Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Academic and practitioner interest has focused on innovation as a method of competitive differentiation and as a way to create customer value. However, less attention has been devoted to developing a measure of innovation culture. The purpose of this paper is to develop an empirically‐based comprehensive instrument for measuring an organization's innovation culture. Design/methodology This paper describes a procedure which explicates the innovation culture construct, and proposes a multi‐item measure of innovation culture predicated on exploratory factor analysis. These descriptors were derived from extant literature, key informant interviews, and a survey of over 282 employees from the financial services industry. Findings Findings suggest that an innovation culture scale may best be represented through a structure that consists of seven factors identified as innovation propensity, organizational constituency, organizational learning, creativity and empowerment, market orientation, value orientation, and implementation context. Practical implications The seven‐factor model can be used both descriptively and diagnostically. Among other things, it presents a practical way to measure an organization's innovation culture, and could initially be used to establish a baseline level of innovation culture. From there, it could be used as a metric to chart the organization's efforts as it moves to engender innovation. Originality/value More effort should be devoted to developing measures to assess innovation culture specifically. This model presents an innovation culture construct that is complimentary to work that has preceded it. The findings combined with the suggestions provide an alternative perspective as a measure of innovation and extends a basic framework for further investigation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".