Innovation Management Techniques and Tools... Its Impact On Firm Innovation Performance... Albors... 2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/323018119
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS: ITS

IMPACT ON FIRM INNOVATION PERFORMANCE
Article in International Journal of Innovation Management · February 2018

DOI: 10.1142/S1363919618500512
CITATION READS
1 153
3 authors, including:
Jose Albors
Polytechnical University of Valencia (U.P.V.)
140 PUBLICATIONS 1,297 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Mature Industries Value Chain View project
KNowledge dynamics in Haute Cuisine View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Albors on 24 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Innovation Management
(2018) 1850051 (31 pages)
© World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd.
DOI: 10.1142/S1363919618500512
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND

TOOLS: ITS IMPACT ON FIRM INNOVATION
PERFORMANCE
JOSE ALBORS-GARRIGOS, JUAN IGNACIO IGARTUA and ANGEL PEIRO

Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Published 8 February 2018

by WSPC on 04/17/18. For personal use only.
Innovation management is a subject that raises the interest of academics and practitioners
in the field of management. However, the academic literature is scarce regarding the details
of implementing it in a systemic and routinised way. Additionally, although there are
multiple tools and models to apply it at a firm level, there is little information concerning
its effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to fill this research gap by analysing how the
utilisation of Innovation Management Techniques (IMTS) influences the innovation per-
formance of firms. The research was based on a large and representative sample of
industries in the Basque Region in Northeast Spain. The primary conclusions drawn from
the research are that IMTS have a definite positive impact on the firm’s innovation results,
and some of them have a stronger influence, with a significant impact on incremental
innovation; the latter results will affect the radical innovation performance of the
companies. Additionally, it has been concluded that the industry environment has a strong
moderating influence on this relationship.
Keywords: Innovation management; innovation management techniques and tools; innovation

performance.
Introduction
Today, innovation management has become a generic term. A search in the web of
science gives an outcome of 25.579 results (1.277 with the word in quotations) and
76.770 in Scopus (2.064 with references). Additionally, since their proposals, the
first linear innovation models have evolved to cope with a broader and systemic
consideration of innovation. It has also been a matter of debate in this journal.
There is a high demand among firms for practical approaches to managing in-
novation, and hence, numerous management models have been proposed to
manage growing uncertainties and increasing global competition (Drucker, 2007,
p. xix). Thus, in fact, both the various innovation management models and
1850051-1
J. Albors-Garrigos, J. I. Igartua & A. Peiro
innovation management techniques or tools have been proposed to manage inno-

vation more efficiently at the firm level. However, the literature related to the latter,
which is the focus of this paper, is scarce and dispersed among various fields.
Objectives
This research, based on an extensive field study carried out among industrial firms
based in Northern Spain, has the following objectives:
(1) To review the recent state of the art related to the particular field of innovation
management techniques and tools.
(2) To analyse its impact and the role of the environment as a moderating factor
on the innovation performance of the firms, focusing on the practice outcomes,
and consequently filling an existing research gap in the academic literature.
The paper is organised as follows: First, the concept of innovation management

tools will be reviewed from a general point of view, distinguishing it from tech-
nology innovation or innovative management (IM), which constitute three different
fields. Following the academic literature dealing with innovation management
techniques will be revised and discussed. A model proposal as well as the corre-
sponding theoretical hypotheses will be exposed. A fourth section will present
the research methodology, as well as the results of the field study. The article
will conclude with a fifth section proposing academic conclusions and practical
implications.
State of the Art

In order to proceed with a content analysis and tackle the mean issue of our
research: the tools and techniques to manage innovation and its impact on the
innovation outcomes, we will proceed first to situate the subject and its boundaries
in a certain management area: the management of innovation, to concentrate later
in the research topic. We have utilised the Scopus database and followed a concept
centric approach (Webster and Watson, 2002).
The management of innovation

There could be considered, in principle, three basic overlapping terms when we
consider the field of management of innovation — Innovation Management or,
better defined, IM, technology management (TM) and management of innovation (MI).
1850051-2
Innovation Management Techniques and Tools
Concerning the first, IM, Hamel (2006, p. 75) defines it as “changes in what
managers do and how they do it,” which can create long-lasting advantages for
the firms. Birkinshaw et al. (2008, p. 825) contribute to defining innovation
(innovative) management as “the invention of a management practice, process,
structure or technique that is new to the state of the art and is intended to further
organizational goals.” In this sense, they analyse the institutional context, propa-
gation, cultural repercussions, and role of managers influencing it. Furthermore, a
leading author in the subject claims that “Innovative Management yields an
enduring advantage when one or more of three conditions are met: the innovation
is based on a novel management principle which challenges some long-standing
orthodoxy; the innovation is systemic, encompassing a range of processes
and methods; and/or the innovation is part of an ongoing program of rapid-fire

invention where progress compounds over time.” (Hamel and Green, 2007,
p. 210). Other authors support this stream of thought as nascent literature and
propose its taxonomy for innovation management, including strategy, structure,
innovation in forms and procedures, and the introduction of information tech-
nologies (Damanpour and Aravind, 2011). The inclusion by this school of thought
of strategic and structural changes in the management of innovation is remarkable,
in addition to the integration of motivational and reward policies (Walker et al.,
2011) or leadership (Vaccaro et al., 2012). We could surmise that the primary
focus of IM lies in the management activity per se without focusing necessarily on
the innovation outcomes. An example of this broad and confusing approach is
the taxonomy proposed by Skalkos (2012) that comprises nine categories for
innovation management: from knowledge management, business strategy, new
product development, change management, etc. to marketing and organisation.
That is, the complete broad field of management.
The second term, TM, has been defined in a broad sense as “a process, which
includes planning, directing, control and coordination of the development and
implementation of technological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic
and operational objectives of an organization” (NRC, 1987). TM has been
explained in the context of the Dynamic Capabilities Theory by how a firm
manages its resources for innovation over time in the context of changing tech-
nology (Cetindamar et al., 2009). Therefore, when we discuss tools for TM, they
will deal with decisions and activities associated with the integration of technology
into the business in an innovative context (Phaal et al., 2000). However, it has
been outlined that among the major influencers of technological innovation and
especially in the case of small firms are the managerial attitudes toward innovation
(Kim et al., 1993).
Finally, concerning Management of Innovation (MI), Van de Ven, early in
1986, pinpointed that it should be focused on four core factors: new ideas, people,
1850051-3
transactions and institutional contexts but taking into account the innovation
outcomes. Adams et al. (2006, p. 6), in a seminal paper, proposed a framework
with seven categories for MI measurement: inputs, knowledge management,
strategy, organisation and culture, portfolio management and commercialisation.
In this respect, it has been emphasised how new measurement of innovation
outcomes ratios are currently required (Kleinknecht, 2016). At present, we
consider the Management of Innovation from a more focused approach, Knowl-
edge Management (KM). According to Dankbaar (2003, p. XI), the Management
of Innovation “is about routinizing what can only be partially routinized” and
providing the adequate structure and environment for creativity. The core process
consists of applying knowledge to the work of knowledge workers, according to
Drucker (2007). This knowledge perspective has had numerous supporters in the
academic literature (Hendriks, 2003). Moreover, the systemic innovation focus
suggests that innovation and knowledge generation take place as a result of a

variety of activities, innovation management techniques and tools, many of them
outside the formal research process (Liyanage and Poon, 2002). Hull et al. (2000,
p. 634) define Knowledge Management Practices for Innovation as those
“observable routines involved directly in the development and application of
knowledge.” The previous authors have identified these tools by observing the
practices of numerous R&D firm departments. We could conclude then that
Management of Innovation has a wider holistic approach to the problem of
managing innovation including some tools of TM and IM with the purpose of
enhancing the innovation process efficiency of the firm.
Innovation management tools and techniques (IMTTs)

In the previous context, TM tools were defined as “decisions and activities as-
sociated with innovation and integrating technology into the business in terms of
the key technology management processes: selection, identification, acquisition,
exploitation and protection of technology” (Phaal et al., 2000, p. 224). From an
innovation model, Goffin and Mitchell (2005), in their Pentathlon model, contend
that to achieve successful innovation management, service companies must first
perform in five management areas: innovation strategy, creativity and ideas
management, selection and portfolio management, implementation management
and human resource management (HHRRM).
However, IMTTs have a wider and accurate consideration and have been
defined as a “range of tools, techniques, and methodologies that help companies to
adapt to circumstances and meet market challenges in a systematic way” (Hidalgo
and Albors, 2008, p. 117). IMTS results from a new way of thinking and are
1850051-4
related to the capacity of firms to apply their knowledge to improve their busi-
nesses internally and their relationship with external actors (EC, 2005).
The first review on Innovation Management Tools was published by the
European Commission (EC), an organisation that has paid considerable attention
to this field (EC, 1997). It consisted of an appraisal of tools and methodologies
used by consultants working with small and medium-sized enterprises to support
them in managing innovation. It was developed in the context of the MINT
(Management of Innovation and New Technologies) program of the EC. The
review classified them regarding types of enterprises they addressed, processes
involved and nature of the innovation the firm was developing. The analysis
recognised the contingent nature of IMTS, depending on internal issues of the
companies and their external environment. These tools could be considered first
generation. They focused on a top-down approach and more on analysis than on

decision-making or implementation. The study analysed 18 tools developed by

various European organisations. Only a third was clearly structured. However, the
study implied its impact but did not show practical evidences.
Shortly afterwards, the EC (1999) launched a project with the objective of
sensitising SMEs, consultants, and business development organisations to the
interest of using IMTS. According to this study IMTS were defined as “method-
ological approaches for improving the competitive position of firms through in-
novation” (EC, 1999, p. 6). In all, 760 SMEs, most of which employed 11 to 50
people, benefited from these operations. A manual, “Promoting IMTS in Europe,”
was published where the opinions of various actors, consultants, public support
organisations, and firms were compiled and analysed. This study surveyed 10
IMTS, classified into three groups: inward-looking (Project Management, Value
Analysis, Design Techniques, Re-Engineering), outward-looking (Benchmarking,
Marketing of Innovation, Technology Watch), and forward-looking (Creativity
Tools, Quality Management). The study concluded with a majority of positive
comments on the impact of these IMTS on the approach and the critical role
played by public support. Again, this study found with general remarks and
recommendations but failed in showing clear evidence.
In 1999, a study funded by the EC proposed a framework for the management
of innovation based on five stages or processes — Scan the environment for
signals regarding the need for innovation and potential opportunities, focus
attention and efforts on a particular strategy for innovation, resource that strategy,
implement the innovation, and learn how to better manage the process or activity.
In this context, it analysed 18 tools and its adequacy for each of those stages. This
research was based on previous EC studies.
During February 2002, the EC again funded a field study in 15 member states
of the European Union (EU) among consultancies, business schools, academic
1850051-5
centres and business support organisations regarding their experiences with the
implementation of IMTS (EC, 2004). As a consequence, an IMTS toolbox was
published (EC, 2005). A review of the study findings (Hidalgo and Albors, 2008)
outlined the relevance of IMTS, the still low level of application and the diverse
views of their applicability among scholars, consultants, and industry. These
authors defined IMTS as “the range of tools, techniques, and methodologies that
support the process of innovation in firms and systematically help them to meet
new market challenges.” The study and subsequent publications were based on
managers and officers opinions.
IMTS: Utilisation and impact

We have carried out a study on the Scopus database selecting those papers pub-
lished in the past 18 years that deal with the subject of IMTTs, or TM tools.
Table 1 shows the chronological selection of primary references related to the
IMTS as well as its impact on innovation performance. We have selected
53 papers that deal with the subject of IMTS, although some of them only do so
marginally. Most of the published research on the impact of IMTS is based on
survey opinions or case studies, and many deals with IMT contextualisation or
implementation.
We could classify this literature in the following way. A cluster of the research
has addressed TM tools. The first paper by Barry et al. (1997) proposed a tax-
onomy based on the tools objectives as positioning, diagnosis or intervention.
It outlined how industry or academic have originated various TM tools and the
lack of a consistent definition of TM tools. Later, Farrukh et al. (1999) examined
the scope of TM tools and the character of a tool catalog that should meet technical
requirements. Phaal et al. (2000) propose a definition of TM tools and classify
them in two broad terms: matrix based and operationalised, analysing 254 tools.
Phaal et al. (2004), leading authors in the analysis of TM tools, extend their
analysis to road mapping outlining its role in systemic and disruptive environ-
ments as well as its distinctive communication characteristics. In a later publica-
tion, Phaal et al. (2006a) proposed the concept of an integrated toolkit of three
tools: road mapping, portfolio, and grids analysis while in another paper (2006b)
evaluated four generic types of matrix tool: matrices, grids, tables and scored
profiles. Still, some of these publications broadly address the field by discussing
tools that improve innovation management in general and do not show further
performance evidence.
Additionally, some authors have studied the diffusion of TM tools and its
contingency (Cetindamar et al., 2006). Also, the difficulties inherent to the lack of
conceptualisation for their practical application and their role in developing the
1850051-6
Table 1. Selected references of IMTS’ impact on firm performance.
Authors (s) Year Research method Findings

Brady et al. 1997 Conceptual framework Outlines the lack of consistent definition of TM tools and attempts to propose a
taxonomy.
Butler 1999 Conceptual framework TEMAGUIDE model context for IMTS.
Farrukh et al. 1999 Conceptual framework Analyses the character and dimensions of TM tools from a practice perspective.
Libutti 2000 Telephone opinion survey Culture basis of IM. Positive impact of marketing of innovation, technology
among 25 firms surveillance and quality management.
Phaal et al. 2000 Conceptual Classifies TM tools based on matrix based and operationalised.
Hull et al. 2000 Case studies Analysis of KM audit tool for Innovation Management.
Christiansen 2000 Case studies (20) Analyses structures, management and practices enhancing innovation performance.
Nijssen and Frambach 2000 Sample of 70 industrial Adoption and diffusion of NPD tools influenced by innovation strategy, experience
firms and organisation.
Lawson and Samson 2001 Case study Innovation capability based on 7 IMTS: vision strategy, organisation, intelligence,
creativity, org. and systems, culture, TM.
1850051-7
Tidd 2001 Conceptual approach Consider IMTs within general management and firm strategic intend. IMTs
contingency.
Mikkola 2001 Case study Analysis of R&D project portfolio techniques.
Oke 2002 Case study IMTS based on Pentathlon model.
McDermott and O’Connor 2002 12 case studies Role of IMTS based on informal networks in high-tech sectors.
Darroch and McNaughton 2002 Survey among 123 firms Positive impact of KM tools on incremental innovation. Requirements for organic
structures.
Zhirong et al. 2003 Theoretical article Approach to Innovation Management with a global model.
Laursen and Foss 2003 Survey of 1,600 firms Specific HHRR practices are conducive to innovation performance.
Prajogo and Sohal 2004 Survey of 194 managers Quality performance has a positive impact on innovation performance.
industry
Pittaway et al. 2004 Literature review Networking promoter of firm innovation.
Cormican and O’Sullivan 2004 Case study Impact of IMTS: Cross-functional teams, project management and impact on
successful product innovation management.
Table 1. (Continued )

Phaal et al. 2004 Two case studies Review of the tool Technology Roadmapping.
Goffin and Mitchell 2005 Case studies IMT based on strategy, generating, prioritising, and selecting ideas, implementing
them and involving HHRR.
Phaal et al. 2006a Conceptual based on two TM basic tools: R&D project selection and technology roadmapping.
case studies
Phaal et al. 2006b Conceptual based on case TM toolkit: Technology road mapping, portfolio matrixes and linked analysis grids.
Cetindamar et al. 2006 Survey among 86 firms Scarce usage of TM tools, most utilised: team work, brainstorming, and cost–benefit
analysis.
Dissel et al. 2006 Case studies Analysis of a TM tool: value road-mapping.
Chai and Xin 2006 10 interviews and 67 firms Analysis of adoption of NPD tools, contingent theory.
survey
Xu et al. 2007 A case study Analysis of Haier performance from the point of view of the total innovation model.
Oke 2007 Opinion survey among Innovation performance related to pursuit of incremental innovation. IMTS based
1850051-8
214 service firms on Pentathlon model.
Du Plessis 2007 Conceptual Knowledge management practice plays a relevant role in innovation success.
Levesque and Walker 2007 Conceptual approach Impact of quality tools in innovation performance.
Whitney 2007 Opinion survey among Analysis and taxonomy of tools based on models for R&D management.
high-tech firms
Hidalgo and Albors 2008 Opinion survey among Diverse roles on IMTS of different agents. Competitive role of IMTS for firms.
426 agents:
consultants, academic,
business support
centres and business
schools
Cetindamar et al. 2009 Case study Positive impact of TM on developing dynamic firm capabilities.
Igartua et al. 2010 Case study IMTS support open innovation, certain IMT critical.
Albors-Garrigos et al. 2010 Case studies Role of KM maturity in improving innovation.

Tao et al. 2010 Research based on five Managing market, organisation, partnership and risk management increase
case studies Innovation Readiness Levels, basically in incremental innovation.
Blindenbach-Driessen 2010 Survey among 219 IMTS based on project management assessing operational and innovation
et al. innovation projects performance.
Vaccaro et al. 2010 Survey among 152 Positive impact of KM tools on innovation performance.
automotive firms
Albors-Garrigos et al. 2010 Multiple case studies Use of KM tools impact on innovation performance.
Skalkos and Bakouros 2011 Pilot project among 50 IMTS support building innovation culture.
very small firms
DÁlvano and Hidalgo 2012 Survey 124 services firms Positive impact on maturity innovation process index (TEMAGUIDE).
Vaccaro et al. 2012 Survey among 152 firms Organisational size moderates impact of IMTS.
Igartua et al. 2012 Survey among 500 firms IMTS are critical enhancing innovation in firms.
Skalkos 2012 Conceptual taxonomy Proposes a taxonomy for IMTS.
1850051-9
Bakouros and Samara 2010 Survey 118 SMEs Size, organisational and national cultures moderate the use of IMTs.
Oerlemans et al. 2013 South African Innovation Moderating effect of TM tools on alliance diversity versus radical and Incremental
Survey Innovation.
De Waal and Knott 2013 Interviews to managers of Contingent ad hoc adaption of IMTS.
15 high-tech SMEs
Igartua et al. 2014 Survey among 500 firms IMTS critical and different for radical or incremental innovation.
Zabala-Iturriagagoitia 2014 Field study with 12 firms Technology Watch launch and implementation.
Valentim et al. 2015 Opinion survey among KM tools’ impact on absorptive capacity and moderating factors (size, sector of
260 SMEs activity and exports).
Tidd and Ben Thuriaux 2016 Survey among 292 firms IMT practice associated with innovation performance. Basically, IMTS’ external
cooperation, technology strategy, portfolio review and HHR mobilisation.
Björkdahl and Holmén 2016 Interviews to 20 managers Innovation audits are determinant in improving innovation performance.
firm dynamic capabilities about innovation and especially some specific tools such
as Technology Watch (Cetindamar et al., 2009; Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2014).
Most of the research on TM discusses the conceptual approach, while others
gather opinions collected from surveys or their launching problems. Some
publications have outlined the moderating effect of TM tools on certain IMTS,
such as alliance diversity versus priorities of companies performing radical or
incremental innovation, suggesting a contingent model (Oerlemans et al., 2013).
Another stream of literature explores the role of KM practices in innovation
management such as KM audits (Hull et al., 2000). Some papers claim the role of
KM maturity in improving innovation performance (Albors-Garrigos et al., 2010).
The part of knowledge capture and responsiveness as well as the influence of
KM on incremental innovation outcomes have been outlined (Dasrroch and

Mc Naughton, 2002). The same authors describe its contingency with organic
structures. The same fact has been pointed out by other authors who outlined the
KM added value of a knowledge-driven culture which facilitates innovation
(Du Plessis, 2007). Recently, Vaccaro et al. (2010) concluded on the contingent
aspect of KM tools as well as its impact on the development of new product
development.
Lastly, few papers have dealt with the IMTS’ specific terminology. Some of
them dealt with the interaction with firm culture, especially SMEs (Libutti, 2000;
Skalkos and Bakouros, 2011), while some authors proposed practicing innovation
models of a holistic nature including the application of IMTS: The Pentathlon
model (Goffin and Mitchell, 2005; Oke, 2002, 2007); The TEMAGUIDE
approach (Butler, 1999; Dalvano and Hidalgo, 2012), and the Total Innovation
Management (with a total quality philosophy) or TIM approach (Zhirong et al.,
2003; Prajogo and Sohal, 2004; Xu et al., 2007). Other authors emphasised the
holistic consideration of the management of innovation including various IMTS
(Christiansen, 2000). However, these models have not had either continuity or
possible success in the innovation management literature.
A group of authors, based on case studies and opinion surveys, supported with
surveys and case studies analyse the positive impact of specific IMTS on inno-
vation performance. Blindenbach-Driessen et al. (2010) assessed the performance
aspects of project management in new product development. Christiansen (2000)
analysed 20 case studies and proposed how a wide range of management systems
and practices impact innovation performance. Cormican and O’Sullivan (2004)
analysed eight firms and concluded how specific best practices contribute to
improving innovation performance such as a focused vision, a clear leadership,
a strong customer orientation. Their study identified certain IMTS such as cross-
functional teams, effective project planning, and selection as well as an adequate
organisational communication. Laursen and Foss (2003) analysed data corresponding
1850051-10
to 2.000 firms and concluded that specific HHRRM practices are conducive to
innovation.
As mentioned, Hidalgo and Albors (2008) surveyed 426 organisations (firms,
higher education establishments, business schools, financing organisations and
consulting companies) in Europe asking for their perception in the use and ap-
plication of IMTS and proposed a taxonomy based in 10 different typologies of
IMTs. This research found that the most utilised IMTS were: project management
(82%), business plan development (67%), corporate intranets (66%) and portfolio
analysis (60%). In contrast, the less-frequently utilised tools were the Delphi
method and lateral thinking. A total of 43% of participants pointed out that they
had utilised some tools successfully in their organisation. Conversely, 32% of
them indicated that although they did not use IMTS, they were aware of them.
IMTs posed challenges to the firm in training and implementation.
Igartua et al. (2010) showed, in a case study, how a Spanish company had
implemented IMTs to support successfully open innovation. Portfolio manage-
ment, technology watch, road mapping and scenario techniques played a signifi-
cant role in improving innovation indicators in the company. Igartua et al. (2012,
2014) outlined in a survey of 500 firms in the north of Spain the role of IMTs in
enhancing innovation and facilitating radical and incremental innovation. Their
research demonstrated that IMTs such as networking, financing, creativity tech-
niques, IPR management, and technology watch favoured radical innovation while
new business development, product development or project management seemed
to influence incremental innovation of product or services.
In a research project, publicly supported, Libutti (2000) interviewed 25 firm
managers in Italy and concluded the relevance of culture when implementing
IMTs and the popularity of three IMTs: Technology Search, Innovation Market-
ing, and Total Quality Management. Pittaway et al. (2004) studied, conceptually,
the implementation and results of a single IMT: networking. Tao et al. (2010)
examined five case studies and, through the proposal of a ratio for Innovation
Readiness Level, concluded that Innovation marketing, organisational innovation,
networking, and risk management, increase the outcomes of incremental innovation.
Tidd and Ben Thouriaux (2016) surveyed 292 firms and found that IMT
practice was associated with innovation performance. The critical IMTS’ for these
authors were external cooperation, technology strategy, portfolio review and HHR
mobilisation.
Moderating factors in the utilisation of IMTs

The fact that innovation management is contingent on various factors was pinpointed
time ago (Tidd, 2001). The same author outlined how environment uncertainty and
1850051-11
complexity were fundamental, as well as the type of pursued innovation (product,

and process, disruptive or incremental), organisational factors and the strategic firm
intends. Consequently, published research has analysed the contingent character of
IMTS and its moderating factors, such as size, sector, etc.
Christiansen (2000, p. 191) points out how different innovation systems in
diverse industries force firms to configure their innovation management approach
differently and how the strategy has an impact on their result (p. 253). De Waal
and Knott (2013), in their study, found out that firm’s managers adopt IMTs
through ad-hoc action and adaptation to their context following a reconstruction,
reinterpretation, evolution, and customisation process. Additionally, the adjust-
ment of IMTs in small high-technology firms follows a different path (De Waal
and Knott, 2013, p. 16). Chai and Xin (2006) carried out interviews with aca-
demics and firm managers and with a sample of 67 industrial firms and concluded
that the application of NPD tools is still scarce in Singapore. They also pointed out
that the use of NPD tools is influenced by management support as well as the firm
innovative orientation of the company. However, these authors found that the
effectiveness of tools had little influence on the adoption of the instrument.
Concerning firm size and country culture, Bakouros and Samara (2010) inter-
viewed 118 SME managers in three southern European countries with the aim of
identifying the type of problems that SMEs faced and to what degree the use of
specific (IMTs) could contribute to solving their problems. A 60% of them thought
they could implant these techniques in their companies; a 20% had a more pes-
simistic attitude due to the low innovative culture in their country and the difficulty
to convince the top managers to change.
Nijssen and Frambach (2000) studied the factors influencing the adoption of
NPD tools with a sample of 70 industry firms and found that innovation strategy,
NPD management, and the management commitment played a relevant role in tool
adoption. This study also showed a high level of tool effectiveness among these
firms.
Igartua et al. (2010) analysed a single case study of a firm and showed how
IMTs application was contingent with a vibrant open innovation approach
and benefited from a high tech cooperating environment. Igartua et al. (2012)
studied 566 firms and found that companies that innovate in product possessed
strength in the implementation of Quality, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
and R&D management systems while firms with experience in all four manage-
ment systems areas (Quality, Environmental, CSR, and R&D) had a higher
process innovation score. IMTs adoption appeared also related to this management
profile.
In their study, Libutti (2000) found the relevance of organisational culture when
implementing IMTs. McDermott and O’Connor (2002) analysed how corporate
1850051-12
culture and the existence of informal networks in the firm influenced the pursuit of
radical innovation outcomes. From another perspective, Vaccaro et al. (2012)
found that organisational size and structure, as well as leadership style, have a
moderating role. In this sense, Whitney (2007) proposed a development technol-
ogy toolkit — a holistic system of processes based on an R&D and innovation
model that comprehends some tools and techniques to improve the system
efficiency taking into account the firms exogenous factors.
Concluding remarks
The literature search indicates that the tools related to TM, knowledge manage-
ment practices, project management, quality management and human resources are
those with a more frequent reference. However, there are very few papers (4)
dealing with the IMTs portfolio as such. In general, there is ample consensus on
the positive impact of IMTS on innovation. However, of 53 papers revised only
11 present specific evidence of a positive effect on innovation performance and
mostly based on case studies or a group of cases. Just two authors present
a definitive study within a large sample of firms (Laursen and Foss, 2003; Igartua
et al., 2012, 2014). The literature does not identify either the most efficient tools.
Although there have been published various proposals including holistic models to
manage innovation (Butler, 1999; Dalvano and Hidalgo, 2012; Zhirong et al.,
2003; Prajogo and Sohal, 2004; Xu et al., 2007; Christiansen, 2000) this stream of
literature has not had a continuity and does not examine IMTS in detail from a
holistic perspective.
The academic literature has also examined various moderating factors influ-
encing the use and impact of IMTS. Internal factors such as strategy, management
support, firm’s orientation, or size affect the adoption and impact of IMTs. Ex-
ternal factors such as context complexity and technology intensity, innovative or
cooperative culture were also relevant factors to be considered. Thus, the present
research aims to fill those pinpointed research gaps by examining a large sample of
firms in a uniform context and also analysing the individual effect of IMTs and IM
tools.
IMTS — A Taxonomy Proposal

Following academic literature that has dealt with alternative IMTS classifications,
we propose in Table 2 and will follow in our analysis a taxonomy for tools and
techniques by merging research and practice. This is the taxonomy that has been
followed in the field study.
1850051-13
Table 2. Taxonomy of IMTS followed.
IMTS groups Abbreviation Techniques References

Creativity Development TCreat Brainstorming Lateral TRIZ (Svamper Method) European Commission (2004); Whitney
Tools thinking Mental maps Six thinking (2007); Goffin and Mitchell (2005);
hats Hidalgo and Albors (2008)
TM Tools TTechprosp Technology surveillance Road mapping Tech. European Commission (2004); Phaal et al.
Matrices prospective (2006a); Cetindamar et al. (2006);
Hidalgo and Albors (2008); Centre for
Technology Management (2008)
Competitive Strategic T Compet SWOT Value chain audits Portfolio business analysis Phaal et al. (2006a); Cetindamar et al.
Tools (2006); Goffin and Mitchell (2005);
Hidalgo and Albors (2008)
Human Resources THHRR Tele-work Online recruiting e-Learning Competencies European Commission (2004); Goffin and
Management Tools HHRR management Mitchell (2005); Hidalgo and Albors
(2008)
1850051-14
Corporate Intelligence TCorpIntel Corporate intelligence Data mining Wang and Wang (2008)
Tools
Project Management TProjM Project management Project Risk management European Commission (2004); Whitney
Tools portfolio management (2007); Hidalgo and Albors (2008);
Centre for Technology Management
(2008)
New Product & Services TConcEng Concurrent engineering Lead users based NPD European Commission (2004); Phaal et al.
Development Tools Quality Function Benchmarking (2006a); Buyukozkan et al. (2004);
Deployment (QFD) Goffin and Mitchell (2005); Hidalgo
and Albors (2008); Centre for
Technology Management (2008)
Cooperative and TNetw Teamwork and collaborative Supply chain management European Commission (2004); Hidalgo and
Networking Tools Software tools Web 2.0 Albors (2008); Phaal et al. (2006a);
Buyukozkan et al. (2004)
IMTS groups Abbreviation Techniques References

Design Management TCAD CAD systems Quick Usability tests Value analysis European Commission (2004);
Tools prototyping tools Buyukozkan et al. (2004); Whitney
(2007); Hidalgo and Albors (2008)
Knowledge Management TKnow Knowledge auditing Document management European Commission (2004); Phaal et al.
Tools Knowledge mapping (2006a); Centre for Technology
Management (2008); Whitney (2007);
Hidalgo and Albors (2008)
Corporate Intelligence TCorpInt Corporate Intelligence Tech. Information Management Hull et al. (2000); Dasrroch and Mc
Tools and Mktg. Naughton (2002); Du Plessis (2007).
Entrepreneurship TEntrep Business plan/business Transfer mechanisms Spin European Commission (2004); Hidalgo and
Management Tools simulation/business offs/Spin outs Albors (2008)
models development
Finance Management TPublSub Public financing Access to Venture Capital Private R&D Whitney (2007)
1850051-15
Tools European R&D funds funding
Industrial Property TIPR Patent registration Design and Secret protection Intellectual European Commission (2004) Cetindamar
Management brand registration rights et al. (2006)
Lean Production Tools TManuf Lean tools Just in Time MRP European Commission (2004)
Advance Marketing Tools TNMktg Market research and analysis CRM Distribution & sales European Commission (2004); Phaal et al.
Communication (2006a); Cetindamar et al. (2006);
techniques Whitney (2007); Hidalgo and Albors
(2008)
Production Organisation TManuf Miniplants Self-managed teams Whitney (2007)
Techniques
Continuous Improvement TCI Process-based management Six sigma and problem European Commission (2004); Phaal et al.
EFQM models solving Quality auditing (2006a); Cetindamar et al. (2006)
Research Questions and Hypotheses

We could conclude from this review that, in general, the academic literature
related with IMTs lacks a detail systemic approach to the subject of IMTS and its
impact on the innovation outcomes. Therefore, we propose the following research
questions. Is there a direct relationship between the utilisation by firms of IMTS
and their innovation outcomes performance? Are there differences between the
impact of IM practice and Innovation Management techniques and tools? Are
IMTS better focused on incremental or radical innovation outcomes? Do the
different IMTs show diverse efficiency in practice? Are IMTs use and impact
moderated by external factors such as the company environment?
We are proposing various hypotheses with the aim of addressing the research
gaps already discussed: analysing the impact of IMTS on firms’ innovation per-
formance, evaluating whether industry environment is a moderating factor, and
identifying, if possible, those IMTS with a higher influence. Additionally, we aim

at finding whether IM tools play a decisive role in improving innovation performance
in the firms. Table 3 shows the hypotheses proposed and their theoretical base.
Figure 1 presents the hypotheses shown using a schematic model.
Table 3. Research hypotheses and references.
H Related references
H1=A=B IM will influence innovation performance in the Hamel (2006); Birkinshaw et al. (2008);
firm. Walker et al. (2011)
H2 The utilisation of IMTS has a direct influence on
the innovation activity of the firm.
H2A IMTS facilitate incremental innovation. Darroch and McNaughton (2002); Oke
(2007); Tao et al. (2010)
H2B IMTS facilitate radical innovation. Igartua et al. (2014); Tidd and Ben Thuriaux
(2014)
H3 The impact of IMTS on innovation will be De Waal and Knott (2013); Libutti (2000);
moderated by the firm’s activity sector intensity. Igartua and Albors Hervas (2010)
Fig. 1. Model and hypotheses.
1850051-16
Research Methodology
The field study was carried out during the years 2011 and 2012 among 6,282 firms
based in Northern Spain. The selected sample (following a stratified probability
sampling) was comprised of 566 companies who provided duly filled questionnaires
with a sampling error of 5.2% and a confidence level of 99% (K ¼ 2:38). The
questionnaires were distributed by email and the responses followed via telephone.
A previous campaign was carried out with personal interviews to verify the survey.
The survey was addressed to general managers of the firms.
The survey questionnaire, based on the Community Innovation Survey of the
European Commission (CIS), included information on the firm, its innovation
performance, innovation and management practices, and details on the use of
IMTS (Mairesse and Mohnen, 2010). Another block constituted the results of the
innovation, structured following the CIS approach: radical or incremental inno-
vation performance, process or product–service innovation and the firms’ reasons

for not innovating. The replies were to be filled with a 5 to 1 Likert scale (Totally
in accordance to entirely in disagreement. The innovation performance of the firm
was requesting whether the company had performed various kinds of innovation in
the previous six years. The use of IMTS was collected based on the frequency the
firms declared to utilise them (never to very often). The firms could also be
classified according to their technology intensity: 67.31% of the sample were low
technology, 21.55% had a medium technology level, and 11.13% high technology.
In this study, we distributed a questionnaire among 644 companies in Basque
Country. We disregarded those questionnaires that were incomplete and those
companies who were not innovative. As mentioned, the final sample was com-
prised of 566 companies.
We initially picked the variables in the study related to innovation management
and innovation results (see Table 4). With the objective of analysing their man-
agement of innovation practices, the replies regarding the use of IM were also
compared following the before-mentioned authors (Birkinshaw et al., 2008;
Damanpour and Aravind, 2011; Walker et al., 2011): Introduction of new infor-
mation technologies (NewITs); implementation of new corporate strategies
(NewStrat); changes in the concepts or strategies of marketing such as new
packaging, new merchandising services, etc. (NewMktgStrat); and changes in the
organisational structure such as multifunctional teams, etc. (NewStruct).
Results of Field Work and Discussion

We used Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modelling with SMARTPLS2 to per-
form the study. We considered PLS appropriate for this purpose because it does
1850051-17
Table 4. Measurement model results.
Construct/Indicator Loadings Weights Weights T-values IF R2 AVE

Innovation Management Techniques
T Manuf 0.455 0.100 1.502 1:437
TCAD 0.652 0.074 0.843 2.216
TCI 0.597 0.012 0.132 2.108
TCompet 0.714 0.044 0.444 2.657
TConcEng 0.710 0.090 1.188 2.057
TCorpInt 0.761 0.027 0.231 2.838
TCreat 0.661 0.020 0.186 2.133
TEntrep 0.858 0.233 1.980* 3.158
THHRR 0.743 0.110 0.972 2.750
TIPR 0.768 0.180 2.124* 2.325

TKnow 0.740 0.107 0.919 2.988
0.087
TModManuf 0.589 1.099 1.954

TNMktg 0.762 0.158 1.648 2.257
TNetw 0.799 0.212 2.116* 2.535
TProjM 0.688 0.101 1.262 2.043
TPublSub 0.741 0.110 1.142 2.434
TTechProsp 0.764 0.211 2.362* 2.239
IM 0:856 0.599
NewITs 0.697
NewMktgStrat 0.790
NewStrat 0.842
NewStruct 0.759
Radical Innovation 0.933 0.822
RadInnov1 0.921
RadInnov2 0.927
RadInnov3 0.871
Incremental Innovation 0.945 0.852
IncremInnov1 0.932
IncremInnov2 0.939
IncremInnov3 0.897
Note: p < 0:05 (based on t(565), two-tailed test).
not rely on the normality of the measures, the aim of the research is a causal–
predictive analysis and it allows for simultaneously evaluating formative and re-
flective measurement models (Henseler et al., 2009). The variables related to
Innovation Management Techniques were modelled as a composite, that is,
techniques were combined to form a new entity — the IMTS.
First, we assessed the measurement model following the academic literature for
reflective and formative measures. On one hand, for reflective measures, we
evaluated item reliability, internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant
1850051-18
Table 5. Matrix of correlation between constructs.
Incremental Radical
Construct innovation results IMTS IM innovation results
Incremental innovation results 0.923
IMTS 0.587
IM 0.193 0.301 0.774
Radical innovation results 0.722 0.548 0.205 0.907
Note: Square root of AVE on diagonals in bold.
validity (see Table 2). Item reliability is assessed by looking at the outer loadings.
All of the item values were over or very close to the suggested threshold, 0.70
(see Fig. 1). Internal consistency is evaluated through composite reliability (CR),
which should be over the cut-off level of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). All
of the latent variables had values above the cut-off. We assessed convergent
validity by means of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). AVE values for the
latent variables are acceptable, as they are higher than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Discriminant validity was fulfilled as “all of the factor” AVE are higher
than their squared correlations (see Table 4 with all other factors in the mode
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Table 4 also shows the relative importance of the various IMTs utilised by the
firm. Thus, those IMTs linked to simulation tools and technology transfer
mechanisms and networking played a primarily role. Human resource manage-
ment tools and public and private financing were also relevant while knowledge
and project management tools played also an important role. Finally, those tools
associated to production management seemed to have a lesser relevance.
On the other hand, for the composite, we analysed the weights and performed a
multicollinearity test between the items (Henseler et al., 2009). Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) of the indicators was under the suggested cut-off of 3.3 (Belsey,
1991). Regarding multicollinearity, only four indicators were revealed to be
statistically significant, however following Hair et al. (2016), we maintained the
other indicator in the study because loadings were higher than 0.5 or they
were statistically significant. As shown in Table 4, TEntrep, TIPR, TNetw and
TtechProsp emerged to be vital techniques in the composition of the innovation
techniques construct and, therefore, in the innovation results.
Once the results on the measurement model allowed us to conclude that it was
of sufficient quality, we evaluated the structural model, looking at the sign,
magnitude, and significance of the estimated path coefficients and assessing the
prediction power and prediction relevance of the model.
1850051-19
Table 6. Standard bootstrap results.
Effects on endogenous Direct t-value 95% BCa confidence n Cohen’s Explained

variables effect (bootstrap) interval f2 variance
Incremental innovation results
R 2 ¼ 0:344=Q 2 ¼ 0:281
Innovation Management 0.581 16.711*** [0.557; 0.686] sig. 0.468 34.1%
Techniques
IM 0.018 0.439 n.s. [0.114; 0.049] n.s. 0.000 0.3%
Radical Innovation results
R 2 ¼ 0:545=Q 2 ¼ 0:442
Innovation Management 0.182 4.127*** [0.155, 0.326] sig. 0.045 0.9%
Techniques
IM 0.032 0.960 n.s. [0.099, 0.033] n.s. 0.002 0.6%

Incremental Innovation results 0.609 14.538*** [0.482, 0.648] sig. 0.535 3.9%
Notes: ***significant at p < 0:001. n.s.: not significant.
Table 6 includes the path coefficients, confidence intervals and t-values from a
bootstrapping1 procedure with 5000 samples. The results indicate that innovation
techniques significantly impact both incremental innovation results ( ¼ 0:581,
p < 0:001) and radical innovation results ( ¼ 0:182, p < 0:001). Moreover,
companies’ incremental innovation results significantly affect increases in radical
innovation results ( ¼ 0:609, p < 0:001), which basically indicates that companies’
performance on simple innovations increases the ability of the companies to “think
out of the box” and implement higher order innovations (radical innovation results).
On the contrary, IM practices did not have a significant effect, either on in-
cremental innovation results ( ¼ 0:018, n.s.) or radical innovation results
( ¼ 0:032, n.s.).
R 2 values (see Table 4) indicate the percentage of variability accounted for by
the precursor latent variables in the model. Therefore, R 2 assesses the predictive
power of the model. Our model was able to explain 34.4% of the variance of the
incremental innovation results and more than 50% (54.4%) of the radical inno-
vation results, which according to Chin (1998), is an average prediction power.
However, to evaluate the effect size of the predictor constructs, we computed
their corresponding Cohen’s f 2 values and the amount of variance explained by
each one (Henseler et al., 2009). Chin (1998) established small, medium, and large
effect sizes for Cohen’s f 2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively.
1
Bootstrapping is a nonparametric procedure that allows testing the statistical significance of various PLS-
SEM results such as path coefficients, Cronbach’s alpha, HTMT, and R 2 values (Henseler et al., 2009).
1850051-20
Fig. 2. Structural model developed.
Furthermore, we strengthen the analysis with the cross-validated redundancy

index (Q 2 ) derived from a blindfolding procedure.2 As all the Q 2 values were
greater than zero (Henseler et al., 2009), the model showed adequate predictive
relevance (see Table 4).
One relevant issue in this paper is to account for the differences between
companies attending to their technological level of the sector of activity. Eurostat
distinguishes between three technological levels according to the industry, where
the company develops its business, based in NACE (Nomenclature of Economic
Activities) Rev. 2, two-digit level: high, medium (high and low) and low.
Attending to this classification, we performed the model (PLS-MGA — Multi
group Analysis) for each of the three groups to uncover differences in the relations
2
Blindfolding is a sample re-use technique. It allows calculating Stone-Geisser’s Q 2 value (Stone,
1974; Geisser, 1974), which represents an evaluation criterion for the cross-validated predictive
relevance of the PLS path model (Henseler et al., 2009).
1850051-21
Table 7. PLS-MGA comparison results.
Relations Low-tech (1) Med-tech (2) High-tech (3)

Number of companies 381 122 63
Incremental innovation results ! 0.620*** 0.442*** 0.470***
Radical innovation results
(2) (1)
Innovation Management Techniques ! 0.599*** 0.654*** 0.545***
Incremental innovation results
Innovation Management Techniques ! 0.212*** 0.291*** 0.099
Radical innovation results
IM ! Incremental innovation results 0.000 0.046 0.144
IM ! Radical innovation results 0.020 0.121 0.295***
(3) (1)
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the group numbers from which this group was
significantly different at p < 0:05 (one-tailed) level according to the PLS-MGA confidence
interval comparison.
proposed. Results on the three groups’ path coefficients, their significance, and the
multi group analysis are shown in Table 7.
Results on the comparison between the companies attending to their techno-
logical level confirm that paths show, in most of the relations, no significant
differences between the groups. The patterns in the model relations are very similar
between low- and medium-tech companies. In both cases, IM practices have no
impact on the innovation results. However, incremental innovation results in low-
tech companies having a significantly greater impact ( ¼ 0:620) than in med-tech
companies ( ¼ 0:442) or high-tech companies ( ¼ 0:470).
The other remarkable result in this analysis is related to high-tech companies.
On one hand, Innovation Management Techniques have no significant impact on
radical innovation results ( ¼ 0:099, n.s.), in this group, while, on the other hand,
they have a significant impact on incremental innovation results ( ¼ 0:545 s.).
IM has a null impact on incremental innovation results and a significant negative
impact ( ¼ 0:295, p < 0:001) on radical innovation results.
In addition to how the technological level of the companies can affect the
relative impact of innovation techniques over incremental or radical innovation, it
is interesting to evaluate the actual value of the usage of the innovation techniques
and the corresponding innovation results. We conducted a one-way ANOVA to
assess the differences across technological levels of the firms and we followed up
the results with Scheffe’s pairwise comparison procedure to test for differences
between individual pairs of groups if the one-way ANOVA results were statisti-
cally significant (Jaccard et al., 1984).
1850051-22
Table 8. Latent variable scores mean values for different technological levels.
Technological level (group) Low-tech (1) Med-tech (2) High-tech (3) F-statistics
N 381 122 63
Incremental Innovation Results (2.3) (3) (1)
0.05 0.29 0.38 8.946
0.050 0.087 0.133 p < 0:001
Innovation Management Techniques (2.3) (3) (1)
0.08 0.25 0.33 8.747
0.049 0.085 0.132 p < 0:001
IM
0.23 0.25 0.05 2.471
0.051 0.072 0.105 n.s.
Radical Innovation Results (3) (1)

0.22 0.02 0.27 7.668
p < 0:001
0.051 0.089 0.145
Notes: Numbers in parentheses indicate the group numbers from which this group was signifi-
cantly different at p < 0:05 level according to the Scheffe’s pairwise comparison procedure.
F-statistics and associatedp-values are derived from one-way ANOVAs.
We use latent variable scores to perform one-way ANOVA tests. Therefore,

their values have been normalised.
It is interesting to note that, generally speaking, the innovation results (incre-
mental and radical) and the usage of innovation techniques increase with the
technological level. We can state that companies in high- and medium-tech in-
dustries (meanHT ¼ 0.33, meanMT ¼ 0.25) use significantly more innovation
techniques than do companies belonging to low-tech sectors (meanLT ¼ 0:08).
Similarly, incremental innovation results are substantially higher high- and
medium-tech (meanHT ¼ 0.38, meanMT ¼ 0.29) businesses than in low-tech
industries (meanLT ¼ 0:05). Finally, radical innovation results are significantly
higher in companies belonging to high-tech (meanHT ¼ 0.27) compared to low-tech
industries (mean ¼ 0:22). Therefore, we concluded that the technological level of
the industry is indeed impacting the usage and results of innovation techniques.
Conclusions
In relation to the proposed hypotheses, the statistical results are indicated in
Table 9.
The final proposed model could be represented, as indicated in Fig. 3.
The research results allow us to definitively conclude that the role and impact of
the utilisation of innovation management techniques are quite significant on the
1850051-23
Table 9. Hypotheses confirmation résumé.
Hypotheses Confirmation
H1=A=B IM will influence innovation performance in the firm. Rejected
H2 The utilisation of IMTS has a direct influence Confirmed
on the innovation activity of the firm.
H2A IMTS facilitate incremental innovation. Confirmed
H2B IMTS facilitate radical innovation. Partially Confirmed
H3 The impact of IMTS on innovation will be Confirmed
moderated by the firm’s activity sector.
Fig. 3. Structural model developed.
performance results of both incremental and radical innovations. The use of

IMTs in the firms results in a predictive factor of their innovation performance,
especially considering the incremental innovation outcomes. The result of the
research provides empirical evidence to the work of various authors (Blindenbach-
Driessen et al., 2010; Christiansen, 2000; Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2004;
Laursen and Foss, 2003) or the field work of others (Igartua et al., 2010; Igartua
et al., 2012).
The field results allow as well to stress the relevance of specific IMTs. The
following were the most important. Knowledge management, entrepreneurial action,
network management. TM and prospective, corporate intelligence, human resources
management. These results confirm the results of various authors in relation to TM
tools (i.e., Phaal et al., 2006a; Cetindamar et al., 2006, 2009; Zabala-Iturriagagoitia,
2014), or KM tools (i.e., Hull et al., 2000; Albors-Garrigos et al., 2010; Dasrroch
and Mc Naughton, 2002). We have to conclude also in the role played by Project
management tools as pointed out by Blindenbach-Driessen et al. (2010).
A new result which the literature search did not point out is the relevance of
those tools linked to the management of innovation financing such as searching for
public and private fundings.
1850051-24
Our research also showed the moderating effect of an external factor, the
technological environment of the firm (Tidd, 2001; Christiansen, 2000; De Waal
and Knott, 2013). An additional relevant result, not pointed out in the previous
literature, indicates that the companies’ incremental innovation performance
significantly affects the radical innovation performance results. This finding is
a noteworthy clue indicating that the companies’ performance on simple
(incremental) innovations augments the skills of the firms to develop higher level
innovations (radical innovation results). Incremental innovation results is a sandbox
field for companies. Concluding, there is a contingency among context, innovation
types and firm factors pointed out by Tidd (2001).
These results shed some new light on the theories proposed by some authors on the
independent paths followed by radical and incremental innovation (Leifer et al., 2001)
or the different strategies and organisational structures required for each type of
innovation (Ettlie et al., 1984). However, a stream of literature suggests that the
necessary competencies for radical innovation could be acquired through the practice
of incremental innovation (McDermott and O’Connor, 2002). On the contrary, IM
practices did not have any significant effect either on incremental or radical innovation
results, as the academic literature suggests (Birkinshaw et al., 2008; Damanpour
and Aravind, 2012; Walker et al., 2011).
The PLs results, on the other hand, indicate that companies that perform IM
practices tend to reduce their utilisation of IMTS. That could be interpreted as a
tendency towards restrictive practices. However, these results must be contem-
plated with precaution since the R 2 values indicate that the explained variance is
small (12%). Further research should analyse this with more depth.
When we compare the performance of firms, considering their sector of activity
or their technological level, the research results are impressive. In principle, when
considering the companies’ technology paths, there are no significant differences
between the various groups. The patterns in the model relations are very similar
to low- and medium-tech companies. In both cases, the practice of IM has no
substantial influence on the innovation performance output. However, it must
be outlined that incremental innovation results in low-tech companies having a
significantly greater impact compared to med-tech companies. This fact, again,
supports the idea of a contingent model of innovation management where the
management approach seems to be moderated by the sector of the firm. These
findings confirm McDermott and O’Connor (2002) conclusion, pointing out that
companies working in high-tech contexts with higher market uncertainty tend to
modify the way they develop their projects differently.
Following the analysis’ results, a proper conclusion is related to high-tech
companies. On the one hand, IMTS’ practices do not show the significant effect on
radical innovation performance. On the other hand, in high-tech companies, IMTS
1850051-25
do not significantly impact radical innovation results, while IM have a significant

adverse impact.
Regarding the performance and use of IMTS across sectors, the ANOVA
analysis showed that incremental and radical innovation performance increased
with the technological level of the firms. Additionally, the use of IMTS was
higher in high-tech compared to in low- or med-tech companies. We could
conclude a definite contingent relationship between the business sector and the use
of IMTS.
From the research and literature review, we could propose a definition of IMTS
as a “range of tools, techniques, and methodologies directly focused in companies
to improving their competitive position through managing innovation to adapt to
circumstances and meet market challenges in a systematic way.” Thus, the IMTS
portfolio would include methods to promote creativity and entrepreneurial
attitudes within the company; plans to develop competitive strategies; techniques

to improve the firm’s efficiency in the design and development of new products;
systemic ways to enhance the businesses cooperative networking with its envi-
ronment; TM tools and two underlying group of tools to manage the firm’s
knowledge as well as the human resource competencies required for the whole
innovation process.
Finally, it must be outlined how the various IMTSs show different frequencies
in their use. Techniques associated with entrepreneurship management (business
models and plans, as well as simulation tools, technology transfer, and spin-offs)
were the most popular, followed by cooperative and networking tools and in-
dustrial property management techniques. On the other hand, continuous im-
provement tools, production organisation, and lean techniques were the least
utilised, perhaps due to its manufacturing character.
The research has clear management implications. First, it calls for a focused
management of innovation, applying sophisticated IMTS techniques. Second, it
outlines the contingent aspect of this application when looking for efficiency.
Tools must be implemented considering the firm, its experience, and the sector of
activity. Finally, it points out that innovation management competencies require
learning and those enterprises may start by aiming at incremental innovation for
later launching of radical innovation ventures.
The limitations of this study are due to time and resources. Further phases will
aim at analysing, in detail, the role of the different IMTs and the moderating
impact of other context factors, such as size, customers served, management
practices and innovation objectives.
About cross-section analyses, there is a limitation related to the time lag of
innovations and the use of IMTS. The questionnaire asked for the innovations
developed in the last six years and current use of IMTS.
1850051-26
References
Albors-Garrigos, J, JC Ramos and M Mas-Machuca (2010). Actional intelligence, a

critical competence for innovation performance. A research multi-case analysis.
International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 6(3), 210–225.
Belsey, DA (1991). Conditioning Diagnostics, Collinearity and Weak Data in Regression.
New York: Wiley.
Bernstein, IH and JC Nunnally (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Birkinshaw, J, G Hamel and MJ Mol (2008). Management innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4), 825–845.
Blindenbach-Driessen, F, J Van Dalen and J Van Den Ende (2010). Subjective perfor-
mance assessment of innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, 27(4), 572–592.

Björkdahl, J and M Holmén (2016). Innovation audits by means of formulating problems.
R&D Management, 46(5), 842–856.

Brady, T, H Rush, M Hobday, A Davies, D Probert and S Banerjee (1997). Tools for
technology management: An academic perspective. Technovation, 17(8), 417–426.
Butler, J (1999). A practical model for technology and innovation management. In
Management of Engineering and Technology, 1999. Technology and Innovation
Management. PICMET’99. Portland International Conference on, pp. 103–105.
IEEE.
Buyukozkan, G, T Dereli and A Baykasoglu (2004). A survey on the methods and tools of
concurrent new product development and agile manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 15(6), 731–751.
Cetindamar, D, O Can and O Pala (2006). Technology management activities and tools:
The practice in Turkey. In Technology Management for the Global Future-PICMET
2006 Conference, July, 1, pp. 92–98. IEEE.
Cetindamar, D, R Phaal and D Probert (2009). Understanding technology management
as a dynamic capability: A framework for technology management activities. Tech-
novation, 29(4), 237–246.
Chin, WW (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS
Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
Christiansen, J (2000). Competitive Innovation Management: Techniques to Improve
Innovation Performance. London: McMillan Palgrave.
Cormican, K and D O’Sullivan (2004). Auditing best practice for effective for product
innovation management. Technovation, 24(10), 819–829.
Damanpour, F and D Aravind (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and
antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.
Dankbaar (2003). Innovation management in the knowledge economy: Some preliminary
reflections. In Innovation Management in the Knowledge Economy, B Dankbaar
(ed.). London: Imperial College Press.
1850051-27
Darroch, J and R McNaughton (2002). Examining the link between knowledge manage-
ment practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3),
210–222.
De Waal, GA and P Knott (2013). Innovation tool adoption and adaptation in small
technology-based firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3),
1340012/1–19.
Dissel, MC, R Phaal, CJ Farrukh and DR Probert (2006). Value roadmapping: A structured
approach for early stage technology investment decisions. In 2006 Technology
Management for the Global Future-PICMET 2006 Conference, pp. 1488–1495. IEEE.
Drucker, PF (2007). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: Routledge.
Du Plessis, M (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29.
European Commission (1997). Innovation Management Tools: A Review of Selected

Methodologies. EIMS Publication 30. Luxembourg: DG-XIII-D.
European Commission (1999). Promoting IMTs in Europe. Luxembourg: Directorate-

general for Enterprise.
European Commission (2004). Innovation Management and the Knowledge — Driven
Economy. Luxembourg: Directorate-general for Enterprise.
Ettlie, JE, WP Bridges and RD O’keefe (1984). Organization strategy and structural
differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6),
682–695.
European Commission (2005). Innovation Management Techniques (IMT Toolbox).
Luxembourg: Cordis.
Farrukh, CJP, R Phaal and DR Probert (1999). Tools for technology management:
Dimensions and issues. Portland Int. Conf. Management of Engineering and Tech-
nology. PICMET ’99. Portland, OR, USA.
Fornell, C and DF Larcker (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),
382–388.
Goffin, K and R Mitchell (2005). Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation
using the Pentathlon Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
HairJF, Jr, GTM Hult, C Ringle and M Sarstedt (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage Publications.
Hamel, G (2006). The why, what and how of management innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 84(2), 72–84.
Hamel, G and W Green (2007). The Future of Management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hendriks, PHJ (2003). Managing innovation as knowledge work. In Innovation Management
in the Knowledge Economy, B Dankbaar (ed.). London: Imperial College Press.
Henseler, J, CM Ringle and RR Sinkovics (2009). The use of partial least squares path
modelling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing,
RR Sinkovics and P Ghauri (eds.), pp. 277–319. London: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
1850051-28
Hull, R, R Coombs and M Peltu (2000). Knowledge management practices for innovation:
An audit tool for improvement. International Journal of Technology Management,
20(5–8), 633–656.
Igartua, JI, N Errasti and N Zabaleta (2012). Managing systems and innovation: An
empirical study of Basque firms. XVI Conf. Engineering Management Proc., Vigo,
July 18–20, Spain.
Igartua, JI, N Errasti and J Ganzarain (2014). The impact of innovation management
techniques on radical innovation: An empirical study. In Managing Complexity, Lecture
Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering, C Hernandez, A Lopez-Partedes and
JM Perez-Rio (eds.). Zurich, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Jaccard, J, MA Becker and G Wood (1984). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures:
A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 589–601.
Kim, Y, K Song and J Lee (1993). Determinants of technological innovation in the small
firms of Korea. RandD Management, 23(3), 215–226.
Kleinknecht, A (2016). Why do we need new innovation output indicators? An introduction.

In New Concepts in Innovation Output Measurement, D Bain and A Kleinknecht
(eds.). London: Springer Int. Publ.
Laursen, K and NJ Foss (2003). New human resource management practices,
complementarities and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 27(2), 243–263.
Leifer, R, G Colarelli-O’Connor and M Rice (2001). Implementing radical innovation
in mature firms: The role of hubs. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(3),
102–113.
Levesque, J and HF Walker (2007). The innovation process and quality tools. Quality
Progress, 40(7), 18–22.
Liyanage, S and PS Poon (2002). Technology and innovation management learning in the
knowledge economy. The Journal of Management Development, 22(7/8), 579–602.
Mairesse, J and P Mohnen (2010). Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis.
Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 2, 1129–1155.
McDermott, CM and GC O’Connor (2002). Managing radical innovation: An overview of
emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(6), 424–438.
Mikkola, JH (2001). Portfolio management of RandD projects: Implications for innovation
management. Technovation, 21(7), 423–435.
NRC/National Research Council (1987). Management of Technology: The Hidden Com-
petitive Advantage. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Oerlemans, LA, J Knoben and MW Pretorius (2013). Alliance portfolio diversity, radical
and incremental innovation: The moderating role of technology management.
Technovation, 33(6–7), 234–246.
Oke, A (2002). Making it happen: How to improve innovative capability in a service
company. Journal of Change Management, 2(3), 272–281.
Oke, A and K Goffin (2001). Innovation management in the service sector. Management,
Focus, 16, 8–10.
1850051-29
Phaal, R, CJ Farrukh and DR Probert (2000). Tools for technology management-structure,

organisation and integration. In Management of Innovation and Technology, 2000.
ICMIT 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference, Vol. 1,
pp. 224–229. IEEE.
Phaal, R, CJ Farrukh and DR Probert (2004). Technology roadmapping — a planning
framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 71(1), 5–26.
Phaal, R, CJ Farrukh and DR Probert (2006a). Technology management tools: Concept,
development and application. Technovation, 26(3), 336–344.
Phaal, R, C Farrukh and D Probert (2006b). Technology management tools: Generaliza-
tion, integration and configuration. International Journal of Innovation and Tech-
nology Management, 3(3), 321–339.
Prajogo, DI and AS Sohal (2004). Transitioning from total quality management to total
innovation management: An Australian case. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 21(8), 861–875.

Skalkos, D and I Bakouros (2011). Innovation management technique (IMT) for very
small-enterprises: Concept, development and application. International Journal of
Innovation and Regional Development, 3(6), 573–601.
Skalkos, D (2012). A novel innovation management process: For applications in fields
such as food innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 4(4), 245–258.
Tao, L, D Probert and R Phaal (2010). Towards an integrated framework for managing the
process of innovation. RandD Management, 40(1), 19–30.
Vaccaro, A, R Parente and FM Veloso (2010). Knowledge management tools, inter-
organizational relationships, innovation and firm performance. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1076–1089.
Vaccaro, IG, JJ Jansen, FA Van Den Bosch and HW Volberda (2012). Management inno-
vation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 49(1), 28–51.
Vaccaro, IG, JJ Jansen, FA Van Den Bosch and HW Volberda (2012). Management inno-
vation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 49(1), 28–51.
Van de Ven, AH (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32(5), 590–607.
Walker, RM, F Damanpour and CA Devece (2011). Management innovation and
organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 367–386.
Wang, H and S Wang (2008). A knowledge management approach to data mining
process for business intelligence. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 108(5),
622–634.
Webster, J and RT Watson (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Whitney, DE (2007). Assemble a technology development toolkit. Research Technology
Management, 50(5), 52–58.
1850051-30
Xu, Q, L Zhu, G Zheng and F Wang (2007). Haier’s Tao of innovation: A case study of
the emerging total innovation management model. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 32(1–2), 27–47.
Zhirong, Y, Z Gang, X Zhangshu and B Gongmin (2003). November. Total innovation
management: A new emerging paradigm of innovation management. In Engineering
Management Conference, IEMC’03. Managing Technologically Driven Organizations:
The Human Side of Innovation and Change, pp. 261–265. IEEE.
Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, JM (2014). Innovation management tools: Implementing technol-
ogy watch as a routine for adaptation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Manage-
ment, 26(9), 1073–1089.
1850051-31
View publication stats

Innovation Management Techniques and Tools... Its Impact On Firm Innovation Performance... Albors... 2018

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Innovation Management Techniques and Tools... Its Impact On Firm Innovation Performance... Albors... 2018

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

INNOVATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS: ITS

Article in International Journal of Innovation Management · February 2018

Mature Industries Value Chain View project

KNowledge dynamics in Haute Cuisine View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

INNOVATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AND

JOSE ALBORS-GARRIGOS, JUAN IGNACIO IGARTUA and ANGEL PEIRO

Published 8 February 2018

Keywords: Innovation management; innovation management techniques and tools; innovation

innovation management techniques or tools have been proposed to manage inno-

and consequently ﬁlling an existing research gap in the academic literature.

The paper is organised as follows: First, the concept of innovation management

State of the Art

The management of innovation

and methods; and/or the innovation is part of an ongoing program of rapid-ﬁre

suggests that innovation and knowledge generation take place as a result of a

Innovation management tools and techniques (IMTTs)

generation. They focused on a top-down approach and more on analysis than on

decision-making or implementation. The study analysed 18 tools developed by

IMTS: Utilisation and impact

Table 1. Selected references of IMTS’ impact on ﬁrm performance.

Authors (s) Year Research method Findings

Authors (s) Year Research method Findings

Authors (s) Year Research method Findings

KM on incremental innovation outcomes have been outlined (Dasrroch and

Moderating factors in the utilisation of IMTs

complexity were fundamental, as well as the type of pursued innovation (product,

IMTS — A Taxonomy Proposal

Table 2. Taxonomy of IMTS followed.

IMTS groups Abbreviation Techniques References

IMTS groups Abbreviation Techniques References

Research Questions and Hypotheses

identifying, if possible, those IMTS with a higher inﬂuence. Additionally, we aim

Table 3. Research hypotheses and references.

Fig. 1. Model and hypotheses.

vation performance, process or product–service innovation and the ﬁrms’ reasons

Results of Field Work and Discussion

Table 4. Measurement model results.

Construct/Indicator Loadings Weights Weights T-values IF R2 AVE

TIPR 0.768 0.180 2.124* 2.325

TModManuf 0.589 1.099 1.954

Note: p < 0:05 (based on t(565), two-tailed test).

Table 5. Matrix of correlation between constructs.

Note: Square root of AVE on diagonals in bold.

Table 6. Standard bootstrap results.

Effects on endogenous Direct t-value 95% BCa conﬁdence n Cohen’s Explained

IM 0.032 0.960 n.s. [0.099, 0.033] n.s. 0.002 0.6%

Notes: ***signiﬁcant at p < 0:001. n.s.: not signiﬁcant.

Fig. 2. Structural model developed.

Furthermore, we strengthen the analysis with the cross-validated redundancy

Table 7. PLS-MGA comparison results.

Relations Low-tech (1) Med-tech (2) High-tech (3)

Radical Innovation Results (3) (1)

0.051 0.089 0.145

We use latent variable scores to perform one-way ANOVA tests. Therefore,

Table 9. Hypotheses conﬁrmation résumé.

Fig. 3. Structural model developed.

performance results of both incremental and radical innovations. The use of

do not signiﬁcantly impact radical innovation results, while IM have a signiﬁcant

attitudes within the company; plans to develop competitive strategies; techniques

Albors-Garrigos, J, JC Ramos and M Mas-Machuca (2010). Actional intelligence, a

ment, 27(4), 572–592.