The Management of Technological Innovation in the Hotel Industry a Critical Literature Review Pdf

i. Introduction

Innovation has been widely accepted as a key factor for tourism firms and destinations and is recognized as a strategic issue to be addressed in order to be competitive and, consequently, to face the intense contest currently constitute in the tourism sector, likewise as to achieve growth and long-term success (Agarwal et al. 2003; Campo et al. 2014; Njoroge et al. 2019; Pikkemaat et al. 2019).

Innovation research in tourism has experienced increased attention; however, innovation is a scarcely discussed and explored subject field in the hotel industry (Meira et al. 2019; Nieves and Segarra-Ciprés 2015). Since innovation plays a central role in increasing the competitive advantage in a global market place, especially in times of crisis (Campo et al. 2014; Shin and Kang 2020), the hotel industry benefits from research focused on innovation and its detailed analysis.

The goal of this paper is to assess the conceptual evolution and inquiry streams in the innovation in hotels, answering the following inquiry questions through co-word analysis and visualization maps: (1) What is the conceptual structure of the innovation in the hotel literature? (2) What are the dominant, fading, and emerging topics in the field?

This study contributes to the literature in three major ways. Showtime, it extends the literature on hotel innovation offering a deeper assay of the knowledge accumulated, in terms of output and touch, to empathise the electric current land of this field. Thus, the paper helps actual and future researchers to handle the inherent complexity and challenges of the innovation process and to better direct their research.

2d, as innovation has long been considered one of the main solutions for firms, managers should place innovation at the center of their strategies, particularly in crisis periods, every bit is the case of the current COVID-xix pandemic. Therefore, this written report helps managers to identify the most relevant (and actual) drivers and constraints of innovation and to be enlightened of the different types of innovation and their bear upon, namely the well-nigh suitable to deal with the astringent current situation. Technological innovation enables hotels to reduce physical interactions and enhance cleanliness and, consequently, decrease infection risks, while still providing personalized care to ensure customer satisfaction and hotel competitiveness.

Tertiary, "the studies that employed relational bibliometric methods are rare" (Köseoglu et al. 2016, p. 190). "Relational techniques take been applied much less frequently to sympathise tourism research activity" (Jiang et al. 2019, p. 1926). The current study therefore attempts to fill this gap in the literature and improve the agreement of the conceptual structure of innovation in hotel inquiry by using co-word analysis. The output of co-word analysis is a network of themes and their relationships that correspond the conceptual infinite of a scientific domain (Zupic and Čater 2015; Köseoglu et al. 2016). Specifically, it uses the words in documents to establish relations and build a conceptual construction of the inquiry field (Callon et al. 1983). Thus, co-word assay is the advisable method for answering the research questions formulated above.

The paper is structured into v sections. Section one presents the introduction. Department ii provides a literature review addressing tourism and hospitality innovation as well equally bibliometric analysis. Section 3 describes the methodology used. Section 4 analyses the results, discussion, and streams of future research, and, finally, Section five presents the primary conclusions, theoretical and practical implications, and limitations.

two. Literature Review

2.1. Tourism and Hospitality Innovation

"Innovation is divers differently depending on the research focus" (Pikkemaat et al. 2019, p. 184). However, innovation is usually related to aspects such as creativity, newness, value creation, and economic growth (Wikhamn et al. 2018), involving the chapters to change and conform (Meira et al. 2019). It is generally characterized by everything that differs from the usual, representing a discontinuity of previous practices in the business. In fact, "common to all definitions of innovation is newness, as innovation is strongly associated with something new. In tourism research, the definitions past Schumpeter (1934) and the OECD/Eurostat (2018) are often used" (Pikkemaat et al. 2019, p. 184).

Innovation is a requirement for operating in today's competitive tourism surroundings. As tourism firms operate in a competitive sector, innovating is often a status for survival and growth (Agarwal et al. 2003; Njoroge et al. 2019) and, thus, 1 of the virtually relevant determinants of organizational operation (Gürlek and Tuna 2018; Nicolau and Santa-María 2013).

Given the characteristics of tourism firms, "the innovation procedure requires focusing on the close relationship with customers and the level of employee commitment" (Souto 2015, p. 143). Additionally, "applying innovation theory to service sectors we must take into business relationship the inter-sector heterogeneity which makes information technology important to study innovation in one specific sector at a fourth dimension" (Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson 2009, p. 380). A high level of heterogeneity is, thus, a characteristic of the tourism sector. As tourism firms operate in several sectors such every bit transportation, accommodation, leisure, or intermediation, the innovation beliefs of tourism firms will diverge (Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson 2009). In addition, in that location are specific characteristics of hotels that make them different and justify a divide analysis, such equally the category classification of hotels (the ''stars'' categorization goes from 1 to 5 and determines the blazon, number, and quality of services provided) (Orfila-Sintes et al. 2005). "Developing and applying new ideas that add together value to a service is no easy task, particularly when hotel competitors seek to duplicate whatever innovation they detect"(Vila et al. 2012, p. 75).

More recently, scholars have used bibliometric methods to written report innovation in tourism firms (east.g., Durán-Sánchez et al. 2019). Nosotros add to the existing studies by focusing on the particular case of innovation in hotels, using a co-word analysis (conceptual construction).

ii.ii. Bibliometric Analysis

Co-ordinate to Broadus (1987, p. 376), bibliometric analysis corresponds to "the quantitative study of physical published units, or of bibliographic units, or of the surrogates for either". Bibliometric analysis is a set of methods that use a quantitative approach to study or measure the enquiry of a given field based on scientific publications indexed in bibliographic databases (Gutiérrez-Salcedo et al. 2018; Zupic and Čater 2015). In this mode, such analysis complements the traditional methods of review (Zupic and Čater 2015).

Some authors place 2 types of bibliometric procedures (Köseoglu et al. 2016; Thelwall 2008): evaluative bibliometrics and relational bibliometrics or science mapping. Evaluative bibliometrics assesses the productivity and touch on of scientific actors such as researchers, inquiry centers, and countries (Thelwall 2008). In turn, relational bibliometrics or science mapping examines the similarity and human relationship between publications, authors, and keywords using, respectively, co-citation analysis and/or bibliographic coupling, co-authorship assay, and co-word analysis (Köseoglu et al. 2016; Thelwall 2008). These methods allow ane to reveal, respectively, the intellectual, social, and conceptual structures of a given research field (Gutiérrez-Salcedo et al. 2018; Zupic and Čater 2015).

In particular, co-word analysis uses an advanced content analysis technique to study relationships between words in a set of documents (Callon et al. 1983) and to delimit the boundaries of scientific areas (Castriotta et al. 2019). "The idea underlying the method is that when words oft co-occur in documents, it means that the concepts backside those words are closely related" (Zupic and Čater 2015, p. 435). Co-word analysis utilizes the text of the title, abstract, keyword listing, or/and the body of the document to build a semantic map of the research field (Zupic and Čater 2015). This method has increasingly been used to identify the conceptual structure of the tourism field (due east.1000., Hoz-Correa et al. 2018; Rodríguez-López et al. 2020).

three. Methodology

This section describes the methodological procedures used in the identification of papers for the review every bit well every bit the application of the method of data analysis.

The Scopus database, similar to Jiang et al. (2019), Agapito (2020), and Santos et al. (2020), was selected as the data repository from which to search for and extract papers. In the field of tourism innovation, Scopus has amend coverage due to collecting a greater number of papers and receiving a greater number of citations (Durán-Sánchez et al. 2019).

The search was made in Oct 2020 using two keywords: (1) "innovat*" and (2) "hotel*", combined with the Boolean operator "AND" in three alternative fields, title, keywords, and abstract. Following the previous literature, the review adopted a restricted scope in terms of document type equally the sample was limited to articles published in international journals (eastward.g., Agapito 2020; Gomezelj 2016), written in English, and allocated to the subject surface area of "Business, Management and Accounting" (e.grand., Wut et al. 2021). Similar to Jiang et al. (2019), to ensure the homogeneity of the sample, other publications such equally books, book capacity, conference papers, and reports were excluded. No commencement date was specified, thereby allowing the search algorithm to identify the earliest papers in the literature. No restriction was made regarding the publication stage (i.e., final or article in process). This search process resulted in a total of 695 papers.

The bibliographic data extracted from Scopus database were then exported to Elsevier's software Mendeley 1.19 to manage the papers selected. In this process, 361 papers were excluded because they were out of the telescopic of this study. Later on completing the screening of papers, the concluding sample included a full of 334 papers (delight see Figure 1).

Co-word assay was conducted using the VOSviewer 1.6.fifteen software, similar to Agapito (2020). In detail, the co-occurrence of terms in the title and abstruse was analyzed. In improver, temporal co-discussion analysis was performed to identify fading and emerging topics in the field.

4. Results

4.ane. Analysis of the Publications and Journals

Figure ii illustrates the evolution of the papers published on the topic per yr from 1982 to October 2020. The considerable increase in publications on innovation in hotels (except for 2010 and 2017) shows an increasing tendency, suggesting that this discipline has been progressively gaining popularity in the academic customs. The significant growth in the enquiry focused on innovation in the hotel sector began in 2004, which is in accordance with Meira et al. (2019).

In a broader scope, in recent years, tourism innovation has become an emerging inquiry topic in the field of tourism (Hjalager 2010; Narduzzo and Volo 2018). In fact, the scientific literature on innovation in tourism is recent (Durán-Sánchez et al. 2019), and thus, the same is true regarding innovation in hotels, as can exist seen in Figure ii.

The 334 papers were published in 115 journals. As the papers were published in a wide diverseness of journals, only those with half-dozen or more than papers published on the topic, which represents 54.five% of the scientific product in the field, are presented in Table 1. International Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM), International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM), and Tourism Direction (TM) appear to be the major outlets to publications on innovation in hotels. Curiously, the journals which have college average citations are not from the area of tourism/hospitality.

4.2. Structure of the Conceptual Innovation in Hotels Sub-domains

A co-word map was created in VOSviewer to answer the outset research question (see Figure 3). As Effigy 3 was based on the co-occurrence of multiple words, which indicates the interrelatedness of the topics they represent, information technology reveals the conceptual structure of the scientific domain nether assay. The distance between terms is indicative of the extent to which they are unlike or similar. "A strong proximity among terms implies that they are strongly correlated" (Castriotta et al. 2019, p. 418).

The map in Figure 3 shows four sub-domains representing technological innovation (cerise cluster), innovativeness and innovation strategy (green cluster), knowledge and employee innovative behavior (blue cluster), and functioning equally an result of organizational adequacy to innovate (pink cluster).

Additionally, a temporal overlay was applied to the co-discussion map shown in Figure 3 to answer the 2nd inquiry question (see Figure four). The temporal overlay relates terms to the date of publication of papers. Therefore, it enables identifying fading and emerging topics in the innovation in hotels field. The assay of the words by color allows i to examine the evolution of the innovation in hotel research. Darker circles represent terms that were ascendant earlier in such literature, and lighter ones represent those that have prevailed in the recent literature.

Co-ordinate to the color bar at the bottom of the Figure, bluish words are older than the yellow ones, significant that the blue terms were used on average around 2013 and the yellow ones were employed on average around 2017.

It is noteworthy that customer value (average twelvemonth of publication = 2009) and market place orientation (average year of publication = 2010) are two of the oldest terms. Finally, co-creation (average year of publication = 2017), eco-innovation/green innovation (average year of publication = 2018), and innovation strategy (boilerplate year of publication = 2018) are the most recent terms, which shows an increasing interest in these themes.

four.ii.1. Cluster 1 (Cherry Cluster): Technological Innovation

The cluster "technological innovation" (red) contains papers that clarify the function of technological innovation such as social network websites (SNWs) (Al-Shami et al. 2021), cocky-service engineering science (SST) (Kucukusta et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2020), and information and communication technology (ICT) (Karadag and Dumanoglu 2009; Lee et al. 2019; Praničević and Mandić 2020) on hotels' competitive advantage, performance, make equity, and efficiency. On the one hand, applied science enables hotels to access to large amounts of customer data and integrate the data for more tailored, sophisticated, and efficient services to customers, through a improve understanding of their needs, while saving both fourth dimension and costs (e.g., Praničević and Mandić 2020; Shin et al. 2019). Furthermore, "mobile technology has been recognized every bit an accessible tool with high potential for enhancing customer experiences and facilitating value co-creation in the hospitality manufacture" (Lei et al. 2019, p. 4340). With the rising development and dissemination of technology, smart phones, and smart telephone apps, information technology becomes easier for users to participate in co-creation of hotel service innovation, personalizing their interactions and service experience, which are loftier in value (e.k., Kamboj and Gupta 2020; Morosan and DeFranco 2016).

On the other hand, technological interfaces which permit customers to access hotels without the direct involvement of employees, STT, promote labor cost reduction and customer satisfaction (Liu et al. 2020), enable customers to participate in the co-creation and delivery of products and services (Montargot and Lahouel 2018), better perceptions of safe, reduce perceived health take chances and customers' anxiety, and enhance cleanliness, beingness peculiarly relevant to attract hotel customers during the COVID-19 pandemic (Shin and Kang 2020).

Technological innovation refers to a combination of innovations related to technology developments, with the aim of improving existing products or services in an incremental or radical way. In the tourism industry, technological advances are producing fundamental disruptions past empowering tourism actors to create new markets, shape new services, and manage their businesses more effectively (due east.g., Law et al. 2014; Sigala 2018). In particular, "hotels demand to utilize avant-garde technology to attract customers and enhance their perceived value and trust" (Ruan et al. 2020, p. 17). In fact, applied science is an important source of competitive reward for hotels because information technology can transform the way hotels communicate with their customers, ameliorate productivity, decrease costs, and provide efficient services (Shin et al. 2019). Thus, "understanding engineering science innovation is a fundamental strategic management concern in hotels" (Shin et al. 2019, p. 310). SNWs promoting the interaction between users and hotels allow proper feedback to be obtained from clients who are the sources of noesis and information, which improves hotels' competitive advantage and performance (Al-Shami et al. 2021). As well, Praničević and Mandić (2020) highlight the role of technology, in particular ICT, in obtaining and managing data. For case, such technologies enable guests to share their reviews and to exchange opinions about the hotels. Customer service in the hospitality industry has a highly information-intensive nature, and thus, hotels should invest meaning resources in information systems in order to improve service efficiency and quality (Lee et al. 2019).

Implementing technology innovations for decreasing guest interactions with hotel staff, using SST, is (potentially) an constructive strategy, non only to reduce costs and meliorate service quality but besides to decrease perceived health risks for hotel customers, a key factor in the hotel booking intention in the current pandemic crisis. The travel unwillingness during and subsequently the COVID-19 pandemic is resultant from a high health risk (Shin and Kang 2020). Thus, almost hotels are already adopting engineering systems for social distancing (e.k., mobile check-in systems, kiosk bank check-in machines, and robot cleaning systems) and cleanliness (e.g., avant-garde cleaning technologies for enhanced disinfection). Every bit an essential take a chance-reduction strategy, technology innovation is likely to play a fundamental function during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, some (scarce) of the latest literature focuses on investigating the impact of engineering science innovation on hotel selection behavior during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic crisis and on the hotel industry's recovery after such a pandemic crisis. Due to the unprecedented threat to the hotel industry caused by COVID-19, the role of engineering science innovation in reducing the perceived degree of health hazard, which influences travel decisions, seems to be a promising field of research.

4.2.2. Cluster ii (Green Cluster): Innovativeness and Innovation Strategy

The cluster "innovativeness and innovation strategy" (green) comprises papers that investigate the role of innovativeness in a successful innovation strategy, nearly of them highlighting that in that location is little agreement on what innovativeness is (Kessler et al. 2015; Tajeddini and Trueman 2014). As there is no real consensus on the meaning of innovativeness, which impacts the results, the research usually defines the pregnant of innovativeness or even investigates the perception of innovativeness, as is the case of Tajeddini and Trueman (2014) in the hotel manufacture context. Additionally, the papers belonging to this cluster identify the determinants and barriers to innovativeness.

Organizational innovativeness is a precondition for innovation and concern success, every bit information technology is capable of creating innovations which, in plough, contribute to gaining strategic advantage and, consequently, to business success (Kessler et al. 2015). In other words, organizational innovativeness is a prerequisite for a successful implementation of an innovation strategy, consisting (adopting an integrative view) of the dimensions of willingness to innovate, ability to introduce, and possibility to innovate (Kessler et al. 2015). Tajeddini (2010) regards innovativeness as an attitudinal dimension of innovation. Thus, a new product or service, a new process, a new collaborative/organizational structure, etc., tin each be considered an innovation resulting from the organizational innovative climate (Singjai et al. 2018). Innovativeness is, in fact, ane of the most important strategic orientations for firms to achieve long-term success (Jalilvand 2017; Tajeddini 2010). In this sense, innovativeness is considered to exist a continual procedure toward long-term successful innovation strategies. Among organizational intangible resources, innovativeness and an innovation strategy are crucial to the success of the hotel industry and play a role in supporting productivity levels and competitiveness. "Innovativeness in the service industry embraces a broad spectrum of multiple activities. These activities include supportive leadership, improved services and prophylactic, new technologies, new strategy development, advice technologies interaction and a new friendly surround" (Tajeddini et al. 2017, p. 101).

On the one hand, new service development is significantly impacted by the degree of innovativeness; on the other mitt, hotels are an ideal example of a market place with the potential to benefit from the introduction of service innovations. "Hotel market is characterized by many similar, easily substitutable service offerings that can make it difficult to differentiate one hotel from its competition. Thus, hotels' ability to innovate is regarded more and more than equally a central factor in successfully differentiating in a competitive environs" (Ottenbacher and Harrington 2010, p. 6).

Since ecology degradation has become a serious business beyond the world, many companies, namely hotels, are faced with pressures to implement green innovation strategies in pursuing their economic advantages, while simultaneously protecting the environment. Innovation that favors environmental sustainability can help hotels to reduce costs in the long run and to differentiate their offerings from those of their competitors (Singjai et al. 2018), attracting customers more than conscious of sustainability, who are likely to pay college prices for environmentally friendly products and services. Thus, the hotels' ability to understand customers' needs and develop innovative services that offering social and environmental solutions tin have a meaning implication on long-term economic success. "From sustainability point of view, the ability to innovate may represent a necessary concern capability whether related to small incremental steps or to radical innovations to derive long-term economic value" (Njoroge et al. 2019, p. 264).

Although the environmental sustainability dimension has been incorporated into innovation following the increased attention on "greenish" innovation, it has not been fully explored until at present. All the same, it should exist noted that "sustainable innovation is a critical attribute in mod hotel management, as is widely recognized by experts and hotel managers alike" (Horng et al. 2017, p. 44).

4.2.3. Cluster three (Blue Cluster): Knowledge and Employee Innovative Behavior

The cluster "noesis and employee innovative behavior" (bluish) encompasses papers that analyze the part of knowledge and knowledge-based resources (i.e., intellectual capital letter) in promoting innovation (eastward.g., Allameh 2018; Huang and Liu 2019; Nieves and Diaz-Meneses 2018; Nieves et al. 2014) and papers that examine the determinants of employee innovative behavior (EIB) (eastward.g., Afridi et al. 2020; Dhar 2016; Eid and Agag 2020; Jung and Yoon 2018; Nazir and Islam 2020; Schuckert et al. 2018). In today'due south competitive world, knowledge is a central commuter of sustainable innovative capabilities (Allameh 2018; Nieves et al. 2016) and 1 of the primary sources of value and competitive advantage. In turn, EIB "encompasses not only creating a novel and useful idea only also to actually realize, implement, and commercialize it by building social support in favor of the thought" (Afridi et al. 2020, p. 1865), which determines the level of customer satisfaction and loyalty. Thus, cognition and EIB are ii essential intangible avails to survival and growth, especially in service firms such equally hotels (Jung and Yoon 2018).

One set of papers examines the link betwixt the conquering, sharing, and use of noesis and innovation, namely service innovation and direction innovation. External agents (e.g., academic researchers, consultants, and customers), external events (e.g., professional conferences), and internal agents (i.e., employees) are relevant sources of knowledge for developing innovation in hotels (Allameh 2018; Cheng et al. 2018; Huang and Liu 2019; Nieves and Diaz-Meneses 2018; Nieves and Segarra-Ciprés 2015). Therefore, hotels can raise their knowledge-based resource through external networks with academic researchers, artists, and consultants (Cheng et al. 2018; Nieves and Segarra-Ciprés 2015). These networks facilitate the collection and commutation of useful information (Allameh 2018, p. 861) for the evolution and introduction of service and management innovation (Cheng et al. 2018; Nieves and Segarra-Ciprés 2015). For instance, when employees interact with customers they capture and assimilate customers' knowledge (i.e., customers' desires and needs), which tin pb to incremental innovations (Nieves and Diaz-Meneses 2018). In fact, hotels "tin exist more innovative if they are able to observe changes in clients' preferences and answer past reviewing and adapting their services to consumers' new desires" (Nieves et al. 2016, p. 167). In plow, the social capital letter developed by hotels' employees themselves improves knowledge acquisition and creativity, which enhances service innovation (Huang and Liu 2019). Moreover, employees with high levels of noesis play a critical role in the introduction of new processes and management innovations (Nieves and Segarra-Ciprés 2015). Hotels "that accept an appropriate level of intellectual majuscule will be more innovative and facilitate innovation past transferring knowledge and new ideas and increasing the employees' ability to sympathize and apply them" (Allameh 2018, p. 867).

The other set of papers investigates how the external and internal organizational environment (due east.g., corporate social responsibility, corporate back up, customer interactivity, external pressures, and leadership manner) and employee characteristics (e.g., affect, authenticity, engagement, task stress, psychological capital letter, and workplace happiness) influence, straight and/or indirectly, EIB. Therefore, to inspire employee inventiveness and increment EIB, the hotel industry should invest in corporate social responsibleness (CSR) activities (Afridi et al. 2020), develop corporate support programs (e.g., budget, time, and advice) (Eid and Agag 2020), and emphasize organizational learning (Liu 2017). Moreover, leadership fashion likewise influences EIB (Dhar 2016; Karatepe et al. 2020; Schuckert et al. 2018). Ethical leadership (straight and indirectly through leader-member exchange) (Dhar 2016) and servant leadership (directly and indirectly through climate for creativity) (Karatepe et al. 2020) foster EIB. Accurate leadership and transformational leadership as well stimulate innovative behavior, although authentic leadership has a greater influence than transformational leadership (Schuckert et al. 2018). In this sense, information technology appears that different leadership styles can promote EIB, although some styles tin have a greater influence than other styles. Thus, further inquiry is needed to shed light on the link between leadership styles and EIB.

Regarding the individual factors, the literature shows that piece of work appointment (Nazir and Islam 2020), psychological capital (i.e., cocky-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience) (Schuckert et al. 2018), and workplace happiness (Bani-Melhem et al. 2018) raise EIB. Workplace happiness, for instance, "has significant effects on employees' positive emotions and motivation, thereby encouraging employees to appoint in IB [innovative beliefs]" (Bani-Melhem et al. 2018, p. 1613). These and other individual factors, such as affect, authenticity, and volunteerism, also accept a mediating role in the relationship between job and individual characteristics and EIB (e.g., Afridi et al. 2020). As national civilisation moderates the link betwixt contextual factors, such as corporate support and external pressures, and EIB (Eid and Agag 2020), farther research should explore how national culture influences the relationship between other job and individual characteristics and EIB.

iv.two.4. Cluster 4 (Pink Cluster): Performance as an Effect of Organizational Capability to Innovate

The cluster "performance as an outcome of organizational adequacy to introduce" (pink) includes papers that investigate the determinants and outcomes of the innovation adequacy, performance beingness 1 of the most relevant and well-studied outcomes. The innovation adequacy enables one to respond "to the demands of the consumers, to the requirements of the market and to the global competition" (Revilla-Camacho et al. 2020, p. 506). Consequently, it promotes product differentiation, make paradigm, and customer loyalty, allowing a sustainable competitive advantage to be accomplished (Martínez-López and Vargas-Sánchez 2013; Wang et al. 2020).

Strategic orientations, mainly market place orientation and entrepreneurial orientation, enhance the evolution and/or improvement of innovation capabilities (Alnawas and Hemsley-Brownish 2019; Angkanurakbun and Wanarat 2016; Ghantous and Alnawas 2020; Revilla-Camacho et al. 2020). In fact, "market orientation affects innovation capability as it enables the development of marketing capabilities and the generation of positive marketing results" (Revilla-Camacho et al. 2020, p. 514). However, it appears that entrepreneurial orientation has a stronger influence on both exploitative (incremental) innovation and exploratory (radical) innovation than market place orientation (Ghantous and Alnawas 2020). Furthermore, other factors, such as collaborative relationships (Pongsathornwiwat et al. 2019) and learning orientation (Nair 2019) also stimulate the organizational capability to introduce.

Regarding the link between innovation capability and operation, the bulk of the studies bear witness that such adequacy enhances hotel performance (Alnawas and Hemsley-Brown 2019; Angkanurakbun and Wanarat 2016; Ghantous and Alnawas 2020; Meira et al. 2019; Nair 2019; Pongsathornwiwat et al. 2019; Revilla-Camacho et al. 2020). Yet, the literature stresses that different combinations of innovation types have unlike influences on performance (Mattsson and Orfila-Sintes 2014; Tseng et al. 2008). The hotel'southward innovative focus could not increase brusque-term functioning simply only medium- and long-term operation (Campo et al. 2014).

In improver, some recent papers explore, in particular, the determinants and outcomes of the eco-innovation capability (Aboelmaged 2018; Reyes-Santiago et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020). Environmental orientation (Aboelmaged 2018), proactive ecology strategy (Reyes-Santiago et al. 2019), opportunity recognizing and opportunity capitalizing capabilities, acme manager's pro-environmental attitudes, and stakeholder pressures (Wang et al. 2020) promote eco-innovation. In turn, eco-innovation influences hotels' performance (Aboelmaged 2018; Wang et al. 2020). However, the results on the human relationship between eco-innovation and functioning remain inconclusive. Despite eco-innovation enhancing environmental performance (Reyes-Santiago et al. 2019) and financial and not-financial operation (Aboelmaged 2018), according to Reyes-Santiago et al. (2019), eco-innovation has a negative and pregnant influence on organizational performance (i.east., positive changes regarding internal processes, open system, rational goals, and human relations). Studies that emphasize eco-innovation in hotels are scarce (Aboelmaged 2018), then further inquiry should be adult to understand the influence of such innovation on performance.

four.3. Streams of Innovation in Hotels Research and Their Future Contributions

The papers reviewed enabled the identification of four underanalyzed themes, which represents opportunities of farther research (Table 2).

Some of the potential future lines of research should be developed in the open innovation realm given the plurality of stakeholders involved in the process of innovation. Tourism products may be the upshot and/or benefit of a co-cosmos approach. Thus, the adoption of open innovation tin offer added value for tourists, hotels, and other actors of the tourism industry. Furthermore, different actors interact on a collaborative basis and create value in the innovation process. Therefore, the adoption of the open innovation approach is also useful to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and operation.

Additionally, an interesting aspect that should exist noted is the fact that sustainable innovation is connected with technological innovation and has to be conceived in the framework of open innovation. On the one hand, technological innovation helps to implement more sustainable practices. On the other manus, an open innovation approach implies that the environment offers information near tourists' behaviors, expectations, and needs, promoting personalized interactions during the tourist feel.

5. Conclusions, Theoretical and Practical Implications, and Limitations

This written report sought to reveal the conceptual structure of innovation in hotel research through the analysis of the terms in the articles' titles and abstracts retrieved from the Scopus database. In accordance, nosotros performed a co-discussion analysis and used both network and overlay visualization maps available in VOSviewer software. Therefore, we were able to reveal the terms most used by scholars and synthesize research trends in the field.

The results of the cluster analysis indicate the beingness of four sub-domains of enquiry on innovation in hotels that nosotros can label every bit follows: (1) technological innovation; (2) innovativeness and innovation strategy; (3) knowledge and employee innovative behavior; and (4) performance as an result of organizational capability to innovate.

The literature review provides not simply an upwards-to-date review of hotel innovation enquiry only also an agenda for future enquiry that calls for an integrative view in the open innovation approach.

The number of publications is still pocket-sized and full-bodied in the last decade. This is a particularly interesting feature that shows possibilities for truly contributing to the development of the research field, namely though the collaboration between institutions and researchers. The study'southward contribution to the theory is in the grade of various topics that can be studied in further enquiry. Thus, future authors can explore the opportunities/gaps identified (run across Table 2) to accelerate the research in this field.

The implications of this paper are relevant not but for academics and future researchers but also for practitioners (e.chiliad., managers). First, given that innovation is a pillar in a successful strategy, managers should integrate it into their core concern strategy. Second, managers might be aware of the significance of the human resources practices in promoting employees' innovative behavior: selection and training development procedures, appraisal, and reward systems, which impact motivation and performance. Furthermore, managers should provide their employees with adequate environmental support (e.g., fourth dimension, budget, and brainstorming sessions) and promote a supportive innovation organizational culture (e.g., loose coupling and error tolerance). In order to attract customers to visit hotels, hotels need to focus on improving perceptions of safety by adopting technological innovation for social distancing that reduces employee interaction with hotel customers and enhances cleanliness. For instance, hotels should invest in contactless check-in and check-out systems, digital primal systems, face recognition systems, digital menus, online service ordering, mobile concierge apps, smart room command, and cleaning robot systems. It is expected that technological innovation will play a critical role non only in the current pandemic crisis merely also after this crisis, as well as in new evolving crises. Thus, investments in technologies should exist long-term oriented. As well, hotels should comprise customers' feedback in the process of innovation (e.g., customers' claims in the hotel online platforms) for co-creation services, providing personalized care to ensure customer satisfaction.

Although the present research makes several contributions, it also has a primary limitation involving the option of the database, which gives opportunities for further research. Despite this, in the field of tourism innovation, Scopus has a better coverage due to collecting a greater number of papers and receiving a greater number of citations; the being of other internationally recognized databases raises the probability that function of the existing literature on the subject was not considered in this paper. Hereafter research tin can include more than databases. In add-on, future developments of this newspaper may combine more than one bibliometric method: for instance, co-word and co-citation analyses. Previous studies indicate that these two bibliometric assay methods are complementary (Braam et al. 1991), providing a more comprehensive understanding of the researched field.

Author Contributions

Both authors have contributed equally to all phases of the manuscript, including conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft grooming, writing—review and editing, and visualization. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been financed by Portuguese public funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., in the framework of the project with reference UIDB/04105/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Non applicable.

Information Availability Statement

The information that back up the findings of this study are bachelor on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Involvement

The authors declare no disharmonize of interest.

References

1. Aboelmaged, Mohamed. 2018. Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance: An empirical study. Periodical of Cleaner Production 184: 537–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Afridi, Sajjad Ahmad, Bilal Afsar, Asad Shahjehan, Zia Ur Rehman, Maqsood Haider, and Mehboob Ullah. 2020. Perceived corporate social responsibility and innovative work behavior: The function of employee volunteerism and actuality. Corporate Social Responsibleness and Environmental Management 27: 1865–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Agapito, Dora. 2020. The senses in tourism pattern: A bibliometric review. Annals of Tourism Research 83: 102934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Agarwal, Sanjeev, M. Krishna Erramilli, and Chekitan S. Dev. 2003. Market place orientation and functioning in service firms: Role of innovation. Journal of Services Marketing 17: 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Allameh, Sayyed Mohsen. 2018. Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: The part of social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation. Periodical of Intellectual Capital xix: 858–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Alnawas, Ibrahim, and Jane Hemsley-Brownish. 2019. Market orientation and hotel operation: Investigating the role of loftier-order marketing capabilities. International Periodical of Gimmicky Hospitality Direction 31: 1885–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Al-Shami, Samer, Abdul Hadi Al-Hammadi, Abdulla Al Hammadi, Nurulizwa Rashid, Hayder Al-Lamy, and Dheyab Eissa. 2021. Online social networking websites in innovation capability and hotels' performance in Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 12: 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Angkanurakbun, Chavana, and Sawat Wanarat. 2016. The mediating effect of product innovation capability on entrepreneurial pro-activeness and hotel functioning. International Journal of Innovation Management 20: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Bani-Melhem, Shaker, Rachid Zeffane, and Mohamed Albaity. 2018. Determinants of employees' innovative behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30: 1601–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Braam, Robert R., Henk F. Moed, and Anthony F. J. van Raan. 1991. Mapping of science by combined co-commendation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects. Journal of the American Lodge for Information science 42: 233–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Broadus, Robert N. 1987. Toward a definition of 'bibliometrics'. Scientometrics 12: 373–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Callon, Michel, Jean-Pierre Courtial, William A. Turner, and Serge Bauin. 1983. From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information 22: 191–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Campo, Sara, Ana María Díaz, and María Jesús Yagüe. 2014. Hotel innovation and performance in times of crisis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Direction 26: 1292–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Castriotta, Manuel, Michela Loi, Elona Marku, and Luca Naitana. 2019. What's in a name? Exploring the conceptual structure of emerging organizations. Scientometrics 118: 407–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Cheng, Jen-Son, Yong Xiang, Peter Jih-Hsin Sher, and Chia-Wei Liu. 2018. Creative intervention, intellectual capital, and service innovation: A instance written report of a Taiwan'south hotel. Service Business organization 12: 169–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Dhar, Rajib Lochan. 2016. Upstanding leadership and its impact on service innovative behavior: The function of LMX and job autonomy. Tourism Management 57: 139–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Durán-Sánchez, Amador, José Álvarez-García, María de la Cruz del Río-Rama, and Beatriz Rosado-Cebrián. 2019. Scientific discipline mapping of the knowledge base on tourism innovation. Sustainability 11: 3352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Eid, Riyad, and Gomaa Agag. 2020. Determinants of innovative behaviour in the hotel manufacture: A cross-cultural study. International Periodical of Hospitality Management 91: 102642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Ghantous, Nabil, and Ibrahim Alnawas. 2020. The differential and synergistic effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on hotel ambidexterity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55: 102072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Gomezelj, Doris Omerzel. 2016. A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 516–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Gürlek, Mert, and Muharrem Tuna. 2018. Reinforcing competitive advantage through dark-green organizational culture and green innovation. Service Industries Journal 38: 467–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Gutiérrez-Salcedo, María, María Ángeles Martínez, José Antonio Moral-Munoz, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, and Manuel Jesús Cobo. 2018. Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Applied Intelligence 48: 1275–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Hjalager, Anne-Mette. 2010. A review of innovation inquiry in tourism. Tourism Management 31: one–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Horng, Jeou-Shyan, Chih-Hsing Liu, Sheng-Fang Chou, Chang-Yen Tsai, and Yu-Chun Chung. 2017. From innovation to sustainability: Sustainability innovations of eco-friendly hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Direction 63: 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Hoz-Correa, Andrea, Francisco Muñoz-Leiva, and Márta Bakucz. 2018. Past themes and future trends in medical tourism research: A co-word analysis. Tourism Management 65: 200–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Huang, Chiung-En, and Chih-Hsing Liu. 2019. Impacts of social capital and knowledge acquisition on service innovation: An integrated empirical analysis of the part of shared values. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 28: 645–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Jalilvand, Mohammad Reza. 2017. The result of innovativeness and customer-oriented systems on operation in the hotel manufacture of Iran. Periodical of Science and Technology Policy Management viii: 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Jiang, Yawei, Brent Westward. Ritchie, and Pierre Benckendorff. 2019. Bibliometric visualisation: An application in tourism crisis and disaster management research. Current Issues in Tourism 22: 1925–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Jung, Hyo Dominicus, and Hye Hyun Yoon. 2018. Improving frontline service employees' innovative behavior using conflict management in the hospitality industry: The mediating office of date. Tourism Management 69: 498–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Kamboj, Shampy, and Shivam Gupta. 2020. Use of smart phone apps in co-creative hotel service innovation: An prove from India. Electric current Issues in Tourism 23: 323–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Karadag, Ersem, and Sezayi Dumanoglu. 2009. The productivity and competency of it in upscale hotels: The perception of hotel managers in Turkey. International Journal of Gimmicky Hospitality Direction 21: 479–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Karatepe, Osman One thousand., Mohammed Aboramadan, and Khalid Abed Dahleez. 2020. Does climate for creativity mediate the impact of servant leadership on management innovation and innovative beliefs in the hotel industry? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Direction 32: 2497–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Kessler, Alexander, Christoph Pachucki, Katharina Stummer, Michael Mair, and Petra Binder. 2015. Types of organizational innovativeness and success in Austrian hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27: 1707–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Köseoglu, Mehmet Ali, Roya Rahimi, Fevzi Okumus, and Jingyan Liu. 2016. Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Enquiry 61: 180–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Kucukusta, Deniz, Vincent C.S. Heung, and Sandy Hui. 2014. Deploying self-service engineering in luxury hotel brands: Perceptions of business organisation travelers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31: 55–70. [Google Scholar]
36. Law, Rob, Dimitrios Buhalis, and Cihan Cobanoglu. 2014. Progress on information and advice technologies in hospitality and tourism. International Periodical of Gimmicky Hospitality Management 26: 727–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Lee, Kyoung-Joo, Min-Seok Yoo, Hong-Joo Lee, and Su-Gyeong Kim. 2019. Predicting innovative data systems (IS) beliefs of frontline employees in hotels. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 20: 424–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Lei, Sut Ieng, Dan Wang, and Rob Law. 2019. Hoteliers' service design for mobile-based value co-creation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Direction 31: 4338–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Liu, Chih-Hsing. 2017. Creating competitive advantage: Linking perspectives of organization learning, innovation behavior and intellectual capital letter. International Periodical of Hospitality Management 66: 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Liu, Chun, Kam Hung, Dan Wang, and Sha Wang. 2020. Determinants of self-service technology adoption and implementation in hotels: The instance of Cathay. Periodical of Hospitality Marketing and Direction 29: 636–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Martínez-López, Antonio Manuel, and Alfonso A. Vargas-Sánchez. 2013. The strategic management process and the innovative capacity of the Castilian hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 22: 596–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Mattsson, January, and Francina Orfila-Sintes. 2014. Hotel innovation and its effect on business operation. International Journal of Tourism Research 16: 388–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Meira, Jessica Vieira de Sousa, Sara Joana Gadotti Anjos, and Christian Daniel Falaster. 2019. Innovation and performance in the hotel industry. Journal of Quality Balls in Hospitality and Tourism 20: 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Montargot, Nathalie, and Béchir Ben Lahouel. 2018. The acceptance of technological modify in the hospitality industry from the perspective of front-line employees. Journal of Organizational Alter Management 31: 637–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Morosan, Cristian, and Agnes DeFranco. 2016. Modeling guests' intentions to use mobile apps in hotels: The roles of personalization, privacy, and involvement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Direction 28: 1968–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Nair, Girish K. 2019. Dynamics of learning orientation, innovativeness, and financial performance of the hotel industry. Periodical of Hospitality Financial Management 27: 27–38. [Google Scholar]
47. Narduzzo, Alessandro, and Serena Volo. 2018. Tourism innovation: When interdependencies matter. Current Bug in Tourism 21: 735–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Nazir, Owais, and Jamid Ul Islam. 2020. Influence of CSR-specific activities on work engagement and employees' innovative piece of work behaviour: An empirical investigation. Current Issues in Tourism 23: 3054–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Nicolau, Juan Luis, and María Jesús Santa-María. 2013. The effect of innovation on hotel market value. International Journal of Hospitality Direction 32: 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Nieves, Julia, and Gonzalo Diaz-Meneses. 2018. Knowledge sources and innovation in the hotel manufacture: Empirical assay on Gran Canaria Island, a mature mass-tourism destination. International Journal of Gimmicky Hospitality Management thirty: 2537–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Nieves, Julia, and Mercedes Segarra-Ciprés. 2015. Direction innovation in the hotel industry. Tourism Management 46: 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Nieves, Julia, Agustín Quintana, and Javier Osorio. 2014. Knowledge-based resources and innovation in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 38: 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Nieves, Julia, Agustín Quintana, and Javier Osorio. 2016. Organizational knowledge, dynamic capabilities and innovation in the hotel manufacture. Tourism and Hospitality Research xvi: 158–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Njoroge, Msafiri, Wineaster Anderson, and Omari Mbura. 2019. Innovation strategy and economic sustainability in the hospitality industry. Bottom Line 32: 253–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. OECD/Eurostat. 2018. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th ed. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
56. Orfila-Sintes, Francina, and Jan Mattsson. 2009. Innovation behavior in the hotel industry. Omega 37: 380–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Orfila-Sintes, Francina, Rafael Crespí-Cladera, and Ester Martínez-Ros. 2005. Innovation activity in the hotel industry: Evidence from Balearic Islands. Tourism Management 26: 851–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Ottenbacher, Michael C., and Robert J. Harrington. 2010. Strategies for achieving success for innovative versus incremental new services. Journal of Services Marketing 24: 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Pikkemaat, Birgit, Mike Peters, and Bernhard Fabian Bichler. 2019. Innovation enquiry in tourism: Enquiry streams and actions for the hereafter. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 41: 184–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Pongsathornwiwat, Akkaranan, Chawalit Jeenanunta, Van-Nam Huynh, and Kalaya Udomvitid. 2019. Can collaborative relationship stimulate innovation adequacy and improve performance in the hospitality industry? International Journal of Innovation and Learning 26: 321–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Praničević, Daniela Garbin, and Ante Mandić. 2020. ICTs in the hospitality manufacture: An importance-operation assay amongst small family-endemic hotels. Tourism 68: 221–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. Revilla-Camacho, María-Ángeles, Beatriz Palacios-Florencio, Dolores Garzón, and Camilo Prado-Román. 2020. Marketing capabilities and innovation. How practise they affect the financial results of hotels? Psychology and Marketing 37: 506–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Reyes-Santiago, María del Rosario, Patricia Soledad Sánchez-Medina, and René Díaz-Pichardo. 2019. The influence of environmental dynamic capabilities on organizational and environmental performance of hotels: Show from Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production 227: 414–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Rodríguez-López, Mª Eugenia, Juan Miguel Alcántara-Pilar, Salvador Del Barrio-García, and Francisco Muñoz-Leiva. 2020. A review of eating place research in the concluding two decades: A bibliometric analysis. International Periodical of Hospitality Management 87: 102387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Ruan, Wen-Qi, Shu-Ning Zhang, Chih-Hsing Liu, and Yomg-Quan Li. 2020. A new path for building hotel make equity: The impacts of technological competence and service innovation implementation through perceived value and trust. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 29: 911–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Santos, Luís Lima, Lucília Cardoso, Noelia Araújo-Vila, and Jose Antonio Fraiz-Brea. 2020. Sustainability perceptions in tourism and hospitality: A mixed-method bibliometric approach. Sustainability 12: 8852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Schuckert, Markus, Taegoo Terry Kim, Soyon Paek, and Gyehee Lee. 2018. Motivate to innovate: How authentic and transformational leaders influence employees' psychological capital and service innovation behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30: 776–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Majuscule, Credit, Involvement and the Business organization Bicycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
69. Shin, Hakseung, and Juhyun Kang. 2020. Reducing perceived health risk to attract hotel customers in the COVID-nineteen pandemic era: Focused on engineering innovation for social distancing and cleanliness. International Journal of Hospitality Management 91: 102664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Shin, Hakseung, Richard R. Perdue, and Juhyun Kang. 2019. Front desk-bound engineering science innovation in hotels: A managerial perspective. Tourism Direction 74: 310–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Sigala, Marianna. 2018. New technologies in tourism: From multi-disciplinary to anti-disciplinary advances and trajectories. Tourism Management Perspectives 25: 151–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Singjai, Komkrit, Lanita Winata, and Tyge-F. Kummer. 2018. Green initiatives and their competitive advantage for the hotel industry in developing countries. International Journal of Hospitality Management 75: 131–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73. Souto, Jaime E. 2015. Business organisation model innovation and concern concept innovation as the context of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tourism Direction 51: 142–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
74. Tajeddini, Kayhan. 2010. Outcome of customer orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on innovativeness: Bear witness from the hotel industry in Switzerland. Tourism Direction 31: 221–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Tajeddini, Kayhan, and Myfanwy Trueman. 2014. Perceptions of innovativeness amongst Iranian hotel managers. Periodical of Hospitality and Tourism Applied science 5: 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Tajeddini, Kayhan, Levent Altinay, and Vanessa Ratten. 2017. Service innovativeness and the structuring of organizations: The moderating roles of learning orientation and inter-functional coordination. International Journal of Hospitality Management 65: 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Thelwall, Mike. 2008. Bibliometrics to webometrics. Journal of Information Science 34: 605–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Tseng, Chun-Yao, Hui-Yueh Kuo, and Shou.-Shiung Chou. 2008. Configuration of innovation and performance in the service manufacture: Evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry. Service Industries Journal 28: 1015–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Vila, Mar, Cathy Enz, and Gerad Costa. 2012. Innovative practices in the Spanish hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 53: 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
80. Wang, Yajun, Xavier Font, and Jingyan Liu. 2020. Antecedents, mediation effects and outcomes of hotel eco-innovation practise. International Journal of Hospitality Management 85: 102345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Wikhamn, Wajda, John Armbrecht, and Björn Remneland Wikhamn. 2018. Innovation in Swedish hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management thirty: 2481–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Wut, Tai Ming, Jing (Bill) Xu, and Shun-mun Wong. 2021. Crisis management research (1985–2020) in the hospitality and tourism industry: A review and research agenda. Tourism Direction 85: 104307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Zupic, Ivan, and Tomaž Čater. 2015. Bibliometric methods in direction and organization. Organizational Research Methods 18: 429–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure i. Process of information drove and assay.

Figure 1. Procedure of data collection and analysis.

Figure 2. Evolution and quantification of the publications (n = 334).

Figure 2. Development and quantification of the publications (north = 334).

Figure 3. Global thematic network in innovation in hotel research based on word co-occurrence analysis.

Figure 3. Global thematic network in innovation in hotel inquiry based on word co-occurrence analysis.

Figure iv. Temporal overlay on word co-occurrence map.

Figure 4. Temporal overlay on word co-occurrence map.

Table 1. Journals with 6 or more than papers on innovation in hotels from 1982 to 2020.

Tabular array one. Journals with six or more papers on innovation in hotels from 1982 to 2020.

Journal Title	fi	friday	TC	Ac
International Journal of Hospitality Management	39	11.71%	1200	30.77
International Journal of Gimmicky Hospitality Direction	38	eleven.41%	668	17.58
Tourism Management	xix	5.71%	850	44.74
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology	11	3.30%	113	10.27
Service Industries Periodical	x	3.00%	303	30.30
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly	8	2.40%	386	48.25
African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure	7	2.ten%	52	seven.43
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management	7	ii.10%	161	23.00
International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Assistants	7	2.10%	52	7.43
Current Issues in Tourism	6	i.eighty%	87	fourteen.l
Journal of Cleaner Production	half dozen	1.fourscore%	970	161.67
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research	6	1.80%	12	2.00
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing	6	one.80%	75	12.50
Tourism	half dozen	i.eighty%	364	60.67
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Research	half-dozen	1.80%	39	half dozen.l

Table 2. Opportunities for research on innovation in hotels.

Table ii. Opportunities for inquiry on innovation in hotels.

Major Themes	Future Opportunities of Research
Cluster 1: Technological innovation	- Explore the role of technological innovation, in particular SST, on hotels' beliefs during the COVID-nineteen pandemic and, especially, in the hotel manufacture recovery in the post-pandemic crunch (social distancing, cleanliness, and, consequently, perceived caste of health run a risk) (i.due east., what is the bear upon of technology innovation on perceived health risk and travel decisions/hotel booking intention in post- COVID-19?). - Investigate what kind of organizational technological resources may foster customer co-creation in hotels. - Examine what customer profile is best suited to customer co-creation in hotels (interest and their continuous intention to co-create) using innovative technologies.
Cluster 2: Innovativeness and innovation strategy	- Study how public policies and industry standards set by the tourism industry associations encourage and/or pressure level hotels' managers to include sustainability in their innovation strategy (i.e., normative and coercive institutional pressures). - Explore the interconnection betwixt sustainable innovation and technological innovation in the digital age. - Analyze the role of sustainable innovation for hotels to cope with climate changes.
Cluster 3: Noesis and employee innovative behavior	- Investigate how strategic alliances/(heterogenous) networks that include universities and enquiry institutes promote the conquering and dissemination of noesis equally a commuter of innovation. - Explore the role of national culture, organizational civilization, and leadership styles on employee innovative beliefs. - Analyze how the employees' individual characteristics, such as gender, age, nationality, pedagogy (level, number, and academic area), experience, and tenure impact their innovative behavior. - Investigate how digital work connectivity can impact employees' innovative piece of work behavior.
Cluster 4: Functioning as an upshot of organizational capability to innovation	- Investigate what types of innovation influence brusque term and/or long-term performance, given that it (potentially) affects managers' decisions depending on their compensation structure (fixed versus variable). - Analyze the mediating and moderating effects of eco-innovation on the relationship betwixt organizational capabilities and hotel financial and not-financial operation.

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open up admission commodity distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC By) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

pittsandents.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/11/3/78/htm