Abstract
The aim of this paper is a theoretical reflection which attempt is to define the breakthrough and disruptive innovation phenomena. For many years, scholars have studied the different forms of innovation and have provided new definitions and proposed different approaches to this topic. An issue discussed in this work is the differences between disruptive and breakthrough innovations, which can be perceived as similar but are producing different effects in the industry and market structure, and as well in the product structure and the technological approach to develop an innovation. This paper aims to develop a univocal meaning in the literature, differentiating the two phenomena, and provides a framework for the analysis of the different forms of technological change, studying its pervasive influence on our economy.
Highlights
Innovation is a wide field of research, one which many scholars have attempted to study from different points of view
Several typologies of innovation occur in the literature: architectural innovation, component innovation, discontinuous innovation, business model innovation, competence enhancing or destroying innovations
Garcia and Calantone (2002) in their literature review maintained that scholars have created confusion among the different definitions of innovation typologies, and Markides (2006, 2010) called for an improvement of the theory related to disruptive innovation
Summary
Innovation is a wide field of research, one which many scholars have attempted to study from different points of view (economic, managerial, engineering and sociological). Several typologies of innovation occur in the literature: architectural innovation, component innovation, discontinuous innovation, business model innovation, competence enhancing or destroying innovations Among all those categorization, one particular aspect is relevant: the difference between radical and incremental innovation. The ability to define the deepness of radical innovation is linked to the concepts of breakthrough and disruptive innovation Other scholars, such as Levinthal, Tripsas, O’Connor and Markides (among many others), continued to contribute to the innovation literature considering these pillars. They did not always share a common terminology, they explain different phenomena. Garcia and Calantone (2002) in their literature review maintained that scholars have created confusion among the different definitions of innovation typologies, and Markides (2006, 2010) called for an improvement of the theory related to disruptive innovation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
