Enhancing absorptive capacity in a non-research and development. An action research approach to converting individual observations into organisational awareness

The ability to recognize potential knowledge and convert it into business opportunities is one of the key factors of renewal in uncertain environments. This thesis examines absorptive capacity in the context of non-research and development innovation, with a primary focus on the social interaction that facilitates the absorption of knowledge. It proposes that everyone is and should be entitled to take part in the social interaction that shapes individual observations into innovations. Both innovation and absorptive capacity have been traditionally related to research and development departments and institutions. These innovations need to be adopted and adapted by others. This so-called waterfall model of innovations is only one aspect of new knowledge generation and innovation. In addition to this Science–Technology–Innovation perspective, more attention has been recently paid to the Doing–Using–Interacting mode of generating new knowledge and innovations. The amount of literature on absorptive capacity is vast, yet the concept is reified. The greater part of the literature links absorptive capacity to research and development departments. Some publications have focused on the nature of absorptive capacity in practice and the role of social interaction in enhancing it. Recent literature on absorptive capacity calls for studies that shed light on the relationship between individual absorptive capacity and organisational absorptive capacity. There has also been a call to examine absorptive capacity in non-research and development environments. Drawing on the literature on employee-driven innovation and social capital, this thesis looks at how individual observations and ideas are converted into something that an organisation can use. The critical phases of absorptive capacity, during which the ideas of individuals are incorporated into a group context, are assimilation and transformation. These two phases are seen as complementary: whereas assimilation is the application of easy-to-accept knowledge, transformation challenges the current way of thinking. The two require distinct kinds of social interaction and practices. The results of this study can been crystallised thus: “Enhancing absorptive capacity in practicebased non-research and development context is to organise the optimal circumstances for social interaction. Every individual is a potential source of signals leading to innovations. The individual, thus, recognises opportunities and acquires signals. Through the social interaction processes of assimilation and transformation, these signals are processed into the organisation’s reality and language. The conditions of creative social capital facilitate the interplay between assimilation and transformation. An organisation that strives for employee-driven innovation gains the benefits of a broader surface for opportunity recognition and faster absorption.” If organisations and managers become more aware of the benefits of enhancing absorptive capacity in practice, they have reason to assign resources to those practices that facilitate the creation of absorptive capacity. By recognising the underlying social mechanisms and structural features that lead either to assimilation or transformation, it is easier to balance between renewal and effective operations.

Hydra Europe

Poster at Open Repositories 2014, Helsinki, Finland, June 9-13, 2014

Nordic alcohol policy in Europe: the adaptation of Finland’s, Sweden’s and Norway’s alcohol policies to a new policy framework, 1994-2013

The purpose of this thesis is to study how and to which extent Finland, Sweden and Norway have adapted their alcohol policies to the framework imposed to them by the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) since the mid-1990s. This is done by studying the underlying mechanisms that have influenced the formation of alcohol policy in the Nordic countries in that period. As a part of this analysis main differences in alcohol policies and alcohol consumption between the three countries are assessed and the phenomenon of cross-border trade with alcohol is discussed. The study examines also the development of Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish alcohol policies between 1994 and 2012 and compares the Nordic alcohol policies with other alcohol policies in Europe as the situation was in 2012. The time frame of the study spans from the mid-1990s to the end of 2013 and is divided into three phases. Studying the role of the Europeanisation process on the formation of alcohol policies has a key role in the analysis. Besides alcohol policies, the analyses comprise the development of alcohol consumption and cross-border trade with alcohol. In addition, a quantitative scale constructed to measure the strictness of alcohol policies is utilised in the analyses. The results from the scale are used to substantiate the qualitative analysis and to test whether the stereotypical view of a strict Nordic alcohol policy is still true. The results from the study clearly corroborate earlier findings on the significance of Europeanisation and the Single Market for the development of alcohol policies in the Nordic countries. Free movement of goods and unhindered competition have challenged the principle of disinterest and enabled private profit seeking in alcohol trade. The Single Market has also contributed to the increase in availability of alcohol and made it more difficult for the Nordic EU member states to maintain restrictive alcohol policies. All in all, alcohol policies in the Nordic countries are more liberal in 2013 than they were in 1994. Norway, being outside the EU has, however, managed to maintain a stricter alcohol policy than Finland and Sweden. Norway has also been spared from several EU directives that have affected Finland and Sweden, the most remarkable being the abolishment of the travellers’ import quotas for alcohol within the EU. Due to its position as a non-EU country Norway has been able to maintain high alcohol taxes without being subjected to a ”race to the bottom” regarding alcohol taxes the same way as Finland and Sweden. Finland distinguishes as the country that has liberalised its alcohol policy most during the study period. The changes in alcohol policies were not only induced by Europeanisation and the Single Market, but also by autonomous decision-making and political processes in the individual countries. Furthermore, the study shows that alcohol policy measures are implemented more widely in Europe than before and that there is a slow process of convergence going on regarding alcohol policy in Europe. Despite this, alcohol policies in the Nordic countries are still by far the strictest in all of Europe. From a Europeanisation perspective, the Nordic countries were clearly on the receiving end during the first two study phases (1994–2007), having more to adjust to rules from the EU and the Single Market than having success in uploading and shaping alcohol policy on the European and international field. During the third and final study phase (2008–2013), however, the Nordic countries have increasingly succeeded in contributing to shape the alcohol policy arena in the EU and also more widely through the WHOs global alcohol strategy. The restrictive Nordic policy tradition on which the current alcohol policies in Finland, Sweden and Norway were built on has still quite a solid evidence base. Although the basis of the restrictive alcohol policy has crumbled somewhat during the past twenty years and the policies have become less effective, nothing prevents it from being the base for alcohol policy in the Nordic countries even in the long term. In the future, all that is needed for an effective and successful alcohol policy is a solid evidence base, enough political will and support from the general public.