New can mean in this sense a true world novelty or a subjective novelty from the perspective of a single company, or of a worker. Currently, a series of innovation categories are distinguished. Some of the relevant topic areas are mentioned here:.

Innovations can be distinguished according to the form of their emergence:

They are also classified according to their degree of "newness." Here the combination between the purpose of the object or product and the means with which that purpose is achieved is considered. If an innovation reaches high values ​​in both dimensions, it is then referred to as a radical, disruptive or revolutionary innovation.

According to Joseph Schumpeter (in: Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung [Theory of economic development], 1911) innovation is the imposition of a technical or organizational novelty in the production process and not simply the corresponding invention.

According to the economist Joseph Schumpeter, the *innovator* is a "creative entrepreneur", in contrast to the arbitrage entrepreneur "Arbitrage (economics)"), whose activity is limited to exploiting already existing price differences to obtain profits. The creative entrepreneur is characterized by promoting the process of creative destruction, by introducing new productive combinations that transform the economic system. Its main motivation lies in obtaining temporary monopoly positions through innovation, which allows it to access extraordinary benefits, known as *innovation prizes*. These gains may arise, for example, from increased productivity associated with process improvements, or from higher prices obtained through product innovations.

For his part, management theorist Jürgen Hauschildt defines innovation as the introduction of something *new*, which can encompass products, markets, business models, processes, procedures, distribution channels, or even advertising slogans. The fundamental characteristic of innovation is its *perceptible novelty*, that is, it must represent a significant deviation from the previous state, and this difference must be recognized by those who interact with it. Innovation implies a new articulation between ends and means that, until then, was not known. This articulation must demonstrate its economic viability, whether in the market or within an organization. Thus, for example, the same objective (such as vehicular transportation) can be achieved through alternative means (hydrogen, autogas, natural gas, etc.), or a pre-existing medium (such as a telephone line) can acquire a new purpose (for example, the transmission of data over the Internet). The mere generation of an idea does not constitute an innovation in itself; It is its implementation—whether through use or commercialization—that distinguishes an innovation from a simple invention.

Peter Drucker was one of the first scientists to investigate what sources of innovation exist. In 1986 he identified seven sources that add up to the "big idea." Although the latter has great charm, it most often fails.

Author Clayton Christensen is considered the discoverer of disruptive innovation. This is aimed at the objective of appealing to new markets or new customer groups through a radical change in products.

The number of definitions of the concept of innovation since it was invented seems to have grown even more rapidly than the number of innovation researchers. The most contradictory approaches can be observed: this is how innovation can designate, apparently in equal measure, the products as well as the process of their manufacturing or their distribution.

Even so, there is agreement among the authors that innovation, at least and as indicated by its roots, has to show a relationship with the new. "New" does not refer in this context only to the time horizon, but also refers to an objective and social dimension:[7]​.

There has been much debate about whether innovation is driven by suppliers (based on new technological possibilities) or by demand (based on social and market needs). One point of view is that "the recognition of demand is a more frequent factor in innovation than the recognition of technical potential" (Marquis, 1969).

A part of the innovations induced by demand are those carried out by consumers themselves. Eric von Hippel[8]​ studied in depth the innovations produced by early users (or lead users), whom he considers an outstanding source of innovation, because they anticipate market trends and have the knowledge and incentives to develop their own solutions. Therefore, companies can benefit by systematically studying the aforementioned early adopters "Diffusion (business)").[9]​.

Innovation in business is achieved in different ways. They can be developed by modifications made in work practice, by exchanges and combinations of professional experience and in many other ways. The most radical and revolutionary innovations tend to come from R&D while the most incremental ones tend to emerge from practice, but there are exceptions to either of these two trends. In both cases, innovations are usually documented and protected by patents or other intellectual property schemes. In fact, according to Michael Porter, the level of innovation in a region can be estimated with the number of patents generated.

To patent an innovation it is not necessary that it be a technological novelty. For example, when McDonald's applied the production line concept to create a restaurant, the innovation consisted of the advantage of using workers with little experience to manufacture large quantities of food in a standard quality and very quickly, inventing the fast food industry. Today that business method could have been protected by a US patent, although no technological innovation occurred there.

Innovation could be increased with the following specific theories and practices such as TRIZ, the problem-solving theory of invention.

Innovation for a specific network, according to Regis Cabral,[10]​[11]​ is a new element introduced into the network that changes, even momentarily, the cost of transactions between at least two actors, elements or nodes, of said network.

The third edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005) defines innovation as the introduction of a new, or significantly improved, product (good or service), a process, a new marketing method or a new organizational method, in the internal practices of the company, the organization of the workplace or external relations.

Peter Drucker in Managing in the Next Society (2002) launched the idea that companies no longer compete with products but with business models. These models are born from innovation and the more intense this is, the more competitive they are.

Innovation management is typically structured in three phases:

To streamline the entire innovation management process in the company, a series of software tools have been developed that simplify this process:

Contenido

La investigación en innovación se ocupa, por una parte, de preguntarse acerca de qué condiciones determinan y en cuáles procesos socioeconómicos tienen lugar las innovaciones, es decir se preocupa de investigar la génesis de las combinaciones de campos de aplicación de la resolución de problemas, como asimismo de la generación y desarrolló un sistema regional o nacional de innovación. Esto puede referirse tanto a una innovación de producto, como a una forma organizacional, una tecnología, un procedimiento o un campo de aplicación. Por otra parte, la investigación en innovación se interesa por el cómo se pueden realizar esas metas; trabaja entonces con los procesos de innovación y, con ello, por la pregunta sobre la transición del sujeto/objeto aludido desde el estado t0 hacia el estado t1. En el centro de la observación del proceso se encuentran las formas procesales, por ejemplo procesos conducidos conscientemente, autoorganizados o informales, en su defecto procesos que transcurren en passant, como asimismo las posibilidades y límites de un diseño dirigido o de la influencia.

Diffusion of innovations

According to Everett M. Rogers, the following factors play a role in the diffusion (market imposition) of innovations:

Within the frameworks of the target market, the following groups of people are distinguished according to the degree of satisfaction with the innovation or in relation to the process of acceptance of the innovation:

Lately, research interest is increasingly oriented towards the path dependence of innovation processes and their results. Here the assumption that the past development of an organization, a product, a technology, etc., influences and limits future development possibilities (history matters) occupies a central place. Therefore, considering its history, not any desired innovation goal is achievable.

If the knowledge we have until now were confirmed, this would have consequences for the practice of innovation in companies: if they want to innovate, they no longer have to go like lemmings after fashion trends or short-lived concepts. Rather, it is about orienting the gaze more clearly towards one's own potentials and its historical formation to more strongly, to elaborate the comparative advantages in the competition finally on the basis of its authentic characteristics.

This is how product, procedure, and business model innovation is also distinguished from the administration (or management) of innovation, where the latter concept appears to be the most promising, given that administrators (managers) are the final decision-maker and determine the way resources are distributed. Product and procedural innovations are in this sense results of management innovations. On the other hand are the findings of innovation research, according to which innovation arises above all in the boundaries between systems and cultures, or in the dialogue between different actors.

Innovation indicators

The “Germany Innovation Indicator”, composed of 150 individual indicators, although more widely applied in Germany, is also cited in other international publications for the measurement and comparison of the innovation capacity of industrial countries. It is established annually by the Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (Institute of German Economics), under the auspices of the Deutsche Telekom Foundation and the Confederation of German Industry – Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI). The entire measure is made up of several specific sub-indicators (for example "education" or "female participation") which in turn have been aggregated bottom up from of the individual indicators. The sub-indicators converge weighted in the value of the "general innovation indicator". The "Germany Innovation Indicator of 2005" (with data from 2004), used a scale of 1 to 7 to compare 13 industrial countries with each other. 5.83), Germany was in 6th position (4.66) and Spain was in 12th place with (1.21).[12]​.

In 2011 (with data from 2010), with similar study methodology, the innovation indicator now compares 26 countries, using a scale of 0 to 100 for the score. First place is now occupied by Switzerland with 76 points, immediately followed by Singapore, with 63 points, while Sweden remains in third position, with 61 points. The US shows one of the biggest declines, now ranking in 9th place, with 53 points. Germany rises to 4th place, with 57 points and Spain is 20th with 24 points, although with quite a distance in absolute values, it is located in the table immediately after Japan (39 points) and surpassing China, Italy, India and Russia[13]​.

In 2009, the World Intellectual Property Organization organized the publication of the Global Innovation Index. This index, year after year, shows in a clear and well-documented way the place occupied by more than 120 countries that participate in the report, in terms of their role as innovative countries. Additionally, the GII is disaggregated by indicators and metrics that allow analyzing the innovative behavior of the participating countries.

New can mean in this sense a true world novelty or a subjective novelty from the perspective of a single company, or of a worker. Currently, a series of innovation categories are distinguished. Some of the relevant topic areas are mentioned here:.

Innovations can be distinguished according to the form of their emergence:

They are also classified according to their degree of "newness." Here the combination between the purpose of the object or product and the means with which that purpose is achieved is considered. If an innovation reaches high values ​​in both dimensions, it is then referred to as a radical, disruptive or revolutionary innovation.

According to Joseph Schumpeter (in: Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung [Theory of economic development], 1911) innovation is the imposition of a technical or organizational novelty in the production process and not simply the corresponding invention.

According to the economist Joseph Schumpeter, the *innovator* is a "creative entrepreneur", in contrast to the arbitrage entrepreneur "Arbitrage (economics)"), whose activity is limited to exploiting already existing price differences to obtain profits. The creative entrepreneur is characterized by promoting the process of creative destruction, by introducing new productive combinations that transform the economic system. Its main motivation lies in obtaining temporary monopoly positions through innovation, which allows it to access extraordinary benefits, known as *innovation prizes*. These gains may arise, for example, from increased productivity associated with process improvements, or from higher prices obtained through product innovations.

For his part, management theorist Jürgen Hauschildt defines innovation as the introduction of something *new*, which can encompass products, markets, business models, processes, procedures, distribution channels, or even advertising slogans. The fundamental characteristic of innovation is its *perceptible novelty*, that is, it must represent a significant deviation from the previous state, and this difference must be recognized by those who interact with it. Innovation implies a new articulation between ends and means that, until then, was not known. This articulation must demonstrate its economic viability, whether in the market or within an organization. Thus, for example, the same objective (such as vehicular transportation) can be achieved through alternative means (hydrogen, autogas, natural gas, etc.), or a pre-existing medium (such as a telephone line) can acquire a new purpose (for example, the transmission of data over the Internet). The mere generation of an idea does not constitute an innovation in itself; It is its implementation—whether through use or commercialization—that distinguishes an innovation from a simple invention.

Peter Drucker was one of the first scientists to investigate what sources of innovation exist. In 1986 he identified seven sources that add up to the "big idea." Although the latter has great charm, it most often fails.

Author Clayton Christensen is considered the discoverer of disruptive innovation. This is aimed at the objective of appealing to new markets or new customer groups through a radical change in products.

The number of definitions of the concept of innovation since it was invented seems to have grown even more rapidly than the number of innovation researchers. The most contradictory approaches can be observed: this is how innovation can designate, apparently in equal measure, the products as well as the process of their manufacturing or their distribution.

Even so, there is agreement among the authors that innovation, at least and as indicated by its roots, has to show a relationship with the new. "New" does not refer in this context only to the time horizon, but also refers to an objective and social dimension:[7]​.

There has been much debate about whether innovation is driven by suppliers (based on new technological possibilities) or by demand (based on social and market needs). One point of view is that "the recognition of demand is a more frequent factor in innovation than the recognition of technical potential" (Marquis, 1969).

A part of the innovations induced by demand are those carried out by consumers themselves. Eric von Hippel[8]​ studied in depth the innovations produced by early users (or lead users), whom he considers an outstanding source of innovation, because they anticipate market trends and have the knowledge and incentives to develop their own solutions. Therefore, companies can benefit by systematically studying the aforementioned early adopters "Diffusion (business)").[9]​.

Innovation in business is achieved in different ways. They can be developed by modifications made in work practice, by exchanges and combinations of professional experience and in many other ways. The most radical and revolutionary innovations tend to come from R&D while the most incremental ones tend to emerge from practice, but there are exceptions to either of these two trends. In both cases, innovations are usually documented and protected by patents or other intellectual property schemes. In fact, according to Michael Porter, the level of innovation in a region can be estimated with the number of patents generated.

To patent an innovation it is not necessary that it be a technological novelty. For example, when McDonald's applied the production line concept to create a restaurant, the innovation consisted of the advantage of using workers with little experience to manufacture large quantities of food in a standard quality and very quickly, inventing the fast food industry. Today that business method could have been protected by a US patent, although no technological innovation occurred there.

Innovation could be increased with the following specific theories and practices such as TRIZ, the problem-solving theory of invention.

Innovation for a specific network, according to Regis Cabral,[10]​[11]​ is a new element introduced into the network that changes, even momentarily, the cost of transactions between at least two actors, elements or nodes, of said network.

The third edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005) defines innovation as the introduction of a new, or significantly improved, product (good or service), a process, a new marketing method or a new organizational method, in the internal practices of the company, the organization of the workplace or external relations.

Peter Drucker in Managing in the Next Society (2002) launched the idea that companies no longer compete with products but with business models. These models are born from innovation and the more intense this is, the more competitive they are.

Innovation management is typically structured in three phases:

To streamline the entire innovation management process in the company, a series of software tools have been developed that simplify this process:

Contenido

La investigación en innovación se ocupa, por una parte, de preguntarse acerca de qué condiciones determinan y en cuáles procesos socioeconómicos tienen lugar las innovaciones, es decir se preocupa de investigar la génesis de las combinaciones de campos de aplicación de la resolución de problemas, como asimismo de la generación y desarrolló un sistema regional o nacional de innovación. Esto puede referirse tanto a una innovación de producto, como a una forma organizacional, una tecnología, un procedimiento o un campo de aplicación. Por otra parte, la investigación en innovación se interesa por el cómo se pueden realizar esas metas; trabaja entonces con los procesos de innovación y, con ello, por la pregunta sobre la transición del sujeto/objeto aludido desde el estado t0 hacia el estado t1. En el centro de la observación del proceso se encuentran las formas procesales, por ejemplo procesos conducidos conscientemente, autoorganizados o informales, en su defecto procesos que transcurren en passant, como asimismo las posibilidades y límites de un diseño dirigido o de la influencia.

Diffusion of innovations

According to Everett M. Rogers, the following factors play a role in the diffusion (market imposition) of innovations:

Within the frameworks of the target market, the following groups of people are distinguished according to the degree of satisfaction with the innovation or in relation to the process of acceptance of the innovation:

Lately, research interest is increasingly oriented towards the path dependence of innovation processes and their results. Here the assumption that the past development of an organization, a product, a technology, etc., influences and limits future development possibilities (history matters) occupies a central place. Therefore, considering its history, not any desired innovation goal is achievable.

If the knowledge we have until now were confirmed, this would have consequences for the practice of innovation in companies: if they want to innovate, they no longer have to go like lemmings after fashion trends or short-lived concepts. Rather, it is about orienting the gaze more clearly towards one's own potentials and its historical formation to more strongly, to elaborate the comparative advantages in the competition finally on the basis of its authentic characteristics.

This is how product, procedure, and business model innovation is also distinguished from the administration (or management) of innovation, where the latter concept appears to be the most promising, given that administrators (managers) are the final decision-maker and determine the way resources are distributed. Product and procedural innovations are in this sense results of management innovations. On the other hand are the findings of innovation research, according to which innovation arises above all in the boundaries between systems and cultures, or in the dialogue between different actors.

Innovation indicators

The “Germany Innovation Indicator”, composed of 150 individual indicators, although more widely applied in Germany, is also cited in other international publications for the measurement and comparison of the innovation capacity of industrial countries. It is established annually by the Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (Institute of German Economics), under the auspices of the Deutsche Telekom Foundation and the Confederation of German Industry – Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI). The entire measure is made up of several specific sub-indicators (for example "education" or "female participation") which in turn have been aggregated bottom up from of the individual indicators. The sub-indicators converge weighted in the value of the "general innovation indicator". The "Germany Innovation Indicator of 2005" (with data from 2004), used a scale of 1 to 7 to compare 13 industrial countries with each other. 5.83), Germany was in 6th position (4.66) and Spain was in 12th place with (1.21).[12]​.

In 2011 (with data from 2010), with similar study methodology, the innovation indicator now compares 26 countries, using a scale of 0 to 100 for the score. First place is now occupied by Switzerland with 76 points, immediately followed by Singapore, with 63 points, while Sweden remains in third position, with 61 points. The US shows one of the biggest declines, now ranking in 9th place, with 53 points. Germany rises to 4th place, with 57 points and Spain is 20th with 24 points, although with quite a distance in absolute values, it is located in the table immediately after Japan (39 points) and surpassing China, Italy, India and Russia[13]​.

In 2009, the World Intellectual Property Organization organized the publication of the Global Innovation Index. This index, year after year, shows in a clear and well-documented way the place occupied by more than 120 countries that participate in the report, in terms of their role as innovative countries. Additionally, the GII is disaggregated by indicators and metrics that allow analyzing the innovative behavior of the participating countries.