CC BY
26
Melnikova L. N.
Different Forms of Innovations: Meta-Analysis of the Organizational Innovation Surveys
DOI 10.22394/1726-1139-2017-6-31-39 Melnikova Lidiya Nikolaevna
Saint-Petersburg State university of Economics (Russian Federation)
Graduate student of the Chair of Enterprise Economics and Production Management
ABSTRACT
In article on the basis of official data of state statistics analyzes results of the surveys, which were conducted in Europe, in order to investigate the innovation activity of companies. Focuses on organizational innovations. Discusses the definitions of organizational innovations and evolution of innovations.
KEYWORDS
evolution of innovation, organizational innovations, survey, meta-analysis, innovations, innovation activity of the companies
Мельникова Л. Н.
Различные формы инноваций: мета-анализ исследований Мельникова Лидия Николаевна
Санкт-Петербургский государственный экономический университет Аспирант кафедры экономики предприятия и производственного менеджмента У [email protected]
РЕФЕРАТ
В статье на базе данных официальной статистики анализируются результаты исследований опросов, проведенных в Европе, с целью выявления инновационной активности предприятий. Акцентируется внимание на организационных инновациях. Раскрываются понятия организационных инноваций и эволюции инноваций.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА
эволюция инноваций, организационные инновации, опрос, мета-анализ, инновации, инновационная активность предприятий
introduction
In recent years, there has been growing interest in innovations; this interest is strongly connected with Arm's evolution from a rational organization to companies based on knowledge and information. There are several features which support this transition: application of new knowledge to natural resources, equipment, and labor (Powell, 2004). In innovative economy it means the application of new knowledge to knowledge, assuming the application of new knowledge as the most valuable asset.
The main features of innovative economy are defined as: 1. Dramatic increase of the part of knowledge as an asset in business competition; For example, Switzerland performed good results in the sphere of knowledge management, and one of the most outstanding examples is "ABB company" (electrical equipment), that assumes the knowledge as their the most significant asset, proving the basis for achievement of competitive advantages 2. Supporting intangible assets rise. 3. Reducing costs (eco-
nomic and time pace).Therefore, the speed of development and commercialization of new products, became essential in the innovative economy. 4. Creation of a knowledge corporation. Innovation's ability to generate value must be related to the following characteristics: 1. To have unquestionable value for customers; 2. Difficult to copy; 3. Must provide the access to variety of markets. Evidently, the innovation activity of the companies influences on the competitiveness advantages. Innovation management is becoming closely interconnected with strategic management of an entity, being important to consider modern strategy principles and methodological tendencies.
Stages of evolution of innovation management theory in interrelation with strategic management
The first stage of evolution of innovation management theory covers the period from 1900-1950. At that period of time it was focused on the supervision over research activities and it was held by the scientists who were also responsible for selection and execution of projects, while strategic management was on the basis of "control over execution" that means that possible response of the institutions to the alteration was determined only after the events completion.
During the second stage (1950-1970), the innovation management supervision over research activities was held by corporate managers. They paid most attention to the projects, encouraging the company's development; meanwhile the strategic management was based on the extrapolation of the past tendencies (long-term planning).
In third stage (1970-1990) in innovation management, the supervision over research activities was held by corporate managers, taking into account the results of marketing research, while hidden needs of customers remained unsatisfied. At the same time, strategic management conducted the policy of alteration preview (strategic planning).
The fourth stage had begun in 1990 and it continuous until nowadays. In innovation management the supervision over research activities was held by corporate managers trying to satisfy hidden needs of the customers in the interaction with manufactures, customers, suppliers and other interested persons (stakeholders) in development of new production, while strategic management conducted the strategy of construction not from the past to the present, but from the future through the past to the present, hereby combining future and past tendencies. Nowadays science and innovations are becoming one of the most significant spheres. It is possible to trace the relationship chain, from the R&D to innovations, from innovations to key competences, from key competences to economic growth of the company.
Schumpeter's innovation theory
J. Schumpeter proved that the main causes of economic cycles are innovations, but he also proved that is not sufficient, innovations should be combined with "business spirit". Thus, Schumpeter reflected the idea of that inventor is an entrepreneur, with a "business spirit", a person that introduces something new to the market, and who is motivated by the will to And a commercial niche (Schumpeter, 1912). Moreover, in 1942 his followed work "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" he emphasized that the capitalism in the way how it was, it would lead to monopolistic structure, which would decrease the entrepreneurship activity. This idea has never seemed as appropriate as in nowadays, when the modern capitalistic system suffers from crisis and loses its power and legitimacy. According to Schumpeter innovations may be divided into several types: 1. Launch of a new product or a new kind of an already existed product. 2. Application of new methods of production or sales of a product. 3. Opening of a new market. 4. Acquiring of new sources of supply of raw material or semi-finished goods. 5. New industry structure, such as creation or destruction of a monopoly position. (Sledzik, 2013) Schumpeter also claimed, that the normal state of healthy economy is not equilibrium but dynamic
disequilibrium, mover he states, when the economy is in equilibrium, the entrepreneur innovator creates a new combination of factors, meanwhile this combination disturb the equilibrium. "Schumpeter's shock" accurse in economy, that leads to the statement that the result of this disequilibrium is economic growth.
In modern literature, there are two approaches of vision of innovations. The first one considers innovation as a result of any process, while the second one is treated to be the process of a novelty's implementation. According to the first approach innovation is a result, while novelty is not innovation. Novelty becomes innovation from the moment of acceptance for implementation. It's a definitive result of scientific R&D: patents, licenses, know-how, discovery, invention and trademark. Considering in terms of time, the period between the end of novelty and start of innovation is called "commercialization", while the period between the beginning of a novelty and the beginning of innovation is an innovational lag. Innovation results in alteration of production factors and the object of management, as well it reflects the result of novelty implementation.
Considering the "source of innovation", the modern literature defines two approaches as well. The first one, emphasize the innovation is a result of an R&D activity and novelty implementation, while the second considers interactions and informal relationships that facilitate the exchange of knowledge (Lundvall, 1992).
Analysis of definitions of organizational innovations
Considering the innovations as a product o process, it is important to highlight such a distinct group of innovations as organizational innovations, which mean accomplished new methods of doing business, organizing work places, external communications. They are focus on increasing of enterprise's efficiency, due to reduction of administrative and transaction costs, improving the organization of workplaces (work time), that leads to the labor productivity and the access to the absent assets.
As defined by the Oslo Manual, organizational innovation is the "implementation of a new organizational method in the firm's business practices, workplace organization or external relations". Business practices include "organizing routines and procedures for the conduct of work", workplace organization covers "new methods for distributing responsibilities and decision-making among employees (...), as well as new concepts for the structuring of activities" and new methods for external relations "involve the implementation of new ways of organizing relations with other firms or public institutions, (...) new methods of integration with suppliers". These changes aim to improve firm performance directly in terms of quality, flexibility, productivity or speed and can therefore be considered a distinct form of innovation. Also organizational innovation can function as an enabler for other types of innovation, supplementing the implementation and use of other innovations, or as a prerequisite for knowledge accumulation within the firm by increasing the ability to acquire, create and make the best use of competencies, skills and knowledge.
Organizational innovations in business may include wide range of activities: development of new business strategy; implementation of new management methods (based on IT), development and implementation of new organizational structures; novelty in the labor time; implementations of quality control systems, certifications, modernization and implementation of new logistic system; creation of R&D departments, implementation of knowledge management; creation of new partnership. However, the way of changing of doing business, organization of workplaces or external connections, which are based on the methods that have already been implemented in the company should not be consider as organizational innovations.
A first literature strand focuses on the identification of the structural characteristics of an innovative organization and its effects on product and technical process innovations (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979; Teece, 1998).
Table 1
Meta-analysis of organizational innovation Surveys
Survey title &
Date; Country
or Region; Number of the Areas of industries Features Focus Aims
companies which
are participated
1 2 3 4 5
NUTEK survey Mining and Description of Staff and To analyze
''Towards Manufactur- the present qualification, the impor-
Flexible Organi- ing, organization; work organiza- tance and
zations''; Construction, organizational tion, technol- distribution
(1995); Sweden; Retail, Whole- changes ogy and of flexible
700 companies sale, Hotels product/service work organi-
and Restau- development as zation in the
rants, Trans- well as exter- Swedish
port and nal relations economy
Communication important changes in the organization of the work place on a generic level
DRUID project Manufactur- Explore Focused mainly To under-
''DISCO'' ing, services delegation of on flexibility stand devel-
(1996); Den- and construc- responsibility, oping new
mark; tion cross-occupa- products and
1900 companies tional working groups, quality circles, integration of functions, job rotation and systems of collecting proposals from employees new technological processes based on integrative organizational forms and a culture oriented towards renewal and learning
EPOC survey; Different Did not ask Investigation Diffusion of
(1996); industries directly about of the forms of direct em-
Denmark, the existence direct partici- ployee
Germany, of different pation of the participation
France, United forms of work employees. If (e.g., consul-
Kingdom, organization this was the tative partici-
Ireland, Italy, using ''la- case, they were pation,
Netherlands, bels'', but also to provide delegative
Portugal, concluded the information participation)
Spain, Sweden; existence of about how long in the Euro-
5786 companies specific work they had been pean economy
Continuation of the table
1 2 3 4 5
organization practicing
concepts from them, which
questions specific charac-
about the teristics were
forms of involved, the
direct partici- reasons for
pation; no introducing
enquire about these practices
changes in the and what
last years consequences these concepts had on the qualification and remuneration of employees
The INNFORM Different The question- Investigation To map the
survey; (1997); industries naire is of company contours of
Europe, Japan, retrospective structure and contemporary
UK, USA; (dynamic changes in organization-
500 companies; change is company al innovation,
visible); structure; to examine
questionnaire which decision- the manage-
asked about making is ment prac-
organizational decentralized; tices and to
innovations linkages test for the
using particu- between performance
lar labels headquarter and business units; use of IT; use of certain human resources practices, etc. Exploring organizational and managerial innovations on three levels: unit, organizational and inter-organizational benefits of these changes
Community Small and The method- Measuring Better
Innovation medium-sized ological basis innovation understanding
Survey—CIS; enterprises of CIS is activities at of the ''non-
(2001-2006); https://play. provided by firm level. technologi-
Sweden, Ger- google.com/ the Oslo Efforts have cal'' aspects
many, France, store/apps/ Manual but been made of innovation;
Denmark, details?id=com. not further to broaden designed to
Romania, orangeapps. differentiat- the concept cover techni-
Luxemburg candyvalley ing concrete of innovation cal
End of table <
m
1 2 3 4 5
organizational to include aspects of
concepts such organizational, product and
as teamwork marketing and process
or supply service innova- innovation
chain manage- tions
ment. This
approach
provides
limited
response
options (yes
and no) and
asks about
change within
the last
3 years, not
about the
share of
establishments
using an
innovative
organizational
concept
Survey Industrial Questions Investigate To identify
''Changements firms aboutICT company's the changes
Organisation- innovations in functional that had
nels et l'Infor- combination structure, occurred
matisation with organiza- devices to between 1994
(COI)''; (1998); tional change manage task and 1997 in
France; and work work organi-
400 companies time-sharing, relations with other firms, etc.) and the use of information technologies (equipment, organization of the computer function, data transfers, etc.) zation
A second literature strand — theories of organizational change and development—aims to analyze and understand how organizations change. This field of research includes models of how organizational change may occur (e. g., Greiner, 1967; Hannan and Freeman, 1977, 1984) as well as classifications of different types of organizational changes from evolutionary to revolutionary (e. g., Levyand Merry, 1986).
It aims at understanding the resistance to organizational change and how to overcome the inertia of organizations and enable them to better adapt to changing environments and technologies (e. g., Lewin, 1958; Lawrence, 1954).
A third strand of literature focuses on how organizational innovations emerge, develop and grow at the microlevel within the organization. This strand focuses on theories of organizational cognition and learning (e. g., Argyris and Scho'n, 1978; Duncan and Weiss, 1979) as well as on theories of organizational creativity (e. g., Amabile, 1988).
Hence, all the approaches are focused on how and under which circumstances organizations change. Nevertheless, these approaches do not focus on the resulting status of the converted organization or the concrete new elements of managerial and work practice, making it difficult to measure and compare the results of organizational innovations.
In addition the term organizational innovation has different interpretations, still it did not find a deep reflection in theoretical framework and it could be considered in distinct ways, as it was mentioned above.
However, authors consider another important view of Diekmann J., Stehnken T. (2012) organizational innovations related to the link between structural forms and the propensity of an organization to innovate (Burns and Stalker 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Mintzberg 1979). The related work of Agyris and Schon (1978) and Nonaka (1994) cover the field of research related to understand the capacity of companies to create and integrate new knowledge crucial for innovation activity. In this sense, organizational innovation can be interpreted as a shift in underlying organizational assumptions, discontinuous from previous practice, and provide new pathways to creating public value (Richard Evans, 2013).
Nonetheless, the term topic of organizational innovation was underestimated until, in the late 1980s, MIT's study of the automobile industries in Japan, the USA and Germany turned the attention of researchers and managers to organizational innovations as a driving factor for companies' competitiveness (Womack et al., 1990). It became a pulse for development of conception of lean production which included variety of new organizational concepts such as teamwork, job enrichment and enlargement, decentralization of planning, operating and controlling functions, manufacturing cells, quality circles, continuous improvement processes, zero buffer principles (kanban), simultaneous engineering and just-in-time delivery, which they discovered to be the main cause of the superiority of the Japanese car industry at this time.
Lately, several large-scale surveys (Table 1) were conducted to estimate the organizational innovation in the manufacture of several European countries, which are: NUTEK survey ''Towards Flexible Organizations'', DRUID project ''DISCO'', EPOC survey, The INNFORM survey, survey ''Changements Organisationnels et l'Informatisation (COI)'', Community Innovation Survey-CIS.
Conclusion
To conclude, we presented these surveys in order to demonstrate how different the attempts are to monitor organizational innovations using large-scale surveys. However, it is obvious that the research of such topic as organizational innovations was not conducted deeply and precisely. This research attempts a more detailed definition and measurement of organizational innovations by providing a typology of organizational innovations and contrasting different approaches of measuring organizational innovations.
References
1. Argyris C., Schon D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA:
Addision Wesley.
2. Burns T. E., Stalker G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
3. Diekmann J., Stehnken T. (2012). Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU). Organisational and Marketing Innovation — Promises and Pitfalls.
4. Lawrence P. R., Lorsch J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-47.
5. Lundwall B. A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a theory of an innovation and interactive.
6. Mintzberg H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
7. Nonaka I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14-37.
8. Owen-Smith J., Powell W.W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15 (1), 5-21.
9. Richard E. (2013). "What is organizational innovation?" Retrieved from http://artsfwd.org/what-is-organizational-innovation
10. Schumpeter J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Trans. Redvers Opie. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Schumpeter J. (1942). Creative destruction. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 82-5.
12. Sledzi K. (2013). Schumpeter's view on innovation and entrepreneurship. Management Trends in Theory and Practice, (ed.) S. Hittmar, Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Zilina & Institute of Management by University of Zilina.
