↓ 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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
136 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Professor 9 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 12 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 15%
Physics and Astronomy 9 14%
Engineering 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Other 19 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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
#149,792
of 13,467,983 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#2,618
of 24,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,711
of 387,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#263
of 1,983 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,467,983 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 24,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.3. 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 387,473 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 1,983 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.