MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310114985 · doi:10.1108/jbs-07-2022-0124

Cooling off innovation hotspots: smaller businesses need to look wide and deep

2022· article· en· W4310114985 on OpenAlexaff
Kanhaiya Kumar Sinha, Chad Saunders, Simon O. Raby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Strategy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityProduct innovationContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementRevenueInnovation managementBusinessFunction (biology)Scale (ratio)MarketingProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to provide evidence-based managerial advice for identifying, developing and managing a broad-based innovation system for organizations to reap optimal performance outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The general review is based upon large-scale peer-reviewed academic studies of innovation practices in organizations and their performance outcomes and synthesized here through two illustrative case studies. The first case deals with Brightsquid Secure Communications as they expanded their product-focused innovation practices to include broad-based organizational improvements, while the second case focuses on Trimet Building Products and their use of broad-based innovation to turn around declining revenue. Findings Using the SME context, this study outlines an innovation management model that highlights the importance of leadership attention on organization-wide innovation and the interdependence of investments across functions.[AQ2] To enhance their performance, SMEs must implement broad learning programs across the organization that provides formal and informal cross-training and takes a cross-functional approach to innovation and problem-solving. Originality/value Reviewing and integrating the literature on different innovation types and outcomes, this study proposes a novel broad-based innovation model that guides firms that overemphasize improvements within a single function. Further, drawing on the learning literature, this paper recommends an organizational learning and collaboration model to achieve organization-wide innovation for optimal outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business StrategySame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207