Study note on organizational innovativeness

Study note on organizational innovativeness

References with extracted contents

Ackermann, M.S., M. Stephan and J.M. Penrose. 2015. "Assessing organizational  innovativeness - evidence from corporate narratives" Corporate Communications 20(4), Emerald: 399-414.

"OI [organizational innovativeness] entails more accessibility to change and more willingness to face new challenges (Skerlavaj et al., 2007). It equips the organization to leverage the capabilities of an innovative workforce and thereby better respond to environmental changes (Gilbert, 2007; Swink and Mabert, 2000). Extant research mostly conceptualizes OI as the number of adoptions of innovations and treats organizations as innovative if they adopt many innovations (Salavou, 2004; Subramanian and Nilakanta, 1996). Somewhat differently, Hurley and Hult (1998) conceptualize OI as a cultural organizational trait, which refers to organizations’ innovation orientation";

"Results of studies of the preconditions that give rise to innovativeness in organizations have been mixed (Abratt and Lombard, 1993; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Poolton and Barclay, 1998). For instance, Johnson et al. (2001) study the perceived innovativeness in one organization and find that effective communication within an organization has positive influences on the perceived innovativeness of the firm. Other scholars have highlighted the importance of building relationships as means for promoting OI (Holmen et al., 2005), cultural differences (Sabir and Kalyar, 2013), organizational size (Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 2000; Liberatore and Breem, 1997; Nystrom et al., 2002), as well as market orientation (Menguc and Auh, 2006)";

"The ample research literature on the assessment of the OI [organizational innovativeness]  has generated a variety of research approaches (Lyon et al., 2000). In most studies, OI is assessed through questionnaires within organizations (see, e.g. Hsu, 2007; Leekpai and Jaroenwisan, 2013; Semerciöz et al. , 2011). Shoam et al. (2012) examine OI across cultures, question Slovakian, Lithuanian and Israeli employees, and find thatmarket and learning orientation enhanced OI";

Subramanian, A. and S, Nilakanta. 1996. "Organizational Innovativeness: Exploring the Relationship Between Organizational Determinants of Innovation, Types of Innovations, and Measures of Organizational Performance" Omega, Int. J. Mgmt Sci 24(6), Pergamon: 631-647.

"The categorization of an organization as innovative or non-innovative depends on the definition of innovativeness adopted by the researchers. Thus, some studies categorize firms as innovative firms if they adopt an innovation earlier than the majority of their counterparts in the industry. Hence, the time of adoption of an innovation determines the innovativeness of a firm [37]. Other studies view adopters of innovations as innovative firms and non-adopters as non-innovative firms. This rationale is based on the assumption that any new product or process adopted by an organization represents an innovation to the organization, regardless of how many other firms in the industry have adopted it earlier";

"Innovativeness, by definition, is an enduring organizational trait. Truly innovative organizations are those that exhibit innovative behavior consistently over time. Any valid measure of innovativeness must, therefore, capture this temporal dimension of innovativeness. In previous studies, innovativeness has been conceptualized as an unidimensional construct. Innovation process research studies have employed the time of innovation adoption as a measure of innovativeness. Innovation variance research studies have measured innovativeness by determining the number of innovation adopted by a firm [11, 12]";

"... it is evident that innovativeness is a multidimensional construct. First, any valid measure of innovativeness must be based on adoptions of several innovations. Second, in addition to the number of innovations adopted, the time of adoption of each innovation must also be considered. Third, the consistency of adoption patterns over time must also be measured i.e. the measure must discriminate between firms that consistently adopt innovations early (or late) from those that are inconsistent with respect to the time of adoption of innovations over time";

Tang, H.K. 1999. "An inventory of organizational innovativeness" Technovation 19, Pergamon: 41-51.

"To study organizational innovativeness there are basically two approaches and two methodologies. The two approaches are top-down and bottom-up. The two methodologies are quantitative and qualitative. The top-down approach means the researcher views the organization through aggregated information and perspectives provided by management. The bottom-up approach requires the researcher to gather information through the individuals whose work in the organization are related to innovation activities. The quantitative methodology requires data definition, collection and analysis while the qualitative methodology usually means interviews, comparison with best practices and analysis. ..... The qualitative methodology however could allow the researchers to scrutinize an organization in action and at close range. ...";

Shoham, A., E. Vigoda-Gadot, A. Ruvio and N. Schwabsky. 2012. "Testing an organizational innovativeness integrative model across cultures" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 29, Elsevier: 226-240.

"We present a five-dimensional OI [organizational innovativeness] conceptualization, which captures its complexity more accurately than existing ones. This conceptualization serves as a basis for an integrative model of OI. Second, most research has used within-disciplinary perspectives, leading to fragmented findings (Damanpour, 1991). This study uses a multi-disciplinary approach with concepts from several disciplines, such as management and marketing. Third, most studies are restricted to one country. However, to advance research on OI, scholars should test its model’s validity in several countries (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998)";

"The literature focuses mostly on the effect of OI [organizational innovativeness] and innovation adoption on organizational performance and views OI as an organizational strategy designed to enhance performance (Damanpour and Evan, 1984). Notably, the core problem of OI in public sector organizations is not lack of good ideas (Rogers, 1995). Rather, the sector delays or avoids the adoption of innovations due to the bureaucratic nature of public administration agencies (e.g., Vigoda, 2002), which can lead to lower behavioral outcomes (e.g., commitment; Box et al., 2001)";

Weng, R.H. and C.Y. Huang. 2017. "The impact of exploration and exploitation learning on organizational innovativeness among hospitals: an open innovation view" Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 29(2): 119-132.

"The acquisition of external knowledge is a critical path in improving innovativeness efficiently for many organisations (Rampersad, Quester, and Troshani 2010). There are various sources of external knowledge in the development process of innovation (e.g. supplier, alliance partners, association), and from the open innovation view (Chesbrough 2003; Fuglsang, Sundbo, and Sørensen 2011), the acquisition of these diversified external knowledge sources can improve organisational innovation performance";

Didrell, C., S. Fairclough and P.S. Davis. 2015. "The impact of external and internal entrainment on firm innovativeness:  A test of moderation" Journal of Business Research 68, Elsevier: 19-26.

"There are indications that a firm's temporal orientation may be an important behavioral variable influencing the extent to which it is inclined to “speed up” critical activities, such as acquiring resources, and in developing, introducing, and distributing new products and services (Chen et al., 2012). Similarly, the value placed on time and the effects of time pressure may encourage innovation and/or increase the speed at which new products or services are devised (Bonneau, 2007)";