Is Radical Innovation Management Misunderstood? Problematising the Radical Innovation Discipline

Abstract

This paper poses a critical view on radical innovation (RI) management research and practice. The study investigates how expected RI performance influences firms’ understanding of their RI capability. RI performance is often based on output measures such as market shares or fiscal return. On the contrary, RI capability building advocates for exploration, learning, and accepting uncertainty. Hence, RI capability building often focuses on the processes of the firms, and not the outcome. Thus, it is argued that the RI capability-building and RI performance expectations are based on different managerial orientations. Coupling a discussion of the literature with case findings from four large international firms, this paper identifies a discrepancy between RI capability-building and RI performance within literature and practice. This is regarded to be a major contributing factor to RI program failure. This study presents three misunderstandings related to RI research and practice and discusses implications of these findings.

Measuring innovation effectiveness: a SEM-based cross-lagged analysis

“…H1 is supported as varying degrees of innovation have specific objectives and their effectiveness can be determined by achieving those objectives. IND, represented through radical and incremental innovation, is designed to achieve particular goals (Domínguez-Escrig et al, 2019;Kristiansen and Gertsen, 2015). Radical innovation disrupts the market, changes competitive rules and influences customer behavior (Ero glu, 2019).…”