Social and Humanitarian Grounds of Criteria for Assessment of Digital Technology Innovations: An Analysis of International Standardization Experience

This research discusses the social and humanitarian grounds of measurement and assesment of innovations in the field of digital technologies based on the analysis of the international experience of the standards, in particular on the basis of the Oslo Manual issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is the foundation for ISO standards. From the point of view of digitalization, an important stage in understanding innovation is the recognition of innovation not only as a product, but also a process that leads to increased efficiency. Most of the tasks in the field of digital technologies are precisely related to increasing the efficiency of processes, and, consequently, digitalization is becoming an important criterion for the innovativeness of organizations. One of the purposes of digital technologies is the integration of various types of activities, therefore integrative development (including using digital platforms) is also a criterion of innovation. The digital format is unique since it allows to gain new knowledge from data analysis and processes, and therefore the analytical component, including artificial intelligence technologies, is also an indicator of innovation. The article concludes that the criteria for the innovativeness of digital technologies should include their use to improve the efficiency of organizations, to adopt communicative digital platforms, and to create a variety of data analysis tools, including artificial intelligence.

1. Castaño-Martínez M.S. (2020) Innovation, Value Creation, and Entrepreneurship by Opportunity. In: Galindo-Martín M.A., Mendez-Picazo M.T., Castaño-Martínez M.S. Analyzing the Relationship Between Innovation, Value Creation, and Entrepreneurship (pp. 43–63). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

2. Evangelista R. & Sirilli G. (1995) Measuring Innovation in Services. Research Evaluation. Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 207–215.

3. Evans P.C. & Gawer A. (2016) The rise of the platform enterprise: A Global Survey. The Center of Global Enterprise. Retrieved from https://www.thecge.net/app/uploads/2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey_01_12.pdf

4. Gault F. (2020) Measuring Innovation Everywhere: The Challenge of Better Policy, Learning, Evaluation and Monitoring. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

5. Huesig S. & Endres H. (2018) Exploring the Digital Innovation Process: The Role of Functionality for the Adoption of Innovation Management Software by Innovation Managers. European Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 302–314.

6. Khokhlyavin S. & Kudryavtseva Yu. (2013) The European Standard for Innovation Management as the Forerunner of the International. Standardy i kachestvo. No. 11, pp. 46–48 (in Russian).

7. OECD (2015) The OECD Model Survey on ICT Usage by Businesses: 2nd revision. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/ICT-Model-Survey-Usage-Businesses.pdf

8. OECD, Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing; Luxembourg: Eurostat.

9. Paredes-Frigolett H. & Pyka A. (2022) The Global Stakeholder Capitalism Model of Digital Platforms and Its Implications for Strategy and Innovation from a Schumpeterian Perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 463–500.

10. Shimelis T. & Eshetie B. (2021) Innovation Value Chain: A Systematic and Narrative Review. International Journal of Quality and Innovation. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 91–114.

11. Tidd J. (2021) А Review and Critical Assessment of the ISO56002 Innovation Management Systems Standard: Evidence and Limitations. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–17.

12. Wiesböck F. & Hess T. (2019) Digital Innovations. Electronic Markets. Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 75–86.