6. Definition of invention and innovation; Invention” can be defiséd as the creation of a product or introduction of a process for the first time, “Innovation,” on the other hand, occurs if someone improves on or makes a significant contribution to an existing préduct, process or service. In other words, they are related but not identical. Innovation flows frori invention. It is a core competency, sought by both companies AND governments alike. And ‘countries that hamess innovation and entrepreneurship as engines for new sources of growth will be more likely to pull out and stay out of recession. Consider the microprocessor. Sorfiednie invented the microprocessor. But by itself, the microprocessor was nothing more thin ahother piece on the circuit board. It’s what was done with that piece — the hundreds of thousands of products, processes and services that evolved from the invention of the microprocessor — that required innovation. The same can be said for the Internet, as we understand it today. Or Alpple’s ubiquitous iPhone, where Apple took a stagnant product category - the mobile’ phone - ad completely rethought how it could be used. ‘They took an existing product category and existing technologies, but still somehow reshaped modern society. Apple’s innovations in design and uker interface sparked a tech revolution idea. Innovation requires creativity, but innovation is\more specifically the application of creativity. Innovation is the manifestation of creativity into a usable product or service. In the entrepreneurial context, innovation is any new idea, process, or product, or 2 change to an existing product or process that adds value to that existing product or service. An invention is usually a “thing”, while an innovation is usually an‘invention that causes change in behavior or interactions, x Companies often claim to be a “leader in innovation”, and show a large pile of patents as evidence. Patents are evidence of inventions, of having thought of something first, and documenting the new invention through a legal process, The usefulness of those inventions is not Proven, so “inventions” do not always equate to “innovations.” There are many patents which really do not have a use or have influenced no products or industries, Patents without a “use” are not innovation. Aninvention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product or a new process for creating an object ot a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. ‘Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field, ‘An inventor is a person who creates or discovers an invention. The word inventor comes trom the Latin verb invenire, invent-, to find. Although inventing is closely associated with science and engineering, inventors are not necessarily engineers nor scientists. Some inventions can be patented. The system of patents was established to encourage inventors by granting limited-term, limited monopoly on inventions determined to be sufficiently novel, non-obvious, and useful. A patent legally protects the intellectual property rights of the inventor and legally recognizes that a claimed invention is actually an invention, The rules and co — rr ges ps SOT Ey aS 7 Tzrequirements for patenting an invention vary by country and the process of obtaining a patent is often expensive. Innovation is the practical implementation of ideas that result in the introduction of new goods or services or improvement in offering goods or services. ISO TC 279 on innovation management proposes in the standards, ISO 56000:2020 to define innovation as "a new or changed entity creating or redistributing value". However, many scholars and governmental organizations have given their own definition of the concept. Some common element in the different definitions is a focus on newness, improvement and spizad. It is also often viewed as taking place ~—through =the ~—provision —of,-~—smore-effective products, processes, services, technologies, art works or business modcis that innovators make available to markets, governments and society. Innovation connects the dots between inventions, Spotting potential for improvement, it cleverly fills agap in the market and combines inventions into products that will attract customers and generate commercial success. In the broadest sense, an invention is an idea that is ‘new’, ‘different’ and ‘better’ as compared to the existing ideas, Indeed, “the term invention can be used to include“all human creative activity, from composing a poem to developing a chemical process”. Thefé is an important distinction between invention and innovation, An inveption is devoid of ecorfomic value unless it is put into practical use and consumption. An abstract idea may be an important invention, But it takes an entrepreneur to transform the abstract ‘fivention into a marktiable product. By “getting things done,” the entrepreneur produces ecor:nic value and thereby utility, The inventor and the entreprenev:-‘nay or may not be tli€'same person. Telephone was invented by Graham Bell. At the outset, Bell was trying to help’ people whose hearings ate impaired, and one of them was his mothe; This was not at all an economic motive. Bell was an outright inventor. Today telephones. re evolved into a technological miracle. As a capitalist entrepreneur, Steve Jobs’ handy desifn of iPhones was an absolute innovation which added considerable amount of economic iue to the original invention. It created great amount of marketable value and utility by rev’ ationizing the uses and functions of telephone in many ways. Perfect competition rende-s perfect price and profit ypportunities, An inventigr. may remain dormant for yéars until an entrepreneur comes up with an innovation that is 9; 1o mass production. When iiventions are properly adopted in the production process, they.” .zome innovations for they contribute to the productivity of resources. Innovation ade’: on capacity of entrepreneurs closely related with the diffusion process of new ideas in the steely. :7. Models of technology innovations; There are many innovations being developed every day around the world. Some make it to the national and international stage becoming a ubiquitous part of everyday life. Some innovations become important for select groups of people and unknown to individuals outside of those user groups. Many more innovations never make it too far outside their close circle of developers. ‘What causes one innovation to change the manner in which society functions and another to be cast off into nonexistence has been the subject of research and analysis with experts drawing different models and developing overlapping theories as to the cause of successful diffusion of innovations. The main tenets of four diffusion theories and models (Innovation Diffusion Theory, Concems-based Adoption Model).Technology Acceptance Model, and The Chocolate Model) will be highlighted in this section. An Overview of Four Theories and Models A. Rogers’ Innovation Diffusion Theory Before diving into theories and models for innovation diffusion, it is worth taking a step back to understand what is meant by innovation, innovation adoption, and diffusion. In his editorial “What is Innovation?”, Damiano, Jr. (2011) refers to the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition which defines it as “the introduction of something new” where that something could be an idea, process, or product. Straub (2009) describes adoption as when an individual integrates a new innovation into their life and diffusion as “the collective adoption process over time.” Straub (2009) notes that adoption-diffusion theories “refer to the process.involving the spread of a new idea over time,” y In 1962 Everett Rogers introduced his Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) which has been referenced often in case analysis since. It provides a foundation for undeistanding innovation adoption and the factors that influence an individual’s choices about an innovation. Rogers’ theory is broad in scope which lends itself to being flexible across many contexts but also difficult to use as a process model when planning for organizational change due to adoption of an innovation (Straub, 2009). There are four main components in Rogers’ diffusion theory: the innovation, communication channels used to broadcast information about the innovation, the social system existing around the adopters/non-adopters of the innovation, and the time it takes for individuals to move through the adoption process. The interaction of these components helps one understand why an individual chooses to adopt an innovation or not (Straub, 2009). A sub- process of diffusion in Rogers’ theory is the innovation decision or process which leads to adoption or rejection of the innovation. Rogers presents five stages potential adopters move through in this process. The first is secking knowledge about the innovation and its function, ‘The second is persuasion when the potential adopter formulates an opinion about the innovation, The third stage is when a decision is made to adopt or reject the innovation. The fourth stage occurs when the adopter implements the innovation, Finally, the adopter reaches the confirmation stage where they seck reinforcement of their decision to adopt the innovation, Here they may continue implementing the innovation as they experience its benefits or they may change their decision and reject the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Rogers extends beyond the adoption process by identifying five attributes that affect whether an innovation is adopted or not: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and 10 an fe noneobservability. Relative advantage refers to how much greater or lesser the benefits of the innovation are compared with the altematives. How well the innovation fits with a potential adopter’s existing process or workflow is its compatibility. The more difficult to leam and implement an innovation is perceived to be, the less likely it is to be adopted. This is because its complexity is perceived to be too high. Potential adopters are more likely to accept innovations they have an opportunity to experiment with and test out before making a decision whether to adopt or not; this refers to their trialability. Observability occurs once an innovation has been adopted and diffused across enough people within a culture system that those who previously had not thought about adopting it, change their minds or at least begin considering adopting the innovation Rogers, 2003). Many personal technologies such as the smart phone and FitBit type devices have experienced widespread diffusion due in part to their high observability. Some universities have waited until there was high visibility of others implementing online courses before they began doing the same. This allowed them to see the success or failure of the strategy along with leaming from the challenges of the early adopters, This example also demonstrates the impact of time on diffusion which Rogers (1962/2003) discusses in more depth in his book Diffusion of Innovations. Examples of organizations applying IDT to help analyze current practices and plan for more effective diffusion of innovations may be useful to understanding the impact that Rogers’ theory can have in different contexts. “Understanding Academic E-books Through the Diffusion of Innovations Theory as a Basis for Developing Effective Marketing and Educational Strategies” was a study of e-book usage among university students and faculty was conducted and the results plotted along Rogers’ Innovation Curve shown in figure 1. Findings indicated which library patron groups were adopting e-books and at what level. These findings can be used to plan tailored marketing strategies for each group to drive further adoption of e-books which cuts costs to students and to libraries (Raynard, 2017). “Integrating Mobile Devices into Nursing Curricula: Opportunities for Implementation Using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Model” was a study relating to the integration of mobile devices into nursing curriculum was analyzed through IDT. The goal of the analysis was first to categorize strategies for the adoption of mobile technologies in nursing education then, once a decision to adopt is made, apply the phases of the theory to aid in stakeholder acceptance (Doyle, Garrett, & Currie, 2014). Another study, “An Innovation Diffusion Approach to Examining the Adoption of Social Media by Small Businesses: An ‘Australian Case Study,” was conducted in Australia around small business adoption of social media, Researchers used Rogers’ theory to help understand the experiences of small businesses using various social media platforms and where they stood on the adoption continuum and what factors impacted their decisions to either adopt or reject the use of social media in their business practices (Burgess, Sellitto, Cos, Buultjens, & Bingley, 2017). at- Change Svapyn 100% Later Adopters Innovation Percent of Adoption 10% Figure 1 ~ The diffusion process by innovation with the percent of adoption over time (Rogers, 2003, p. 11). B. Hall’s Concerns-Based Adoption Model Stemming from the need for a model particular to educational environments due to their traditional top-down approach to change, Hall (1979) developed the Concems-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). CBAM approaches innovation adoption from the perspective of those impacted by the adoption of the innovation and also charged with implementing the subsequent change — namely teachers in an educational context. The idea is that by addressing the concerns of the teachers during the adoption process, the challenges experienced during the change process will be lessened. There are six assumptions in CBAM: 4 process, not an event. Change is accomplished by individuals, Change is a highly personal experience. Change involves developmental growth. Change is best understood in operational terms. The focus of facilitation should be on individuals, innovations, and context, (Straub, 2009) Three components of the CBAM, formed from the six assumptions that inform a leader planning for change are the stages of concem (SoC), levels of use (LU), and innovation configuration (IC). The SoC refers to individual characteristics relative to teachers concems for themselves and for their students during the adoption process and is the main premise on which the CBAM was 2 er] 12%created (Straub, 2009). The SoC scale breaks down teachers’ concerns into seven stages during the adoption process. Stage 0 — awareness concerns — indicates that the innovation is of no concern to users, or adopters, because they do not know it exists. Stage 1 — information concerns —is when potential adopter are concerned about gathering more knowledge about the innovation. Stage 2 — personal concerns — is when the users perceive the innovation to pose a personal threat. ‘They may have doubts or lack self-confidence about their ability to use the innovation. Stage 3 — management concerns — typically manifest after the first 24 hours of using an innovation when potential adopters struggle with the logistics, coordination, and the time it takes out of their schedules to learn and use the innovation. Stage 4 ~ consequences concems — happens when potential adopters reflect on the potential affect the innovation will have on others such as students in many educational contexts. Stage 5 — collaboration concems — usually is shared by the change agents which are typically administrators or team leaders. In this stage, there is a concern around bringing user groups together in forming best practices in using the innovation effectively. Stage 6 — refocusing concerns — is when users consider whether the proposed innovation is actually the best approach to use in achieving their goals or perhaps another innovation would be more suitable and had a greater impact (Hall, 1979). The LoU and IC refer to innovation characteristics. The LoU scale breaks down the stages of behavior as teachers pass from a lower level of use to higher levels of use (Straub, 2009). The innovation configuration (IC) refers to the process for implementing the innovation and is sometimes more successfully carried out when presented in a map as shown in the example in figure 2 (American Institute for Research, 2010). The Science Program Innovation Configuration Map ‘Component 1: The teacher groups students for learning. (a) Assigns students to groups that | (b) Assigns students to small | (c) Assigns (@) Provides vary over time based on permanent groups for lab students to whole group Instructional objectives and assignments and other group | groups during lab | instruction students’ ably. work. activities only. | exclusively. ‘Component 2: The teacher emphasizes science process and program content. (a) Emphasizes | (b) Emphasizes | (c) (a) Emphasizes sclence | (e) Emphasizes recall science process | the science Emphasizes | recall and memorization {of science faots from and program program content | tha science | of facts from a variety of | previous science content equally. | exclusively. process sources, textbook. exclusively. Figure 2— An example of an IC map for a new science program. Individual components needing to be addressed are separated out then broken down into the (a) ideal state of adoption to the (4) or (e) least ideal state of adoption (image from “Innovation Configuration: Concems-based Adoption Model,” copyright 2010 by the American Institute for Research). 13Although the teachers are seen as adoptees instead of adopters in the CBAM model, they also have the role of change agent in order for successful adoption to occur in the classroom. One might then see the students as receivers of the change, yet the CBAM model only focuses on the concems of the teachers because of their role as change agents, Another note about this model is its apparent focus on negative opinions from teachers regarding innovation. As was mentioned in the overview of Rogers’ theory, opinions formed about an innovation — whether positive or negative ~ can each have an impact on the adoption of the innovation (Straub, 2009). C. Technology Acceptance Model Continuing along the theme of opinions and attitudes impacting innovation adoption, Davis’ (1985) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) asserts that it is in fact a potential adopter’s altitude and expectations of the innovation that affects the chances for its adoption (Davis, 1985). Two focus concepts in TAM are how the innovation is perceived by the potential adopter related to its ease of use ~ how easy the innovation will be to learn and implement — and its potential usefulness ~ the degree to which the innovation will improve the user's personal or job-related performance (Straub, 2009). Of the two elements, Davis believed that ease of use has a direct impact on perceived usefulness as, the easier an adopter perceives an innovation to be able to use, the greater chance they will use it and experience higher productivity thus proving to be useful to the adopter (Davis, 1985). In a later study, Davis concluded that there was a higher correlation between perceived usefulness and technology adoption than between perceived usefulness and adoption. From his test results, he surmised that it would not matter how easy a technology is to lear; people would not adopt it if they did not perceive it to be useful in increasing their productivity (Davis, 1989). An example of the application of TAM to analyze adoption of an innovation comes from a study in the UK examining the key factors affecting whether someone participates in an online travel community. The study looked at compatibility, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness among other factors detailed in TAM but not discussed in here. The researchers concluded that all factors played an important role in determining participation in online travel communities (Agag & El-Masry, 2016). D. The Chocolate Model These impactful factors can also be seen in Diane Dormant’s more recent model — The Chocolate Model ~ for innovation adoption and change (Dormant, 2011), The Chocolate Model focuses on innovation adoption and change related to an organization. It is structured around four elements: Change, Adopters, the Change Agent(s), and the Organization - CACAO when made into an acronym for ease of recollection and use for planning. Unlike Rogers’ Innovation Dittusion Theory, the Chocolate Model can be applied when planning for organizational change and innovation adoption. The process flows as follows: first, analyze the change whether it is a new system or innovation (Dormant, 2011). This is similar to the first step of seeking knowledge that is in Rogers’ (2003) adoption process. The second step is to analyze the adopters of the change. Third, identify the change agents. At this point, a plan is developed. The next step is to examine the organization where the change process is expected to occur as well as analyzing the larger context of the organizational change ~ how it impacts other aspects of the whole organization. Before implementing, the plan may be revised based on the outcomes of the organizational analysis (Dormant, 2011). 14The Chocolate Model aligns well with TAM in that change characteristics are similar. As in TAM, adopters look at the relative advantage of the innovation or change (Dormant, 2011) — referred to as the “perceived usefulness” in TAM (Straub, 2009). Adopters also look at the simplicity and compatibility the innovation represents — the “perceived ease of use” in TAM (Dormant, 2011; Straub, 2009). Two elements not discussed in TAM but called out in the Chocolate Model are the adaptability of the innovation to the specific needs of the adopters and the social impact of the change ~ what the change will mean for the social structure and climate of the organization (Dormant, 2011). 8. Types of technology innovations; ‘Are you aware of the fast movement of releasing technologies in the market? THE INNOVATION OF ‘technologies are getting faster as years passes by. Different industries take advantages of people’s interests with advanced and best technology these days. There’s definitely a huge difference in between the earlier days until now most especially when it comes to technologies that are made and sold in the market at a specific price. There are three kinds of technological innovations such as the Semi- Radical, Incremental and Disruptive. A. Semi- Radical Technology This kind of technology typically relies on the existing knowledge about technology. However, it uses knowledge in such ways that it differs importantly into the past. Cellphones were considered before as mobile telephones but it works in another way around these days. It is now for personal communication that has built-in desks for work and systems specifically made for entertainment purposes. Semi Radical is being represented by cell phones and these are what mostly people wants to have in their everyday life. B. _ Disruptive Technology This type of technology is known as Disruptive as it breaks the traditional ones and this now provide new products and technologies that are more accessible. It is also being considered as disruptive as it pushes the idea about existing businesses and supply chains. For example, digital photography is best because it minimizes traditional films and cameras as well as the e-readers that can make the print media irrelevant. 15Gy Incremental Technology Incremental technologies are small but have valued improvements for a product and methods, It has a later version of word processing program which allows every user to make new documents types with more effective tools serves as the best example for improving the modern technology, These three types of innovative technologies are really advantageous in the marketing platform, yen small business can also give advantages of using these things. Here are the following benefits of the innovation of technologies tend to provide: Speed up. any Work a lot of technologies are helpful in making every work fast. From household task to office works, gadgets help to increase work speed and production. High Profit the innovation of technologies tend to provide higher profits for every users. It may either be a huge or small business. It helps to increase efficiency of work in return of this, and higher productivity is the result. Quick information access~ accessing of information is very quick because of innovation technology. While technology becomes more popular, sending and processing information is easier than before. Developing Communiestion — unlike the earlier days, communication is easier these days because of innovation of a technology. Meanwhile, having communication despite distance is not an issue anymore, That makes an innovation of technology amazing and advantageous. ‘These benefits are the reasons why innovation of technologies is continuously, These mentioned benefits provide higher benefits in return for the development of the community and of every country. The three types of innovation technology will always be useful for all people all over the world. In fact, there are some people considering some disadvantages for innovating technologies however, experts in the industry tells how mankind can control the uses of technologies The Innovation Matrix _ One of the most common ways of looking at innovation is via the Innovation Matrix, which is included below. 16Architectural Radical Innovation | Innovation New Market Incremental Disruptive. Innovation Innovation Existing Existing New Technology ‘The Innovation Matrix classifies innovations according to both the technology it uses and the market it operates in. Therefore, it allows us to conceive of four distinct forms of innovation: A. Architectural innovation Architectural innovation (also referred to as ‘recombinative’ innovation) involves taking an approach, technology or methodology from one field to another. This type of innovation is incredibly common, research suggests that around 40% of the patents registered over the past 150 years fall into this camp, with the ratio growing each year. Examples of architectural innovation Consider the app Uber. Ride-sharing, geolocation and freelance workers were nothing new, Combined, however, they became a game-changing innovation that served as a standout example of the sharing economy ~ so much so that the term ‘uberisation” has become a term in and of itself. 7A slightly less glamorous example but a pertinent one nonetheless: desktop vacuum cleaners. A common household staple, but repurposed for the world of work, desktop vacuum cleaners typify the concept of adapting a classic product for modern needs. This shows that you don’t need to reinvent the wheel to be innovative. B. Radical innovation Radical innovation is what most springs to mind when we think of innovation, as it involves the birth of new industries and the application of “revolutionary” technologies. As such, while it’s also a relatively rare form of innovation, it’s credited with allowing society to take substantial Jeaps forward. Examples of radical innovation History is litered with examples of radical innovation, from the Enlightenment and the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution. All of these periods provoked fundamental questions in how we go about our lives and our relationship to the world about us. Many argue that we are on the cusp of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with advocates believing that artificial intelligence, 3d printing and the Internet of Things (IoT) will cause a profound shift in everything from ‘transportation to healthcare. Smartphones are a standout example of radical innovation, What's fascinating about smartphones is that they caused us to backtrack on our fixation on making devices smaller, and ultimately reconceptualise the potential of the traditional handheld device. Whether used for communicating, travelling or shopping online, it is undeniable that smartphones are essential to our day-to-day lives ~ a defining characteristic of radical innovation. C. Incremental innovation ‘The overwhelming majority of innovations are incremental in nature. Incremental innovation is when a series of small and seemingly insignificant improvements culminates in large-scale organisational change. Incremental innovation is arguably the most accessible form of innovation, as it can often be performed without requiring huge budgets, a large team, or a reorientation of the business's strategy. Examples of incremental innovation Some of the world’s most recognised companies have maintained their position at the top due to incremental innovation. You may not notice the changes, but many ‘legacy’ brands have become industry mainstays because they do not allow themselves to become complacent. Take Gilette, for instance. From inventing the world’s first ‘safety’ razor they have slowly but surely refined their product to better suit customer needs. Another fantastic example of incremental innovation is Amazon. To say that Amazon is « global juggernaut is a staggering understatement, and they have achieved this by steadily perfecting their service offering. This ranges from introducing next-lay delivery to continually experimenting with their web interface, resulting in daily optimisation of the user-experience. 18D. Disruptive innovation Popularised by the late Clayton Christensen, the term ‘disruptive innovation” refers to when an innovation creates a fundamentally new value network. This can be achieved by either creating a new market or by entering an existing market and changing how consumers interact with it Christensen’s theory sees innovations typically entering the market at a lower performance point, at least when measured by the traditional metrics of that market. They nonetheless offer value in an alternative way to a subset of the market for whom that feature is highly important. This bridgehead is then used to rapidly scale and disrupt the whole market. From Netflix to Aldi, it is highly likely that you benefit from disruptive innovation on a regular basis. Ultimately, in a competitive market it’s the risk-takers that rise to the top, and these two companies are prime examples of disruptive innovation done right. 9. Methods for measuring innovation performance; Please refer to the paper of Lamyaa EL BASSITI et al (2016) 10, Examination of national technology policy and development strategy 19