Joseph KK Ho e-resources: Study note for literature review note on innovation capability in ALRA

Study note for literature review note on innovation capability, with academic ideas and low-level research tasks in the subject of agile literature review approach (ALRA)

This study note is for literature review on the topic of innovation capability; it also provides examples on academic ideas and low-level research tasks which are utilized for the construction of the theoretical framework set in the ALRA.

I. Definitions

""Innovation capability has been the subject of several studies in innovation management. According to Lawson and Samson (2001), innovation capability is a theoretical framework that describes the actions that can improve the success of innovation activities. Thus, the definitions of innovation capability often concentrate on defining factors shared by innovative organizations. These factors are the dimensions that form an organization’s capability to innovate" [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

"According to Siggelkow (2002), the capabilities of the organisation are the configuration of activities, policies, structural elements and resources";

Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015. "The development of innovation capability in services: research propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.

"Innovation is, according to Lawson and Samson (2001), a key mechanism to achieve organisational growth and renewal. In the context of service, Bharadwaj et al. (1993) suggest that service companies achieve competitive advantage by being innovative. More particularly, service innovation, “introduces something new into the way of life, organization, timing and placement of what can generally be described as the individual

and collective processes that relate to consumers” (Barcet 2010, p. 51). Innovation capability, defined as the resource and assets that enable a firm to engage in activities needed for innovation (O’Connor et al. 2007) is critical to the development and commercialisation of new services that create value for the company and its customers. Lawson and Samson (2001) contend that an organisation’s innovation capability arises from the skills and abilities that enable the application of resources and reflect an, “ability to continuously transform knowledge and ideas into new products, processes and systems for the benefit of the firm and its stakeholders” (Lawson and Samson 2001, p. 384). Service innovation capability is therefore the ability of an organisation to adapt the service process to the changing environment";

Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015. "The development of innovation capability in services: research propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.

"... the resource-based theory of the firm underpins the notion of capabilities for a firm’s marketing and technological functions. The resource-based theory focuses on a firm’s bundle of resources and capabilities that are heterogeneous, scarce, durable, not easily traded and difficult to imitate as sources for the development of sustainable competitive advantage (Penrose 1959;Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991; Peteraf 1993). It emphasises the identification and mobilisation of a firm’s unique resources and capabilities as a basis for developing competitive advantage. Capabilities refer to an organisation’s ability to assemble, integrate, and deploy valued resources, usually, in combination or co-existence with a firm’s assets, knowledge, functional capabilities (e.g. marketing), and organisational processes (Grant 1991; Amit and Schoemaker 1993). Marketing and technological capabilities are part of organisational capabilities, which generate competencies rooted in processes and business routines. The positive relationship between these capabilities (marketing and technological) and firm performance requires a capability perspective to differentiate organisational routines and dynamic capabilities by understanding how the processes of exploration and exploitation learning support innovative capability";

[Teck-Yong Eng & Duygu Okten (2011) Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.]

"Innovative capability is concerned with the ability to develop and apply existing resources (e.g. technologies) and capabilities (e.g., know-how, skills) that support innovation strategies (Kim 1997; Burgelman, Christensen, and Wheelwright 2004). While a firm’s innovative capability may generate many different types of innovations (see Garcia and Calantone 2002), the degree of innovative capability can be examined on a continuum between incremental and radical innovation (Dewar and Dutton 1986).A key construct for understanding the degree of innovative capability is creativity, which is a core antecedent of innovation for the generation of novel and meaningful ideas (Amabile et al. 1996). Within the capability perspective, creativity can be treated as capabilities fundamental to a firm’s competitive advantage. Creativity can also be seen in terms of innovative capability as it encompasses adoption and implementation of new ideas (Luecke and Katz 2003). Yet, despite the key role of creativity in innovation (e.g. Im and Workman 2004), no theoretical framework of innovation has explicitly considered creativity particularly for enhancing innovative capability"; [Teck-Yong Eng & Duygu Okten (2011) Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.]

"Innovation is a key managerial process because it is linked to business performance (Sanchez 1995) and to means of survival in the face of competition and environmental uncertainty (Gronhaug & Kaufmann 1988). Organizational innovation has been described as the fundamental reconceptualization of business models and the reshaping of existing markets by breaking the rules and changing the nature of rivalry (Schlegelmilch, Diamantopoulos & Kreutz 2003). Indeed, innovation has been posited as providing a firm with an indirect approach to avoid competition and thereby achieve a differential advantage over its competitors (Varadarajan & Jayachandran 1999). Innovation is also at the core of dynamic organizational capabilities (Teece, Pisano & Shuen 1997; Durand 1997), and, thus, innovators not only focus on rivals and their own competitive position within the marketing channel, but they also look across substitute channels (Kim & Mauborgne 1999; Rigby & Zook 2002)"; [Matti Tuominen & Saara Hyvönen (2004) Organizational Innovation Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in Marketing Channels, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14:3, 277-293, DOI: 10.1080/09593960410001678417.]

II. Research interests and gaps

"... recent strategic management thinking has focused on the premise that a firm’s success lies in its ability to find or create capabilities that are distinctive, with competitive advantage derived from how a firm develops and exploits those capabilities and its resource-based development path. Researchers have pointed to the importance for service organisations of possessing innovation capability given its role in the development and commercialisation of new services that create value for the company and its customers. However, the intangible nature of services means that service innovation, usually the responsibility of the operations function has been the subject of only limited investigation. Researchers have recognised that identifying how an organisation’s capability to innovate develops is also under-researched";

Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015. "The development of innovation capability in services: research propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.

"Conceptually, innovation is a broad construct that can be examined internally in a firm, at the strategic business unit as its level of analysis or at the market as its outcome (Im and Workman 2004). Schumpeter’s (1934) pioneering work on theory of creative destruction has long identified technological change as a major source for discontinuous innovation. However, research about innovation is often confounded by inconsistency in defining and measuring innovation types (Wind and Mahajan 1997; Garcia and Calantone 2002). In particular, the influence of technological capabilities on innovative capability has largely remained underdeveloped";

"Innovation capability has been defined in several ways in the current literature. The categories used in the area of innovation capability often adopt a certain type of innovation, instead of the overall innovation capability. Innovation capability has also been divided into radical and incremental innovation capability (Sen and Egelhoff 2000). Also the effects of innovation capability on firm performance have usually been studied by using the above-mentioned categories. A majority of these studies has concentrated on large companies and relationship between their innovation capability and performance"; [Minna Saunila (2017) Innovation capability in achieving higher performance: perspectives of management and employees, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.]

III. Analytical concepts and viewpoints

"... innovation capability is divided into seven dimensions (Saunila, 2014; Saunila & Ukko, 2013, 2014). The dimensions are: participatory leadership

culture, ideation and organizing structures, work climate and well-being, know-how development, regeneration, external knowledge, and individual activity. This division was chosen because it broadly covers the important dimensions of innovation capability. The seven dimensions that form innovation capability are presented below.

• The participatory leadership culture dimension is related to an organizational culture that supports innovation. The dimension reflects the overall atmosphere of the organization that supports and motivates innovation and a leadership culture that facilitates innovation.

• The ideation and organizing structures dimension includes the structures and systems that successful innovation requires. This includes the generation, development, and implementation of innovations, and the ways in which the organization’s work tasks are organized.

• The work climate and well-being dimension includes employee well-being, and the work climate for innovation development, including collaboration and values.

• The know-how development dimension points out that employee expertise plays an important role in the development of the organization’s innovation capability. This includes knowledge as well as improvement in employee skills.

• The regeneration dimension reflects the organization’s ability to learn from experience and to use that experience to create and develop innovations.

• The external knowledge dimension emphasizes the importance of exploiting external networks and knowledge for the overall organizational innovation capability. Thus, the dimension reflects the organization’s internal capability to exploit external information in developing innovation capability.

• The individual activity dimension expresses that employees’ individual innovation capability and activity are needed to form the organization’s overall innovation capability. This factor includes the characteristics associated with higher innovation capability and employee motivation to foster innovations"

[Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

Academic idea: innovation capability dimensions;

A low-level research task: To learn evaluative opinions of a few chosen managers on the quality (e.g., strengths and weaknesses) of the seven innovation capability dimensions, by unstructured interview.

"Innovation capability has been suggested to be a multi-faceted construct. Lawson and Samson (2001) consider innovation capability as actions that can be taken to improve the success of innovation activities. Perdomo-Ortiz, González-Benitoa, and Galende (2006) use the term business innovation capability to describe the critical success factors of innovation processes. These critical factors can be interpreted as business innovation capability dimensions, and the capability can be measured with the factors. Thus, one viewpoint is to specify the organisational aspects of innovation. A body of literature has identified the common factors shared by innovative organisations and the factors that impact on the ability to manage innovation (Smith et al. 2008). According to earlier literature, these factors include for example leadership practices, employees’ skills and innovativeness, processes and tools for idea management, supporting culture, external sources for information, development of individual knowledge, and employees’ welfare (e.g. Romijn and Albaladejo 2002; Perdomo-Ortiz, González-Benitoa, and Galende 2006; Martensen et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2008; Laforet 2011; Martínez-Román, Gamero, and Tamayo 2011; Saunila and Ukko 2014; Saunila 2016). In this paper, innovation capability is divided into seven dimensions, following Saunila and Ukko’s (2014) study. The dimensions are participatory leadership culture, ideation and organising structures, work climate and well-being, know-how development, regeneration, external knowledge, and individual

activity";

[Minna Saunila (2017) Innovation capability in achieving higher performance: perspectives of management and employees, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.]

Academic idea: innovation capability dimensions

"The ability to innovate is a critical success factor for the growth and future performance of firms, and is seen as the only means by which companies can sustain competitive advantage (Carayannis & Provance, 2008; Muller, Välikangas, & Merlyn, 2005). Linking strategy with innovation activities, together with a shared vision of innovation, is essential when creating innovation capability (e.g., Davila, Epstein, & Shelton, 2006; Lawson & Samson, 2001; Saunila, 2016; Skarzynski & Gibson, 2008). Previous literature has presented elements that make up innovation capability (e.g., Kallio, Kujansivu, & Parjanen, 2012; Lawson & Samson, 2001; Perunović, Mefford, Christoffersen, McIvor, & Falls, 2016; Saunila, 2014, 2016; Saunila & Ukko, 2012; Skarzynski & Gibson, 2008). Skarzynski and Gibson (2008) emphasize the sharing of a common vision of innovation among the leaders and the organization, a disciplined approach to building innovation capabilities across the organization, support tools to enable an idea-generating pipeline and portfolio management, a collaborative open culture, and incentives that reward the challenging of current actions"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

Academic idea: innovation capability linkage with corporate strategy and vision

A low-level research task: To evaluate the perceived quality of innovation capability linkage with the company's strategy and vision by structured interview with a few chosen managers.

"... not all organizations are the same, and different organizations have different issues and approaches regarding innovation activities. Thus, different solutions are needed (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007). Kaltoft et al. (2007) studied different approaches to collaborative improvement – namely, the bottom-up learning-by-doing approach, the top-down directed approach, and the non-directed approach – paying equal attention to concept building and experience gained from practice. According to that study, successful implementation of the collaborative improvement process requires elements of all three approaches: understanding and direction (the top-down approach), activity and learning (the bottom-up approach), and a genuine willingness to collaborate, based on trust and commitment (the key values of the third approach)"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

Academic idea: innovation capability improvement approaches

A low-level research task: To learn perceptions on the current usage and relative importance of the three innovation capability improvement approaches in the company by structured interviews with a few chosen managers.

"Development methods for innovation capability Handbook of Innovation

In employee-driven innovation, the employees contribute actively and systematically to the innovation process (Kallio, 2012). Innovations can emerge from any part of the organization and any employee group (Kesting & Ulhoi, 2010). A typical hindrance to employees’ innovativeness is that individual employees do not see it as part of their job. Feeling responsible for generating ideas increases the activity compared with ‘it is someone else’s job’ (Axtell et al., 2000; Kallio, 2012)..."; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

Academic ideas: employee-driven innovation; employees' sense of responsibility to generate innovation-related ideas

A low-level research task: To evaluate perception of the quality and importance of employee-driven innovation, and the quality and importance of employees' sense of responsibility to generate innovation-related ideas, by structured interview with a few managers and non-managerial staff.

"Theatre-based methods According to Lester and Piore (2004), innovation is often studied only as a decisionmaking and problem-solving process. From this perspective, innovation is defined as an analytical linear project with a well-defined beginning and end, aimed at solving existing problems. What if the issue does not exist yet but is more a result of incompleteness.... (Heikkinen, 2002) and illustrates the logic of drama and learning through the aesthetics of incompleteness and co-construction (Weick, 1995)? Innovation processes must also be affected by issues that cannot be ‘solved’ or unified in a logical, linear, and analytical fashion. The goal of interpretative innovation is to discover new definitions. This process of sense making is understood to be a fragmented, ongoing, open-ended (and multi-voiced) process of dialogue that emphasizes interaction and communication (Lester & Piore, 2004; Pässilä, 2012). Understanding the dynamics that support innovation involves understanding the dynamics that get in the way of innovation"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

Academic idea: Innovation process as fragmented, ongoing, open-ended and communication-interactive.

A low-level research task: To find out the perceived extent that the innovation process in the company is fragmented, ongoing, open-ended and communication-interactive by unstructured interviews with a few managerial and non-managerial staff.

"Innovation session Open innovation is a phenomenon that has become increasingly important for practice and theory over the last few years (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Enkel, Gassmann, & Chesbrough, 2009; Huizingh, 2011). The innovation processes of an organization also need to be adapted to the changing characteristics of innovation activities, where external knowledge and actors are an increasing part of the processes. One example of an open innovation tool that draws on input from outside parties is the innovation session method. The purpose of the innovation session is to combine regional and inter-regional expertise to benefit the organizations’ innovation measures"; [Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila, Satu Parjanen, Tero Rantala, Juho Salminen, Sanna Pekkola & Martti Mäkimattila (2016) Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.]

Academic idea: Open innovation

A low-level research task: To learn perception on whether (a) the innovation process in the company is becoming more open and (b) the innovation process in the company needs to increasingly become more open, by unstructured interview with a few managerial and non-managerial staff.

"Resource-based theorists advocate that a business should compete by developing, exploiting and renewing its resources and using these to develop competencies that the competition finds hard to imitate (Barney 1991; Peteraf 1993; Teece et al. 1997). These competencies and capabilities can then form the basis of a business strategy, creating value and enabling differentiation in the organisation’s chosen markets";

Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015. "The development of innovation capability in services: research propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.

Academic idea: Organizational competencies and capability as the basis of a business strategy

A low-level research task: To learn the managerial perception that the existing organizational capability, notably innovation capability, makes up the basis of the business strategy of the company by unstructured interview of a few chosen managers.

"The management of service innovation involves dealing with new services that have differing degrees of newness. They range from a totally new innovation (radical innovation) to those innovations that involve only minor adjustment that is more evolutionary or incremental in nature (Droege et al. 2009). Thus radical innovations are characterised as either novel or unique technological solutions which may include the development or application of new technologies or that encompass state-of-the art breakthrough in a service category (Booz et al. 1982; de Brentani 2001). Incremental or evolutionary services are typically described as new services that only involve minor changes in technology, simple service improvements, imitations or line extensions (Booz et al. 1982; de Brentani 2001)";

Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015. "The development of innovation capability in services: research propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.

Academic idea: Radical service innovation and incremental service innovation

A low-level research task: To learn the perception from managerial and non-managerial staff whether the company is good at radical and incremental service innovation and why, by unstructured interview.

"Rather than focusing only on developing innovations, it has been argued that mature firms searching to be inventive should adopt a capabilities perspective on innovation (Hatchuel et al., 2003; Colarelli O’Connor, 2008). A capabilities perspective encourages a systems view which facilitates innovativeness in firms (Colarelli O’Connor, 2008; Bo¨ rjesson and Elmquist, 2011). The few studies of innovation capabilities tend to be rather general (e.g. Burgelman et al., 1988; Francis and Bessant, 2005; Assink, 2006). An important exception is the work of Colarelli O’Connor and colleagues on ‘‘major/radical innovation capabilities’’ (Colarelli O’Connor, 2008; Colarelli O’Connor et al., 2008; Colarelli O’Connor and DeMartino, 2006; Colarelli O’Connor and McDermott, 2004), which suggests that innovation systems should be founded on the three pillars of Discovery, Incubation, and Acceleration. Also Danneels (2011) highlights resource cognition as a central management capability required to build innovation capability. Work on developing the capabilities for innovation in mature firms, i.e. the efforts undertaken to build new, complementary capabilities in the firm is very scant (O’Connor et al., 2008). Kelley et al. (2011) argue that the individual is a key contributor to the realization of innovation. Individuals are also critical for building the organizational capability for innovation (O’Connor et al., 2008; Bo¨ rjesson and Elmquist, 2011), through their role of ‘‘orchestrators’’ (O’Connor et al., 2008). Our research considers that building capabilities in mature firms is a long-term, complex effort that involves many challenges. Building the capability for innovation is strongly related to managing change (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Zollo and Winter, 2002), and therefore to overcoming organizational resistance and barriers such as mindset barriers (Assink, 2006; Moss-Kanter, 2006; Dougherty and Heller, 1994)"; [Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management" J. Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]

Academic ideas: The three innovation system pillars of discovery, incubation and acceleration; organizational barriers on innovation, such as mindset barriers

A low-level research task: To learn from managerial and non-managerial staff if there are organizational barriers to innovation activities on discover, incubation and acceleration.

"Development of innovation capabilities requires changes to activities such as refining processes and use of available resources, and examining how organizational decisions are taken which is strongly related to the firm’s existing knowledge and learning. The process of knowledge acquisition or learning involves processes to capture and internalize external knowledge and experimentation to create distinctive knowledge for specific situations (Hitt et al., 2000). Learning is critical to the development of innovation capabilities (Madhavan and Grover, 1998; Lynn et al., 1998). It includes effective internal knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer (e.g. Kogut and Zander, 1992), learning from experience (e.g. Maidique and Zirger, 1985; Rothwell and Gardiner, 1989; Colarelli O’Connor and DeMartino, 2006), development of dynamic routines for creative technological learning (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Lei et al., 1996) and collaboration with external actors (e.g. Kogut, 1988; Powell et al., 1996; Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma, 2009). Building the capabilities for innovation is about creating sustainable learning systems (Maurer and Githens, 2009; Adler and Shani, 2001) in the firm. Working with new knowledge is challenging because it requires shifts in firm values and associated power structures (Francis and Bessant, 2005)"; [Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management" J. Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]

Academic idea: innovation capability development activities of internal knowledge sharing and transfer, learning from experience, development of dynamic routines for creative technological learning and collaboration with external actors.

A low-level research task: To what out actual examples of the company doing innovation capability development activities and perceived effectiveness of these activities, by unstructured interview and/or survey questionnaires with company staff.

"In a review of the inhibitors to disruptive (radical) innovation the main barriers identified include adoption barriers, mindset barriers, risk barriers (mainly financial), nascent barriers (i.e. lack of creativity and foresight), and infrastructure barriers (Assink, 2006). Henderson (2008) refers to the ‘‘inertia of organizational competence’’ to explain why established firms fail in contexts of disruptive innovation. Bell and Pavitt (1995) underline that scale-intensive firms such as automotive firms accumulate capabilities in core technologies and their underlying knowledge bases through historical learning processes. Likewise, Christensen (1997) argues that as organizations mature, the most difficult capabilities to change are those tied to processes and values. These are aspects that must be addressed by firms with ambitions to develop innovation capability"; [Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management" J. Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]

Academic idea: Inhibitors to radical innovation, such as adoption barriers, mindset barriers, risk barriers (mainly financial), nascent barriers (i.e. lack of creativity and foresight), and infrastructure barriers.

A low-level research task: To learn perception from company staff whether inhibitors to radical innovation exist in the company and what have been done and should be done about these inhibitors.

"Research in sociology highlights the importance of individual behaviours, arguing that managers involved in supporting innovation require two critical skills: an ability to engender interest in the intrinsic value of innovation activity in order to increase the number of its supporters in the firm (Akrich et al., 2002a) and the ability to be an innovation spokesman to translate an economic strategy into research activity (Akrich et al., 2002b). The first skill is most often associated with intrapreneurship and can be linked to effective management of emotional capability, i.e. the ‘‘capacity to instill or control the emotions of people through organizational processes to achieve a desired end or to perform a particular function or value activity’’ (Akgu¨n et al., 2009: p. 105). It requires the innovation administrator to have conceptual skills (Katz, 1974), i.e. the ability to develop a cognitive representation of the organization’s components and their interdependencies which in turn requires facility to anticipate those internal stakeholders that will be affected by or might be able to influence the progress of an innovation activity. It identifies those stakeholders whose support should be encouraged. The second facility is aligned with the role of knowledge broker (Hargadon and Sutton, 2000; Hargadon, 2002) and innovation ‘‘intermediary’’..."; [Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management" J. Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.]

Academic idea: Innovation supportive role-players of innovation spokesman, innovation administrator and innovation intermediary

A low-level research task: To learn from company staff if there are any staff playing the innovation supportive roles in the company and how effectively they have been performing these roles.

"From a capability perspective, organisational learning processes of exploration and exploitation influence acquisition and development of marketing capabilities to enhance innovative capability. Organisational learning processes also include information acquisition, information dissemination, and shared interpretation (Sinkula 1994). These organisational learning processes support a market-oriented culture of organisation-wide generation of market intelligence across departments, and organisation-wide responsiveness (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Using March’s (1991) exploration-exploitation framework, exploitation cannot by definition take place without prior exploration (March 1991) and the extent of innovation is the result of the two interrelated organisational learning processes (Hurley and Hult 1998). Exploitation learning is analogous to the learning curve (or experience curve) with its internally focused experience from the effect of cumulative production and user experience on productivity in manufacturing (March 1991). Exploration learning is motivated by externally focused experience from experimentation with new alternatives and search for new opportunities (March 1991)";

Academic idea: Exploitation learning and exploration learning

A low-level research task: To find out via semi-structured interview and questionnaire survey how well exploitation learning and exploration learning with regard to innovation have been done in the company.

"A firm’s innovativeness is positively related to a firm’s economic performance in terms of higher levels of productivity and economic growth (Cainelli, Evangelista, and Savona 2004). The studies on organisational innovation and performance (e.g. Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle 2011) also found that innovation and organisational performance are overall positively correlated. Also in the context of SMEs, a firm’s innovativeness improves firm performance (Keskin 2006). On the basis of earlier literature, Armbruster et al. (2008) show that organisational innovations act as prerequisites and facilitators of an efficient use of technical product and process innovations, and therefore they are sources of competitive advantage. Organisational innovations themselves have an impact on business performance with regard to productivity, lead times, quality, and flexibility (Armbruster et al. 2008)";

Academic idea: business performance impacts of organizational innovations

A low-level research task: To learn via unstructured interview, questionnaire survey and document study (e.g. annual reports) whether and to what extent the organizational innovation capability of the company contributes to the company's business performance in productivity, lead times, quality, and flexibility.

"Several attempts have been made to enhance firm capabilities to accelerate the innovation process, for example, by introducing systematic ways of screening ideas (Lynn & Heintz 1992) followed by a stage-gate model of overhauling the innovation process (Cooper & Kleinschmidt 1993). A number of studies have also pointed out that interfunctional co-ordination is a prerequisite for a successful innovation process (Mukhopadhyay & Gupta 1998). Therefore, we suggest that the notion of organizational innovation capability should be split into two separate aspects or entities: managerial innovation and technological innovation";

[Matti Tuominen & Saara Hyvönen (2004) Organizational Innovation Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in Marketing Channels, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14:3, 277-293, DOI: 10.1080/09593960410001678417.]

Academic idea: measures to accelerate the innovation process, e.g. ideas screening, the stage-gate model of the innovation process and interfunctional coordination.

A low-level research task: To learn via unstructured interview with a few chosen managers whether the innovation acceleration measures have been performed effectively in the company.

"Managerial innovation involves new strategies and new organizational forms, which are indirectly related to basic business activities within an organization, whereas technological innovation pertains to product, service and process technology interrelated with these business activities (Damanpour 1991)";

Key words: managerial innovation and technological innovation

Research tasks: To find out via unstructured interview and/or questionnaire survey with company staff on perceptions of how well managerial and technological innovation have been performed in the company.

References

Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. and Hooge, S. 2014. "The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars" Journal of Engineering and Technology Management" J. Eng. Technol. Management 31: 120-140, Elsevier.

Eng, T.Y. and Okten, D. 2011. Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical integration of technological and marketing capabilities, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23:9, 1001-1013, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2011.616700.

Lillis, B., Szwejcaewski, M. and Goffin, K. 2015. "The development of innovation capability in services: research propositions and management implications" Oper Manag Res 8: 48-68, Springer.

Saunila, M. 2017. Innovation capability in achieving higher performance: perspectives of management and employees, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29:8, 903-916, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1259469.

Tuominen, M. and Hyvönen, S. 2004. Organizational Innovation Capability: A Driver for Competitive Superiority in Marketing Channels, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14:3, 277-293, DOI: 10.1080/09593960410001678417.

Ukko, J., Saunila, M., Parjanen, S., Rantala, T., Salminen, J., Pekkola, S. and Mäkimattila, M. 2016. Effectiveness of innovation capability development methods, Innovation, 18:4, 513-535, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1233824.

________________

Reference
Three types of research tasks

Joseph KK Ho e-resources

Thursday, 11 April 2019

Study note for literature review note on innovation capability in ALRA

No comments:

Post a Comment