Innovation and Innovative Practices in Digital Environments: The Generative Digital Innovation Practices (GDIP) Framework and a Digital Innovation Practice Index (DIPI)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54878/zennb006Keywords:
digital innovation, innovative practices, digital environments, digital transformation, dynamic capabilities, combinatorial innovation, innovation measurement, conceptual frameworkAbstract
Innovation in digital environments differs fundamentally from innovation in the analog era: the object of innovation is malleable and re-programmable, the agency for innovation is distributed across ecosystems, and the boundary between the innovation process and its outcome is increasingly blurred. Despite a rich body of scholarship, the specific practices through which organizations actually innovate in digital settings remain scattered across separate literatures on digital transformation, digital entrepreneurship, agile development, and open innovation. This conceptual paper consolidates that fragmented evidence into a single, coherent architecture. It advances the Generative Digital Innovation Practices (GDIP) Framework, which identifies five interdependent innovative practices—combinatorial recombination, distributed co-creation, continuous experimentation, data-driven sensing, and adaptive orchestration—resting on three enabling strata (infrastructure, organizational, and strategic) and animated by dynamic capabilities. To render the framework diagnostic, the paper introduces the Digital Innovation Practice Index (DIPI), a weighted composite that incorporates a novel synergy adjustment reflecting the complementarity among practices. An illustrative application across three organizational archetypes demonstrates how the framework and index expose distinct innovation profiles and maturity gaps. All quantitative figures reported here are illustrative simulations calibrated to ranges reported in the literature and are intended to demonstrate the instrument rather than to present empirical findings. The framework contributes an integrative vocabulary for scholars and a practical diagnostic for managers and policymakers pursuing knowledge-economy objectives such as those articulated in UAE Vision 2071.References
Elkhatibi, Y., & Benabdeouahed, R. (2024). Confirmatory exploration of innovation in virtual exchanges through a study on virtual agents. International Journal of Automation and Digital Transformation, 3(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.54878/2vpnn535
Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z. (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.01
Guelzim, H., & Mdarbi, S. (2024). Experts’ conceptualization exploration for digital influencing effectiveness. International Journal of Automation and Digital Transformation, 3(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.54878/c8vpm656
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
Kohli, R., & Melville, N. P. (2019). Digital innovation: A review and synthesis. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12193
Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
Sebastian, I. M., Ross, J. W., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K. G., & Fonstad, N. O. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 197–213.
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: How Volvo Cars managed competing concerns. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.12
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322