CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 194Innovation and Knowledge ManagementManagement and Organizational StudiesInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting

Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches

King, Nigel·1992·Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00487.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research into the innovation process requires models of the process which accurately describe, and can reliably be applied to, real examples of innovation in organizations. In this paper two models are compared empirically in terms of reliability and accuracy. The first (Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973) follows the traditional approach of depicting the process in a series of discrete stages. The second (Schroeder, Van de Ven, Scudder & Polley, 1989) shows the process to be more fluid, without a fixed sequence of stages. The models are applied to case histories of seven innovations observed in a longitudinal study of a hospital ward. Inter‐rater reliability is higher for Schroeder's model, while overall support across raters tends to be stronger for the individual stages of Zaltman's model. However, there are problems with the sequence of stages in the latter model. Future research should aim to develop empirically‐grounded models based on a wide range of different innovations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00487.x

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is empirical support for the suggestion that the innovation process as it unfolds over time is messy, reiterative, and often involves two steps forwards for one step backwards plus several side-steps.

    “There is indeed some empirical support for this suggestion with several studies showing that the innovation process as it unfolds over time is messy, reiterative, and often involves two steps forwards for one step backwards plus several side-steps (King, 1992; Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole, 1989).”

    From Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework (2014) · cites this paper as King, 1992

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
King, N.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
King, Nigel
ORCID
King, Nigel
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-06
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
89-100
ISSN
  • 0963-1798 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8325
DOI
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00487.x
OpenAlex
W2103415105
Cited by
193
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 7016 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Keywords
innovation process, innovation process model, inter-rater reliability, model accuracy, organizational innovation

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