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.

The return of the Prince of Denmark: a survey on recent developments in the economics of innovation

It is well known that innovation is the engine that drives the growth machine of modern capitalist economies. Therefore, not surprisingly, substantial attention has been devoted by economists to the process behind the production of innovations. Three areas have recently emerged as relevant in the field. These are: the impact of spillovers on productivity; the different forms of R&D cooperation and the role of patents in fostering innovations when these are cumulative. In this paper I summarise the relevant literature in these three areas by discussing where the current literature stands and what are its future developments.

HRM as a predictor of innovation

There is growing evidence available to suggest that HR practice is an important predictor of organisational performance. In this article, we argue that HR practices also have the potential to promote organisational innovation. We describe a longitudinal study of 22 UK manufacturing companies and examine the relationship between such practices and product and technological innovation. Results reveal that training, induction, team working, appraisal and exploratory learning focus are all predictors of innovation. Contingent reward, applied in conjunction with an exploratory learning focus, is positively associated with innovation in technical systems. Furthermore, training, appraisal and induction, combined with exploratory learning focus, explain variation between companies in product and technological innovation above and beyond the main effects observed. © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The limits of open innovation:openness and (quasi-)markets in the organization of innovation

Recent studies have stressed the importance of ‘open innovation’ as a means of enhancing innovation performance. The essence of the open innovation model is to take advantage of external as well as internal knowledge sources in developing and commercialising innovation, so avoiding an excessively narrow internal focus in a key area of corporate activity. Although the external aspect of open innovation is often stressed, another key aspect involves maximising the flow of ideas and knowledge from different sources within the firm, for example through knowledge sharing via the use of cross-functional teams. A fully open innovation approach would therefore combine both aspects i.e. cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages. This suggests that there should be complementarities between the use cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages i.e. the returns to implementing open innovation in one innovation activity is should be greater if open innovation is already in place in another innovation activity. However, our findings – based on a large sample of UK and German manufacturing plants – do not support this view. Our results suggest that in practice the benefits envisaged in the open innovation model are not generally achievable by the majority of plants, and that instead the adoption of open innovation across the whole innovation process is likely to reduce innovation outputs. Our results provide some guidance on the type of activities where the adoption of a market-based governance structure such as open innovation may be most valuable. This is likely to be in innovation activities where search is deterministic, activities are separable, and where the required level of knowledge sharing is correspondingly moderate – in other words those activities which are more routinized. For this type of activity market-based governance mechanisms (i.e. open innovation) may well be more efficient than hierarchical governance structures. For other innovation activities where outcomes are more uncertain and unpredictable and the risks of knowledge exchange hazards are greater, quasi-market based governance structures such as open innovation are likely to be subject to rapidly diminishing returns in terms of innovation outputs.

The four-factor taxonomy of relocation outcomes

Relocation, an intraorganizational geographical transfer, can be used for human resource development (HRD) because of the positive developmental effects it can induce. It is, thus, important for HRD professionals to understand the implications of relocation to ensure it is used appropriately and effectively as an HRD technique. Research on relocation is abundant but presently lacks integration. This article introduces the Four-Factor Taxonomy of Relocation Outcomes, which summarizes, organizes, and guides research in this area. The taxonomy provides researchers with four dimensions along which to consistently classify relocation outcomes: valence (positive vs. negative), duration (length of effect), magnitude (strength of effect), and quality (type of effect). The article concludes with a discussion of implications for HRD practitioners and researchers.

An exploration of the determinants of innovation:the top management team, organisational climate and organisational learning

Some researchers argue that the top team, rather than the CEO, is a better predictor of an organisation’s fate (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Knight et al., 1999). However, others suggest that the importance of the top management team (TMT) composition literature is exaggerated (West & Schwenk, 1996). This has stimulated a need for further research on TMTs. While the importance of TMT is well documented in the innovation literature, the organisational environment also plays a key role in determining organisational outcomes. Therefore, the inclusion of both TMT characteristics and organisational variables (climate and organisational learning) in this study provides a more holistic picture of innovation. The research methodologies employed includes (i) interviews with TMT members in 35 Irish software companies (ii) a survey completed by managerial respondents and core workers in these companies (iii) in-depth interviews with TMT members from five companies. Data were gathered in two phases, time 1 (1998-2000) and time 2 (2003). The TMT played an important part in fostering innovation. However, it was a group process, rather than team demography, that was most strongly associated with innovation. Task reflexivity was an important predictor of innovation time 1, time 2). Only one measure of TMT diversity was associated with innovation - tenure diversity -in time 2 only. Organisational context played an important role in determining innovation. This was positively associated with innovation - but with one dimension of organisational learning only. The ability to share information (access to information) was not associated with innovation but the motivation to share information was (perceiving the sharing of information to be valuable). Innovative climate was also associated with innovation. This study suggests that this will lead to innovative outcomes if employees perceive the organisation to support risk, experimentation and other innovative behaviours.

Differential perception of innovation with particular reference to the organisational context

Differential perception of innovation is a research area which has been advocated as a suitable topic for study in recent years. It developed from the problems encountered within earlier perception of innovation studies which sought to establish what characteristics of an innovation affected the ease of its adoption. While some success was achieved In relating perception of innovation to adoption behaviour, variability encountered Within groups expected - to fercelve innovation similarly suggested that the needs and experiences of the potential adopter were significantly affecting the research findings. Such analysis being supported by both sociological and psychological perceptual research. The present study sought to identify the presence of differential perception of innovation and explore the nature of the process. It was decided to base the research in an organisational context and to concentrate upon manufacturing innovation. It has been recognised that such adoption of technological innovation is commonly the product of a collective decision-making process, involving individuals from a variety of occupational backgrounds, both in terms of occupational speciality and level within the hierarchy. Such roles appeared likely to significantly influence perception of technological innovation, as gathered through an appropriate measure and were readily identifiable. Data vas collected by means of a face-to-face card presentation technique, a questionnaire and through case study material. Differential perception of innovation effects were apparent In the results, many similarities and differences of perception being related to the needs and experiences of the individuals studied. Phenomenological analysis, which recognises the total nature of experience in infiuencing behaviour, offered the best means of explaining the findings. It was also clear that the bureaucratic model of role definition was not applicable to the area studied, it seeming likely that such definitions are weaker under conditions of uncertainty, such as encountered in innovative decision-making.

National system of innovation and technological learning:an integrated framework for understanding technological capability development in the Russian forestry sector

One of the issues in the innovation system literature is examination of technological learning strategies of laggard nations. Two distinct bodies of literature have contributed to our insight into forces driving learning and innovation, National Systems of Innovation (NSI) and technological learning literature. Although both literatures yield insights on catch-up strategies of 'latecomer' nations, the explanatory powers of each literature by itself is limited. In this paper, a possible way of linking the macro- and the micro-level approaches by incorporating enterprises as active learning entities into the learning and innovation system is proposed. The proposed model has been used to develop research hypotheses and indicate research directions and is relevant for investigating the learning strategies of firms in less technologically intensive industries outside East Asia.

The value of innovation:the interaction of competition, R&D and IP

This paper analyses market valuations of UK companies using a new data set of their R&D and IP activities (1989–2002). In contrast to previous studies, the analysis is conducted at the sectoral-level, where the sectors are based on the technological classification originating from Pavitt [Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change. Research Policy 13, 343–373]. The first main result is that the valuation of R&D varies substantially across these sectors. Another important result is that, on average, firms that receive only UK patents tend to have no significant market premium. In direct contrast, patenting through the European Patent Office does raise market value, as does the registration of trade marks in the UK for most sectors. To explore these variations the paper links competitive conditions with the market valuation of innovation. Using profit persistence as a measure of competitive pressure, we find that the sectors that are the most competitive have the lowest market valuation of R&D. Furthermore, within the most competitive sector (‘science based’ manufacturing), firms with larger market shares (an inverse indicator of competitive pressure) also have higher R&D valuations, as well as some positive return to UK patents. We conclude that this evidence supports Schumpeter by finding higher returns to innovation in less than fully competitive markets and contradicts Arrow [Arrow, K., 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson, R. (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton], who argued that, with the existence of IP rights, competitive market structure provides higher incentives to innovate.

A taxonomy of measures for consumer-based brand equity:drawing on the views of managers in Europe

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify the components of consumer-based brand equity from the perspective of experts in brand management in the UK, Germany and Greece. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with senior brand consultants and managers, five in the UK, five in Germany and five in Greece. Findings: The findings suggested four categories of measures which can be used to define brand equity. These are the consumers' understanding of brand characteristics; consumers' brand evaluation; consumers' affective response towards the brand; and consumers' behaviour towards the brand. Specific dimensions are identified as indicators of each category. Research limitations/implications: Although the focus of this study is Europe, data were only collected from the UK, Germany and Greece, countries representing three of the five European cultural clusters. The resultant taxonomy adds to the fragmented literature on brand equity measurement by proposing four categories to gauge brand equity. Practical implications: The suggested taxonomy provides indicators of a framework managers could use when assessing brand equity. Originality/value: There is little agreement on what constitutes brand equity and therefore measures of brand equity are fragmented. To date, the views of practicing managers have not been taken into account in research. This paper draws on the views of practitioners and academics to suggest a taxonomy of categories of measures for brand equity. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.