IntechOpen

Home > Books > Digital Transformation - Towards New Frontiers and Business Opportunities

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

New Approaches to Innovation Management in the Context of Digital Transformation

Written By

Zhanna Mingaleva and Vladimir Postnikov

Submitted: 07 March 2022 Reviewed: 01 April 2022 Published: 26 May 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.104769

Digital Transformation IntechOpen
Digital Transformation Towards New Frontiers and Business Opportunit... Edited by Antonella Petrillo

From the Edited Volume

Digital Transformation - Towards New Frontiers and Business Opportunities

Edited by Antonella Petrillo, Fabio De Felice, Monica Violeta Achim and Nawazish Mirza

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

199 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

The previous decade is rightfully called the era of digital transformation. The purpose of the study is to assess the impact of global trends on innovation activity, as well as to identify new factors influencing innovation models. A conceptual approach to the analysis of the evolution of innovation models based on the transformation of information and communication technologies for innovation based on the bibliographic analysis and integration of existing concepts and theories of innovation, digitalization and sustainable development is created. With the help of the factor method, the analysis of the main innovation models is carried out and a promising innovation model is determined. It is found out that digital technologies are the technological basis of the modern model of the innovation ecosystem. The result of the research is the author’s classification of modern factors of innovation activity that determine the directions and types of implemented innovations, as well as the role of innovation in society. The peculiarity of the study is that it has a conceptual nature, does not use the collection of empirical data, but is based on the integration of previously developed concepts and theories.

Keywords

  • digital transformation
  • model of closed innovations
  • model of open innovations
  • the innovation ecosystem model
  • innovation management

1. Introduction

From the end of the twentieth century, digital technologies are actively penetrating into all spheres of society. Scientists and researchers started talking about the transition to a new model of functioning based on digital technologies - Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. At the same time, the influence of digital transformation is felt by many countries, as well as all sectors and industries of the economy and types of enterprises.

The impact of digital technologies has also been experienced by the key process of technological business development - the innovation process [6, 7, 8]. The use of modern supercomputers, robotic complexes, VR technologies, etc. in science, research, and production has led to significant changes in the system of organization of innovation activities. Digital technologies accelerate the flow of information, reduce the cost of obtaining and exchanging information, and provide a basis for applying the open innovation model. And in turn, innovations also affect the digital economy [9].

For the sustainable implementation of innovations, and their successful and effective participation in global transformation processes, it is necessary to take into account the influence of the main trends that take place in the economy and society. Including the widespread dissemination of the concept of sustainable development. The first attempts to analyze the relationship between industry 4.0, society 5.0, and sustainable development goals are made in the modern scientific literature [10, 11, 12, 13, 14].

However, the rapid development of digital technologies comes into conflict with the applied models and methods of innovation management. Moreover, a contradiction between the level of development of digital infrastructure and the effectiveness of innovation management methods already exists in a number of countries and regions. This requires a revision of a number of conceptual approaches.

The presented work is aimed at reducing the gap in the theoretical literature on the analysis of the evolution of innovation models, identifying modern factors of innovation activity, identifying promising areas and types of innovation, and assessing the complex role of innovation in the economy and society.

The structure of the work is formed in accordance with the goal and the objectives of the research.

Section 2 contains a bibliographic description of the available literature, concepts, and theories on the relationship between innovation models and the information and digital technological basis for innovation, as well as a list of the main factors influencing innovation. Section 3 contains a description of the methodological approaches to the research and the basic limitations of the study. The main results of the study are reflected in Section 4. This section also contains some controversial issues and research results that require further discussion and empirical verification. In conclusion, the main conclusions and further directions of research are presented.

The discussion of the hypothesis will make it possible to identify and evaluate new factors of innovation activity in the conditions of digitalization of the economy and create a theoretical basis for the formation of a new approach to innovation management that corresponds (adequate) to modern trends in the development of society.

Advertisement

2. Theoretical

2.1 Models of innovation in innovation theories

Schumpeter is rightfully considered to be the founder of innovation theory [15]. The mechanisms of creating new knowledge and innovations always influenced human life, especially during critical moments of economic development [16, 17, 18, 19]. At the same time, innovations and the innovation process have the function of ensuring the competitiveness of the company by creating new products, new technologies for manufacturing new products, or new methods of organizing activities. Success in the competitive struggle is ensured by legal protection of innovations, which gave an advantage over other companies by providing a monopoly right to produce a specific product or possess a specific production technology, organization of activities, provision of services, etc.

At the same time, strict legal regulation of monopoly rights to innovation (discovery, new product, new technology, etc.) was the basis for a special approach to the organization of innovation activity, called the concept of “closed” innovation. We will not dwell on the characteristics of the closed innovation model in detail. But we would like to pay attention to only 2 points that are directly related to the topic of this study.

The first concerns the main characteristics and factors of innovation. On the basis of previous studies, the following success factors for innovation activity can be identified in the model of “closed” innovations [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. They are:

  • internal R&D and technological capabilities (investment in research and development, acquisition of capital assets, etc.),

  • close cooperation with universities, research centers,

  • availability of strong public funding,

  • specific industry and production characteristics of the company, including such as energy intensity, material intensity, human capital, the absorption capacity of the industry market to adopt a new product, the size of the company, etc.,

  • technical norms and standards defining the characteristics of a new product or new technology,

  • the level and strength of competition in international markets,

  • cooperation with other private firms (private co-financing of individual research projects)

  • access to external knowledge (primarily in terms of checking innovation for patent protection), etc.

The main results of various studies show that internal R&D, acquisition of fixed assets, and technical regulations, are the main drivers of “closed” innovation. Large firms were more successful in introducing various innovations, including radical ones.

The second is the main information technology basis of innovation, which made it possible to achieve success. Computers, including supercomputers, were the information-technological and technical basis for the implementation of innovations within the framework of this model, the presence of which ensured advantage (winning) in research activities and competition [30, 31, 32, 33, 34].

However, it was the development of the information technology and technical basis for innovation that simultaneously became the reason for changing the innovation model, the basis for the transition to the open innovation model. Changes in the level of implementation of information and communication technologies in various processes of society’s life became the key points of transition from one model to another. Digital transformation has had a big impact on innovation.

The transition from the closed innovation model to the open innovation model is provoked by the massive introduction of information and computer technologies into the communication environment of society and business management. Computers became not only a powerful means of processing large amounts of data but also a means of everyday communication for ordinary people, as well as a tool for promoting products in markets [35, 36, 37, 38]. At the same time, strict legal support of monopoly rights to innovation was partially preserved in the open innovation model but led to certain transformations in the system of innovation diffusion and transfer.

As for the main factors for the success of innovation in the model of “open” innovations, the factors listed above are added to such factors as the active development of network interaction between companies and the regional community, other subjects of society, the emergence and accounting for side effects from other innovations, taking into account external effects from own innovations, more active consideration of environmental norms and standards, the emergence of requirements for social responsibility, ethics and morality [39, 40, 41, 42]. Also, in the model of “open” innovation, the role and importance of the factor of access to external knowledge have significantly increased, (external knowledge became the main source of information for scientific and research activities), as well as the role of interaction with other companies, including private ones [43].

The next major step in changing the applied model of organizing innovation activity is the emergence of an innovation ecosystem and a model that describes it. The transition to the innovation ecosystem model is based on the strengthening of the processes of digitalization of society and the economy, which began with the mass digitization of various elements, data, and processes [44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. As a result, such characteristics of the information and communication environment as the openness of information, the speed and ability to transfer information in the external environment, the social effect, and significance of information have become the most important factors in the management of innovation activity.

Thus, there is a clear and direct connection between the information and digital technological basis for the implementation of innovation activities and the innovation model used by companies. Digital technologies become the technological basis of the modern model of the innovation ecosystem.

However, the emergence and formation of a modern innovation management system, built on the basis of the innovation ecosystem model, is also under the influence of another global trend - the increasing application (in society and economy) of the requirements of sustainable development and climate safety of human activities.

2.2 Sustainable development as a global factor in the transformation of innovation models

The second global trend in the development of modern society, which is influenced by the transformation of the innovation model, is the concept of sustainable development and climate security of society [51, 52, 53]. The widespread adoption of the provisions of this concept and its implementation in the practice of state regulation and corporate governance changed the role and importance of companies in modern business and economy and led to the formation of an environmental assessment of innovations [54, 55, 56]. To assess the socio-environmental consequences of business activities, more and more diverse social and environmental indicators are used, and the quality of innovation activity is assessed through the statistics of “green” innovations of all types and through the concept of sustainable innovation [57, 58, 59, 60, 61]. Moreover, in recent years, the provisions of the concept and ESG regulation and the assessment of ESG factors in the framework of business processes and innovation activities have been widely applied.

Without dwelling in detail on the characteristics of each of the types of innovations used today in the practical activities of various companies and organizations [62], it is important to highlight the changes in emphasis on the characteristics of innovations implemented in the innovation ecosystem model. These are, first of all, environmental or “green” innovations that ensure the achievement of sustainable development goals, elimination of climate consequences, and ensuring environmental safety [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67]. In turn, the development of green innovations involves the formation of a new system of innovation management. The main factors of the innovation model are also changing. In the system of “green” innovations and in the innovation ecosystem model, new factors of influence appeared, such as the applied business model and value proposition as part of the company’s innovation policy, consideration and use of ESG factors in innovation activities, and the application of ESG regulation, more comprehensive consideration of the long-term consequences of innovation for nature and society, the focus of innovation on meeting environmental norms and standards, social responsibility, ethics and morality in the framework of innovation [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]. The importance of such factors as the openness of information, the speed and possibilities of information transfer in the external environment, the social effect, and the significance of information, which appeared in the open innovation model, increased also.

So, an analysis of global trends occurring in the society of the XXI century showed that in modern conditions digitalization and sustainability became the two inextricably linked trends and fundamental factors that have a significant impact on innovation. It is these two trends that underlie the formation and development of the modern model of innovation.

In this regard, an important theoretical and practical question that arises is the problem of identifying and assessing the significance of new factors influencing the implementation of innovation activities within the framework of a new innovation model that corresponds (adequately) to modern trends in the development of society.

Within the framework of this scientific problem, the following hypothesis was formulated.

Hypothesis 1:digitalization of the economy and the implementation of sustainable development goals make changes to the innovation management model, leading to the emergence of new factors influencing innovation.

The results of the study will expand scientific knowledge about the factors and models of innovation in modern conditions, supplementing the theoretical base with an analysis of the evolutionary development of innovation models. Also, the results of the study will add literature on the impact of digitalization on specific processes in the economy and society - innovation and on the mutual influence of digitalization processes, sustainable development, and innovation.

Advertisement

3. Methodological note

The presented work is conceptual in nature and is based on the integration of concepts and theories previously developed by world science [80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85]. The study is based on a thorough review of the literature on the evolution of innovation models, on other conceptual ideas in the field of the development of innovation theory, on the integration of various points of view and analysis, which were combined to develop a conceptual framework and build an analytical model [3, 86, 87, 88, 89].

The bibliographic base of the study is Web of Science, Scopus, Springer, and Google Scholar. The search was conducted on the following keywords: the AND model AND of “closed” innovations; innovation AND eco-system; the “open” innovation AND model; digital AND transformation AND of AND innovation AND activity; innovations AND in AND industry AND 4.0.; sustainable AND innovation; green AND innovation; sustainable innovation AND digital platforms.

The selection was carried out according to the following criteria: TITLE-ABS-KEY. An extended set of criteria was used, since checking only by the TITLE criterion did not give the required result in a number of cases. For example, checking by the search criteria “TITLE-ABS-KEY (digital AND transformation AND of AND innovation AND activity) AND PUBYEAR > 2009” in the Scopus system returned 470 articles, while checking only by TITLE (digital AND transformation AND of AND innovation AND activity) AND PUBYEAR >2009″ published only 1 article.

Similarly, checking with the search criteria “TITLE-ABS-KEY (innovations AND in AND industry AND 4.0) AND PUBYEAR > 2009” in the Scopus system returned 470 articles, while checking only with TITLE (innovations AND in AND industry AND 4.0) AND PUBYEAR >2009″ showed no publications with that title at all.

The literature review has a clear goal - to identify the main changes taking place in the implementation of innovative activities under the influence of digitalization processes and the implementation of sustainable development goals and to identify new factors influencing innovative activities in modern conditions.

For this purpose, scientific articles and books on the following topics were collected and analyzed: (1) the model of “closed” innovations; (2) the “open” innovation model; (3) the innovation ecosystem; (4) sustainable innovation; (5) green innovation; (6) factors of innovative activity; (7) digitalization and digital transformation of innovation activity; (8) innovations in Industry 4.0.

In total, 1659 different publications for the period 2010–2021 and January–February 2022 were studied.

Bibliographic analysis made it possible to develop a factorial model for the evolution of innovative systems based on their digital transformation. This work is strictly conceptual and does not involve the collection of empirical data. Future empirical studies carried out will make it possible to verify the reliability and accuracy of the proposed theoretical model. Also, in the process of future verification of the proposed theoretical model, it is possible to determine the quantitative values of the strength of influence of individual factors and their groups.

At the same time, in order to preserve the freedom of choice of scientific papers used for analysis, it was decided not to conduct a systematic review of the literature, similar to reviews in other conceptual studies, for example, describing Digital Platform Ecosystems for Sustainable Innovation [90, 91, 92].

Advertisement

4. Research results

4.1 Factor model of the innovation ecosystem

Currently, in the theory of innovation, there are three integrated models which characterize the organization of the innovation process in different information and communication basis and principles. Such as the closed innovation model (CIM); open innovation model (OIM) and the innovation ecosystem model (IEM).

Over the past two decades, these models have been affected by two global trends: digitalization and the expansion of the scope of the sustainable development goals. The influence of these two global trends on the peculiarities of innovation activity at the present stage of development is manifested in turn through a set of factors underlying innovation management and the applied model of innovation activity [93, 94, 95, 96]. Table 1 demonstrates a list of factors affecting innovation activity in general, divided into 3 main innovation models: the closed innovation model (CIM); the open innovation model (OIM) and the innovation ecosystem model (IEM).

Influencing factorsCIMOIMIEM
Innovation Resources
Internal R&D and technological capabilities (investment in research and development, acquisition of capital assets)+++++++
Cooperation with government organizations (state funding)++++++++
Cooperation with private organizations (private co-financing)++++++++
Access to external knowledge++++++
Network interaction (with universities, scientific centers, other subjects of society, etc.)++++++
Side effects from other innovations—+++++
Industrial and market conditions
Specific characteristics of the firm, including such as energy intensity, material intensity, human capital, absorptive capacity, industry affiliation, firm size, etc.+++++++
Technical norms and standards++++++++
The level and strength of competition in international markets+++++++
Environmental regulations and standards++++++
Applicable business model and value proposition——+++
ESG factors and ESG regulation——+++
Social and public factors
Presence of external effects from own innovations—+++++
Social responsibility, ethics, and morality—+++++
Long-term consequences of innovation—+++
Information and communication environment
The speed and possibilities of information transfer in the external environment—++++
Openness of information—++++
Social effect and significance of information—++++

Table 1.

The main factors of innovation activity in different innovation models.

Abbreviations: CIM - closed innovation model; OIM - open innovation model; IEM - the innovation ecosystem model.


Source: compiled by the authors.

The list of factors and the author’s assessment of their significance is compiled using the method of bibliographic analysis of scientific literature devoted to the study of factors of construction and implementation of innovative activities, as well as the method of comparative analysis of innovative models of various types [7, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102]. Modern factors (factors of the innovation ecosystem) are identified by the authors independently in the process of studying the issues of the formation of the digital economy and the creation of national innovation ecosystems [34, 103, 104, 105, 106]. Also, to identify these factors, the results and conclusions of scientific research on the transformation of the open innovation model in the conditions of creating Society 5.0 were used [3, 107, 108, 109].

The factors are divided into 4 groups depending on their participation in innovation activities and depending on environmental conditions.

The order of factors in groups is given based on their importance in the closed innovation model - the list of factors is built as their importance decreases in this model. This order is chosen from the point of view of the historical context of the analysis since it is the first historical model of closed innovations and the analysis of the order of model construction and their transformation begins from the consideration of these factors. At the same time, it allows you to trace the change in the importance of particular factors in social development, as well as the transition of society to the new operating model based on digital technology – Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0.

Not going into detail on the features of the transformation of the model of closed innovation to the open innovation model, let us pay attention to the creation and development of innovation ecosystems, which mostly reflects the trends, requirements, and features of digital transformation.

Table 1 makes it possible to come to the conclusion that in the innovation ecosystem model, the influence and impact on the effectiveness of innovation activities are increased from all factors except the factor of internal R&D. However, this decrease is rather nominal and reflects not the absolute decrease in the value of the factor, but its relative importance compared to other factors, especially new ones.

Moreover, several factors have appeared in the innovation ecosystem model that is not typical of traditional models of closed and open innovations. The emergence of these factors was caused by the influence of digital technologies and modern computer and information and communication technologies, which radically changed approaches to understanding the fundamentals of the functioning of society, business, and innovation.

Further, we would like to focus in more detail on the characteristics of each specific factor in order to understand their role in the process of digital transformation of innovation activity.

Analyzing the directions and power of changes in the role and influence of factors, first of all, it is necessary to assess the impact of such a group of factors as “Innovative resources”. These traditionally include investments in research and development (R&D), cooperation with public and private organizations, acquisition of capital assets and external knowledge. We also include such factors as side effects from other innovations and networking in this group, since a side effect from another innovation can become a source (resource) of basic knowledge and ideas for new developments, and networking is the basis and a powerful resource for search and innovation activities. At the same time, it should be noted that the last two factors appeared only at the stage of the open innovation model and were developed and recognized in the innovation ecosystem model.

The first of these factors is a complex and multi-element factor of the level of development and scale of the company’s internal R&D and its technological capabilities [110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115]. This complex factor is described by such indicators as investments in research and development (their volume, structure, sources), acquisition volumes, acquisition of capital assets, and qualitative indicators of R&D directions and structures. In the conditions of the closed innovation model, this factor was key to the effectiveness of the company’s innovation activity. However, in the models of open innovation and innovation ecosystem, its role is decreasing, since now companies can attract R&D resources and technological capabilities of other companies based on the formation of external links within one or more innovative projects or within the framework of long-term scientific and technical cooperation with various private firms, science-based and market-based partners [116, 117, 118, 119]. Such opportunities for external interaction have expanded especially strongly in the process of digital transformation.

The analysis of changes in the influence of the factor of cooperation with state organizations on public financing issues shows that under the conditions of applying the innovation ecosystem model, this factor acquires a specific orientation [120, 121, 122, 123, 124]. Thus, the directions of state support for research in the EU countries are currently focused on solving environmental problems and are largely associated with “green” innovations. Financing of non-“green” innovations has moved to the sphere of cooperation between private firms.

At the same time, the high importance of factors of internal investment in research activities, specialized equipment purchase, access to external knowledge, the development of cooperation with suppliers and universities was noted both in earlier studies in this area and in modern works devoted to stimulating various kinds of innovations and above all “green” innovations. Modern researchers have noted that these factors are more important for enterprises in the implementation of environmental innovation than other innovations [68, 125, 126, 127].

The following three factors of the given group (Access to external knowledge, Networking (with educational institutions, etc.), and the Side effects of other innovations) had no importance and influence in the framework of the model of closed innovation.

In the closed innovation model, access to external knowledge is of some importance, but it refers, first of all, to the analysis of patent information and data on scientific and technological research conducted by competitors concerning the development of new products and technologies, as well as their improvement. Innovations obtained by corporate research centers and laboratories are actively protected by means of patent law, and the dissemination of innovations to the external environment is carried out on the basis of licenses, patents, franchisees and other instruments for the transfer of property rights [112, 128].

In the open innovation model, based on the exchange of knowledge between different firms and their involvement in solving a single complex task, the role of the factor of access to external knowledge increased significantly [129, 130, 131].

As for the innovation ecosystem model, its functioning is impossible without broad and free access to external knowledge.

The factor of network interaction between various subjects of society in the model of the innovation ecosystem has acquired a special scope and significance [56, 116, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136]. If in the closed innovation model such interaction existed mainly between manufacturing firms and research centers and universities, then as the open innovation model and the innovation ecosystem model expanded, such networks began to cover an increasing number of economic entities and society as a whole, including not only business partners but competitors also. Modern research proved that companies involved in innovative cooperation with other firms of their industry affiliation and industry market are more actively developing and implementing “green” innovations.

Finally, as for the impact of side effects from other innovations, as can be seen from Table 1 in the closed innovation model, this factor did not matter, since innovation activity had an internal basis and an internal orientation. In the open innovation model and the innovation ecosystem model, this influence appeared and intensified due to the openness of both models and the inevitable dependence on external phenomena and processes [119, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141].

The group of factors “Industry and market conditions” is also quite important and traditional for all models. Within the framework of the innovation ecosystem model, it includes six factors, four of which strongly influenced upon innovation activity in the closed innovation model and continue to play an important role in modern conditions.

As in the group of innovative resources, the first of the factors of the group “Industry and market conditions” is complex and multi-element. These are specific characteristics of the company, including such as energy intensity, material intensity, human capital, absorption capacity, industry affiliation, size of the company, etc. [142, 143, 144]. In the closed innovation model, all these characteristics were crucial for choosing the object of innovation activity, the mechanism of its implementation, directions of development, etc. In the models of open innovation and innovation ecosystem, these characteristics begin to lose their significance, as the transition of innovations between industries and activities becomes easier, more active, and broader. Nevertheless, the industry affiliation of companies, as well as the structure and national jurisdiction of capital are significant factors in the innovation ecosystem model in terms of the types of innovations being implemented. Thus, modern research proved that in the case of networking based on innovative cooperation within the same industry and market, the greatest effect is obtained when interacting between foreign companies. However, the positive effect of cooperation with competitors in the field of innovation is achieved by organizing a network between local firms, as well as between competing companies in the service sector.

The second traditional factor of this group – “technological norms and standards” has become increasingly important recently [9, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149]. This is determined by the fact that increasing the uniformity of products in accordance with international norms and standards makes it possible to ensure sales on global markets without additional adaptation of technical documentation and products to the national legislation of various countries. At the same time, technological norms and standards play a more important role in open innovation and ecosystem models than in closed innovation models, when the focus was primarily on internal corporate and national norms and technical standards.

Similarly, the influence of the third factor of this group (“the level and strength of competition in international markets”) is also manifested. It becomes the most significant in the open innovation model. However, in the conditions of digitalization of production and the “erasing” national borders of many production processes, this factor loses part of its influence on innovation activity [150, 151, 152].

The factor “Applied business model and value proposition” is new in relation to the models of closed and open innovations [50, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160]. The transformation of many classical business models in all spheres of activity, which occurred under the influence of the widespread use of digital technologies and the general digitalization of production and business, means a reorientation of business to a value model of supply. Innovation activity, as one of the key business processes of the company, starts to focus on the value model of supply. At the same time, the influence of the factor of the applied business model within the framework of the innovation ecosystem model will be more pronounced in relation to local companies. This is determined by the fact that it is local firms that are more focused on creating value propositions for a specific end-user of a specific region (territory, city). Modern digital technologies make it possible to take into account the interests of the local community more specifically and to develop and promote new values more specifically, especially within the framework of product and process innovations.

Two more factors from the “Industry and market conditions” group - the factors “Environmental norms and standards” and “ESG factors and ESG regulation” are closely interrelated and are also the result of current trends [161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166]. At the same time, digitalization of all processes of environmental control, monitoring of the environmental situation, the possibility of rapid response to various events in society and nature, increasing the openness and transparency of corporate governance based on information and communication technologies, provide a technical and technological basis for the influence of these factors, which will increase over time.

The next group of factors “Social and public factors” concerns the assessment of the social consequences of innovation, the manifestation of externalities from innovation [138, 167, 168]. At the same time, the external effects factor includes only that part of the external effects that create our own innovations (external effects from other people’s innovations are taken into account in the group of “innovative resources”, which was already noted earlier). It is the presence of external effects and their significance for society as a whole that is becoming an increasingly important indicator of the social expediency of innovation. And in the model of the innovation ecosystem, this becomes a key factor in the implementation of a particular innovation. At the same time, the digital environment creates particularly favorable conditions for the widespread scaling of these effects (both positive and negative). This, accordingly, increases the importance of ethics, morality, and social responsibility of business for innovation [96, 169, 170].

In this group of factors, the factor of long-term consequences of innovations is also singled out as an independent one [140, 168]. In the digital society and the digital economy, the importance of this factor is increasing.

As for the last group of factors “Information and communication environment”, it is also new and specific primarily for the stage of digital transformation of activities. The widespread use of digital technologies has significantly increased the role and status of information and knowledge in the innovation system [101, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175]. At the same time, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the concept and factor of “external knowledge” and “information in general”. In this case, external knowledge includes specialized scientific and technical knowledge (information) related to the specific activities of the company. This factor was singled out as an independent one in the group of “innovative resources” and analyzed in sufficient detail in this paper. The development of external knowledge and information is closely related to the innovation decision-making system.

As for information in general, as well as its characteristics such as openness of information, speed, and possibilities of information transmission in the external environment, various types of effects from the dissemination of information (economic, social, socio-political, etc.) in Society 5.0, in Industry 4.0, in the model of the innovation ecosystem become more significant. At the same time, it should be noted that in both cases, the information and communication environment and the level of digitalization of society and the economy are the key basis for increasing the importance of these factors [176, 177, 178].

4.2 Difficulties in the development of innovation models based on digital transformation

The emergence and wide distribution of innovation ecosystems at various levels confirm the conclusion that the digital environment is an important development factor and a condition that affects innovation.

However, the active introduction of the innovation ecosystem into the business model and its further development faces a number of fundamental issues related to the role of innovation as a competitive tool.

However, with the development and improvement of computer and digital technologies, the key factors of innovation activity are also changing, including the procedure for determining the copyright holder of innovation and the mechanism of protecting property rights. Thus, participation in the creation of an innovation and its practical application “erodes” the individual nature of rights, making legal protection and protection of rights more difficult and complex. Moreover, in recent years, there has been a broad discussion in the scientific community and society about who is the creator and copyright holder of the intellectual property rights in the case of participation in the creation of artificial intelligence. This is closely related to addressing the ethical issues of intellectual property protection [179, 180].

Artificial intelligence – a supercomputer with the help of which new knowledge is obtained - is beginning to be interpreted as a special subject of scientific and research activity, and not as a tool for obtaining new information and data about phenomena and processes. In the twentieth century, computers and computing technologies are perceived as a tool /technical means by which scientific research is facilitated, scientific results are obtained more accurately and quickly. However, with the development of digital technologies and the creation of self-learning and self-developing systems, ideas about protecting the intellectual property rights of a robot/artificial intelligence as an equal creator of intellectual property with human researchers began to spread. This can lead to a significant transformation of such an element of innovation activity as the mechanism for determining the right holder of innovation and the mechanism for protecting property rights, and, accordingly, change the model of innovation activity itself.

Based on different studies in the field of forecasting the directions of development of information and digital technologies, it can be assumed that a new model of innovation will be formed in the future, which will be based on robots, artificial intelligence, and self-developing computer systems [181, 182, 183, 184, 185]. Conventionally, such a new model of innovation can be called a model of “self-developing” innovation.

The stages of transformation of models of innovation activity, including a new model, the characteristics of the information and digital basis of their existence, as well as their relationship are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Evolution of innovation models and their information and digital basis. Source: Compiled by the authors.

The diagram of the evolution of innovation models presented in Figure 1 is the author’s development and requires further research both of a theoretical nature and empirical verification in order to clarify the basic parameters of the model.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

In general, summing up the characteristics of the process of evolution of innovation activity models under the influence of digital transformation, the following can be distinguished.

Digitalization has had a significant impact on the process of creating innovations and implementing innovative activities and has also led to the transformation of the innovation model. To date, the evolution of innovation activity models has gone through three stages - from the closed innovation model through the open innovation model to the innovation ecosystem model. However, it should be noted that all three models continue to be actively used in business, and the choice of model primarily depends on the specifics of the products (including market features), the industry specifics of the company, its size, capital structure, form of ownership, etc.

The second important trend that has influenced the transformation of the innovation model is the broad implementation of the provisions of the concept of sustainable development and climate security. However, in the modern world, sustainability can be ensured only based on universal consideration of all factors that affect the life of society, and not only on the specific conditions of doing business. That is why, within the framework of the modern model of the innovation ecosystem, greening factors and ESG factors have appeared and gained significant influence, the transition to the use of which in the regulation of activities has become a necessary element of any business.

It should be noted that the use of computer technology has posed a number of unexpected questions to society regarding intellectual property rights. The process of intellectualization of labor (i.e., an increase in the share of intellectual labor in human economic and economic activity), on the one hand, and the increasing use of a modern computer, information and communication, and digital technologies, on the other hand, naturally lead to a change in the model of innovation management and organization of innovation activities on a new technological basis.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The work is carried out based on the task on fulfilment of government contractual work in the field of scientific activities as a part of base portion of the state task of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation to Perm National Research Polytechnic University (topic # FSNM-2020-0026). This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation to Perm National Research Polytechnic University as part of the development of the Technology Transfer Center (topic # 075-15-2021-1378).

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Bordeleau F-E, Mosconi E, de Santa-Eulalia LA. Business intelligence and analytics value creation in industry 4.0: A multiple case study in manufacturing medium enterprises. Production Planning & Control. 2020;31(2-3):173-185. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1631458
  2. 2. Chen M, Sinha A, Hu K, Shah MI. Impact of technological innovation on energy efficiency in industry 4.0 era: Moderation of shadow economy in sustainable development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;164:120521. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120521
  3. 3. De Felice F, Travaglioni M, Petrillo A. Innovation trajectories for a society 5.0. Data. 2021;6(11):115. DOI: 10.3390/data6110115
  4. 4. Ramírez-Montoya MS, Castillo-Martínez IM, Sanabria-Zepeda JC, Miranda J. Complex thinking in the framework of education 4.0 and open innovation—A systematic literature. Review Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022;8:4. DOI: 10.3390/joitmc8010004
  5. 5. Żywiolek J, Rosak-Szyrocka J, Molenda M. Satisfaction with the implementation of industry 4.0 among manufacturing companies in Poland. European Research Studies Journal. 2021;24(3):469-479. DOI: 10.35808/ersj/2366
  6. 6. Cusumano MA, Gawer A, Yoffie DB. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. New York: Harper Collins; 2019
  7. 7. Ludbrook F, Michalikova KF, Musova Z, Suler P. Business models for sustainable innovation in industry 4.0: Smart manufacturing processes, digitalization of production systems, and data-driven decision making. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics. 2019;7:21-26. DOI: 10.22381/JSME7320193
  8. 8. Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, INFORMS. 2012;23(5):1398-1408. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
  9. 9. Teece DJ. Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy. 2018;47(8):1367-1387. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015
  10. 10. Ejsmont K, Gladysz B, Kluczek A. Impact of industry 4.0 on sustainability - bibliometric literature review. Sustainability. 2020;12(14J):5650. DOI: 10.3390/su12145650
  11. 11. Birkel H, Müller JM. Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability – A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;289:125612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612
  12. 12. Beltrami M, Orzes G, Sarkis J, Sartor M. Industry 4.0 and sustainability: Towards conceptualization and theory. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;312:127733. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127733
  13. 13. Piccarozzi M, Silvestri C, Aquilani B. Is this a new story of the ‘two giants’? A systematic literature review of the relationship between industry 4.0, sustainability and its pillars. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2022;177:121511. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121511
  14. 14. Zengin Y, Naktiyok S, Kaygın E, Kavak O, Topçuoğlu E. An investigation upon industry 4.0 and society 5.0 within the context of sustainable development goals. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2682. DOI: 10.3390/su13052682
  15. 15. Schumpeter J. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1934
  16. 16. Ahn S. Competition, innovation and productivity growth: A review of theory and evidence. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. 17 January 2002;317:1-77. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.318059
  17. 17. Fagerberg J, Fosaas M, Sapprasert K. Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy. 2012;41(7):1132-1153. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008
  18. 18. Mingaleva Z, Deputatova L, Akatov N, Starkov Y, Mitrofanova E. Application of HADI-cycle for providing sustainability of processes of knowledge and innovation. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 2019;7(2):1628-1640. DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(58)
  19. 19. Mingaleva Z, Deputatova L, Starkov Y. Management of Organizational Knowledge as a basis for the competitiveness of Enterprises in the Digital Economy. Integrated science in digital age. ICIS 2019. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2020;78:203-212. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-22493-6_18
  20. 20. Acharya R, Ziesemer T. A closed economy model of horizontal and vertical product differentiation: The case of innovation in biotechnology: A correction. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 1997;5(1):91-92. DOI: 10.1080/10438599700000009
  21. 21. Almirall E, Casadesus-Masanell R. Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review. 2010;35(1):27-47. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2010.45577790
  22. 22. Barge-Gil A. Open, semi-open and closed innovators: Towards an explanation of degree of openness. Industry and Innovation. 2010;17(6):577-607. DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2010.530839
  23. 23. Felin T, Zenger TR. Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy. 2014;43(5):914-925. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.006
  24. 24. Parmentola A, Simoni M, Tutore I. Fast and furious: How the open vs closed dilemma affects the technology diffusion dynamic. Management Decision. 2018;56(4):867-890. DOI: 10.1108/MD-01-2017-0071
  25. 25. Regenfelder M, Slowak AP, Santacreu A. Closed-loop innovation for mobile electronics - the business model innovation approach of the sustainably SMART project. Electronics Goes Green. 2016;(EGG). 2016:1-6. DOI: 10.1109/EGG.2016.7829847
  26. 26. Ettlie JE, Pavlou PA T-b. New product development partnerships. Decision Sciences. 2006;37(2):117-147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2006.00119.x
  27. 27. Malerba F. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy. 2002;31:247-264
  28. 28. Mingaleva Z, Bykova E, Plotnikova E. Potential of the network concept for an assessment of organizational structure. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;81:126-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.400
  29. 29. Greenfield A. Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. London: Verso Books; 2017. p. 349
  30. 30. Rojas MA, Saldanha TJ, Khuntia J, Kathuria A & Boh WF. Overcoming Deficiencies for Innovation in SMEs: IT for Closed Innovation versus IT for Open Innovation. International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2020 - Making Digital Inclusive: Blending the Local and the Global. Association for Information Systems (AIS), India. 2021. arr.no.167844
  31. 31. Bardhan I, Krishnan V, Lin S. Business value of information technology: Testing the interaction effect of IT and R & D on Tobin's Q. Information Systems Research. 2013;24(4):1147-1161. DOI: 10.1287/isre.2013.0481
  32. 32. Cainelli G, De Marchi V, Grandinetti R. Do knowledge-intensive business services innovate differently? Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2020;29(1):48-65. DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2019.1585639
  33. 33. Choi B. The role of firm size and IT capabilities in open and closed innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems. 2019;29(4):690-716. DOI: 10.14329/apjis.2019.29.4.690
  34. 34. Li C, Jiang Y, Fang P. Innovation in advanced manufacturing driven by supercomputing. Procedia CIRP. 2019;83:584-589
  35. 35. Boudreau K. Does “Opening” a Platform Enhance Innovative Performance? Panel Data Evidence on Handheld Computers Working Paper. Boston, and HEC, Paris: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2006
  36. 36. Christensen CM, Verlinden M, Westerman G. Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2002;11(5):955-993. DOI: 10.1093/icc/11.5.955
  37. 37. Kesidou E, Narasimhan R, Ozusaglam S, Wong CY. Dynamic openness for network-enabled product and process innovation: A panel-data analysis. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 2022;42(3):257-279. DOI: 10.1108/ IJOPM-06-2021-0380
  38. 38. Chesbrough H. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review. 2003;45(3):33-58. DOI: 10.1177/000812560304500301
  39. 39. Chesbrough HW. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing; 2003
  40. 40. Chesbrough HW, Vanhaverbeke W, West J. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006
  41. 41. Saebi T, Foss NJ. Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal. 2015;33(3):201-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002
  42. 42. Bröring S, Herzog P. Organising new business development: Open innovation at Degussa. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2008;11(3):330-348. DOI: 10.1108/14601060810888991
  43. 43. Boh WF, Huang C-J, Wu A. Investor experience and innovation performance: The mediating role of external cooperation. Strategic Management Journal. 2020;41(1):124-151. DOI: 10.1002/smj.30891
  44. 44. Calabrese M, Sala AL, Fuller RP, Laudando A. Digital platform ecosystems for sustainable innovation: Toward a new meta-organizational model? Administrative Sciences. 2021;11(4):119. DOI: 10.3390/admsci11040119
  45. 45. Granstrand O, Holgersson M. Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation. 2020;90-91:102098. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098
  46. 46. Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS. Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy. 2018;47(8):1391-1399. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019
  47. 47. Jackson DJ. What Is an Innovation Ecosystem? (2011). Available from: https://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_Innovation% 20Ecosystem_03-15-11.pdf (Accessed: January 7, 2022)
  48. 48. Jacobides M, Cennamo C, Gawer A. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal. 2018;39:2255-2276. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2904
  49. 49. Mingaleva Z, Mirskikh I. The problems of digital economy development in Russia. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2019;850:48-55. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02351-5_7
  50. 50. Smorodinskaya N, Russell M, Katukov D, Still K. Innovation ecosystems vs. innovation systems in terms of collaboration and co-creation of value. In: 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Village, HI, USA; January 4-7, 2017
  51. 51. Abdelkafi N, Täuscher K. Business models for sustainability from a system dynamics perspective. Organization & Environment. 2016;29:74-96. DOI: 10.1177/1086026615592930
  52. 52. Colglazier W. Sustainable development agenda: 2030. Science. 2015;349:1048-1050. DOI: 10.1126/science.aad2333
  53. 53. Hall J, Vredenburg H. The challenges of sustainable development innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2003;45:61-68
  54. 54. Brunnermeier S, Cohen M. Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2003;45:278-293
  55. 55. Jaffe AB, Palmer K. Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1997;79:610-619
  56. 56. Kirschten U. Sustainable innovation networks: Conceptual framework and institutionalization. Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal. 2005;2(1):132-147. DOI: 10.1504/PIE.2005.006781
  57. 57. Boons F, Lüdeke-Freund F. Business models for sustainable innovation: State of the art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;45:9-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007
  58. 58. Cillo V, Messeni Petruzzelli A, Ardito L, Del Giudice M. Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019;26:1012-1025. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1783
  59. 59. Godin B, Gaglio G. How does innovation sustain ‘sustainable innovation’? In: Handbook of Sustainable Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019
  60. 60. Schaltegger S, Wagner M. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2011;20:222-237. DOI: 10.1002/bse.682
  61. 61. Schaltegger S, Lüdeke-Freund F, Hansen EG. Business models for sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organization & Environment. 2016;29:264-289. DOI: 10.1177/1086026616633272
  62. 62. OECD/Eurostat. Oslo Manual. 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg. 2018. doi:10.1787/9789264304604-en (Accessed: January 14, 2022)
  63. 63. Adams R, Jeanrenaud S, Bessant J, Denyer D, Overy P. Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2016;18(2):180-205. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12068
  64. 64. Carrillo-Hermosilla J, del Río P, Könnölä T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010;18:1073-1083. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.014
  65. 65. Bossle MB, Dutra De Barcellos M, Vieira LM, Sauvée L. The drivers for adoption of eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;113:861-872. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.033
  66. 66. Mingaleva Z, Shpak N. Possibilities of solar energy application in Russian cities. Thermal Science. 2015;19(2):S457-S466. DOI: 10.2298/TSCI150330087M
  67. 67. Ramkumar S, Mueller M, Pyka A, Squazzoni F. Diffusion of eco-innovation through inter-firm network targeting: An agent-based model. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;335:130298. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130298
  68. 68. Bofinger Y, Heyden KJ, Rock B. Corporate social responsibility and market efficiency: Evidence from ESG and misvaluation measures. Journal of Banking and Finance. 2022;134:106322
  69. 69. Chen L, Zhang L, Huang J, Xiao H, Zhou Z. Social responsibility portfolio optimization incorporating ESG criteria. Journal of Management Science and Engineering. 2021;6(1):75-85
  70. 70. Chouaibi Y, Zouari G. The effect of corporate social responsibility practices on real earnings management: Evidence from a European ESG data. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance. 2022;19(1):11-30
  71. 71. Diaye MA, Ho SH, Oueghlissi R. ESG performance and economic growth: A panel co-integration analysis. Empirica. 2022;49(1):99-122
  72. 72. Ferrero-Ferrero I, Fernández-Izquierdo MÁ, Muñoz-Torres MJ. Can board diversity enhance the integration of ESG aspects in management system? Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. 2013;145:1-9
  73. 73. Giese G, Lee L-E, Melas D, Nagy Z, Nishikawa L. Consistent ESG integration through ESG benchmarks. Journal of Index Investing. 2019;10:24-42
  74. 74. Kaiser L. ESG integration: Value, growth and momentum. Journal of Asset Management. 2020;21(1):32-51
  75. 75. Karwowski M, Raulinajtys-Grzybek M. The application of corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions for mitigation of environmental, social, corporate governance (ESG) and reputational risk in integrated reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2021;28(4):1270-1284
  76. 76. Mingaleva Z. Ethical principles in consulting. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;84:1740-1744. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.024
  77. 77. Parfitt C. ESG integration treats ethics as risk, but whose ethics and whose risk? Responsible Investment in the Context of Precarity and risk-shifting. Critical Sociology. 2020;46(4-5):573-587
  78. 78. van Duuren E, Plantinga A, Scholtens B. ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016;138(3):525-533
  79. 79. Zaccone MC, Pedrini M. ESG factor integration into private equity. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2020;12(14) 5725:1-15
  80. 80. Docherty M. Primer on ‘open innovation’: Principles and practice. Vision. 2006;30(2):13-17
  81. 81. Gassmann O, Enkel E, Chesbrough H. The future of open innovation. Research-Technology Management. 2010;40:213-221. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00605.x
  82. 82. Hajrizi E, Nagy K. Transformative research driven innovation - the artistry of innovation management in the age of spiritual machines. In: GBRS2018 International Conference, St. John’s University, Roma, Italy, 13-15 June 2018. 2018
  83. 83. Lopes APVBV, de Carvalho MM. Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018;132(C):284-298. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.014
  84. 84. Marullo C, Ahn JM, Martelli I. Open for innovation: An improved measurement approach using item response theory. Technovation. 2022;109:102338. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102338
  85. 85. Oh D-S, Phillips F, Park S, Lee E. Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation. 2016;54:1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004
  86. 86. Fulmer SI. Editor’s comments: The craft of writing theory articles—Variety and similarity. Academi of Management Review. 2012;37:327-331. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2012.0026
  87. 87. Gilson LL, Goldberg CB. Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group and Organization Management. 2015;40:127-130. DOI: 10.1177/1059601115576425
  88. 88. Hirschheim R. Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2008;9:432-441
  89. 89. Lukka K, Vinnari E. Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 2014;27:1308-1338
  90. 90. Travaglioni M, Ferazzoli A, Petrillo A, Cioffi R, De Felice F, Piscitelli G. Digital manufacturing challenges through open innovation perspective. Procedia Manufacturing. 2020;42:165-172
  91. 91. Jaakkola E. Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review. 2020;10:18-26. DOI: 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
  92. 92. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2008
  93. 93. Seuring S, Müller M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2008;16:1699-1710. DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2008.04.020
  94. 94. Baldwin C, von Hippel E. Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, INFORMS. 2011;22(6):1399-1417. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0618
  95. 95. Esposito De Falco S, Renzi A, Orlando B, Cucari N. Open collaborative innovation and digital platforms. Production Planning and Control. 2017;28:1344-1353. DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1375143
  96. 96. Hekkert MP, Suurs RA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits R. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2007;74:413-432. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
  97. 97. Van Geenhuizen M, Ye Q. Responsible innovators: Open networks on the way to sustainability transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014;87:28-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.001
  98. 98. Boudreau K. Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, INFORMS. 2010;56(10):1849-1872. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215
  99. 99. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. “Mode 3”and “quadruple helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management. 2009;46(3-4):201-234. DOI: 10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374
  100. 100. Gambardella A, Panico C. On the management of open innovation. Research Policy. 2014;43(5):903-913. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.002
  101. 101. Matschoss K, Repo P. Forward-looking network analysis of ongoing sustainability transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;161:120288. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120288
  102. 102. Parker G, Van Alstyne M. Innovation, openness and platform control. Management Science. 2018;64:3015-3032. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2757
  103. 103. Tidd J, Thuriaux-Alemán B. Innovation management practices: Cross sectorial adoption variation and effectiveness. R & D Management. 2016;46(3):1024-1043. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12199
  104. 104. Fukuda K, Watanabe C. Japanese and US perspectives on the national innovation ecosystem. Technology in Society. 2008;30(1):49-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.10.008
  105. 105. Gawer A, Cusumano MA. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2013;31:417-433. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12105
  106. 106. Siedschlag I, Meneto S, Tong KM. Determinants of Green Innovations: Firm-Level Evidence. ESRI WP643. Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin. Working Paper; 2019
  107. 107. Tidd J, Bessant J. Innovation management challenges: From fads to fundamentals. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2018;22(5):1840007. DOI: 10.1142/s1363919618400078
  108. 108. Aquilani B, Piccarozzi M, Abbate T, Codini A. The role of open innovation and value co-creation in the challenging transition from industry 4.0 to society 5.0: Toward a theoretical framework. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):1-21. DOI: 10.3390/su12218943
  109. 109. Fukuda K. Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society 5.0. International Journal of Production Economics. 2020;220:107460. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.033
  110. 110. Holroyd C. Technological innovation and building a ‘super smart’ society: Japan’s vision of society 5.0. Journal of Asian Public Policy. 2022;15(1):18-31. DOI: 10.1080/17516234.2020.1749340
  111. 111. Argyres N, Rios LA, Silverman BS. Organizational change and the dynamics of innovation: Formal R&D structure and intrafirm inventor networks. Strategic Management Journal. 2020;41(11):2015-2049. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3217
  112. 112. Brown JR, Martinsson G, Petersen BC. Do financing constraints matter for R&D? European Economic Review. 2012;56(8):1512-1529. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.07.007
  113. 113. Cassiman B, Veugelers R. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R & D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, INFORMS. 2006;52(1):68-82. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470
  114. 114. Denicolai S, Ramirez M, Tidd J. Overcoming the false dichotomy between internal R & D and external knowledge acquisition: Absorptive capacity dynamics over time. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016;104:57-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.025
  115. 115. Ketata I, Sofka W, Grimpe C. The role of internal capabilities and firms’ environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R & D Management. 2015;45(1):60-75. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12052
  116. 116. Teece DJ. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 1996;31(2):193-224. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00895-5
  117. 117. Ankrah S, AL-Tabbaa O. Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2015;31(3):387-408. DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003
  118. 118. Du J, Leten B, Vanhaverbeke W. Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners. Research Policy. 2014;43(5):828-840. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.008
  119. 119. Miozzo M, Desyllas P, H-fen L, Miles I. Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy. 2016;45(7):1337-1351. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.018
  120. 120. Berrutti F, Bianchi C. Effects of public funding on firm innovation: Transforming or reinforcing a weak innovation pattern? Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2020;29(5):522-539. DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2019.1636452
  121. 121. Cecere G, Corrocher N, Mancusi ML. Financial constraints and public funding of eco-innovation: Empirical evidence from European SMEs. Small Business Economics. 2020;54(1):285-302. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-018-0090-9
  122. 122. Miethling B. The evolution of interactivity-new insights into innovation system change and the role of the state. International Journal of Innovation Science. 2014;6(4):213-234. DOI: 10.1260/1757-2223.6.4.213
  123. 123. Reznik N, Palchevich G, Popov V, Petrenko L. Strategic Vectors of the State Financial and Credit Incentives for Innovation. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer, Cham.; 2021. p. 194. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-69221-6_17
  124. 124. Rukanova B, Post S, Tan YH, Migeotte J, Slegt M, Wong S, et al. The role of public funding in the initiation and upscaling of collective innovation trajectories. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Seoul, Republic of Korea; 2020. pp. 336-337. DOI: 10.1145/3396956.3397007
  125. 125. Bocken NMP, Geradts THJ. Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning. 2020;53:101950. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950
  126. 126. Crespi F, Ghisetti C, Quatraro F. Environmental and innovation policies for the evolution of green technologies: A survey and a test. Eurasian Business Review. 2015;5(2):343-370. DOI: 10.1007/s40821-015-0027-z
  127. 127. De Marchi V, Grandinetti R, Cainelli G. Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015;94:211-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.008
  128. 128. Mingaleva Z, Mirskikh I. The problems of legal regulation and protection of intellectual property. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;81:329-333. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.437
  129. 129. Wu B, Miao Y-N, Peng X-Q , Lin G-M, Deng S-J. Patent protection strategy of technical standards in medical innovation. Chinese Journal of New Drugs. 2018;27(5):494-497
  130. 130. Awate S, Larsen MM, Mudambi R. Accessing vs. sourcing knowledge: A comparative study of R&D internationalization between emerging and advanced economy firms. Journal of International Business Studies. 2015;46(1):63-86. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2014.46
  131. 131. Cassiman B, Giovanni V. Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strategic Management Journal. 2016;37(6):1034-1046. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2375
  132. 132. Feller I. Industry-University R&D partnerships in the United States. In: 21st Century Innovation Systems for Japan and the United States. National Academies press. Washington, DC, USA; 2009. pp. 169-185
  133. 133. Franke N, Shah S. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy. 2003;32(1):157-178. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00006-9
  134. 134. Katz ML, Shapiro C. Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives. American Economic Association. 1994;8(2):93-115. DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.2.93
  135. 135. Mingaleva Z, Mingaleva A. Assessing innovation susceptibility of regions and municipal districts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;81:595-599. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.482
  136. 136. Wagner M. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2012
  137. 137. Antonioli D, Borghesi S, Mazzanti M. Are regional systems greening the economy? Local spillovers, green innovations and firms’ economic performances. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2016;25(7):692-713. DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2015.1127557
  138. 138. Bahemia H, Squire B. A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2010;14(4):603-627. DOI: 10.1142/S1363919610002799
  139. 139. Claisse F, Delvenne P. As above, so below? Narrative salience and side effects of national innovation systems. Critical Policy Studies. 2017;11(3):255-271. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1119051
  140. 140. Khessina OM, Goncalo JA, Krause V. It's time to sober up: The direct costs, side effects and long-term consequences of creativity and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2018;38:107-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.003
  141. 141. Todt G, Weiss M, Hoegl M. Mitigating negative side effects of innovation project terminations: The role of resilience and social support. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2018;35(4):518-542. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12426
  142. 142. Antonioli D, Mancinelli S, Mazzanti M. Is environmental innovation embedded within high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and complementarity in green business strategies. Research Policy. 2013;42(4):975-988. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.12.005
  143. 143. Macher JT. Technological development and the boundaries of the firm: A knowledge-based examination in semiconductor manufacturing. Management Science. 2006;52(6):826-843. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0511
  144. 144. Sanchez P, Ricart JE. Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low income markets. European Management Review. 2010;7(3):138-154. DOI: 10.1057/emr.2010.16
  145. 145. Amitrano CC, Tregua M, Russo Spena T, Bifulco F. On technology in innovation systems and innovation-ecosystem perspectives: A cross-linking analysis. Sustainability. 2018;10(10):3744. DOI: 10.3390/su10103744
  146. 146. Busch L, Ransom E, Mckee T, Middendorf G, Chesebro JE. Paradoxes of innovation: Standards and technical change in the transformation of the US soybean industry. International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics. 2006;6:137-155. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3984-0_8
  147. 147. Friedrich D. Normative market regulation by means of early standardization: A descriptive policy analysis for the biobased industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;232:1282-1296. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.362
  148. 148. Hu J, Guan Y, Zhou L, Wang Y. Influence mechanism of ambidextrous innovation on technological catch-up in latecomer enterprises of technical standards alliance. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics. 2020;24(3):251-259. DOI: 10.20965/jaciii.2020.p0251
  149. 149. Konwin K, Gravitz P, Oates W, Gustavson P. Igniting Innovation in the Creation of Future Technical Capabilities: A Standards Profile for Use of Modeling & Simulation across the Acquisition Life Cycle. SIW: Workshop; 2015
  150. 150. Kováč E, Žigić K. International competition in vertically differentiated markets with innovation and imitation: Trade policy versus free trade. Economica. 2014;81(323):491-521. DOI: 10.1111/ecca.12093
  151. 151. Morita H, Nguyen X. FDI and quality-enhancing technology spillovers. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2021;79:102787. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2021.102787
  152. 152. Peñasco C, del Río P, Romero-Jordán D. Analysing the role of international drivers for eco-innovators. Journal of International Management. 2017;23(1):56-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.intman.2016.09.001
  153. 153. Adner R, Kapoor R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal. 2010;31(3):306-333. DOI: 10.1002/smj.821
  154. 154. Amit R, Zott C. Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2012;53(3):41-49
  155. 155. Baden-Fuller C, Haefliger S. Business models and technological innovation. Long Range Planning. 2013;46(6):419-426. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.023
  156. 156. Bolton R, Hannon M. Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Research Policy. 2016;45:1731-1742. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.003
  157. 157. Boons F, Montalvo C, Quist J, Wagner M. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;45:1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013
  158. 158. Dietl H, Royer S, Stratmann U. Value creation architectures and competitive advantage. California Management Review. 2009;51:24-39. DOI: 10.2307/41166492
  159. 159. Osorno R, Koria M. Delia Del Carmen Ramírez-Vázquez open innovation with value Co-creation from university-industry collaboration. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity. 2022;8(1):32. DOI: 10.3390/joitmc8010032
  160. 160. Snihur Y, Bocken N. A call for action: The impact of business model innovation on business ecosystems, society and planet. Long Range Planning. 2022:102182. In Press. DOI: 10.1016/j. lrp.2022.102182
  161. 161. Chouaibi S, Chouaibi J. Social and ethical practices and firm value: The moderating effect of green innovation: Evidence from international ESG data. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. 2021;37(3):442-465. DOI: 10.1108/IJOES-12-2020-0203
  162. 162. De Marchi V. Environmental innovation and R & D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy. 2012;41:614-623. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.002
  163. 163. Di Simone L, Petracci B, Piva M. Economic sustainability, innovation, and the ESG factors: An empirical investigation. Sustainability. 2022;14(4):2270. DOI: 10.3390/su14042270
  164. 164. Horbach J. Determinants of environmental innovation-new evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy. 2008;37(1):163-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006
  165. 165. Katsamakas E, Miliaresis K, Pavlov OV. Digital platforms for the common good: Social innovation for active citizenship and ESG. Sustainability. 2022;14(2):639. DOI: 10.3390/su14020639
  166. 166. Xu J, Liu F, Shang Y. R&D investment, ESG performance and green innovation performance: Evidence from China. Kybernetes. 2021;50(3):737-756. DOI: 10.1108/K-12-2019-0793
  167. 167. Gambardella A, McGahan AM. Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning. 2010;43:262-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.009
  168. 168. Lupova-Henry E, Dotti NF. Governance of sustainable innovation: Moving beyond the hierarchy market-network trichotomy? A systematic literature review using the ‘who-how-what’ framework. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;210:738-748
  169. 169. Antonioli D, Mazzanti M. Towards a green economy through innovations: The role of trade union involvement. Ecological Economics. 2016;131:286-299
  170. 170. Nagy K, Hajrizi E, Palkovics L. Responsible innovation in support of society 5.0 - aspects of audit and control. IFAC-Papers Online. 2020;53(2):17469-17474. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.2123
  171. 171. Dahlander L, Gann DM. How open is innovation? Research Policy. 2010;39(6):699-709. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
  172. 172. Fatemi A, Glaum M, Kaiser S. ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal. 2018;38:45-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001
  173. 173. Fu X. How does openness affect the importance of incentives for innovation? Research Policy. 2012;41(3):512-523. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.011
  174. 174. Henkel J, Schöberl S, Oliver A. The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Research Policy. 2014;43(5):879-890. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.014
  175. 175. Schneider S, Spieth P. Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2013;17(1):1302001:1-1302001:130200134. DOI: 10.1142/S136391961340001X
  176. 176. Cenamor J, Frishammar J. Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products. Research Policy. 2021;50:104148. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104148
  177. 177. Colombo MG, Foss NJ, Lyngsie J, Lamastra CR. What drives the delegation of innovation decisions? The roles of firm innovation strategy and the nature of external knowledge. Research Policy. 2021;50(1):104134. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104134
  178. 178. Osorno R, Medrano N. Open innovation platforms: A conceptual design framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 2022;69(2):438-450. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2020.2973227
  179. 179. Mingaleva Z, Mirskikh I. Psychological aspects of intellectual property protection. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;190:220-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.938
  180. 180. Wang BL. Artificial intelligence technology simulation university three whole education moral education model research. Advances in Intelligent Systems Computing. 2021;1303:844-850
  181. 181. Ahn MJ, Chen Y-C. Digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration: The perception of government employees and the willingness to use AI in government. Government Information Quarterly. 2022; 39(2):art.no.101664. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101664
  182. 182. Keating SJ, Leland JC, Cai L, Oxman N. Toward site-specific and self-sufficient robotic fabrication on architectural scales science. Robotics. 2017;2(5):art.no.eaan8986. DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.aam8986
  183. 183. Motomura Y. Interdisciplinary open innovation through activities in AIST artificial intelligence technology consortium: The scenario towards society 5.0 by artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that enable mutual understanding between AI and humans. Synthesiology. 2021;13(1):1-16. DOI: 10.5571/synth.13.1_1
  184. 184. Takaoka K, Yamazaki K, Sakurai E, Yamashita K, Motomura Y. Development of an integrated AI platform and an ecosystem for daily life, business and social problems. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2019;787:300-309. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-94229-2_29
  185. 185. Yang G-Z, Bellingham J, Dupont PE, Wang ZL, Wood R. The grand challenges of science robotics. Science Robotics. 2018;3(14):eaar7650

Written By

Zhanna Mingaleva and Vladimir Postnikov

Submitted: 07 March 2022 Reviewed: 01 April 2022 Published: 26 May 2022

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 8 Digital Transformation: The Age of Innovations in ...

By Iryna Kovshova

356 downloads

Chapter 9 Perspective Chapter: Data as Currency - On the Imp...

By Kinda R. Dahlan, Ahmed A. Badawi and Ali Megahed

77 downloads

Chapter 10 Yacht Digital Design: Technologies toward a Comput...

By Arianna Bionda and Andrea Ratti

186 downloads