Entrepreneurship and innovation through experience:student and employer perspectives of the value of work-based learning in promoting entrepreneurialism

The 'internationalisation' of Business and Management education, reflective of EU enlargement and the unprecedented globalisation of education, has resulted in growing numbers of overseas students adding a diversity and richness to the learning environment within many contemporary European Higher Educational Institutions (Green, 2006, Sliwa & Grandy, 2006). However, cross-national studies analyzing the impact that the internationalisation of business education has on the employability of business and management graduates are rare. Furthermore, there exists a notable gap in research aimed at identifying and conceptualising the generic business skills and competencies required by European employers of business and management graduates. By proposing a conceptual framework based upon a working model of business graduate employability, this goes some way to addressing this gap.

The organisation of innovation: collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing

Marked differences exist between the institutional and social context for innovation in the UK and Germany. The question addressed here is how these different contexts affect the objectives and organisation of innovation in UK and German manufacturing. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which UK and German plants engage in inter-plant collaboration and cooperation and multifunctional working as part of their innovative activity, and explores the reasons for differences in these patterns of involvement. The investigation is based on a large-scale, comparative survey of manufacturing plants in the two countries. In Germany, institutional and social norms are found to encourage collaborative inter-plant innovation, but aspects of the German skills training and industrial relations systems make the adoption of more flexible internal systems more difficult. In the UK, by contrast, the more adversarial nature of inter-firm relations makes it more difficult to establish external collaborations based on mutual trust, but less restrictive labour market structures make it easier for UK plants to adopt multifunctional working. This is linked to differences in attitudes to the property rights and transaction cost problems inherent in innovation.

From national innovation systems to national innovation capacity:internationalisation and technology transfer perspectives

The last decade or so has witnessed the emergence of the national innovation system (NIS) phenomenon. Since then, many scholars have investigated NIS and its implementation in different countries. However, there are very few investigations into the relationship between the NIS of a country and its national innovation capacity. This paper aims to make a contribution in this area by examining the link that currently exists between these two topics. Whilst examining this relationship, we also explore internationalisation and technology transfer, being cognate areas that have been investigated during the same period. This follows our assertion that the link between NIS and national innovation capacity is the mechanism of internationalisation and technology transfer. The NIS approach was introduced in the late 1980s (see Freeman, 1987; Dosi et al., 1988) and further elaborated later (see Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997). In essence, a country?s NIS is a historically grown subsystem of the entire national economy consisting of organisations and institutions which play a major role in the innovative activity in the country. In the NIS approach, interactions within organisations as well as the interplay between organisations and institutions are of central importance. The NIS approach has been used to reveal the structure of the innovation processes and the main actors involved in them in industrialised and emerging countries. Although the national focus remains strong, it has been accompanied by studies seeking to analyse the notion of systems of innovation at an international level and at a sub-national scale (Archibugi et al., 1999). Dosi in the edition of Archibugi et al. (1999) argues that the general background of the discussion of national systems is the observation of non-random distributions across countries of: corporate capabilities; organisational forms; strategies; and ultimately revealed performances, in terms of production efficiency and inputs productivities, rates of innovation, rates of adoption/diffusion of innovation themselves, dynamics of market shares on the world markets, growth of income and employment. They also mention that there are several approaches to NIS. Nelson (1993) focuses upon the specificities of national institutions and policies supporting directly or indirectly innovation, diffusion and skills accumulation. Patel and Pavitt (1991) have stressed the links between the national patterns of technological accumulation and the competencies and innovative strategies of a few major national companies. Amable et al (1997) and Soskice (1993) and Zysman (1994) focus on the specifics of national institutions including, for example, the forms of organization, financial and labour markets, training institutions, forms of state intervention in the economy etc. However, the most common reference is by Lundvall (1992) who argues that the focus on the national level is associated with the fact that national economies vary according to their production system and their institutional framework and these differences are in turn strengthened by different historical experiences, language and culture. On the other hand, the national innovation capability consists of abilities to create and carry new technological possibilities through to economic practice. The term covers a wide range of activities from capability to invent to capability to innovate and to capability to improve existing technology beyond the original design parameters (Kim, 1997). The term innovation is often associated by many with technological change at international frontiers. However, technological capability is not the same as innovation capability. Technological capability refers to assimilation, use, adaptation, and change to existing technologies. It also enables the creation of new technologies and development of new products and processes in response to changing economic environments. It denotes operational command over knowledge (Kim, 1997). It is manifested not merely by the knowledge possessed, but, more important, by the uses to which that knowledge can be put and by the proficiency with which it is applied in the activities of investment and production and in the creation of new knowledge (Westphal et al., 1985). Therefore, the analytical framework that is used in this paper is based on the way a country derives from its NIS a national innovation capacity. There are two perspectives that are identified on this way. These are internationalisation and technology transfer. Even though NIS is not directly related to national innovation capacity, to achieve national innovation capacity from NIS, the country should have the ability for technology transfer. Technology transfer is a link between these two phenomena. On the other hand, internationalisation can be either the input or the output of the relationship between NIS and national innovation capability. If a company is investing in a country because of its national innovation capacity, this can be regarded as an input to the relationship between NIS and national innovation capacity. If this company is investigating the national innovation capacity of a country then, for its internationalisation, the national innovation capacity should be important, which in turn means this company is active in innovation and innovation is also an important success factor. The interrelationship between the investment of the company and the NIS of the country (assuming that the country is competent and competitive in technology transfer) will generate and improve that country?s national innovation capacity. This is the output of internationalisation from the relationship between NIS and national innovation capacity. When companies are evaluating whether to internationalise, they investigate certain factors in the countries in which they are considering to invest. The ability to transfer technology is dependent on ability to adopt a new technology and also on the learning derived from this technology. If countries wish to attract innovation related investment they need to show their ability to have a NIS and also the capability to transfer technology. Without the technology transfer capability, the NIS is not functioning. Therefore, companies that internationalise will investigate the factors common to NIS, technology transfer, and their business needs. Through this paper we will demonstrate this link though its mechanisms. Our research will be through extensive literature review and identifying relevant aspects of previous research carried out by the authors. It will investigate certain factors of different countries that are successful in attracting innovation related foreign direct investment. Through these, we will point out the factors that are important for the link and mechanisms of NIS and national innovation capability.

Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds:An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups

In this article I synthesise research and theory that advance our understanding of creativity and innovation implementation in groups at work. It is suggested that creativity occurs primarily at the early stages of innovation processes with innovation implementation later. The influences of task characteristics, group knowledge diversity and skill, external demands, integrating group processes and intragroup safety are explored. Creativity, it is proposed, is hindered whereas perceived threat, uncertainty or other high levels of demands aid the implementation of innovation. Diversity of knowledge and skills is a powerful predictor of innovation, but integrating group processes and competencies are needed to enable the fruits of this diversity to be harvested. The implications for theory and practice are also explored.

The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation:A Special Issue introduction

This introduction essay proposes a challenging program for researchers eager to explore factors and process mechanisms contributing to the benefits and costs individuals and groups incur from pursuing innovative approaches. With respect to individual innovation, such moderating factors might be found in the characteristics of the innovative idea, the innovator, co-workers, supervisors, the broader organizational context, and in national culture. Examples of factors that are likely to shape the beneficial and detrimental outcomes of group innovation include knowledge, skills and ability of group members, group tenure, diversity among group members, group processes (clarifying group objectives, participation, constructive management of competing perspectives), and external demands on groups. This Special Issue contains a state-of-the-science paper, three articles dealing with the benefits and costs of individual innovation, and three articles addressing the bright and dark sides of group innovation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Modelling the innovation value chain

Innovation events – the introduction of new products or processes – represent the end of a process of knowledge sourcing and transformation. They also represent the beginning of a process of exploitation which may result in an improvement in the performance of the innovating business. This recursive process of knowledge sourcing, transformation and exploitation comprises the innovation value chain. Modelling the innovation value chain for a large group of manufacturing firms in Ireland and Northern Ireland highlights the drivers of innovation, productivity and firm growth. In terms of knowledge sourcing,we find strong complementarity between horizontal, forwards, backwards, public and internal knowledge sourcing activities. Each of these forms of knowledge sourcing also makes a positive contribution to innovation in both products and processes although public knowledge sources have only an indirect effect on innovation outputs. In the exploitation phase, innovation in both products and processes contribute positively tocompany growth, with product innovation having a short-term ‘disruption’ effect on labour productivity. Modelling the complete innovation value chain highlights the structure and complexity of the process of translating knowledge into business value and emphasises the role of skills, capital investment and firms’ other resources in the value creation process.

The innovation value chain

Innovation events - the introduction of new products or processes - represent the end of a process of knowledge sourcing and transformation. They also represent the beginning of a process of exploitation which may result in an improvement in the performance of the innovating business. This recursive process of knowledge sourcing, transformation and exploitation we call the innovation value chain. Modelling the innovation value chain for a large group of manufacturing firms in Ireland and Northern Ireland highlights the drivers of innovation, productivity and firm growth. In terms of knowledge sourcing, we find strong complementarity between horizontal, forwards, backwards, public and internal knowledge sourcing activities. Each of these forms of knowledge sourcing also makes a positive contribution to innovation in both products and processes although public knowledge sources have only an indirect effect on innovation outputs. In the exploitation phase, innovation in both products and processes contribute positively to company growth, with product innovation having a short-term ‘disruption’ effect on labour productivity. Modelling the complete innovation value chain highlights the structure and complexity of the process of translating knowledge into business value and emphasises the role of skills, capital investment and firms’ other resources in the value creation process.

How can HRM promote organizational innovation

Our work investigating managerial practices in UK manufacturing organisations has shown that people management practices play an important role in promoting innovation. Having developed an instrument to analyse innovation (defined by West and Farr in 1990 as “the intentional introduction and application in a job, work team or organisation of ideas, processes, products or procedures which are new, and designed to benefit the job, the work team or the organisation”), we were able to give each of the 30 organisations in our sample a score of between one and seven to capture innovation in a range of domains. This instrument took into account the magnitude of the innovation in terms of the number of people involved in its implementation, and how new and different it was. We found that much innovation involves relatively minor, ongoing improvements, rather than major change. To achieve sustained innovation, organisations must be able to draw upon the skills and knowledge of employees at all levels of the business. So which HRM practices are most likely to promote a positive learning environment? We developed a scale to take into account three facets of HRM that shape the learning environment and predict the extent to which individuals can gain the skills to promote innovation. First, organisations should have a vision statement capturing their approach to learning and development and communicating to staff the importance that they attach to these processes. Second, they must implement and endorse mentoring schemes. Last, they should consider offering staff the opportunity to have regular career development meetings. Where a positive learning climate exists, organisations tend to be more innovative. The results also show that organisations that make explicit the link between appraisal and remuneration perform relatively less well in innovation terms than those whose appraisal systems have no relationship with pay. Many have argued (for example, Lawler,1995) that pay-for-performance schemes provide a “line of sight” between performance and reward, thereby enabling individuals to make appropriate decisions about where best to direct the effort. Our findings do not imply that performance-related pay is ill advised in all circumstances, but we suggest that organisations should exercise caution before introducing such schemes. People are central to innovation, and this study suggests that high innovation can be achieved when people are empowered to make changes at local levels. HRM has an important, perhaps crucial, role to play in creating an environment that enables people to develop the skills and confidence necessary to affect change. Key points: Organisational innovation is an important determinant of competitive performance and advancement, enabling organisations to anticipate and respond to the challenges of globalisation. HRM has an important, perhaps crucial, role to play in promoting organisational innovation – to the extent that it creates a positive environment for learning and removes barriers that may inhibit creative performance (for example, linking appraisal to remuneration).

Professional standards research:job satisfaction and innovation

Job satisfaction is a significant predictor of organisational innovation – especially where employees (including shop-floor workers) experience variety in their jobs and work in a single-status environment. The relationship between job satisfaction and performance has long intrigued work psychologists. The idea that "happy workers are productive workers" underpins many theories of performance, leadership, reward and job design. But contrary to popular belief, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance at individual level has been shown to be relatively weak. Research investigating the link between job satisfaction and creativity (the antecedent to innovation) shows that job dissatisfaction promotes creative outcomes. The logic is that those who are dissatisfied (and have decided to stay with the organisation) are determined to change things and have little to lose in doing so (see JM George & J Zhou, 2002). We were therefore surprised to find in the course of our own research into managerial practices and employee attitudes in manufacturing organisations that job satisfaction was a highly significant predictor of product and technological innovation. These results held even though the research was conducted longitudinally, over two years, while controlling for prior innovation. In other words, job satisfaction was a stronger predictor of innovation than any pre-existing orientation organisations had towards working innovatively. Using prior innovation as a control variable, as well as a longitudinal research design, strengthened our case against the argument that people are satisfied because they belong to a highly innovative organisation. We found that the relationship between job satisfaction and innovation was stronger still where organisations showed that they were committed to promoting job variety, especially at shop-floor level. We developed precise instruments to measure innovation, taking into account the magnitude of the innovation both in terms of the number of people involved in its implementation, and how new and different it was. Using this instrument, we are able to give each organisation in our sample a "score" from one to seven for innovation in areas ranging from administration to production technology. We found that much innovation is incremental, involving relatively minor improvements, rather than major change. To achieve sustained innovation, organisations have to draw on the skills and knowledge of employees at all levels. We also measured job satisfaction at organisational level, constructing a mean "job satisfaction" score for all organisations in our sample, and drawing only on those companies whose employees tended to respond in a similar manner to the questions they were asked. We argue that where most of the workforce experience job satisfaction, employees are more likely to collaborate, to share ideas and aim for high standards because people are keen to sustain their positive feelings. Job variety and single-status arrangements further strengthen the relationship between satisfaction and performance. This makes sense; where employees experience variety, they are exposed to new and different ideas and, provided they feel positive about their jobs, are likely to be willing to try to apply these ideas to improve their jobs. Similarly, staff working in single-status environments where hierarchical barriers are reduced are likely to feel trusted and valued by management and there is evidence (see G Jones & J George, 1998) that people work collaboratively and constructively with those they trust. Our study suggests that there is a strong business case for promoting employee job satisfaction. Managers and HR practitioners need to ensure their strategies and practices support and sustain job satisfaction among their workforces to encourage constructive, collaborative and creative working. It is more important than ever for organisations to respond rapidly to demands of the external environment. This study shows the positive association between organisational-level job satisfaction and innovation. So if a happy workforce is the key to unlocking innovation and organisations want to thrive in the global economy, it is vital that managers and HR practitioners pay close attention to employee perceptions of the work environment. In a world where the most innovative survive it could make all the difference.

Logistics Innovation in Small 3PLs:what is the Role of ICT?

For companies competing in highly dynamic markets, the search for new sources of competitive advantages is mandatory. Innovation is considered a fundamental component of a successful business as it allows companies to sustain profit margins and sales growth and to reduce pressures coming from competitors. In the knowledge-driven economy, information and communication technology (ICT) plays an important role as it enables innovation in product/service, processes and organisations especially in service companies. This paper investigates the role of ICT in logistics innovation. The focus of the paper is on the effects that ICT usage is having on the management of small third-party logistics service providers (3PLs). On the basis of quantitative and qualitative evidence emerging from a recent survey carried out on the Italian logistic service market, the paper analyses how ICT is used to support logistics innovation and the factors inhibiting/facilitate the usage of ICT in such companies. Implications for logistics innovation management will be outlined from both research and managerial perspectives.