The research question is , " What are the barriers to adoption of radical innovation in the conservative petroleum industry "?
The differences between “The American Exceptionalism “ and “Jeremiad against Consumerism” is an example of two different cultures (Luedicke, Thompson, Geisler, 2010. P. 1). You have the Jeremiad against consumerism preaching that to many resources are being used while the American Exceptionalism is explaining if there are issues then we should drill for more oil (Luedicke, Thompson, Geisler, 2010. P. 1). This is what is taking place with the environmentalists and the developers. This Literature Review focuses on radical innovation adoption. Today that would be the pipeline. This is no easy adoption when there is one the proposal is attached to major delays and destruction. The major benefit to the pipeline is that if there is a leak which they are estimating at low risk then the clean up is less than in the ocean. With this said now let’s revisit the American Exceptionalism vs Jeremiad against Consumerism. Agriculture doesn’t want their land destroyed the shipping industry doesn’t want to take a hit the marine world wants a clean ocean.
The research explores the “petroleum industry” in the field of “oil and gas”. The problem of innovators to gain innovation adoption in conservative industries that rather opt for incremental innovation to reduce the risk inherent in radical innovation. The method that I have chosen is the qualitative and quantitative approach. The approach used is a straight logical way. Radical innovation changes an entire process. Radical innovation creates shifts within the industry. They represent clear departures from existing practice (Duchesneau, Cohn, Dewar, Dutto, 1986, P.1422, 1423).
The research led to the conclusion that the main innovation barriers are regulation, perception, justified beliefs, uncertainties, financial, log size, security and privacy. The paper is focusing on volatility within the petroleum industry as the main barrier. Recommendations to these barriers are technological providers, structure and methodology. There is a gap where future research is recommended with the universities being able to assist with innovative ideas .
The goal is to convert industry “conservatism” into an industry standard that follows a consistent pattern of architecture, dominant design, and radical innovation, articulated and applies the assistance of technology providers and eliminate the biases and give the innovator the pertinent information that he/she needs to move forward with innovation adoption. The focus of the research was on cross-case examinations which included historical and new innovation. Throughout the text , the terms “petroleum” and “oil and gas” are used interchangeably and should be read in this context ( Claws, 2016, 2). Throughout the text , the terms “petroleum” and “oil and gas” are used interchangeably and should be read in this context ( Claws, 2016, 2).
The Forest Plot was designed to show the prevalence of the measures to focus in on key barriers. The dynamics of radical innovation is illustrated in the case studies Appendix A- G. Database building is used as a validation process. Grounded theory is used with keeping an open mind to new theories by constant comparison and specifying relationships to develop categories. Case studies were selected using key phrases, “barriers to adoption of innovation”, “oil spills prevention” and “oil production are explored”. The innovation that has been researched is specialized and in the petroleum industry in order to eliminate the variance of factors associated with adoption. Innovation buyers are looking for economic friendly innovation. The search was completed by using the key phrases “ innovation adoption”, “resistance to innovation”, “innovation production”, conservative industries”, innovation adoption in offshore oil”. The main journals that were researched was the Research Policy (A), Journal of Product Innovation Management (A), International Journal of Technology Management (B), and MIT Sloan Management Review (B).
Under Processing (Review Completed)
