Critical review of Literature on Innovation

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Martinez-ros, E. And Labeaga, J.M. (2009). 'Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities'. European Management Review. Vol. 6, No. 1, PP. 64-75.

Sharma, E.K. et al. (2010). 'How innovation really works'. Business Today. Vol. 19, No. 11, PP. 38-48.


The global market and the technology are expanding day by day, therefore the business world getting more and more competitive. The companies are now seeking for new ways to invent more competitive advantages. Innovation is vitally significant for any business. Sharma et al. (2010) author of 'How Innovation Really Works' had developed the ways the company can be successful by generating and practicing the innovation process. Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) authors of 'Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities' demonstrated that the resolution for innovation of the company can lead them to implement the product and process innovation and any practicing company will do that for either quality or service. To the extent the creative idea for business and for new product development is to enhance its existing system and business model. However several limitations must be considered when the study findings are interpreting.

This study has been conducted by critically analysed the above mentioned articles. In the aspect of critical evaluation, it is essential to appraise article's strengths, weakness and applicability. By reviewing these articles there are propose comments about the issues discussed by the authors.

Articles summary:

Sharma et al. (2010), explained about the quality innovation process within the organisations. The study explained ten types of innovation, which can be followed by the organisations. To be innovative the organisations have to pursue with at least 3-4 types rather than practise with all the types. The ten types of innovation are broadly broken down into 4 heads. The authors observed profound innovation process on product performance, customer experience, business model and network. However there are some companies, those are distinctly less innovative in the aspect of product, service and brand. Even though these companies can be successful innovator by cement ties with the product, services (post service) and customers which will engage them throughout the ownership cycle rather than just at purchase. The authors also suggested that if the company can play vital role in ecosystem of their industry then the company can also be thoroughly successful innovator.

Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) discovered the product and process innovation in the effect of the organisation's persistence. The authors explained when companies are focus on product innovation whether it is for new or existing product then they should also concentrate on process innovation. In contrast, those companies are experienced and trained to deal with product innovation they are keener to practice process innovation instead of product innovation. However, to control the persistence and complementarities of innovation, it is important to make the most of the internal resources of the organisations.

Criteria of critical evaluation:

To conduct any critical evaluation it is important to set up some standard criteria which will show the results of the legitimacy and applicability of the articles. The criteria are as follows:

Analysis and argumentation:

Sharma et al. (2010) analysed the ten types of innovation process. These ten types of innovation are segregated into main four parts which are finance, process, offering and delivery. It has been argued that when a company can comply with any 3-4 types of innovation out of ten then the company can do the break through. The results clearly showed that there was support about the findings in this article. Such as TATA Consultancy Service (TSC), Gyan Shala, Dainik Bhaskar and another five well have known companies from India which are successful innovator by practicing 3-4 or even more from out of ten types of innovation.

On the other hand Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) offered persuasive proposal of innovation activity correlated with sustain competitive advantages. However this is crucial for any organisation to success and to satisfy the customers just to by new product launch. Furthermore the authors added, the company can gain sustain competitive advantages by generating the knowledge from the company environment itself. The persistence is the key issue to obtain the knowledge. The findings of this article clearly support the results of the survey from the Spanish database, which was conducted by the authors from the manufacturing companies from the period of 1990 to 1999. The results supported author's persistence value. Present of persistence can lead the business to successful innovator alternatively absence of this can cause bias results.


The positions of the two articles are clear from the aspect of the title. Each article represents very significant purpose of the research. Sharma et al. (2010) discussed about the types of innovation and emphasized the reason to be an innovative company. Although Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) illustrated company's persistence, can build the product and process innovation more effectively.

The both researches were conducted by doing the survey among the set of organisations. The sources of the data used in these two articles are reliable and feasible. Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) considered both primary and secondary data for this article whether Sharma et al. (2010) did not present any previous study in the article. Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) made good use of secondary data as supporting evidence to strengthen the arguments. However this article consists of both primary and secondary data, still the problem with the primary data. The period of the used data for primary research was not recent. Then again, Sharma et al. (2010) did not use any previous research to support the article although the survey for this article consists of most current evaluation. This statement can be clearly supported by the given examples of the author's study.


The conclusions are made by the authors are clear based on the evidence. In both articles the authors effectively related the main proposition with the articles. Sharma et al. (2010) suggested just not to focus on product, use many types of innovation to make the organisation secure. This clearly supports the position of the authors.

Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) concluded that to be successful in the innovation the company must have to develop the persistence and complementation in the company environment. This article also analysed the innovation process and the different source of persistence that can affect the organisation. Therefore, Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) were able to maintain the article's main spot.


The structure and the format of selected two articles are clearly logical and coherent. Both articles kept focus on the main arguments. Sharma et al. (2010) started the article with the link between today's business and the innovation process. Afterwards, this article discussed gradually about the types of innovation, then brought up the information about the most recent innovative companies which are successful in today's business. However, there is some lacking at introduction in this article. This article did not give any clear idea about the innovation process at the beginning of the introduction part but still the authors were successful enough to represent the article with systematic manner.

Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) described the article in such method which is clearly understandable. The authors examined the innovation process the way it had to. This article was real research report which shows all the findings through the analysis of the previous researchers view and also explored the data from the organisations. Therefore, the extent of the structure of this report was up to the mark.


The scopes of these two articles were limited to the different field, which has narrowed the innovation to outcome systems. The limitation of Sharma et al. (2010) was lacking of analyses of previous researchers opinion and Martinez-ros and Labeaga (2009) conducted the research with those data which was published in 1990 to 1999.

Further research:

There is always scope to do the further research of any piece of work. In the same way further study can be done with these two articles. Both articles did not talk about the barrier of the innovation process. In the innovation journey the organisation may face with resistance to change where people mar resist change for many reason. The further study can be done how to deal with the resistance or how to overcome the obstacles and barriers.


In summary, it has to be declared that the current level of study still far away from being convincing. Further studies must be taken, must need to develop the measures. Moreover need to improve the understanding the relationship between the innovation process and the organisations.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the whole innovation process and the persistence of the organisation from beginning to outcome. At the same time to expand the detection of practices that supports the realisation of innovation. The overall study is to develop a map of critical analysis of two articles. Regardless of some deficiency in these two articles, to the extent that this is exploratory research since both articles has provided their findings with logical information.