Workplace Innovation and Technological Change. CEPS Special Report, September 2012

This paper explores the extent to which the illusive phenomenon of workplace innovation has pervaded workplaces in Europe and whether it could be one of the answers to Europe’s longterm social and economic challenges that stem from an ageing workforce and the need for more flexibility to stay competitive. Basic data drawn from European Working Conditions Survey conducted every five years by the Dublin-based European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions are supplemented by a series of case studies to look at the problems encountered in introducing workplace innovation and possible solutions. One set of case studies examines the following organisations: SGI/GI (Slovak Governance Institute (Slovakia), as representative of the world of small- and medium-sized enterprises; Oticon (Denmark) as representative of manufacturing companies; the Open University (UK), as representative of educational organizations; and FPS Social Security (Belgium) representing the public sector. Two final case studies focus on the country-level, one looking at of how a specific innovation can become fully mainstreamed (in the Netherlands and the ‘part-time economy’) and the other (Finland and TEKES) looking at how a government programme can help disseminate workplace innovation. These six case studies, together with the statistical analysis, constitute the main empirical value added of the report.

Does EU regulation hinder or stimulate innovation? CEPS Special Report No. 96, 19 November 2014

Introduction. One frequently hears the question posed in the title to this report, but there is little systematic analytical literature on the issue. Fragmented evidence or anecdotes dominate debates among EU regulatory decision-makers and in European business, insofar as there is a genuine debate at all. This CEPS Special Report focuses on the multi-faceted, ambiguous and complex relationship between (EU) regulation and innovation in the economy, and discusses the innovation-enhancing potential of certain regulatory approaches as well as factors that tend to reduce incentives to innovate. It adopts an 'ecosystem' approach to both regulation and innovation, and study the interactions between the two ecosystems. This general analysis and survey are complemented by seven case studies of EU regulation enabling and disabling innovation, two horizontal and five sectoral ones. The case studies are preceded by a broader contextual analysis of trends in EU regulation over the last three decades. These trends show the significant transformation of the nature as well as improvement of the quality of EU regulation, largely in the deepened internal market, which tend to have a favourable and lasting effect on the rate of innovation in the EU (other things being equal). Among the findings include the following: Regulation can at times be a powerful stimulus to innovation. EU regulation matters at all stages of the innovation process. Different types of regulation can be identified in terms of innovation impact: general or horizontal, innovation-specific and sector-specific regulation. More prescriptive regulation tends to hamper innovative activity, whereas the more flexible EU regulation is, the better innovation can be stimulated. Lower compliance and red-tape burdens have a positive effect on innovation. The authors recommend incorporating a specific test on innovation impacts in the ex-ante impact assessment of EU legislation as well as in ex-post evaluation. There is ample potential for fostering innovation by reviewing the EU regulatory acquis.

EU-US S&T Collaborations, Challenges and Opportunities for Development. Innovation Diplomacy, Special case in point: the Hellenic-American innovation bridge and its underlying dimensions. ACES Working Papers, October 2012

Developed and developing economies alike face increased resource scarcity and competitive rivalry. Science and technology increasingly appear as a main source of competitive and sustainable advantage for nations are regions alike. However, the key determinant of their efficacy is the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship-enabled innovation that unlocks and captures the pecuniary benefits of science enterprise in the form of private, public or hybrid goods (for instance, bio-entrepreneur-millionaires, knowledge for the public good - ie: public health awareness, and new public-private research centers funded partly by bio-entrepreneur-millionaires and monies levied as taxes on bio-ventures).

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.

Access to technological and financial resources for SME innovation

Editorial: The contributions to this special issue of the International Journal of Technology Management are all based on selected papers presented at the European Conference on Management of Technology held at Aston University, Birmingham, UK in June 1995. This conference was held on behalf of the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT) and was the first of the association’s major conferences to be held outside North America. The overall theme of the conference was ‘Technological Innovation and Global Challenges’. Altogether more than 130 papers were presented within four sub-themes and twenty seven topic sessions. This special issue draws on papers within five difference topic sessions: ‘Small firm linkages’; ‘The global company’; ‘New technology based firms’; ‘Financing innovation’; ‘Technology and development’. Together they cover a wide range of issues around the common question of accessing resources for innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. They present a global perspective on this important subject with authors from The Netherlands, Canada, USA, Ireland, France, Finland, Brazil and UK. A wide range of subjects are covered including the move away from public support for innovation, the role of alliances and networks, linkages to larger enterprises and the social implications associated with small enterprise innovation in developing countries.

Experiential knowledge representation and the design of product usability

The topic of designers’ knowledge and how they conduct design process has been widely investigated in design research. Understanding theoretical and experiential knowledge in design has involved recognition of the importance of designers’ experience of experiencing, seeing, and absorbing ideas from the world as points of reference (or precedents) that are consulted whenever a design problem arises (Lawson, 2004). Hence, various types of design knowledge have been categorized (Lawson, 2004), and the nature of design knowledge continues to be studied (Cross, 2006); nevertheless, the study of the experiential aspects embedded in design knowledge is a topic not fully addressed. In particular there has been little emphasis on the investigation of the ways in which designers’ individual experience influences different types of design tasks. This research focuses on the investigation of the ways in which designers inform a usability design process. It aims to understand how designers design product usability, what informs their process, and the role their individual experience (and episodic knowledge) plays within the design process. This paper introduces initial outcomes from an empirical study involving observation of a design task that emphasized usability issues. It discusses the experiential knowledge observed in the visual representations (sketches) produced by designers as part of the design tasks. Through the use of visuals as means to represent experiential knowledge, this paper presents initial research outcomes to demonstrate how designers’ individual experience is integrated into design tasks and communicated within the design process. Initial outcomes demonstrate the influence of designers’ experience in the design of product usability. It is expected that outcomes will help identify the causal relationships between experience, context of use, and product usability, which will contribute to enhance our understanding about the design of user-product interactions.

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

Dynamic capabilities and innovation in supply chains

Supply chain relationships between firms are increasingly important in terms of both competitiveness and developing dynamic capability to respond to rapid changes in the market. Innovation capacity both in firms and in supply chains is also integral to responding to dynamic markets and customer needs. This explorative research examines a sample of firms active in supply chain relationships in Australia, as a pilot study, to examine any linkages between firm dynamic capabilities and supply chains developing innovative capacity to meet competitive and market changes. Initial findings indicate that although firms focus on developing capabilities, particularly dynamic capabilities to innovate individually, these preliminary findings indicate little reliance on developing their supply chain innovation capacity. This study is the initial stage of more extensive research on this topic.

Beyond the user : use and non-use in HCI

For many, an interest in Human-Computer Interaction is equivalent to an interest in usability. However, using computers is only one way of relating to them, and only one topic from which we can learn about interactions between people and technology. Here, we focus on not using computers – ways not to use them, aspects of not using them, what not using them might mean, and what we might learn by examining non-use as seriously as we examine use.

The Special Broadcasting Service after 30 years : public service media and new ways of thinking about media and citizenship

This article considers the distinctive ways in which the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) has evolved over its history since 1980, and how it has managed competing claims to being a multicultural yet broad-appeal broadcaster, and a comprehensive yet low-cost media service. It draws attention to the challenges presented by a global rethinking of the nature of citizenship and its relationship to media, for which SBS is well placed as a leader, and the challenges of online media for traditional public service media models, where SBS has arguably been a laggard, particularly when compared with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). It notes recent work that has been undertaken by the author with others into user-created content strategies at SBS and how its online news and current affairs services have been evolving in recent years.

User-generated content and the future of public broadcasting : a case study of the special broadcasting service

This thesis presents a case study of the Special Broadcasting Service documenting the broadcasting challenges posed by user-generated content initiatives and the work-place approach to strategies for participation. Using the action research method, the project findings reveal that limitations to resources and funding determined the scope for innovation and that the practice of executive editorial control over content was considered fundamental to fulfilling the responsibilities of the public service mandate. Media workers were overwhelmingly positive about the enhanced productive capabilities of the audience and willing to facilitate moderated interactions, however the effectiveness of these initiatives differed according to the level of skills required. This thesis demonstrates how participatory initiatives can enhance aspects of the public service remit relating to cultural diversity, the servicing of niche interests, and broader social representation, and help reinvigorate the relevance of public service broadcasting in the digitalised media sphere.

Co-creative labour

This article introduces a special issue on the topic of co-creative labour. The term co-creation is used to describe the phenomenon of consumers increasingly participating in the process of making and circulating media content and experiences. Practices of user-created content and user-led innovation are now significant sources of both economic and cultural value. But how should we understand and analyse these value-generating activities? What are the identities and forms of agency that constitute these emerging co-creative relations? Should we define these activities as a form of labour and what are the implications and impacts of co-creative practices on the employment conditions and professional identities of people working in the creative industries? In answering these questions we argue that careful attention must be paid to how the participants themselves (both professional and non-professional, commercial and non-commercial) negotiate and navigate the meanings and possibilities of these emerging co-creative relationships for mutual benefit. Co-Creative media production is perhaps a disruptive agent of change that sits uncomfortably with our current understandings and theories of work and labour. The articles in this special issue follow and unpack the often diverse and contradictory ways in which the participants themselves use and remake the social categories of work and labour as they seek to co-ordinate and contest co-creative media practices.