Exploring Companies' Innovation Policies in the Industrial Sector in Central and Eastern Europe

• Autorzy: Dawid Szutowski , Julia Szułczyńska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: Despite the importance of innovation, the full innovation potential of companies operating in the industrial sector of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) seems not to have been unlocked yet. Thus, the primary purpose of the study was to explore the key elements of company innovation policies applied on the way to successful innovation.

Methodology: The study is based on qualitative methods. The aim of the study has been achieved through 24 semi-structured interviews conducted with senior management, project leaders, and R&D specialists employed at companies operating in the industrial sector in CEE. The time frame covers the period of the fourth quarter of 2016 and the frst quarter of 2017.

Findings: Managing disruption consists of focusing on innovation development stage and following market imperatives by making the innovation try to address the market needs. Balancing portfolio requires considering product and process innovation jointly. Furthermore, 62% of the interviewees say that breakthrough innovation results ultimately from numerous incremental advancements. As far as policy integration is concerned, achieving competitive advantage through internal research is common amongst technological leaders, while market contenders turn to external cooperation. Moreover, incorporating CSV principles into the concept of innovation policy appears to be a necessity. Managing intangibilities comes down to patents.

Research limitations: The research was burdened with such limitations as respondents experiencing time pressure and the use of only one source of information (the interviewees).

Originality: Despite much general evidence, the study attempts to complement the rare qualitative studies on innovation in CEE. It was carried out as a response to the lack of an in-depth study covering such recurrent challenges in the feld of company innovation policies as disruption, portfolio balancing, integration, intangibilities' management, and play. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Innovation policy; Industry; Innovation potential

PL

Polityka innowacyjna; Przemysł; Potencjał innowacyjny

• Czasopismo: Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 25
• Numer: nr 4
• Strony: 158--176

Twórcy

autor

Dawid Szutowski

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland

autor

Julia Szułczyńska

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland

Bibliografia

• Ali, A. and Yusof, H. (2011). Quality in Qualitative Studies: The Case of Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 5(1/2): 25-64, https://doi.org/10.22164/isea.v5i1.59
• Becker, H. (2012). In: S. Baker and R. Edwards (eds.) (2012). How many qualitative interviews in enough? Discussion paper. National Centre for Research Methods.
• Benders, J. and Vermeulen, P. (2002). Too many tools? On Problem Solving in NPD Projects. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2): 163-185, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919602000574
• Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information. Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.
• Cho, H. and Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between Innovativeness, Quality, Growth, Profitability, and Market Value. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 555-575, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.461
• Cicmil, S. and Hodgson, D. (2006). New possibilities for project management theory. A critical engagement. Project Management Journal, 37(3): 111-122.
• Daniel, E., Myers, A. and Dixon, K. (2012). Adoption rationales of new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 65: 371-380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.033
• De Waal, G. and Knott, P. (2010). Product innovation tool adoption behaviour in technology-based new ventures. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16: 1-26.
• Dodgson, M. and Gann, D. (2014). Technology and innovation. In: M. Dodgson, D. Gann and N. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.033
• Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Salter, A. (2008). The management of technological innovation. Strategy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Phillips, N. (2014). The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.001.0001
• European Commission (2016). Science, technology and innovation in Europe, http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/south_korea/documents/news/2016/20160708-final_en.pdf
• Eurostat (2012). Science, technology and innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Filson, D. (2002). The Impact of E-commerce Strategies on Firm Value: Lessons from Amazon.com and its Early Competitors. Claremont Colleges Working Papers, 6: 1-61.
• Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4th ed). London: Sage Publications.
• Fujimito, T. (2014). Innovation management in Japan. In: M. Dodgson, D. Gann and N. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.018
• Galetta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and Beyond. New York: New York University Press, https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814732939.001.0001
• Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4): 597-607.
• Greenhalgh, C. and Rogers, M. (2006). The Value of Innovation: The Interaction of Competition, R&D and IP. Research Policy, 35(4): 562-580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.002
• Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1): 59-82, https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
• Hall, B., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market Value and Patent Citations. Journal of Economics, 1: 16-38.
• Hargroves, K. and Smith, M. (2013). The natural advantage of nations: business opportunities, innovation and governance in the 21st century. London: Earthscan.
• Haskel, J. and Wallis, G. (2013). Public support for innovation, intangible investment and productivity growth in the UK market sector. Economics Letters. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Hassan, U., Shaukat, M., Nawaz, S. and Naz, S. (2013). Effects of Innovation Types on Firm Performance. An Empirical Study on Pakistan's Manufacturing Sector. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 7: 243-262.
• Ho, Y., Fang, H. and Hsieh, M. (2011). The Relationship between Business-Model Innovation and Firm Value: A dynamic perspective. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 5(5): 551-559, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2004.839943
• Ho, Y., Keh, H. and Ong, J. (2005). The effect of R&D and Advertising on Firm Value: an Examination of Manufacturing and Nonmanufacturing Firms. Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1): 3-14.
• Hull, C. and Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 781-789, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.675
• Keupp, M., Palmié, M. and Gassmann, O. (2012). The Strategic Management of Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14: 367-390.
• Khansa, L. and Liginlal, D. (2009). Has Decreasing Innovation Hurt the Stock Price of Information Security Firms? A time series analysis. In: AMCIS, AIS Electronic Library, paper, 784: 1-9.
• King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage publications.
• Koller, T., Goedhart, M. and Wessels, D. (2015). Valuation. Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
• Lam, A. (2006). Organisational innovation. In: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery and R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0005
• Langridge, D. and Hagger-Johnson, G. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology (2nd ed). Harlow: Pearson.
• Leonard, D. and Barton, M. (2014). Knowledge and the management of creativity and innovation. In: M. Dodgson, D. Gann and N. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mason, M. (2010). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Forum Qualitative Social Research Sozialforschung, 11(3), http://nbn - resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387.
• Mol, M. and Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: when firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12): 1269-1280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.001
• OECD (2011). Isic Rev. 3 Technology Intensity Definition. Classification of manufacturing industries into categories based on R&D intensities, https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/48350231.pdf.
• Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing. A guide to theory and practice. London: Sage Publications, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288009
• Szutowski, D. (2016). Innovation and market value. The case of tourism enterprises. Warsaw: Difin.
• Taylor, C., Clay, D. and Justin, C. (2011). A Study of Schumpterian (Radical) vs. Kirznerian (Incremental) Innovations in Knowledge Intensive Industries. Journal of Strategic Innovation & Sustainability, 7(1): 28-42.
• Tidd, J. and Thuriaux-Aleman, B. (2016). Innovation Management Practices. Cross-sectional Adoption, Variation and Effectiveness. R&D Management, 46(3): 1024-1043, https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12199
• Tirole, J. (1995). The theory of industrial organisation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Trias, F. and Kotler, P. (2015). Winning at innovation. The A-to-F model. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230354104
• Trott, P. (2008). Innovation Management and New Product Development. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
• Wójcik, P. (2016). How Creating Shared Value Differs from Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, 24(2): 32-55.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.212