THEORY AND RESULTS – USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION
Abstract
Purpose – of the study is to determine whether a user-driven innovation (IUP) system is more effective in introducing innovation than a linear one.
Methodology – the study was conducted using such methods as: abstract - logical and comparative analysis, the method of description and generalization. The sources of research were theoretical and analytical articles, the works of Kazakhstan and foreign authors, which examine user-driven issues of the innovation system.
Originality/value – the authors formulated the following hypothesis: companies implementing IUP systems represent a higher level of innovation than companies introducing a linear process. The following methods were used: questionnaire, standardized interview and ranking method. The hypothesis was tested.
Findings – to achieve this goal, appropriate research methods were applied. The first stage of the research was the identification of innovation processes by an expert group. Subsequently, the results of a qualitative study were verified by a quantitative survey conducted by the method of standardized interview. The study showed a relatively small role of the board in relation to customers in the innovation processes at the surveyed enterprises. Achieving sustainable change remains a fundamental challenge.
About the Authors
R. Bespayeva
Karaganda Economic University Kazpotrebsoyuz
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, senior lecturer
Karaganda
R. Bugubayeva
Karaganda Economic University Kazpotrebsoyuz
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
C.e.s., Professor
Karaganda
B. Begezhanov
Karaganda Medical University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
C.m.s., Professor
Karaganda
G. Shinet
Miras university
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, senior lecturer
Shymkent
N. Kuttybaeva
Karaganda Economic University Kazpotrebsoyuz
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
PhD, senior lecturer
Karaganda
References
1. Samuelson Paul A., Nordhaus William D. (2010). Economics. -19th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
2. Schumpeter J.A. (1932). The Theory of Economic Development. London: Harvard Economic Studies.
3. Drucker P.F. (1992). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Practice and principles [Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Practice and principles. Warsaw: State Economic Publishing House.
4. European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). (2008). European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
5. Oslo Guide. (2010). Recommendations for the collection and analysis of data on innovations. Ed. 3rd [Transfer]. Joint publication by the OECD and Eurostat. Moscow: Center for Research and Statistics of Science (CSRS), 107 p.
6. Frascati M. (1995). Measurement of scientific and technical activities. Standard Practice for Survey Research and Experimental Development. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). [Transfer]. Moscow: Publishing House of the Center for Science Research and Statistics (CSRS), 277 p.
7. Bautin V. M. (2014). Innovative economy: content, place and role of innovation. News of Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, vol.2, p. 103-118.
8. Udaltseva N. (2015). Campaigns to innovation and innovation as a factor of competitiveness. Scientific information magazine "Economic Sciences", 2 (123), p. 25-28.
9. Shimanska E. (2013). Innovative processes of enterprises providing services in the field of organization of tourist events [Innovative processes at service providers related to the organization of tourist events]. Bialystok: Ofitsyna Vidovnicha Polytechnic Belostotsky.
10. Pakzad P., Osmond P., Corkery L. (2017). Developing key sustainability indicators for assessing green infrastructure performance. International High- Performance Built Environment Conference – A Sustainable Built Environment Conference 2016 Series (SBE16), iHBE 2016. Procedia Engineering, 180, p.146-156.
11. Roehrich G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, vol. 57, issue 6, p.671-677.
12. Kline, S., Rosenber, G. (1986). An overview of innovation, In: Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. (eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, p. 275-305.
13. Chesbrough H.W. (2003). Open innovation. The New imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p.245.
14. Gillebaard, H., Bos, J., Te Velde, R. (2010). Policy schemes on Open Innovation in service sectors: a comparative analysis of policies in 6 metropolitan regions, Dialogic Innovation & Interaction, Utrecht. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Service Conference 2010 in Karlstad, Sweden.
15. Koch, A. and Stahlecker, T. (2006). Regional innovation systems and the foundation of knowledge intensive business services. A comparative study in Bremen, Munich and Stuttgart, Germany. European planning studies, vol. 14 issue 2, p. 123-146.
16. Shimanska E. (2017). User-Driven Innovation – the Concept and Research Results. 7th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management. Procedia Engineering, 182, p. 694-700.
17. Linstone HA, Turoff M. Introduction. (2002). In: Linstone HA, Turoff M,editors. The Delphi Method. Techniques and Applications. Murray Turoff and Harold A. Linstone, p. 3–12.
18. Popper, R. (2008). Foresight Methodology, in Georghiou, L., Cassingena, J., Keenan, M., Miles, I. and Popper, R. (eds.). The Handbook of Technology Foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 44-88.
Review
For citations:
Bespayeva R., Bugubayeva R., Begezhanov B., Shinet G., Kuttybaeva N. THEORY AND RESULTS – USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION. Central Asian Economic Review. 2019;(3):113-121.
Views:
331
Email this article 