Abstract

Efficiency of innovative idea selection may be increased if the methodology of indicative estimation of expediency of innovative project realization on principles of its evolutional correctness (EC) and efficiency (EE) is applied. This methodology envisages the consistent evaluation of EC and EE of an innovation object (InOb), novelty degree, nature and result of innovative transformation etc. by calculation of corresponding partial indicators that reflect the change of the evolutional state of constituents of the innovative system according to base evolutional models. The values of the indicators are compared to reference coefficients of confidence in successful project realization under appropriate success factors with further consideration of the revealed evolutionary risks in the project discount rate. The aim of the article. The aim of this research was to develop a methodology of indicative estimation of evolutional expediency of innovative transformation of certain novelty degree and nature, including the methods of determination and calculation of the indicators and taking into account the excessive evolutional risks related to the degree of novelty in the discount rate of the project. The results of the analysis. In accordance to the worked out methodology of indicative estimation of evolutional expediency of project realization the indicators of innovation EC and EE are qualitatively estimated after the degree of efficiency of the change of the evolution state of innovative system constituents on s-curves and lines of evolution, while the corresponding quantitative values are estimated by comparison to corresponding qualitative and quantitative values of coefficients of confidence in project realization. Correctness of the novelty degree and nature of innovative transformation is determined by the degree of accordance of them to the evolutional state of InOb and its surroundings. On the basis of the conformities of change of innovation typology during the product evolution the matrices of qualitative appraisals of correctness of novelty degree and nature of innovations under the different stages of InOb life cycle were worked out. It was also proved that innovative transformation of certain novelty degree and nature is evolutionally expedient under such conditions: – evolutional state of the InOb provides for expediency of realization of innovation of certain novelty and succession (indicator ІnN1) according to the appropriate matrix of correctness rates. It is to be taken into account that the project realization is expedient regardless of this state for breakthrough innovations which provide fundamentally new consumer values and markets (indicator ІnN2); – the state of technological and market novelty envisages (in case of product or technological innovations) the expediency of realization of innovation of this type and novelty (indicator ІnN3); – state of InOb envisages (in case of product or technological innovations) the expediency of realization of innovations of certain nature (indicator ІnN4); – innovative transformation does not worsen the evolutional state of either InOb or its supersystem, except cases, when the innovator aims at this worsening (indicator ІnN 5). Qualitative values of partial indicators ІnNj are estimated after the developed matrices of quality appraisal of correctness of novelty degree and nature of innovations under appropriate evolutional state of the InOb and its supersystem; corresponding quantitative values are calculated as a result of superposition of indicators of EC and EE after the formulas of estimation of integral ratio of confidence for two factors. The integral indicator ІnNS  is calculated similarly. The quantitative values of indicators are compared to reference ratios of confidence under such factors as:  new unique consumer value; strategic adequacy; competitive advantage rate; novelty degree and nature of innovative transformation. The divergences of indicator values and reference coefficients of confidence are taken into account in the project discount rate as additional evolutional risks. Conclusions and directions of further researches. By and large the methodology proposed gives an opportunity to determine the expediency and risk of certain innovative transformation, realization of which is the aim of project, and take into account this risk quantitatively in the project discount rate. The increase of correctness of such appraisals may be achieved under further permanent adjustment of values of reference ratios of confidence on the base of current research data concerning influence of innovative project success factors on project efficiency.

Keywords: innovation, degree of novelty, indicator of evolutional correctness, coefficient of confidence, innovative project, object of innovation

JEL Classification: O22, O29, D81, M20.

Cite as: Hlinenko, L. (2016). Evolutional expediency of innovations of different novelty. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 206-217. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2016.4-17

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Cooper, R.G.  (2013). New Product – What Separates the Winners from the Losers and What Drives Success. The PDMA handbook of new product developmentю (pp. 3-34). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [in English].
2. Edgett, S.J. (n.d.). Latest Research: New Product Success, Failure and Kill Rates. www.stage-gate.com. Retrieved from http://www.stage-gate.com/resources_stage-gate_latestresearch.php [in English].
3. Hlinenko, L.K. (2012). Metodolohichnyj pidkhid do otsinky evoliutsijnoho ryzyku innovatsijnykh proektiv [Methodological approach to evaluation of evolutional risk in innovative projects]. Marketynh i menedzhment innovatsii – Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 161-168 [in Ukrainian].
4. Mann, D. (2002). Hands-On Systematic Innovation. Belgium: CREAX Press [in English].
5. Mann, D. (2006). On Innovation Timing. Journal of TRIZ, 1. Retrieved from www.triz-journal.com/archives/2006/01/10.pdf [in English].
6. Christensen, C.M., & Raynor, M.E. (2013). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press [in English].
7. Moore, G. (2005). Dealing with Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of Their Evolution. NY: Portfolio [in English].
8. Hlinenko, L.K. (2015). Otsiniuvannia apriornykh znachen’ koefitsiientiv upevnenosti innovatsijnykh proektiv [Estimation of the reference values of coefficients of confidence in innovative project success].  Marketynh i menedzhment innovatsii – Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 118-128 [in Ukrainian].
9. Hlinenko, L.K. (2009). Metodologichni zasady indykatyvnoi otsinki evoliutsiinoi dotsilnosti innovatsii [Methodological foundations of indicative appraisal of innovation expediency]. Mechanism reguliuvannia ekonomiky – Mechanism of economics regulation, 3(2), 191-198 [in Ukrainian].
10. Kotelnikov, V. (n.d.). Customer Satisfaction. 1000ventures.com. Retrieved from www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/customer_satisfaction.html [in English].
11. Horowitz, R. (2001). Using ASIT to Develop New Products. Journal of TRIZ, 11. Retrieved from http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/11/f/index.htm [in English].
12. Kadareja, A. (2013). Risks of Incremental, Differential, Radical, and Breakthrough Innovation Projects. www.innovationmanagement.se. Retrieved from www.innovationmanagement.se/2013/07/29/ [in English].
13. Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R.J. & Jiang, Y. (2012). Success Factors of Product Innovation: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 21-37 [in English].
14. Illiashenko, S.M. (2005). Upravlinnia innovaciinym rozvytkom [Management of innovative development]. Sumy: VTD «Universytetska knyga»; K.: VD «Kniagynia Olga» [in Ukrainian].
15. Hartmann, G.С., & Myers М.В. (2000). Technical Risk, Product Specifications, and Market. Report of the Project Team NIST GCR 00-787 «Managing Technical Risk» for U.S. Department of Commerceю (pp. 64–74). NY: National Institute of Standards and Technology [in English].
16. Lynn, G.S., & Akgun, A.E. (1998). Innovation Strategies Under Uncertainty: A Contingency Approach for New Product Development. Engineering Management Journal, 10(3), 11-17 [in English].
17. Verworn B., & Herstatt, C. (n.d.). Managing the «Fuzzy Front End» of Innovation. www.palgrave.com. Retrieved from www.palgrave.com/106C.pdf [in English].
18. Henard, D.H., & Szymanski, D.M. (2001). Why Some New Products Are More Successful Than Others? Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 362-375 [in English].
19. Urban, G., & Hauser, J. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (pp. 1-16) [in English].
20. Poppe, G., & Gras, B. (2002). ТRIZ in the Process Industry. Journal of TRIZ, 2. Retrieved from http://www.triz-journal.com/triz-process-industry/ [in English].
21. Dormandise. (2003). An Emerging Consumer Trend and Related New Business Ideas. www.trendwatching.com. Retrieved from www.trendwatching.com/trends/2003/05/DORMANDISE.html [in English].
22. Cooper, R., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2000). New Product Performance: What Distinguishes the Star Products. Australian Journal of Management, 1, 17-46 [in English].
23. Carbonell-Foulquie, P., Munuera-Aleman, J., & Rodrіguez-Escudero, A. (2004). Technology Newness and Impact of Go/No-Go Criteria on New Product Success. Marketing Letters, 15(2-3), 81-97 [in English].
24. Leonard-Barton, D., Wilson, E., & Doyle, J. (1995). Commercializing Technology: Understanding User Needs. Busness Marketing Strategy: Cases, Concepts, and Applications. (pp. 281-305). Chicago, IL: Irwing [in English].
25. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A.C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning, 34, 699-725 [in English].