Exploring the Structure of Organizational Innovation System Using Interpretive Structural Modeling

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

10.48308/jimp.15.2.158

Abstract

Introduction: Innovation serves as the driving force of the economy and a source of competitive advantage. It also holds significant importance from social and environmental perspectives today. Due to the complexities and numerous feedback loops among innovation actors, addressing innovation through the conventional linear process is less effective. Therefore, adopting an approach aligned with real-world conditions is essential. A systemic view of innovation, embodied within the innovation systems approach, addresses the shortcomings of the linear perspective. Accordingly, this study aims to identify the dimensions comprising the organizational innovation system, one of the levels within innovation systems, and the relationships among these dimensions.
 
Methods: The current research was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, Hoon’s meta-synthesis method was employed to identify the dimensions of the organizational innovation system. Keyword chains were searched in the Web of Science database, and after applying various filters and appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, four documents were selected and analyzed. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) was used in the second stage to determine the relationships and hierarchical structuring of the identified dimensions. A questionnaire was administered to 16 faculty members from the Faculty of Management and Accounting and the Research Institute for Science and Technology Studies at Shahid Beheshti University, with research or executive backgrounds in innovation. Calculations were conducted using MATLAB 2017 software.
Results and Discussion: Following the analysis of the selected documents, seven dimensions were identified for the organizational innovation system. These dimensions include upstream actors, the focal innovative enterprise, innovation (value proposition), innovation processes, customers, complementors, and institutions.
Based on Interpretive Structural Modeling, these dimensions are structured into four hierarchical levels. Innovation or value proposition, as the output of the organizational innovation system, is placed at the first level. The innovation process, customers, and complementors are at the second level. Upstream actors and the focal innovative enterprise constitute the third level, with institutions occupying the fourth and final level. Institutions are thus considered the most influential dimension within the organizational innovation system, affecting all other dimensions, suggesting that without appropriate institutional changes, any other modifications within the system would be unstable. Upstream actors and the focal innovative enterprise at the third level hold second priority. Complementors, the focal innovative enterprise, and customers share third priority, while innovation or value proposition, positioned at the first level, has the lowest priority. Additionally, MICMAC analysis classified these dimensions according to their influence and dependency levels. The innovation process, customers, and complementors exhibit the highest dependency, while institutions have the lowest dependency. Institutions demonstrate the greatest influence, with innovation or value proposition having the least. Upstream actors, focal actors, and institutions fall within the category of independent variables; innovation or value proposition is classified as a dependent variable, and the innovation process, customers, and complementors are categorized as linkage variables.
Conclusion: Findings suggest that utilizing the organizational innovation system framework can effectively promote innovation systematically at the micro-level, thereby facilitating the realization of innovation systems' objectives at higher levels, especially at the national level. By focusing on the innovative enterprise as the focal element, this system considers both upstream and downstream actors involved in the innovation process and adopts a holistic perspective that accounts for feedback relationships among all actors, thus aligning closely with the realities of a complex world.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Adner, R. (2016). Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
  2. Anouze, A. L., Al Khalifa, M. M., Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2024). Reevaluating National Innovation Systems: An index based on Dynamic-Network Data Envelopment Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 95, 102003. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102003
  3. Ayele, S., Duncan, A., Larbi, A., Khanh, T. T. (2012). Enhancing Innovation in Livestock Value Chains Through Networks: Lessons from Fodder Innovation Case Studies in Developing Countries. Science and Public Policy, 39, 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs022
  4. Bagheri Moghaddam, N., Nozari, M. (2023). Dynamic Evaluation of Technological Innovation System; The Case of Underground Natural Gas Storage Technology in Iran. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101153. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101153
  5. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the Functional Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems: A Scheme of Analysis. Research Policy, 37(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
  6. Berikou, I., Lazakidou, A. A. (2006). Understanding Telemedicine with Innovative Systems. In A. A. Lazakidou (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Informatics in Healthcare and Biomedicine (pp. 425–430). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
  7. Budde, B., Alkemade, F., Weber, K. M. (2012). Expectations as a Key to Understanding Actor Strategies in the Field of Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Vehicles. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 1072–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.12.012
  8. Caliari, T., Ribeiro, L. C., Pietrobelli, C., Vezzani, A. (2023). Global value chains and sectoral innovation systems: An analysis of the aerospace industry. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 65, 36–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.02.004
  9. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S. (1994). Technological Systems and Economic Policy: The Diffusion of Factory Sutomation in Sweden. Research Policy, 23(3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90036-1
  10. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., Rickne, A. (2002). InnovationSystems: Analytical and Methodological Issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00138-X
  11. Casadella, V., Tahi, S. (2025). Inclusive national innovation systems: rethinking institutions in the light of inclusion imperatives. Journal of Institutional Economics, 21, e2. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S1744137425000025
  12. Chen, W., Song, H. (2025). Fostering renewable energy use through smart city construction: The role of National Innovation Systems. Energy Strategy Reviews, 58, 101690. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2025.101690
  13. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press.
  14. Coenen, L., Díaz López, F. J. (2010). Comparing Systems Approaches to Innovation and Technological Change for Sustainable and Competitive Economies: An Explorative Study into Conceptual Commonalities, Differences and Complementarities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.003
  15. Dahesh, M. B., Tabarsa, G., Zandieh, M., Hamidizadeh, M. (2020). Reviewing the Intellectual Structure and Evolution of the Innovation Systems Spproach: A Social Network Snalysis. Technology in Society, 63.
  16. Dong, M., Flowers, S. (2016). Exploring Innovation in Shanzhai: The Case of Mobile Phones. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 24(2), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2016.1176864
  17. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of Innovation Approaches- Their Emergence and Characteristics. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  18. Edquist, C., Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of Innovation: Theory and Policy for the Demand Side. Technology in Society, 21, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(98)00037-2
  19. Edquist, C., Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations1. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  20. Faber, A., Hoppe, T. (2013). Co-constructing a Sustainable Built Environment in the Netherlands-Dynamics and Opportunities in an Environmental Sectoral Innovation System. Energy Policy, 52, 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.022
  21. Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(July 1993), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309
  22. Geels, F. W. (2004). From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-technical Systems: Insights About Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory. Research Policy, 33, 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
  23. Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. A. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publication.
  24. Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies: An Approach to Theory Building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113484969
  25. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a Theory of Ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904
  26. Krishnamoorthy, B., Damle, M. (2017). Models of innovations: An overview of perspectives and expositions. International Journal of Value Chain Management, 8(4), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVCM.2017.089374
  27. Lin, F., Hsieh, P. (2014). Analyzing the Sustainability of a Newly Developed Service: An Activity Theory Perspective. Technovation, 34, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.08.004
  28. List, F. (1841). The National System of Political Economy. Longsman, Green and Co.
  29. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter Publishers.
  30. Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., Dalum, B. (2002). National Systems of Production, Innovation and Competence Building. Research Policy, 31, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.4134/CKMS.2012.27.1.037
  31. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production. Research Policy, 31, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2016.1188398
  32. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  33. Markard, J., Truffer, B. (2008). Technological Innovation Systems and The Multi-level Perspective: Towards an Integrated Framework. Research Policy, 37(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004
  34. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan.
  35. Miremadi, I., Mardukh, F. (2024). Catching-up in renewable energies: the role of knowledge dimensions in sectoral innovation systems. Innovation and Development, 14(2), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2023.2189767
  36. Moussavi, A., Kermanshah, A. (2018). Innovation Systems Approach: a Philosophical Appraisal. Philosophy of Management, 17(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0078-6
  37. Nelson, R. R. (1987). Understanding Technical Change as an Evolutionary Process. North-Holland.
  38. Nelson, R. R. (1995). Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXIII, 48–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95661-3_5
  39. Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1977). In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation. 1Research Policy, 6, 36–76.
  40. Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  41. Pohl, H., Yarime, M. (2012). Integrating Innovation System and Management Concepts: The Development of Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Japan. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79, 1431–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.012
  42. Popkova, E. G., Bogoviz, A. V., Krivtsov, A. I. (2020). The economic and legal foundations of managing innovative development in modern economic systems. In The Economic and Legal Foundations of Managing Innovative Development in Modern Economic Systems. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110643701
  43. Sadabadi Arani, A. A., Khayatian, M. S., Mohammadi, F., Jafarian, F. (2023). Identifying and Investigating the Relationships between the Motivations Affecting the Formation of Free Innovation (Case Study: Iran’s Innovation Ecosystem). Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 13(1), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.48308/jimp.13.1.219
  44. Samara, E., Kilintzis, P., Katsoras, E., Martnidis, G., Kosti, P. (2024). A System Dynamics Approach for the Development of a Regional Innovation System. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00385-5
  45. Schienstock, G. (2005). Sustainable Development and the Regional Dimension of the Innovation System BT - Towards Environmental Innovation Systems (M. Weber & J. Hemmelskamp (eds.); 97–113). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27298-4_6
  46. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway.
  47. (2012). Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40171-012-0008-3
  48. Talebi, D., Moazezi Khah Tehran, A. (2023). Investigating the Relationship between Green Innovation Strategy and Green Innovation with Mediation of Organizational Environmental Legitimacy and Green Organizational Identity. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 13(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.48308/jimp.13.2.159
  49. Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E. (2012). Modeling the Ecosystem: A Meta-synthesis of Ecosystem and Related Literatures. DRUID Conference.
  50. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (Third Edit). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  51. Torabandeh, M. A., Dorri Nokorani, B., Motameni, A., Rabieh, M. (2021). Comparative-fuzzy Analysis of National Innovation Capability Based on Results of Dynamic Network DEA Model. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 11(2), 207–246. https://doi.org/10.52547/jimp.11.2.207
  52. Van Lancker, J., Mondelaers, K., Wauters, E., Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2016). The Organizational Innovation System: A systemic framework for radical innovation at the organizational level. Technovation, 52–53, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.11.008
  53. Walshok, M. L., Shapiro, J. D., Owens, N. (2014). Transnational Innovation Networks aren’t all Created Equal: Towards a Classification System. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9293-4
  54. Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity. Wiley Interscience.
  55. Warfield, J. N. (2002). Understanding Complexity: Thought and Behavior. AJAR Publishing Company.
  56. West, J., Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125
  57. Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., Gilsing, V. (2005). A System Failure Framework for Innovation Policy Design. Technovation, 25, 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.002
  58. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024: Unlocking the Promise of Social Entrepreneurship.
  59. Zhou, Q., Cheng, C., Fang, Z., Zhang, H., Xu, Y. (2024). How does the Development of the Digital Economy Affect Innovation Output? Exploring Mechanisms from the Perspective of Regional Innovation Systems. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 70, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.01.007

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics