The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to undertake a content analysis of extant definitions of “innovation” as a basis for proposing an integrative definition of organizational “innovation”. Design/methodology/approach: A literature review was used to generate a representative pool of definitions of organizational innovation, including definitions from the different disciplinary literatures of economics, innovation and entrepreneurship, business and management, and technology, science and engineering. A content analysis of these definitions was conducted in order to surface the key attributes mentioned in the definitions, and to profile the descriptors used in relation to each attribute. Findings: The key attributes in the paper present in definitions were identified as: nature of innovation; type of innovation; stages of innovation, social context; means of innovation; and aim of innovation. These attributes are defined, descriptors assigned to them, and both a diagrammatic definition and a textual definition of organizational innovation are proposed. Originality/value: As a concept that is owned and discussed by many business disciplines, “innovation” has many different definitions that align with the dominant paradigm of the respective disciplines. Building on these diverse definitions, this paper proposes a general and integrative definition of organizational “innovation” that encompasses the different perspectives on, and aspects of, innovation, and captures its essence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Challenge of Innovation Implementation
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259164 · Cited by 2,113
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x · Cited by 1,296
Cited by
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A. U., Rehman, S. U., & Islam, T. (2020) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2019-0624 · Cited by 681
Towards an understanding of consumers’ FinTech adoption: The case of Open Banking
Chan, R., Troshani, I., Rao Hill, S., & Hoffmann, A. (2022) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-08-2021-0397 · Cited by 281
Valero-Amaro, V., Galera-Casquet, C., & Barroso-Méndez, M. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797621 · Cited by 13
Outcomes of creativity in organizations: From organization to human-centered benefits
Puccio, G., & Schwartz, M. (2023) · Handbook of Organizational Creativity · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-91840-4.00004-9 · Cited by 10
오석영 (2013) · The Korean Journal of Human Resource Development Quarterly · doi:10.18211/kjhrdq.2013.15.4.005 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S.
- Venue
- Management Decision
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-09-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1323-1339
- ISSN
- 0025-1747 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1973980643
- Cited by
- 1,782
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 102.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/00251740910984578
- The paper
- Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.