![URBAN AND REGIONAL INNOVATION Research - URENIO](http://www.urenio.org/wp-content/uploads/images/urenio.png")
Paul Schumann, editor and publisher of the Innovation Road Map describes the linguistic origins of innovation, creativity and ingenuity:
“Innovation, innovate, innovator, innovant, innovative, innovatory, renovate, novation, these are but a few forms of the central concept within innovation – nova. Nova is Latin but it originates from the Indo-European neuos. Neuos meant new or now…….
In 2004, IBM conducted a worldwide study on innovation, the Global Innovation Outlook, and one of the key findings on the changing nature of innovation in the 21st century is that it requires wider collaboration across disciplines and specialties. In fact, the study concluded, among other things, that “combinations of technologies, expertise, business models and policies will now drive innovation.”
In a recent McKinsey Global Survey of Business Executives, IT and business executives agree that technological innovation, emerging economies, and offshore manufacturing are the three most important global business trends. But tech executives are more bullish about what innovation will contribute to their company’s profitability. Since they expect growth to come primarily through the improvement of current products, they emphasize new-product development less than business executives do.
Philippe Aghion, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein developed a model that clarifies the respective advantages and disadvantages of academic and private-sector research. The fundamental tradeoff between academia and the private sector is one of creative control versus focus.
.. [are] ‘those innovations that generate market and/or technological discontinuities. These kinds of innovations affect the abilities of incumbent firms to successfully adapt and respond, as well as to sustain their prior market and technological positions. The literature generally categorises discontinuous innovation as either radical or architectural in nature.
These crucial relationships between research effort and innovation performance may be analysed by an input-output linear model developed by Griliches (1979, 1984). Input is the new technological knowledge generated by R&D in industries and universities and output is the patented innovations. The model is
‘The Triple Helix is a spiral model of innovation that captures multiple reciprocal relationships at different points in the process of knowledge capitalization’. The model denotes the ‘university-industry-government’ relationship as a complex of interdependent institutional spheres,