International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review

INNOVATION METRICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: AN INNOVATIONOLOGY-BASED COMPREHENSIVE, MULTIDIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK

Author: Pitshou Moleka, PhD

ABSTRACT

Innovation has become a fundamental driver of economic progress, social well-being, and environmental sustainability in the 21st century. As organizations and policymakers grapple with the complexities of fostering and scaling transformative innovations, the need for robust, multidimensional approaches to measuring innovation performance has become increasingly critical. This article presents a comprehensive innovation metrics framework that is grounded in the emerging field of Innovationology, a transdisciplinary science developed by the author for understanding the multilevel, systemic, and contextual nature of innovation processes and outcomes. Drawing on the Innovationology perspective, the proposed framework transcends traditional financial and output-based measures to capture the intangible, organizational, ecosystem, societal, and sustainability-oriented determinants of innovation success. This multidimensional approach empowers global stakeholders to navigate the evolving innovation landscape, make informed decisions, and unlock the transformative potential of innovation for sustainable progress. Moreover, the article critically examines the limitations of conventional national and global innovation indices, such as the Global Innovation Index (GII) and the Bloomberg Innovation Index, which have long been the primary tools for benchmarking and comparing innovation performance across countries. Recognizing the shortcomings of these static, input-output-oriented models, this study proposes alternative frameworks that better capture the multidimensional, contextual, and systemic nature of innovation performance, drawing on the theoretical foundations of Innovationology. By integrating a diverse set of quantitative and qualitative indicators across multiple levels of analysis, this Innovationology-based innovation metrics framework empowers organizations, policymakers, and innovation ecosystem members to foster a more holistic understanding of their innovation capabilities, identify areas for improvement, and align their innovation efforts with the pressing challenges of the 21st century, ultimately contributing to the realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Keywords: Innovation metrics, Innovationology, performance measurement, intangible assets, organizational culture, innovation ecosystems, sustainability, global innovation index, national innovation index

REFERENCES

• Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2017). National systems of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 49(3), 471-490.
• Adenle, A. A., Azadi, H., & Arbiol, J. (2015). Global assessment of technological innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world. Journal of environmental management, 161, 261-275.
• Akter, S., McCarthy, G., Sajib, S., Michael, K., Dwivedi, Y. K., D’Ambra, J., & Shen, K. N. (2021). Algorithmic bias in data-driven innovation in the age of AI. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102387.
• Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.
• Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
• Andriyani, Y., Yohanitas, W. A., & Kartika, R. S. (2024). Adaptive innovation model design: Integrating agile and open innovation in regional areas innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(1), 100197.
• Bakhuis, J., Kamp, L. M., Barbour, N., & Chappin, É. J. L. (2024). Frameworks for multi-system innovation analysis from a sociotechnical perspective: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123266.
• Birindelli, G., Trotta, A., Chiappini, H., & Rizzello, A. (2020). Environmental Impact Investments in Europe: Where Are We Headed?. Contemporary Issues in Sustainable Finance: Creating an Efficient Market through Innovative Policies and Instruments, 151-175.
• Boh, W. F., Nguyen, T. T., & Xu, Y. (2016). Knowledge transfer across dissimilar cultures. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 317-339.
• Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3-4), 201-234.
• Carayannis, E. G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Quadruple Innovation Helix and Smart Specialization: Knowledge production and national competitiveness. Foresight and STI Governance, 10(1), 31-42.
• Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1-12.
• Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148-162.
• Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212-239.
• Castellacci, F., & Natera, J. M. (2013). The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), 579-594.
• Ciric, D., Borocki, J., Gracanin, D., & Lalic, B. (2022). Methodologies for measuring innovation performances. Retrieved Sep 15th.
• Dezi, L., Ferraris, A., Papa, A., & Vrontis, D. (2018). The role of external embeddedness and knowledge management as determinants of innovation performance. The Italian case. European Business Review, 31(2), 160-178.
• Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 890-914.
• Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2014). The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1254-1267.
• Dzhunushalieva, G., & Teuber, R. (2024). Roles of innovation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(2), 100472.
• Enberg, C. (2012). Knowledge integration in product development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 623-633.
• Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484-500.
• Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.
• Kozłowski, J. (2015). Innovation indices: the need for positioning them where they properly belong. Scientometrics, 104(3), 609-628.
• Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119.
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
• Moleka, P. (2024a). Innovationology: A Comprehensive, Transdisciplinary Framework for Driving Transformative Innovation in the 21st Century.
• Moleka, P. (2024b). Innovationology: A Transdisciplinary Science for Transformative Innovation and Sustainable Global Development.
• Moleka, P. (2024c). Frugal Innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development in Africa. Advanced Research in Economics and Business Strategy Journal, 5(1), 107-117.
• Moleka, P. (2024d). Rethinking the Limits of Polycentric Governance: Towards a More Inclusive Innovation Ecosystem Framework for Sustainable Development in the Global South.
• Moleka, P. (2024e). Inclusive Innovation for African Equitable and Sustain Development.
• Motta, W. H., Issberner, L. R., & Prado, P. (2018). Life cycle assessment and eco-innovations: What kind of convergence is possible?. Journal of cleaner production, 187, 1103-1114.
• Mura, M., Longo, M., Micheli, P., & Bolzani, D. (2018). The evolution of sustainability measurement research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 661-695.
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-81.
• Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672.
• Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
• Rosário, C., Varum, C., & Botelho, A. (2024). Unlocking the Code to Continuous Innovation: A Study of Key Determinants for Serial Innovators. Administrative Sciences, 14(3), 45.
• Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology?. Research Policy, 44(10), 1827-1843.
• Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567.
• Strielkowski, W., Kalyugina, S., Fursov, V., & Mukhoryanova, O. (2023). Improving the system of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of modern regional innovation systems. Economies, 11(9), 228.
• Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.
• Tiikkainen, O., Pihlajamaa, M., & Åkerman, M. (2022). Environmental impact bonds as a transformative policy innovation: Frames and frictions in the construction process of the Nutrient-EIB. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 45, 170-182.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.