**1. Introduction**

Crossan and Apaydin [1] describe innovation as production, adoption, assimilation and exploitation of value-added novelty in economic and social spheres. It is also the renewal and enlargement of products, services and markets as well as development of new methods of production and establishment of new systems. This makes

innovation a process and an outcome. Further, innovation can be an original creation or a creation that is adopted or adapted from elsewhere. Successful business ventures are usually those that innovate. This is why established paradigms always relate innovation to entrepreneurship because the two concepts work interchangeably [2–4]. Therefore, one cannot study one without the other.

The number of entrepreneurs in South Africa, and, therefore, the Total Entrepreneurial Activity, is lower than expected. Such as status quo affects its economic growth and therefore, employment. The absence of entrepreneurial orientation is not the problem but, rather, the lack of focus on appropriate interventions. Rather, we argue that the entrepreneurship problem in South Africa even amongst the youth is due to low innovation. The failure to focus on disruptive innovation pitches the country against the leaders in innovation, therefore, making it less competitive. Further, instead of focusing on innovative products and services, we should focus on innovative business models that seek to change the way we do business.

Eventually, the aim of this research is to detail innovativeness in new business ventures after theoretical and empirical data and information on disruptive innovation and innovative business models. However, this paper is restricted to articulating the theoretical fundamentals to conceptualise 'how' the empirical part of this research may be pursued. The conceptual framework that we derive in this paper allows us to effectively research disruptive innovation and innovative business models at the subnational level. We, therefore, employed systems thinking (Section 2) to interrogate the literature for purposes of pursing three objectives: first, to understand the root causes and consequences of low innovation in new business ventures in South Africa and more specifically Gauteng Province; second, to uncover the knowledge gap on this subject—that is, what has not been done—in general in South Africa and specifically Gauteng Province and lastly, to establish the most appropriate framework in innovation and entrepreneurship studies for interpreting anticipated empirical results on disruptive innovation and innovation models.

The literature interrogation, in Sections 3 and 4, confirms that despite being the economic hub of the continent, the fifth-most populous country in Africa and the third-largest in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, South Africa has the lowest number of entrepreneurs in Africa, exhibiting a low Total Entrepreneurial Activity. Second, as evident in Section 5, most past and current research have focused on the person and not the context or the environment. Further, even then we are not completely aware of the problems faced by those involved in innovation in Africa or its sub-regions. Furthermore, we are not certain of the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship sufficiently enough to decode an effective, sustainable and efficient innovative business model. The literature shows that whilst other countries, especially Spain, have interrogated the link between innovation and entrepreneurship in new business ventures [3], there is minimal research on this subject in South Africa.

Lastly, for purposes of proposing a framework for interpreting empirical results (Section 6), we situate such research within the innovation discourse. Whilst innovation has several attributes and variables, the literature suggests that we restrict ourselves to two sets: Crossan and Apaydin's [1] framework of organisational innovation and Booyen's [5] factors to interrogate abilities to pursue disruptive innovation. Further, the literature points to employing the upper echelon theory, the resourcebased view, dynamic capabilities and the process theory to interpret our research findings. To this list, we add the model linking innovation and entrepreneurship because it incorporates all the frameworks mentioned above on one platform.

#### *A Conceptual Framework for Researching Disruptive Innovation and Innovative Business Models DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111808*

Arising from the literature we have interrogated in Sections 3 through 6, which we sum up in Section 7, we propose that the empirical part of this research should pursue two research questions. First, what factors can enhance disruptive innovation in Gauteng Province? This should be explicitly on disruptive innovation and not innovation in general or incremental. Second, how can we innovate business models of small and medium entrepreneurs in Gauteng Province? This should explore the ways of commercialising disruptive innovation products or services beyond the conventional ways of doing business. Therefore, other than speculating on the potential of innovation within South African new business ventures, the conceptual framework this paper provides should guide an empirical research that identifies factors underlining low innovation and entrepreneurship in South Africa. With this in mind, a qualitative research strategy and a case study design should be more appropriate. This is because our focus is not the extent of the problem but rather to detail the reasons underlying the problem. We should focus on South African-owned formal (not informal) small to medium enterprises that have been running for less than 10 years and not notable South African corporate companies. Whilst we now have sufficient theoretical grounding on this subject, we do not have, at this moment, empirical grounding to support some of our assertions. Even though most of the interrogation is general, we undertook it in the context of Gauteng Province, and therefore, we may not generalise our conclusions and proposals. We do not address how innovativeness influences policies in general, and we do not restrict ourselves to any specific sector.

This is certainly an important research trajectory for three reasons. First, whilst the link between innovation and entrepreneurship seems logical and several empirical studies – for example, [2, 4] as well as [3] – are affirmative about the link, we are yet to establish how innovation (or lack of it) leads to success (or failure) of a new business venture in different contexts. Second, empirical comparative data show that South Africa's level of innovativeness and, therefore, entrepreneurialism continues to lag behind [6], but we are yet to explain why. Relatedly, why are South African entrepreneurs notably necessity-driven and opportunity-driven rather than improvementdriven? Lastly, the research will contribute to the body of knowledge on this subject in general and more specifically to the development of entrepreneurship modules in business schools. The private or business sector has realised that entrepreneurial skills provide for business creation and self-employment, making entrepreneurship modules a key contribution in business school. Relatedly, this research might provide for decision-making information for start-up and entrepreneurship incubators that provide support to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Similarly, government departments such as the Department of Small Business Development as well as government agencies such as the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA) might enhance policy formulation and implementation to improve innovation and entrepreneurship in South Africa. It may also help the Industrial Development Corporation when they assess funding applications.
