The Role of Technological, Economic, and Usage Ruptures in the Innovation Process

  • Cozumel A. Monroy-León


Currently, innovation has become increasingly important in the global scene because it represents a way to maintain or to reach a competitive advantage inside an organization (Carayannis et al., Innovation and entrepreneurship. Theory, policy and practice. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, p 232, 2015, 1). The objective of this chapter is identifying the technological, economic, and usage ruptures, for the purpose of showing their importance in the stabilization of a process, aimed at reaching a transformation, named the innovation process. In problem-solving, the innovation is considered as “the introduction of a new or significantly improved product or process, of a new marketing or organizational method in the company’s internal practices or external relations.” The identification of each one of the ruptures achieved by using different tools – table of technical data, pie graph, graph of the technical value of an object, and the buyer’s usage matrix – which make possible to know the technological requirements, selected needs of a market, and finally, the economic characteristics which allow for, not only the differentiation of the established price, but also the evaluation of the innovative project’s investment return to be carried out.


Innovation Innovation process Differentiation Tools Ruptures 


  1. J. Alcaide-Marzal, E. Tortajada-Esparza, Innovation assessment in traditional industries. A proposal of aesthetic innovation indicators. Scientometrics 72(1), 33–57 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. T. Benitez, “Technological innovation process for a biodegradable resealable packaging”, Digital theses, National Autonomous University of Mexico, (2012)Google Scholar
  3. E. Carayannis, E. Samara, Y. Bakouros, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Theory, Policy and Practice (Springer International Publishing Switzerland, Switzerland, 2015), p. 232Google Scholar
  4. C.M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997)Google Scholar
  5. R. Cole, From continuous improvement to continuous innovation. Qual. Manag. J. 8(4), 7–21 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Colombo, C. Franzoni, R. Veugelers, Going radical: Producing and transferring disruptive innovation. J. Technol. Transf. 40, 663–669 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. P. Drucker, The Essential Drucker (Harper Collins Publishers, United Kingdom, UK, (2001), 349Google Scholar
  8. P. Drucker, “The Discipline of Innovation”, New York, Harvard Business Review, 2013, 143–156 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. J.M. Gaillard “Marketing et Gestion dans la Recherche et Developpement”, Ed. Economica, 2da. edicion, 374 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. A. Hargadon, R. Sutton, “Creer un laboratoire d innovation” en Les meilleures Articles de la Harvard Business Review sur l innovation, Editions d’ Organisation, 65–93 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. R. Henderson, K. Clark, Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration or existing. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 9–30 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Jung, Y. Lee, H. Lee, Classifying and prioritizing the success and failure factors of technology commercialization of public R&D in South Korea: Using classification tree analysis. J Technol Transfer 40, 877–898 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Kim, R. Mauborgne, “Creer un nouvel espace de marche”, en Les meilleures Articles de la Harvard Business Review sur l innovation, Editions d’ Organisation, 2–35 (2003a)Google Scholar
  14. C. Kim, R. Mauborgne, “Sachez reconnaitre une idee gagnante quand vous la rencontrez”, en Les meilleures Articles de la Harvard Business Review sur l innovation Editions d’ Organization, 96–125 (2003b)Google Scholar
  15. T. Lager, Developing a process innovation work process: The LKAB experience. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 14(2), 285–306 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. C. Markides, P. Geroski, Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets (Wiley, 2005), pp. 208Google Scholar
  17. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Oslo Manual: A Guide to Collecting and Interpreting Data on Innovation”, Grupo Tragsa, (2005), pp. 188Google Scholar
  18. B. Prax, Silberzahn 2005, 49; Manual de Oslo Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (2005)Google Scholar
  19. M. Porter, Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (The Free Press, New York, 1998a)Google Scholar
  20. M. Porter, Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (The Free Press, New York, 1998b)Google Scholar
  21. J. A. Schumpeter, “The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credits, Interest, and Business Cycle”, Transaction Publishers, (1934), pp. 255Google Scholar
  22. E. Von Hippel, S. Thomke, M. Sonnack, “L innovation chez 3M”, en Les meilleures Articles de la Harvard Business Review sur l innovation, Editions d’ Organization, 39–64 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. J.M. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, F. Jimenez-Saez, E. Castro-Martinez, A. Gutierrez-Gracia, What indicators do (or do not) tell us about Regional Innovation Systems. Scientometrics 70(1), 85–106 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cozumel A. Monroy-León
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Systems, Faculty of EngineeringNational Autonomous University of MexicoMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations