Following

Following

You are mixing several different typologies, which creates confusion. The OECD approach is to distinguish between Product, service and process innovations. All of these are measured on a regular basis. The other typologies are vague and do not have a commonly accepted definition

I think in order to get complete information about innovation it is better to read Oslo Manual.

There are 9 types shown in the attached image

Best Regards Namiq Abbasov

The OECD (Oslo Manual, third edition) distinguishes between product (good or service), process, (marketing) method, organizational method inbusiness practice,.............. see definition

An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method inbusiness practices, workplace organisation or external relations.

One method I want to point to is frugal innovation which you can contrast with high innovation (expensive innovation). See for frugal innovation: https://www.leiden-delft-erasmus.nl/en/centres/centre-for-frugal-innovation-in-africa

And you can distinguish between technological innovation and non-technological innovation. I think you can use different ways to categorize innovation.

Namiq Abbasov your question was: "What is difference between incremental and modular innovation?"

Incremental means bit by bit, you could say more evolutionary innovations. And modular innovations means that you make modules (components) of the system you want to innovate and innovate the parts (components) while leaving the system links unchanged.

In my opinion, innovation is a new or improved product (in the broad sense), an idea that can be is included on the market or in practice (services and management). Innovation process or innovation is the way to create innovation.

I would say that:

Incremental innovation is slightly different from existing solutions.

Modular innovation - changing a component(s) without changing how a system is configured.

Please u can go through to link.

https://hbr.org/2017/06/the-4-types-of-innovation-and-the-problems-they-solve

Refer this..

https://techblog.constantcontact.com/software-development/types-of-innovation/

Following

I do believe that we can innovate goods (product), services and procedures or methods of doing things.

There are no right or wrong answers on this discussion. For an insightful perspective on the depth and nature of change/innovation discussion that manifests itself in the; incremental/radical; modular/architectural dichotomy as well as, paradigm, product, process, organisation and presentation categorisation, one needs to appreciate the historical context and genesis of the classifications. By the way, these are not the only classifications. There many more.

The key to note though, is that the genesis of the debate initially from ,Henderson & Clark, Tushman & Anderson, Abernathy & Clark and later, Clayton Christensen and others, was an attempt to answer the question, why do some companies innovate whilst others do not. This was largely, in response to Joseph Schumpeter's earlier assertion that "small firms were more likely to innovate," the position he later changed to, "large firms" are likely to innovate, due to the fact that they have "complementary assets" that are required to commercialise innovations."

The incremental/radical dichotomy is embedded in both the organisational and competitiveness view on innovation. In a nutshell, the organisational view assumes that the ability to offer something new or change what already exists, is dependent on knowledge and capabilities. The key question is whether the innovation builds on existing knowledge and capabilities or requires different knowledge and capabilities. If the answer to the question is the former, then the innovation is said to be "incremental" and if it is the latter, then the innovation is said to be "radical" or competence destroying. From a competitiveness view, an innovation is radical if renders an existing product etc., uncompetitive. The key argument of this view is that "the incentive to invest" in a new innovation either increases or decreases, based on whether the new innovation destroys or builds on existing competence and whether it improves existing products or whether it renders them obsolete or uncompetitive.

Henderson & Clark waded into the discussion, building on the competence destroying versus competence enhancing logic, but zoomed in on "component and architectural" knowledge and competences, hence the modular/architectural dichotomy. Abernathy & Clark on the other hand, took the discussion one step further and looked at the impact of innovation on technical/technological versus market knowledge and capabilities. In other words, does an innovation change or build on the firm's technological or market knowledge and capabilities.They came up with a niche/regular and revolutionary/architectural dichotomy.

Christensen on the other hand, based his disruptive innovation theory on the theoretical underpinnings from Henderson & Clark and Abernathy & Clark's work on architectural innovations. His key argument is that established firms do not have an incentive to invest in "architectural innovations" or as he calls them, disruptive innovations because of "resource dependence." In other words, existing firms are beholden to the current providers of resources etc.,

Business, Technology, Product and Services

This could be an interesting starting point....

This could help shed some light as well.

Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction - Abernathy & Clark

Dear Mr Moremi, very interesting and useful input for discussion. Thank you very much to share your rich knowledge about this topic... All the best. Nico