CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 255Innovation and Knowledge ManagementResearch, Science, and AcademiaTeam Dynamics and Performance

The Effects of Communication on Technological Innovation

Ebadi, Yar M., Utterback, James M.·1984·Management Science
DOI 10.1287/mnsc.30.5.572
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between communication and technological innovation. It focused on the patterns of technical communication among researchers and organizations to find out if these patterns had any effect on the success of technological innovation. The objectives were to: (1) investigate the effects of communication on technological innovation at an individual level, and (2) study the effects of interorganizational communication on technological innovation. Data were gathered from the principal investigators of 117 Sea Grant research projects, which were randomly selected from a sampling frame of 495 projects. Bivariate correlation, and partial correlation, were employed in analyzing the data. The findings indicate that at the individual level, the frequency, centrality, and diversity of communication all have positive effects on the success of technological innovation. However, the frequency of communication was found to have a greater effect than either centrality or diversity of communication on technological innovation. It was also found that high formality of communication had a negative effect on technological innovation. On the aggregate level, network cohesiveness, centrality, and diversity of communications all were positively related to technological innovation. Several managerial implications may be suggested. These implications include management attempts to facilitate and promote exchange of information among researchers and among organizations, joint research projects and other interactive activities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.30.5.572

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Science partners tend to be most important where the innovation is relatively radical in orientation.

    “The evidence demonstrates that science partners tend to be most important where the innovation is relatively radical in orientation (Ebadi and Utterback, 1984;Verspagen, 1999;Fritsch, 2001).”

    From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as Ebadi and Utterback, 1984

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Kansas State University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Management Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1984-05
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
572-585
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
DOI
10.1287/mnsc.30.5.572
OpenAlex
W2139324549
Cited by
255
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Management Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
technological innovation, communication patterns, inter-organizational communication, technical communication, communication frequency, joint research projects

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