OVERVIEW
OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS ON THE INNOVATION PROCESS: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY
Rodrigo Marques de Almeida Guerra
Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Brazil
E-mail: rmaguerra@ucs.br
Márcia Almeida Chiappin
Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Brazil
E-mail: marcia.chiappin@gmail.com
Rodrigo Borges Bertoni
Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Brazil
E-mail: rbberton@gmail.com
Pelayo Munhoz Olea
Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Brazil
E-mail: pelayo.olea@gmail.com
Eric Charles Henri Dorion
Universidade de Caxias do Sul (UCS), Brazil
E-mail: edorion@ucs.br
Submission: 13/02/2014
Revision: 25/02/2014
Accept: 01/07/2014
ABSTRACT
Bibliometric Studies concepts. There were five stages for the configuration
of this article: identification of the keyword, Innovation Process, and selection
of the search criteria; selection of articles and listing them according to the
number of citations under the search criteria; selection of the ten articles
with the highest number of citations; analysis of the selected articles; and discussion
about the conclusions. The study makes it possible to identify which are the
main published articles on Innovation Process based on the number of citations,
length of time and date, countries, areas of knowledge, journals, authors and
universities of publication. According to the findings, it seems advisable for
developing countries’ scholars to foster further research on Innovation
Process, as well as more productions on Bibliometric Research as a whole.
Keywords:
Bibliometric Research. Innovation Process. Scopus data-base
1. INTRODUCTION
Innovation
is not simply designing a good idea (TIDD; BESSANT; PAVITT, 2008), but a
process of organization which is constituted by "search, discovery,
development, improvement, adoption and commercialization of new processes,
products, organizational structures and procedures" (TEECE; JORDE, 1990, p
76).
However,
an invention cannot be classified as an example of innovation unless it has one
of the five characteristics proposed by Schumpeter (1985), as follows:
introduction of a new good; introduction of a new production method (which has
not yet been tested); opening of a new consumer market; conquest of a new
source of raw materials, supplies and/or semi-manufactured goods; and establishment
of a new organization (which is able to become competitive in the market).
Thus,
innovation is a process that should emphasize the practical use (TIDD; BESSANT;
PAVITT, 2008), and, as consequence, enable organizations to become more
competitive (PITELIS; TEECE, 2009), such as what happens with the formation of
strategic alliances for cooperation, innovation and competition among
stakeholders (TEECE, 1992).
Recent
research has investigated the application of bibliometric studies on topics
related to innovation, such as: open innovation (WANG; TANG, 2013), innovation
based on Schumpeter (LAZZAROTTI ;DALFOVO; HOFFMANN, 2011), innovation in
cooperative relations (LOPES; CARVALHO, 2012), national innovation systems
(TEIXEIRA, 2014), social networks on innovation (CORREA; RIBEIRO, 2013),
Bibliometric Research, geoanalysis and social networks (FRANCISCO, 2013).
Innovation is a fairly investigated topic. However, there seems to be very few
published bibliometric studies about the subject.
In
this context, it is easy to see that the theme Innovation Process requires
further investigation. The overall objective of this work is to analyze the top
ten international publications, by doing a bibliometric research on the theme
Innovation Process. Thus, we intend to find solutions for the following
problem: What is the theoretical
panorama in major international publications about innovation process?
Having
stated this objective, the research was carried out through Scopus database in
order to identify the main journals, authors, universities, document types,
countries with higher representativeness of publication as well as the areas of
knowledge that more publish from the keyword Innovation Process.
Besides
this introductory part, this paper is structured in five sections: Literature
Review, Methodology and Research Development, Research Results and Conclusion.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This section aims at conceptualizing Innovation,
Innovation Process and Bibliometric Research.
2.1.
Innovation
Innovation
extends beyond the conception of a new idea. It ranges from the practical use
(TIDD; BESSANT; PAVITT, 2008) to complexity, risk-taking, management
requirements and alignment with the consumer market (BESSANT; TIDD, 2009) and
its stakeholders (LAWSON; SAMSON, 2001), enabling the formation of a new
strategy for the firm (WINTER, 2003).
Innovative
Process states that economic development can happen in five different manners,
as follows: introduction of a new product or qualitative changes in existing
product, a process innovation that is new to an industry, opening of a new
market, development of new source supplies of raw materials and other inputs,
and changes in industrial organization (SCHUMPETER, 1985).
Thus, one
can define innovation as the implementation of a product (good or service) new
or significantly improved, or a process, or a new marketing method, or a new
organizational method in business practices, regarding the organization of the
work environment or external relations (FINEP, 2004).
Differentiation
of organizations will only be achieved through company creation of values,
knowledge acquisition, intangible assets and other advantages / capabilities
for obtaining innovation (PITELIS; TEECE, 2009), as well as infrastructure for
continuous improvement (ANAND et al., 2009) aiming at the growth of the firm
(SCHUMPETER, 1985).
So in order
for organizations to accomplish innovation, they have to see it as a flexible,
organizational and strategic process which is constituted by dynamic
capabilities (EISENHARD; MARTINS, 2000). Therefore, innovation can be
understood as being of high nature, able to configure multiple abilities
(LAWSON; SAMSON, 2001).
2.2.
Innovation
Process
Innovation
Process is a usual practice involving search, selection and implementation
elements (TIDD; BESSANT; PAVITT, 2008), and it can foster many benefits to an
organization, such as competitive advantage (BAER; FRESE, 2003), which makes it
fundamental to competition analysis (TEECE, 1992).
Innovation,
as a rule, can be seen from two points of view: incremental and radical
innovation. Incremental innovation is observed when making minor improvements
in products, services or existing processes (BESSANT; TIDD, 2009). This kind of
innovation doesn’t generate much impact
when compared to radical innovation, but it is as necessary as the radical
processes, since it is more commonly developed by organizations (as seen in in
the automobile industry) (BES; KOTLER, 2001).
Christensen
(2001) deals with the innovation break, demonstrating that the market-leading organizations
adopt the strategy of listening to their customers, aiming to use the feedback
in the application of gradual and incremental innovations in their processes.
Fichman
and Kemerer (1997) suggest that organizations need to innovate even in the presence
of knowledge barriers, or even if the
burden of organizational learning is effectively lower, or even if much of the know-how is already applied by
the organization or because such knowledge can be acquired more easily or
economically.
Utterback
and Abernathy (1975) developed an empirical investigation on the existence of
patterns of innovation between product development and production processes
through the analysis of five different industrial segments. The survey results
concluded that there is a positive relationship between the ability of a firm
to innovate, its competitive strategy and management of production resources.
Von
Hippel (1976) conducted a study on a sample of one hundred and eleven
instruments of scientific innovation in order to determine the role of product
users and their manufacturers regarding the innovation process. The research
concluded that the industry was considered innovative (for eighty percent of
the sample), but the companies that are part of the sample weren’t innovative,
but providers of product and production engineering for the innovative
industries which use devices.
2.3.
Bibliometric
Research
A
bibliometric study consists of quantitative and statistical technique which allows
the measurement of scientific production rates in order to disseminate academic
knowledge (ARAÚJO, 2006; HID; NASCIMENTO; OLIVEIRA, 2012). Bibliometry aims to
count and measure things through the analysis of publications, citations and
co-citations (CRONIN, 2001), allowing the measurement of quality in
publications, the impact on different academic levels (GLANZEL et al., 2006),
trends in International publishing (SMITH; HAZELTON, 2008), country, territory,
document types, languages and publishing area (TSAI, 2013).
Therefore,
Bibliometric Research contributes to the identification of pi authors, allowing
the construction of a scientific knowledge diffusion network
(URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, 1984). Bibliometric Research is considered scientific
valid for tracking citations in academic journals; understanding the past to predict
the future, and analysing large amounts of historical data to help researchers
in the formation of hidden patterns (DAIM et al., 2006). Other advantages of
using Bibliometric Research are related to research evaluation in universities,
research groups, identification of key academics, ranking among institutions
(HAYASHI et al., 2007), number and frequency of previous publications,
chronological organization of journals, access to research grants (TSAI, 2013)
among others.
Glanzel
et al. (2006) emphasize the contribution of
citation analysis in bibliometric studies (considered as an element of
reward), but the author highlights that self-citation can generate distortions
generating forgery of the research impact. Thus, endogenous excessive use of
self-citations or reference to the program itself) can distort the bibliometric
research indicators (CALDAS; TINOCO, 2004; GLANZEL et al., 2006).
For
this reason bibliometric methods should be used with limitations and jointly
with other indicators (HAYASHI et al., 2007). Some disadvantages of Bibliometric
Research are "time, cost, error data collection, publications and quotes
practice varied which make comparisons difficult as well as propensity to
self-citations by scientists and research groups" (HAYASHI et al., 2007, p
05).
Bibliometric research is based on
three fundamental laws: Lotka's, Bradford’s and Zipf’s (URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO,
1984; ARAÚJO, 2006; HID; NASCIMENTO; OLIVEIRA, 2012; ARSENOVA 2013).
Lotka's
law is considered a method of measuring authors productivity, it was formulated
in 1926 (URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, 1984; ARAÚJO, 2006). It considers that a
large proportion of academic research is produced by a limited number of
authors. However, they constitute a small share of scientific production
(MENDONÇA NETO; RICCIO; SAKATA, 2009; HID; NASCIMENTO; OLIVEIRA, 2012).
Therefore,
the law of Lotka stablishes through the inverse square that the number of
authors who perform n contributions
to a particular field of knowledge is about 1/n2 of those making just one contribution, however the
percentage of those that generate only one contribution is of about 60%
(URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, 2002).
Part
of the criticism made to Lotka's law is related to the contradictions and
conflicts in research results (URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, 2002), difficulties in
parameter estimation due to misuse of bondage tests (goodness-of-fit tests)
(CHEN, 1989), non-uniformity in the organization and identification of data, as well as in allocating
the number two to n indiscriminately
(PAO, 1985).
However,
Lotka's law presents some great contributions, such as the generalization of
the inverse relation (NATH; JACKSON, 1991) existing between the frequency of
authors which implies the originality of the Law (PAO, 1985); investigation of
the frequency of double or triple co-authors share (KRETSCHMER; KRETSCHMER,
2007), the number of times an approach is used to identify influential
variables associated with the empirical data (CHEN, 1989), and use of data
mining (TSAI, 2013).
Known
as the law of scientific knowledge dispersion, Bradford’s Law was first
published in 1934, and is considered the most popular of all. It consists of
dividing the articles into three zones or cores of readers, each one containing
a third of the total representative articles. The first group is represented by
a few journals, with high productivity. The second core, considered
intermediate has a greater number of journals, however, less productive ones.
The third core has a higher amount of publications, though with even less
productivity (ARAÚJO, 2006; HID; NASCIMENTO; OLIVEIRA, 2012; ARSENOVA 2013).
For
the application of Bradford's Law it is necessary to perform the multiplied
Bradford calculation (Bm) from the ratio of the number of journals
in any zone by the number of journals in the previous one. This calculation
allows us to infer that the number of areas is inversely proportional to Bm
(ARAÚJO, 2006).
The
application of Bradford's Law in the Brazilian bibliometric production is
considered high (of 78 works produced from 1972 to 1983, 50% applied this law).
The main contribution is the formulation of basic lists of journals in various
areas of academic knowledge (URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, 1984).
Zipf's
Law describes that the frequency in the use of words in a given text
(URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, 1984) was established in 1949 through the correlation
between the number of different words and the repetition of their use (ARAÚJO,
2006; HID; NASCIMENTO; OLIVEIRA, 2012).
Zipf's
Law analyzes if the relationship among words in a given text is large enough,
by counting them on a large scale (ARAÚJO, 2006). The application of Zipf's Law
is performed by listing the occurrence of words in a given text, ordering them
in decreasing order. The multiplication of word position (r) by its frequency (f)
must be result in a constant (k)
(ARAÚJO, 2006).
3. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT
This
section aims at presenting the developmental stages of this article. The method
of study and the stages of data collection are detailed below.
3.1.
Method
of Study
This
research follows a descriptive quantitative method together with Bibliometric
Research. Bibliometric Research considers scientific publications with the
purpose of establishing patterns, relationships, and trends on a particular
topic being researched (IKPAAHINDI, 1985). This kind of research seeks to
identify the most relevant journals, prominent subjects, key research areas,
and origin of authors and universities related to the topic discussed (PRASAD;
TATA, 2005). Bibliometric Research is considered quantitative as it involves
aspects related to the production, dissemination and use of the information
recorded, and It was used for the first time in 1969 (MACIAS-CHAPULA, 1998).
The
quantitative research requires statistical treatment to prevent distortions in
the analysis and interpretation of results (DIEHL, 2004). On the other hand,
descriptive research uses standardized data collection techniques, in order to
describe the characteristics of certain populations or phenomena (GIL, 2008).
The
article was developed through a research conducted in the Scopus database,
using 100% of the data acquired through the steps outlined in Table 1. We opted
for the Scopus database for being a metasearch which enables the obtainment of
various articles contained in other databases simultaneously. The choice for
international publications is due to the fact that they possess greater impact
on future national publications.
Data
collection occurred in November 2013, the keyword innovation process was used
in order to identify which are the main journals that deal with the theme, most
cited authors, titles of publications, temporal distribution of publications,
major countries, areas of knowledge etc..
3.2.
Stages
for Data Collection
The
keyword used in the research process was Innovation, the criterion Article
Title was selected for the fulfillment of the first stage. Subsequently, the
articles were chosen according to the criterion Number of Citations (Cited by)
as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Stages for data collection
|
Stages |
Action
performed |
|
1a |
Search by topic Topic = (Process Innovation) In = (Article Title) |
|
2a |
Selection of articles for the largest number of citations Sort by = (Cited by) |
|
3a |
Marking the first ten articles for conducting the research |
|
4a |
Reading of selected articles. |
|
5a |
Analysis and discussion of research findings. |
Source: prepared by the authors
The
third step consisted in selecting the first ten articles considered most
relevant to the research, as shown in Table 2. The fourth stage took into
consideration the reading of selected articles (keywords, abstract, country of
publication, universities, document types, authors etc.).The fifth stage was
the analysis and discussion of research findings.
Table 2: Central articles about Innovation process
|
Authors (year) |
Title of the
publication |
Journal |
Numbers of citations |
|
Utterback,
J.M.; Abernathy,
W.J. (1975) |
A dynamic model of process and product innovation. |
Omega, 3 (6), p. 639-656. |
709 |
|
Fichman,
R.G.; Kemerer,
C.F. (1997) |
The assimilation of software process innovations: An organization
learning perspective. |
Management Science, 43 (10), p.
1345-1363. |
311 |
|
Lynn, G.S.; Morone,
J.G.; Paulson,
A.S. (1996) |
Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process. |
California Management Review (3), p.
8-37. |
308 |
|
Benner,
M.J.; Tushman, M. (2002) |
Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study
of the photography and paint industries |
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47
(4), p. 676-706+768. |
261 |
|
Veryzer Jr.; R.W. (1998) |
Discontinuous Innovation and the New Product Development Process. |
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (4), p. 304-321. |
252 |
|
Von Hippel, E. (1976) |
The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation
process. |
Policy Research, 5 (3), p. 212-239. |
230 |
|
Duranton, G.; Puga, D. (2001) |
Nursery cities: Urban diversity, process innovation, and the life
cycle of products |
American Economic Review, 91 (5), p.
1454-1477. |
219 |
|
Cohen, W.M.; Klepper, S. (1996) |
Firm size and the nature of innovation within
industries: the case of process and product. |
Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (2), p. 232-243. |
207 |
|
Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24 (1), p.
45-68. |
193 |
||
|
Gassmann, O. (2006) |
Editorial:
Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. |
R and D
Management, 36 (3), p. 223-228. |
172 |
Source: prepared by the authors
4. RESEARCH RESULTS
The
publications analyzed dated from 1975 to 2006 (table 2) are considered fairly
representative on the topic discussed here (709-172 citations). As shown in
figure 1, the apex of publications occurred in 2011 (with 183 citations). This
fact allows readers to infer that the topic is researched with plenty of
visibility in recent international publications.
As
seen in Figure 2 United States is the country with larger number of
publications with a total of 357 publications.
The
United States has more than twice the number of publications when compared to
Germany which is in second place. This data shows that
Figure 1 -
Temporal distribution of publications
Source: Scopus (2013)
Brazil
experienced low productivity of publications on the topic of Innovation Process
(with only 31 references). The same
happened to
For
this research, a no restriction policy was applied to the area of knowledge for
the theme of Innovation Process. The aim in applying this type of policy is to
conduct an overview of the areas of greatest incidence of publications about a
topic. This type of search helps to
promote new research in various areas of knowledge that have great possibility
for growth which can be demonstrated in the areas of medicine, pharmacy,
energy, computer science, materials science (as figure 03).
Figure 2:
Publications of the origin countries
Source: Scopus (2013)
It
is noticed that there is a higher concentration of publications on the subject
of Innovation Process in the areas of Business, Management and Accounting, with
626 documents which demonstrates to be the area with the highest number of
international publications about a topic. Right after comes the area of
Engineering with 624 posts, followed by the area of Computer Science with 305
publications.
Figure 3 - Areas of knowledge
Source: Scopus (2013)
As
expected, the type of document most used was article (1118 documents). Paper
for conference came in second with 528 publications, as shown in Figure 04.
The
main journals on the topic researched are open to various areas of knowledge.
One reason that justifies this fact is that the concept of Innovation Process
may be applied to many different areas. The top five most cited journals in
bibliometric research on Innovation Process were: (1) Technovation, (2)
International Journal of Technology Management, (3) Research Policy, (4)
Hydrocarbon Processing, and (5) Journal of Product Innovation Management (Table
03).
Figure 4 - Types of documents
Source: Scopus (2013)
Below
on tables 4 and 5 are the main authors and universities that contribute by
sharing knowledge related to the topic.
Table 3: Major journals publishing
|
Journals |
Number of
Publications |
|
Technovation |
28 |
|
International Journal of Technology Management; Research Policy |
20 |
|
Hydrocarbon Processing; Journal of Product Innovation Management |
17 |
|
R and D Management |
16 |
|
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management |
15 |
|
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management |
14 |
|
European Journal of Innovation Management; International Journal of
Innovation Management |
13 |
|
IEEE International Engineering Management Conference; Technological
Forecasting and Social Change; Lecture Notes in Computer Science Including
Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics |
11 |
|
ZWF Zeitschrift Fuer Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb; Quality Access to
Success; Advanced Materials Research |
10 |
|
Proceedings of the Annual |
9 |
|
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management;
Journal of High Technology Management Research. |
8 |
|
Actual Problems of Economics; Communications in Computer and
Information Science; Journal of Engineering and Technology Management Jet M;
EMJ Engineering Management Journal; Journal of Technology Management and
Innovation; Total Quality Management and Business Excellence; ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition Conference Proceedings; International Journal of
Industrial Organization. |
7 |
|
Management Science; International Journal of Innovation and Learning. |
6 |
|
European Management Journal; Omega; Pharmaceutical Engineering; Proceedings
of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference; Industrial Marketing
Management; 2012 18th International Conference on Engineering Technology and
Innovation ICE 2012 Conference Proceedings; 2012 Proceedings of Portland
International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology Technology
Management for Emerging Technologies Picmet 12; IFIP Advances in Information
and Communication Technology; Espacios; International Journal of Production
Research; Applied Mechanics and Materials; Energy Policy; Iced 11 18th
International Conference on Engineering Design Impacting Society Through
Engineering Design; Journal of Business Research; Kami Pa Gikyoshi Japan
Tappi Journal; Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. |
5 |
Table 4: Main authors of publications
|
Authors |
Number of
Publications |
|
Bi, K. |
16 |
|
Niehaves, B. |
9 |
|
Harrington, R.J.; Linton, J.D.; Anon. |
7 |
|
Lambertini, L.; Frishammar, J.; Lager, T.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, U.; Xing,
M.; Thoben, K.D.; Ottenbacher, M.C. |
5 |
|
Markic, M.; Iida, K.; Brad, S.; Edwards, T.; Seifert, M.; Truffer, B.;
Walsh, S.T. |
4 |
|
Gallivan, M.J.; Ball, D.F.; Lin, L.H.;
Hollomon, J.H.; Jones, O.; Dickinson, B.W.; Enkel, E.; Feng, D.;
Garcia-Porres, J.; Frattini, F.; Doepker, P.E.; Karkkainen, H.; Habib, J.;
Eschenbacher, J.; Cascini, G.; Chen, J.; Herbig, B.; Messnarz, R.; Moller,
C.; Mustonen-Ollila, E.; Negny, S.; Newell, S.; Gassmann, O.; Nosella, A.;
Ortiz-Posadas, M.R.; Ai, M.Y.; Gerwin, D.; Petrovic, K.; Ren, T.; Robertson,
M.; Scarbrough, H.; von Hippel, E.; Schwartz, C.A.; Damanpour, F.; Parjanen,
S.; Swan, J.; Tan, R.H.; Tsou, H.T.; Towler, G.P.; Gao, W.; Utterback, J.M.;
Harmaakorpi, V.; Sirbu, M.A. |
3 |
|
Henkel, J.; Le Lann, J.M.; Cho, W.;
Gandecha, R.; Kautz, K.; Davis, J.P.; Gann, D.M.; Henderson, C.; Green, G.C.;
Akinola, A.A.; Honda, K.; Ligon, G.S.; Fichman, R.G.; Brunswicker, S.; Duin,
H.; Lin, Z.; Ikushima, Y.; Buganza, T.; Bunders, J.F.G.; Bunduchi, R.; Li,
W.; Garnsey, E.; During, W.E.; Cincibusova, P.; Dutra, J.C.; Allen, T.J.;
Inganas, M.; Kruper, J.; Li, B.Z.; Larsen, G.D.; Fischer, B.; Ebeling, W.;
Jha, S.; Koskinen, K.U.; Berends, H.; Kubicki, S.; Cohen, T.; Kim, S.S.;
Kaitin, K.I.; Berger, T.; Collins, L.; Collins, R.W.; Bergman, J.; Ansaloni,
L.; Dell'Era, C.; Flaig, G.; Cantarello, S.; Colomo-Palacios, R.; Liefner,
I.; Bernstein, B.; Li, W.H.; Arai, M.; Guan, J.; Genga, L.; Ito, H.; Aravind,
D.; Capitanio, F.; Guerriero, A.; Kemerer, C.F.; Kaluzny, A.D.; Hevner, A.R.;
Armendariz-Inigo, J.E.; Hidalgo, A.; Hsieh, P.J.; Giannakas, K.; Desouza,
K.C.; Biemans, W.G.; Kameoka, A.; Jimenez-Zarco, A.I.; Jin, C.; Atiemo-Obeng,
V.; Dewatripont, M.; Kumar, A.; Keogh, W.; King, G.H.; Biro, M.; Legardeur,
J.; Hasegawa, J.; Kocher, P.Y.; Johannessen, J.A.; Hatakeda, K.; Awazu, Y.;
Blanco, S.; Gupta, S.; Blazevic, V.; Legube, B.; Huang, J.S.; Lauenroth,
H.G.; Li, X.D.; Ettlie, J.E.; Baek, Y.S.; Koike, T.; Chai, K.H.; Lehmann, H. |
2 |
Table 5: Major
universities of publications
|
Universities |
Número de Publicações |
|
Lappeenrannan Teknillinen Yliopisto. |
19 |
|
|
17 |
|
Technische Universität München. |
15 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
11 |
|
Hebei University of Technology. |
10 |
|
Delft University of Technology. |
9 |
|
University of Manchester; Luleå tekniska Universitet; MIT Sloan School
of Management; University of Twente; Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule
Zurich. |
8 |
|
University of Amsterdam; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Technische
Universität Berlin; Copenhagen Business School; Aalborg Universitet; Erasmus
University Rotterdam; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill; Manchester Business School; Universität St. Gallen;
Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna; Aalto University. |
7 |
|
|
6 |
|
Heilbronn University; University of Colorado at Boulder; Case Western
Reserve University; Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster; Università
degli Studi di Padova; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; University of
Sheffield; Weifang University; Newcastle University, United Kingdom;
University of Primorska; Utrecht University; CNRS Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique; Tampereen Teknillinen Yliopisto; Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen; Queensland University of Technology; Open University; University
of Texas at Austin; Aston University; Universität Stuttgart; De Montfort
University; National University of Singapore; Maastricht University;
Chongqing University; University Michigan Ann Arbor;
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München; The University of Georgia; Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven; Fraunhofer-Institut für System und
Innovationsforschung Isi.Fraunhofer.De; National Museum of Nature and
Science. |
5 |
The
h-index, which quantifies the productivity and the impact of researchers based
on the highest number of citations can be identified in Figure 5. The author
with the highest h was Mills (31), followed by Kraemer (24) and Von Hippel (24)
and Montoya-Weiss (21).
Figure 5 - H-index of the principal authors surveyed
Source: Scopus (2013)
5. CONCLUSION
The
objective of this paper was to analyze the top ten international publications
through a bibliometric research about Innovation Process. The research was
carried out using the word innovation process in the Scopus database and was performed without restrictions for areas of
knowledge, in other words, an overview on the topic of innovation process in
leading international journals from the years 1975 to 2006 was created. Ten
articles were investigated under the criteria of number of citations.
Through
the research it was possible to infer that the area of knowledge with greatest
publications was business, management and accounting, followed by engineering.
The country with the highest number of publications was the
The
main journals responsible for publishing on the subject were Technovation (28),
International Journal of Technology Management (20) and Research and Policy
(20).
Authors
who had higher h-index were: Mills (31), Kraemer (24) and von Hippel (24) and
Montoya-Weiss (21), who are also considered to be the most important authors to
touch on the topic. Medicine, pharmacy, computer science and material science
are other areas which were identified as important areas for new publications
as well as showing great research opportunities.
At
the end of this study, it is noticeable that since 2000 the international
academic literature on the innovation process has been increasing constantly.
It is mainly because the topic is widespread and updated, especially in
developed countries. (Figure 1). This is explained by a high concentration of
studies in countries like the
Developing
countries need to increase the incentive for research on the innovation
process, because they are considered basic areas to sustainable growth,
economic development, public policy formation and infrastructure required for
the growth of these countries. Only then, these countries may generate future
gains to society as a whole. Another important point is the need to conduct new
bibliometric research due to the low number of existing publications on
international journals.
REFERENCES
ANAND, G.; WARD, P. T.; TATIKONDA, M. V.; SCHILLING, D. A. (2009).
Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management, n. 27,
p. 444-461.
ARAÚJO, C.
A. (2006). Bibliometria: evolução histórica e questões atuais. Em questão, v. 12, n. 1,
p. 11-32.
ARSENOVA, I.
(2013). New application of bibliometrics. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 73, n. 27, p. 678-682.
BAER, M.; FRESE,
M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,
n. 24, p. 45-68.
BES, F. T.;
KOTLER, P. (2011). A Bíblia da Inovação: Princípios fundamentais para
levar a cultura da inovação contínua às organizações. São Paulo: Leya.
BESSANT, J.; TID, J. (2009). Inovação e Empreendedorismo. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
CALDAS,
M. P.; TINOCO, T. (2004). Pesquisa em gestão de recursos humanos nos anos 1990:
um estudo bibliométrico. RAE -
Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 44, n. 3,
p. 100-114.
CHEN, Y. (1989).
Analysis of Lotka´s law: the Simon-Yule approach. Information
Processing & Management, v. 25, n. 5, p. 527-544.
CHRISTENSEN,
C. M. (2001). O Dilema da Inovação:
Quando Novas Tecnologias Levam Empresas ao Fracasso. São Paulo:
Makron Books.
CRONIN, B.
(2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis.
Journal of Information Science, v. 27,
n. 1, p. 1-7.
DAIM, T. U.;
RUEDA, G.; MARTIN, H.; GERDSRI, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies:
use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change,
v. 73, n. 8, p. 981-1012.
DIEHL, A. A. (2004). Pesquisa
em ciências sociais aplicadas: métodos e técnicas. São Paulo: Prentice
Hall.
EISENHARDT,
K. M.; MARTIN, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, v. 21, n. 10-11, p. 1105-1121.
FRANCISCO,
E. R. (2011). RAE-eletrônica: exploração do acervo à luz da bibliometria,
geoanálise e redes sociais. Revista de
Administração de Empresas, v. 51, n. 3, p. 280-306.
FICHMAN, R. G.; KEMERER, C. F. (1997).
The assimilation of software process innovations: An organization learning
perspective. Management Science, v. 43, n. 10, p. 1345-1363.
FINEP. (2004). Manual
de OSLO: Proposta de diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre
inovação tecnológica.
GIL, A. C. (2008). Como
elaborar projetos de pesquisa (4a ed.).
GLANZEL, W.; DEBACKERE, K.; THUS, B.; SCHUBERT, A.
(2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information
science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics, v. 67, n. 2, p. 263-277.
HAYASHI, M. C. P. I.; HAYASHI, C. R. M.; SILVA, M. R.;
LIMA, M. Y. (2007). Um estudo bibliométrico da produção científica sobre a
educação jesuíta no brasil colonial. Biblios,
v. 8, n. 27, p. 1-18.
HID, D. S., NASCIMENTO, C.; OLIVEIRA, D. A. (2012). Análise
das publicações internacionais relacionadas ao desenvolvimento sustentável na
área de administração: uma análise bibliométrica da produção científica. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa. Rio
de Janeiro, v. 13, n. 4, p. 653-671.
IKPAAHINDI,
L. (1985). An overview of bibliometrics: its measurements, laws and their
applications. Libri, v. 35, n. 2, p.
163-176.
KRETSCHMER, H.;
KRETSCHMER, T. (2007). Lotka´s distribution and distribution of co-author
pairs´ frequencies. Journal of
Informetrics, v. 1, n. 4, p. 308-337.
LAZZAROTTI, F.;
DALFOVO, M. S.; HOFFMANN, V. E. (2011). A bibliometric study of innovation based on schumpeter. Journal
of Technology Management & Innovation, v. 6, n. 4, p. 121-135.
LAWSON, B.; SAMSON, D. (2001). Developing innovation
capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of
Innovation Management,
v. 5, n. 3, p. 377–400.
MACIAS-CHAPULA, C. A. (1998). O papel da informetria e da
cienciometria e sua perspectiva nacional e internacional. Ciência da Informação, v. 27, n. 2, p. 134-140.
MENDONÇA NETO, O. R.; RICCIO, E. L.; SAKATA, M. C. G.
(2009). Dez anos de pesquisa contábil no Brasil: análise dos trabalhos
apresentados nos ENANPADS de 1996 a 2005. RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 49, n. 1,
p. 62-73.
NATH, R.;
JACKSON, W. M. (1991). Productivity of management information systems
researchers: Does Lotkas´s law apply? Information
Processing & Management, v. 27, n. 2-3, p. 203-209.
PAO, M. L.
(1985). Lotka´s law: a testing procedure. Information
Processing & Management, v. 21, n. 4, p. 305-320.
PITELIS, C. N.;
TEECE, D. J. (2009). The (new) nature and essence of the firm. European Management Review, v. 6, n. 1,
p. 5-15.
PRASAD, S.;
TATA, J. (2005). Publications patterns concerning the role of teams/groups in
the information systems literature from 1990 to 1999. Information & Management, v. 42, n. 8, p. 1137-1148.
SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1985). Teoria do desenvolvimento econômico: uma investigação sobre lucros,
capital, crédito, juro e ciclo econômico (2a ed.). São Paulo:
Nova Cultural.
SMITH, D. R.;
HAZELTON, M. (2008). Bibliometrics, citation indexing, and the journals of
nursing. Nursing and Health Sciences,
v. 10, n. 4, p. 260-265.
TEECE, D. J.; JORDE, T. M. (1990). Innovation and
cooperation: implications for competition and antitrust. Journal of Economic Perspectives, v. 4, n. 3, p. 75-96.
TEECE, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and
innovation Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological
progress. Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, v. 18, n. 1, p. 01-25.
TEIXEIRA, A. A. C. (2014).
Evolution, roots and influence of the literature on National Systems of
Innovation: a bibliometric account. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, v. 38, n. 1, p. 181-214.
TIDD, J.; BESSANT, J.; PAVITT, K. (2008). Gestão da inovação. Porto Alegre:
Bookman.
TSAI, H. (2013).
Knowledge management vs. data mining: Research trend, forecast and citation
approach. Expert Systems with Applications, v. 40, n. 8, p. 3160-3173.
URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, R. (1984). A bibliometria no
Brasil. Ciência da Informação, v. 13,
n. 2, p. 91-105.
URBIZAGÁSTEGUI-ALVARADO, R. (2002). A Lei de Lotka na
bibliometria brasileira. Ciência da
Informação, v. 31, n. 2, p. 14-20.
UTTERBACK, J. M.; ABERNATHY, W. J. (1975).
A dynamic model of process and product innovation, Ómega, v. 3, n. 6, p. 639-656.
VON HIPPEL, E.
(1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation
process. Policy Research, v. 5, n. 3,
p. 212-239.
WANG, W.; TANG, J. (2013). Mapping development of open
innovation visually and quantitatively: a method of bibliometrics analysis. Asian Social Science, v. 9, n. 11, p. 254-269.
WINTER, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic
capabilities. Strategic Management
Journal, v. 24, n. 10, p. 991-995.