Advertisement

Abstract

It is a well-known fact that innovation is important for companies. It has been proven in economic theory and business science that innovation both fuels and is necessary for long-term growth and value generation.1 Sustained innovation serves as a differentiation strategy to sustain performance in competitive markets where innovative solutions are copied too easily and frequently.2 The conventional approach to innovation is that it builds a defensible position within an existing industry.3 A new strategic logic to innovation developed by Kim and Mauborgne is to focus on making the competition irrelevant by creating a leap in value for buyers and the company.4 Such practice opens up new and uncontested market spaces. By creating so-called value innovation, a company executes its strategy in a new way, resulting in an uncontested ‘blue ocean’, which breaks away from the competition.

Keywords

Innovation Process Performance Management Innovation Performance Innovation Management Innovation Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See Schumpeter (1931), p. 100 and Doyle (1998), p. 22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Porter (1985) and Cottam et. al. (2001), p. 88Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See Drucker (1985), pp. 76 ff.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (2005a), p. 24 and Kim/Mauborgne (2005b), pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See Porter (1998), p. 6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See Klingebiel (2001), p. 5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Low/ Siesfeld (1998), pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See Tichy/ DeRose (2006), p. 31Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Goldenberg et al. (2001), p. 78Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See Hauber (2002), p. 26Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Crux/ Schwilling (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Anthony/ Govindarajan (2001), p. 6Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See Bredrup (1995), p. 77 and Klingebiel (1997), p. 658Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See Schilling/ Hill (1998), pp. 67 ff. and Dankbaar (2003), p. xviiiGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), p. 65 and Kim/Mauborgne (1998), pp. 323 f.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See Dunham/ Pierce (1989), pp. 7 ff. and Kim/Mauborgne (1997), p. 3Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See Wu et al. (2007) for an overviewGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    See Fehr/ Fischbacher (2003), pp. 785 ff.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), p. 4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    see Van der Heyden et. al. (2005), pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Kim/ Mauborgne (1997), p. 4 and Kim/Mauborgne (1999), pp. 44 f.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See Brockner (2006), pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    see Van der Heyden/Limberg (2007), p. 101Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    See Kim/Mauborgne (1997), pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See Montoya-Weiss/Calantone (1994), Balachandra/Friar (1997), Henard/Szymanski (2001), van der Panne et. al. (2003), pp. 309 ff. and Hauschildt (2004), pp. 33 ff. For a general criticism on research about success factors see Nicolai/Kieser (2002), pp. 579 ff. who initiated a debate amongst various academics about the logic of this researchGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    See Hauschildt (2004), p. 36Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    See Section 2.1.1 and e.g. Krieger (2005) for the specific environmental variables for radical innovationsGoogle Scholar
  28. 31.
    See Hauschildt (2004), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar
  29. 32.
    See Ulrich (1970), pp. 105 ff. and Malik (1992), pp. 51 ff.. For further explanations concerning the term ‘cybernetics’ see Section 2.2.2.1Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    See Jensen/ Meckling (1976), pp. 310 ff.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    See Wu et. al. (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 36.
    See Eisenhardt (1989), pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar
  34. 37.
    See Günther (1997), pp. 48 f. ‘Hidden action’ describes the situation where the agent disposes of discrete areas since the principal cannot fully observe the agent’s actions. ‘Hidden information’ is existent if the principal is able to observe the actions, but can not evaluate their quality. See e.g. Gleich (2001), pp. 32 f.Google Scholar
  35. 39.
    See Kaplan (1998), p. 89, Yin (1994), p. 21 and Section 4.2.1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations