The Structure of Innovation Portfolio of Large Enterprises in Poland Before and During the Global Pandemic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33119/SIP.2022.184.7Keywords:
innovation, innovativeness, innovation portfolio, pandemicAbstract
Innovative enterprises actively shape their innovation portfolio, i.e. they make decisions concerning the allocation of resources between different types of innovations. However, it is worth noting that changes in the business environment, such as the ongoing pandemic caused by the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, have a significant impact on these decisions. The aim of the article is to identify changes in the structure of the innovation portfolio of large enterprises in Poland triggered by the pandemic. This aim was achieved through empirical research conducted among enterprises operating in Poland which employ more than 250 people and introduced at least one innovation over the period 2016–2019. For the purpose of the paper analysed innovations have been divided into core, borderline and transformational innovations, and the results indicate that the structure of the innovation portfolio of the surveyed enterprises is dominated by the allocation of resources to borderline innovations while the allocation of resources to core and transformational innovations is lower. As a result of the ongoing pandemic, there has been a shift in the portfolio structure of the surveyed enterprises from borderline and transformational innovations to core innovations.
Downloads
References
2. Archibugi D., Filippetti A., Frenz M. [2013], Economic Crisis and Innovation: Is Destruction Prevailing Over Accumulation?, „Research Policy”, vol. 42 (2), s. 303–314.
3. Cooper R. G., Edgett S. J. [2010], Developing a Product Innovation and Technology Strategy for Your Business, „Research-Technology Management”, vol. 53, no. 3, s. 33–40.
4. Damanpour F., Aravind D. [2012], A Review of Research on Organizational Structure and Innovation: From Organic to Ambidextrous Structure, w: Handbook of Organizational Creativity, red. M. D. Mumford, Academic Press, Boston.
5. Davila T., Epstein M. J., Shelton R. [2006], Making Innovation Work How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
6. Deschamps J-P. [2014], Liderzy innowacyjności. Jak rozwijać i utrzymywać innowacyjność w firmie, Oficyna a Wolters Kluwer business, Warszawa.
7. Hojnik J., Ruzzier M. [2016 [, What Drives Eco-innovation? A Review of an Emerging Literature, „Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions”, vol. 19, s. 31–41.
8. Kahn K. B. [2018], Understanding Innovation, „Business Horizons”, vol. 61, no. 3, s. 453–460.
9. Markham S. K., Lee H. [2013], Product Development and Management Association’s 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study, „Journal of Product Innovation Management”, vol. 30, no. 3, s. 408–429.
10. Nagji B., Tuff G. [2012], Jak zarządzać portfelem innowacji? „Harvard Business Review”, nr 115, s. 45–55.
11. OECD/Eurostat [2018], Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg.
12. Paunov C. [2012], The Global Crisis and Firms’ Investments in Innovation, „Research Policy”, vol. 41 (1), s. 24–35.
13. Pisano G. P. [2015], You Need an Innovation Strategy, „Harvard Business Review”, no. 93 (6), s. 44–54.
14. Rudolf T., Fuchs K., Kossut N., Workiewicz M., Wróblewski J. [2006], Strategie innowacji. Jak planować rozwój przedsiębiorstwa w warunkach niepewności? „e-mentor”, nr 5 (17).
15. Sopińska A., Mierzejewska W. [2017], Otwarte innowacje produktowe realizowane przez przedsiębiorstwa działające w Polsce. Podejście zasobowe, Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa.
16. Wziątek-Kubiak A., Pęczkowski M. [2019], Czynniki ciągłości komercjalizacji innowacji w okresie negatywnego szoku zewnętrznego. Przykład Polski, „Bank i Kredyt”, vol. 50 (1), s. 21–44.
