Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2256839

The Golden Circle of Innovation

What companies can learn from NGOs when it comes to innovation

Jan SPRUIJTa,b,1

, Tom SPANJAARDa, Koen DEMOUGE

a

aAcademy of Marketing, Avans University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

bProfessorship of Innovative Entrepreneurship, Avans University of Applied Sciences,

The Netherlands

White paper

Relevance

During the last two decades, the landscape for entrepreneurism has changed

rapidly. Important trends are the transition from domestic and static economies towards

global and dynamic economies, from homogenous, experienced and permanent

workforces towards diverse, educated and flexible workforces, from the use routine

technologies and mass production towards complex and knowledge-driven

technologies and customization and from bureaucratic, efficiency-driven organizations

towards organic and innovation-driven organizations (Greiner & Cummings, 2004).

Recent number show make clear that the landscape for doing business is changing and

a playground for social entrepreneurs has opened.

Stated by Bill Drayton, “social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or

teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.”

This form of entrepreneurship has been introduced by Prahalad who wrote that two

third of the world population is living at “the bottom of the pyramid” and that this

group is large enough to be able to gain the attention of entrepreneurs that also value

social impact besides economic growth (Prahalad, 2006). More specifically, NGOs and

not-for-profit organizations are often included in the definition of social

entrepreneurship: NGOs deliver services in a participatory nature, engaging in

communities – its stakeholders – and pioneering leading towards social cohesion and

NGOs strive for social inclusion through workforce integration of marginalized people

eg. long term unemployed, disabled, homeless and/or minorities (OECD, 2012).

It seems more than interesting to look into NGOs, the way they are doing business,

and – as innovation becomes more and more important – into the way they successfully

seem to be able to implement innovation.

1Corresponding author: Jan Spruijt, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Onderwijsboulevard 215,

5223 DE ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands; E-mail: jp.spruijt@avans.nl

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2256839

Introduction

“Innovation is an innovation onto itself. At one point innovation didn’t exist.

Someone had to create some kind of a word that created the feeling that it feels like to

hear the word that we hear when we hear the word innovation,” as said by Reggie

Watts, an American comedian. Obviously not seriously meant, it undeniably supports

the fact that innovation has received not only wide interest during many decades for

now, but it also has been studied from several different views and perspectives

(Crossan & Apaydin, 2009). To name a few: innovation as ‘doing things differently’,

technological innovation (Markard & Truffer, 2008; M.A. Schilling, 2005), process

innovation (Davenport, 1992), organizational innovation (H. Chesbrough, 2010;

Crossan & Apaydin, 2009; Johnson, Christensen, & Kagermann, 2008) and its

successful implementation.

The first section of this paper is structured around the most fundamental elements

that – when combined – should construct to building a theoretical concept: why, what,

how and who (also involving when and where) (Whetten, 1989). This approach has

gained serious attention recently, because Simon

Sinek explained a theory around “start with why” in a

Ted.com presentation (Sinek, 2009), his so-called

‘golden circle’, provided in the following figure:

In his work he explains why everything starts

with answering the why-question. And that also

means innovation, as he states it: “Knowing your why

is not the only way to be successful, but it is the only

way to maintain a lasting success and have a greater

blend of innovation and flexibility. When a why goes

fuzzy, it becomes much more difficult to maintain

growth, loyalty and inspiration that helped drive the

original success” (Sinek, 2009). The why is followed

by the how and lastly the what. Hows are “the actions

you take to realize the why” and what are “the results

of those actions”. The how in innovation therefore reflects to the process of innovation

and the what reflects to the innovation itself.

Though not focusing on the why, how and what, Crossan and Apaydin have

generated an overview of all relevant theories on innovation, resulting in a framework

for innovation, as depicted below.

Figure 1: Golden Circle

The mention two ‘dimensions of innovation’, both focusing on innovation itself

and they mention several ‘determinants of innovation’, focusing on the way that

innovation is accelerated and managed within organizations. In attempt to combine

both models with each other, we created a new framework: the golden circle for

innovation:

Figure 2: Crossan & Apaydin

The why of innovation

The why of innovation not only consists of leadership aspects; it also consists of

embracing a mission that fulfills a more general need and therefore rectifies the

necessity of innovation.

As Einstein once stated “If you always do what you always did, you will always

get what you always got”, change is a prime economic driver. "It is practically

impossible to do things identically" (Hansen & Wakonen, 1997) which “makes any

change an innovation per definition” (Crossan & Apaydin, 2009).

But to what extend? Innovation drives economic growth and economic growth is a

necessity because of the grand challenges that this world is facing, such as keeping up

with international competition in a globalizing world – which in turn increases the need

for higher productivity rates through both product innovation and process innovation

(Parisi, Schiantarelli, & Sembenelli, 2006) – and megatrends such as climate change,

social problems and the experience economy (Brainport, 2007; Sistermans, Maas, &

Figure 3: Golden Circle of Innovation

Soete, 2005). On a more regional level, a large amount of local economies strongly

depend on innovation. According to the European Union Scoreboard - although the

actual implications of these scoreboard(s) on for international comparisons and the

formulation of policies should be seriously doubted (Nasierowski & Arcelus, 2012) – it

is clear that there are regional differences in the dependence of local economies on

innovation. Assuming that both ‘innovation leaders’ and ‘innovation followers’ are

driven by innovation-driven regions (in contrary to ‘moderate innovators’ and ‘modest

innovators’), the European Union consists for 46% of innovation-driven regions

(Hollanders, Léon, & Roman, 2012). Put simply: innovation is vital for every country

in the European Union.

Although large corporations are explicitly encouraging innovation in those regions,

it is mainly small- and medium-sized enterprises that – more implicitly – drive local

innovation. Tidd & Bessant (2011) state that within SMEs innovation seems to be

factor that is most positively related to success, that innovation-oriented SMEs

generally grow faster and have more success than their non-innovative counterparts and

that innovation-oriented SMEs generally have larger market shares and more profitable

margins. During the first decade of this decennium the percentage of entrepreneurs

actively involved in innovative processes was between 35% and 40%. Across the last

two years this number has increased significantly towards an average of about 50% of

the entrepreneurs stating they brought to market innovative products or services (Acs &

Szerb, 2012; Bosma, Wennekers, & Amorós, 2012).

So how are great leaders capable of embracing this necessity for innovation and

embed it into their vision for the company? Dyer, Christensen and Gregerson (Dyer,

Gregersen, & Christensen, 2009) undertook “a six-year study into the origins of

creative – and often disruptive – business strategies in innovative companies”. They

found evidence that these leaders are visionary and much more facilitating the

innovation process than actually coming up with innovations themselves. They are

drivers of the process. Their study results in five ‘discovery skills’ that these

inspirational leaders do 50% better than their non-creative counterparts:

Associating

Questioning

Observing

Experimenting

Networking

Concluding this paragraph, we can state that an effective answer the why of

innovation consists of both a motivational mission statement that embraces one or more

grand challenges that is functioning as the beating heart of the organization and

inspirational leaders that are effective in the five before-mentioned discovery skills.

The how of innovation

Innovation has a basis in the product life cycle. Literature on this topic goes back

centuries, but was first scientifically mentioned by Levitt (Levitt, 1965). In several

revising studies, Perreault has elaborated on this model (Perreault, McCarthy,

Parkinson, & Stewart, 2000). The model consists of the four phases a product or

service are subject to: market introduction, market growth, market stability and decline.

From an innovation perspective, Rogers has created a model that characterized final

consumers to the extend in which they adopt to new technologies: The Diffusion of

Innovation and Adopter Categories (Rogers, 2002).

Typically, managing processes, like the process of innovation, are cyclical. This

cyclical approach generates space for reflection and therewith dynamical growth. The

first scientist adapting this approach was Francis Bacon, who stated that every

scientific process should consist of hypotheses, experiments and evaluations (Bacon,

1990). In 1982 Deming developed the famous Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (Deming &

Edwards, 1982). The first cycle of innovation (and using the exact term: “innovation

cycle”) was Cole in 2002: Probe-Test-Evaluate-Learn (Cole, 2002).

In recent decades, a lot of research has been performed into innovation processes

and the steps that regularly seem to reoccur in these processes. Literature reviews show

there is little consensus about the number of phases and types of phases that should be

part of a regular innovation cycle (Adams, Bessant, & Phelps, 2006; Gopalakrishnan &

Damanpour, 1997). For instance, we found models that consist of five phases, such as

idea generation, project definition, problem solving, design and development and

marketing and commercialization (Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997) , Inputs,

knowledge management, Strategy, project management and commercialization (Adams

et al., 2006), creativity, human resources, innovation strategy, portfolio management

and project management (Goffin & Pfeiffer, 1999), idea generation, technology

acquisition, networking, development and commercialization (Verhaeghe & Kfir, 2002)

and that consist of four phases, such as idea generation, developing, prototyping &

manufacturing and marketing and sales (Rothwell, 1992).

De Brentani and Reid further elaborate on this model (Reid & De Brentani, 2004).

They state that incremental, structured innovations are mostly the result of explicit and

structured innovation processes and organizational processes. On the other hand,

unstructured innovation processes (especially in the first one or two phases) often lead

to disruptive or radical innovations. This is also called the ‘fuzzy front end’ of

innovation (Brentani & Reid, 2012). Structure and organisation in later phases of

innovation processes is always a pro for the success rate of innovation. In what way

does the fuzzy front end of innovation differ with structured innovation?

There is continuous unstructured problem identification and unstructured

opportunity recognition, whereas more structured innovation processes

mostly use problem structuring and opportunity structuring and the early

phases of the process (Hauser, Urban, & Weinberg, 1993; Leifer,

O'Connor, & Rice, 2001).

Information collection and information exploration is generally outside-in

oriented, whereas these steps are often inside-out oriented in structured

processes.

This theory is further elaborated on by Mance, Murdock and Puccio, who have

generated the following model (Puccio, Mance, & Murdock, 2010):

At this point, we have tried to deduce a model that comprises all before-mentioned

models and consequently consists of four phases that each have the form of diverging-

converging, but also as a total has to form of diverging-converging:

Figure 4: Diverging and Converging

Figure 5: Innovation Cycle

The art of cyclic innovation – innovation as a process and the continuous

management of innovation – is called innovation management. It is defined as the

acceleration of the generation of innovative ideas by using effective mechanisms of

management and organization and taking into account the fact that it has to be

implemented successfully (M.A. Schilling, 2005). Innovation management, or new

business development, aims to enhance the chance of technical and commercial success

(Melissa A Schilling & Hill, 1998).

Similar like organizations growth models, the area of innovation management has

been undergoing several improvements over the years. Rothwell has stated that market

changes have contributed to these improvements and he distinguishes five different

generations of innovation:

1st generation: technology push.

2nd

generation: market pull

3rd

generation: coupled innovation

4th generation: integrated innovation

5th generation: open innovation

Concluding this paragraph, we can state that as part of the how of innovation the

processes should be oriented at following a pragmatic approach – such as problem

finding, ideation, concepting and implementation – and should consist of both a

structured inside-out approach and a more chaotic outside-in approach and that the

management should be oriented at successful implementation and embedding new

approaches to innovation management, such as open innovation.

The what of innovation

There are various definitions of innovation. In an earlier article, we have used the

following, fairly narrow defined, definition of Schilling: “Innovation is the act of

introducing a new device, method or material for application to commercial or

practical objectives” (M.A. Schilling, 2005; Spruijt, 2012). Crossan & Apaydin

recently published a literature review on innovation literature, stating: “An unrestricted

search of academic publications using the keyword innovation produces tens of

thousands of articles, yet reviews and meta-analyses are rare and narrowly focused,

either around the level of analysis (individual, group, firm, industry, consumer group,

region, and nation) or the type of innovation (product, process, and business model)” (Crossan & Apaydin, 2009). To be specific, a current

2 search on the keyword

“innovation” results in 2.5 million articles on Google Scholar and thousands of articles

using the keyword combination “definition of innovation”. Clearly, there isn’t a

specific definition that is correct and many perspectives should be taken into account

when defining innovation.

Crossan and Apaydin (2009) have identified different forms of innovation and

grouped them around certain dimensions, some of them related to innovation as a

process, some of them to innovation as an outcome. These dimensions are:

2 Febuary 24, 2013.

Innovation as a process:

drivers of innovation: the driver or rationale behind innovation. This

could be internal drivers (such as available knowledge and resources) or

external drivers (such as a market opportunity);

levels of innovation: indicates who is involved (or responsible) for the

innovation. For instance, innovation is leveled individually, by groups or

by the firm as a whole;

direction of innovation: defines how the innovation starts, could be

bottom-up or top-down;

source of innovation: the initial source of the innovation, possibly

internally initiated (such as ideation) or externally initiated (such as

adoption of innovation or licensed innovation). The theory of the fuzzy

front end, further explains the way that innovation could be initiated:

through structural (inside-out) ways or through (outside-in) ways (H.

Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2008; Reid & De Brentani, 2004);

locus of innovation: this dimensions explains the (geographical) extension

of innovation. Possible options: closed or open, such as networks (Simard

& West, 2006).

Innovation as an outcome:

forms of innovation: is the innovation a product, service, process of new

business model? Products and services are novelties that are meaningful

to the market (Wang & Ahmed, 2004). Processes are methods or

management models that contribute to the improvement of (external)

processes. Business model innovation involves the improvement of

business models in general (Henry Chesbrough, 2007).

magnitude of innovation: the magnitude refers to the potential impact of

the innovation. Is it incremental, radical or even disruptive?

referent of innovation: to whom is the innovation relevant and new? Is

that the firm itself, the industry or the market as a whole?

type of innovation: there are technical innovations and administrative

innovations.

This leads to a more detailed model of the one we presented earlier:

Research questions and methodology

Most literature regarding both the why, the how and the what of innovation

focuses on examples of start-ups, small- and medium-sized companies and larger

corporations. And there are many successful examples of companies who embedded

innovation starting from the why and were able to improve their how and clearly

identify the what. However, literature on NGO’s or socially-oriented companies in

combination with Sinek’s model or Crossan & Apaydin’s model is basically non-

existent. This has led to our research question:

“On which aspects of the why, what and how are NGO’s more successful than

companies and why?”

In other words, what can NGOs learn from larger corporations and what can larger

corporations learn from NGOs when it comes to the successful adoption of innovation?

For the aim of this research we have analyzed two cases, one within a company

named Fair2, a small NGO in The Netherlands, and the other one in the Lilian

Foundation, a large NGO, also based in The Netherlands. We have conducted several

interviews and accompanied them in some of their ‘innovation’ projects.

Figure 6: Golden Circle of Innovation

Results

The most important findings of the cases have been depicted and ordered in the

why, how and what, below.

The why of innovation

Having a clear mission statement, and therefore starting their businesses from the

why much more than starting their businesses from the how or what, is something that

NGOs – or social organizations – seem to be more embedded than organizations in

general. In the case of Fair2, for instance, the founder Caroline de Greeff states: “it is

our aim to reduce the need for intervention of NGOs in third world countries and to

create awareness amongst people that development is not something that is solely

about gifts and subsidies. People can actually contribute to development, they can

empower people in third world countries to become accountable for their own future.”

Moreover, the director of the Liliane Foundation puts it slightly differently, framing

that their business model is organized around the idea that developing countries should

be able to address problems themselves. An organization such as the Liliane

Foundation is supporting organizations within developing countries to find and

implement solutions to medical care to children with a handicap themselves.

Clearly, both organizations are strongly driven by their mission. NGO’s in general

have a mission to do good. Literature states that social organizations are able to

combine the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline (Dees,

1998). They are not bound by sector norms or traditions and they are more likely to

develop effective strategies for their mission.

Social leaders are better at taking calculated risks and managing the downside of

risks in order to reduce the harm caused by possible failure. They are more proficient in

taking into account opinions and drivers of their stakeholders (Dees, 1998). Their

mission statements are explicit and central, resulting in the fact that mission-related

impact becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation. They are personally

responsible for (Dees, 1998):

- Adopting a ‘grand challenge’ and creating a sustainable mission statement;

- Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission;

- Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaption and learning.

Some drawbacks of social leadership and social mission statements are the fact

that they are facing challenges in increasing financial security without sacrificing their

mission, being able to execute the core activities and implementation strategies that are

most appropriate to their mission, finding the goodwill of the public to devote its time

and energy on its mission and dealing with the harsh realities of the market that could

conflict with the NGOs compassionate mission and values (Viravaidya & Hayssen,

2001). As Van Greeff states: “I actually didn’t think of a way how to generate a

business model around the idea of co-creation. […] But I like thinking about business

concepts and business models. How to finance future organizations, products and

services? I’m currently in the middle of the operations. I will start thinking about

business models when it’s more stable.”

The how of innovation

During the studies we followed the Liliane Foundation in an innovation project

aiming to create more awareness amongst high school students about the problems in

third world countries. They collaborated with a group of students from Avans

University in order to identify the problems. These students are high school dropouts

and were able to address the problem very efficiently. In a next step, the Liliane

Foundation gathered a group of high school teachers to further develop ideas and

alternative programs for awareness. In a third step, they collaborated with high school

executives and university executives in order to create a platform for the

implementation of the alternative programs and to find financial contribution. In the

last phase, the implementation, they collaborated with all parties and included some

external partners, mostly sponsors, in the roll out. The whole project was successfully

launched within a year.

So what did they do? They used their why to find partners that were willing to help

them executing the how. They found a way of ‘open innovation’ that is rarely seen in

the corporate world, as depicted in the following figure:

Conclusions and Discussion

The results lead to the preliminary conclusions that NGOs perform better than

companies on the why of innovation and the how of innovation. There is no indication

that they score better – or worse – on the what of innovation.

For the purpose of further investigation, we are trying the formulate some

hypotheses for a more elaborate (quantitative) study:

The why of innovation:

- H+

1: NGOs and social organizations are more successful in translating

grand challenges and trends into their mission than companies are.

- H+

2:NGOs and social organizations are driven by more passionate,

motivational and inspirational leadership than companies are.

Figure 7: Open Innovation Cycle

The how of innovation:

- H+

3: NGOs and social organizations are more creative and efficient in the

management of processes they adopt in order to be innovative than

companies are.

- H-4: NGOs and social organizations are less effective in the execution of

processes and procedures than companies are.

The what of innovation:

- H-4: NGOs and social organizations are less able to identify the

innovativeness of their outcomes and their processes than companies are.

In other words: preliminary results show that NGOs and social organization are

better able to organize innovation from the why and how, rather than starting from the

what than companies are. They therefore seem to perform better in initializing,

launching and enabling innovation, but are still out of balance on the

‘commercialization’ side and therefore less able to successfully implement their

innovations.

References

Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2012). Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2012:

Edward Elgar Pub.

Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A

review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21-47.

Bacon, F. (1990). Novum Organon [1620]. The Works, 4, 39-248.

Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., & Amorós, J. (2012). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,

2011 Extended Report: Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurial Employees Across

the Globe. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).

Brainport, S. (2007). Crossing Borders, Moving Frontiers: Stichting Brainport,

Eindhoven.

Brentani, U., & Reid, S. E. (2012). The Fuzzy Front‐ End of Discontinuous

Innovation: Insights for Research and Management. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 29(1), 70-87.

Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it's not just about technology

anymore. Strategy & leadership, 35(6), 12-17.

Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long

Range Planning, 43(2), 354-363.

Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2008). Open Innovation: Researching

a New Paradigm: Researching a New Paradigm: OUP Oxford.

Cole, R. E. (2002). From continuous improvement to continuous innovation. Total

quality management, 13(8), 1051-1056.

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2009). A Multi‐Dimensional framework of

organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of

Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.

Davenport, T. H. (1992). Process innovation: reengineering work through information

technology: Harvard Business Press.

Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Comments and suggestions

contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Funders Working Group, 6pp.

Deming, W. E., & Edwards, D. W. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive

position (Vol. 183): Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for

Advanced Engineering Study Cambridge, MA.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The innovator’s DNA.

Harvard business review, 87(12), 61-67.

Goffin, K., & Pfeiffer, R. (1999). Innovation management in UK and German

manufacturing companies: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of

Industrial Society.

Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in

economics, sociology and technology management. Omega, 25(1), 15-28.

Greiner, L. E., & Cummings, T. G. (2004). Wanted OD More Alive Than Dead! The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), 374-391.

Hansen, S. O., & Wakonen, J. (1997). Innovation, a winning solution? International

Journal of Technology Management, 13(4), 345-358.

Hauser, J. R., Urban, G. L., & Weinberg, B. D. (1993). How consumers allocate their

time when searching for information. Journal of Marketing Research, 452-466.

Hollanders, H., Léon, L. R., & Roman, L. (2012). Regional Innovation Scoreboard

2012. European Union 2012.

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your

business model. Harvard business review, 86(12), 57-68.

Leifer, R., O'Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. (2001). Implementing radical innovation in

mature firms: The role of hubs. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(3),

102-113.

Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle (Vol. 43): Graduate School of Business

Administration, Harvard University.

Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-

level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37(4),

596-615.

Nasierowski, W., & Arcelus, F. (2012). About Efficiency of Innovations: What Can be

Learned from the Innovation Union Scoreboard Index. Procedia-Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 58, 792-801.

Parisi, M. L., Schiantarelli, F., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Productivity, innovation and

R&D: Micro evidence for Italy. European Economic Review, 50(8), 2037-

2061.

Perreault, W. D., McCarthy, E. J., Parkinson, S., & Stewart, K. (2000). Basic

marketing: McGraw-Hill.

Prahalad, C. K. (2006). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Pearson Education

India.

Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2010). Creative leadership: Skills that

drive change: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.

Reid, S. E., & De Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product

development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 170-184.

Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive behaviors, 27(6),

989-993.

Rothwell, R. (1992). Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s.

R&D Management, 22(3), 221-240.

Schilling, M. A. (2005). Strategic management of technological innovation: Tata

McGraw-Hill Education.

Schilling, M. A., & Hill, C. W. (1998). Managing the new product development

process: strategic imperatives. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-

2005), 67-81.

Simard, C., & West, J. (2006). Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of

innovation (pp. 220-240): Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action:

Portfolio.

Sistermans, C., Maas, T., & Soete, L. (2005). Brainport Navigator 2013: Lissabon

voorbij. Eindhoven: Brainport Eindhoven Zuidoost-Nederland.

Spruijt, J. (2012). Experience, Skills and Intentions of Social Entrepreneurs Towards

Innovation. TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN PROMOTION FOR NGO:

EXPERIENCES AGAINST SOCIAL EXCLUSIONS, S. Smyczek, ed.,

Katowice: University of Economics in Katowice Publishing House.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2011). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market

and organizational change: Wiley.

Verhaeghe, A., & Kfir, R. (2002). Managing innovation in a knowledge intensive

technology organisation (KITO). R&D Management, 32(5), 409-417.

Viravaidya, M., & Hayssen, J. (2001). Strategies to strengthen NGO capacity in

resource mobilization through business activities: PDA and UNAIDS Joint

Publication.

Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the

organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303-313.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.