Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
A dynamic model of process and product innovation
19752.4k citationsJames M. Utterback, William J. Abernathyprofile →
Countries citing papers authored by James M. Utterback
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of James M. Utterback's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by James M. Utterback with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites James M. Utterback more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by James M. Utterback
This network shows the impact of papers produced by James M. Utterback. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by James M. Utterback. The network helps show where James M. Utterback may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of James M. Utterback
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of James M. Utterback.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of James M. Utterback based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with James M. Utterback. James M. Utterback is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Utterback, James M., et al.. (2020). The Dynamics of the Diffusion of Innovations in the Transition from Products to Services in the Music Industry. DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).1 indexed citations
2.
Suárez, Fernando F., et al.. (2018). The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark. KDI Central Archives (Korea Development Institute).7 indexed citations
3.
Maine, Elicia, et al.. (2014). The Emergence of the Nanobiotechnology Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal.
4.
Utterback, James M.. (2014). Innovation and corporate strategy. International Journal of Technology Management.2 indexed citations
Utterback, James M.. (1995). Developing Technologies: The Eastman Kodak Story. The McKinsey Quarterly. 130.5 indexed citations
10.
Utterback, James M.. (1994). Radical Innovation and Corporate Regeneration. Research-Technology Management. 37(4). 10.45 indexed citations
11.
Utterback, James M. & Fernando Suárez. (1992). Patterns of industrial evolution, dominant designs, and firms' survival. SSRN Electronic Journal.11 indexed citations
Utterback, James M., Trevor Allen, J. H. Hollomon, & Marvin A. Sirbu. (1988). The Process of Innovation in Five Industries in Europe and Japan : IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 3(4). 463.3 indexed citations
15.
Abernathy, W. J. & James M. Utterback. (1988). Patterns of Industrial Innovation : Technology Review. 3(4). 555.76 indexed citations
16.
Utterback, James M., et al.. (1987). A Review of Literature and Hypotheses on New Technology-Based Firms : Research Policy. 2(4). 566–567.2 indexed citations
Utterback, James M.. (1971). The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm.. Academy of Management Journal. 14(1). 75–88.384 indexed citations breakdown →
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.