↓ Skip to main content

Serendipity and strategy in rapid innovation

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
136 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Serendipity and strategy in rapid innovation
Published in
Nature Communications, December 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-02042-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. M. A. Fink, M. Reeves, R. Palma, R. S. Farr

Abstract

Innovation is to organizations what evolution is to organisms: it is how organizations adapt to environmental change and improve. Yet despite advances in our understanding of evolution, what drives innovation remains elusive. On the one hand, organizations invest heavily in systematic strategies to accelerate innovation. On the other, historical analysis and individual experience suggest that serendipity plays a significant role. To unify these perspectives, we analysed the mathematics of innovation as a search for designs across a universe of component building blocks. We tested our insights using data from language, gastronomy and technology. By measuring the number of makeable designs as we acquire components, we observed that the relative usefulness of different components can cross over time. When these crossovers are unanticipated, they appear to be the result of serendipity. But when we can predict crossovers in advance, they offer opportunities to strategically increase the growth of the product space.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 136 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Professor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 16%
Engineering 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Physics and Astronomy 7 12%
Other 16 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2019.
All research outputs
#137,801
of 12,969,897 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#2,423
of 22,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,417
of 383,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#185
of 1,527 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,969,897 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,527 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.