Mapping and Benchmarking Technological Innovation of Three International Petrochemical Companies

Abstract

Mapping technological innovation in organizations is one of the important activities that help companies to identify where organizations are clustering their innovation efforts, and where their unexplored innovation spaces are. Current published innovation mapping models do not take into consideration the comparison and benchmarking between organizations in one model. The objectives of this paper are to map innovation in three large international petrochemical companies: Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC), Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), and Dow Chemical;   compare and benchmark the results; and explore the possible areas for their innovation opportunities.  An innovation mapping model was developed. Innovation data covering three years, from 2010 to 2012, were collected, analyzed and mapped on the model. The results showed that the three companies introduced a total of 194 innovations; 53% by Dow Chemical, 38% by SABIC and 9% by GPIC. Product innovations were the dominant type as they presented 57% of total innovations, where 54% of these were introduced by Dow Chemical, 46% by SABIC, and none by GPIC. Process innovations represented 16% of the total innovations; 45% by GPIC, 29% by SABIC, and 26% by Dow Chemical. Position and paradigm innovations were the least innovation type produced, where only 3% of the total innovations were in position and 1% in paradigm. The results also showed that multi-dimensional innovation represented 23.7% of total innovations, where 67.5% of these were produced by Dow Chemical, 28% by SABIC, and only 4.5% by GPIC. Product-process innovations represented 50% of the total multi-dimensional innovations. The results also revealed that there were 32.5% contributions in product-position area, 6.5% in process-position and 11% in product-paradigm; these were all produced by Dow Chemical. In the three years from 2010 to 2012, the number of produced innovations increased by 50% in SABIC and by 31% in Dow Chemical. On the other hand, GPIC witnessed a decline in innovations number by 28.5%.  During the three years only 5.7% of the total innovations were radical innovations; these were all introduced by Dow Chemical. The benchmarking results showed that product innovation was the strength in SABIC; process innovation was the strength in GPIC; and product, radical, product-position, process-position and product-paradigm were the strengths in Dow Chemical. For GPIC there are possible innovation opportunities in product, product-process and process-position innovations; for Dow Chemical and SABIC, in the process area.  There are possible opportunities in radical innovation in GPIC and SABIC and plenty of innovation opportunities in the position and paradigm areas for the three companies.

Keywords: Technological Innovation, Innovation Mapping Model, Petrochemicals, Benchmarking Innovation.

Introduction 

Mapping innovation is one of the important topics in innovation management, where it helps organizations to examine their innovation efforts, to determine the current innovation focus, and to explore where it should focus in the future. Nowadays, organizations need to value all types of innovation; they need innovation in all types of innovations in order to survive in an ever-changing challenging environment (Abdel-Razek 2014). Knight (1967) described innovation types as being: product or service innovation, production process innovation, organizational structure innovation, and people innovation. Bower and Christensen (1998) classified innovation as: disruptive and sustaining. Cooper (1998) developed a multidimensional integrative model of innovation. According to his model the innovation can have several aspects of each type, and has divided innovations into: product, process, administrative, technological, radical, and incremental. Hovgaard and Hansen (2004) classified innovation types as: product, process, and business systems innovation. Trott (2005) classified innovation to product, process, organizational, management, production, commercial (marketing), and service innovation. According to Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005) the innovation types can be distinguished as: product, process, marketing, and organizational innovation. Francis & Bessant (2005) stated that innovation can be classified into four types: product, process, position, and paradigm. Apax Partners Ltd. (2006) classifies innovation types as: architectural (using existing technologies in new ways), radical, incremental, and modular innovation (creating new technologies to solve existing problems). 

It could be concluded from the innovation-type literature that there is a consensus on product, and process innovation, with the different level of novelty in innovation (radical or incremental). Moreover, there is an interrelationship between the different types of innovations. Al-Sanad (2012) and Abdel-Razek & Al-Sanad (2013a,b) developed an innovation mapping model -the 10Ps model- as an outcome of merging the four types of innovations proposed by Francis & Bessant (2005), and by taking into account the overlap of each two types of innovations. This model classified innovation into: four one-dimensional innovation types and six two-dimensional innovations. This 10Ps innovation-type model includes: product, process, position, paradigm, product-process, product-position, product-paradigm, process-position, process-paradigm, and position-paradigm innovations. 

The main objective of this paper is to map the technological innovation of three international petrochemical companies that are operating in GCC countries, and to develop an innovation mapping model that is capable of mapping innovation for several organizations on the same model.
Mapping Technological Innovation

Innovation maps are the visual graphic tools that are used for specific purposes. The literature shows several innovation maps, with several objectives and scopes of applications. In general, innovation mapping can be divided according to the application scope into: innovation maps at the country level and innovation maps at the firm level. At the country level, innovation maps aim to evaluate some of the innovation indicators of the country or the world, and to describe intensity of innovation in many areas of the world. Kuah, et al. (2009), investigated approaches and strategies for advancing productivity, innovation and competitiveness in the three small open economies of Singapore, New Zealand, and the Republic of Ireland, through mapping the organizational innovation capabilities between 1999 and 2008. Raconteur report (2013) mapped innovation in the UK regions to select which regions are the highest in terms of high-growth firms, patent applications, and creative clusters. He showed that the south- east regions of the UK are placed in the highest areas in terms of patent applications.
At the firm level, innovation mapping can be used to achieve several objectives. Winkless and Cooney (2004) developed “mapping innovation space tool” by combining both technical and customer aspects of innovation. This map is used to define problems that cause product failure. Some innovation maps are used in educational innovation (Kampylis, et al., 2012), that suggests mapping framework of information and communication technology  enabling innovation for learning. The framework for learning innovation is mapped across five trajectories: nature of innovation (Radical, incremental, or disruptive), implementation phase, access level (local, national, or cross-boarder), impact area, and target. An additional model for mapping innovation looks at the” 4Ps diamond model” that has been developed by Francis & Bessant (2005). According to their study, the “4Ps” model is based on the hypothesis that successful innovation is related to positive change in four areas: product, process, position, and paradigm. Tidd & Bessant (2009) suggested a circle model for mapping innovation by combining the innovation types “4Ps” and degree of novelty (Radical and Incremental). (Al-Sanad, 2012; Abdel-Razek& Al-Sanad, 2013a & b) suggested a modified model for mapping innovation, and have named it “10Ps” model. That model takes into consideration the mixed area between two types of innovation. Hence, they have classified innovations into ten types: product, process, position, paradigm, product-process, product-position, product-paradigm, process-position, process- paradigm, and position-paradigm. They used the 10Ps model to investigate the innovations in one of the largest Saudi petrochemical companies (Saudi Basic Industries Corporations (SABIC)). Table (1) displays the mapping innovation models that are based on innovation types and degree of novelty.

Mapping Innovation Models	Characteristics and Drawbacks	

Francis &Bessant (2005)
	Diamond diagram
It provides organizations with tool that enable to take better strategic decisions in innovation management, and locate innovation activities on product, process, position, and paradigm.
But it doesn’t consider degree of novelty and combination between opposite pairs of 4Ps.	

Tidd & Bessant (2009)

	The 4Ps of innovation space model
It helps organizations to identify where to focus their innovations, to identify the future opportunities and to develop the innovation strategies.
In addition, this model helps the organizations to compare maps for different organizations (competitors benchmark), or to compare maps for one organization in different periods (self-benchmark).
It takes into account the degree of novelty (radical or incremental) for evaluation. But it does not provide any combination between 4Ps.	

(Al-Sanad, 2012; Abdel-Razek& Al- Sanad, 2013a,b)	10Ps Innovation Mapping Model
 	The model enables mapping one and multi-dimensional innovations. 
 	The mapping process is automated. 
 	But it does not enable benchmarking process between organizations on the same model.	
Figure (1): Mapping Innovation Models in the literature

Benchmarking Technological Innovation Mapping Model 

The 10Ps model provides the solutions for the weaknesses in the original model (4Ps) model. Where it takes into consideration the combined areas when innovations are mixture of two types of innovations. Also, it provides solutions for adjacent innovations in 4Ps model such as product- process.  Finally, it makes a clear distinguishing between radical and incremental innovation, where radical innovation is represented by black circle, and incremental innovation is represented by white circle. However, the 10Ps model doesn’t take into consideration the comparison and benchmarking between two or more organizations on the same model. In order to overcome this limitation, a modified model is suggested. Figure (2) shows the modified model that has been called “10Ps Benchmarking Innovation Mapping Model”. 

 Mapping Innovation of three International Petrochemical Companies

Innovation in the GCC Petrochemical Industry

The source of competitive advantages in the petrochemical industry is a technological differentiation, especially with the challenges that stem from the use of alternative feedstock and sustainability realities. Recreating the innovative mindset in the petrochemical industry is an imperative need (Gembicki, 2004). De Mello (2012) stated that the petrochemical industry faces challenges, such as environmental issues, unstable profits, and instability of oil supplies. In his study, he seeks to map how petrochemical companies in Brazil are developing their incremental and radical innovation projects in order to help petrochemical companies to be more radically innovative. 

The petrochemical sector in GCC countries represents the vital sector upon which the economies of those countries depend. According to GPCA (2013), GCC accounts for only 0.4% of the chemistry patents compared to the total number of patents issued worldwide in the past three years. An innovation survey was conducted (Gulf Petrochemicals & Chemicals Association GPCA, 2011) to investigate how do executives in the Arabian Gulf petrochemical and chemical industry perceive the role of innovation. The results showed that innovation in the petrochemical industry has an important role to secure competitive advantages, to develop proper innovation culture, and to support innovation strategies. The survey also showed that insufficient access to talents and inadequate innovation infrastructure are barriers to innovation. The study also showed that most innovative activities in the petrochemical companies are incremental product innovations.
     
Three International Petrochemical Companies in GCC

Two of the selected companies, SABIC and Dow Chemical, are operating in Saudi Arabia and are listed on the top ten chemical companies in the world (ICIS, 2013), while the third selected company GPIC, operating in Bahrain, is a joint venture between GCC members and is a vital economical power of Bahrain. The data needed for mapping innovation, has been obtained from annual reports and summaries of these companies’ achievements.
Gulf Petrochemical Industries Co (GPIC)

 GPIC was established in Bahrain in 1979 as a result of the cooperation between the GCC countries to use the natural gas in Bahrain and to produce petrochemical products and fertilizer. GIPC is a significant contributor to the Bahrain’s national economy. Innovation, in GIPC’s view, is the activation of the employees to enable the company to achieve its goals and its vision. In order to continue the successes in the future GPIC focuses on investment to upgrade the equipment in its plants and upgrade its management systems (GPIC Annual Report, 2010). The data needed to implement the 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model of GPIC has been gathered from the Company’s Website (http://www.gpic.com), and the company’s sources that include (GPIC Annual Reports, 2010, 2011, 2012).

Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC)

In 1976, SABIC began to benefit from natural resources in Saudi Arabia by producing petrochemical products and exporting them to other countries. Today, SABIC is the one of the world’s largest petrochemicals manufacturers. In 2011, SABIC signed agreement with King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) to build a new research and innovation center. Furthermore, SABIC is the second largest diversified chemical company in the world with 40,000 employees and more than 80 global operations (SABIC Annual Report, 2012). According to U.S-Saudi Arabian Business Council (2009) SABIC is the key player in petrochemical sector in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The data needed to implement the 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model has been gathered from the company’s sources, which include (SABIC Annual Reports, 2011 & 2012; SABIC Sustainability Report, 2012, Company’s Website (http://www.sabic.com/corporate/en/), in addition to (Al Sanad, 2012). 

Dow Chemical 

Dow branch in Saudi Arabia was established in 2011. The innovation story of Dow started in 1897, when “ Herbert Henry Dow” made his first discovery of the process of extracting bromine cheaply from brine. This was his first milestone of success, where his first bleach was sold in 1898 (Whitehead, 1968). Currently, the company employs about 53,000 employees worldwide. Accenture (2007) showed that Dow Chemical completed more than 2000 projects and increased productivity improvement by 60% as a result of innovation in those projects.  In 2012, Dow was granted 412 US patents with an increase of 31 percent relative to 2011 (Dow Annual Report, 2012).  Despite its name “Dow Chemical”, Dow had been more than a chemical company. It had been consisted of six operating segments; each segment had served several industries, such as food, packaging, construction, and mining. The six operating segments had been Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics, and Feedstock and Energy (Dow Annual Report, 2012). 
The data needed to implement the 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model has been gathered from the company’s sources, which include (Dow Annual Reports, 2010, 2011, 2012; Dow data books, 2010, 2011, 2012; Company’s Website (http://www.dow.com); and Ungerleider, 2011).

Mapping Technological Innovation of GPIC from 2010 to 2012

    

 Figure (3) shows the application of 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model in GPIC from 2010 to 2012, where the first area represents the innovations introduced by GPIC in 2010, while second area, and third area represent the innovations in 2011, and 2012 respectively. The results of mapping innovation in GPIC showed that the company had produced a total of seventeen innovations in the period from 2010 to 2012. 84% of the innovations were in process area, and 5% of them were in position. However, there are no innovations in the product, and paradigm innovations. Furthermore, the multi-dimensional innovations represented by 11% of the total innovations, fell in the product-process area. Hence, the clear gap was in other innovation types such as product, position, and paradigm. All innovations were incremental innovations, and none in radical. The results also revealed that the largest number of innovations was produced in 2010 by 7 innovations, decreased to 5 innovations in 2011 and 5 innovations in 2012. The results also indicated that the best performance for GPIC in terms of the innovation number was in 2010 with 7 innovations, while the best performance in terms of diversity of innovation types was in 2012.

Mapping Technological Innovation of SABIC from 2010 to 2012

Figure (4) shows the application of 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model for SABIC from 2010 to 2012. Where first area represents the innovations that have been introduced by the company in 2010, while second area, and third area represent the innovations in 2011, and 2012 respectively. The results showed that the company had produced a total of seventy-five innovations during the three years (2010-2012). The largest contributions were in product area by 68% of the total innovations, followed by process innovation by 12% of the total innovations, and few innovations in position area by 3%. The results also showed that 17% of total innovations were multi-dimensional innovations, where 9% of the total multi-dimensional innovations were in product-process area, and the remaining 8% distributed between product-position by 5%, and process-position by 3%. Furthermore, all innovations were incremental innovations and none in radical innovations. The results revealed that the number of innovations increased by 25% in 2011 compared to 2010, and by 20% in 2012 compared to 2011. Moreover, the best innovation number for SABIC was in 2012 with 30 innovations, while the best diversity of innovation types was in 2011.

Mapping Technological Innovation of Dow Chemical from 2010 to 2012

 
Figure (5) shows the innovation mapping for Dow Chemical from 2010 to 2012, where the first area represents the innovations that was introduced by the company in 2010, while second area, and third area represent the innovations in 2011, and 2012 respectively. The results showed that the company had produced a total of one hundred and two innovations from 2010 to 2012. Most of the contributions of the company were in product innovation by 58%, and process innovation by 8%. Position and paradigm innovations represented by 3% and 1% respectively. As for multi-dimensional innovation, the most contributions were in product-process innovations by 13%, and product-position by 11%. There were few contributions in product- paradigm, and process- position by 5%, and 1% respectively. The results also showed that most innovations were incremental by 89% of the total innovations and 11% were radical innovation. The results also revealed that the number of innovations during the three years had increased by 20.7% and 8.6% in 2011 and 2012 respectively. The best performance in terms of innovation number, and diversity of innovation types occurred in 2012.
Mapping Technological Innovation of the three companies from 2010 to 2012

The analysis showed that Dow Chemical has a highest number of innovations compared with GPIC and SABIC (102 by Dow Chemical, 75 by SABIC, and 17 by GPIC). Dow Chemical introduced 52.5% of the total innovations, SABIC introduced 38%, and GPIC 9%. The distribution by innovation types is shown in table (2).  It shows that product innovations were most frequent (51 for SABIC, and 59 for Dow Chemical); process innovation was similar in each company; GPIC had the highest number of process innovations (14 innovations); paradigm innovation was the lowest recurrence; and only Dow Chemical produced paradigm and multi-dimensional innovation (product-paradigm).

The results also revealed that the three companies produced 194 innovations in the three years table (2). Only 11 out of the 194 innovations were radical. The remaining 183 innovations were incremental, (91 by Dow, 75 by SABIC, and 17 by GPIC). 

     The results indicated that the strength of GPIC lies in process innovation, as it represents 84% of its innovations.  However, the opportunities of GPIC lie in product, position, and paradigm innovations.  As for SABIC, the strength area was in product and process innovations, as 68% of its innovations were in the product area, and 12% in the process area. The opportunities of SABIC lie in position and paradigm areas. The results also revealed that the strength of Dow Chemical lies in product and multi-dimensional innovation (product-process), as 58% of its innovations were product innovations and 13% for product-process innovations. The opportunities of Dow Chemical lie in position and paradigm innovations.

Conclusions

 A technological innovation mapping model has been developed to overcome the weaknesses in the current published models. The developed model has been called “ the 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model”. It clearly distinguishes between one dimensional and multi-dimensional innovation types, and it can map the innovation of several organizations simultaneously. The model was used to map the technological innovation in three international petrochemical companies: GPIC, SABIC, and Dow Chemical, during three years, from (2010 - 2012). 

The results showed that the three companies produced 194 innovations during the three years. Dow Chemical was the largest producer of innovations, generating 102 innovations (53%), followed by SABIC 75 innovations (38%), then GPIC 17 innovations  (9%). The comparison results showed that most innovations were incremental  (94.3%) and only few were radical (5.7%), all radical innovations were produced by Dow Chemical. 

The dominant types of innovation had been compared in the three companies, and the results showed that the product innovations were dominant (56%) of the total innovations, this was distributed as: (53%) for Dow Chemical, (46%) for SABIC, and none in GPIC. As for process innovation, the three companies produced 31 innovations, which represent 16% of the total innovations. The process innovations distributed as: 45% produced by GPIC, 29% by SABIC, and 26% by Dow Chemical. The position, and paradigm innovations were the lowest in terms of the number of innovations, where only 3% of the total innovations were position, and (0.5%) were paradigm innovations, they were all introduced by Dow Chemical.

The comparison also showed that the three companies produced 46 multi-dimensional innovations and they were distributed as: 67.5% produced by Dow Chemical, 28% by SABIC, and 4.5% by GPIC. The product-process represented (50%) of the multi-dimensional innovations; 60.9% of the product-process innovations were produced by Dow Chemical, 30.4% by SABIC, and 8.7% by GPIC.  The analysis also revealed that there were few contributions in product-position area by (32.6%) of the multi-dimensional innovations, process- position area by (6.5%), and product- paradigm area by (11%), which introduced only by Dow Chemical. 

Recommendations

The application of 10Ps benchmarking innovation mapping model on the three international petrochemical companies revealed that there are number of opportunities to improve innovations in these companies in the following innovation areas:
 1.	For GPIC, exploiting the opportunities in product, position, and paradigm innovation. 
 2.	For SABIC, there are opportunities in paradigm innovation.
 3.	For Dow Chemical, identify the opportunities in paradigm with possible improvements in radical innovations. 
 4.	Exploiting the opportunities in radical innovations for the three companies.

References 

Abdel-Razek, R., & Al-Sanad, D. (2013a). Mapping Technological Innovation: Methodology and Implementation. Proceedings on the Global Conference on Business and Finance, 8 (2):175-183. 
Abdel-Razek, R., & Al-Sanad, D. (2013b). Evaluating Innovation by Simultaneous Mapping and Auditing. 6th ISPIM Innovation Symposium: Innovation in the Asian Century, Proceedings of the International Society of Professional Innovation Management, Melbourne, Australia, December 8-11,2013. 
Accenture Consultant Company. (2007). The Dow Chemical Company. (Available on- line: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Local_China/PDF/DOWcredential.pdf). [Accessed on: 9 March 2014].
Apax Partners Ltd. (2006). Pathways to Success: Taxonomy of Innovation. The World Economic Forum’s Technology Pioneers. 
Al-Abbas, S. (2014). Mapping Technological Innovation of three International Petrochemical Companies: A comparative Study, Master Thesis, Technology Management Program, Arabian Gulf University, Kingdom of Bahrain. 
Al-Sanad, D. (2012). Evaluation of Technological Innovation in the Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), Master Thesis, Technology Management Program, Arabian Gulf University, Kingdom of Bahrain. 
Bower, J. L. and Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wav. Harvard Business Review, 73 (1): 43-53. In: Miller, L. and Miller, R. (2012). Classifying Innovation, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9 (1): 125004-2

Cooper, J.R. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Management Decision, 36 (8): 493-502. In: Rowley, J., Baregheh, A., and Sambrook, S. (2011). Towards an innovation-type mapping tool. Management Decision, 49 (1): 73-86. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
De Mello, A.M. (2012). Mapping the Organizational Design for Radical and Incremental Innovation Projects in Brazilian Petrochemical Industry Using Social Network Analysis. (Available on-line:  http://www.simpoi.fgvsp.br/arquivo/2012/artigos/E2012_T00072_PCN60178.pdf). [Accessed on: 11 May 2014]. 
Dow Company [homepage on the Internet], Dow, Available from:  http://www.dow.com/company/index.htm [Accessed 3 September 2013]
Dow Company Middle East [homepage on the Internet]. Dow Company. Available from:http://www.dow.com/middleeast/about/saudi.htm [Accessed 3 September 2013].
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2010). The Right Formula for Growth, Annual report 2010.
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2011). Welcome to Solutions, Annual report 2011.
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2012). Building Value, Delivering Growth, Annual report 2012.
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2010). The Dow of Tomorrow: Here Today, Databook 2010.
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2011). Solutions at Work, Databook 2011.
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2012). Building on Our Strengths, Databook 2012.
Dow (The Dow Chemical Company). (2014). News Center, Available on-line: www.dow.com/news. [Accessed on 19 Jan 2014]. 

Francis, D., and Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting Innovation and Implications for Capability Development. Technovation, 25 (3): 171-183.
Gembicki, S.A. (2004). Innovations in the Petrochemical Industry. 6th International Conference INDIAN - Petrochem 2004, UOP LLC. 
GPCA (Gulf Petrochemicals & Chemicals Association). (2013). Facts and Figures. Annual Report. Available on- line: (http://www.gpca.org.ae/page/Facts%20and%20Figures). [Accessed on: 25 May 2014].
GPCA (Gulf Petrochemical and Chemical Association). (2011). Innovation in Gulf Petrochemical and Chemical Companies. (Available on-line: http://www.gpca.org.ae/sites/default/files/innovation.pdf). [Accessed on: 11 May 2014]. 
GPIC (Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company). (2010). Growing together annual report 2010.

GPIC (Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company). (2011). Protecting the Precious annual report 2011.

GPIC (Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company). (2012). Progress with sustainability annual report 2012.

GPIC (Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company). (2014). Press Releases. (Available on- line: http://www.gpic.com/default.asp?action=category&id=337) [Accessed on: 10 December 2013].

Hovgaard, A. and Hansen, E. (2004). Innovativeness in the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 54 (1):  26-33. 
ICIS Chemical Business (2013). ICIS Top 100 Chemical Companies, Special Report Top 100 Analysis in 2012, Association with the Valence Group.

Kampylis, P., Bocconi, s., and Punie, Y. (2012). Towards a Mapping Framework f ICT-enabled Innovation for Learning, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission, Spain. 

Knight, K.E. (1967). A descriptive model of intra-firm innovation process. Journal of Management, 40 (4): 478-96. 
Kuah, A., Shapira, P., Doyle, E., and Ward, D. (2009). Mapping Organizational Capabilities for Innovation and Competitiveness: Research Performance and Patenting in Small Open Economies. Technical Report 2, Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (DETI). 

OECD and Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3th edition, Paris.
Raconteur Report. (2013). Innovation & Growth: Mapping Innovation in the U.K, Raconteur publishing. (Available online: http://raconteur.net/business/mapping-innovation-in-the-uk). [Accessed 13 September 2013].
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) [homepage on the Internet]. SABIC, Available from: http://www.sabic.com/corporate/en/ourcompany/ [Accessed 3 September 2013].
SABC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation). (2011). Vision+ performance, Annual report & accounts 2011.

SABC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation). (2012). People who can, Annual report & accounts 2012.

SABC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation). (2012). Step by step, Sustainability report 2012.

SABC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation). (2014). News and Media relations. (Available on-line: http://www.sabic.com/corporate/en/newsandmediarelations/news/). [Accessed on 10 Jan 2014]. 
Tidd, Joe and Bessant, John. (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, England. 
Trott, Paul. (2012). Innovation Management and New Product Development. 5th edition, Pearson Education Limited, England.
Ungerleider, Howard. (2011). The Dow Chemical Company: Credit Suisse’s 24th Annual Chemical & Ag Science Conference. Available on- line: file:///Users/sama75/Downloads/CS_Ungerleider_Sept13_FINAL.pdf. [Accessed on 10 March 2014]. 
Whitehead, D. (1968). The Dow Story: The History of the Dow Chemical Company. McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York. 
Winkless, B.J., and Cooney, J.M. (2004). Mapping Innovation Space One: Novel Tools for Problem Definition in Product Innovation. The Triz Journal. (Available online: http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2004/07/04.pdf). [Accessed 16 September 2013].