 Two Common Paths of Innovation System EvolutionJames A. Christiansen Chapter 7 in Competitive Innovation Management, 2000, pp 191-211 from Palgrave Macmillan Abstract: Abstract If you read the literature on innovation, you will find that there are many books and articles on how to improve an innovation system. The problem is that they do not all address the problem in the same way, and the solutions they propose are not completely compatible. For example, a variety of writers on the automobile (for example, Womack et al., 1990; Clark and Fujimoto, 1991) and pharmaceutical (for example, Spilker, 1989) industries have described how the innovation process can be made more efficient (quicker, and less costly). Other writers (for example, Schroeder et al., 1989; Van de Ven et al., 1989; Garud and Van de Ven, 1992; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998; Meyer, 1998) offer quite different prescriptions. Looking at projects in a variety of industries, they describe methods of diversifying and managing the proliferation of ideas. Are these prescriptions compatible with each other? Should all companies adopt both prescriptions? If so, how? If not, which prescriptions are valid when? Keywords: Innovation System; Business Unit; Traditional System; Innovation Project; Flexible System (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-0-230-00110-7_7 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.