The Staged Competition Innovation Theory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Innovation
1.2. The Role of Competition
2. Literature Review
2.1. Industry Use of Competition for Innovation
2.2. Existing Theories of Innovation
2.2.1. The DOI Theory
2.2.2. The TOE Framework
2.2.3. DOI and TOE Combined
3. Methods
Use of Existing Theories
4. Case Analysis
4.1. Background
Motorsport—A Model Competition
4.2. The Turbocharging Gamble
4.3. TOE Analysis
4.3.1. Technology
TOE Factors: Opportunity, Technological Readiness, Compatibility
TOE Factor: Relative Advantage
TOE Factors: Observability, Trialability
TOE Factor: Relevance
4.3.2. Organisation
TOE Factors: Leadership, Top Management Support, Size
TOE Factors: Collaboration
TOE Factors: Innovativeness, Prior Experience
TOE Factors: Financial Resources
4.3.3. Environment
TOE Factors: Industry Structure, Innovation Opportunity, Agile Regulations
TOE Factors: Competitive Pressure
TOE Factors: Solution Space
TOE Factors: Repetition
External Benefits to Competition
- Direct R&D benefit to firm, in which innovations are tested and brought to market for financial gain through use in production cars.
- Marketing benefits, which are proven to be a powerful strategy for firms to market their product based on the success of their prototypes in a competition environment. This strategy is so powerful that Formula 1 has non-automotive race teams, such as Red Bull, that compete with no automotive innovation benefits.
4.3.4. TOE Analysis to Create the Staged Competition Innovation Theory
5. The SCI Theory
5.1. Principle One—A New Innovation Mechanism
5.2. Principle Two—The Unique Competition Environment
5.2.1. Co-Dependence
5.2.2. Competitive Pressure
5.2.3. Dynamic Rules
5.2.4. Competition Frequency
5.3. Principle Three—Competition as a Pathway to Mainstream Adoption
6. Discussion
6.1. The Need for New Theory
6.2. Application to Applied Research
6.3. Industry Benefits of Competitions for Innovation
6.4. Staged Competition and Open Innovation
7. Conclusions
7.1. Implications
7.2. Limits and Future Research Topics
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle; Transaction Publishers: Piscataway Township, NJ, USA, 1934; Volume 55. [Google Scholar]
- Tushman, M.; Moore, W.L. Readings in the Management of Innovation; Ballinger Publishing Co.: Pensacola, FL, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenberg, N. Technology and American Economic Growth. M. E. Sharpe, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, R.; Calantone, R. A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2002, 19, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norman, D.A.; Verganti, R. Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Des. Issues 2014, 30, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahlin, K.B.; Behrens, D.M. When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 717–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koskela, L.; Vrijhoef, R. Is the current theory of construction a hindrance to innovation? Build. Res. Inf. 2001, 29, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grubb, M. Technology Innovation and Climate Change Policy: An overview of issues and options. Keio Econ. Stud. 2004, 41, 103. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Hoed, R. Sources of radical technological innovation: The emergence of fuel cell technology in the automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1014–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linton, J.D. De-babelizing the language of innovation. Technovation 2009, 29, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, L.N. Should we consider alternative incentives for basic research? Patents vs. prizes. In Proceedings of the DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 6–8 June 2002. [Google Scholar]
- X-prize.org. What Is an X-Prize? Available online: http://www.xprize.org/about/what-is-an-xprize (accessed on 8 February 2017).
- Stine, D.D. Federally Funded Innovation Inducement Prizes; Diane Publishing: Collingdale, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kay, L. The effect of inducement prizes on innovation: Evidence from the Ansari XPrize and the Northrop Grumman Lunar lander challenge. R&D Manag. 2011, 41, 360–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natalicchio, A.; Messeni Petruzzelli, A.; Garavelli, A.C. Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms—A simulation approach. Technovation 2017, 64–65, 28–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation Results: Going Beyond the Hype and Getting Down to Business; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho, A. In Search of Excellence-Innovation Contests to Foster Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Portugal. 2009. Available online: https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstream/10174/1721/1/Innovation%20contests_ISPIM_2009.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Boons, F.; Montalvo, C.; Quist, J.; Wagner, M. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, B.Z. Inventing prizes: A historical perspective on innovation awards and technology policy. Bus. Hist. Rev. 2015, 89, 631–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kay, L. Technological Innovation and Prize Incentives: The Google Lunar X Prize and Other Aerospace Competitions; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Tornatzky, L.G.; Fleischer, M.; Chakrabarti, A.K. Processes of Technological Innovation; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, T.; Martins, M.F. Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 2011, 14, 110–121. [Google Scholar]
- Bosch-Rekveldt, M.; Jongkind, Y.; Mooi, H.; Bakker, H.; Verbraeck, A. Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical, Organizational and Environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 728–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, A.Y.-L.; Lin, B.; Ooi, K.-B.; Raman, M. Factors affecting the adoption level of c-commerce: An empirical study. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2009, 50, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.-M.; Wang, Y.-S.; Yang, Y.-F. Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the manufacturing industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.L.; Xu, S. The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1557–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alkhalil, A.; Sahandi, R.; John, D. An exploration of the determinants for decision to migrate existing resources to cloud computing using an integrated TOE-DOI model. J. Cloud Comput. 2017, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arpaci, I.; Yardimci, Y.C.; Ozkan, S.; Turetken, O. Organizational adoption of information technologies: A literature review. Int. J. eBusiness eGovernment Stud. 2012, 4, 37–50. [Google Scholar]
- Thong, J.Y. An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1999, 15, 187–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge 1981, 3, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard-Barton, D. A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites. Organ. Sci. 1990, 1, 248–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, N.; Pinch, S. Spatialising knowledge: Placing the knowledge community of Motor Sport Valley. Geoforum 2000, 31, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, E.; Bryman, A. The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. Br. J. Manag. 2007, 18, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J. The technology–organization–environment framework. In Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society; Dwivedi, K.Y., Wade, R.M., Schneberger, L.S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, Y.; Hang, C.C.; Wang, Y.M. Government’ s role in disruptive innovation and industry emergence: The case of the electric bike in China. Technovation 2014, 34, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FIA WEC. FIA World Endurance Championship Classes. Available online: http://www.fiawec.com/presentation/classes.html (accessed on 24 October 2016).
- Beck-Burridge, M.; Walton, J. A world beyond grand prix. In Britain’s Winning Formula; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 43–58. [Google Scholar]
- Zapata, C.; Nieuwenhuis, P. Exploring innovation in the automotive industry: New technologies for cleaner cars. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, R. Alpine & Renault: The Sports Prototypes 1963 to 1969; Veloce Publishing Ltd.: Poundbury, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Revealed: The $2.6 Billion Budget That Fuels F1’s 10 Teams. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018/04/08/revealed-the-2-6-billion-budget-that-fuels-f1s-ten-teams/#14558d966595 (accessed on 26 April 2019).
- Christensen, C. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail; Harvard Business Review Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, D.J. Technological discontinuities, outsiders and social capital: A case study from Formula 1. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 332–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foxall, G.R.; Johnston, B.R. Innovation in Grand Prix motor racing: The evolution of technology, organization and strategy. Technovation 1991, 11, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, M. Technological Discontinuities and Competitive Advantage: A Historical Perspective on Formula 1 Motor Racing 1950–2006. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 884–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mastromarco, C.; Runkel, M. Rule changes and competitive balance in Formula One motor racing. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41, 3003–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papachristos, G. Technology, performance and team adaptation to regulation in Formula 1. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Delft, The Netherlands, 20–24 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, R. Alpine & Renault: The Development of the Revolutionary Turbo F1 Car 1968–1979; Veloce Publishing: Dorset, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Mansfield, E. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation; An Econometric Analysis; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, C.W.; Rothaermel, F.T. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, P.; Matthews, T. Formula 1 Technology; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Banbury, C.M.; Mitchell, W. The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlander, L.; Gann, D.M. How open is innovation? Res. Policy 2010, 39, 699–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstetter, R.; Zhang, J.Z.; Herrmann, A. Successive open innovation contests and incentives: Winner-take-all or multiple prizes? J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 492–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huizingh, E.K.R.E. Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 2011, 31, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open Innov. Res. A New Paradig. 2006, 400, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Spender, J.-C.; Corvello, V.; Grimaldi, M.; Rippa, P. Startups and open innovation: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 20, 4–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hervas-Oliver, J.-L.; Sempere-Ripoll, F.; Boronat-Moll, C. Technological innovation typologies and open innovation in SMEs: Beyond internal and external sources of knowledge. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 162, 120338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gianiodis, P.T.; Ellis, S.C.; Secchi, E. Advancing a typology of open innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2010, 14, 531–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogers, M.; Chesbrough, H.; Heaton, S.; Teece, D.J. Strategic Management of Open Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 62, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Principle 1: Incentive to Innovate | Principle 2: The Competition Environment | Principle 3: Adoption Pathway | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | 1. Agile Regulations | 2a. Co-Dependence | 2b. Relative Advantage | 2c. Dynamic Rules | 2d. Competition Frequency | 3. Adoption |
Technology | Opportunity Technological readiness Compatibility | - | Relative advantage | - | Observability Trialability | Relevance |
Organisational | Leadership Top management support Size | Collaboration | - | Prior experience Innovativeness | - | Financial resources |
Environmental | Industry structure Innovation opportunity Dynamic regulatory environment | - | Competitive pressure | Large solution space | Repetition | Market pressure * Supplier support * |
Three Principles of The Staged Competition Innovation Theory |
---|
PRINCIPLE 1—Competition provides a new mechanism for innovation. |
1. Agile rules provide an opportunity for firms to compete in a unique environment to test and prove their innovations |
PRINCIPLE 2—Competition provides a unique innovation environment |
2a. Co-dependency between teams and organisers drives mutually beneficial outcomes in innovation, with both parties pushing for innovation success |
2b. Increased competitive pressure for teams through a focused task drives innovation development and testing |
2c. Dynamic rules allow creative innovation solutions, leading to radical outcomes |
2d. Competition frequency provides increased trialability and observability, increasing the rate of innovation |
PRINCIPLE 3—Competition provides an adoption pathway |
3. Relevance and compatibility is critical for innovation adoption by the parent industry |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jensen, C.A. The Staged Competition Innovation Theory. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030201
Jensen CA. The Staged Competition Innovation Theory. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2021; 7(3):201. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030201
Chicago/Turabian StyleJensen, Christopher A. 2021. "The Staged Competition Innovation Theory" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7, no. 3: 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030201