In this innovative approach to the practice of social science, Charles Ragin explores the use of fuzzy sets to bridge the divide between quantitative and qualitative methods. Paradoxically, the fuzzy set is a powerful tool because it replaces an unwieldy, "fuzzy" instrument—the variable, which establishes only the positions of cases relative to each other, with a precise one—degree of membership in a well-defined set. Ragin argues that fuzzy sets allow a far richer dialogue between ideas and evidence in social research than previously possible. They let quantitative researchers abandon "homogenizing assumptions" about cases and causes, they extend diversity-oriented research strategies, and they provide a powerful connection between theory and data analysis. Most important, fuzzy sets can be carefully tailored to fit evolving theoretical concepts, sharpening quantitative tools with in-depth knowledge gained through qualitative, case-oriented inquiry. This book will revolutionize research methods not only in sociology, political science, and anthropology but in any field of inquiry dealing with complex patterns of causation.

Fuzzy-Set Social Science

Everybody knows that digital technology has revolutionized our economy and our lifestyles. But how many of us really understand the drivers behind the technology – the significance of going digital; the miniaturization of electronic devices; the role of venture capital in financing the revolution; the importance of research and development? How many of us understand what it takes to make money from innovative technologies? Should we worry about manufacturing going offshore? What is the role of India and China in the digital economy? Drawing on a lifetime’s experience in the industry, as an engineer, a senior manager, and as a partner in a global venture capital firm, Henry Kressel offers an expert personalized answer to all these questions. He explains how the technology works, why it matters, how it is financed, and what the key lessons are for public policy.

Competing for the Future

This article reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside-in” and “coupled” modes of Enkel et al. (2009). From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four-phase model in which a linear process — (1) obtaining, (2) integrating and (3) commercializing external innovations — is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals identified by Linton and Thongpapan (2004), complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation-related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front-loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations.Research on obtaining innovations includes searching, enabling, filtering, and acquiring — each category with its own specific set of mechanisms and conditions. Integrating innovations has been mostly studied from an absorptive capacity perspective, with less attention given to the impact of competencies and culture (including not-invented-here). Commercializing innovations puts the most emphasis on how external innovations create value rather than how firms capture value from those innovations. Finally, the interaction phase considers both feedback for the linear process and reciprocal innovation processes such as co-creation, network collaboration and community innovation.This review and synthesis suggests several gaps in prior research. One is a tendency to ignore the importance of business models, despite their central role in distinguishing open innovation from earlier research on inter-organizational collaboration in innovation. Another gap is a tendency in open innovation to use “innovation” in a way inconsistent with earlier definitions in innovation management. The article concludes with recommendations for future research that include examining the end-to-end innovation commercialization process, and studying the moderators and limits of leveraging external sources of innovation.

Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation

House of Quality

Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP

In the innovation literature, the development of innovation models is subdivided into generations. Until now, we have distinguished three generations. Because current models provide a poor representation of what happens in today's open innovation networks, there is a growing need for a fourth-generation concept. So far, requirements for next-generation concepts have been discussed but well-defined models have not reached the open literature yet. This paper describes a fourth-generation innovation model, which describes the innovation regime by a 'circle of change'. It links changes in scientific insights, technological capabilities, product design and manufacturing, and markets. The model replaces the traditional chain concept by a circle with four 'nodes of change', connected by four interacting 'cycles of change'. Collectively, they may be seen as the arena of opportunity with processes crossing traditional boundaries. These processes have a cyclic nature and are representative of today's open innovation.

Innovating the innovation process

Purpose




Earlier studies have generally shown a positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and the overall performance of the firm. The purpose of this paper is to understand in more detail how EO influences firm performance. It adds to the literature by distinguishing performances of different functions in a firm and by exploring how the dimensions of EO influence these functional performances and, in turn, overall firm performance.




Design/methodology/approach




This study examined the relationship between three dimensions of EO (innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking), three types of functional performances of firms (R&D performance, production performance, marketing and sales performance) and the overall performance of firms. The data are collected from 279 high-tech small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) using a postal survey. The proposed hypotheses are tested using structural equation modeling (SEM).




Findings




The results indicate that the dimensions of (EO) are related in different ways to the performance of functions in a firm. A positive relationship is observed between innovativeness and R&D performance and between proactiveness and marketing and sales performance. A negative relationship exists between risk-taking and production performance. The results also show a sequential positive relationship from R&D via production and marketing and sales to overall performance of firms. Therefore, it is concluded that the R&D, production and marketing and sales functions reinforce each other in a logic order and are complementary in their effect on overall firm performance.




Practical implications




The results imply that the three functions, R&D, production and marketing and sales, in a firm play different roles, both in the firm’s EO and in their contribution to overall performance. Managers can use the findings to monitor and influence the performance of different functions in a firm to increase overall firm performance.




Originality/value




The first contribution of this study is that it unravels (i) which dimensions of EO have an effect on the performance of separate functions in a firm, indicating that functions contribute in different ways to entrepreneurial orientation of the firm. A second contribution is assessing how the performance of these functions influence the firm’s overall performance. This paper fills a gap in the literature by exploring internal firm variables mediating the relationship between EO and overall firm performance and contributes to the discussion on the contradictory results regarding the relationship between risk-taking and firm performance.

/pdf/entrepreneurial-orientation-and-firm-performance-the-2ewozo98m9.pdf

Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the mediating role of functional performances

The aim of this paper is to develop a new approach to supplier segmentation that considers the various variables used in existing literature to segment suppliers. A literature review reveals a serious problem from a management perspective. The problem is that many different supplier segmentation methods have been proposed in the last three decades, each of which uses different segmentation variables and hence results in different segments. An overarching supplier segmentation method, considering various segmentation variables, is lacking. Based on an extensive literature review, we have analysed the current methods and we conclude that the literature on supplier segmentation can be divided into three different schools of thoughts. By clearly identifying the deficiencies of the existing theory on supplier segmentation, we developed a new approach. As the basis for this new approach, we developed three requirements to make an overarching approach to supplier segmentation. Firstly, supplier segmentation shou...

/pdf/a-multi-variable-approach-to-supplier-segmentation-3rin23kk55.pdf

Roland Ortt

Papers

Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP

Innovating the innovation process

Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the mediating role of functional performances

A multi-variable approach to supplier segmentation

Enhancing concept test validity by using expert consumers