**7. Innovativeness in new business ventures: a conceptual framework**

Eventually, the aim of this research is to detail innovativeness in new business ventures. To avoid being too ambitious, we narrow our target to Gauteng Province, being the economic hub of South Africa. Regardless, we can with caution apply the findings to other South African provinces and not only to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) but also to some parts of the African continent. This is more so with the content of this paper which articulates the theoretical fundamentals to conceptualise 'how' the empirical part of this research may be pursued. Obviously, unravelling that undertaking implies reviewing the literature to derive the conceptual framework that should guide the empirical part of this research. Effectively, a conceptual framework is a systematic summary of and decisions based on the literature reviewed in this paper. By default, this section also serves as the conclusion of the paper. **Figure 5** is a summarised visual representation of what we have discussed in this paper, and it also proposes how the empirical part of this research should proceed based on the literature reviewed.

Obviously, our pursuit is to decode determinants of low innovation in new business ventures in South Africa generally but more specifically Gauteng province. First of all, the physical research setting (Gauteng province) is the economic hub of not only South Africa but the African continent. As its name—place of gold—suggests, it is a mining region, and its economic base, which includes finance, manufacturing and technology sectors, was initially built around supporting its mining sector. There is no doubt that this province is a good candidate for such a research because it represents regions that have advanced in terms of innovation and entrepreneurship to provide us with data, information and knowledge on the status quo. Of course, we are mindful

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

#### **Figure 5.**

that focusing on a region that is less advanced would provide meaningful contribution on how we should advance. Regardless, the physical context or setting is important to detail because it affects development in general and specifically innovation as well as innovativeness in new business ventures. In our case, understanding the context helped with understanding the research problem as well as decide what would be the best research procedure and methods.

Second, despite being the fifth-most populous country in Africa and the thirdlargest in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region as well as the economic hub of the continent, South Africa has the lowest number of entrepreneurs in Africa, and its Total Entrepreneurial Activity is low, such that status quo affects its economic growth and, therefore, employment especially amongst the youth. As a result, we cannot emphasise enough that innovation and entrepreneurship should be encouraged. The absence of entrepreneurial orientation – defined as an intervention that provides organisations to launch new ventures [94] – is not the problem. Rather it is the focus of these interventions. We propose that it is the failure to focus on disruptive innovation pitches ourselves against the leaders in innovation that makes us less competitive. Further, instead of focusing on

*A conceptual framework to guide empirical studies on disruptive innovation and innovative business models.*

innovative products and services, we should focus on innovative business models that seek to change the way we do business.

Third, though not explicit in most articles, most authors employed a quantitative research strategy and either a cross-sectional or a longitudinal research design. Similarly, the frameworks used to interpret their research findings are implicit, although it is clear that models rather than theories are employed. The two obvious points from the literature are that education is key to innovation and consequently entrepreneurship [26]. We, therefore, cannot divorce the poor state of mathematics and sciences in South Africa from innovation because they provide the much-required logic. Second, there is no doubt that innovation is key to performance and economic growth. However, and third, we should be mindful that this is not restricted to the innovation of products, services, technology, equipment, material and tools but more so to innovative business models, processes and portfolios – in short, how can we solve the problem of entrepreneurship failure as well as commercialise the products and services innovatively [1, 34, 35]. Lastly, the literature has focused on the person and not the context or the environment. Massa and Testa's [25] is a classic description of the African challenge. We have problems without solutions, on one hand, and, on the other, solutions without problems because there is little engagement, at least empirical and robust, with those affected. Interventions should be results-based. Key to this integration is that other than at a theoretical level, we are not sure about the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship sufficiently enough to decode an effective, sustainable and efficient innovative business model. Further, what can we say are the challenges faced by those involved in innovation?

The literature—such as Christensen and Raynor [55], McFadzean and colleagues [77], Brem, [76], as well as Moses and others [31]—is quite clear that innovation is important for economic growth and employment creation for Gauteng Province if not the nation and the continent. Further, the literature has provided for understanding our research questions and exposing the knowledge gap and therefore, the two questions that empirical research should pursue. The first question – what factors can enhance disruptive innovation in Gauteng Province? – should be explicitly on disruptive innovation and not innovation in general or incremental. The second question – how can we innovate business models of small and medium entrepreneurs in Gauteng Province? – pursues ways of commercialising disruptive innovation products or services beyond the conventional ways of doing business.

Fourth, for purposes of proposing a framework for interpreting empirical results, we situate this study within innovation studies. Almost all the key processes – that is (i.) administrative versus technical, (ii.) process versus product and (iii.) incremental versus radical [1, 34] – are important. Much more specific, we should be looking at innovative business models as well as disruptive innovation.

Fifth, and merely a continuation of fourth, what attributes or variables should we focus on to interrogate innovative business models as well as disruptive innovation. Obviously, innovation has several attributes and variables, but we restrict ourselves to two sets. Crossan and Apaydin's [1] framework of organisational innovation provides useful attributes (leadership, managerial levels and business processes) that we can interrogate to study innovative business models especially managerial levels that provide for an explicit innovative strategy, mission, goals, and strategy of new business ventures aligned to their absorptive and desorptive capacities [52, 56]. The other set is Booyen's [5] factors to interrogate abilities to pursue disruptive innovation. These include educated or skilled labour workforce; creativity, personal attributes and entrepreneurship; investment in research and development; knowledge systems;

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

knowledge networks and public support to private innovation. With this in mind, we opt for a qualitative research strategy and a case study design to guide information collection, collation, processing and analysis. This is because our focus is not to extend but to detail the reasons underlying choice and processes of innovation ideals in business models as well as disruptive innovation.

Lastly, we propose employing the upper echelon theory, the resource-based 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. Ideally, we are looking to support disruptive innovation whose products and services can be commercialised using innovative business models.
