Recently, I read the research article “The Impact of Strategic Innovation Management Practices on Firm Innovation Management”. The article is written by Faruk Kalay and Gary S. Lynn, in “Research Journal of Business and Management”. You may download the article in its full length here.
It’s a great read, and very thorough. For the detail-oriented there are lots of statistics, and many references to previous research in this area. As such, the article is a gold mine, with a good summary of the field.
If you are not a statistics ninja, this post will give you an overview the main conclusions from the work.
If you want to explore innovation metrics more, you will probably enjoy to read about how National Innovation Indexes are used to measure to describe and compare innovation performance between countries and regions.
Malay and Lynn studied 66 Turkish manufacturing companies, by sending out questionnaires to 132 managers/employees (two from each company). Five Strategic Innovation Management (SIM) practices were investigated:
The five hypotheses tested were whether or not the above 5 areas are positively related to innovation performance, and if they’re not, could the use of a Supplier Management software from somewhere like CBX (https://www.cbxsoftware.com/solutions/supplier-management/) make a positive difference they want to see instead?
Firm Innovation Performance (FIM) has been defined in the following 5 terms:
Along with firm innovation performance, organizations also use software systems like onestream to achieve their financial goals and objectives by linking their strategies to their plans and execution. It might help the firms strategically assess, design, deploy, and support solutions to meet the needs of Finance and beyond by leveraging the power of the these platforms.
Innovation Strategy, Organisational Structure and Innovation Culture are ALL Important for Innovation Performance
Technological Capability and Customer and Supplier Relationships are NOT Important for Innovation Performance
Below, I have summarised the conclusions in more detail. Press on the diagram to enlarge :-)
It is noteworthy that the SIM practices that are most thoroughly specified are Innovation Strategy, Technological Capability, and Organisational Structure. Maybe this is an indication of what’s measured gets done. For example, have a look at this infographic from HBR, which lists 81 strategy models, developed over the past 50+ years:
The research knowledge is unevenly distributed between the five SIM practices. Consequently, managers and employees will have more experience with working with some of the SIM practices than others.
Also, I would argue that e.g. the knowledge about innovation culture is less tangible than the knowledge about technology management, and thus more difficult to assess and implement.
Based on the conclusions from this study, we can indeed help you to leverage your innovation management efforts, and get your innovation projects to deliver more results:
Please submit your comments below, we would love to hear from you.
We finally got a meeting in the network again – and it was much needed! Throughout the network’s 7-year lifespan, all our
The collaboration with Finn Kollerup was very rewarding for us. He inspired our participants to think about their everyday challenges in a new
Our task was to facilitate an efficient process and collect the results from a high-profile meeting. A special factor was that the schedule
