https://uin-suska.ac.id/ https://uin-suska.ac.id/fakultas/fakultas-sains-dan-teknologi/jurusan-sistem-informasi/

1. UNIVERSITAS ISLAN NEGERI SULTAN SYARIF KASIM RIAU
SRI WAHYUNINGSIH
Sri.wahyuningsih5@students.uin-suska.ac.id
Information system
2019
IS STRATEGY

2. Surces of innovation
OVERVIEW
 innovation
The practical implementation of an idea into a new device or process.
Innovation can arise from many different sources. It can originate with individuals,
as in the familiar image of the lone inventor or users who design solutions for their
own needs. Innovation can also come from the research efforts of universities, government
laboratories and incubators, or private nonprofit organizations. One primary
engine of innovation is firms. Firms are well suited to innovation activities because
they typically have greater resources than individuals and a management system to
marshal those resources toward a collective purpose.
An even more important source of innovation, however, does not arise from any
one of these sources, but rather the linkages between them. Networks of innovators
that leverage knowledge and other resources from multiple sources are one of the most
powerful agents of technological advance

3. CREATIVITY
 idea
Something imagined or pictured in the mind.
Innovation begins with the generation of new ideas. The ability to generate new and
useful ideas is termed creativity. Creativity is defined as the ability to produce work
that is useful and novel. Novel work must be different from work that has been previously
produced and surprising in that it is not simply the next logical step in a series
of known solutions
 creativity
The ability to produce novel and useful work.
An individual’s creative ability is a function of his or her intellectual abilities, knowledge,
style of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment.
NEXT

4. Government-Funded Research
The U.S. government was the main provider of research and development fun
ds in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, accounting for as much as 66.5 percent in
1964. Its share has fallen significantly since then, and in 2011, U.S. Government spending
accounted for only 30 percent of the nation’s R&D spending. However, the decline in the g
overnment share of spending is largely due to the rapid increase in industry R&D funding r
ather than a real decline in the absolute amount spent by the government.
U.S. government funding for R&D in 2011 was close to its highest ever—$126
billion (see Figure 2.4). By contrast, about $264 billion was spent by industry on R&D.

5. One way governments support the research and development efforts in both the public and p
rivate sectors is through the formation of science parks and incubators. Since the 1950s, national govern
ments have actively invested in developing science parks to foster collaboration between national and lo
cal government institutions, universities, and private firms. These science parks often include institutions
designed to nurture the development of new businesses that might otherwise lack access to adequate fu
nding and technical advice. Such institutions are often termed incubators. Incubators help overcome the
market failure that can result when a new technology has the potential for important societal benefits, but
its potential for direct returns is highly uncertain.
Notable examples of science parks with incubators include:
∙ Stanford Research Park, established near Stanford University in 1951.
∙ Research Triangle Park, established in North Carolina in 1959.
∙ Sophia Antipolis Park, established in Southern France in 1969.
∙ Cambridge Science Park, established in Cambridge, England, in 1972.
NEXT

6. These parks create fertile hotbeds for new start-ups and a focal point for the collaboration
activities of established firms. Their proximity to university laboratories and other research centers ens
ures ready access to scientific expertise. Such centers also help university researchers implement the
ir scientific discoveries in commercial applications.
NEXT

7. REFERENCE
R. Rothwell, “Factors for Success in Industrial Innovations, Project SAPPHO—A Compara
tiveStudy of Success and Failure in Industrial Innovation,” SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, U.K.
, 1972; and L. Smith-Doerr, J. Owen-Smith, K. W. Koput, and W. W. Powell, “Networks and Knowledg
e Production: Collaboration and Patenting in Biotechnology,” in Corporate Social Capital, eds. R. Leen
ders and S. Gabbay (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers,1999), pp. 331–50.
M. Boden, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms (New York: Basic Books, 1992).
R. J. Sternberg and T. I. Lubart, “The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms,” in Handbook
of Creativity, ed. R. J. Sternberg (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Gorski and Heinekamp, “Capturing Employee Ideas for New Products;” and R. E. Mcderm
ott, R. J. Mikulak, and M. R. Beauregard, Employee Driven Quality: Releasing the Creative Spirit of Yo
ur Organization through Suggestion Systems (White Plains, NY: Quality Resource, 1993).

8. REFERENCE
P. Debye, interview in The Editors of International Science and Technology, The Way of th
e Scientist. Interviews from the World of Science and Technology (New York: Simon and Schuster,19
66), p. 80.
T. P. Hughes, “How Did the Heroic Inventors Do It?” American Heritage of Invention and T
echnology, Fall 1985, p. 21.
B. Z. Khan and K. I. Sokoloff, “Schemes of Practical Utility: Entrepreneurship and Innovation among ‘
Great Inventors’ in the United States, 1790–1865,” Journal of Economic History 53, no. 2 (1993), p. 28
9.
E. Von Hippel, “Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open-Source Software,”
Sloan Management Review 42, no. 4 (2001), pp. 82–86.
E. Von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); S. K
. Shah, “Motivation, Governance, And The Viability of Hybrid Forms In Open Source Software Develop
ment,” Management Science 52 (2006), pp. 1000–14.