Digital innovation entails the employment of new technologies to address business issues and to create practices that lead to the achievement of sustainability. It is observed that digital technology alters the individual dimension of the innovation process, allowing for a set of heterogenous actors to become active engagers in the process. A review of the previous research revealed a lack of focus on the roles these different actors play in the digital innovation process, as well as the mechanisms by which digital technology facilitates actor engagement, calling for research to shed some light on this topic. This phenomenological study undertakes an exploratory investigation of twenty-one Malaysian small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, with the aim to demonstrate the importance of engaging market actors in each stage of the value co-creation process. Interviews with industry players show the shifted role of market actors in the innovation process—from product receivers to gatekeepers—at different stages of the innovation process. Market actors are extensively engaged in validating and evaluating the progress of ongoing digital innovation projects and, therefore, can modify their direction. Meanwhile, the role of innovation agents changes from an authoritative to reflective one. This study provides evidence that market actors are in a controlling position at certain points of the innovation process. As such, the view of the innovation process as being company-centric is challenged by the findings of this research. We provide new information regarding innovation practices, the roles of key actors, and their value in the digital context, which can serve as valuable knowledge for both academics and practitioners.

There is a lack of empirical-based models derived from practice to explain the digital innovation process. The authors investigate how the digital innovation process unfolds in practice. The authors undertake an exploratory and phenomenological study of 21 Malaysian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector. The findings show that the delineation between digital innovation process and outcome is blurred in practice, due to the process' iterative nature. Under this process, customers' role has changed from being passive receivers of innovative products to active reviewers, testers, influential decision-makers, initiators and co-creators at different review points in the innovation process. Enterprises' role has expanded from being the initiator of the innovation process to being a cogitative actor by seeking and absorbing knowledge from customer reviews into the digital innovation process. Market analysis is often the initiator of the digital innovation process, and the findings shed light on the underlying causative mechanisms of the initiation stage, which are understudied and not well understood in the existing literature. The study contributes to academic knowledge by answering scholars' call for developing third-generation practice-based innovation models, which accounts for enterprises' context-specificities and internal and external environments, and for exploring the suitability of the need–solution fit approach for the digital innovation process. Such models have only been conceptually advocated in the literature. The study also informs practitioners on the organizational and operational activities involved in managing and strategizing for the digital innovation process.

This research aimed at investigating the level of technological innovation in industrial and service companies in Jordan and the impact of technological innovation on corporate financial performance of these companies. It also aimed at exploring whether size, age and structural complexity of the firm have moderating effects on the relationship between technological innovation and financial performance of these firms. The study sampled 113 industrial and service companies out of 125 listed companies on Amman Stock Exchange. The researchers utilised a quantitative approach in examining the relationship using Lev's model to measure technological innovation inputs, and financial ratios to measure strategic financial performance. Inferential analysis was conducted afterward. Results of the study showed low levels of technological innovation in the sampled companies, and a statistically insignificant relationship was found between technological innovation and financial performance. Slight positive moderation effects were found for organisational size, age and structural complexity on the relationship between technological innovation and performance, yet the relationship remained insignificant. An attempt was made to interpret the results and come up with some recommendations in light of the findings.

Malleability, homogeneity, and transferability are three distinct characteristics of digital technology that allow the continuous evolvement of innovation and the generation of new forms of agency, both within and across processes. Scholars have developed various research directions to theoretically understand digital technology correlative to business process management. Yet, literature in this area lacks a structured view of how digital technologies modify the innovation processes, and research aimed at examining the effect of digital technology on business process management is still relatively scant and in a very early stage. This chapter sheds light on scholarly works to explain digital technology's impact on the innovation process and how it is linked to business process management.

Whilst the need for innovation is imperative, it is not clear how to manage its process. This is due to the lack of consensus on what an innovation process should look like, variations in the contexts at which innovation is examined, as well as the variations in the means of developing those models. The challenge in managing innovation mainly revolves around the stages of search, selection, and implementation. Issues emerge when organizations develop “routines” for these activities and when these core routines become core rigidities that are embedded and built up into structures, processes, and policies. Hence, we have to deal with a dynamic context by reviewing routines and editing, adding, and adapting to them. Despite the need to formalize and routinize the innovation process, the dynamic environment surrounding innovation should not be kept out of the innovation equation. This chapter sheds light on what is called contextual innovation management and the need to adopt an agile approach in managing innovation. Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.