Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 49:
=== Creativity and innovation ===
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>
===Economics and innovation===
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 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" />
Line 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 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==
| |||