Journal Name:
- International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies
Keywords (Original Language):
| Author Name |
|---|
Abstract (2. Language):
[1] J. Cheng, , C. Yeh, and C, Tu, ‘Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains’, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 13 No.4, pp.283-95, 2008.
[2] D. Power. Supply chain management integration and implementation: a literature review’, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol.10, pp 252-63, 2005.
[3] M.F. Blos, M. Quaddus, H.M.Wee and K. Watanabe. ‘Supply chain risk management (SCRM): a case study on the
automotive and electronic industries in Brazil”. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Vol. 14, Issue: 4,
pp. 247 – 252, 2009.
[4] S.F Fawcett, C. Allred, G.M. Magnan; and J. Ogden, “Benchmarking the viability of SCM for entrepreneurial business
model design”. Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16, Issue: 1, pp. 5 – 29, 2009.
[5] J. Godsell, A. Birtwistle, and R.V.Hoek. “Building the supply chain to enable business alignment: lessons from British
American Tobacco (BAT)”. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Vol. 15, Issue: 1, pp. 10 – 15, 2010.
[6] A. Halldórsson, H. Kotzab, J.H. Mikkola and T. Skjøtt-Larsen. “Complementary theories to supply chain management”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No.4, pp.284-96, 2007.
[7] S.W. Kim. “The effect of supply chain integration on the alignment between corporate competitive capability and
supply chain operational capability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No.10,
pp.1084-107, 2006.
[8] G. Svensson, G. “Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM): conceptual framework and empirical
example”. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Vol. 12, Issue: 4, pp. 262 – 266, 2007.
[9] H.A. Shelanski, P.G. Klein. Empirical research in transaction cost economics: a review and assessment. Journal of Law,
Economics and Organization Vol.11. pp. 335–361, 1995.
[10] A.W.Joshi, S. Sharma. Customer knowledge development: antecedents and impact on new product performance.
Journal of Marketing 68, 47–59, 2004.
[11] P.M.Horn. The changing nature of innovation. Research Technology Management Vol. 48, 28–33, 2005.
[13] T.A. Hemphill. Cooperative strategy, technology innovation and product development in industrial companies.
International Journal of Production Economics Vol. 69, 169–176. Horn, P.M, 2003.
[15] J.H. Love, S. Roper, S. The determinants of innovation: R&D, technology transfer and networking effects. ReviewOf
Industrial Organization Vol. 15, pp. 43–64, 1999.
[17] S. Wheelwright and K. Clark,. Revolutionising Product Development. Free Press, New York, 1992.
[19] J. Souza. Métodos de Escalagem Psicossocial. Vol. V, Brasília: Thesaurus, 1988.
[20] l. Thurstone, A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review. England, 1927.
[23] E.Brouwer, A. Kleinknecht, Determinants of innovation output. A microeconometric analysis of three innovation output
indicators, In: Kleinknecht, A. (Ed.), Determinants of Innovations. The Message from New Indicators. Macmillan, London,
pp. 99–124, 1996.
[24] N. Becheikh, R. Landry, and N. Armara. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in manufacturing sector: A systematic
review of the literature from 1993-2003. Technovation, 26(5/6):644{664, 2006.
[25] M. H. B. Pattern of technological innovations in small enterprises: a comparative perspective of Bangalore (India) and
Northeast England (UK) . Technovation, 2005.
[26] S. Ropera, J.Dub., J.H. Love.. Modelling the innovation value chain. Research Policy Vol. 37. pp 961–977, 2008.
[27] A. Paladino. Analyzing the Effects of Market and Resource Orientations on Innovative Outcomes in Times of Turbulence.
Journal of Product Innovation Management. Vol. 25, ed. 6 pp.577–592, Nov., 2008
[28] M. Bastič and G. Leskovar-Špacapan. What do transition organizations lack to be innovative? Kybernetes, 35(7/8): 972-
992, 2006.
Selma Regina Martins Oliveira and Roberto Sbragia
ISSN : 2028-9324 Vol. 3 No. 2, June 2013 353
[29] M.L. Santos-Vijande and L.I. Álvarez-González. Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented
firms: The moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation, 27(9), 514–532, 2007.
[30] J. Rowley. Partnering paradigms? Knowledge management and relationship marketing. Industrial Management and
Data Systems, 104 (2), 149-157, 2004.
[31] M. García-Murillo and H. Annabi. Customer knowledge management. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53,
875-884, 2002.
[32] R.G. Cooper, R.G. A process model for industrial new product development, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 2-11, 1983.
[33] A.J. Cozijnsen; W.J. Vrakking and M.V. IJzerloo. Success and failure of 50 innovation projects in Dutch companies”.
European Journal of Innovation Management. Volume 3 . Number 3. pp. 150-159, 2000.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language):
Recently, relevant changes have made organizational boundaries more fluid and dynamic in response to the rapid
pace of knowledge diffusion, and innovation and international competition. This helps to reconsider how to succeed with
innovation. Thus, innovative companies make use of their capabilities to appropriate the economic value generated from
their knowledge and innovations. Therefore, the supply of innovative products is presented as a quality standard in the race
for pressing demands. It is true that a new product or process can represent the end of a series of knowledge initiatives and
the beginning of a process of value creation, which, under conditions imposed by various parties, can produce
efficient results in the global performance of the value chain. The present paper aims to contribute to the planning guidelines
in the innovation value chain field. Therefore, it addresses the influence of the stakeholders’ knowledge on the performance
of innovation value chain in product development processes applied to technology-based companies. Thus, a survey was
developed with experts chosen by their technical-scientific criteria and knowledge on the subject. The data were extracted
by means of a judgment matrix. To reduce subjectivity in the results, the following methods were used: Law of Categorical
Judgment - psychometric scaling and the Compromise Programming - multi-criteria analysis and Electre III. The data were
satisfactory, validating the methodological procedures presented.
FULL TEXT (PDF):
- 2
346-353