Development Management
Development Management
ISSN 2413-9610 e-ISSN 2663-2365 UDC 004; 005; 35; 336; 65
DOI: 10.57111/devt
Submit an article

Article

Download article

Development of strategic management models under conditions of technological innovation

Yurii Novikov*

ysnovikov@gmail.com

Received 09.03.2026, Revised 07.07.2026, Accepted 01.09.2026 Published 29.09.2026

Abstract

Technological innovation creates a coordination problem for enterprises because technological maturity, intellectual property protection, regulatory compliance, commercial feasibility, and scaling readiness evolve at different rates. Fragmented assessment can cause premature scaling, under-protection of knowledge, or continued investment in projects without a viable commercialisation route. The study aimed to develop a conceptual strategic decision model based on an integrated three-dimensional classification of innovation projects. A structured review of peer-reviewed research published in 2021-2026, content analysis of Ukrainian and international legal sources, conceptual modelling, comparative mapping, and descriptive analysis of Ukraine’s Global Innovation Index (GII) profile for 2020-2025 were applied. The study operationalised three dimensions: scientific and technological fit (N), legal and standards readiness (L), and business readiness (B). These dimensions were measured through observable managerial indicators and a documented 0-4 evidence rubric, with normalised low, medium, and high bands. It developed a closed process model comprising signal detection, classification, strategic choice, implementation, and learning, with explicit inputs, outputs, gate conditions, and feedback. A conceptual Strategic Suitability Index was introduced to rank innovation projects by N, L, B, and integrated risk R without replacing net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), or mandatory compliance gates. Six illustrative N-L-B configurations were formulated to connect project profiles with investment, intellectual property, partnership, and scaling decisions. Legal mapping showed how innovation support rules affect B and R, while patent and international trade rules affect L, commercialisation options, and enforcement risk. The national index data were retained only as contextual evidence and were not treated as validation of the project-level model. The framework can support preliminary portfolio screening, identify evidence gaps, and coordinate research and development (R&D), legal, and commercial functions under uncertainty


Keywords:

dynamic capabilities; intellectual property governance; commercialisation readiness; portfolio prioritisation; ecosystem orchestration; regulatory compliance

https://doi.org/10.63341/devt/3.2026.08

Retrieved from Volume 25, No. 3, 2026

Pages 8-15

References Suggested citation

References

  1. Abdurrahman, A., Gustomo, A., & Prasetio, E.A. (2024). Impact of dynamic capabilities on digital transformation and innovation to improve banking performance: A TOE framework study. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(1), article number 100215. doi: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100215.
  2. Al-Moaid, N.A.A., & Almarhdi, S.G. (2024). Developing dynamic capabilities for successful digital transformation projects: The mediating role of change management. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13, article number 85. doi: 10.1186/s13731-024-00446-9.
  3. Ayerbe, C., Azzam, J., Boussetta, S., & Pénin, J. (2023). Revisiting the consequences of loans secured by patents on technological firms’ intellectual property and innovation strategies. Research Policy, 52(8), article number 104824. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104824.
  4. Bradul, O., & Novikov, Y. (2025). Assessment and classification of technological innovations: Structuring and integration aspects for management. Economic Analysis, 35(1), 66-77. doi: 10.35774/econa2025.01.066.
  5. Ellström, D., Holtström, J., Berg, E., & Josefsson, C. (2022). Dynamic capabilities for digital transformation. Journal of Strategy and Management, 15(2), 272-286. doi: 10.1108/JSMA-04-2021-0089.
  6. Gorupec, N., Brehmer, N., Tiberius, V., & Kraus, S. (2022). Tackling uncertain future scenarios with real options: A review and research framework. The Irish Journal of Management, 41(1), 69-88. doi: 10.2478/ijm-2022-0003.
  7. Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159-1197. doi: 10.1111/joms.12639.
  8. Hou, H., & Shi, Y. (2021). Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination. Technovation, 100, article number 102193. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102193.
  9. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Yang, J. (2022). Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing. Research Policy, 51(1), article number 104417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104417.
  10. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
  11. Kindermann, B., Salge, T.O., Wentzel, D., Flatten, T.C., & Antons, D. (2022). Dynamic capabilities for orchestrating digital innovation ecosystems: Conceptual integration and research opportunities. Information and Organization, 32(3), article number 100422. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2022.100422.
  12. Konopik, J., Jahn, C., Schuster, T., Hoßbach, N., & Pflaum, A. (2022). Mastering the digital transformation through organizational capabilities: A conceptual framework. Digital Business, 2(2), article number 100019. doi: 10.1016/j.digbus.2021.100019.
  13. Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J.J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N., & Weinmann, A. (2022). Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current status quo. International Journal of Information Management, 63, article number 102466. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466.
  14. Law of Ukraine No. 3687-XII “On Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models”. (1993, December). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3687-12#Text.
  15. Law of Ukraine No. 40-IV “On Innovation Activity”. (2002, December). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/40-15#Text.
  16. Lohrey, C.T., & Willoughby, K.W. (2025). Intellectual property and SMEs… What’s the state of play? World Patent Information, 83, article number 102401. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2025.102401.
  17. Marchese, S., Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2026). Orchestrating innovation ecosystems and digital technologies for dynamic capabilities development: The case of the EdTech industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 29(2), 429-463. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2024-1405.
  18. Merín-Rodrigáñez, J., Dasí, À., Alegre, J., & Hughes, M. (2025). Dynamic managerial capabilities for digital transformation in innovative SMEs: What are the effects on new product development performance? Journal of Business Research, 201, article number 115709. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115709.
  19. OECD, & Eurostat. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264304604-en.
  20. Order of Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 526-r “On Approval of the Strategy for the Development of Innovation Activity for the Period up to 2030”. (2019, July). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/526-2019-%D1%80#Text.
  21. Pires, R.A.R., & Ferreira, J.J. (2025). Bridging innovation strategies and intellectual property: A systematic review-based conceptual framework and a roadmap for future research. Technovation, 144, article number 103243. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103243.
  22. Rabelo Neto, J., Figueiredo, C., Gabriel, B.C., & Valente, R. (2024). Factors for innovation ecosystem frameworks: Comprehensive organizational aspects for evolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 203, article number 123383. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123383.
  23. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  24. Verhoef, P.C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J.Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022.
  25. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025). Ukraine ranking in the Global Innovation Index 2025. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
  26. World Trade Organization. (1994). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm.
  27. Xing, X., Zhu, C., Lin, Y., & Liu, T. (2024). Can digital platform empowers inbound and outbound open innovation? From the perspective of the innovation ecosystem. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, article number 1384. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03523-2.
  28. Yunita, T., Sasmoko, S., Bandur, A., & Alamsjah, F. (2023). Organizational ambidexterity: The role of technological capacity and dynamic capabilities in the face of environmental dynamism. Heliyon, 9(4), article number e14817. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14817.

Suggested citation

Novikov, Yu. (2026). Development of strategic management models under conditions of technological innovation. Development Management, 25(3), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.63341/devt/3.2026.08