Essay:

Essay details:

  • Subject area(s): Marketing
  • Price: Free download
  • Published on: 14th September 2019
  • File format: Text
  • Number of pages: 2

Text preview of this essay:

This page is a preview - download the full version of this essay above.

Introduction

Innovation includes making and marketing of novel. These challenges in various combinations make innovation output an extremely uncertain process. Therefore, a useful and significant way to deliberate the innovation process is the management exercise. “Innovation” is not invention or creation. Innovation is making an effective product that is recognized by the audience in the market. “Linear models of innovation” are an explanation of the process of innovation. It is an incremental and unidirectional procedure from applied and vital sciences. This essay will revolve around strengths and weaknesses of linear model and its suitability in current business setting. For “linear models”, flow of knowledge is essential in the innovation process. In fact, “need-pull model” and “technology-push model” are all included in the “linear models of innovation”. Though, with societal development and scientific development, it must be considered that whether “linear models of innovation” are suitable for current business setting or not (Tidd & Bessant 2013).

Linear models of innovation and other innovation models

With societal development, theories of innovation were introduced for the environment of the business. Linear model is an explanation of innovation. Linear model consists of two key models. One model is for the “technology push”, it shows that technology pushes the development process of a product and user's acceptance. Firstly, people do “research and development” and then discoveries are made by scientists from surveys. Then latest product thoughts are developed by technologists with discoveries that will be provided to the manufacturers to assess and develop into the products. Lastly, consumers are made aware about products by salesmen, advertisements or in the market. Individuals consider “technology push theory” uses more “research and development” and in turn they produce a highly successful product. The second is for the “demand pull” it means that demand pulls the new product's process introducing in market. Marketers collect new products ideas and then they do “research and development” for design of products and then the latest products are created and launched into the market for the target audiences. (Chesbrough 2003)

In the early 1970s the process of industrial innovation was commonly assumed as the “linear progression”, through development of technology in organizations, to marketplace, that became the “technology push model”. And in “mid 1960s- early 1970s period” appears 2ndgeneration of “Innovation model”, alluded to as "market pull innovation model”. In accordance with “simple sequential model”, the marketplace was new ideas as a source for controlling “R&D” that had a responsive role in innovation process. That is “demand pull” model. Individuals obtained this theory due to their restricted vision then. They considered science as the origin and cause of innovation. Consequently they believed that high investment leads to novel innovative product production (Balconi, Brusoni & Orsenigo 2010). Clearly, the one reason of innovation is scientific research. In the 20th century, several big companies, like “Ford, Philips, ICI and Western Electric”, put money on the research laboratory. They fed the quickly emerging markets for vehicles, industrial chemicals and electrical products for consumers with the “science and technology” assistance and structured efforts for “research and development” built steady innovation streams. The other main aspect is demand, where it can be easily understood. The needs of consumers make changes in companies and companies require meeting the needs of consumers to facilitate the selling of their products and obtaining profits. People watch advertisements and follow brands. Advertising and branding play a significant role in this model. And bandwagon effect is present that means consumer's need has accepted innovations.

For instance, in 2007, “Hyundai” sought to reinstate the “Santa Fe” to the market of US. The process was difficult & they had to go to see an “Olympic medalist” and an “ice rink” and to assist them get a perception into the grace speed and ideas so as to meet needs of customers. To the “linear models”, they overlooked the numerous feedback loops and links between the innovation process stages. Every phase has a connection with different stages. When making, it may impact “research and development” and after wards when products enter the market; it can get opinions to be manufactured again. It is a “multidirectional process”. And likewise, “linear models” did not know about interchange between managers of “research and development”, funding sources, entrepreneurs, regulatory agencies and marketing experts of “research and development”.  They overlooked the innovator's network too. Doing successful innovation requires the company's cooperation, support from government agencies and science laboratories. It was demonstrated by Schmookler (1966) that pull and push... like a scissor's pair. People into 2 diverse parts cannot divide these. They ought to be place together in order to subsidize innovation. “Linear model of innovation” overlook the innovation process openness, the feedback stages and multiple links of process of the innovation. So, it was substituted slowly by comprehensive innovation model due to development of science and technology and made people to know “innovation” better (Tidd & Bessant 2013).

Linear model and competitiveness frame

The coupling model which states integration between different links in the organization and the competitiveness frame is now so strong as to make it possible to suggest that the ‘master narrative' or the imaginary of innovation is defined by the attributes of technology centeredness, relatedness to the market, competition, entrepreneurism, diffusion, exclusivity and creative destruction (Schilling & Phelps 2007).

To outline the enduring impact of linear innovation model, one may indicate the "Lisbon Agenda of the European Union", the goal of 3 percent of GDP invested, and the molding of learning economy. This vision prompts verifiable or unequivocal declarations that "Science is a solution, society the issue". Society is relied upon to be entrepreneurial, to become excited and accepting of about novel innovation. It can be viewed as the 21st century version of the "Chicago World Exhibition's catchphrase" that "society needs to accommodate". So the key inquiry we need to address is the reason, regardless of being profoundly challenged, does the "linear model" stay prevailing?

The main reason, the linear model's stickiness, is identified with its straightforwardness. It is less demanding to represent advancement as an arrangement of steps, which spill out of upstream, to downstream in contrast to representation of web of cooperation.

The 2nd reason is that few types of regulations assume a critical role. Firstly statistics: the exercises of numerous characters associated with the outline of statistical indicators and categories in the development of information bases (for logical generation, licenses, R&D indicators, and so on.) guarantee that "linear model" turns into social fact. This keeps on converting into the indicators and tools used to gauge activity of innovation based on R&D financing, and the patents and researchers (Leeuwis & Aarts 2011).

The Frascati Manual, first distributed in 1963, is as yet the principle reference at the global level (OECD 2002). The European Commission's Innovation Scoreboard additionally concentrates on technological developments in organizations and their impact on monetary development (EC 2015). The OECD's audits of national frameworks of development have impacted the way that key characters consider policy of design innovation and innovation dimensions. A current report about the "French national framework (OECD 2014)" gives flowcharts that set organizations and new companies as the fundamental passage in the development pathway that is arranged for the most part towards monetary development. Such representation is typical of predominant "socio-technical imaginary innovation" (Mention 2011).

A 3rd reason is that several people have solid interests connected to linear model. In the first place, organizations who execute R&D are the principle recipients of public policies in view of this model. They get substantive sponsorships because they are main actors of advancement forms and that development will enhance competitiveness, and subsequently the capacity of the Nation to execute in the global competition (Carayannis & Campbell 2009).

Conclusion

Most scientists are appended to the possibility of independent and pure science and its key significance in the arrangement of new troublesome information to society, despite the fact that the authentic confirmation shows this is a myth. Pierre-Benoit alludes to vision (particularly identified with the "Vannevar Bush heritage" said earlier) as the "enormous lie" whereupon the social agreement between society and science.

References

Balconi, M., Brusoni, S. and Orsenigo, L. (2010) In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research Policy 39: 1–13

Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F. (2009). 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), pp.201-234.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, MA.

Leeuwis, C. and Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. Journal of agricultural education and extension, 17(1), pp.21-36.

Mention, A.L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty?. Technovation, 31(1), pp.44-53.

Pierre- Benoît, J. (2017).  Beyond the competitiveness framework?  Models of Innovation  Revisited. Journal of Innovation Economics, 22(1), pp. 79-96.

Schilling, M.A. and Phelps, C.C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), pp.1113-1126.

Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2013) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change, 5th ed. Chichester, Wiley.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

This essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, . Available from:< https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/marketing/2017-11-5-1509910717.php > [Accessed 14.10.19].