Measuring the Innovation Potential of Organizations in Andean Countries and the Applicability of the Capabilities, Results, and Impacts of Innovation Model: A Comparative Approach

Abstract

This study addresses the gap in adequate innovation-measuring frameworks within the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) by analyzing the applicability of the CRI (Capabilities, Results, and Impacts of Innovation) model for assessing the organizational innovation potential in this region. A comparative review of the contemporary innovation measurement methodologies that have been used in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia reveals that numerous frameworks have assessed innovation skills, yet they have inadequately analyzed innovation outcomes and consequences. In response, this research study contributes a more comprehensive approach—the CRI model—for assessing innovation potential in the Andean context, providing significant insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to enhance innovation performance.

1. Introduction

Methods of quantifying innovation are usually designed from the perspective of developed countries, so they do not reflect the nuances of specific territories experiencing other development conditions, which makes their results unreliable (Aguirre-Bastos & Weber, 2018). In this regard, Earl et al. (2023) emphasized the importance of differentiating the meaning of innovation in less developed countries, where the socioeconomic limitations, technological capabilities levels, and knowledge management policies influence the social actors and the innovation of their national systems structures. Considering that context influences innovative behavior, Jimenez et al. (2022) suggested the need to analyze innovation outside the traditional Western innovation pattern. Therefore, Iizuka and Hollanders (2020) emphasized the need to develop comprehensive innovation indicators adapted to the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of low- and middle-income countries.

According to Quintero Sepúlveda et al. (2021), the innovation capabilities of Latin America are measured using parameters and tools that were made with developed countries in mind. This shows that there has not been enough philosophical analysis of how-to better measure innovation in the region. Consequently, Morales et al. (2025a) proposed the CRI (Capabilities, Results, and Impacts of Innovation) model to assess the innovation potential of Ecuadorian organizations. The model is relevant to many Latin American countries, which share similar characteristics, like low industrialization and a weak overall innovation culture, as was observed in the evaluation of the CRI model in the ICT sector (Morales et al., 2025b).

Considering that, according to Coral et al. (2023), countries in the Andean Community of Nations (CAN)—consisting of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru—share cultural values and have proposed diverse regional economic integration policies among themselves, innovation has become a strategy for improving value chains and competitiveness. This research study presents a comparative analysis of the measurement of innovation in organizations in the Andean region based on the CRI model developed by Morales et al. (2023) to observe the applicability of this model in the context of the CAN.

This research study aims to fill the gap in adequate innovation-measuring frameworks within the CAN setting. The central research question guiding this research is as follows: To what extent can the CRI (Capabilities, Results, and Impacts of Innovation) model, formulated with the Ecuadorian context in mind, be adequately adapted and implemented to assess the organizational innovation potential in other Andean Community Nations (Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia), given their common socio-cultural characteristics and varying economic development levels? Therefore, this study addresses this research question through the formulation of the core hypothesis: the CRI model, due to its comprehensive consideration of innovation capabilities, results, and impacts and due to the shared socio-cultural characteristics among CAN states, possesses a significant degree of adaptability for assessing the organizational innovation potential of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, although context-specific adjustments may be necessary to handle differing economic development levels and particular sectoral dynamics.

This paper first presents a literature review that allows us to present a theoretical framework for the measurement of innovation in the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) and for the application of the CRI model for measuring the innovation potential of organizations that share the socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the CAN. Then, a methodological route for the comparison of the CRI model with various measurement frameworks that have been used in CAN countries (Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia) is proposed. Next, the results of this comparative study are presented, with an emphasis on a conceptual analysis of the measurement elements that make up the measurement frameworks, so that there is an adequate measurement equivalence. Finally, some reflections are presented.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Measuring Innovation in the Andean Context

The Andean region is one of the richest in the world in terms of natural resources.Thus, it presents a livelihood capital that provides the opportunity to propose production strategies to assure sustainable development (Torres et al., 2022). However, Abuelafia et al. (2023) noted that the region must face the crucial task of transitioning from its reliance on raw material extraction (minerals and agriculture) towards a knowledge-based economy. In this regard, Cáceres and Urbina (2023) stated that social and economic inequalities pose barriers to the development of industries and the generation of knowledge and innovation. Therefore, the measurement of the innovation potential of the CAN requires an analysis of the regional context.

The CAN had a sustained period of economic growth at the beginning of the 21st century which supported development policies that promoted productive transformation; however, in the last decade, growth has slowed and revealed weaknesses in the technological and human capabilities that are needed to improve innovation processes (Abuelafia et al., 2023). However, Quesada et al. (2022) suggested that the CAN should improve its trade integration policies to provide cooperation opportunities between companies in the region to improve their innovation capabilities. Consequently, Coral et al. (2023) indicate that CAN integration policies strengthen the conditions of innovation ecosystems, enhancing the importance of generating benefits and of goods diversification to supply the intraregional market.

Otherwise, Tian et al. (2018) highlight the idiosyncratic relationship between culture and innovation as a factor that can facilitate or constrain innovation performance. Moreover, Schumpeter (1934) suggest that innovation emerges from a recombination of diverse knowledge components, which according to Makhija and Karim (2022) depends on context influences and which can also affect innovation results. In the Andean context, Testori and D’Auria (2018) highlight the collective practice known as “minga” in Andean communities as a means to facilitate knowledge integration and promote territorial development. Devaux et al. (2009) suggest that traditional Andean collective action supports the development of commercial, technological, and institutional innovations. Recognizing this, Jimenez et al. (2022) propose a non-traditional perspective of innovation, including in its conceptualization the Andean world vision, where knowledge generation emphasizes the community and collaborative processes as cultural values that also influence social actors of innovation ecosystems.

The Global Innovation Index (GII) assesses innovation trends and technological advancement performance worldwide as a tool for public and private decision-making (Soumitra et al., 2020). The performance of CAN countries in terms of the GII is evidenced in the second half of this index, and it is in line with the group of countries at their development level (Dutta et al., 2023). Since the GII is tailored to the socioeconomic realities of mainstream nations, Sohn et al. (2016) find that it provides a panoramic view of the phenomenon, but it fails to capture the unique features that shape the development of innovation in other social, economic, and cultural contexts at the national level. Consequently, Morales et al. (2023) propose a methodological approach to measure innovation potential considering the conditions of organizations in the Ecuadorian context as a case study of an Andean country where industrial development is low and the innovation culture is weak.

2.2. The CRI Model for Measuring Innovation Potential in Organizations

The measurement of social phenomena must equilibrate between the inclusion of generalizable measurement criteria and specific aspects of the context (Kosmützky et al., 2020). In this sense, the CRI model considers the analytical framework introduced by Camio et al. (2014) to measure the innovation level of organizations under the guidelines of the Oslo Manual (OECD, 1995) and Bogota Manual (Jaramillo et al., 2001) for including the global and local approach to innovation measurement. Considering the conditions of Ecuadorian organizations, a conceptual framework for measuring innovation levels is proposed by Robalino-López et al. (2019), who highlight the need to build a set of capabilities aimed at innovating (knowledge, financing, infrastructure, human talent, etc.) to obtain benchmark innovation results (products, services, models, etc.) that are reflected in palpable impacts (economic, organizational, social, environmental, etc.) for improving the innovation level. A redefinition of this conceptual framework, including conditions of low industrialization and weak innovation culture, is introduced by Morales et al. (2023) for measuring innovation potential as the main construct composed of three secondary constructs: capabilities, results, and impacts of innovation.

The importance of conceptual frameworks in which measurable elements are supported by a theoretical definition of the constructs is highlighted by Al Majali (2023). In this sense, the CRI model considers the variables identified by Robalino-López et al. (2017) to measure the innovation level in organizations, and it selects those that can be measured and provides additional information that can be included as possible items in the measurement tool (CRI questionnaire). Therefore, based on Morales et al. (2023), an analysis is performed to check how relevant the suggested items are; then, the items that best reflect specific parts of the factors for each secondary construct are added to the CRI questionnaire. A 4-level Likert Scale (definitely not, probably not, probably yes, definitely yes) evaluates the items included in the CRI questionnaire. Figure 1 presents the organization of the CRI questionnaire.

3. Methodology

Measurement tools require a contextual reference system to achieve a meaningful interpretation of results (Bandalos, 2018). The CRI model specifically designs an innovation measurement framework for Ecuador’s socioeconomic context and provides a valuable case study for examining innovation measurement within the CAN ecosystem. This research aims to determine the applicability of the CRI model in the CAN context. This study uses the concepts of measurement equivalence from Davidov et al. (2014) and construct equivalence from Hawkins et al. (2020) to compare the CRI model with other tools used to assess regional innovation.

Therefore, the structure of this research’s methodological approach is delineated into three phases. The preliminary stage involves a literature review of the innovation measurement instruments employed by organizations in other CAN countries (Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia). The second stage identifies the relevant measurement frameworks for evaluating the applicability of the CRI model based on established criteria. The final phase evaluates the applicability of the CRI model to other CAN states through a comparative examination of the chosen measurement instruments. This outcome is achieved by conducting a comparative analysis of the selected measurement frameworks against the CRI model, identifying corresponding measurement components provided by the macro measurement models and the various constructs or latent variables encompassed by each measurement framework. Figure 2 illustrates this methodological route.

3.1. Literature Review

A literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge on a certain subject, underscores research shortcomings, and recognizes possible patterns or trends in a specific research field (Carnwell & Daly, 2001). In this regard, the focus of this bibliometric analysis was the co-occurrence of keywords related to our territorial consideration, which were applied to a Scopus dataset. The research criteria of the dataset focused on the territorial and scale-related pertinence of the measurement tools; they were represented by the search query “innovation AND measurement AND organizations AND (ecuador OR colombia OR peru OR bolivia)”. Nevertheless, since the results primarily concentrated on global metrics unfit for an organizational scale, and since one of the CAN countries lacked representation, a broader search was conducted, incorporating additional databases to apply the measurement equivalency for selecting relevant innovation measurement frameworks.

3.2. Selection of Relevant Innovation Measurement Frameworks

Following the perspective of Kosmützky et al. (2020), which states that measurement criteria are determined by the design of the measurement tool rather than its preconditions, the most relevant innovation measurement instruments were utilized. The selection considered the measurement equivalency suggested by Davidov et al. (2014) and Hawkins et al. (2020), using generalized latent variables and constructs analogous to the factors of the CRI model, represented by information sources (C1), financing sources (C2), innovation activities (C3), innovation objectives (C4), innovation results (R1), and innovation impacts (I1). Moreover, the comparison highlights parallels with macro measurement frameworks, particularly regarding the incorporation of cultural or contextual elements.

Table 1. Selection criteria applied to relevant innovation measurement frameworks. Source: authors’ own compilation from Davidov et al. (2014), Hawkins et al. (2020), and Kosmützky et al. (2020).

Description of Selection Criteria	Application in Comparison with CRI Model
Contextual relevance: The measurement frameworks are influenced by cultural, socioeconomic, or broader contextual factors.	Allows for the determination of whether alternative models incorporate the socio-cultural context pertinent to the Andean region, which is essential for evaluating the applicability of the CRI model in the CAN.
Construct alignment: The theoretical significance of the measurement components within the measurement frameworks aligns with the factors of the CRI model (capabilities, results, impacts).	Facilitates the identification of whether alternative framewoks assess comparable underlying dimensions of innovation potential as the CRI model.
Analogous operationalization: The measurement frameworks integrate comparable macro measurement models or exhibit similarities with the components of the CRI model.	Facilitates the evaluation of whether various measurement frameworks employ observable measures comparable with the constructs or concepts included within the CRI model.
Methodological rigor and empirical validation: The measurement frameworks clearly delineate the methodologies employed in their development and the processes used for empirical validation.	Indicates the quality and reliability of the measurement attributes of the frameworks being compared to the CRI model.

presents a summary of the criteria utilized for selecting relevant innovation measurement frameworks that will be compared with the CRI model.

After the equivalence analysis of these measurement criteria, nine measurement frameworks were selected: four applied in Colombia, three applied in Peru, and two applied in Bolivia. These frameworks will facilitate an examination of comparisons to evaluate the applicability of the CRI model in the CAN context.

3.3. Comparative Analysis for CRI Model Applicability Assessment

The examination of measurement instruments across various contexts necessitates the comparison of these instruments among analogous populations to derive generalizable results (Kempf, 2005). In this sense, Jimenez et al. (2022) state that the Andean nations possess a shared cultural framework that results in a comparable perspective of innovation processes, despite specific local variations. Thus, the assessments conducted in Ecuador using the CRI model will be juxtaposed with the innovative measurements undertaken in other CAN states (Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru).

Otherwise, Ursachi et al. (2015) assert that a measurement instrument exhibits external validity when it is utilized in analogous scenarios or contexts, facilitating future generalization. Consequently, the validation process must consider analogous measurement criteria and constructs. Additionally, Bandalos (2018) asserts that when comparing various measurement instruments, it is essential to incorporate the concept of measurement equivalence, which implies that identical measurements are not necessary, but there should be congruence in a particular domain concerning their relationship with the measurement criteria. Therefore, Morales et al. (2023) introduce the CRI model, which evaluates innovation potential in organizations by establishing measurement criteria based on its constructs (main and secondary). These characteristics are utilized to evaluate alternative assessment models of analogous innovation elements within organizations, considering the CAN environment. Eight models for assessing innovation in organizations have been chosen for this comparative analysis.

The applicability of similar concepts included in the CRI model factors (C1, C2, C3, C4, R1, and I1) is determined by the comparative analysis featured in this research study. This analysis depends on the inclusion of contextual elements in the macro measurement framework and on the evaluation of the measurement equivalence attributed to the latent variables (Davidov et al., 2014) or constructs (Hawkins et al., 2020) represented in each chosen measurement framework.

The CRI model has been proven to be valid through a content validation relationship (CVR) and a two-step item response theory (IRT) evaluation, as explained by Morales et al. (2025a). In Morales et al. (2025b), the CRI model was also used to study how a certain sector behaves in terms of innovation, leading to a structural model that shows the CRI model is valid and reliable.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Bibliometric Analysis

The geographical approach to innovation measurement frameworks in the CAN, utilizing the search phrase “innovation AND measurement AND organizations AND (ecuador OR colombia OR peru OR bolivia)”, yielded a SCOPUS dataset with 87 publications spanning from 2007 to 2024. The bibliometric analysis concentrated on the co-occurrence of keywords to determine their relationship with the other selection criteria outlined in the Methodology which pertain to the organizational scale of measurement instruments and their alignment with the factors of the CRI model identified as ensuring measurement equivalence by the latent variables or constructs (Davidov et al., 2014). Figure 3 illustrates the relationships among these terms.

Despite the scarcity of studies on this subject, three distinct clusters were identified concerning “innovation measurement in organizations”. The first cluster possesses the highest volume of bibliographic sources; it encompasses all relevant keywords and focuses on Colombia, particularly emphasizing knowledge and higher education. The second cluster pertains to Peru, emphasizing sources related to higher education and sustainability. Lastly, the third cluster represents sources associated with Ecuador and illustrates a specific interest in correlating the evaluation of innovation within organizations with sustainability and decision-making.

A study of bibliographic coupling was also conducted, revealing the most pertinent sources based on the established search query within this dataset and categorizing them into six clusters. Figure 4 illustrates these classification criteria.

A review of the key papers found through this bibliographic coupling analysis indicates that most focus on organizational research in Colombia; however, they do not adhere to the same measurement standards or incorporate similar components in their measurement models as the CRI model. Moreover, this bibliographic analysis does not present findings regarding the measurement of innovation in organizations within Bolivia. Furthermore, in the development of their macro measurement frameworks, many bibliographic sources emphasize global indicators like the GII (Global Innovation Index) or fail to incorporate contextual factors as foundational elements of their measurement models. Consequently, they lack effectiveness for comparative analysis aimed at assessing the applicability of the CRI model in different contexts of the CAN. Then, the search was broadened to include additional documents identified in specialized search engines and regional or local scientific databases. Through this process, we selected nine measurement frameworks: four for Colombia, three for Peru, and two for Bolivia.

The lack of documents measuring innovation in organizations in the region from a contextual perspective underscores the significance of the CRI model as a potential benchmark for evaluating the innovation potential of organizations considering the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of CAN countries.

The region lacks documentation on measuring innovation in organizations from a contextual perspective, especially in Bolivia. Considering the shared cultural and economic situations in CAN countries, the CRI model is shown as a possible way to measure how innovative an organization is.

4.2. Evolution of the GII in the CAN

The Global Innovation Index (GII) quantifies the multifaceted nature of innovation globally, recognizing its critical role in promoting sustainable development (Dutta et al., 2024). According to Yu et al. (2021), a significant advantage of the GII is its extensive scope (130 to 133 economies examined), offering an annual evaluation of their innovation performance across various pillars. Consequently, the comprehensive coverage and uniform methodology increase the significance of this index as a global standard for innovation. However, Iizuka and Hollanders (2020) argue that global innovation indicators are tailored to highly industrialized nations, thus failing to accurately reflect the circumstances of other countries. In this regard, Morales et al. (2023) propose measuring innovation potential in organizations characterized by low industrialization and a deficient innovation culture using the CRI model.

The GII’s behavior in the Andean countries from 2020 to 2024 indicates a generally stable performance, with 2021 marking the year of its highest results, as illustrated in Figure 5, which depicts the evolution of the region’s performance based on its general GII score.

Ecuador’s performance in the GII throughout this period exhibits a steady deterioration, with a peak score of 25.4 in 2021, placing it 91st. In 2024, Ecuador achieved its lowest performance, with a score of 19.3 (105th rank), and it can be identified as the poorest performer in the CAN (Dutta et al., 2024). However, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) underscores the significance of Ecuador as one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the region (Hill et al., 2023). Furthermore, the 2024 GII report (Dutta et al., 2024) designates Ecuador as a nation hosting new unicorn enterprises, although there is a decrease in its innovation performance relative to its level of development.

The Colombian innovation ecosystem consistently holds a GII score from 29.2 to 30.84, which locates the country between the 61st and 67th rank in the Global Innovation Index (GII), demonstrating its notable accomplishments in innovation relative to other nations in the Latin America and Caribbean region (Dutta et al., 2024). Moreover, Colombia shares comparable socioeconomic conditions with other Andean countries, which represent innovation barriers; however, Salazar-Elena et al. (2023) observed that this country has addressed these challenges through the implementation of policies and strategies aimed at fostering collaboration among stakeholders in the innovation ecosystem.

Peru shows a slowly declining performance; its best performance was in 2021, with a score of 31.2 (65th rank), and its worst performance occurred in 2024, with a score of 26.7 (75th rank). This performance is in line with its level of development: it is in the group of upper-middle-income economies, and it achieves the second position among CAN states (Dutta et al., 2024). However, Acevedo-Flores et al. (2021) evidence the stable performance of Peruvian innovation indicators over the last decade, allowing the nation to attain a status equivalent to its regional neighbors in the CAN, with the possibility to improve its competitiveness by investing in more knowledge value chains.

Bolivia exhibits a data inconsistency in the GII scores for 2022; its optimal performance occurred in 2021, with a score of 23.4, ranking it 104th, while its poorest performance was noted in 2024, with a score of 20.4 (100th rank); this behavior is aligned with its developmental status among lower-middle-income economies (Dutta et al., 2024). However, Prego (2021) notes an enhancement in Bolivian innovation performance linked to innovation policies that, although incorporated in development plans, are insufficient for structural transformations in production innovation systems, posing a challenge for the future of the Bolivian innovation system if organizations fail to adapt to these changes.

4.3. CRI Applicability Assessment

CAN countries share cultural values and practices that promote innovation processes, which differ from models proposed by perspectives from other socio-cultural contexts (Jimenez et al., 2022; Devaux et al., 2009; Testori & D’Auria, 2018). The CRI model utilizes contextual components and latent variables to assess innovation potential in organizations, providing a macro-level approach to understanding innovation performance. A qualitative comparison of selected innovation measurement frameworks with the CRI model was conducted, highlighting the comparability of constructs and latent variables. The evaluation focused on similarities and differences between general measurement models and the incorporation of CRI model factors.

Three tables were constructed to summarize the comparative analysis through the following elements:

• The “Measurement Framework” lists the titles of the specific innovation measurement frameworks analyzed, along with the authors and years of publication.
• The “Measurement Components” outlines the key constructs, variables, or dimensions that each framework utilizes to assess innovation. These components represent the aspects that the framework seeks to assess inside an organization’s innovation activities.
• The “Application Sector” indicates the specific industry or organization type for which the respective innovation measurement framework were designed or applied.
• “Similarities with the CRI Model” emphasizes the ways in which the components or focal points of the analyzed frameworks correspond with the constructs of the CRI model (capabilities, results, and impacts). The inclusion of variables pertaining to the factors of information sources (C1), financing sources (C2), innovation activities (C3), innovation objectives (C4), innovation results (R1), and innovation impacts (I1), as delineated in the CRI model, is indicated. This element may also mention broader conceptual similarities.
• “Differences with the CRI Model” details the aspects in which the selected frameworks diverge from the CRI model. Common differences include a lack of evaluation of the CRI model’s factors or a different conceptualization or treatment of culture.

4.3.1. Colombia

Four conceptual frameworks were selected to analyze the diversity of innovation measurement in Colombian organizations, emphasizing the evaluation of the multiple organizational capabilities that foster innovation while paying comparatively less attention to the outcomes (results and impacts) of innovation processes.

Table 2. Comparison of CRI model with Colombian innovation measurement frameworks.

Measurement Framework	Measurement Components	Application Sector	Similarities with the CRI Model	Differences with the CRI Model
Innovation capabilities (Velazquez-Cazares et al., 2021)	Innovation sources (strategy, knowledge management, management of innovative projects, innovation objectives); innovation enablers (internal and external enablers)	Agriculture	Model particularities Considers innovation capabilities to be essential for business innovation. CRI model factor inclusion Includes specific variables related to information sources (C1), innovation activities (C3), financing sources (C2), and innovation results (R1).	Model particularities Includes culture as a separate factor and not transversally like the CRI model. Defines “innovation objectives” differently, focusing on the types of innovation outputs (results). Differentiates resources into financial and other kinds. CRI model factor inclusion Does not evaluate innovation objectives (C4) or innovation impacts (I1).
Technological innovation capabilities (Serrano García et al., 2017)	R&D, production, strategic planning, organizational relationship, organizational learning, resources management, and marketing	ICT services in academic institutions	Model particularities Organizational innovation capabilities are seen as inputs for innovation. CRI model factor inclusion Include some variables related to information sources (C1), innovation activities (C3), and innovation objectives (C4).	Model particularities Includes culture as a specific variable and not transversally like the CRI model. CRI model factor inclusion Does not evaluate the results (R1) and impacts (I1) of innovation as outputs of innovation.
Innovation firm performance (Acosta-Prado et al., 2021)	Innovation capabilities and knowledge management	New Technology-based Firms (NTBFs)	Model particularities Framework design includes micro-environment (internal environment) and macro-environment (competitive environment). CRI model factor inclusion Includes variables related to information sources (C1), innovation objectives (C4), and innovation activities (C3).	Model particularities Focuses on factors that gives competitive advantages. CRI model factor inclusion Does not evaluate financing sources (C2), innovation results (R1), and innovation impacts (I1).
Innovation capabilities (Arango et al., 2015)	Innovation strategy, implementation strategy, innovation culture, innovation value chain, and innovation results	Manufacturing	Model particularities Considers innovation capabilities to be determinants of innovation performance measured through their innovation results (tangible consequences of innovation processes). CRI model factor inclusion Includes some variables related to innovation activities (C3), innovation objectives (C4), and innovation results (R1)	Model particularities Includes culture as a specific variable and not transversally like the CRI model. CRI model factor inclusion Does not evaluate information sources (C1), financing sources (C2), and innovation impacts (I1).

displays the primary findings of the comparison between these Colombian innovation measurement frameworks and the CRI model.

After examining these four innovation assessment frameworks, it becomes clear that the CRI model is particularly appropriate for analyzing innovation capabilities in this context. Furthermore, the CRI model evaluates the results and impacts of innovation—aspects often overlooked in many frameworks—thereby providing a chance to enhance the assessment of innovation potential inside organizations in the Colombian environment. Other studies not mentioned here, like Hurtado-Ayala and Gonzalez-Campo (2015) and Cepeda and Arias-Pérez (2019), highlight how important innovation capabilities are, while others, like Rojas-Ospina et al. (2024), look at the results and effects of innovation, showing how significant the ideas in the CRI model are.

4.3.2. Peru

The CRI model was juxtaposed with three Peruvian innovation measurement frameworks to identify similarities, differences, and opportunities for enhancing innovation measurement within this context.

Table 3. Comparison of CRI model with Peruvian innovation measurement frameworks.

Measurement Framework	Measurement Components	Application Sector	Similarities with the CRI Model	Differences with the CRI Model
“Absorptive capacity impact” (Ortigueira-Sánchez et al., 2020)	Innovations (products, services, etc.), acquisition of external knowledge, internal R&D, employee training, innovation subsidy, firm age and firm size	Manufacturing and services	Model particularities Also evaluates innovation perception, specifically emphasizing management viewpoints on the capacity to assimilate innovation. CRI model factor inclusion Include several variables related to information sources (C1), financing sources (C2), innovation activities (C3), and innovation results (R1).	Model particularities Focuses on technological dimensions of innovation absorption rather than overall innovation potential. CRI model factor inclusion Lacks analysis of innovation objectives (C4) and innovation impacts (I1).
“Innovation and organization performance” (Seclen-Luna et al., 2023)	Technological innovations (products, services and process), non-technological innovations (organizational and market), and firm performance	Manufacturing and KIBSs (Knowledge-Intensive Business Services)	Model particularities Analyzes innovation results as innovation outputs. CRI model factor inclusion Includes, particularly, variables related to innovation results (R1) and some variables related to innovation activities (C3) and innovation objectives (C4), and only the economic dimension of innovation impacts (I1).	Model particularities Concentrates only on innovation results and lacks an analysis of innovation capabilities. CRI model factor inclusion Does not evaluate information sources (C1) and financing sources (C2).
“Innovation capabilities and competitive advantage” (Gómez-Prado et al., 2022)	Product innovation, marketing intelligence, and pricing (innovation capabilities), and competitive advantage and international performance (innovation outcomes)	Active startups in manufacturing (food, beauty products, beverages)	Model particularities The macro measurement model is comparable to the CRI model. CRI model factor inclusion Includes variables related to all factors of innovation capabilities (C1, C2, C3, and C4) and includes some variables similar to innovation results (R1) and impacts (I1).	Model particularities The macro measurement model is comparable with the CRI, in that is examines three innovation capabilities (product innovation, marketing intelligence, and pricing capability) as determinants of innovation outcomes (competitive advantage and international performance). CRI model factor inclusion Focuses on innovation capabilities and outcomes related to competitive innovation and organizational performance.

summarizes this analysis.

The examination of these innovation assessment frameworks, tailored to the Peruvian setting, underscores the significance of innovation capabilities in achieving results and effects that enhance the innovative performance of organizations. Furthermore, the elements of the three investigated Peruvian frameworks demonstrate an affinity with the macro-conceptual measurement framework suggested by the CRI model; nevertheless, in the Peruvian context, they are implemented in organizations within specific sectors or conditions. Therefore, the CRI model appears readily adaptable for assessing the innovation potential of Peruvian organizations. Also, research not covered in this analysis, like works by Acevedo-Flores et al. (2021), Del Carpio Gallegos and Miralles (2023), and Salles-Filho et al. (2010), highlights how important it is to enhance organizational innovation skills to achieve better innovation outcomes and effects, as shown by the CRI model.

4.3.3. Bolivia

The selection of measurement frameworks for Bolivia is complicated by the scarcity of models found for measuring innovation under Bolivian organizational conditions; therefore, only two frameworks were selected for comparison with the CRI model, as shown in

Table 4. Comparison of CRI model with Bolivian innovation measurement frameworks.

Measurement Framework	Measurement Components	Application Sector	Similarities with the CRI Model	Differences with the CRI Model
Organizational learning capability (Verduguez Vargas et al., 2022)	Entrepreneurship orientation and innovation performance	Multi-sectoral mix	Model particularities Recognized the influences of certain organizational learning capabilities (innovation inputs) on innovation performance (innovation outcomes). CRI model factor inclusion Certain variables resemble those incorporated in the CRI model, such as innovation capabilities (C1, C2, C3, C4), innovation results (R1), and innovation impact (I1).	Model particularities Treats innovation performance as a secondary outcome, not the central focus of measurement. The innovation environment (context) is included as a variable, while in the CRI model, it is addressed transversally. CRI model factors inclusion The focus of the variables is on innovation performance and entrepreneurial orientation.
Impact and Results of Innovation Activities (Foronda, 2019)	Innovation inputs, innovation outputs, and productivity	Manufacturing and services	Model particularities Focusing on innovation activities and innovation objectives as inputs to evaluate labor productivity in innovation processes. CRI model factor inclusion Incorporates certain variables in innovation inputs related to innovation activities (C3), innovation objectives (C4), information sources (C1), and innovation results (R1).	Model particularities Lacks a comprehensive framework for assessing innovation impacts. Does not considerate the incorporation of contextual analysis. CRI model factor inclusion Does not explicitly consider information sources (C1) or innovation impacts (I1). Does not delineate variables for financing sources (C2), although it incorporates certain features of innovation financing in a transversal manner.

.

The search for frameworks comparable to the CRI relative to Bolivia was challenging due to the lack of frameworks that meet the selection criteria. The analysis of the selected frameworks for assessing innovation within the context of Bolivian organizations highlights a focus on innovation capabilities as determinants affecting the outcomes of innovation. Similarly, the CRI model assesses the innovation potential of organizations through their innovation capabilities, results, and impacts. Considering that the context of Bolivian and Ecuadorian organizations has similar socioeconomic and cultural conditions, the CRI model could be adapted to measure the innovation potential of organizations in Bolivia. Furthermore, some studies that were not selected show the importance of the CRI model components. Ton (2017) maintains that strengthening organizational capacities and access to financing can be effective in generating innovation and progress in communities. Figueroa-Armijos and Valdivia (2017) suggest that sustainable innovation generates innovation capabilities, knowledge sharing, and positive effects on the market and on sustainability.

4.3.4. Summary of Key Findings of the CRI’s Applicability Assessment in CAN Countries

The comparative analysis of the CRI model with other measurement frameworks shows that in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, most innovation measurement frameworks mainly look at the capabilities of organizations, but they do not cover much about the actual results and impacts of innovation. This result highlights a potential gap that the CRI model could address within the specific socioeconomic and cultural contexts of CAN states.

Table 5. Summary of main findings of CRI comparative analysis.

Country	Key Findings of Innovation Measurement Frameworks Compared to CRI Model
Colombia	Acknowledge innovation capabilities (C1, C2, C3, and C4) and results (R1) as key drivers of innovation. Lack comprehensive evaluation of innovation results (R1) and innovation impacts (I1). Treat culture differently than the CRI model’s transversal approach (usually as a separate variable).
Perú	Emphasize importance of innovation capabilities (C1, C2, C3, and C4) for achieving innovation results (R1). Align with CRI model factors (C1, C2, C3, and C4). Focus on innovation capabilities (particularly in innovation activities (C3) and innovation results (R1)). Limited analysis of innovation impacts (I1). Present a comprehensive macro-conceptual model similar to the CRI model.
Bolivia	Limited focus on innovation capabilities (C1, C2, C3, and C4) as determinants of innovation results (R1). Lack thorough assessment of innovation impacts (I1) and consideration of all CRI model factors.

summarizes the principal findings of this analysis.

4.4. Comparative Analysis of Methodologies Applied in the Selected Measurement Frameworks

This comparative analysis reveals that each innovation measurement tool exhibits distinct methodological approaches, including fuzzy logic models, SEM models, regression models, and descriptive statistical analysis. The tools evidence a conceptual alignment with the CRI model at the macro level, as demonstrated by analogous elements inside their measurement frameworks. These similarities are evident in quantified constructs or latent variables that encompass the diverse factors of the CRI model (C1, C2, C3, C4, R1, and I1).

All the measurement frameworks studied include most of the key innovation capabilities identified in the CRI model as essential components for measuring innovation within organizations. Most of these frameworks characterize innovation outputs as direct results of the organizational innovation process. However, some of these frameworks only address the economic, societal, or organizational effects of innovation, neglecting their broader set of impacts.

A crucial aspect to examine is the consideration of context across all frameworks. The majority of frameworks explicitly include contextual aspects as separate variables, while others regard the environment and culture as intrinsic components of the model. One framework, however, applies an external model without contextualizing it.

The findings collectively demonstrate the comparability of the reviewed measurement frameworks with the CRI model. Consequently, the CRI model provides a viable option for adaptation and implementation in CAN states to effectively assess organizational innovation potential. Figure 6 summarizes these findings and the adaptability of the CRI model to measure innovation potential considering CAN settings.

5. Final Reflections

This bibliographic study indicates a notable deficiency in the literature in terms of measuring organizational innovation within the Andean Community (CAN), especially in relation to the integration of contextual elements in macro measurement models. This gap underscores the necessity for a more sophisticated methodology for assessing innovation in the region, exemplified by the CRI model.

The analysis of CAN’s performance in the Global Innovation Index (GII) presents a mixed picture. While Ecuador exhibits a concerning decline in innovation performance, Colombia demonstrates a more consistent trajectory. Peru shows a gradual decline, while Bolivia experiences significant fluctuations. These variations underscore the diverse and complex nature of innovation ecosystems within the Andean region. Consequently, it is crucial to develop and implement region-specific innovation measurement frameworks that consider the distinct socioeconomic, cultural, and organizational contexts of each country. The CRI model, with its focus on organizational capabilities, results, and societal impacts within the Ecuadorian context, provides a solid foundation for developing such frameworks.

The comparative analysis of selected innovation measurement frameworks indicates differences in scope, focus, and various methodological approaches, including fuzzy logic, SEM, regression models, and descriptive statistical analysis. A notable level of conceptual alignment with the CRI model is evident at the macro level, despite the methodological diversity present. Most of these frameworks highlight the essential role of context in the design and application of their measurement models, including socioeconomic conditions and cultural nuances. Moreover, the inclusion of contextual elements enhances comparability across various measurement frameworks via their constructs or latent variables.

The CRI model emphasizes innovation potential through capabilities, results, and impacts, offering a framework for comparative analysis. The review of the chosen frameworks found similar components, including constructs or latent variables that correspond to the key factors of the CRI model: innovation capabilities (C1, C2, C3, and C4), results (R1), and impacts (I1). Although numerous frameworks successfully address elements of organizational capabilities and their substantial effects on innovation processes and performance, there remains a significant gap in the thorough examination of innovation results and societal or organizational innovation impacts.

The findings indicate that the existing frameworks provide valuable insights into innovation within CAN settings; however, they may not adequately encompass the complex nature of innovation as defined by the CRI model. The current innovation measurement frameworks used in the CAN predominantly focus on innovation capabilities, frequently neglecting the evaluation of innovation results and their impacts. This gap gives policymakers a chance to use the CRI model to better understand innovation, looking at both capabilities as inputs and at results and impacts as outcomes in a complete analysis of innovation processes.

Despite its limitations and the lack of more frameworks to compare, the CRI model offers a significant platform for future research and for the creation of more comprehensive and context-sensitive instruments for assessing innovation. Future research should look into how the CRI model can be used in specific sectors and regions within CAN states by identifying and including relevant local indicators and factors. Additionally, studying changes over time would help us understand how innovation processes develop, as we; as to understand their lasting effects, while the CRI model can be used to evaluate innovation policies and to measure how effective these policies are, with the goal of improving strategies and creating measurement tools that better fit different cultures.