• No results found

Changes in the concept of innovation, classification of innovations and their economic impact


Academic year: 2022

Share "Changes in the concept of innovation, classification of innovations and their economic impact"


Повний текст


3. Колот А.М., Герасименко О.О. Соціально-трудовий розвиток у ХХІ столітті: до природи глобальних змін, нових можливостей, обме- жень і викликів. Демографія та соціальна економіка, 2019. №1(35).

С. 97–125.

4. Ляшенко В.І., Вишневський О.О. Цифрова модернізація економі- ки України як можливість проривного розвитку. К.: Інститут економіки промисловості НАН України, 2018. 252 с.

5. Шваб К. Четвертая промышленная революция. М.: ЭКСМО, 2017. 208 с.

6. Negroponte N. Being Digital. NY: Knopf, 1995. 256 p.

7. Tapscott D. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New-York; Monreal: Mc-Grow Hill, 1995, 432 p.

8. World Bank. World Development Indicators. URL: http://datacatalog.


Edita Baranskaitė, Klaipėda University, [email protected] Doc., dr. Daiva Labanauskaitė, Klaipėda University, [email protected]



Nowadays innovation is a very popular and widely used term/concept, seen as the source of businesses or countries wealth.

Many companies and countries sets the goal for themselves to innovate, invest huge funds but paradoxically in many cases lack an understanding of the word «innovation», do not known what the word means exactly and what innovation can be, core of their chara- cteristics is unknown, what and how to achieve through innovation what the results will be. In scientific literature the words «inventions»

and «innovation» are mixed, sometimes even used as synonyms. The

invention is only the beginning of the transformation process [9], and

innovation is a more complex concept. Even among scientists there is

no consensus on how innovation is defined, what it is and what the

economic effect is generated by innovations. Defining innovation

concept remains a serious subject of debate and continuous analysis

[16]. Scientists are concerned about the secret of successful innovations

but confirm the difficulty of defining and classifying innovations [10].


Different authors present different attitudes, emphasize different criteria or aspects [1] and have difficulties to evaluate economic impact.

The aim of this paper is to identify the classification of innovation and its potential economic impact by reviewing the scientific literature and defining innovation.

Scientific literature analysis method is used to achieve this goal.

During the literature analysis the concept of innovation was defined as an enterprise or consumer initiated economic, managerial, psychological or technological process of renewal within a company, which brings greater added value and a competitive advantage. As in scientific literature there are several different groups of innovation concept approaches:

Novelty. The oldest approach group identifies innovation as novelty, started by J. Schumpeter (1934), who was in a forefront of innovations theory

Interaction processes. Other researchers [13; 18; 12; 15] argue in one or another way that innovation is a process of interaction within a company.

Value creation. The third group of authors [11] describes inno- vation as value creation.

Social progress. Other authors [2; 12; 5; 14] describe innovation through a social progress aspect.

However, the definition of innovation concept does not reveal innovations classification aspects. Innovation can be subdivided into categories:

1. Technological innovation [20; 21; 3]:

a. Information and Communication Technologies.

b. Other areas of technologies.

2. Non technological innovation:

Management practices (teamwork, knowledge management, flexible work organization).

Production Methods (changed work organization: global quality management, business transformation).

External relations (outsourcing services, networks, communi- cation with clients) [17; 4; 19]:

і. Marketing strategies 1. Product Strategy 2. Pricing strategy

3. Promotion strategy [17; 23]

іі. Change management methods.

iii. Organizational Structures [17; 21].

iv. Human capital innovation [9; 25].


Innovations introduction in different sectors may possess different features, but all kinds of innovation effects seen very positively.

Today innovation is seen as a major source of competitive advantage.

Innovation is approached as a tool for economic growth and pros- perity in different countries [8; 24; 22]. The EU Competitiveness Report provides empirical evidence on the direct and indirect effects of service and service innovation on economic growth, employment and competitiveness [7; 1]. It is also considered to be a major source for improving outcomes in the service sector [1; 26]. Innovation has become one of the top priorities in many countries for driving economy. The «Innovation Union» is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth [6].


1. Carvalho, L. M. C., & Sarkar, S. (2014). Market structures, strategy and innovation in tourism sector. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(2), 153-172. < https://www.emerald.com/


2. Collins, P., & Fahy, F. (2011). Culture and creativity: A case study from the West of Ireland. Cities, 28(1), 28-35. https://www.science- direct.com/science/article/pii/S0264275110001150

3. Damanpour, F. (1992). Organizational size and innovation.

Organization studies, 13(3), 375-402. < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/


4. DATA, I. I. (2005). Oslo Manual. < https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/


5. Decelle, X. (2004). A conceptual and dynamic approach to innovation in tourism. < http://www.innonatour.usv.ro/docs/A %20CONCEPTUAL %20AND %20DYNAMIC %20APPROACH %20TO %20INNOVATION

%20IN %20TOURISM.pdf>

6. European Comission, 2010, EUROPE 2020. <https://ec.europa.eu/eu 2020/pdf/COMPLET %20EN %20BARROSO %20 %20 %20007 %20- %20Europe %202020 %20- %20EN %20version.pdf>

7. European Competitiveness Report 2011. <http://ec.europa.eu/Docs Room/documents/573/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf>

8. Fagerberg, J., & Godinho, M. M. (2004). Innovation and catching-up.

Georgia Institute of Technology. <https://aragorn.library.gatech.edu/bit- stream/handle/1853/43208/ManuelGodinho_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>

9. Gyurбcz-Nйmeth, P., Friedrich, N., & Clarke, A. (2013, June).

Innovation in special hotels–as a key to success. In Management knowledge and learning international Conference(pp. 19-21). < http://www.toknow- press.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-02-4/papers/ML13-301.pdf>


10. Hall, M. C., & Williams, A. (2008). Tourism and innovation.

Routledge. < https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2009- 0-10095-4&isbn=9781134123179&format=googlePreviewPdf>

11. Howells, J. (2007). Services and innovation: conceptual and theo- retical perspectives. Chapters. <https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/2686_3.html>

12. Iorgulescu, M. C., & Rгvar, A. S. (2013). Measuring managers’

perception of innovation in the Romanian hospitality industry. Procedia Economics and Finance, 6, 512-522. < https://www.sciencedirect.com/


13. Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B., & Olaisen, J. (1999). Aspects of inno- vation theory based on knowledge-management. International journal of information management, 19(2), 121-139. < https://www.science- direct.com/science/article/pii/S0268401299000043>

14. Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation.

The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. The National Academy of Science, USA.

15. Lundvall, B. (1992). Е (ed)(1992) National systems of innovation:

towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London.

16. Mei, X. Y., Arcodia, C., Ruhanen, L., 2010. A National Gover- nment’s Tourism Innovation Initiatives: A Review of Tourism Development Policies in Norway. The 21st Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education annual conference (CAUTHE 2011), Sydney.

17. Mothe, C., & Uyen Nguyen Thi, T. (2010). The link between non- technological innovations and technological innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(3), 313-332. <https://www.emeraldin- sight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/14601061011060148>

18. Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national inno- vation systems. Research policy, 30(9), 1501-1516. < https://www.science- direct.com/science/article/pii/S0048733301001640>

19. Murphy, J. T. (2002). Networks, trust, and innovation in Tanzania’s manufacturing sector. World development, 30(4), 591-619. <https://www.scien- cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X01001310>

20. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114-132. <https://www.js- tor.org/stable/1808579>

21. Phillips, R. W., & Phillips, R. (1997). Innovation and firm per- formance in Australian manufacturing. Industry Commission.

22. Porter, M. E., & Ketels, C. H. (2003). UK Competitiveness: moving to the next stage. <http://www.academia.edu/download/31015819/fil14771.pdf>

23. Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 109-127. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1509/


24. Sipe, L. J., & Testa, M. (2009, August). What is innovation in the hospitality and tourism marketplace? A suggested research framework and


outputs typology. In International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track (p. 22). <

<https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=ref ereed>

25. Tseng, C. Y., Kuo, H. Y., & Chou, S. S. (2008). Configuration of innovation and performance in the service industry: evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 28(7), 1015-1028.


26. Van Ark, B., Inklaar, R., & McGuckin, R. H. (2003). ICT and pro- ductivity in Europe and the United States Where do the differences come from?. CESifo Economic Studies, 49(3), 295-318. <https://academic.


УДК 65.014.12:378.14.015.62:004

Денісова О.О., канд. екон. наук, доцент, ДВНЗ «Київський національний економічний

Університет імені Вадима Гетьмана»


Тривалий час розвиток інформаційних систем підприємств був пов’язаний з автоматизацією бізнес-процесів, яка передбача- ла структурування даних у бази даних і розробку програмного забезпечення для вирішення задач або їх комплексів. На поточ- ний момент автоматизовано переважну більшість регламентних добре формалізованих задач. Крім універсальних систем управ- ління ресурсами підприємств (ERP), широко впроваджуються до- датки керування взаємовідносинами з клієнтами (CRM), життє- вим циклом виробів (PLM), виробничими процесами (MES) та ін.

Водночас спостерігається розрив між практикою використан-

ня управлінських інформаційних систем (УІС) та очікуваннями

бізнесу. Автоматизоване вирішення складних неформалізованих

задач, таких як стратегічне управління або керування змінами,

виходить за рамки компетенції будь-якого ІТ-фахівця через не-

обхідність поглиблених знань з менеджменту, економіки, прийн-

яття рішень, психології, а головне — практичного досвіду. Як ре-

зультат, бізнес-потреби не задовольняються повною мірою функ-

ціоналом розроблених УІС, тоді як потенційні можливості, по-

в’язані з впровадженням нових інформаційних технологій, вико-

ристовуються недостатньо для максимального підвищення еко-

номічної ефективності та одержання конкурентних переваг.



The goal of the work is to develop a method of measuring the short-time frequency instability function using the principle of pulse packet coincidence and experimental investigation

Cost of products is one of the most important quality indicators that reflect all aspects of business, their achievements and shortcomings. Cost of production

On the example of tax sovereignty as a basic component of economic sovereignty, it is argued that state sovereignty and its realization depends not only on the right of state

Exploring the paradigm of the formation of the resource supply of the enterprise in the context of resource theories, it is advisable to identify four vectors of the

entrepreneurial type – critical and strategic thinking, leadership and partnership, digital competence, and the like; – the introduction of distance learning as a self-sufficient

Blondo19, who has experience as a top manager in retail, distinguishes seven types of innovation:  radical innovations for example, delivery of products by drones; 

Post-industrial economy or knowledge economy is not the highest degree of economic science. New concept of smart economy is being reflected in the numerous works of

Identification of the aforementioned approaches to interpretation of DS essence, their analysis and synthesis let us make a conclusion about close link between DS and a concept