Mitali Sarkar

Reinvention, Innovation, andIntrapreneurship

Mitali Sarkar

Abstracts is sponsored bythe Indian Council of Social

Science Research, New Delhiand is intended to facilitate

Indian management research.

A B S T R A C T S

features summary of articlespublished in Indian and

international journals withspecial emphasis on India

and other emerging markets

Reinvention and Inno-vation 1. The Wheel of Business Model

Reinvention 2. The Why, What, and How of

Management Innovation 3. Managing Design and De-

signers for Strategic Renewal 4. Innovation Strategies of

Asian Firms in the UnitedStates

5. The Effectiveness of Innova-tion

6. The Ericsson Experience inthe Swedish Innovation Land-scape

7. Innovation through Dialecti-cal Leadership

8. Firms’ Decisions to Innovateand Innovation Routines

9. Open Source Development10. Technological Innovation

through Networked StrategicCommunities

11. Disruptiveness of Innova-tions

Intrapreneurship12. Gateways to Intrapreneur-

ship13. Intrapreneurship: Construct

Refinement and Cross-cul-tural Validation

14. Innovation Management andIntrapreneurship

15. The Economics of Intrapre-neurial Innovation

16. The Post-it Note17. Intrapreneurial Models and

Applications for Hospitals andHealth-related Organizations

18. Intrapreneurship Modelingin Transition Economies

19. Organizational Processesin Intrapreneurship

20. A Longitudinal Study ofIntrapreneurial Programs inFortune 500 Firms

21. Risk Taking in Intrapreneur-ship

22. Organizational Strategy, In-dividual Personality and In-novation Behavior

23. Intrapreneurship and Exop-reneurship in ManufacturingFirms

Financial Innovations24. The New Financial Thing:

Origins of Financial Innova-tion

25. Financial Innovations andMarket Efficiency

26. Diffusion of Off-balance-sheet Financial Innovations

27. Risk and Hedging: Do CreditDerivatives Increase BankRisk?

28. An Essay on Financial Inno-vation

29. New Evidence of ScopeEconomies among Lending,Deposit-taking, Loan Com-mitments and Mutual FundActivities

30. Creating Wealth: CorporateFinancial Strategy and De-cision Making

Quality Management31. Quality Management Prac-

tices in Indian ISO 9000Certified Companies

32. Influence of Experience andCollaboration on Effective-ness of Quality ManagementPractices

33. The Integration of TQM andTechnology/R&D Manage-ment in Determining Qualityand Innovation Performance

34. Exploring Quality Manage-ment Practices and HighTech Firm Performance

35. What’s Your Strategy forManaging Knowledge ?

36. Total Value Management: AKnowledge ManagementConcept for Integrating TQMinto Concurrent Product andProcess Development

37. Scalable Enterprise Sys-tems

Business Processesand EntrepreneurialOrientation38. Transformation of An Entre-

preneurial Firm to a GlobalService Provider

39. A Balanced Scorecard-based Framework for As-sessing the Strategic Im-pacts of ERP Systems

40. Analysing Alternatives inReverse Logistics for End-of-life Computers

41. Critical Factors for Success-ful ERP Implementation:Exploratory Findings fromFour Case Studies

42. An Investigation into the Useof ERP Systems in theService Sector

43. The Integration of LeanManagement and Six Sigma

44. Promoting Customer Satis-factions by Applying SixSigma

45. Addressing Variation inHospital Quality

Economic and LegalAspects of Innovation46. Does Intellectual Property

Protection Spur Technologi-cal Change?

47. From Grain-sized Innova-tions to Triple-Test Patentsin ASEAN

48. Intellectual Property Rights,Strategy and Policy

49. If ‘Intellectual PropertyRights’ is the Answer, Whatis the Question? Revisitingthe Patent Controversies

50. An Empirical Analysis of FirmProcess and ProductPatenting.

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 165

165

Reinvention and Innovation

1. Voelpel, Sven C; Leibold, Marius and Tekie, Eden B (2005),“The Wheel of Business Model Reinvention: How to Re-shape Your Business Model to Leapfrog Competitors,”Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 259-276.

In the rapidly changing business environment of today, it hasbecome necessary for the organizations to move from bound-ary-oriented thinking and continuous improvement towardsa systemic reinvention of their models. This is believed toprovide the disruptive competitive advantages necessary tosurvive and thrive in an environment where the ‘rules of thegame’ change quickly in almost all companies and industries.While identifying the generic components of the differentbusiness models, this paper discusses the relevance of thereinvented business models for competitive advantage andoutlines the challenges faced by some companies in developingnew business models. The authors also review the eclecticapproaches to developing new business models and providea systemic framework for business model reinvention, finallyproposing a tool for operationalizing and evaluating newbusiness models—the wheel of business model reinvention.It is argued that a new business model arises not only fromreconfiguring an organization’s core business strategy anddynamic capabilities, but also from making sense of socio-cultural dynamics and opportunity gaps, reinventing of cus-tomer value propositions, and reconfiguring the businessnetwork and its value chain. The wheel of business modelreinvention includes critical dimensions of new customervalue propositions, technological innovation, reconfigurationof the value system, and the economic feasibility of a newbusiness model. The authors illustrate how the wheel wouldhave enabled Encyclopedia Britannica to adopt the new CD-based business model and helped it offer a totally differentcustomer value, while also showing that Wal-Mart, Dell, BRLHardy, and IKEA changed the ‘rules of the game’ to becomethe drivers of their industries.

2. Hamel, Gary (2006), “The Why, What, and How ofManagement Innovation,” Harvard Business Review, February,72-84.

While most organizations in recent years have been workingsystematically towards reinventing their business processes,very few of them have gone for a continuous managementinnovation. This paper addresses three questions: (a) why ismanagement innovation so vital? (b) What makes it differentfrom other kinds of innovation? (c) How can a companybecome a blue-ribbon management innovator? It is argued thatwhile technology and product innovation deliver small-caliberadvantages, a management breakthrough can deliver a potentadvantage to the innovating company and produce a seismicshift in industry leadership. For creating enduring success,however, it requires to meet three conditions: The innovationshould be based on novel principle challenging managementorthodoxy; it is systemic, encompassing a range of processesand methods; and, it is part of an ongoing programme ofinvention, where progress compounds over time. The man-agement processes that turn management principles intoeveryday practices include strategic planning, capital budg-eting, project management, hiring and promotion, executivedevelopment, and knowledge management. The paper shows

how Whirlpool turned itself into a serial management inno-vator. In most companies, management innovation is ad hocand incremental. A systematic process for producing boldmanagement breakthroughs must include commitment to a bigmanagement problem, search for new principles, deconstructionof management orthodoxies, and exploitation of the power ofanalogy, the author adds.

3. Ravasi, Davide and Lojacono, Gabriella (2005), “ManagingDesign and Designers for Strategic Renewal,” Long RangePlanning, 38(1), 51-77.

Adaptation to broad environmental changes requires compa-nies to reconfigure the way they combine resources andcapabilities into their products and services. Current literatureon strategic renewal tends to cluster around two alternativeconceptions: as corporate transformation and as continuousinnovation. This paper discusses design-driven renewal througha four-phased model that presents continuous innovation andcorporate transformation as the outcome of different stages ofa broader renewal process acting at two levels. At a productlevel, autonomous or induced projects in design centres or byexternal designers stimulate continuous renewal of productlines, inspired by a common set of principles and stylisticguidelines. Innovation at this level, may gradually push anexpansion in the competitive scope of the company or adjust-ments in its competitive strategies. At an organizational level,changes in the design philosophy may co-evolve with a re-orientation of the strategic course of the company. Promotingdesign-driven renewal means recognizing that design is notsimply a matter of enhancing functionality or styling, but isa powerful symbolic medium for expressing or reinforcing aunique set of meanings embodied in a brand. The designphilosophies of Nokia, Apple, Electrolux, Philips, Sony, Swatch,etc., are discussed indicating the importance of design philoso-phy of a company co-evolving with its competitive scope,broad mission, and fundamental strategic goals.

4. Poon, Jessie PH and MacPherson, Alan (2005), “InnovationStrategies of Asian Firms in the United States,” Journal ofEngineering Technology Management, 22(4), 255-273.

In recent years, there has been a shift in strategy among Asianfirms toward a more knowledge resource-based model thatallows them to acquire and apply knowledge and technologyfor advantageous rent-generation. This paper examines theinnovation strategies driving Asian firms’ investment in theUS, particularly focusing on the subsidiaries in the US withheadquarter units in South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. AsAsian firms are late adopters of technology internationally, thesample of firms tends to undertake incremental to moderateinnovations that are largely centered on market opportunitiesallowing them to differentiate their products and applicationsfrom their competitors. The research questions thus focusedon identifying Asian firms’ strategic capabilities in innovation,the sources of their innovation capability, and the relationshipbetween the firms’ innovation capability and business per-formance. The results of an ordered probit regression modelof innovation performance suggests that new product devel-opment and marketing capability make a significant contri-bution to increased US patents among Asian firms whileapplied research is only marginally significant in explainingfirms’ innovation capability. The major sources of innovation

166 ABSTRACTS

166

capability revolve around a tacit understanding of technologyand products rather than more explicit forms of knowledge.The empirical findings also suggest that stronger businessperformance is associated with new product development andmarketing capability.

5. Abou-Zeid, El-Sayed and Cheng, Qianzhen (2004), “TheEffectiveness of Innovation: A Knowledge ManagementApproach,” International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3),261-274.

Hypercompetition made the companies realize that the basisfor competitive advantage is innovation, i.e., the applicationof knowledge to produce new knowledge. To get the most outof organizational knowledge resources, linking knowledgemanagement and innovation becomes a necessity. This paperdevelops a theoretically grounded model that describes howthe compatibility between knowledge manipulating activitiesand the type of knowledge associated with innovation willaffect the success of the innovation process. The cognitive fittheory is used to develop a knowledge-based model for theeffectiveness of the innovation process. The basic model ofcognitive fit views problem solving as the outcome of therelationship between the external representation of the prob-lem and the problem-solving task. A match between problemrepresentation and problem-solving task results in cognitivefit which in turn improves the problem-solving performance.As the outcomes of an innovation process are the embodimentof knowledge in the form of processes or products, problemrepresentation and problem-solving tasks are classified intoknowledge-creation and knowledge-utilization processes. TheK-creation activities including socialization and externaliza-tion, deal with knowledge that is more tacit, systemic, andcomplex, while K-utilization activities including combinationand internalization, deal with explicit, autonomous, andsimple knowledge. From a practising manager’s perspective,the model suggests guidelines for determining the knowledgemanipulating activities required to support the specific typesof innovation outcomes.

6. Sigurdson, Jon and Liyanage, Shantha (2005), “The EricssonExperience in the Swedish Innovation Landscape,” Interna-tional Journal of Learning and Change, 1(1), 141-155.

A firm’s innovation cultures are vital in shaping and respond-ing adequately to the call of innovation in the marketplace.Ericsson has traditionally been an engineering companypaying limited attention to R&D, until mechanical switcheswere replaced by digital alternatives. Initially Ericsson’s R&Dstrategy structure revolved around its engineering and tech-nological needs. As the company grew in size and developedits global operation, it underwent a shift from traditionalSwedish innovation culture to embrace a new found innovativeperspective. This paper traces the evolution of Ericsson’s R&Dculture, illustrating how a major telecommunication companymay sustain or lose its innovation capacity in an intenselycompetitive global market. The study was conducted over fiveyears through interviews with a number of senior staff ofEricsson and collecting archival data. The company’s radicalrestructuring since 2000 and the emerging R&D structure sawmajor directional change to both innovation culture and thepath to innovation. Ericsson’s handset business is discussedto show how the company diminished its ability to exploit its

technological advantage and was eventually forced into form-ing a partnership with Sony, who, at the time, had not achievedany success for its mobile handsets. It is argued that R&Dmanagement in a technology-intensive company such asEricsson requires both divergence and convergence in struc-turing and organizing R&D activities. R&D strategies need toco-evolve with innovation strategies and capabilities of thefirm, the authors add.

7. Kodama, Mitsuru (2005), “Innovation through DialecticalLeadership: Case Studies of Japanese High-tech Compa-nies,” Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(2),137-156.

In light of the advent of the knowledge society, businesses arefaced with a large transition from focusing solely on devel-oping new products and services, to also strategically inno-vating to improve their business processes and performance.This paper presents a new point of view regarding theknowledge management and leadership theory of new prod-uct development. The dynamism of knowledge creation proc-ess in new product development is examined through in-depthcase studies of three traditional Japanese companies—Fujitsu,J-phone, and Mitsubishi Electric Corp.— which developed aproduct cable of new multimedia systems using technologyresulting from merging and integration of different technolo-gies and business models. The network of strategic commu-nities inside and outside the companies, including customers,made it possible for this development process to occur at anunprecedented speed. In the case studies, the analysis ofknowledge creation focuses on the degree and process to whichthe networks of the strategic communities created new knowl-edge based on new technologies and practices that werediffused beyond the boundaries of the strategic communities.The conceptual framework includes six aggregate broaderconcepts: involvement, embeddedness, resonance of value,strategic community formation of speed, dialectic leadership,and synthesizing capability. One of the keys to producinginnovation in a knowledge-based society is how companiescan organically and innovatively network different knowledgecreated from the formation of a variety of strategic commu-nities inside and outside the company, and acquire thesynthesizing capability through dialectical leadership.

8. Webster, Elizabeth (2004), “Firms’ Decisions to Innovateand Innovation Routines,” Economic Innovation and NewTechnology, 13(8), 733-745.

Firms generally engage in innovation for achieving an in-crease in quality of products, a reduction in production cost,capture or create new product markets, and reduce the firm’sreliance upon unreliable factors of production. This articleinvestigates the forces that lead some firms to engage in moreinnovative activities than others and examines the types ofroutines associated with this decision. It is argued that theconditions under which innovation is desirable for firms willvary according to external pressures and constraints and itsinherited internal capabilities. Once management identifiesthe desired balance between innovative and prosaic activities,it may seek to realize it through routines associated withcertain styles of management, the nature of work culture inrelation to learning and appropriation. Many of the earlierstudies had followed the Schumpeterian tradition, focusing

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 167

167

on size and market structure as possible causes ofinnovativeness. However, with the advent of new qualitymeasures of industry knowledge and managerial styles, thesefactors have been found to be less important. The results froma survey of 360 large Australian firms have shown that factorscommon to all industries, such as the extent of learning,knowledge spillovers, appropriability, and managerial style,are more important than industry-specific factors. Becominga more innovative firm does not mean spending more moneyon innovative activities. It also requires a set of complemen-tary managerial and work practices within the organization,the author concludes.

9. Ulhoi, John P (2004), “Open Source Development: A Hybridin Innovation and Management Theory,” Management Deci-sion, 42(9), 1095-1114.

Open source innovative project is one in which the innovator,a priori, waives rights to the critical knowledge component ofthe innovation and makes the knowledge generally availableto those interested via other means of diffusion. This paperexamines why innovators sometimes deliberately choose notto protect their innovations and explains the underlyingrationales and motives of the phenomenon. Innovations arestated to emerge in a continuum of private-collective modelsof agency, ranging from purely private interests on one end topurely collective interests at the other. The hybrid innovationmodel is the offspring of two fundamentally different, coexist-ing agency models, enabling the entrepreneur to combine andintegrate various elements from each archetypal model. Someof the distinct motivational drivers of OSS have been identifiedin the economic, psychological, social, and intellectual catego-ries. While the articulation of these drivers would vary frominnovator to innovator, what is interesting about OSS innova-tions is the way the underlying technology is structured—theprinciple of modularization. Innovators freely choose the as-signments they want to work on, typically based on personalpreferences such as for example needs, skills, and intellectualchallenge. The findings suggest open source innovation incases where the cost of licensing intellectual property is highor such proprietary means are ineffective or where the speedof technological development is critical. OSI is stated as anattractive alternative for micro-firms and SMEs, which have noor very limited funds for internal R&D. It is also a cost-effectiveway of marketing innovations, the author adds.

10. Kodama, Mitsuru (2005), “Technological Innovationthrough Networked Strategic Communities: A Case Studyon a High-tech Company in Japan,” SAM Advanced Manage-ment Journal, 70(1) Winter, 22-34.

In the advent of knowledge society, businesses are faced withmajor transitions from focusing solely on developing newproducts and services to strategically innovating to improvetheir processes and performance. The greatest challenge thatthe innovative companies face is how to achieve a speedy andreliable innovation. Thus, on the one hand, while the issue isspeed in introducing innovative products and services aheadof the competition, on the other, is the expansion of the marketfor these products and services. To attain success, what theseinnovative companies require is to balance the various param-eters in the strategic communities (SCs) networked outside theorganization, including customers, and to exhibit practical

abilities. This paper presents one view of the capabilities inthe knowledge-based society that form dynamic innovativeprocesses in SCs and network these SCs. The NSPD (newservice and product development) process that occurred overthe past two years at NTT DocoMo, a traditional Japanesemobile telecommunication company is discussed. The com-pany developed a product capable of multipoint mobilevideoconferencing using technology arising from the integra-tion of the Internet, telecommunication technology, computertechnology, and third-generation mobile phone technology. Inthis study, the analysis of knowledge creation focuses on thesynthesizing capability that the leadership-based strategiccommunity uses to integrate various kinds of knowledge togenerate NPSD. As community leaders, managers who playimportant roles in producing leadership for the company usedialectical thinking to synthesize knowledge of good qualitythat was unevenly distributed inside and outside the company,the author concludes.

11. Govindarajan, Vijay and Kopalle, Praveen K (2006), “Dis-ruptiveness of Innovations: Measurement and An Assess-ment of Reliability and Validity,” Strategic ManagementJournal, 27(2), 189-199.

Disruptive innovations are a powerful means for broadeningand developing new markets and providing new functionalitywhich, in turn, disrupt existing market linkages. However,despite the importance of disruptive innovations, there hasbeen a dearth of academic research on this characteristicbecause of the lack of an appropriate measure. This paperdevelops a scale to measure the disruptiveness of innovations,establish the construct’s reliability, discriminant and conver-gent validity, and predictive validity, and discuss the signifi-cance of the results for other researchers. Data were collectedfrom senior executives at 199 strategic business units (SBUs)in 38 Fortune 500 corporations for performing a series ofanalyses. The coefficient alphas and the average inter- andintra-construct correlations are determined. Exploratory factoranalysis is performed to understand the factor structure andthe corresponding measurement quality. Confirmatory factoranalysis is conducted to test the proposed measurement model.Multiple confirmatory factor analyses are conducted for es-tablishing the discriminant validity of the constructs. Finally,to assess nomological validity, the study examines the rela-tionship of the different innovation types with (a) SBU’s futuremarket focus, (b) the per unit gross margin of innovationsrelative to extant products, and (c) the number of disruptiveinnovations. The analyses find wide industry-level differencesin innovation characteristics. While heavy manufacturing andconsumer non-durables stand out with respect to a lack ofradicalness, disruptiveness, and competency-destroying inno-vations, disruptive and radical innovations are significantlymore in technology and telecommunications industries rela-tive to consumer non-durables.

Intrapreneurship

12. Eesley, Dale T and Longenecker, Clinton O (2006), “Gate-ways to Intrapreneurship,” Industrial Management, 48(1) Janu-ary/February, 18-23.

Intrapreneurship—the practice of creating new business prod-ucts and opportunities in an organization through proactive

168 ABSTRACTS

168

empowerment and risk taking—is considered a key compo-nent to organizational success, especially in organizations thatoperate in rapidly changing industries. This study exploresthe experiences of managers from more than 20 US manufac-turing and service organizations with intrapreneurship. Basedon their experiences, the managers were asked about thespecific actions of their organizations to stifle or preventintrapreneurship and the suggestions that had to offer forstimulating or encouraging the same. Their observationshelped in identifying the barriers to organizationalintrapreneurship. It is argued that the failure of organizationsto take members’ inputs on organizational improvement;sanction, promote, and encourage risk taking, empowerment,and improvement actions; give clear organizational direction,priorities, and objectives; and lack of top management supportin risk taking and improvement initiatives, could stifleintrapreneurship. The organizations characterized by un-healthy politics, infighting, poor communication also suffer.The biggest barriers to intrapreneurship are thus not resources,but institutional and cultural constraints, the authors affirmand suggest ten gateways to intrapreneurship. These includeamong others the development of a culture of workforceempowerment and action; rewarding ideas, progress, andresults; free-flowing customer information and internal com-munications; management support and engagement at alllevels; ongoing encouragement and promotion of risk-takingand new ideas; cross-training; and developing processes foridea generation. These gateways can be developed only whenthe top management makes a decision to pursue them and gainthe commitment of all managers for supplying functionalsupport to intrapreneurial ventures.

13. Antoncic, Bostjan and Hisrich, Robert D (2001),“Intrapreneurship: Construct Refinement and Cross-culturalValidation,” Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495-527.Intrapreneurship is considered beneficial for the revitalizationand performance of firms—both large corporations and smalland medium-sized enterprises. Previous research conceptual-ized intrapreneurship in terms of four dimensions that weresomewhat distinct in terms of their activities and orientations:(1) new business venturing, (2) innovativeness, (3) self-re-newal, and (4) proactiveness. While the focus of new businessventuring is on pursuit and entering new businesses within theexisting organization, innovativeness emphasizes creation ofnew products, services, and technologies. On the other hand,the self-renewal dimension stressed upon strategy reformula-tion, reorganization, and organizational change, whereasproactiveness reflects top management orientation in pursuingenhanced competitiveness and includes initiative and risktaking. Two main measures of intrapreneurship—ENTRESCALE and the corporate entrepreneurship scale—were developed independently but they lacked validity forcross-national comparisons. This study integrates these twoscales to develop a refined intrapreneurship construct of fourdimensions and for generalization, uses two samples from twodistinct economies: Slovenia and the US. Overall, the constructshowed acceptable convergent, discriminant, and nomologicalvalidity, as well as external validity in terms of comparabilityacross the two samples. In addition, intrapreneurship emergesas an important predictor of firm growth. In transition econo-mies moving towards the more developed economies’ stand-ards of doing business, intrapreneurship can be particularlycritical for profitability and survival, the authors add.

14. McGinnis, Michael A and Verney, Thomas P (2005),“Innovation Management and Intrapreneurship,” SAMAdvanced Management Journal, 52(3), 19-23.

Realizing the lack of effort towards synthesizing innovationresearch into useful managerial insights, the authors reviewrelevant research on innovation and develop a typology inorder to put innovation into perspective. The individual andorganizational issues affecting innovation are first highlighted,their implication for intrapreneurship management discussed,and finally ideas offered for developing an intrapreneurialorganization. The individual qualities for innovation includebelief in innovation; creative but pragmatic imagination;psychological security and autonomous nature; achievementorientation; interpersonal skills; energy, determination, andpersistence; and sense of timing. Thus a combination of vision,self-motivation, and killer instinct provide an interestingimage of a secure, personable, energetic, imaginative, andpragmatic individual who has a proactive but not compulsiveorientation. A more open approach to leadership and moti-vation is required to recruit, develop, and retain innovativeindividuals. Among the organizational factors affecting inno-vation, good user-designer working relationships and inter-action of the firm with its environment would open the firmto new ideas and concepts; ambiguity in goals and processes;high standards of performance and positive values for inno-vation help to create a performance gap. Further, teams ofprofessionals and diversity of experience help in developingorganizational competence while loose coupling or organiza-tional adaptability and superordinate goals enable the firmsto focus efforts on external challenges. The authors, however,add that intrapreneurship is not a quick fix and that it needstop management commitment for a firm to evolve into agenuinely intrapreneurial organization.

15. Subramanian, Narayanan (2005), “The Economics ofIntrapreneurial Innovation,” Journal of Economic Behavior &Organization, 58(4), 487-510.

Recent years have seen an increasing trend of private entre-preneurial activity amongst the employees of large firmsresulting in start-ups outside the parent firm. In order tounderstand the dynamics of start-up formation and theeconomic trade-offs involved in the “intrapreneurial process,”this paper presents a model of employee-firm interaction inwhich private intrapreneurial activity competes with the basicactivity of the firm. It examines the factors that influence anemployee’s decision to divert human capital and resources toprivate innovative activity within the firm and discuses theoptimal approach to this activity. It is argued that a firmprovides an employee with access to its critical resource inorder to foster the right kind of firm-specific investments fromthe employee and in the process allows him to develop humancapital that can be used even outside the firm. Although theparent firm lacks ownership over any new asset createdthrough intrapreneurial activity, it was assumed to possess anadvantage over outside financiers in the auction to developthe asset. Intrapreneurship is also a potential source of renton account of complementarities between the basic asset andthe downstream asset. The firm balances these two considera-tions in arriving at the optimal employment contract. Theanalysis shows that while the effect of the innovation envi-ronment on employee innovation is always positive, the effect

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 169

169

of innovation rent is ambiguous. In general, provided that theinnovation environment is sufficiently favourable, industrieswhere the degree of complementarity between new innova-tions and the firm’s main activities is greater will have a greaterlevel of intrapreneurial activity.

16. Fry, Art (1987), “The Post-it Note: An IntrapreneurialSuccess,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 4-9.

Adapted from a speech by the author, this paper tells the storyof 3M—about how it succeeded in developing the ‘Post-itNotes’ through its intrapreneurial efforts. Intrapreneurs area different breed—inventing new products inside a corpora-tion. To make something happen is often more important tothem than the conventional motivations of money and power.They may hence even challenge authority and sometimes bedisruptive. With 40,000 products, 3M boasts of the world’smost successful new products company. New-to-the-worldthings require perspectives, associations, and new informationthat is not always available to the executive. Thus, top-downdecisions, that are suitable for established market and existingtechnology, do not always help in breakthroughs. Innovationand intrapreneuring must be allowed at every level of thecorporation. The development of ‘post-it notes’ illustrate how3M encourages intrapreneurial activity through its dual ladderpolicy, communications network, executive champions, andits internal system of recognition and rewards, besides beingliberal about failures. For developing a creative climate, it isconsidered necessary that the companies provideintrapreneurship the needed time and resources and themanagement conveys trust, expectation of excellence, practicalrewards of sponsorship function, a long-term focus, an open-ness to criticism, and a willingness to change. It is alsoimportant that the management allows the people to under-stand the system—not just what they do but how their workinteracts with others inside and outside the company. Thoseinvolved with intrapreneuring usually identify with the com-pany, enrich the climate by sharing goals, add excitement, andimprove the quality of life for both himself and others, theauthor concludes.

17. Cates, Norman (1987), “Intrapreneurial Models andApplications for Hospitals and Health-related Organiza-tions,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 41-46.

Hospitals and health care organizations are encouraged toadopt, structure, and manage intrapreneurship as a means ofcompeting among health care providers and institutions, andenhancing growth. However, a model of intrapreneurship thatis successful for a company may not be good fit for a hospitaland may need some experimentation, planning, coordination,monitoring suitable to the context. This paper thereforeidentifies those models of structured and managedintrapreneurship found in business and industry which canbe adopted, perhaps in modified form, by hospitals and otherhealth services organizations. The objective is to use a modelthat has had some demonstrable success in helping a companycompete and grow. Chaffhauser’s nine-step model, DetroitEdison model, and 3M model are discussed as illustrations.The steps in Chaffhauser’s model included among othersidentification of company’s strengths and weaknesses, a broadventure topic, and a venture team; launching of the team; anddeveloping a business plan. The Detroit Edison model involves

formation of an organizational structure which encouragesand screens venture product/service proposals that are trackedto the launch stage. This model can be used in hospitals ora holding company that owns one or more hospitals. 3M modelencouraged intrapreneurship by forming a separate divisionthat is responsible for evolving, nurturing, and maintainingdiverse business activities at various stages of development.All these intrapreneurial approaches could be useful for thehealth care industry. However, what is important is to haveconcerted effort and concern not to commercialize the processand product/service, the author concludes.

18. Bostjan, Antoncic and Hisrich, Robert D (2000),“Intrapreneurship Modeling in Transition Economies: AComparison of Slovenia and the United States,” Journal ofDevelopmental Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 21-40.

While intrapreneurship is suggested as an essential vehicle forsuccess of established organizations, the research so far hasbeen in the context of large corporations in developed econo-mies. This study looks at the role of intrapreneurship in atransition economy by comparing patterns of relationships andlevels of constructs in the intrapreneurship model betweenSlovenia and the United States. Based on the literature, twomain sets of predictors of intrapreneurship have been iden-tified: the first pertaining to external environment of the firmand the second involving characteristics of the organization.Environmental munificence is seen as a multi-dimensionalconcept including dynamism, technological opportunities,industry growth, and demand for new products while hostileenvironmental conditions that affect intrapreneurship areunfavourability of change and competitive rivalry. The secondset of predictors of intrapreneurship includes the key organi-zational characteristics such as communication openness,control mechanisms, environmental scanning intensity, or-ganizational and management support, and organizationalvalues. The results of path analysis suggest that patterns donot differ across the two countries and the levels ofintrapreneurship are slightly lower and performance levels aremuch lower in Slovenia compared to the US. It is argued thatin order to ensure change and growth in the transitioneconomies, it is important that the firms adopt an intrapreneurialformat and the governments render the required support. Infact, the potential benefits in terms of performance improve-ments may be even greater in these countries than theestablished market economies, the authors add.

19. Antoncic, Bostjan (2001), “Organizational Processes inIntrapreneurship: A Conceptual Integration,” Journal ofEnterprising Culture, 9(2), 221-235.

Intrapreneurship research has predominantly been single or-ganization-centered. The basic premise of this study is that inaddition to organizational factors, firm-level entrepreneurshipand consequent performance level may also be fostered by thefirm’s engagement I inter-organizational relationships. Thestudy extends previous theory of organizational processesinfluencing intrapreneurial activities and orientation, specifi-cally highlighting possible relationships between organiza-tional processes and intrapreneurship among firms—in inter-organizational relationships such as alliances and networks. Itintegrates two sets of organizational processes that can fosteror inhibit entrepreneurship within firms. With the purpose of

170 ABSTRACTS

170

differentiating the two sets of predictors of intrapreneurship,it is proposed that intrapreneurship can be viewed as consist-ing of two complementary elements: intra-firm and inter-firmintrapreneurship. The organizational characteristics influenc-ing intrapreneurship are stated to include intra-firm and inter-firm communication, formal controls and trust, organizationalsupport and values, environmental scanning, and networkcharacteristics. Some of these such as communication, organi-zational support, and organizational values have a similarinfluence at intra-firm and inter-firm levels. In contrast, whileformal controls in moderation are beneficial for developmentof intrapreneurship, it would need to be replaced by trust inorder to be beneficial to inter-firm intrapreneurship as well.The practitioner intrapreneurs are, therefore, suggested to beaware of the complexity of intrapreneurship-related organiza-tional processes, constantly evaluate multiple elements, andmodify their cooperative behaviours accordingly.

20. Marcus, Melissa H and Zimmerer, Thomas W (2003), “ALongitudinal Study of Intrapreneurial Programs in Fortune500 Firms,” Journal of Management Research, 3(1), 11-22.

The dynamic competitive conditions of both the corporateenvironment and the global economy add to the potential valueof intrapreneurial contributions as the new economy influ-ences the transformation of business models. The initial studyinvestigated the corporate performance of Fortune 500 com-panies in the US by analyzing the impact of intrapreneurial(product/process development/improvement) programmeson overall corporate performance. This longitudinal studyinvestigated the corporate performance of ten of the initialFortune 500 corporations to determine whether the incorpo-ration of intrapreneurial programmes impact the financialperformance indicators of corporations. Overall performanceis measured according to impact on total sales, profit, andreturn to investors. Independent variables included the pres-ence of intrapreneurial programmes, perception of successwith regard to organizational structure, primary functionalareas incorporating intrapreneurial ideas, and number ofproduct/process developments. Ranking means for develop-ment factors indicated that financial analysis, product design,and competitive market analysis were most important whiletechnology, development costs, and personnel were the leastimportant contrary to the earlier study which revealed tech-nology as the most important factor. On the whole impact ofintrapreneurial programmes was found to be positive andorganizational policies and procedures in place for fosteringintrapreneurial development.

21. Antoncic, Bosjan (2003), “Risk Taking in Intrapreneurship:Translating the Individual Level Risk Aversion into theOrganizational Risk Taking,” Journal of Enterprising Culture,11(1), 1-23.

Entrepreneurial endeavour in terms of new venture creationcan be considered risky since the failure rate of new firms issubstantial. This study examines risk taking at the individuallevel in the context of intrapreneurship. A congruent andcomplementary set of theories is used for development of aconceptual framework and a model of risk taking inintrapreneurship. At the individual level of analysis, fourapproaches are used to develop an explanation for the para-doxical translation of individual-level risk aversion into indi-

vidual- and organizational-level risk taking behaviour. Indi-viduals in these approaches are seen as relatively rationaldecision makers in bounds of available information that shapestheir cognitions and in turn their behaviours. Theory ofplanned behaviour provides a psychological framework forunderstanding processes of cognition that result in behaviourin specific contexts. Prospect theory helps in understandingthe context of risk, particularly risk evaluation and risk-relateddecisions. Agency theory, especially combined with the pros-pect theory, is potentially able to highlight issues in managingrisk in a organization, particularly risk-related goal alignmentthrough contractual relationships. Organizational cultureperspective considers less tangible elements, such as values,attitudes, and behaviour in an organization. On the basis ofthe proposed model, managers can design their own firm-specific, customized models which can be helpful in shapingthe risk taking behaviour and intrapreneurship.

22. Amo, Bjorn Willy and Kolvereid, Lars (2005), “Organiza-tional Strategy, Individual Personality and InnovationBehavior,” Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1), 7-19.

Corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship have beensuggested as methods of stimulating innovation and utilizingthe creative energy of employees. However, research hasgenerally used the firm as the unit of analysis and has failed toexplain variations in innovation behaviour among individualsin organizations. Innovation behaviour is conceived as aninitiative from employees concerning the introduction of newprocesses, new products, new markets or combinations of suchinto the organization. The initiative could be a response tomarket demand, management request or an autonomousintrapreneurial initiative. This paper tests two competing modelsof innovation behaviour in organizations and compared to abase model containing relevant control variables. The modelsare tested using a sample of 634 business graduates employedin a diverse set of occupations and organizations. The firstmodel is derived from the corporate entrepreneurship litera-ture, suggesting that the extent to which the organization hasa deliberate entrepreneurship strategy determine employees’involvement in innovation and change. The competing modelis derived from the intrapreneurship literature where theemphasis is on the employee’s individual personality. Theresults indicate that both the strategy and personality modelsoutperform the base model. Moreover, the model that com-bines the personality of the individual and the strategy of theorganization performs even better than each of the two modelsseparately. This approach makes it possible to use the indi-vidual rather than the organization as the unit of analysis.

23. Chang, Jane (2001), “Intrapreneurship and Exopreneurshipin Manufacturing Firms: An Empirical Study of PerformanceImplications,” Journal of Enterprising Culture, 9(2), 153-171.

Exopreneurship has emerged as an option for establishedorganizations to acquire innovation from external entrepre-neurial resources as a result of the slow process ofintrapreneurship in commercializing new products. This paperexplains and clarifies the process of exopreneurship anddiscusses the relationship between different levels ofintrapreneurship, exopreneurship, and performance linkages.It thus provides a better understanding of a firm’s entrepre-neurial activities towards enhancing global competitiveness

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 171

171

of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Exopreneurship is asynergistic process involving integration of the firm’s internalactivities and external activities outside the firm. It leads toan outcome of a new venture based on innovation. Thedistinctive feature and value of the process of exopreneurshipis that the inside firm has the initiative and motivation to lookout for activity which makes it entrepreneurial. This is becausethe objective of the firm is not driven solely for diversificationor just another profit-making business, but it constitutesentrepreneurial indicators such as individual, an act, innova-tion and opportunity, the birth of an organization and risk.The core research issue is whether exopreneurship can beanother alternative process of corporate entrepreneurshipother than intrapreneurship to generate new business withinorganizations. The results suggest that both intrapreneurshipand exopreneurship are entrepreneurial processes that yieldhigh importance and satisfaction of performance for firms toremain competitive. Specifically, exopreneurial activities suchas franchising, subcontracting, strategic alliance, and externalcorporate venture capital increased competitive advantages oforganizations, thus establishing exopreneurship as anotherdesirable strategy like intrapreneurship as a valid focus forresearch and for implementation.

Financial Innovations

24. Lerner, Josh (2006), “The New Financial Thing: TheOrigins of Financial Innovations,” Journal of Financial Econom-ics, 79(2), 223-255.

Financial innovations are considered critical not only for firmsin the financial services industry but also for all other industriesas they enable them to raise capital in larger amounts and ata lower cost. Despite the acknowledged economic importanceof financial innovation, and the fact that the dynamics offinancial innovation are quite different from those in manu-facturing, however, there is a paucity of research in this area.This study fills this gap and examines financial innovation asa phenomenon in its own right. It develops a measure offinancial innovation, addressing the possible concerns aboutit through a variety of approaches. The analyses focus on thequestion of which institutions are associated with financialinnovations. The evidence suggests that smaller firms accountfor a disproportionate share of innovations. Also, firms thatare less profitable in their respective sectors are disproportion-ately more innovative. Older, less leveraged firms located inregions with more financial innovation appear to be moreinnovative. In the final analyses, exploring differences acrossclasses of innovations and financial firms, the author finds noevidence for a disproportionate role of smaller firms ininnovation among depository institutions. Similarly, lowprofitability seems to be particularly associated with processinnovators. The results also suggest that the financial inno-vators experience a significant increase in profitability in theyears after the innovations. Finally, the study finds substantialinter-industry differences and few localized knowledgespillovers in patenting.

25. Ang, James and Cheng, Yingmei (2005), “Financial Inno-vations and Market Efficiency: The Case for Single StockFutures,” Journal of Applied Finance, 15(1), 38-51.

Financial innovations and their stabilizing/destabilizing im-pacts are issues of an ongoing debate. This paper examines

the most recent financial innovation, single stock futures (SSF),to provide an empirical test of whether SSF enable greatermarket efficiency. In an SSF contract, a buyer commits to buyor a seller to sell a particular stock at a pre-specified price ona pre-specified future date. Although SSFs could be con-structed by using the underlying assets or other currentlyavailable derivatives, their existence is justified because ofhaving two main advantages over the trading of stocks or acombination of stocks and current derivatives. It reduces theshort-selling constraints facing traders who want to short theunderlying stock. Moreover, it affords investors greater lev-erage because future contracts require less capital; the marginrequirement is low in SSF. The inability of traders to constructshort positions at low cost has been long seen as a major causeof market inefficiency. The availability of SSF is hypothesizedto foster greater efficiency in the stock market. Alternatively,lower transaction costs and greater leverage are hypothesizedto facilitate destabilizing speculation. Consistent with thehypothesis, the results suggest that SSF with lower tradingcosts and higher leverage, provide better relief to arbitrageursthan speculators. Market efficiency is found to increase forstocks listed on SSF exchanges since the end of 2002. A specificnews event approach is used to show that there are fewerunexplained large stock returns for SSF firms in the post-listingperiod and in a matched non-SSF sample. The decline ispositively related to the extent of trading activity in the singlestock futures market.

26. Fung, Michael K and Cheng, Arnold CS (2004), “Diffusionof Off-balance-sheet Financial Innovations: InformationComplementarity and Market Competition,” Pacific-BasinFinancial Journal, 12(5), 525-540.

Recent growth in financial innovation has transformed thebanking industry of Hong Kong. Off-balance-sheet (OBS)innovations arise from forward, swap, and options transac-tions undertaken in the foreign exchange, interest rate, andequity markets. This paper examines the role of informationcomplementarity and market competition in governing thediffusion of OBS financial innovation in the context of HongKong banking industry. It is proposed that the diffusionprocess of financial innovations with informationcomplementarity is essentially a dynamic process of learningand information sharing in which the adoption of someinnovations will stimulate the adoption of others. The samplefor the study included 31 banks in Hong Kong offering threemajor types of OBS financial products, namely, contingentliabilities, exchange rate contracts, and interest rate contracts.Information complementarity in adopting different types ofOBS financial innovations is stated to occur if the adoptionof an innovation lowers the risk and uncertainty of adoptingothers. Market competition is found to encourage innovativeactivities as competitive firms are able to capture the full profitpotential from successful innovations. It also discouragesinnovative activities if monopoly profits are needed to financeexpensive R&D projects. However, from the statistical analy-sis, information complementarity emerges as the main drivingforce behind the diffusion of OBS financial innovations.

27. Instefjord, Norvald (2005), “Risk and Hedging: Do CreditDerivatives Increase Bank Risk?” Journal of Banking & Finance,29(2), 333-345.

Banks have recently gained access to a relatively new and richclass of securities—credit derivatives—which are actively

172 ABSTRACTS

172

traded. Although credit derivatives are important for hedgingand securitizing credit risk and thereby likely to enhance thesharing of such risk, there have been concerns that they maydestabilize the banking sector. This paper addresses thequestion whether financial innovation of credit derivatives andthe resulting derivatives trading make banks riskier. It pro-vides a theoretical framework to identify potential destabilizingfactors for the banking sector and to discuss regulatoryresponses to mitigate destabilization of this sector. The keyinsight from the analysis is that a financial innovation in thecredit derivatives market may increase bank risk, particularlythose that operate in highly elastic credit market segments.Credit derivative trading is, therefore, a potential threat to bankstability even if banks use these instruments solely to hedgeor securitize their credit exposures. Analysing the regulatoryresponse to this, the author finds the process of financialinnovation of crucial importance. It is argued that the successof a new credit derivative instrument is determined by itscommercial success, i.e., how aggressively it will be traded.Since the credit risk linked to the elastic segments of the creditmarkets leads to more aggressive credit derivatives trading,the direction of the financial innovation process is potentiallyalso a threat to bank stability. The innovation that yields themost commercial success are precisely those hat yield theminimum impact in terms of welfare, the author adds.

28. Charupat, Narat and Prisman, Eliezer Z (2004), “An Essayon Financial Innovation: The Case of Instalment Receipts,”Journal of Banking&Finance, 28(1), 129-156.

Market imperfections due to financial innovation make itcostly for investors to hedge their consumption risks. As aresult, there is demand for new securities and trading strategiesthat can reduce the imperfection costs. This paper investigatesa “true” financial innovation—instalment receipt (IR)—whichevidences the purchase of an underlying security in a publicoffering on an instalment basis. IR represents an opportunityfor the buyers to buy the underlying security on margin wherethe issuer is the leverage provider. After the closing of theoffering, IRs are listed on stock exchanges and thus can beeasily traded by their holders. By selling their IRs in the market,the holders pass to the new buyers the obligation to makefuture instalment payments. Since IRs are leveraged instru-ments, most brokerage firms do not allow investors to furtherleverage the investments by using margin. However, buyersare not required to put up any collateral to guarantee that theywill honour their obligation to make future instalment pay-ments. This paper develops a model to explain the incentivesfor issuers and investors to trade IRs. It is argued that IRsbenefit investors who want to leverage their investment butcannot do so due to borrowing constraints. This in turn benefitsthe issuers of IRs as the set of potential investors is enlargedand demand for the offerings increased. For providing empiri-cal support for this argument, time series of market prices ofIRs and their underlying securities are examined. IRs areshown to be generally traded at a premium relative to theirunderlyings, the premium being greatest in magnitude whenIRs are farthest from their final instalment payment dates.

29. Valverde, Santiago Carbo and Fernandez, FranciscoRodriguez (2005), “New Evidence of Scope Economiesamong Lending, Deposit-taking, Loan Commitments and

Mutual Fund Activities,” Journal of Economics and Business,57(3), 187 207.

Since both innovations and regulations are changing thefinancial landscape all over the world, it becomes importantto determine the extent to which those changes affect bank cost,revenue, and profit scope economies and output paircomplementarities. There is a lack of studies measuring outputcomplementarities in countries where banks have been tradi-tionally permitted to offer a broad range of financial products.This study tests how output innovation and product mixdefinition could, at least partially, explain the existence of cost,revenue or profit scope economies in the banking sector, asthe standard theoretical models of the banking firm show. Totest these hypotheses, the study estimates cost, profit andrevenue scope economies, and specific output paircomplementarities in Spanish banking using a composite costfunction and including various on and off-balance sheet outputmeasures. Specifically, loan commitments and mutual funddistribution activities are considered along with traditionallending, deposit-taking, and securities activities. The mainresults suggest that cost, profit and revenue scope economiesdo exist in the Spanish banking industry although some ofthese advantages only come to light when including off-balance sheet activities in the output mix. Both cost and profitscope economies are found to co-exist in a less than competitiveenvironment. However, the results of the competitive analysisreveal that diversification increases market power althoughthese changes have not yet contributed to alter the underlyingbank market structure in Spain significantly. Revenuecomplementarities between deposits and loans and otherearning assets increased significantly when mutual funds wereadded.

30. Bhalla, VK (2004), “Creating Wealth: Corporate FinancialStrategy and Decision Making,” Journal of Management Re-search, 4(1), 13-34.

Although not a new innovation, the concept of economic valueadded (EVA) has been rediscovered as a cornerstone of focusedfinance, as a means of achieving improved company perform-ance. This paper discusses all about EVA—the basic premiseon which the concept is based, its computation, uses, andlimitations. The standard financial model uses cash flowanalysis for capital budgeting reviews, EBITDA, and returnmeasures for performance reporting and investor relations,making the system a complex jumble of metrics, methods, andmessages. EVA is both a measure of true economic perform-ance of a company and a strategy for creating shareholderwealth. It is net operating profit minus an appropriate chargefor the opportunity cost of all capital invested in an enterprise.It thus has the advantage of being conceptually simple andhelpful in enabling managers properly assess the tradeoffsbetween managing assets and income. EVA, in fact is the onlymeasure that establishes a searing dividing line between goodand bad performance for it is the true measure of profit. Thepaper shows the trend analysis of the application of EVA inthree companies, namely, Hindustan Lever, Infosys, and HeroHonda. It also depicts the utility of EVA for small companiesstating that the scarce capital resources of a small companycan be can be more efficiently allocated using EVA thanthrough intuition or traditional methods. EVA reflects and

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 173

173

implicitly values all forms of innovations and differentiation.It is the value of mind over matter.

Quality Management

31. Mahadevappa, B and Kotreshwar, G (2004), “QualityManagement Practices in Indian ISO 9000 Certified Com-panies: An Empirical Evaluation,” Total Quality Management,15(3), 295-305.

Liberalization, followed by entry of multinationals changedthe complexion of business competition in India with thecompanies facing serious challenges of improving quality. ISO9000 addresses the issue of setting and implementing amanagement system to consistently produce quality productsand was hence considered the basis for quality management.This paper evaluates quality management practices in 16 ISO9000 certified companies in India. An earlier developedresearch instrument with eight critical factors of qualitymanagement was used for this study. The factors includedproduct/service design, process management, supplier qual-ity management, training, employee involvement, quality datareporting, role of quality department, and role of managementleadership. The reliability of the research instrument wasassessed with the help of internal consistency method. Theresults showed that while all the respondent companiespractised the eight critical factors of quality management, theimplementation rate was not of the same degree for all. Therewas a heavy reliance on the role of the quality department formanaging product/service quality, followed by the role ofmanagement leadership. On the whole, adoption of ISO 9000standards significantly helped the sample companies in im-plementing the critical factors, thus contributing to the im-provement in the quality performance. However, for continu-ous quality improvement, what is required is the integrationof ISO 9000 with TQM by developing precise criteria formeasuring quality performance.

32. Tripathi, Deepak (2005), “Influence of Experience andCollaboration on Effectiveness of Quality ManagementPractices: The Case of Indian Manufacturing,” InternationalJournal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(1/2), 23-33.

Total quality management (TQM) and total productive main-tenance (TPM) are the two quality management practices thathave gained wide acceptance in the Indian industry as primemovers for increasing competitiveness. This paper examineswhether the effectiveness of TQM to improve business per-formance of companies increases with experience in terms ofimplementation time and whether the support of TPM pro-vides a synergetic effect on TQM’s contribution to improvingbusiness performance. The study, covering 111 manufacturingcompanies from automobile, engineering, and processing, wascarried out for three time periods to examine the short-,medium-, and long-term effects on performance. The sixparameters of performance used in the study included pro-ductivity, quality, cost, delivery, safety and hygiene, andemployee morale. The comparative analysis of performanceimprovement in different time periods contributed by TQMalone and the combined strategy is done with the help of two-tailed t-tests. The mean values for improvement in parametersshow obvious signs of improvement right from the beginning

of implementation, though it has been very marginal intransition phase. The real benefits of TQM seem to be realizedby Indian companies in the stability and maturity phases. Thesynergetic effect of TPM support on TQM’s performance is alsoestablished in the Indian context where equipment and physi-cal infrastructure are relatively inferior and maintenancefunction is not given much importance. The combined ap-proach helps in realizing the benefits of both TQM and TPM,thus bringing out significantly higher improvement thanTQM.

33. Prajogo, Daniel I and Sohal, Amrik S (2006), “The Inte-gration of TQM and Technology/R&D Management inDetermining Quality and Innovation Performance,” Omega,34(3), 296-312.

While TQM is seen as an effective resource for pursuing othertypes of competitive performance than quality, includinginnovation, yet, the origins of TQM being rooted in the conceptof quality control, could be contrary to the spirit of innovation.This paper empirically examines the integration of TQMpractices with technology management and R&D managementin determining quality and innovation performance. Theframework is a simple linear model of the relationship betweenthe independent and dependent variables. Organizationalpractices, as independent variables, consist of two blocks. TQMpractices as the first block comprise leadership, strategy andplanning, customer focus, information and analysis, peoplemanagement, and process management. The second block—total innovation management (TIM)—comprises technologymanagement and R&D. The model therefore examines theintegration of TQM and TIM as organizational resources indetermining quality and innovation performance. The empiri-cal data drawn from 194 Australian organizations was ana-lysed using the structural equation modeling technique. TQMshows a strong predictive power against quality performancebut no significant relationship against innovation perform-ance. On the other hand, technology and R&D managementshows a significant relationship with quality performance butat a lower level than that of TQM, and shows much strongerrelationship with innovation performance. The findings implythat technology/R&D management is an appropriate resourceto be used in harmony with TQM to enhance organizationalperformance, particularly innovation.

34. Kaynak, Hale and Hartley, Janet L (2005), “ExploringQuality Management Practices and High Tech Firm Perform-ance,” Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(2),255-272.

High tech firms operate in the global, extremely complex, andchange-prone environment and thus need highly capablemanagers, effective teamwork, and a unique culture thatwould foster organizational learning and innovation. It is,however, argued that innovation and agility contribute toshort-term competitiveness and that good management prac-tices would be required to sustain their advantage in the longrun. This study empirically investigates the relationship be-tween the extent of quality management implementation andperformance in high tech manufacturing firms. Using repli-cation research with two datasets collected at different times,it explores if the bundle of eight quality management (QM)practices differentiate high and low performing high technol-ogy firms. These QM practices include management leader-

174 ABSTRACTS

174

ship, training, employee relations, quality data and reporting,supplier quality management, product/service design, proc-ess management, and customer relations. The results indicatethat high performing firms have implemented QM moreextensively than low performing high tech firms. To make QMa competitive strategy, however, it is necessary that the hightech firms adopt an integrative approach to QM implemen-tation. Full benefits cannot be realized by implementing onlyselected QM practices. The results also suggest that highperforming high tech firms do not trade-off quality manage-ment for innovation.

35. Hansen, Morten T; Nohria, Nitin and Tierney, Thomas(1999), “What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?,”Harvard Business Review, March-April, 106-116.

The foundation of industrialized economies has of late shiftedfrom natural resources to intellectual assets. Thus with knowl-edge becoming the core asset, and codifying, storing, andsharing of knowledge becoming possible because of the riseof networked computers, management of knowledge hasbecome a conscious practice in most businesses. This paperexamines the knowledge management practices of companiesin several industries, starting with the management consultingfirms. These firms employ two very different knowledgemanagement strategies: codification strategy where knowl-edge is carefully codified and stored in databases for easyaccess and use; and personalization strategy in which knowl-edge is closely tied to the person who develops it and is sharedmainly through person-to-person contacts. A company’s choiceof strategy depends upon the way the company serves itsclients, the economics of its business, and the people it hires.It is argued that a company’s knowledge management strategyshould reflect its competitive strategy: how it creates value forcustomers, how that value supports an economic model, andhow the company’s people deliver on the value and theeconomics. For making an explicit connection between thecompany’s competitive strategy and the use of knowledge tosupport it, the managers need to know whether the productsoffered are standardized or customized, mature or innovative,and whether the company’s employees rely on explicit or tacitknowledge to solve problems. To get the maximum benefits,the company would need a strong leadership that would helpin coordinating the HR, IT, and the competitive strategy, theauthors conclude.

36. Prasad, Biren (2001), “Total Value Management: A Knowl-edge Management Concept for Integrating TQM into Con-current Product and Process Development,” Knowledge andProcess Management, 8(2), 105-122.

The companies interested in improving their competitiveposition in the world marketplace, need to frequently bringin knowledge management (KM) tools, product innovations,and value-added services to the market in a timely fashion.By doing this, they can gain customers’ confidence and an easymarket share while also getting on the learning curve aheadof their competitors. This paper highlights the integritycharacteristics of a successful learning company, pinpoints themistakes most manufacturers make while implementing TQM,and finally proposes the concept of total value management(TVM) as a new KM concept for balancing the interest of theentire organization. The KM concept employs some of the basic

principles of TQM and the learning organization, but goes wellbeyond its quality management or learning focus. Valuemanagement requires a commitment to incorporate valueelements, through KM concepts, at all levels of interactionswith product, process, enterprise, and the teams. TVM meth-odology offers a systematic way of developing a product fromits inception to completion. Based on the principles of concur-rent engineering, TVM involves a four-step knowledge man-agement process: reduce the variable, and control the product,process, and operation. At each step, TVM simultaneouslyconsiders many of the parallel states of product development.As concurrent teams become more experienced in utilizing theKM process, teams will naturally take less time to completethe steps. TVM thus enables the teams to document a short-ening of the overall PD3 (product design, development, anddelivery) cycle.

37. Temponi, Cecilia (2006), “Scalable Enterprise Systems:Quality Management Issues,” International Journal of Produc-tion Economics, 99(1/2), 222-235.

Many enterprises today offer services through a combinationof delivery methods involving the Internet, the sales staff onthe physical site and on the calling centres thus facing greatcomplexity in business structure and in the dynamics amongdifferent business functions. For such organizations, desig-nated as scalable enterprise systems (SES), the challenge liesin maintaining a complex but coordinated and efficient struc-ture in dynamic and highly competitive business environ-ments. This paper develops awareness of quality practices forSES by clarifying the fundamental concept and characteristicsof SES. The study is based on the foundations of the qualitymanagement, BPR, and systems theory. Selected quality ele-ments and their implications to SES regarding continuousimprovement (CI) and flexibility to adapt are analysed in termsof industry scenarios. The key elements from QM and BRPmight include CI and realignment, process-oriented focus, IT,teamwork and participation, reduced control and checks, andemployee empowerment. Some of the most critical barriers toincorporate BPR and QM initiatives in SES include the lackof management commitment for these initiatives, the neglectedemployees’ training and orientation, and poor communicationamong employees and management. The author finally presentsthe new opportunities in scalable enterprises that could betaken up for future research in the area.

Business Processes and Entrepreneurial Orientation

38. Mastakar, Nrupesh and Bowonder, B (2005), “Transfor-mation of An Entrepreneurial Firm to a Global ServiceProvider: The Case Study of Infosys,” International Journal ofTechnology Management, 32(1/2), 34-56.

Infosys has emerged from a normal ‘body-shopping’ outfit toan end-to-end solution provider through a process orientationand an enabling culture. It is today the benchmark in the IndianInformation and Technology industry and a globally recog-nized player in the knowledge-intensive industry. This casestudy examines the quality systems and processes that thecompany has installed to cope with continuous globalization.Infosys considers its employees as strategic assets. The keyfactors responsible for its organizational excellence includeorganizational attributes, organizational processes, and or-

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 175

175

ganizational alignment. The three organizational attributes—culture, commitment, and entrepreneurialism—act asfacilitators for creation, adoption, and diffusion of innovations.Organizational processes ensure that quality levels and im-plementation of projects are trouble free and system-driven.The three models that give identity to Infosys are: integrationof process and quality architecture; global service deliverymodel; and influx business model. Finally, organizationalexcellence requires that the organization be aligned to produceresults, and that requires a design that addresses businessprocess performance, technology, performance measures, andrewards. Corporate governance, knowledge management, andcollective ownership are major initiatives in this direction.Given the core strengths and values embedded in the Infosysculture and its track record of innovation, the company ispoised to tackle the challenges thrown in by the growingbusiness complexities and increasing competition.

39. Chand, Donald; Hachey, George; Hunton, James; Owhoso,Vincent and Vasudevan, Sri (2005), “A Balanced Scorecard-based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Impacts of ERPSystems,” Computers in Industry, 56(6), 558-572.

As installing an ERP systems is an expensive and risky venture,the evaluation of its benefits assumes important. This paperfirst examines if an ERP system impacts the strategic goals ofa firm. It then illustrates the applicability of balanced scorecard(BSC) to ERP systems and derives a new valuation frameworkfor discovering and defining ERP success measures that impactthe business objectives and strategies of the organization. TheERP valuation framework—the ERP scorecard—integrates thefour Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard dimensions withZuboff’s notions. The authors suggest that the success of ERPimplementations and operations depends on the firm’s inten-tion to use the ERP system to automate, informate ortransformate the organization. Organizations begin with thegoal of automating business processes in a way that leads toseamless accumulation of consistent data across the organi-zation, but soon discover that ERP systems can be used toinform affected parties across the value chain such thatdecision making at all levels is vastly improved. (informate).Using a successful SAP implementation by a major interna-tional aircraft engine manufacturing and service organizationas a case study, it is illustrated that an ERP system does impactthe business objectives of the firm. The new 12 cells frameworkpartitions the ERP implementation benefits into three levels.The automate level focuses on operational benefits, the informatelevel focuses on tactical decision making outcomes impactedby an ERP implementation, and transformate level looks atstrategic impacts of ERP implementation.

40. Ravi, V; Shankar, Ravi and Tiwari, MK (2005), “AnalysingAlternatives in Reverse Logistics for End-of-life Computers:ANP and Balanced Scorecard Approach,” Computers & Indus-trial Engineering, 48(2), 327-356.

Reverse logistics is the movement of goods from a consumertoward a producer in a channel of distribution and focuseson managing flows of material, information, and relationshipsfor value addition as well as for proper disposal of products.One of the important problems faced by the top managementin the computer hardware industries is the evaluation ofvarious alternatives for end-of-life (EOL) computers. Thispaper presents analytical network process (ANP) model which

structures the problem related to the selection of an alternativefor the reverse logistics option for EOL computers in ahierarchical form and links the determinants, dimensions, andenablers of reverse logistics with different alternatives. In theproposed model, the dimensions of reverse logistics for theEOL computers have been taken from the four perspectivesderived from balanced scorecard approach: customer, internalbusiness, innovation and learning, and finance. By linking thefinancial and non-financial, tangible and intangible, internaland external factors, it thus provides a holistic approach tothe selected multi-criteria decision making problem for EOLcomputers. Despite the fact that the proposed ANP model isbased on a sound algorithm for systemic decision making, caremust be taken in its application as the user has to comparethe reverse logistics operations on a number of pair-wisecomparison matrices. Although this paper discusses the fea-sibility of application of the model for EOL computers, becauseof the generic nature of the dimensions identified, it can alsobe used for other products, the authors affirm.

41. Motwani, Jaideep; Subramanian, Ram and Gopalakrishna,Pradeep (2005), “Critical Factors for Successful ERP Imple-mentation: Exploratory Findings from Four Case Studies,”Computers in Industry, 56(6), 529-544.

In the context of organizations moving from functional toprocess-based IT infrastructure, ERP has emerged as one ofthe most widespread IT solutions. While successful implemen-tation of ERP can result in a dramatic turnaround for thecompany, it is often stated to fail due to inadequate time ormoney for managing the cultural change issues. Using amethodology grounded in business process change theory, thisresearch reports on a comparative case study of four US firmsthat implemented ERP system. Based on the lessons from them,it then proposes a framework which illustrates the criticalfactors/issues that need to be addressed at all the three phasesof the implementation process: pre-implementation or setting-up phase, implementation, and post-implementation or evalu-ation phase. The case studies revealed that a cautious, evo-lutionary, bureaucratic implementation process backed withcareful change management, network relationships, and cul-tural readiness can lead to successful implementations. On theother hand, a revolutionary project scope that is mandatedautocratically by top management without organizationalreadiness and proper change management is likely to lead toa troubled ERP implementation. A clear vision and topmanagement commitment are suggested as fundamental tosuccessful ERP implementation. Also, the evaluation andproper monitoring of ERP system’s implementation can makean organization more adaptable to the change programmesand therefore, help them derive maximum benefits frominvesting in ERP, the authors add.

42. Botta-Genoulaz, Valerie and Millet, Pierre-Alain (2006),“An Investigation into the Use of ERP Systems in the ServiceSector,” International Journal of Production Economics, 99(1/2),202-221.

While initially ERP systems were implemented only in manu-facturing firms, there has been an increasing trend towardsadopting them in the service sector. ERP is a software packageattempting to integrate all departments and functions of acompany onto a single computer system that can serve all thedifferent departments’ specific needs. In order to get an insight

176 ABSTRACTS

176

into how services approach ERP implementation, this paperreviews ERP projects in six French service organizationsincluding healthcare, insurance, software and telecom servicecompanies. The reasons cited for ERP implementation inservice companies include solving Y2K problem, reducingadministrative workload, improving visibility, replacing dis-persed legacy system, and real time data processing. None ofthe sample organizations used an ERP system for managingservice production and delivery. One common problem facedby service organizations is the issue of “misfit”—the gapsbetween the functionality offered by the package and thatrequired by the adopting organization. While in manufactur-ing companies, ERP system is considered as an integratedsolution, in a service organization, enterprise-wide functionalintegration does not exist. However, there are other logisticsmodules, such as project management and after-sales servicesthat are believed to be beneficial to the service sector. The maincharacteristics that are identified for services deal with com-plete or partial integration, product or customer orientation,importance of labour, and human factor.

43. Arnheiter, Edward D and Maleyeff, John (2005), “TheIntegration of Lean Management and Six Sigma,” The TQMMagazine, 17(1), 5-18.

Six Sigma and lean management have evolved into two mostpopular comprehensive management systems. While qualityimprovement was the main driving force behind Six Sigma,waste elimination guided the development of lean manage-ment which originated in Japan, a country of few naturalresources. To eliminate the misconceptions about these sys-tems, this paper describes the key concepts and techniques thatunderlie their implementation. The authors also throw somelight on what these systems can gain from each other, finallyoffering suggestions for developing a lean, Six Sigma (LSS)organization. First adopted by Motorola, Six Sigma today isa combination of the Six Sigma statistical metric and TQM withadditional innovations that enhance the programme’s effec-tiveness while expanding its focus. The main componentsinclude a focus on the customer, recognition that quality is theresponsibility of all employees, and the emphasis on employeetraining. On the other hand, pioneered by Toyota, leanmanagement was derived from the need to increase productflow velocity through the elimination of all non-value-addedactivities. However, lean was taken to mean layoffs, besidesthe misconception that it worked only for manufacturing,within certain environments, and only in Japan. It is arguedthat both the systems represent the state-of-art, each givingpriority to certain facets of organizational performance. There-fore, in a highly competitive environment, implementation ofone programme in isolation would result in diminishingreturns. An LSS organization can capitalize on the strengthsof both by incorporating their primary tenets.

44. Chen, SC; Chen, KS and Hsia, TC (2005), “PromotingCustomer Satisfactions by Applying Six Sigma: An Examplefrom the Automobile Industry,” The Quality ManagementJournal, 12(4), 21-33.

The automobile industry in Taiwan has reached its productmaturity stage. To survive in the highly competitive andchanging business environment of today, it would need aneffective model of quality control and performance improve-

ment. By initiating a mechanism of low cost and high process-ing speeds, it would be possible to achieve an improvedcompetitiveness which, in turn, would create a product of highcustomer satisfaction. This paper defines the problems that areto be improved and analyses the roots of these problems byusing customer opinions and applying Six Sigma to a perform-ance matrix. The key process elements of the various sectorsin the industry are identified with the help of the DMAIC(define, measure, analyse, improve, and control) model of SixSigma. The authors integrate Kano’s five quality categories,Maslow’s hierarchy of human requirements, and Herzberg’sdual factors theory with the concept of the human machinesystem to construct a quality questionnaire. For examining thequestionnaire items, a hierarchy of physiological and safetyrequirements was developed. The analysis focused on fourquality mechanisms: AV system, information and communi-cation system, quietness, and meeting and office requirements.Improvement countermeasures were addressed by focusingon the top key values of satisfaction qualities: 4M and designevaluation of the design quality, manufacturing quality, andcustomer complaints. Each key value is taken up based on thecauses for dissatisfaction. A strategy for improvement is thendevised for the automobile industry. In the selected sample,all the current abnormal product quality mechanism items fellwithin the controlling boundary indicating that the expectedimprovement target had been achieved.

45. Woodard, Tanisha D (2005), “Addressing Variation inHospital Quality: Is Six Sigma the Answer?” Journal ofHealthcare Management, 50(4), 226-236.

Six Sigma is an innovative and comprehensive managementtool that has been in use for many years in manufacturing.It uses data analysis and other problem-solving techniques toevaluate the ability of a process to perform defect-free, defectbeing anything that results in customer dissatisfaction. Thispaper presents an analysis of the existing quality managementtools, highlighting the potential benefits and barriers ofimplementing Six Sigma, particularly in the hospitals, andfinally examining the possibility for an organization to incor-porate Six Sigma into its existing quality management pro-gramme. It is argued that as a quality management model,continuous quality improvement/TQM model can providemany benefits to a hospital, including better output quality,productivity improvement, and an enhanced competitiveposition. It is, however, very time-consuming and attention-seeking making it unappealing for hospitals. Another modelof quality improvement—reengineering—involves recreationof task interdependencies through a multi-step process. How-ever, the greatest problem with reengineering has been itsaggressive rhetoric and its failure to engage the staff on whomthe organization relies. The strength of Six Sigma lies in itsaccountability and its ability to timely identify and solve errorsand is thus an asset to hospital administrators. The fear ofhealthcare organizations to completely overhaul their im-provement programmes often hinders the consideration of SixSigma programmes. The author assures that it does not requirea complete transformation and can instead be integrated intoan organization’s current TQM programme. Its DMAICmethodology leads to a precise identification of the problem,defined methods to measure and analyse the problem, andconcrete performance improvement as well as control of theprocess.

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 177

177

Economic and Legal Aspects of Innovation

46. Kanwar, Sunil and Evenson, Robert (2003), “Does Intel-lectual Property Protection Spur Technological Change?”Oxford Economic Papers, 55(2), 235-264.

Amidst an ongoing debate on whether strong intellectualproperty protection encourages or retards the rate of techno-logical change and economic growth, policy makers have gonefor an agreement on TRIPs (trade related intellectual propertyissues). This paper empirically analyses the influence thatintellectual property protection might have on innovation andtechnological change. This relationship is investigated at theeconomy-wide level, using cross-country data on the strengthof IPRs, technological change, and other relevant country-specific controls. It is argued that innovations are non-rivaland non-excludable goods meaning that use of a particularinnovation by a producer does not preclude other entrepre-neurs from using it. Intellectual property protection serves todecrease the degree of non-excludability of innovations byassigning to the inventor the property rights over his inno-vation for a given period of time. One argument given in favourof weak protection of intellectual property, particularly fordeveloping countries is the cheap acquisition of technologythrough imitation and the encouragement it provides toinnovation. The study shows unambiguously that intellectualproperty protection (proxied by an index of patent rights) hasa strong positive effect on technological change (proxied byR&D investment expenditures). The authors discuss the ad-vantages of conforming with the agreement in the longer run.It is, however, added that only if the strengthening of IPRsoccurs in reality and does not remain in the statute books wouldthey provide the right incentives for innovation.

47. Lam, Ngo Van and Wattanapruttipaisan, Thitapha (2005),“From Grain-sized Innovations to Triple-Test Patents inASEAN: Patterns, Issues, and Implications in Developmentand Competitiveness,” ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 22(2), 117-143.

In the context of an enhanced importance of innovativeentrepreneurship as a major source of competitiveness in theknowledge-based economies (KBE), research on the patternsof intellectual property (IP) generation and intellectual prop-erty rights (IPR) registration have assumed immense signifi-cance. However, despite the fast-paced, electronics-basedtransformation in regional production and trade since the1990s, patented assets owned by regional entities have re-mained very small in volume. This paper examines IP crea-tivity in the ASEAN region in terms of patents for invention(triple-test patents) and patents for the utility model (pettypatents). The former are characterized by being new, inventive,and useful for practical purposes, and are the most importantcomponent of proprietary industrial knowledge. Petty patents,on the other hand, are “grain-sized innovations” which do notcomply with the triple-test requirements or to current thinkingand practice as regards original and creative works of author-ship that still dominate IP assets and their registration andprotection. Yet, it is believed that they can serve as a steppingstone for technological capacity deepening and diversificationin most developing economies, including those in ASEAN. Thepaper discusses a variety of bottlenecks and constraints on IPcreation in ASEAN that has emanated from the shallow andlimited S&T and R&D base as well as from various systemic

and institutional problems in the invention patent regimes inthe region. It also looks at the market challenges and policydilemma for further consideration in research.

48. Davis, Lee (2004), “Intellectual Property Rights, Strategyand Policy,” Economic Innovation and New Technology, 13(5),399-415.

The scope and economic effects of intellectual property rights(IPRs)—patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the like—havechanged considerably over the past few decades. This paperexplores the reasons behind the changing role of IPRs, and theimplications for firm strategy and industrial policy. The authorcontends that four interrelated trends have mainly affected therole of IPRs over the past few decades: (1) the growingimportance of intangible assets as sources of competitiveadvantage; (2) the globalization of business activities; (3)advances in digital technologies of replicability and transfer-ability and (4) changes in the legal framework governing thestrength and scope of IPRs. The paper focuses, in particular,on the impact of these trends on the importance and effective-ness of patents. It is argued that while patents have becomemore valuable to firms in fulfilling a variety of strategic goals,they are less effective in actually motivating R&D. To addressthis problem, it is suggested that the patent system is ‘re-tuned’and reformed so as to achieve a better balance between its socialbenefits and costs, and/or supplemented by alternative incen-tive systems to encourage R&D in areas not sufficientlystimulated by the prospect of patent protection. Some of thereform measures include raising the criteria of patentability,implementing different fee structures, and allocating moreresources to patent examiners so that they can take thenecessary time to make better patent decisions. The alternativeincentives include procurement contracts, publicly fundeduniversity research grants, subsidies to R&D firms, tax deduc-tions for R&D investments, and R&D prize systems.

49. Andersen, Birgitte (2004), “If ‘Intellectual Property Rights’is the Answer, What is the Question? Revisiting the PatentControversies,” Economic Innovation and New Technology, 13(5),417-442.

In the new economy where knowledge assets rather thanphysical assets are the primary sources of wealth generationand economic growth, there is a tightening of the intellectualproperty rights (IPRs). While this tightening is based on avision of why this might provide the answer, there is currentlya need to set out clear objectives for the IPR system, and forunderstanding the operation and social and economic effectsof IPR policies. This article therefore reviews critically andclassifies the rationales for IPRs, and the empirical results inrelation to the specifities of firms, industries, and individualand public ownership. It has been illustrated that IPR systemsare not neutral; they set the rules of the game in whichindividuals and organizations interact, and in which corporateleaders and stakeholders are shaped and technological trajec-tories selected or reinforced. The focus of the article is on patentsystem designed to protect knowledge embodied in mainlyindustrial, product, and process innovations. Based on theviews of those who believe in the IPR system, a typology onthe complexity of IPR rationales has been proposed. Bymapping out the rationales for IPRs and illuminating theconflicts, contradictions, and tradeoffs in the IPR system, thistypology is expected to help policy makers, analysts, and

178 ABSTRACTS

178

academics not just to assume IPR system, but to use it to addresscritically why we have it, how it works, and what would beits social and economic effects. This finer empirical under-standing would in turn help in designing policies fosteringthe knowledge-driven techno-economic paradigm in thetwenty-first century.

50. Lunn, John (1987), “An Empirical Analysis of Firm Processand Product Patenting,” Applied Economics, 19(6), 743-751.

A patent provides the innovator with a legal monopoly on aninnovation. However, the strengths of property rights pro-vided by a patent can vary with the characteristics of theinnovation. This paper presents an empirical study of thedeterminants of firm patenting. Since industrial research anddevelopment encompasses a variety of activities, the authordistinguishes between patents on process innovations andpatents on product innovations. It is argued that the propertyrights provided by a patent may differ between process and

product patents and thus the determinants of process inno-vations and product innovations may also differ. Firms aremore likely to obtain a patent on a new product than on a newprocess because of the nature of the patent system. Marketpower is more likely to encourage process innovations andpatenting in the technically less progressive industries thanproduct patenting and patenting in technically progressiveindustries. In the proposed model, the industry four-firmconcentration ratio is used to measure market power, and theeffect of concentration on process patenting is expected to begreater than the effect of concentration on product patenting.The results of the study support the contention that concen-tration affects research activity directed towards processpatenting and product patenting differently. Further, indus-trial concentration encourages patenting more when firms facelimited technological opportunities. Diversification is foundto encourage both process and product patenting, althoughthe effect is stronger for product patenting.

Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing newthings.

Theodore Levitt

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 179

179

INTRAPRENEURSHIP

Andersson, Svante (2000). “The Interna-tionalization of the Firm from an Entre-preneurial Perspective,” InternationalStudies of Management&Organization,30(1), 65-94.

Anisya, Thomas S and Mueller, Stephen L(2000). “A Case for Comparative Entre-preneurship: Assessing the Relevanceof Culture,” Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 31(2), 287-301.

Antoncic, B and Hisrich, R (2001). “Intra-preneurship: Construct Refinement andCross-Cultural Validation,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 16(5), 495-527.

Ardichvili, A; Cardozo, R and Ray, S (2003).“A Theory of Entrepreneurial Oppor-tunity Identification and Development,”Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.

Baron, R A and Markman, G D (2003).“Beyond Social Capital: The Role ofEntrepreneurs’ Social Competence intheir Financial Success,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 18(1), 41-60.

Barringer, B R; Jones, F F and Neubaum,D O (2005). “A Quantitative ContentAnalysis of the Characteristics of Rap-id-growth Firms and their Founders,”Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 663-687.

Becker, Barbara and Gassmann, Oliver(2006). “Gaining Leverage Effects fromKnowledge Modes within CorporateIncubators,” R and D Management, 36(1),1-16.

Birkinshaw, Julian; Batenburg, Rob VanBasten and Murray, Gordon (2002).“Venturing to Succeed,” Business Strate-gy Review, 13(4), 10-17.

Bøllingtoft, A and Ulhøi, J P (2005). “TheNetworked Business Incubator—Lever-

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

includes select referenceson a particular theme

Reinvention, Innovation, andIntrapreneurship

K Manjunatha

aging Entrepreneurial Agency?” Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265-290.

Carrier, Camille (1999). “The Training andDevelopment Needs of Owner: Manag-ers of Small Businesses with ExportPotential,” Journal of Small BusinessManagement, 37(4), 30-41.

Carrier, Camille (1994). “Intrapreneurshipin Large Firms and SMEs: A Compar-ative Study,” International Small Busi-ness Journal, 12(3), 54-61.

Carrier, Camille (1996). “Intrapreneurshipin Small Businesses: An ExploratoryStudy,” Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, 21(1), 5-20.

Chrisman, James J and McMullan, W E(2004). “Outsider Assistance as a Knowl-edge Resource for New Venture Surviv-al,” Journal of Small Business Manage-ment, 42(3), 229-244.

Clarysse, B; Wright, M; Lockett, A; Van DeVelde, E and Vohora, A (2005). “Spin-ning Out New Ventures: A Typology ofIncubation Strategies from EuropeanResearch Institutions,” Journal of Busi-ness Venturing, 20(2), 183-216.

Coulson-Thomas, Colin (2000). “Develop-ing a Corporate Learning Strategy: Crea-ting Intrapreneurs,” Strategic Change,9(8), 469-479.

Covin, Jeffrey G and Miles, Morgan P (1999).“Corporate Entrepreneurship and thePursuit of Competitive Advantage,”Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,23(3), 47-63.

Dess, G G; Lumpkin, G T and McGee, J E(1999). “Linking Corporate Entrepre-neurship to Strategy, Structure, andProcess: Suggested Research Direc-tions,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Prac-tice, 23(3), 85-102.

Diedre, Engle E; Mah, Joe J and Sadri,

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 181

181

Golnaz (1997). “An Empirical Comparison of Entrepre-neurs and Employees: Implications for Innovation,”Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 45-49.

Duncan, Jack W; Ginter, Peter M; Rucks, Andrew C andJacobs, Douglas T (1988). “Intrapreneurship and theReinvention of the Corporation,” Business Horizons, 31(3),16-21.

Dutta, Dev K and Crossan, Mary M (2005). “The Natureof Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Understanding theProcess Using the 4I Organizational Learning Frame-work,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 425-449.

Forbes, D P (2005). “Are Some Entrepreneurs More Over-confident than Others?” Journal of Business Venturing,20(5), 623-640.

Fry, Art Sam (1987). “The Post-It Note: An IntrapreneurialSuccess,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(3), 4-9.

Fry, Art Sam (1988). “Lessons from a Successful Intrapre-neur,” Journal of Business Strategy, 9(2), 20-24.

Fuller, T (2003). “If You Wanted to Know the Future ofSmall Business What Questions Would You Ask?”Futures, 35(4), 305-321.

Geisler, Eliezer (1993). “Middle Managers as InternationalCorporate Entrepreneurs: An Unfolding Agenda,”Interfaces, 23(6), 52-63.

Gomez, C and Rosen, B (2001). “The Leader-MemberExchange as a Link between Managerial Trust andEmployee Empowerment,” Group and OrganizationManagement, 26(1), 53-68.

Hales, Colin (1999). “Leading Horses to Water? The Impactof Decentralization on Managerial Behaviour,” Journalof Management Studies, 36(6), 831-851.

Hill, I D (1987). “An Intrapreneur turned EntrepreneurCompares both Worlds,” Research-Technology Manage-ment, 30(3), 33-37

Hisrich, Robert D (1990). “Entrepreneurship/Intrapreneur-ship,” American Psychologist, 45(2), 209-222.

Hoang, H and Antoncic, B (2003). “Network-based Re-search in Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review,” Journalof Business Venturing, 18(2), 165-187.

Honig, Benson (2001). “Learning Strategies and Resourcesfor Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs,” Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice, 26(1), 21-35.

Hornsby, J S; Kuratko, D F and Zahra, Shaker A (2002).“Middle Managers’ Perception of the Internal Environ-ment for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Assessing aMeasurement Scale,” Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3),253-273.

Howell, J M; Shea, C M and Higgins, C A (2005). “Cham-pions of Product Innovations: Defining, Developing,and Validating a Measure of Champion Behavior,”Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 641-661.

Jansen, P G W and van Wees, L L G M (1994). “Conditionsfor Internal Entrepreneurship,” Journal of ManagementDevelopment, (13(9), 34-51).

Kemelgor, B H (2002). “A Comparative Analysis of Cor-porate Entrepreneurial Orientation between SelectedFirms in the Netherlands and the USA,” Entrepreneur-ship & Regional Development, 14(1), 67-87.

Kemelgor, B H (2002). “The Impact of Empowerment inSmall Manufacturing Firms,” Journal of Small BusinessStrategy, 11(1), 39-50.

Kickul, Jill (2001). “Promises Made, Promises Broken: AnExploration of Employee Attraction and RetentionPractices in Small Business,” Journal of Small BusinessManagement, 39(4), 320-335.

Koen, Peter A (2000). “Developing Corporate Intrapre-neurs,” Engineering Management Journal, 12(2), 3-7.

Kolchin, Michael G and Hyclak, Thomas J (1987). “The Caseof the Traditional Intrapreneur,” SAM Advanced Man-agement Journal, 52(3), 14-18.

Krueger, N F; Reilly, M D and Carsrud, A L (2000). “Com-peting Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journalof Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.

Kuratko, D F; Hornsby, J S; Naffziger, D W and Montagno,R V (1993). “Implement Entrepreneurial Thinking inEstablished Organizations,” SAM Advanced ManagementJournal, 58(1), 28-39.

Kuratko, D F; Montagno, R V and Hornsby, J S (1990).“Developing an Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrumentfor an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environ-ment,” Strategic Management Journal, 11(4), 49-58.

Kuratko, Donald P and Goldsby, Michael C (2004). “Cor-porate Entrepreneurs or Rogue Middle Managers? AFramework for Ethical Corporate Entrepreneurship,”Journal of Business Ethics, 55(1), Part 2, 13-30.

Kuratko, Donald F and Montagno, Ray V (1989). “TheIntrapreneurial Spirit,” Training&Development Journal,43(10), 83-85.

Lerner, Miri and Almor, Tamar (2002). “Relationshipsamong Strategic Capabilities and the Performance ofWomen-owned Small Ventures,” Journal of Small Busi-ness Management, 40(2), 109-125.

Littunen, H (2003). “Management Capabilities and Envi-ronmental Characteristics in the Critical OperationalPhase of Entrepreneurship: A Comparison of FinnishFamily and Non-family Firms,” Family Business Review,16(3), 183-197.

Luchsinger, Vince and Bagby, Ray D (1987). “Entrepre-neurship and Intrapreneurship: Behaviors, Compari-sons, and Contrasts,” SAM Advanced Management Jour-nal, 52(3), 19-31.

Lyon, D W; Lumpkin, G T and Dess, G G (2000). “EnhancingEntrepreneurial Orientation Research: Operationaliz-ing and Measuring a Key Strategic Decision MakingProcess,” Journal of Management, 26(5), 1055-1085.

Markman, G D and Baron, R A (2003). “Person-Entrepre-neurship Fit: Why Some People are More Successful asEntrepreneurs than Others,” Human Resource Manage-ment Review, 13(2), 281-301.

Maxon, Jim (1986). “Innovators, Entrepreneurs and Intra-preneurs: Food for Thought,” Industrial&CommercialTraining, 18(5), 13-16.

McCrea, Bridget (2000). “Wanted: Great Branch Manag-ers,” Industrial Distribution, 89(5), 72-74.

McDaniel, Bruce A (2005). “A Contemporary View of JosephA Schumpeter’s Theory of the Entrepreneur,” Journalof Economic Issues, 39(2), 485-489.

Melhem, Y (2004). “The Antecedents of Customer-ContactEmployees’ Empowerment,” Employee Relations, 26(1),72-93.

Morse, C W (1986). “The Delusion of Intrapreneurship,”Long Range Planning, 19(6), 92-95.

Mueller, S L and Thomas, A S (2001). “Culture and Entre-preneurial Potential: A Nine Country Study of Locus

182 BIBLIOGRAPHY

182

of Control and Innovativeness,” Journal of BusinessVenturing, 16(1), 51-75.

Norburn, D; Manning, K and Birley, S (1986). “BeyondIntrapreneurship: The Metamorphosis of Larger Cor-porations,” Leadership & Organization Development Jour-nal, 7(3), 21-26.

Greene, Patricia O; Brush, Candida G and Hart, Myra M(1999). “The Corporate Venture Champion: A Resource-based Approach to Role and Process,” Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice, 23(3), 103-122.

Pinchot, Gifford (1987). “Innovation through Intrapreneur-ing,” Research-Technology Management, 30(2), 14-19.

Poutziouris, Panikhos; O’Sullivan, Katherine and Nicoles-cu, Lumenita (1997). “The [Re]-Generation of Family-business Entrepreneurship in the Balkans,” FamilyBusiness Review, 10(3), 239-262.

Prasad, Lakshmanan (1993). “The Etiology of Organiza-tional Politics: Implications for the Intrapreneur,” SAMAdvanced Management Journal, 58(3), 35-41.

Reitz, Joseph H (1998). “Intrapreneurs and Market-basedManagers: Pirates and Gamblers or Knights and Saints?”Business Horizons, 41(6), 49-60.

Robinson, Mark (2001). “The Ten Commandments of In-trapreneurs,” New Zealand Management, 48(11), 95-97.

Romano, C A; Tanewski, G A and Smyrnios, K X (2001).“Capital Structure Decision Making: A Model for Fam-ily Business,” Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 285-310.

Ross, Joel E (1987). “Intrapreneurship and CorporateCulture,” Industrial Management, 29(1), 22-25.

Rule, E G and Irwin, D W (1988). “Fostering Intrapreneur-ship: The New Competitive Edge,” Journal of BusinessStrategy, 9(3), 44-47.

Russell, Robert D (1999). “Developing a Process Model ofIntrapreneurial Systems: A Cognitive Mapping Ap-proach,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 65-84.

Sadler, Robert J (2000). “Corporate Entrepreneurship in thePublic Sector: The Dance of the Chameleon,” AustralianJournal of Public Administration, 59(2), 25-43.

Sharma, Pramodita and Chrisman, James J (1999). “Towarda Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Fieldof Corporate Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship: Theo-ry and Practice, 23(3), 11-27.

Sharma, A (1999). “Central Dilemmas of Managing Inno-vation in Large Firms,” California Management Review,41(3), 146-164.

Shepherd, Dean A and Krueger, Norris F (2002). “AnIntentions-based Model of Entrepreneurial Teams’ SocialCognition,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(2),167-185.

Srivastava, A and Lee, H (2005). “Predicting Order andTiming of New Product Moves: The Role of Top Man-agement in Corporate Entrepreneurship,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 20(4), 459-481.

Stewart, W H; Watson, W E; Carland, J C and Carland,J W (1999). “A Proclivity for Entrepreneurship: A Com-parison of Entrepreneurs, Small Business Owners, andCorporate Managers,” Journal of Business Venturing,14(2), 189-214.

Sun, Wanning (2002). “Invisible Entrepreneurs: The Caseof Anhui Women,” Provincial China, 7(2), 178-195.

Tan, J (2005). “Venturing in Turbulent Water: A HistoricalPerspective of Economic Reform and EntrepreneurialTransformation,” Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5),689-704.

Thornberry, N E (2002). “Corporate Entrepreneurship:Teaching Managers to be Entrepreneurs,” Journal ofManagement Development, 22(4), 329-344.

Verheul, I; Uhlaner, L and Thurik, R (2005). “BusinessAccomplishments, Gender and Entrepreneurial Self-image,” Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 483-518.

Vozikis, George S; Bruton, Garry D; Dev Prasad, A andMerikas, A (1999). “Linking Corporate Entrepreneur-ship to Financial Theory through Additional ValueCreation,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 24(2),33-44.

Ward, T B (2004). “Cognition, Creativity, and Entrepre-neurship,” Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173-188.

Wiklund, J and Shepherd, D (2005). “EntrepreneurialOrientation and Small Business Performance: A Con-figurational Approach,” Journal of Business Venturing,20(1), 71-91.

Winborg, J and Landstrom, H (2001). “Financial Bootstrap-ping in Small Businesses: Examining Small BusinessManagers’ Resource Acquisition Behaviors,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 16(3), 235-254.

Wright, Mike; Robbie, Ken and Ennew, Christine (1997).“Serial Entrepreneurs,” British Journal of Management,8(3), 251-268.

Zahra, Shaker A; Covin, J and Zahra, P H (1998). “Or-ganizational Structure and Corporate Entrepreneurship:Implications for Performance,” Journal of EnterprisingCulture, 6(1), 111-146.

Zahra, Shaker A; Jennings, Daniel F and Kuratko, DonaldF (1999). “The Antecedents and Consequences of Firm-level Entrepreneurship: The State of the Field,” Entre-preneurship: Theory and Practice, 24(2), 45-65.

Zahra, Shaker A; Nielsen, Anders P and Bogner, WilliamC (1999). “Corporate Entrepreneurship, Knowledge, andCompetence Development,” Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, 23(3), 169-189.

Zahra, Shaker A and Neubaum, D (1998). “EnvironmentalAdversity and the Entrepreneurial Activities of Lowversus High Technology New Ventures,” Journal ofDevelopmental Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 123-140.

(RE)INVENTION/INNOVATIONArend, Richard J (1999). “Emergence of Entrepreneurs

following Exogenous Technological Change,” StrategicManagement Journal, 20(1), 31-47.

Baumol, William J (2004). “Entrepreneurial Enterprises,Large Established Firms and other Components of theFree-market Growth Machine,” Small Business Econom-ics, 23(1), 9-21.

Baumol, William J (2005). “Education for Innovation:Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs versus Corporate Incre-mental Improvements,” NBER Innovation Policy&theEconomy, 5(1), 33-56.

Brown, John Seely (2005). “Innovation Blowback Disrup-tive Management Practices from Asia,” McKinsey Quar-terly, (1), 34-45.

Birkinshaw, J; Batenburg, R and Murray, G (2002). “Ven-

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 183

183

turing to Succeed,” Business Strategy Review, 13(4), 10-17.

Borins, Sanford (2000). “Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers,or Enterprising Leaders? Some Evidence about Innova-tive Public Managers,” Public Administration Review,60(6), 498-507.

Capaldo, Guido and Fontes, Margarida (2001). “Supportfor Graduate Entrepreneurs in New Technology-basedFirms: An Exploratory Study from Southern Europe,”Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, 2(1), 65-78.

Chandra, Pankaj; Srivastav, Sandeep and Shah, Bipin (2003).“Innovation, Incubation, and Incubator,” Vikalpa: TheJournal for Decision Makers, 28(2), 89-94.

Chandler, G N; Keller, C and Lyon, D W (2000). “Un-raveling the Determinants and Consequences of anInnovation-Supportive Organizational Culture,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 59-76.

Champione, T J (2003). “Making Research CollaborationsSucceed,” Research-Technology Management, 46(4), 12-15.

Chandy, Rajesh K and Tellis, Gerard J (2000). “The Incum-bent’s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical ProductInnovation,” Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1-17.

Cheng, Yu-Ting and Van De Ven, Andrew H (1996). “Learn-ing the Innovation Journey: Order Out of Chaos?”Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Manage-ment Sciences, 7(6), 593-614.

Chesbrough, H (2003). “Sustaining Venture Creation fromIndustrial Laboratories,” Research-Technology Manage-ment, 46(4), 16-19.

Christensen, Clayton M; Bohmer, Richard and Kenagy,John (2000). “Will Disruptive Innovations Cure HealthCare?” Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 102-112.

Christie, Michael J; Rowe, Patricia A and Koroglu, RanaS (2003). “High Technology Industry Associations MoveEntrepreneurs into Global Markets,” Journal of Enter-prising Culture, 11(2), 147-166.

David, Byron L (1994). “How Internal Venture GroupsInnovate,” Research and Technology Management, 37(2),38-44.

Dhaliwal, Spinder (2000). “Asian Female Entrepreneursand Women in Business: An Exploratory Study,” En-terprise & Innovation Management Studies, 1(2), 207-216.

Dodt, Ansgar; Stein, Lothar and Strack, Sigurd (1999). “Do-It-Yourself Silicon Valley: Using Business Plan Compe-titions to Spur Innovation,” McKinsey Quarterly, (3), 60-69.

Drnovsek, Mateja and Glas, Miroslav (2002). “The Entre-preneurial Self-efficacy of Nascent Entrepreneurs: TheCase of Two Economies in Transition,” Journal of En-terprising Culture, 10(2), 107-131.

Drucker, Peter F (1998). “The Discipline of Innovation,”Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 149-155.

Edelstein, Michael R (2004). “Sustainable Innovation andthe Siting Dilemma: Thoughts on the Stigmatization ofProjects and Proponents, Good and Bad,” Journal of RiskResearch, 7(2), 233-250.

Fagerberg, Jan and Verspagen, Bart (2002). “Technology-Gaps, Innovation-Diffusion and Transformation: AnEvolutionary Interpretation,” Research Policy, 31(8/9),1291-1304.

Floricel, Serghei and Miller, Roger (2003). “An ExploratoryComparison of the Management of Innovation in the

New and Old Economies,” R and D Management, 33(5),501-525.

Fontana, Roberto (2000). “The Theory of Innovation: En-trepreneurs, Technology and Strategy,” Economic Jour-nal, 110(464), 494-496.

Frank, Mark W (1998). “Schumpeter on Entrepreneurs andInnovation: A Reappraisal,” Journal of the History ofEconomic Thought, 20(4), 505-517.

Freel, M (2000). “Barriers to Product Innovation in SmallManufacturing Firms,” International Small Business Jour-nal 18(2), 60-80.

Gabis, Gerald R; Grenell, Keenan; Ihrke, Douglas M andKaatz, James (2000). “Managerial Innovation at the LocalLevel: Some Effects of Administrative Leadership andGoverning Board Behavior,” Public Productivity andManagement Review, 23(4), 486-504.

Gauchan, D; Joshi, M and Biggs, S (2003). “A Strategy forStrengthening Participatory Technology Developmentin Agricultural and Natural Resources InnovationsSystems,” International Journal of Technology Management& Sustainable Development, 2(1), 39-52.

Gentry, William M; Hubbard, R and Glenn, N (2005).“Success Taxes, Entrepreneurial Entry, and Innovation,”NBER Innovation Policy&the Economy, 5(1), 87-108.

Gibb, A A (2000). “SME Policy, Academic Research and theGrowth of Ignorance, Mythical Concepts, Myths, As-sumptions, Rituals and Confusions,” International SmallBusiness Journal, 18(3), 13-35.

Giudici, Giancarlo and Paleari, Stefano (2000). “The Op-timal Staging of Venture Capital Financing When Entre-preneurs Extract Private Benefits from their Firms,”Enterprise&Innovation Management Studies, 1(2), 153-174.

Gray, Allan; Boehlje, Michael; Amanor-Boadu, Vincent andFulton, Joan (2004). “Agricultural Innovation and NewVentures: Assessing the Commercial Potential,” Amer-ican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1322-1329.

Hamel, Gary (1998). “The Challenge Today: Changing theRules of the Game,” Business Strategy Review, 9(2), 19-26.

Hargadon, Andrew B and Douglas, Yellowlees (2001).“When Innovations meet Institutions: Edison and theDesign of the Electric Light,” Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 46(3), 476-502.

Hernandez, Ivan and Dewick, Paul (2003). “StructuralChange and the Nature of Innovative Activity: LegalForm and Firm Performance,” Innovation: Management,Policy&Practice, 5(2/3), 258-269.

Instefjord, Norvald (1998). “Financial Innovation andDelegation of Control,” Economic Journal, 108(451), 1707-1723.

Jeremy, David J (2003). “Entrepreneurship and Organiza-tion: The Role of the Entrepreneur in OrganizationalInnovation,” Business History, 45(3), 150-151.

Julien, Pierre-André; Andriambeloson, Eric and Raman-galahy, Charles (2004). “Networks, Weak Signals andTechnological Innovations among SMEs in the Land-based Transportation Equipment Sector,” Entrepreneur-ship & Regional Development, 16(4), 251-269.

Kassicieh, Suleiman K; Radosevich, Raymond and Umbarg-er, John A (1996). “Comparative Study of Entrepreneur-ship Incidence among Inventors in National Labo- rato-ries,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 33-49.

184 BIBLIOGRAPHY

184

Klein, L E (1987). “How a Venture Capital Initiative canHelp the Corporate Intrapreneur: A Case Study,” Busi-ness Development Review, 1(4), 22-27.

Knudson, William; Wysocki, Allen; Champagne, Josephand Peterson, Christopher H (2004). “Entrepreneurshipand Innovation in the Agri-Food System,” AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1330-1336.

Kohtamäki, Marko; Kekäle, Tauno and Viitala, Riitta (2004).“Trust and Innovation: from Spin-off Idea to StockExchange,” Creativity&Innovation Management, 13(2), 75-88.

Kristiansen, Stein (2004). “Liberalisation, Information andInnovation: Cottage Garment Industries in Tanzania,”European Journal of Development Research, 16(2), 375-395.

Lahorgue, Maria Alice and Da Cunha, Neila (2003). “In-troduction of Innovations in the Industrial Structure ofa Developing Region,” International Journal of Techno-logy Management&Sustainable Development, 2(3), 191-204.

Larson, Andrea L (2000). “Sustainable Innovation throughan Entrepreneurship Lens,” Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 9(5), 304-317.

Maletz, Mark C and Nohria, Nitin (2001). “Managing inthe White Space,” Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 102-111.

Mambula, Charles Jabani (2004). “Relating External Sup-port, Business Growth and Creating Strategies for Sur-vival: A Comparative Case Study Analyses of SmallManufacturing Firms (SMFs) and Entrepreneurs,” SmallBusiness Economics, 22(2), 83-109.

Markman, Gideon D; Balkin, David B and Baron, RobertA (2002). “Inventors and New Venture Formation: TheEffects of General Self-efficacy and Regretful Think-ing,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(2), 149-165.

Markman, Gideon D; Balkin, David B and Schjoedt, Leon(2001). “Governing the Innovation Process in Entre-preneurial Firms,” Journal of High Technology Manage-ment Research, 12(2), 273-294.

McDaniel, Bruce A (2000). “A Survey on Entrepreneurshipand Innovation,” Social Science Journal, 37(2), 277-284.

McGrath, Cathleen A; Vance, Charles M and Gray, EdmundR (2003). “With a Little Help from Their Friends: Ex-ploring the Advice Networks of Software Entrepre-neurs,” Creativity&Innovation Management, 12(1), 2-10.

McKelvey, Maureen (1998). “Evolutionary Innovations:Learning, Entrepreneurship and the Dynamics of theFirm,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8(2), 157-175.

Michaud, Jay (1998). “Innovation Explosion: Using Intel-lect and Software to Revolutionize Growth Strategies,”Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 86-87.

Michelacci, C (2003). “Low Returns in R&D due to the Lackof Entrepreneurial Skills,” Economic Journal, 113(484),207-225.

North, D and Smallbone, D (2000). “The Innovativenessand Growth of Rural SMEs during the 1990s,” RegionalStudies, 34(2), 145-157.

O’Connor, G C and Rice, M P (2001). “Opportunity Re-cognition and Breakthrough Innovation in Large Estab-lished Firms,” California Management Review, 43(2), 95-116.

Ohara, S (2002). “The Critical Aspects of Emerging VirtualFactory Profile in Japan: IT Innovation in a ProjectManagement Context,” International Transactions in

Operational Research, 9(4), 461-477.Ondracek, Jim and Bauerschmidt, Alan (1998). “Willy Korf—

German Entrepreneur: Case A and Case B,” Entrepre-neurship: Theory&Practice, 23(2), 49-70.

Perry, T S (1995). “Managed Chaos Allows More Creativ-ity,” Research-Technology Management, 38(5), 14-17.

Proctor, Tony (1998). “Innovations in Time: What can WeLearn from History?” Creativity&Innovation Management,7(4), 204-212.

Robana, Abdurrahman (2003). “New Financial Innovationsand Entrepreneurs Financing Needs,” International Jour-nal of Finance, 15(4), 2764-2771.

Ryan, Rebecca (2004). “The Next Generation of Entrepre-neurs: How to Attract, Keep and Grow Them,” Spec-trum: Journal of State Government, 77(4), 37-39.

Sapienza, Harry J and Clercq, Dirk De (2000). “VentureCapitalist-Entrepreneur Relationships in Technology-based Ventures,” Enterprise&Innovation ManagementStudies, 1(1), 51-71.

Senge, Peter M; Carstedt, G and Porter, P L (2001). “Inno-vating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution,” MITSloan Management Review, 42(2), 24-38.

Shane, Scott and Toby, Stuart (2002). “OrganizationalEndowments and the Performance of University Start-ups,” Management Science, 48(1), 154-170.

Shane, Scott (2000). “Prior Knowledge and the Discoveryof Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Organization Science:A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 11(4),448-469.

Shane, Scott (2001). “Technological Opportunities and NewFirm Creation,” Management Science, 47(2), 205-240.

Shrader, R C and Simon, M (1997). “Corporate versusIndependent New Ventures: Resource, Strategy andPerformance Differences,” Journal of Business Venturing,12(1), 47-66.

Smilor, R W (1987). “Commercializing Technology throughNew Business Incubators,” Research-Technology Man-agement, 30(5), 36-41

Stringer, R (2000). “How to Manage Radical Innovation,”California Management Review, 42(4), 70-88.

Sundbo, Jon; Johnston, Robert; Mattsson, Jan and Millett,Bruce (2001). “Innovation in Service Internationaliza-tion: The Crucial Role of the Frantrepreneur,”Entrepreneurship&Regional Development, 13(3), 247-267.

Szulanski, G (1996). “Exploring Internal Stickiness: Imped-iments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm,”Strategic Management Journal, 17, Special Issue, 27-43.

Ucbasaran, Deniz; Wright, Mike and Westhead, Paul A(2003). “Longitudinal Study of Habitual Entrepreneurs:Starters and Acquirers,” Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment, 15(3), 207-228.

Uittenbogaard, Boaz; Broens, Lute and Groen, Aard J (2005).“Towards a Guideline for Design of a Corporate En-trepreneurship Function for Business Development inMedium-sized Technology-based Companies,” Creativ-ity & Innovation Management, 14(3), 258-271.

Ulijn, Jan; Nagel, Arie and Liang, Tan Wee (2001). “TheImpact of National, Corporate and Professional Cul-tures on Innovation: German and Dutch Firms Com-pared,” Journal of Enterprising Culture, 9(1), 21-53.

Vanhaverbeke, Wim and Peters, Nico (2005). “EmbracingInnovation as Strategy: Corporate Venturing, Compe-tence Building and Corporate Strategy Making,” Crea-

VIKALPA • VOLUME 31 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2006 185

185

tivity&Innovation Management, 14(3), 246-257.Visser, D J; De Coning, T J and Smith, E V D M (2005). “The

Relationship between the Characteristics of the Trans-formational Leader and the Entrepreneur in SouthAfrican SMEs,” South African Journal of Business Man-agement, 36(3), 51-63.

Waites, Robert (2002). “Reinventing Corporate Research,”Research-Technology Management, 45(4), 15-22.

Walsh, Stephen T and Kirchhoff, Bruce A (2002). “Tech-

nology Transfer from Government Labs to Entrepre-neurs,” Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(2), 133-150.

Wessner, Charles W (2005). “Driving Innovations acrossthe Valley of Death,” Research-Technology Management,48(1), 9-12.

Zazzaro, Alberto (2001). “The Discouraged Entrepreneur:A Model of Self-Employment with Financial Con-straints,” International Journal of Applied Economics &Econometrics, 9(3), 375-398.

K Manjunatha is a Librarian at the T A Pai ManagementInstitute, Manipal. A Ph.D. from Mangalore University, hehas organized several workshops for librarians and publishedmany articles in Library Science journals.e-mail: manjunath@mail.tapmi.org

The innovate point is the pivotal moment when talented andmotivated people seek the opportunity to act on their ideas anddreams.

W Arthur Porter

186 BIBLIOGRAPHY

186