In the relentless quest for breakthrough innovations, a new perspective challenges conventional wisdom: the key to radical technological advances may lie in the blurring of traditional knowledge boundaries rather than their clarification. Recent research led by Gianluca Carnabuci, a professor of organizational behavior at ESMT Berlin, together with Balázs Kovács from Yale School of Management, sheds light on a surprising discovery about the nature of category contrast and its role in sparking groundbreaking inventions. Their extensive study, dissecting 3.1 million U.S. patents granted between 1975 and 2013, reveals that inventions emerging from low-contrast categories—where the lines between disciplines or technological fields are ambiguous and overlapping—tend to be more disruptive and valuable than those arising within clearly defined sectors.
This paradigm-shifting study meticulously analyzes how patents situated in fuzzy intersections of knowledge domains outperform their counterparts in sharply delineated categories. The notion that innovations thrive most where classification is uncertain contradicts the widespread managerial assumption that tighter, more distinct categorizations sharpen inventive focus and facilitate progress. Instead, Carnabuci and Kovács demonstrate that ambiguity within categories plays a catalytic role, fostering an environment where unconventional and original ideas can meld, producing novel technological pathways and paradigms.
At the core of this phenomenon are two underlying mechanisms: idea creation and idea positioning. First, the blur between categories exposes inventors to a more diverse knowledge pool, often pulling concepts from distant and seemingly unrelated fields. This interdisciplinary synergy enables the formation of atypical combinations of ideas that break with incremental tradition and push forward radical advancements. Inventors navigating through these porous boundaries are less confined, free to experiment with new syntheses that would otherwise be inaccessible within rigid categorization schemes.
The second mechanism, idea positioning, highlights how ambiguous category definitions empower inventors to frame their inventions more broadly. This strategic framing plays a vital role in extending the interpretative reach of patents, enhancing their ability to influence multiple technological trajectories. When inventors do not box their patents into narrowly tailored silos, they increase the likelihood that their innovations open uncharted avenues for future exploration and application, magnifying their disruptive potential.
The statistical findings of this vast patent analysis underline the economic and technological significance of inventions rooted in low-contrast categories. On average, these patents carry an added value of nearly 3 million US dollars compared to patents grounded in well-defined technological or industrial boundaries. More strikingly, their influence persists over extended periods, suggesting that such innovations not only revolutionize present paradigms but also lay durable foundations for subsequent development.
Carnabuci points out a critical managerial implication arising from this research. Conventional R&D management practices often utilize rigid taxonomies or hierarchical product portfolios to streamline innovation pipelines and resource allocation. However, this new evidence suggests that an overly neat and distinct classification system may inadvertently steer companies towards modest, incremental improvements rather than radical technological leaps. Embracing a degree of “fuzziness” within organizational knowledge architectures might be essential to nurturing transformative ideas that defy existing cognitive frameworks and market expectations.
Furthermore, this research challenges leadership to reconsider how innovation strategies are developed. The common mantra that clarity and focus breed innovation is supplemented by the insight that ambiguity—normally perceived as a hindrance—can instead act as a fertile ground for novel ideation. Leaders and innovation managers would do well to cultivate cognitive breadth, encouraging cross-disciplinary dialogues and loosening rigid boundaries in order to capture the value hidden in overlapping knowledge spaces.
This insight has broader implications beyond patent strategy and innovation management. It invites a re-examination of how academic disciplines, industrial sectors, and market categories are conceptualized. Interdisciplinary research and hybrid organizational forms might be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the advantages of low-contrast categories, serving as crucibles for ideas that defy traditional classification but possess transformative potential.
The study titled “Catalyzing Categories: Category Contrast and the Creation of Groundbreaking Inventions,” published in the esteemed Academy of Management Journal, offers a robust empirical foundation for these conclusions. Using sophisticated data and statistical analysis of an extensive dataset, Carnabuci and Kovács provide a comprehensive framework that elucidates how category boundaries influence innovation trajectories. Their work adds a significant voice to ongoing debates about how to stimulate and sustain radical technological progress in increasingly complex knowledge economies.
By shedding light on these hidden dynamics, this research helps to explain why some breakthrough inventions evade straightforward categorization and why markets and innovators alike struggle to fully grasp their potential early on. It encourages a reorientation towards embracing ambiguity and complexity not as obstacles but as essential ingredients for major creative leaps. The insights from this study may well redefine best practices in intellectual property strategy and innovation ecosystems, promoting a richer understanding of how knowledge organization shapes the future of technology.
In sum, the findings underscore a crucial insight: innovation thrives in the porous, overlapping zones between established knowledge domains. By deliberately cultivating ambiguity and resisting the urge to confine inventions within narrow categories, organizations can unlock pathways to revolutionary technologies. This fresh viewpoint, grounded in rigorous analysis of millions of patents, provides a strategic blueprint for executives and scholars keen to foster disruptive technological progress in the coming decades.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Catalyzing Categories: Category Contrast and the Creation of Groundbreaking Inventions
News Publication Date: 5-Aug-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.1010
References: Carnabuci, G., & Kovács, B. (2025). Catalyzing Categories: Category Contrast and the Creation of Groundbreaking Inventions. Academy of Management Journal. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2023.1010
Image Credits: ESMT Berlin, Photo: Anette Koroll
Keywords: Intellectual property
