology and Science Index, developed by the [[Milken Institute]], is a U.S.-wide benchmark to measure the science and technology capabilities that furnish high paying jobs based around key components<ref>{{cite web|url=http://statetechandscience.org/|website=statetechandscience.org|title=Home page}}</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>
===Rankings===
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|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%}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 15%;"
|+[[Bloomberg Innovation Index]] 2021<ref name="Bloomberg 2021">{{cite news |last1=Jamrisko |first1=Michelle |last2=Lu |first2=Wei |last3=Tanzi |first3=Alexandre |title=South Korea Leads World in Innovation as U.S. Exits Top Ten |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-03/south-korea-leads-world-in-innovation-u-s-drops-out-of-top-10 |work=Bloomberg |date=3 February 2021}}</ref>
Line 248 ⟶ 271:
|-
| 10 || style="text-align: left" | {{flagcountry|Austria}}
|83.93
|}
{{Column}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 15%;"
|+[[Global Innovation Index]] 2020<ref>{{cite web |title=GII 2020 Report |url=https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2020-report |website=Global Innovation Index |access-date=19 October 2020}}</ref>
Line 286 ⟶ 309:
|56.11
|}
{{Column}}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 15%;"
|+Innovation Indicator 2020<ref>{{cite book |title=innovations indikator 2020 |date=2020 |publisher=[[Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie]], [[Fraunhofer ISI]], [[Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung]] |url=http://www.innovationsindikator.de/fileadmin/content/2020/pdf/Innovationsindikator_2020-kompakt.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210408194638/http://www.innovationsindikator.de/fileadmin/content/2020/pdf/Innovationsindikator_2020-kompakt.pdf |archive-date=2021-04-08 |url-status=live |language=German}}</ref>
Line 327 ⟶ 350:
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}}</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>
Line 349 ⟶ 372:
== Counter-hegemonic views on innovation ==
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.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Hegemonic innovation vs. counter-hegemonic innovation (taken from Robra et al., 2023)<ref name=":6" />
| |||