Framing innovation success, failure, and transformation: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Framing is a powerful tool shaping innovation success, failure, and transformation. However, innovation framing is not recognized as a unified domain of research and the extant literature is theoretically fragmented across diverse fields. Inconsistencies in definition and operationalization of constructs stall theoretical advancement of innovation framing theory and practice. Importantly, an understanding of the underlying mechanisms enabling framing to mediate innovation outcomes has been missing. Using a systematic literature review (SLR), we integrate diverse theoretical perspectives. Stemming from this, we develop a unified conceptual framework of innovation framing. In so doing we make three vital contributions to the field. First, we develop a typology of construct categories of innovation framing, defining these framing concepts and identifying their theoretical basis. Next, we emphasize the importance of key mechanisms (sensemaking, interpretive flexibility, consensus) in explaining innovation outcomes. Our third contribution identifies innovation stage‐specific differences in the role of framing processes, frame types and characteristics, and the temporal elements of these. Finally, we discuss the implications of our research for innovation practitioners, while concluding with a detailed agenda for future innovation framing research.

Playing the political game of innovation: An integrative framework and future research directions

“…By drawing on these conceptual foundations, more recent research focuses on politically charged behaviors and politics on an aggregated level. For instance, the literature has started to unpack the political character of how actors construct meaning when developing innovations, for example during the development and diffusion of digital innovations (Pignot et al, 2020;Reynolds et al, 2023), or in shaping the understanding of innovation processes and outcomes (Röth et al, 2019;Schildt et al, 2020). Other scholars draw on aggregated conceptualization, for example, dominant coalition, to show how radical groups of opponents reinforce conflicts resulting in less innovative innovation than originally intended (Truelove & Kellogg, 2016), how a two-step flow of institutional work shapes the resistance to radical innovations (Radaelli et al, 2017), and how actors craft the legitimacy of innovations (Bunduchi, 2017).…”

Strategies for digital entrepreneurship success: the role of digital implementation and dynamic capabilities

“…g. cost saving;Reynolds et al, 2023;Yi et al, 2020) Convincing stakeholders in the early stages is a challenging task (e.g. in cases where the digital technology used is very novel).Even more so, the entire industry might be novel and complex (e.g.…”