The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Communication on Technological Innovation
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Research Workers
Fisher, R. A. (1945) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/15.11.552b · Cited by 10,883
Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process
Tushman, M. L. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392402 · Cited by 1,496
External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.26.11.1071 · Cited by 630
Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology
Utterback, J. M. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.183.4125.620 · Cited by 629
Self-citationScientists in organizations—Productive climates for research and development
(1978) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/0047-2352(78)90023-5 · Cited by 466
Theta Reliability and Factor Scaling
Armor, D. J. (1973) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270831 · Cited by 392
The change agent's guide to innovation in education
Havelock, R. G. (1973) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 369
Characteristics and External Orientations of Boundary Spanning Individuals
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255825 · Cited by 345
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1979) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(79)90053-9 · Cited by 325
Hage, J. T., Zaltman, G., DUNCAN, R. C., & Holbek, J. (1974) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393906 · Cited by 249
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship
Licht, A. N., & Siegel, J. I. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199546992.003.0019 · Cited by 2,100
Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.321 · Cited by 1,983
Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x · Cited by 1,747
From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0462 · Cited by 1,121
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256366 · Cited by 1,052
Metadata
- Authors
- Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Kansas State University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1984-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 572-585
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › 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
