INTERNET

Innovation in Action

BUSI 1322

[Email address]
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................2

Innovation and Theories of innovation..................................................................................................2

Radical Vs incremental innovation.....................................................................................................2

Product and Process innovation........................................................................................................4

Technology push versus demand pull...............................................................................................5

Innovation diffusion model.................................................................................................................5

Technology cluster innovations.............................................................................................................6

The Internet...........................................................................................................................................6

History of Internet..............................................................................................................................7

Application of Innovation and Theory................................................................................................8

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................9
Introduction
In this study, theoretical innovation types in the body of this essay will be investigated and analyzed,
their traits will be evaluated, and deeper into frameworks and models will be explored. Then this
knowledge and theory will be applied to an Internet invention that has drastically affected society and
that happened as a result of the innovation. The literature study will examine several models and
frameworks as well as the radical, incremental, and service types of innovation that may be applied
to the Internet's innovation. Then, an overview of the development of the Internet, followed by an
application of what is discovered in the previous section to the topic of innovation and a discussion
of how it has impacted society in the modern day.

Innovation and Theories of innovation

The one thing that has been found to contribute most significantly to long-term productivity and
economic growth is the advancement of technological knowledge (Edquist, 2004). As a
consequence of this, businesses, governments, and academic institutions continue to have a strong
interest in the process of innovation as well as the determination of the measures required to bring
about a transition in technical capabilities. Additionally, innovation is increasingly seen as being
essential to combating the unfavorable repercussions linked to the same productivity and economic
expansion. Therefore, influencing innovation in favor of more sustainable directions is high on many
political agendas (Sawaguchi, 2011).

According to (Souto, 2015), the word "innovation" is somewhat of a catch-all and may be used
interchangeably with technical change to describe the methods required to bring a new product to
market. However, innovation is sometimes differentiated from technical change. It might be a phase
in the life cycle of a product, a new product in and of itself, or an ongoing process of invention and
application that links social, political, and technological advancement. An innovation may be
considered incremental, radical, or disruptive, according to the degree to which it improves upon an
already existing technology (or process), as well as the source from which it originates (inside or
outside of the mainstream).

Radical Vs incremental innovation

Both dramatic and incremental innovations are valid types of innovation, and both have their place in
the world. In many cases, radical innovation involves the replacement of previously established
ideas, products, services, or methods. These are brand-new concepts, products, services, or
procedures that are significantly distinct from the status quo and may even be considered
revolutionary. These inventions could also result in the creation of marketplaces in places where
none once existed. It is possible for radical innovation to bring about substantial changes in the
industrial sector as well as what is described as "creative destruction" in the market. The internet,
the horseless carriage, global positioning systems, and digital music and video encoding are
examples of revolutionary technologies that led to the development of new markets (Bers et al.,
2009).

Modifications of an idea, product, service, or technique that are not as significant but yet advance
the field are examples of incremental innovations. They are analogous to the incorporation of
distinguishing features into a product or service. Nevertheless, even very little adjustments may have
a big influence on the market. Take, for example, the slow but steady improvements made to
wireless phones, which eventually resulted in the development of Apple's iPhone as well as a broad
array of other smartphone possibilities (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Sainio and Jauhiainen, 2008)..

The system under study represents a major breakthrough for the provider. A significant amount of
the customer support operations were moved to the new system by the provider who created it. The
system's implementation necessitated significant changes to their corporate procedures
(Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Sainio and Jauhiainen, 2008). For instance, manufacturers now check
shipment status directly without consulting the shipping clerk; shipping clerks are no longer
responsible for gathering shipper information. On the other hand, the manufacturer merely made a
few operational adjustments (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2008). Only a select number of transactions
with this specific provider were impacted. The manufacturer can continue to employ voice mail if
required. The manufacturer views the system as an incremental improvement because it only affects
interactions with one supplier and checks on order status, pricing, and availability make up a minor
portion of the firm's business. It depends on the situation whether to classify this system along the
radical/incremental dimension. Although the system is an incremental advance from the
manufacturer's standpoint, it represents a radical innovation from the supplier's perspective (Souto,
2015).

The S-Curve model's objective is to illustrate the innovation lifecycle (Goodwin and Johnson, 2010).
The S-Curve, which includes Ferment, Take-off, Maturity, and Discontinuity, shows the pace of
growth the invention is experiencing and may be correlated with how well received it is by the market
or industry. The curve "charts the development in performance as a function of effort committed to
creating the technology," (Goodwin and Johnson, 2010).
 Figure 1 S-Curve (Foster, 1986)

When an innovation is in the ferment stage, its growth pace is quite modest. This often occurs when
an invention is first presented to a market and hasn't had much exposure to the targeted industry,
indicating that consumers or businesses haven't completely embraced the innovation yet (Boretos,
2012). During the Take-Off stage, when the invention gains traction, it expands quickly and is
embraced by consumers and businesses. Then, as it is embraced by the remaining consumers,
innovation growth continues throughout the maturity stage but happens more slowly. After that, the
invention is either enhanced or replaced, which means the present innovation is abandoned since it
has a decreasing return (Adner and Kapoor, 2016).

Product and Process innovation

Product innovation refers to any kind of change that is made to an existing product. There are two
different forms that it might possibly take. First, an improvement in the overall performance of a
product. Process innovation entails making changes to the way a product is made. All value chain
operations are affected by the changes. It includes enhanced media planning, inbound logistical
improvements, and manufacturing process improvements (Cleff and Rennings, 1999). An example
of a process improvement is the use of real-time demand information to schedule manufacturing
runs. It could result in less inventory and fewer stockouts. Significant distinctions exist between the
two. Customers can frequently see product advancements, but not always process changes. While
the goal of process innovations is to save costs, the primary objective of product innovations is to
improve the product (Huang and Rice, 2012).
Technology push versus demand pull

Drivers of technological change include technology-push (TP) and demand-pull (DP). By offering
incentives that lower the costs of their creation, such as direct subsidies for research and
development, technology-push policies aim to increase the supply of technologies (Pantano and
Viassone, 2014). On the other side, demand-pull policies encourage technical progress in
technologies by increasing demand, for example, through legislation, financial incentives, or
informational campaigns (Costantini et al., 2015). Pushing technology follows a linear sequential
process and places a strong focus on research and development, which pushes forth new ideas and
draws attention to companies that are bringing in new ones. While demand pull emphasizes intimate
relationships between businesses and customers, this is done so that swift action may be taken in
response to any new likes or preferences that can lead to a new market gap. Keeping a strong
integration across departments will allow for a speedier reaction to any gaps that occur (Singla,
Ahuja and Sethi, 2018).

Innovation diffusion model

Everett Roberts proposed the Diffusion of Innovation theory in 1962 as an attempt to explain why
different groups of people accept new behaviors and items at different times (as indicated in figure 2)
of time (Dearing and Cox, 2018). According to the results, consumers who adopted a product or a
habit came into one of five categories depending on when they did so. These groups were
determined by the order in which they adopted the product or habit. According to (Karnowski and
Kümpel, 2015), in order for the organization to successfully reach each adopting group, it must
market to each group in a distinct and individual manner. The first of these groups is made up of
people who are known as innovators. Innovators are typically well-off financially, occupy prominent
social positions, and are willing to take a risk on a new product even if it turns out to be
unsuccessful. As a result, they are the ones who are responsible for making innovations known to
the general public (Godin, 2015). The second group, also known as early adopters, is comprised of
individuals who, of all the adopter groups, have the greatest degree of opinion leadership. This
group is identified as the early adopters. As a result of the amount of opinion they possess, they play
an important part in "bridging the gap" that exists between those who determine trends and the mass
of people. The subsequent group, known as the early majority, is believed to have a higher social
status than average and seldom occupies positions of opinion leadership, but this group is
nonetheless aware of the innovation and is aware of the benefits it provides (Chen and Chen, 2013).
The late majority, defined as those who have a low social standing, little financial liquidity, and
seldom occupy opinion leadership responsibilities, have a high degree of skepticism when it comes
to innovation. The laggards are among the oldest adopters and, unlike earlier adopters, lack opinion
leadership and often focus on "traditions," poor social standing, and limited financial liquidity. Select
communication channels must be employed in order to encourage widespread acceptance of an
invention since each category responds to innovation differently and there is no single channel that
will work for all five categories (Latham, 2014).

Figure 2 The Innovation Diffusion Model Source: (Dearing and Cox, 2018)

Technology cluster innovations

Technology clusters, according to (Rogers, 2002) are made up of "one or more identifiable
technological pieces that are seen to be tightly connected." A person or organization is frequently
more inclined to embrace a related invention after adopting a specific innovation. Each invention is
often studied in diffusion research as though it were being adopted independently of other
technologies. Though it could be simpler for the researcher, this is not a realistic scenario.
Technology clusters may complement one another, perform related tasks, or use a similar platform.
Despite little study, the concept of technology clusters has been used to describe IT-related
advances. (Peters et al., 2012) used the technology cluster concept to analyze how knowledge
workers adopted IT applications. They discovered that there are several IT application clusters. For
instance, information retrieval, database administration, and report production are frequently
adopted as a cluster.

The Internet
The Internet has developed into a vital tool for the business and society of the modern day. It has
evolved into a crucial component of social interaction as well as business, communication,
education, and community development. This has given people and communities newfound power.
The global citizenship is expanding at a never-before-seen rate, and the diversity of stakeholders is
rising across a constantly expanding range of concerns and causes. Both directly and indirectly, the
Internet is altering global governance systems and introducing new levels of transparency,
accountability, and engagement. Because the Internet promotes and makes it possible for people to
connect with one another in novel and creative ways, it has the potential to bring about these
changes (Convery and Cox, 2012).

On Knowledge @Wharton's list of the "Top 30 Innovations of the Last 30 Years" in 2009, the Internet
came in first place. The judges gave the Internet the top spot in part because it "is an innovation that
created an industry and subsequent new technologies, making it especially important" (Priestley,
Sluckin and Tiropanis, 2020). Another judge emphasized the Internet's function as an innovation
catalyst, which may be even more significant. Connectivity via the internet among individuals,
communities, businesses, the civil service, and the myriad of new structures — like professional and
social networks — that affect how innovation emerges and is perpetuated in the world today is
arguably the most important factor in its maintenance. Email, ftp, gopher, and the Web are just a few
of the resources available on the networked computers that make up the Internet. Different Internet
subsets may be adopted and used by businesses and people. Later on, we go into further depth on
Internet resources (Khiabany, 2003).

Even while the Internet's communications backbone is used by all Internet adopters, focusing only
on this backbone for our definition is inadequate. The original limitations of connections between the
government and universities have been significantly exceeded by the Internet. The popularity of the
Internet has significantly expanded thanks to the development of gopher, web browsers, and the
home page idea. The Internet is an exceptionally dynamic innovation that has lately evolved features
like animation and broader interactivity, setting it apart from other breakthroughs (e.g., Java applets)
(Hasegawa, Kozano and Goto, 2015).

History of Internet

Billions of people throughout the world utilize the internet, a global network of linked computer
networks. A group of American computer scientists employed by the Advanced Research Projects
Agency (ARPA) in the 1960s were responsible for the development of the very first iteration of the
internet, which came to be known as ARPANET. Defense Department. It made use of a method of
data transport that is known as "packet switching," which was developed by team member and
computer scientist Lawrence Roberts based on the work done previously by other computer
scientists. This technology was advanced in the 1970s by scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf,
who created the essential internet communication protocols, the Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP) (Küng, Towse and Picard, 2008). This is according to computer
scientist Harry R. Lewis, who wrote about his findings in the book "Ideas That Created the Future:"
Due to the fact that this was the case, Kahn and Cerf are usually referred to as the "inventors of the
internet."

Tim Berners-Lee, a British computer scientist, established the World Wide Web in 1989 when he
was employed at CERN. This contributed to the development of the internet. According to CERN,
the core idea behind the World Wide Web was to unite the fast emerging areas of computers, data
networks, and hypertext into a dependable and user-friendly international information system. This
was done in order to facilitate global communication. The creation of the WWW united the world in a
way that had never been possible before and made the internet accessible to everyone (Feldman,
2002).

Application of Innovation and Theory

As was already said, radical innovations cause significant changes to the organization that adopts
them in terms of its business operations. Fundamental paradigm changes are represented by radical
inventions. Minor adjustments are all that are necessary for incremental advances, which are
expansions of the status quo (McQuail, 2005). An example of an incremental change is the
implementation of a new Windows-based order entry system to replace the current text-based
system. Employees essentially carry out the same duty in the same manner. The innovation (the
new system) essentially represents a slight enhancement of the existing procedure. On the other
hand, if a new system is implemented that enables consumers to submit their own orders directly,
there would be a significant change in how commercial operations are conducted. It depends on the
circumstances when classifying an invention along this dimension. Organizations that already use
computer communications systems may consider the Internet to be an incremental advance in this
situation. Others could view the Internet as a radical innovation that, among other things, introduces
e-mail and modifies an organization's communication routes (Mowery and Simcoe, 2002).

Internet adoption and use for business growth can be categorized as a maturity level on the S-curve.
Internet service delivery has reached a point of maturity and has become the industry standard.
When a "market accepts a service technique that fits the market standards," that is a dominant
design (Khiabany, 2003). With more time, internet technology has established itself as the leading
design for the service sector and is seeing steady growth. Despite public acceptance, internet
innovation has reached its maturity stage. This is because it took less time and marketing effort to
appeal to a larger customer base. The importance of internet innovation will increase in the future as
more people use this technology, as has already been shown.

For businesses and users, the Internet may serve as a product and process innovation. Internet
users may view information gathering as a product innovation. The likelihood that the Internet will be
viewed as a process innovation is higher among those that attempt to obtain a competitive edge in
marketing by developing home pages and engaging interactions with potential clients. Depending on
the intended usage at the time, the Internet, with its vast array of resources, may be both a product
and a process innovation for a specific user. However, information technology (IT) dissemination
should be considered as driving force both commercially and technologically.

Although internet innovation has gained widespread acceptance, it also has the potential to
dominate other business practices in the future. The rate of this innovation's acceptance has been
exponential since it was first presented. The "late Majority" of customers presently use it (Atkin,
Jeffres and Neuendorf, 1998). These customers and early adopters have embraced Amazon Go's
technology because they are more receptive to innovation than later adopters, who are more at ease
with the way services are currently delivered. However, if internet technology is seen favorably by
the early adopters/early majority, who are thought leaders, then all of these customers may adopt it.
Since this invention was first presented so long ago, it has spread quickly among customers but has
slowed down, which implies it has to be improved for it to appeal to the majority of them. The
internet's technology may need to be improved gradually in order to reach the laggards, as they are
unlikely to accept a possibly unsuccessful innovation (Goodwin and Johnson, 2010).

Figure 3 The Innovation Diffusion Model Source: (Dearing and Cox, 2018)
Conclusion
This article has presented a survey of academic literature, a research on the development of the
internet, and a discussion of how internet innovation relates to literature review. The notion of forms
of innovation is a major emphasis of the literature study and implementation. It was agreed that the
internet cannot be classified as simply one sort of innovation since it has consequences across a
wide spectrum of industries and is revolutionary to some while being incremental to others. But
before we can properly comprehend Internet spread, we must first acknowledge that the Internet is
not a single technology but rather a collection of technologies that interact with one another. Web
browsers, associated protocols, the Internet's communications infrastructure, and other components
all contribute to the Internet's current state. What the Internet represents as an invention is
essentially a collection of connected innovations. It is necessary to approach the introduction of the
Internet more cautiously if it is a radical innovation rather than an incremental one. It is highly likely
that desired usage of the Internet throughout the company may include all of these options. The
examination of planned Internet activities should be organized along these aspects to give
customers a thorough framework for assessing the activities.

Regarding the future of the Internet, it is undeniable that the phenomenon has enhanced the
commercial strategies of numerous multinational organizations and altered the lives of numerous
societally susceptible individuals through its developments in almost every sector. But this idea has
been around since the 1970s, and the market has seen significant technical market maturity.
Internet, however, still has a lot of promise and opportunity for development that will be witnessed in
the years to come since this technology has not been completely adopted by consumers enough for
it to be achieving its full potential just yet, As there is always room for improvement.
References
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2016) ‘Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining
technology S-curves’, Strategic Management Journal. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 37(4), pp. 625–648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2363.

Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. (2008) ‘Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational

Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation’, Organization Science. INFORMS, 20(4), pp. 696–717.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406.

Atkin, D. J., Jeffres, L. W. and Neuendorf, K. A. (1998) ‘Understanding internet adoption as

telecommunications behavior’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Routledge, 42(4), pp. 475–
490. doi: 10.1080/08838159809364463.

Bers, J. A. et al. (2009) ‘Accelerated radical innovation: Theory and application’, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), pp. 165–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.013.

Boretos, G. P. (2012) ‘S-curves and their Applications in Marketing , Business , and the Economy’, Alert!
Magazine, (February), pp. 34–39. Available at: http://www.forecastingnet.com/Alert_0212_34-39.pdf.

Chen, J.-K. and Chen, I.-S. (2013) ‘A theory of innovation resource synergy’, Innovation. Routledge,
15(3), pp. 368–392. doi: 10.5172/impp.2013.15.3.368.

Cleff, T. and Rennings, K. (1999) ‘Determinants of environmental product and process innovation’,
European Environment. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 9(5), pp. 191–201. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0976(199909/10)9:5<191::AID-EET201>3.0.CO;2-M.

Convery, I. and Cox, D. (2012) ‘A Review of Research Ethics in Internet-Based Research.’, Practitioner
Research in Higher Education, 6(1), pp. 50–57.

Costantini, V. et al. (2015) ‘Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case
of the biofuels sector’, Research Policy, 44(3), pp. 577–595. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.011.

Dearing, J. and Cox, J. (2018) ‘Diffusion Of Innovations Theory, Principles, And Practice’, Health Affairs,
37, pp. 183–190. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1104.

Edquist, C. (2004) ‘Reflections on the systems of innovation approach’, Science and Public Policy, 31(6),
pp. 485–489. doi: 10.3152/147154304781779741.
Feldman, M. P. (2002) ‘The internet revolution and the geography of innovation’, International Social
Science Journal, 54(171), pp. 47–56. doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00358.

Foster, R. N. (1986) ‘Working The S-Curve: Assessing Technological Threats’, Research management,
29, pp. 17–20.

Godin, B. (2015) ‘Models of innovation: Why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done
in calling them models?’, Social Studies of Science. SAGE Publications Ltd, 45(4), pp. 570–596. doi:
10.1177/0306312715596852.

Goodwin, D. T. and Johnson, R. G. (2010) ‘Recession, S-Curves and Digital Equipment Corporation’, in
Tatnall, A. (ed.) History of Computing. Learning from the Past. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 179–188.

Hasegawa, H., Kozano, Y. and Goto, K. (2015) ‘S-Curves Analysis Focusing on WOM for Technological
System Evolution’, Procedia Engineering, 131, pp. 1094–1104. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.427.

Huang, F. and Rice, J. (2012) ‘Openness in product and process innovation’, International Journal of
Innovation Management. World Scientific Publishing Co., 16(04), pp. 11–22. doi:
10.1142/S1363919612003812.

Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Sainio, L.-M. and Jauhiainen, T. (2008) ‘Appropriability regime for radical and
incremental innovations’, R&D Management. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 38(3), pp. 278–289. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00512.x-i1.

Karnowski, V. and Kümpel, A. (2015) ‘Diffusion of Innovations von Everett M. Rogers (1962)’, in, pp. 97–
107. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-09923-7_9.

Khiabany, G. (2003) ‘Globalization and the Internet: Myths and Realities’, Trends in Communication.
Routledge, 11(2), pp. 137–153. doi: 10.1207/S15427439TC1102_05.

Latham, J. R. (2014) ‘Leadership for Quality and Innovation: Challenges, Theories, and a Framework for
Future Research’, Quality Management Journal. Taylor & Francis, 21(1), pp. 11–15. doi:
10.1080/10686967.2014.11918372.

McQuail (2005) ‘Theory of Media and Society’, in McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, pp. 80–107.

Mowery, D. C. and Simcoe, T. (2002) ‘Is the Internet a US invention?—an economic and technological
history of computer networking’, Research Policy, 31(8), pp. 1369–1387. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00069-0.
Pantano, E. and Viassone, M. (2014) ‘Demand pull and technology push perspective in technology-based
innovations for the points of sale: The retailers evaluation’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
21(1), pp. 43–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.06.007.

Peters, M. et al. (2012) ‘The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change –
Does the locus of policies matter?’, Research Policy, 41(8), pp. 1296–1308. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.004.

Priestley, M., Sluckin, T. J. and Tiropanis, T. (2020) ‘Innovation on the web: the end of the S-curve?’,
Internet Histories. Routledge, 4(4), pp. 390–412. doi: 10.1080/24701475.2020.1747261.

Rogers, E. M. (2002) ‘Diffusion of preventive innovations’, Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), pp. 989–993. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00300-3.

Sawaguchi, M. (2011) ‘Innovation activities based on s-curve analysis and patterns of technical
evolution-“From the standpoint of engineers, what is innovation?”’, Procedia Engineering, 9, pp. 596–610.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.03.145.

Singla, A., Ahuja, I. S. and Sethi, A. P. S. (2018) ‘Technology push and demand pull practices for
achieving sustainable development in manufacturing industries’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management. Emerald Publishing Limited, 29(2), pp. 240–272. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-07-2017-0138.

Souto, J. E. (2015) ‘Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context of
incremental innovation and radical innovation’, Tourism Management, 51, pp. 142–155. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.017.