Innovation Strategy PDF

10/1/2017 Revista ESPACIOS | Vol.
37 (Nº 24) Año 2016
Espacios. Vol. 37 (Nº 24) Año 2016. Pág. 7
Innovation strategy
Estrategia de la innovación
Jhon Wilder ZARTHA S. 1; Juan Manuel MONTES H. 2; Elva Esther VARGAS M. 3; Estívenson VELEZ E. 4; José Luis
HOYOS C. 5; Raúl HERNANDEZ Z. 6; Olga NOVIKOVA 7;
Recibido: 18/04/16 • Aprobado: 30/05/2016
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Framework
3. Background
4. Methodology
5. Results
Aknowledgements
References
ABSTRACT RESUMEN:
This article presents the meanings of the corporate En este artículo se presentan las acepciones sobre
innovation strategy, as well as varied worldwide authors' estrategia de innovación empresarial así como las
proposals on realization and analysis of the strategy propuestas de varios autores a nivel mundial en cuanto a
within enterprises. The current study aims to propose a su materialización y análisis en organizaciones, el
new diagnostic tool for the innovation strategy within propósito del paper es el de proponer una nueva
productive sector organizations. To achieve this purpose, herramienta de diagnóstico de estrategia de innovación en
scientific articles, PhD theses, technical documentation, organizaciones del sector productivo. Para lograr este
and patents were revised. The databases consulted for this objetivo, se revisaron artículos científicos en la base de
study were the following: Scopus, WIPO database the datos Scopus, tesis doctorales, documentos técnicos y
World Intellectual Property Organization, Japanese, patentes, las bases de datos consultadas fueron Scopus,
German and European patents, and Google Scholar. In base de datos de la OMPI – organización mundial de la
total, fortyfive documents were found. Subsequently, the propiedad intelectual, base de datos de patentes japonesa,
most relevant variables of each document were identified, alemana y europea y google académico, se encontraron un
obtaining a total of 129 topics. Afterwards, two surveys total de 45 documentos. Posteriormente se identificaron
were conducted and applied to the experts involved in las variables más relevantes de cada uno de los
innovation strategies in order to contextualize these documentos obteniendo un total de 129 temas, luego, con
variables, identify the main issues, necessities and el fin de priorizar y contextualizar estas variables se
opportunities, and prioritize the input, transformation aplicaron dos cuestionarios a expertos involucrados en
process and output in regards to an innovation strategy. estrategias de innovación con el fin de identificar y
Concerning the most important results obtained from the priorizar los principales problemas, necesidades u
issues, necessities and opportunities, the study highlights oportunidades en cuanto a estrategia de innovación, y
the insufficient knowledge on the formulation and priorizar las entradas, el proceso de transformación y las
implementation of the innovation strategies. Additionally, salidas de una estrategia de innovación. En cuanto a los
it underlines the lack of information about the innovative resultados más importantes obtenidos en los problemas,
activity importance as a capability that can be developed necesidades u oportunidades se resaltan el insuficiente
systematically in the framework of an innovation strategy, conocimiento sobre lo que está pasando con la
concerning the input, transformation process and output. formulación e implementación de estrategias de
All issues had a high mode and a high consensus innovación y el desconocimiento de la importancia de la
percentage above the group average, which denotes the actividad innovadora como una capacidad que se puede
importance of the innovation strategy formulation and desarrollar de manera sistemática en el marco de una
implementation approach as well as the proposed topics estrategia de innovación, con relación al enfoque de
for the diagnostics. entradas, proceso de transformación y salidas, todos los
temas tuvieron moda alta y porcentajes altos de consenso
http://www.revistaespacios.com/a16v37n24/16372407.html 1/19
10/1/2017 Revista ESPACIOS | Vol. 37 (Nº 24) Año 2016
Keywords: Innovation strategy, innovation strategy por encima del promedio del grupo, esto indica la
diagnostics, prioritization surveys importancia del enfoque de formulación e implementación
de la estrategia de innovación y de los temas propuestos
para el diagnóstico.
Palabras clave: Estrategia de innovación, diagnóstico de
estrategia de innovación, cuestionarios de priorización
1. Introduction
For several years now, at the organizational level there has been growing interest in comprehending the
innovation strategy characteristics, particularly how it is materialized in varied enterprises in other words, how
the strategy is formulated and implemented. Schilling (2013), among other authors and consultancy firms, has
developed various proposals in order to elaborate a sort of the innovation strategy generic "profile". Freeman
(1974), Strategy & Formerly Booz & Company (2015), Pelser (2014), Turriago (1998), among others, have
proposed how to align a technological and innovation strategy with a corporate one (Pineda, 2010).
The current article attempts to present a methodology that creates an innovation strategy diagnostic tool within
productive sector organizations based on the analysis of scientific articles, patents, PhD theses, and technical
documentation related to the topic. The analysis was complemented with application of the surveys to the R + D
+ i experts in order to obtain knowledge on the prioritized issues, necessities and opportunities of the innovation
strategy as well as the main innovation strategy input and output, with the purpose of identifying the most
significant variables, thus designing a diagnostics of the entrepreneurial innovation strategy.
This article is divided into two sections. The first section is related to the innovation strategy theoretical
framework, while the second one refers to the threephased methodology that includes the literature review,
preliminary identification of the variables, and two prioritization surveys applied to experts. Finally, we
introduce a proposal of twentythree macro variables that correspond to the number of the Likerttype scale
questions related to the "the innovation strategy diagnostics".
2. Framework
Before going further into the importance of an innovation strategy, it is first necessary to define what is meant
by a strategy. A strategy is a set of analysis, concepts, policies, arguments, and actions that respond to big
challenges (Rumelt, 2011 cited in Teece, 2014). Besides, it is the determination of the longterm enterprise
objectives, selection of the actions, and assignment of the necessary resources to achieve these actions
(Chandler, 1962).
A strategy is not well shaped at the beginning; it rather emerges after a trial period. Meanwhile the actions are
visible for the competitors, the policies and the diagnostics remain covert. A good strategy contains a
premonitory diagnostics, leading policies, and coherent actions (Teece, 2014).
Mintzberg (1979) cited in Croteau and Bergeron (2001) suggests the necessity of the developed strategy. It must
not only be projected and deliberated but also measured.
The strategy concerns the competences; however, it must become an action in order to achieve the innovation
success. Ritter and Gemunden (2004) proved that the strategy makes a strong impact on the technological and
network capacity.
Enterprise case studies also suggest that high complexity strategies can resist imitation attempts (Rivkin, 2000).
Simón (1962) cited in Rivkin (2000) mentions that the approach based on the strategy complexity raises a
barrier against imitation. This barrier depends on the number of decisions that comprises the strategy and the
level of interaction between these decisions.
To Fernandez (2005, p. 288), "the strategy refers to the "how" and it is related to the decisions made to attain the
proposed objectives. The decision is the process, through which one of the behavioral alternatives is selected at
every instant. Therefore, the decision process delineates the resources available for the enterprise in order to
accomplish its tasks and establish the way these resources are assigned. However, the decision leads to the
action". Thus, Oster (1999), among others, defines the strategy as the commitment to undertake a series of
certain actions, which inevitably implies the resource assignment. In fact, the actions define how the
organization's objectives are achieved. Hence, the strategies are potential actions that require decisions made by
the executives and human resources.
2.1. Approaches to the concept of the innovation strategy
Tidd and Bessant (2009) demonstrate what is considered the most useful for the innovation strategy definition
and implementation, while Teece and Pisano (1997) distinguish three elements of a corporate innovation
strategy: competitive national positioning, technological trajectories, and organizational and managerial
processes.
Schilling (2013) establishes a methodology to formulate and implement an innovation strategy within
organizations and disaggregates the innovation strategy formulation and implementation as follows: phases in
the formulation of the innovation strategy, R+D project map, collaborative forms, intellectual property and
digital rights mechanisms. The author mentions the phases of the innovation strategy implementation:
organizational structure, new product/service management methodology, development team structure, and
strategy deployment. These formulation and implementation phases are shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. The innovation strategy formulation and implementation phases.
Source: Adapted from Schilling (2008)
3. Background
The implementation of the innovation strategy is comprised of various phases or components, among them is the
"New or improved product/service development methodology". One such methodology is Stage – Gate. Based
on this aspect, it has been established that 68% of American enterprises, including IBM, P&G, 3M, General
Motors, (Griffin, 1997 cited in Schilling, 2008), 56% of European and 59% of Japanese organizations use some
form of this process (Roberts, 2001 cited in Schilling, 2008).
Zartha, Orozco, Vergara, and Martínez (2011) state that the methodology employed is based on the Schilling
(2008) model, even though it contains as an added value the previous diagnostics and the evaluation of the
innovation strategy formulation in the analyzed research groups.
According to the innovation strategy subject, Strategy & Formerly Booz & Company (2015) has found that
nearly all the organizations follow one of the three strategies: necessity identifiers, market readers and
technology proponents. Each of these strategies has a distinct ensemble of capabilities that, due to their
performance, are identified as the most critical. After responding to each item (see chart 1), the tool produces a
report for each of the three strategies, with a crossed strategy or shared aptitudes: conception, product
development and marketing, as well as specific capabilities of the strategy profile, which includes: conception,
project selection, and marketing.
In the web tool of the consulting firm, it is mentioned about the necessity of considering each of the four
dimensions of an innovation strategy in regards to its organization and its typical approach to innovation
(through product teams, business units, etc.). One should select the checkbox that better represents the
company's focus towards innovation. The questions are as follows:
Incremental change: Innovations tend to be limited to a moderate improvement of existing products.
Major innovations: Innovations on products, processes or business models focused on brandnew products, big
changes to the technology, or market applications.
Fast follower: It rapidly takes advantage of the experiences of pioneers to acquire a market share avoiding high
risks. It attempts to learn from the improvement and effort of the initial innovators.
First on the market: It endeavors to be the first to introduce a service, process, or business model. Intends to
attain a major market share by creating such a market, a category, or a segment. It assumes high risks on
potential product failures.
At the forefront of technology: The innovative ideas that proceed from the inside (e.g., R+D laboratories owned
by the company) are frequently found when searching for applications to new technologies. Innovation
processes have a strong R+D guidance and focus on the breakthrough in differentiating technology.
Market analysis: The innovative ideas emerge from the market needs. Innovation processes are strongly directed
toward determining the unfulfilled needs of potential customers.
Indirect consumer insight: the consumer's perception through indirect methods (e.g., observing industry
tendencies or competitiveness) and customer's feedback.
Direct consumer insight: the innovation is profiled by efficient and immediate customer service.
On regards to the innovation strategy, Carlos Shell (2002) states that it is applied when opportunities are found
or created: by perceiving consumer's needs, through the generalization of solutions to a specific problem, or
when strategies are enabled by predictions based on opportunities derived from cost reduction on technology,
the arrival of new applications generated from emergent technologies, the intersection of new technologies, or
the efficient search for opportunities and solutions to perceived issues, by means of an extensive research and
technological development program. Because of an abrupt technological break, applications or solutions are
launched into the market.
Burgelman, Christensen, and Wheelwright (2003) make emphasis on subjects such as technology and strategy
integration, innovation capabilities, development and implementation of strategies focusing stronger on
technological strategy than innovation.
On the other hand, Pelser (2014) conducted a study where he analyzed eight innovation strategy variables in
eightynine enterprises. The purpose of the variables considered by Pelser were: to evaluate innovation
management efficiency, to have a strategy for innovation management and market innovation, to evaluate
market innovation efficiency, to attain a product innovation strategy, to assess product and process innovation
efficiency, and to possess a strategy for process innovation.
To Freeman (1975), an enterprise can adopt the following six strategies for the innovation process: offensive
innovative strategy, defensive innovative strategy, imitative strategy, dependent strategy, traditional strategy, and
niche or opportunistic strategy. In order to learn how relevant each of these strategies is inside innovation
foresight and planning, an analysis of the scientific and technological functions within the organizations must be
conducted, as illustrated in the chart below.
Chart 1.Innovative strategies within organizations
Conventions: ++, very strong. +, strong. *, average. , poor. , very poor or not existing.
Source: Freeman, 1975, p.258.
3.1. Technology innovation strategies
Three main aspects determine a basic technology innovation strategy: process improvement, product
improvement, and market expansion.
The research and development areas related to the engineering and construction, production, marketing,
personnel management, and funding play an important role in defining a basic technology innovation strategy, as
presented in chart 2.
Chart 2. Technology innovation strategies
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION BASIC STRATEGIES
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT MARKET EXPANSION

NEW PROCESS DEVELOPMENT NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT NEW MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Research and Engineering and
Marketing Production Personnel Funding
development construction
Strategy Development Strategy Operation Strategy Resources
Executive
Product
training
Positioning Systems
Domestic Personnel
Domestic Price Quality training Domestic funding
Recruitment
R+D phases Distribution Expences External funding
policies Remuneration
Assistance and Maintenance Promotion
services
Welfare
Source: Albala, (1992)
As Turriago states (1998), a systematic approach based on the combination of technology, product and market
facilitates the generation of technology innovation strategies. In order to make these strategies succeed, the
entrepreneur must select one of the following alternatives:
1. Total or partial transference
2. Original technology establishment via R&D
3. The combination of the two above alternatives
In figure 2, Albala (1992) cited in Turriago (1998) illustrates a basic technology innovation strategy
development model rooted in technology, product, and market.
Figure 2. Innovation strategy development model
Source: Albala, (1992)
3.2. An innovation strategy
Roberts (1987) cited in Turriago (1998) asserts that the corporate practice adoption that promotes the innovation
can undoubtedly become one of the most challenging steps in an organization.
1. The sense of opportunity: the organizations must be deeply aware of the environment in order to
determine all the opportunities that may exist. During 19811983, numerous big enterprises underwent
a decline period when closing a company was not considered as a possible solution.
2. Organizations leaned toward the innovation: currently, the innovation is one of the main aims within
the management strategy for a large amount of organizations. One of the most wellknown cases is
what happened to the big enterprises, such as HewlettPackard and 3M, which decided upon building
small work units that allowed them to achieve a higher new product development within the
organization.
3. Complex production line planning: the link between the current and potential production lines has
become one of the most cumbersome functions within the organizations. For this purpose, a
production department structuring based on the enterprise objectives must come into existence.
Thereby, it can be established which future products are necessary to be devised and which of them
must be removed from the market.
3.3. Innovative strategy in Colombia
Regarding the innovative strategy subject, the consulting firm "Miller Consulting" elaborates a report, which
contains different strategies adopted by some of the Colombian industries. The report underpins the following
factors:
1. The textile sector adopts a defensive strategy to opt for a technological information system, which
allows for the new tendency detection.
2. The chemistry and metalmechanic sectors are characterized by selecting an imitative strategy.
3. The automobile sector follows a dependent strategy.
It is noteworthy that very few firms conduct offensive strategies and the majority of industrial companies still
follow a traditional strategy, which indicates that many of them are not aware of the necessity to incorporate
technologies in order to improve their complexity through modernizing the operations.
4. Methodology
4.1. Phase I:
The databases consulted for this study were the following: Scopus, WIPO database the World Intellectual
Property Organization, Japanese, German and European patents, and Google Scholar. A detailed analysis of
scientific articles, PhD theses, technical documentation, and patents was conducted for this research. In total,
fortyfive documents were found.
The documents were analyzed through the following format (see chart 3):
Chart 3. Document revision and author contribution format
Models Important Main contributions(Innovation

Comments (personnel)
/ Authors Title aspects strategy)
Author
Author Author Author . .
Comparison criteria / Proposal
1 2 3
N
Contribution type: (Mo: Model, Met: Methodology, Me:Method, AC: Analysis, Concept, or
study)
Type of
innovation: (P: Product, T: Technology, Pro:Process, O: Organizational, M: Market, AT: All
types, NS:Not specified)
Context to apply the proposal: (E: Entrepreneurial, U:University, RC: Research
centre, NS: Not specified)
Levels: (D: Delphi/Foresight: S: Strategy, IS: Innovation Strategy, IM: Innovation
management, NA: Not applied)
Degree of detail of the proposal: (A: Alignment, I: Indicators
Software to support the proposal: (Y: Yes, N: No, NA: Not Applied)
Source: Compiled by authors
4.2. Phase II:
The most relevant variables of each selected document were identified, in terms of not only the concepts of the
innovation strategy or its theoretical analysis but also its formulation and implementation. The number of
obtained variables was 129.
4.3. Phase III:
The current phase was divided into two parts:
Phase III A:
During this phase, two surveys were designed and consulted with experts involved in different processes and
organizations related to the innovation strategies in order to, first, identify and prioritize the main problems,
necessities and opportunities regarding the innovation strategy, and, second, prioritize the innovation strategy
input, transformation process and output. The first survey is observed in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Survey No. 1. Prioritization of the innovation strategy problems, necessities and opportunities.
Furthermore, with aim of complementing survey No. 1 results, survey No. 2 was conducted that allowed for
prioritizing of the most significant innovation strategy variables under the input, transformation process and
output scheme (Zartha et al, 2015). The survey is detailed in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Survey No. 2. Prioritization of variables under the concept of input, transformation process and output.
In these tools, a Likert scale of 15 was used to develop questions, where the lowest rating was 1 and the highest
one was 5. The option "does not know/does not respond" was accepted. The calculation of the mode and the
consensus percentage was applied to the results collected in order to establish the priorization.
Phase III B:
After having prioritized the variables, items, or macro groupings provided in the input, transformation process
and output, twentythree questions based on the results were developed on a Likert scale of 14 facilitating the
evidence of the existing weaknesses and strengths within organizations regarding the innovation strategy. Thus,
the diagnostics tool was generated.
5. Results
In phase I, based on the information obtained from the fortyfive documents, the revision and author
contribution format was applied, which was a selfadministered survey with the analysis and classification of the
main contributions, problems, weaknesses, and the initial questions related to the innovation strategy. All the
above became the basis for identifying the variables.
As a result of the selfadministered survey application, a total of 129 variables were obtained in phase II. The
details are shown in the chart below:
Chart 4. Innovation strategy variables

Author Variables Innovation Strategy
Innovation strategy formulation
Strategic direction
External analysis
Porter's Five Forces analysis
Stakeholders analysis
Internal analysis
Value chain analysis
Core competences
Dynamic capabilities
Strategic attempt
Innovation project selection
Derivative projects
Platform projects
Breakthrough projects
Advanced projects
Collaborative strategies
Strategic alliances
Joint ventures
Outsourcing
Choice of innovation project partners
New of innovation
Patents
Trademarks
Copyright
Organization for the innovation
Centralization of services to businesses
The enterprise size
Centralized structure for the innovation
Schilling, M (2008) Descentralized structure for the innovation
Ambidextrous organization
New product development process management
Sequential development processes
Partially parallel development processes
Stage Gate process
Opportunity identification
The idea growth and facilitator science
Progress definition
Predevelopment assessment
Development
Validation
Marketing
New product development team management
New product development team construction
Functional teams
Lightweight teams
Heavyweight teams
Autonomous teams
Team leadership
Team administration
Deployment strategy development
New product/service timing of entry
Licensing
Compatibilty
Price fixing
Distribution
Distribution acceleration strategies
Marketing
Business model
Competitive advantage
Business models to capture technological innovation value
Teece, D. J. (2010)
Breakthrough
Learning
Adaptation
Business sophistication
Change force
Strategic process
Gomez, G. F. (2009) Organization
Leadership
Technology managementtechnology
Knowledge management
Corporate foresight
Corporate foresight qualitative dimensions
Expertbased foresight
Modelbased foresight
Von der Gracht, H.A; Darkow, I;
Trendbased foresight
Vennemann, C. R. (2010)
Perspective
Open innovation
Hybrid innovation
Future development trends
Business strategies
Technological deployment
Organizational performance
Impact
Croteau, A; Bergeron, F. (2001) Architecture
Evaluation
Profitability
Growth
Scanning
Strategy models
Competitive forces
Strategic capabilities
Transformation
Technological opportunities
Imitabilty
Shuen, A; Pisano, G; Teece, D. J.
Replicability
(1997)
Efficiency
Marketing power
Strategic change
Diversification
Entry strategies
Timing of market penetration
Future directions
Strategic positions
Leadership strategy
Technological advantage
Product leadership strategy
Price leadership strategy
Benamara, M. Imitation strategy
Cooperation strategy
Innovation strategy launch
Technology push
Market pull
Change strategies
Strategy as plan
Startegy as pattern

Strategy as position

Mintzberg, H; Quinn, J. B; Voyer, J. Startegy as perspective
(1997)
Strategy as the "P" interrelation
Tactics
Strategy dimensions
The 7 dimensiones of strategic innovation
Directed innovation process
Industrial foresight
Consumer insight
Main competences and technologies

Organizational preparation

Disciplined implementation

Consumer insight

Competences

Palmer, D y Kaplan, S. Core technologies
(2007)
Strategic alignment
Levering
Extension of the corporate assets
Innovation sustainability
Benchmarking
Technological competence

Network competence
Rittera, T. y Gemündenb, H.G. (2004)
Business strategy impact

Source: Compiled by authors based on the ongoing PhD thesis: "The modified Delphi method as a dynamizer of innovation strategies, in the
framework of an innovation management model in organizations that compose the productive sector" written by Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa
Subsequently, based on the results collected during the first two phases, the surveys were conducted in order to
receive the opinion of the experts involved into innovation strategy processes and organizations. These surveys
were submitted to the representatives of the seventyone Technological Development Centers acknowledged by
Colciencias – Colombia. The first survey was sent along with the participation letter to the email address that
appeared on each website. Furthermore, to give balance to the participation of the other experts, the assistance of
the specialists from Chile, postgraduate teachers and enterprise representatives was required. A total of sixty
nine invitations were submitted to development and innovation experts, including two international specialists.
Twelve out of the contacted experts accepted to participate in the survey. As regards the reasons for not
responding to the questions, a number of technological development center integrants responded stating that
they lacked the necessary knowledge on innovation strategies, while the others did not even reply to the request.
The purpose of selecting the Colombian technological development centers as the primary focus is largely due
to the fact that the PhD thesis, the core of the article, had initially an emphasis on a fish technological
development center. However, in the course of the PhD proposal development, a wider focus on productive
organization sector was therefore selected.
With a purpose of evaluating the priorities of each problem, opportunity and necessity, all collected data and
analysis results were grouped. Similarly, the mode, the mode frequency, the consensus, and the consensus
average were extracted from a descriptive statistics evaluation.
In order to define the relevance of the variables, the following criteria were considered:
Variable or priority issue: Mode equal to or higher than 4 and the consensus above the grouper consensus
average.
Variable or nonpriority issue: Mode equal to or lower than 2 and the consensus below the grouper consensus
average.
Variable or issue under discussion: Mode equal to or lower than 3 and the consensus above the grouper
consensus average, or Mode equal to 3 and the consensus below the grouper consensus average.
After having explained the parameters considered for the priorization, the results collected from survey No. 1
are presented in figure 5.
Figure 5. Consolidated results (survey No. 1). Innovation problems, necessities and opportunities within organizations.
In the above figure, the data related to the priorization of the innovation strategy variables are observed.
According to the most significant results from survey No.1, the two most relevant problems, necessities and
opportunities were related to "insufficient knowledge on the innovation strategy formulation and
implementation" and "lack of information about the innovative activity importance as a capability that can be
developed systematically in the framework of an innovation strategy". These two issues had a mode equal to 4 or
5 and the consensus percentage above the average, that is to say, greater than 38%.
The other issues are highlighted, with a mode equal to 4 and the consensus not greater than 38%, which requires
the analysis of the innovation strategy impact. These issues are: limited internalization of the innovation
strategy, lack of methods on how the innovation strategy and the innovation management model can be aligned,
and little clarity regarding the logic used for materializing an innovation strategy.
As far as survey No. 2 is concerned, the collected results are shown in figure 6.
Figure 6. Consolidated results (survey No. 2). The input, transformation process and output concept.
In accordance with survey No. 2, during the input phase, the macro groupers or issues with a high mode equal to
4 or 5 and the high consensus percentage above the group average were the direction and business strategies.
During the transformation process, the "analysis and application of the innovation strategy formulation and
implementation phases" had a mode equal to 5 and the consensus of 62.5%, while during the output, the issues
with a greater mode and the consensus percentage higher than the group average were collaborative forms, new
or improved service/product development process, distribution activities, and innovation marketing.
It should be noted that none of the issues in the survey had a mode different from 4 or 5, which showed the
importance of all the issues to be considered in the diagnostics.
Finally, the variables were grouped in twentythree questions on a Likert scale by means of a diagnostictype
survey. The issues or groupers obtained are presented below:
Strategic directions
Innovation projects
Collaborative forms
Protection of the innovation
New product development
New product and service development team structures
Deployment strategy
Marketing
Change force
Business sophistication
Strategic process innovation
Corporate foresight
Innovation management
Strategic capabilities
Strategy effectiveness
Strategic alignment
Innovation assessment
Network competence
Strategic competence
The diagnostics forms part of the PhD thesis "The modified Delphi method as a dynamizer of innovation
strategies, in the framework of an innovation management model in organizations that compose the productive
sector", which contains twentythree questions for the grouper "innovation management". The question type
used on a Likert scale of 14 can be observed in figure 7:
Figure 7. Question format – innovation strategy diagnosis.
For the rest of the groupers, the question type was the same – the questions on a Likert scale of 14.
6. Conclusions
The problems, necessities and opportunities with a high mode and consensus were the following: insufficient
knowledge on the innovation strategy formulation and implementation and lack of information about the
innovative activity importance as a capability that can be developed systematically in the framework of an
innovation strategy. However, other issues related to "limited internalization of the innovation strategy", "lack of
methods on how the innovation strategy and the innovation management model can be aligned" and "little
clarity regarding the logic used for materializing an innovation strategy" deserve a special analysis due to a
high mode and the consensus close to that of the priority issues.
Within the consulted issues, one that deserves special attention is "the lack of methods on how the innovation
strategy and the innovation management model can be aligned", However, the study does not denote this
alignment as a priority, which may occur due to the presence of the specialists with a high degree of expertize on
some components who do not consider necessary to focus on the alignment forms, since it is probably a well
known subject, researched or applied. This topic could become a core for new research lines as it approaches the
aspects of the organizational structure and strategy.
Regarding survey No. 2, the issues reported as a priority were the following: strategic direction, business
strategy, collaborative forms, analysis and application of the phases to the innovation strategy formulation and
implementation, new or improved service/product development process, distribution activities, and innovation
marketing.
Concerning the approach of input, transformation process and output, it was observed that no issue was reported
as nonpriority, that is to say, all topics had a high mode and a high consensus percentage above the group
average, which indicates the importance of the innovation strategy formulation and implementation approach,
the macro groupers, or proposed topics.
It is of great importance to apply both prioritization surveys to a larger number of experts, aiming at obtaining a
greater consensus on the priority aspects of an innovation strategy. The profiles of the experts who responded to
both surveys were high; however, they can be enhanced on future studies.
Aknowledgements:
The authors wish to express their sincerest gratitude to the National Planning Department, general royalty
system in Colombia, the government of Cauca, the University of Cauca, Regional Productivity and Innovation
Centre of Cauca.
We thank the research group ASUBAGROIN for its project "Alternatives for the use of subproducts derived
from the fish agribusiness" ALTPEZ, to which the PhD thesis of the doctoral program in business administration
of the University of Medellin belongs. The PhD thesis is denominated "The modified Delphi method as a
dynamizer of innovation strategies, in the framework of an innovation management model in organizations that
compose the productive sector".
References
BURGELMAN, R., CHRISTENSEN, C., WHEELWRIGHT, S. (2003). Strategic management of technology
and innovation. McGrawHill Higher Education; 4th edition. ISBN13: 9780071232302. 1008p.
CHANDLER, A. D. (2003). Strategy and Structure. Chapters in the history of the American
Industrial Enterprise. New York: Beard Books. ISBN: 158798198X pp. 1314.
CROTEAU, A., BERGERON, F. (2001). An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technological
deployment and organizational performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. ISSN: 09638687. 10,
7799.
FERNÁNDEZ, E. (2005). Estrategia de Innovación. Thomson. ISBN: 8497324129. 615p.
FLORES, D. (2008). Method for developing an enterprise alignment framework hierarchy by compiling and
relating sets of strategic business elements. Patent No: US 7.346.529 B2. Date of patent: Mar.18, 2008.
FREEMAN, C. (1974). La Teoría Económica de la Innovación Industrial. Alianza Universitaria. Madrid. ISBN:
8420621439, 9788420621432. 403p.
MULLIN CONSULTING. (1996). Desarrollo tecnológico y servicios de extensión y difusión en Colombia,
citado e D.N.P. (sin fecha) p.20.
PELSER, T. (2014). The Affect of Innovation Strategies and their Connect to Company Performance.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. ISSN: 20392117 (online). Vol. 5 No 9. MCSER Publishing, Rome
Italy.
PINEDA, L. (2010). Alineamiento entre la estrategia corporativa y la estrategia tecnológica y de innovación en
una muestra empresarial de diferentes regiones de Colombia. Investigación y desarrollo vol. 18, No 1.
RITTER, T., GEMÜNDEN, H. (2004). The impact of a company's business strategy on its technological
competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of Business Research. ISSN: 01482963. 57,
548– 556
RIVKIN, J. (2000). Imitation of Complex Strategies. Management Science. ISSN: 15265501. Vol. 46, No. 6,
pp. 824844.
SCHILLING, M. (2013). Dirección estratégica de la innovación tecnológica. McGrawHill. ISBN: 8448165993.
Ed. 2.
SHELL, C. (2002). "Estrategias de negociación y comercialización de tecnología". En el marco del diplomado
en convenio con IC2, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana y Colciencias.
STRATEGY & FORMERLY BOOZ & COMPANY. (2015). [Consultado el 28 de enero de
2015] https://surveys.strategyand.pwc.com/InnovationStrategyProfiler/index.php.
TEECE, D. (2014). A dynamic capabilitiesbased entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal
of International Business Studies. ISSN: 00472506. 45, 8–37.
TEECE, D. J., PISANO, G., SHUEN, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic
Management Journal. 1997.
TIDD, J., BESSANT, J. (2009). Managing Innovation. Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational
Change. 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 9780470998106. 622.
TURRIAGO, A. (1998). Temas de Innovación Tecnológica. Universidad de la Sabana. ISBN: 9581201726.
ZARTHA J.W, HERNÁNDEZ, R. (2013). Aplicación de una Metodología de Gestión de Innovación y
Tecnología en una Empresa de Alimentos en Armenia – Colombia. Revista gestión de las personas y tecnología,
ISSN 07185693. Edición nº 18.
ZARTHA J.W, OROZCO, G., VERGARA, J., MARTÍNEZ, D. (2011). Diagnóstico de estrategia de Innovación18/19
http://www.revistaespacios.com/a16v37n24/16372407.html
ZARTHA J.W, OROZCO, G., VERGARA, J., MARTÍNEZ, D. (2011). Diagnóstico de estrategia de Innovación
en grupos de investigación. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. ISSN: 07182724. Vol. 6, Issue
3.
ZARTHA J.W, MONTES J.M, VARGAS E.E, Arias O, HOYOS J.L. (2015). El Método Delphi modificado. Un
acercamiento desde la Metodología de Sistemas Suaves. Espacios. Vol. 36 (Nº 17), Pág. 11.
1. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Email: Jhon.zartha@upb.edu.co
2. Universidad de Medellín Email: jmontes@udem.edu.co
3. Universidad de Medellín Email: stevensonvelez@gmail.com
4. Universidad del Cauca Email: jlhoyosc@yahoo.com
5. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Email: rhernandezz@uqvirtual.edu.co
6. Tecnológico de Antioquia. Email: olga060785@hotmail.com
Revista Espacios. ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 37 (Nº 24) Año 2016
[Índice]

Innovation Strategy PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Innovation Strategy PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

10/1/2017 Revista ESPACIOS | Vol.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT MARKET EXPANSION

Strategy Development Strategy Operation Strategy Resources

Models Important Main contributions(Innovation

También podría gustarte