Backing outsiders: selection strategies for discontinuous innovation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key challenge in managing innovation is to explicitly identify ways to improve an organization's performance with regard to discontinuous innovation. However, discontinuous innovation does not fit the existing ‘frame of reference’ and hence requires a reframing of the traditional ways of innovating within the organization. More specifically, previous research shows that practices that work well in the context of incremental innovation do not work in the context of discontinuous innovation. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore innovation practices that enable organizations to select innovation projects, which are ‘outside the box’ of its prior experience, i.e. are discontinuous in nature. Building on the experience of more than 150 firms across 12 countries, we have identified nine innovation practices for the selection of discontinuous innovation; these can be grouped into three clusters: enable, engage and experience. In sum, we identify that an organization needs to acknowledge that its choice to engage in discontinuous innovation will have consequences for the innovation practices chosen to select which discontinuous projects to carry forward.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it