2.1. Innovation
Innovation is not new but its importance in the modern society and organizations has increased
significantly and its scope broadened. From a new product development bias of the nineties [25], a
broader understanding of innovation has evolved. Today, innovation also includes new technologies,
processes, services, business models and practices and even organizational reinvention [26]. It is
generally accepted that even successful business models are vulnerable and need to be re-evaluated from
time to time to allow for innovation [27]. In similar vein, even the core practices of what innovation used
to be about, namely new product development, have been re-innovated to make a shift from a linear
process towards principle-based new product development [28].
While it may be argued that research on management of innovation should drive informed decisionmaking on the topic, such research has been highly fragmented and non-cumulative with most
contributions coming from narrow focus on three disciplines with hardly any overlap. These are research
and development or technology management, new product development and marketing, and organization
development with emphasis on change management, which leaves some gaps in terms of how
organizations should innovate in their complex external relationships and learn from it [29].
A key requirement for innovation is coming up with new ideas. In the nineties, the emphasis was on
creative genius. By applying specific techniques, creativity could be improved [30]. Many new
techniques have become available for stimulating new ideas [31] that are relevant and new [32]. At the
turn of the century, over 400 definitions of creativity existed [33].The concept of simplicity was
introduced to simplify some of the complex challenges being posed to the creativity experts [34] and
creative input from other stakeholders became accepted practice for co-creation of value.
Another key requirement for innovation is implementation or uptake of ideas, commercially [35] and
non-commercially. Early involvement of employees and other stakeholders, such as customers, leadusers, research units and open innovation agents [36] became accepted practice. Leaders could engage
people in new ways to bridge the gaps between people and possibilities [37]. Imitation as a form of
innovation has also been acknowledged and some have benefitted from following this approach by
copying leading innovations rather than pioneering their own which often allowed them to innovate
faster, cheaper and at lower risk for themselves and their recipients [38].
Recent literature refers to innovation as a process with dynamic, social, complex or other
characteristics where combinations or connections between variables are created for new insights to
emerge and to manifest as new technologies, applications, markets and organizational practices aimed at
value creation [39].
In light of the input considerations outlined above, innovation was interpreted in its broader sense to
not only focus on new knowledge generation or ideas, but also on the implementation thereof. This
interpretation has also informed the selection of the sample group of innovation leaders, as further
explained in the sampling section and illustrated in Figure 1. With the current significance, scope and
sources of innovation addressed, the rest of the literature review focuses on the leadership of innovation
and the requirements for developing a competency profile.