Mitigating the definitional quagmire in innovation research: An inclusive definition of innovation as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly
Rajan Varadarajan
kHUB post date: October 1, 2024
Originally published: 26 March 2024 (PDMA JPIM • Vol. 41, Issue 4 • July 2024)
Read time: 40 minutes
Access the Full Article
A review of research on innovation and new product development points to certain foundational issues of concern such as the use of (1) different definitions of constructs germane to the field (e.g., definitions of innovation, innovativeness, and specific types of innovations), (2) different construct labels to refer to specific innovation types, and (3) the same construct label to refer to different innovation types. Over the years, scholars have cautioned that a body of research in a field of study that is based on different definitions of constructs germane to the field would slow the advancement of knowledge. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this Catalyst paper is to initiate a conversation on the prospects for mitigating the definitional quagmire in research on innovation and new product development by developing an inclusive definition of innovation that can be used as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly. Toward this end, the paper proposes an inclusive definition of innovation based on idea, outcome, and value creation as the defining or essential characteristics of all innovations. Definitions of 10 specific types of innovations defined in a consistent manner, employing the proposed inclusive definition of innovation as a template are also presented. All else being equal, consistency across research studies in the definitions of constructs employed can be conducive to the advancement of knowledge in a field of study in several ways such as streamlining the curation of the research-based knowledge, facilitating the grounding of new research in prior research (i.e., curated knowledge), and eliminating differences across studies in the definitions of key constructs employed as a potential confound on the research findings.