Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

In July 2005, the 3rd revised version of the OSLO Manual (OECD, 2005) was published,

which redefined the term innovation more broadly than before. In particular, the OSLO
Manual which is a handbook for interpreting innovation data and forms the conceptual
basis for designing and conducting the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), extended
the notion of innovation also to the non-technological dimension. In the broadest
possible sense, entrepreneurial innovations are all types of changes in activities that
could take place within an enterprise and aim to improve the enterprise’s profitability.
The definition in the OSLO Manual comes considerably closer to this understanding by
acknowledging the importance of marketing and organisational innovations (MO
innovations). The precise definitions are as follows:

An organisational innovation is the implementation of a new organisational method in the

firm’s business practices, workplace organisation or external relations (OECD, 2005, p.51)
A marketing innovation is the implementation of a new marketing method involving
significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product
promotion or pricing (OECD, 2005, p. 49).

As can be seen, these go further than earlier versions of the OSLO manual, where
organisational change was only to be considered an innovation inasmuch as it resulted
in increased success with technological innovations, while marketing was only regarded
as an innovation when it was directly related to the introduction of a new product. Thus
only in the third edition of the OSLO Manual were marketing and organisational
innovations granted the status of innovation activities (potentially) independent of
technological innovations. This has numerous advantages. Firstly, the previous
definitions of marketing or organisational innovations were somehow halfbaked, by
allowing for non-technological innovations, on the one hand, and yet making them
contingent on technological innovations, on the other hand. Secondly, the concept of
organisational innovations especially is problematic. An organisational change is only
regarded as an innovation if it is related to increased success whatsoever. However, this
may be hard to decide for a person filling out a survey, since this definition requires him
to judge the success without the organisational change. Further, it does not seem
obvious why an organisational innovation is restricted and technological innovations
not? For the latter, novelty is the constituent element for an innovation. It need not be
successful. Thirdly, it puts restrictions on admissible questions. For example, it is
impossible to ask whether organisational innovations contribute to success with
technological innovations, a question that will also be addressed in this section. Not
being able to ask such important questions is simply a result of the definition, which
allows considering organisational change only as such if has contributed to success,
discarding all kinds of changes which have not yielded direct pay-offs. Inasmuch the
entrepreneurial innovation process is not always a glorious success story, but
commonly also a process of trial and error (Nelson and Winter, 1982), this definition
seems to be also theoretically questionable.