Innovation in the Australian Spatial Information Industry

Business literature reveals the importance of generating innovative products and services, but much of the innovation research has been conducted in large firms and not replicated in small firms. These firms are likely to have different perspectives on innovation, which means that they will probably behave differently to large firms. Our study aims to unpack how firms in Spatial Information perceive and engage in innovation as a part of their business operation. To investigate these questions we conduct 20 in depth interviews of top management team members in Spatial Information firms in Australia. We find that small firms define innovation very broadly and measure innovation by its effect on productivity or market success. Innovation is seen as crucial to survival and success in a competitive environment. Most firms engage in product and/or service innovations, while some also mentioned marketing, process and organisational innovations. Most innovations were more exploitative rather than exploratory with only a few being radical innovations. Innovation barriers include time and money constraints, corporate culture and Government tendering practices. Our study sheds a light on our understanding of innovation in an under-researched sector; that is spatial information industry.

Achieving service quality through service innovation exploration-exploitation: The critical role of employee empowerment and slack resources

Purpose This study investigates the effects of service innovation exploration-exploitation on financial performance through the delivery of quality services. Additional emphasis is also given to examining the extent to which employee empowerment and slack resources enhance or suppress the performance benefits of service firms engaging in service innovation exploration versus exploitation. Design/methodology/approach Data were drawn from a multi-informant survey of service firms using a drop-and-collect approach. The survey gathered data from managers, customer service employees and customers to test the hypotheses. Findings The results show that excelling at both exploitative and exploratory innovation helps enhance the quality of services, which in turn yield superior financial performance. Further, empowering employees enhances the relationship between exploratory and exploitative service innovation and service quality. We also show that the extent managers’ perceived their market to be competitive influences in the pursuit of high levels of both service innovation exploration and exploitation and that this relationship is impacted by the extent they believe they have available slack resources. Practical implications The findings suggest that service firms need to pursue both exploitation and exploration at high levels simultaneously and empower their employees to stay ahead of competitors in delivering quality services, which ultimately contribute to the achievement of superior financial outcomes. Also, the findings highlight the importance of employee empowerment, market competitiveness and slack resources in the pursuit of high levels of both service innovation exploration and exploitation. Originality/value These findings and our theory indicate that this study is the first to empirically examine organizational ambidexterity in the context of service innovation exploration – exploitation adopting the principles of combined and balanced innovation. The study provides insights into the critical role of customers’ perceptions of service quality in contributing to firms’ financial performance. Our insights are unique in that the study incorporates managers, employees and customers in an integrated service innovation model.

Firms’ innovation objectives and knowledge acquisition strategies:a comparative analysis

External partnerships play an important role in firms’ acquisition of the knowledge inputs to innovation. Such partnerships may be interactive – involving exploration and mutual learning by both parties – or non-interactive – involving exploitative activity and learning by only one party. Examples of non-interactive partnerships are copying or imitation. Here, we consider how firms’ innovation objectives influence their choice of interactive and/or non-interactive connections. We conduct a comparative analysis for the economies of Spain and the UK, which have contrasting innovation eco-systems and regulation burdens.