Imovator’s Dilemma: How to Decide When to be Offensive and When to be Defensive?

Chapter

Abstract

Although being an innovator has some merits, being an imitator has its own merits as well. Staying competitive therefore requires consideration of imovation—both innovation and imitation simultaneously. An imovator should play role of offensive imovator (near to being pure innovator) when innovation is worthwhile. In case of otherwise, being a defensive imovator (near to being early imitator) can be compatible strategy. How to decide and when to be offensive/defensive greatly depends on innovation potentials of industries assessed by consideration of both their technological and market conditions. This chapter introduces a unique framework called as quick innovation intelligence process for assessment of innovation potential. It makes use of databases of patent and publication and some marketing indicators/determinants in order to take technological and market conditions into account. The framework uses interval type-2 fuzzy sets and systems (IT2FSSs) and a data-fusion methodology to combine above-mentioned databases in order to infer about innovation potential. An imovator can be aware of which strategy is well suited and can go through calculations about when innovation is worthwhile by taking likelihood of being imitated into account as well through the presented assessment process. For that reason, the process presented in this chapter can contribute to solution of the imovator’s dilemma.

Keywords

Marketing Turkey Monopoly 

References

  1. 1.
    Pol E, Carroll P (2006) An introduction to economics with emphasis on innovation. Thomson, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Escribano A, Giarratana MS (2011) EU patent system: to be or not to be? Working paper 11–01, Economic SeriesGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1988) First-mover advantages. Strateg Manag J 9(1–2):41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowman D, Gatignon J (1996) Order of entry as a moderator of the effect of the marketing mix on market share. Marketing Science 15(3):222–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson WT, Min S (2002) Is the first to market the first to fail? Empirical evidence for industrial goods businesses. J Mark Res 34(1):120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou KZ (2006) Innovation, imitation, and new product performance: the case of China. Ind Mark Manage 35:394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang MH, Harrington JE (2007) Innovators, imitators, and the evolving architecture of problem-solving networks. Organ Sci 18(4):648–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shenkar O (2010) Copycats: how smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim J, Wilemon D (2002) Focusing the fuzzy front end in new product development. R&D Management 32(4):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kusiak A (2009) Innovation: a data-driven approach. Int J Prod Econ 12:440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cormican K, O’Sullivan D (2004) Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management. Technovation 24:819–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dereli T, Altun K (2012) Modified Even-Swaps: a novel, clear, rational and easy-to-use mechanism for multi-issue negotiation. Comput Ind Eng 63(4):1013–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Altun K, Dereli T, Baykasoglu A (2012) Development of a framework for customer co-creation in NPD through multi-issue negotiation with issue trade-offs. Expert Syst Appl 40(3):873–880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Justel D, Vidal R, Arriaga E, Franco V, Val-Jauregi E (2007) Evaluation method for selecting innovative product concepts with greater potential marketing success. In: Proceedings of 16th international conference on engineering design, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jayanthi S, Witt EC, Singh V (2009) Evaluation of potential of innovations: a DEA-based application to US photovoltaic industry. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 56(3):478–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta PC, Garg S, Maheshwari S (2011) Evaluation and selection methodology for an innovative product design concepts. Int J Eng Sci Technol 3(4):3553–3561Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golovatchev J, Budde O (2010) Technology and innovation radar—Effective instruments for the development of a sustainable innovation strategy. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on management of innovation and technology (ICMIT), pp 760–764Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dereli T, Altun K (2012) A novel approach for assessment of candidate technologies with respect to their innovation potentials: quick innovation intelligence process. Expert Syst Appl 40(3):881–891Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martino JP (2003) A review of selected recent advances in technological forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 70:719–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arman H, Hodgson A, Gindy N (2009) Technologies watch exercise: foresight approach enhanced with scientific publications and patents analysis. Int J Technol Intell Plann 5:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee S, Lee H, Yoon B (2012) Modeling and analyzing technology innovation in the energy sector: patent based HMM approach. Comput Ind Eng. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2011.12.002 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daim TU, Rueada G, Martin H, Gerdsri P (2006) Forecasting emerging technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73:981–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu WD, Lo SS (2009) Patent analysis-based fuzzy inference system for technological strategy planning. Autom Constr 18(6):770–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang L, Li Y (2010) Evaluation frame of technological developing trend based on patent information. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on computer modelling and simulation, pp 299–304Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geisler E (2002) The metrics of technology evaluation: where we stand and where we should go from here. Int J Technol Manage 24(4):341–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Geisler E (2005) The measurement of scientific activity: research directions in linking philosophy of science and metrics of science and technology outputs. Scientometrics 62(2):269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bengisu M, Nekhili R (2006) Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid of science and technology databases. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73:835–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quintella CM, Hatimondi SA, Musse APS, Miyazaki SF, Cerqueira GS, Moreira AA (2011) CO2 capture technologies: an overview with technology assessment based on patents and articles. Energy Procedia 4:2050–2057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Y, Zhu D, Wang X, Guo Y, Chen H, Liu C, Xu J, Heng X, Lu X (2011) Composing technology roadmapping according to bibliometrics: hybrid model and empirical study. In: Proceedings of CSIT, international conference on computer communication and management, vol 5, pp 405–410Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dereli T, Altun K (2013) Technology evaluation through the use of interval type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. Comput Ind Eng (in revision)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of 5th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 281–297 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pedrycz W (1994) Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets Syst 64:21–30MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendel JM, Wu D (2010) Perceptual computing: aiding people in making subjective judgments. IEEE Press Series on Computational Intelligence, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Çetindamar D, Phaal R, Probert D (2010) Technology management activities and tools. Palgrave/Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bandarian R (2007) Evaluation of commercial potential of a new technology at the early stage of development with fuzzy logic. J Technol Manage Innov 2:73–85Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sohn SY, Moon TH, Kim S (2005) Improved technology scoring model for credit guarantee fund. Expert Syst Appl 28:327–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jain RK, Martyniuk AO, Harris MM, Niemann RE, Woldmann K (2003) Evaluating the commercial potential of emerging technologies. Int J Technol Transfer Commercialisation 2:32–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lemer J (2009) The empirical impact of intellectual property rights on innovation: puzzles and clues. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 99:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park W (2008) Intellectual property rights and international innovation. In: Maskus K (ed) Intellectual property, Netherlands: growth and trade. Elsevier, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Qian Y (2007) Do national patent laws stimulate domestic innovation in a global patenting environment? A cross-country analysis of pharmaceutical patent protection, 1978–2002. Rev Econ Stat 89:436–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Robert MG (2009) Contemporary strategy analysis. Wiley, West Sussex. ISBN 978-0-470-74710-0Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Howels J (1996) Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 8:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dereli T, Durmusoglu A, Altun K, Bozyer Z (2010) Predicting the future of technology by using data fusion methodologies: techpredict v1.0. In: Proceedings of IMS 2010—the 7th international symposium on intelligent manufacturing systems, pp 215–223Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Verbeek A, Debackere K, Luwel M, Andries P, Zimmermann E, Deleus F (2002) Linking science to technology: using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics 54(3):399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boyack KW, Klavans R (2008) Measuring science-technology interaction using rare inventor-author names. J Informetrics 2:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations