that, when employees change jobs, they take their knowledge with them, resulting in knowledge flows between firms (Chesbrough, 2003.
knowledge is generated by the employees, business partner, customers, consultants, competitors business associations, internet sales and service units, internal research and development units and
The literature is rich in providing evidence on customer and employees driven knowledge but proof of enhancing knowledge raised by universities and research laboratories in the
Later on, a firm must carefully maintain its employee relation and The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration Volume 14, Issue 1 (19), 2014
Humor from employees stimulates readiness for change and is extremely important in the trans -formation processes of any organisation
High expectation entrepreneurs (HEE's) expect to employ 20 employees or more within five years and are a
-icians, employees and others. Users are involved in an indirect way here: UX model analyses have been
settings, individual comfort of office employees work efficiency, and reduction of energy consumed by an office during regular work hours.
employees, was equipped by sensors for moni -toring the energy consumption (Plugwise Circle indoor/outdoor temperature, humidity, and light
duced an impressive number of startâ ups, including 300 founded by former Nokia employees Microtask outsources office work.
Supercell†s employees are what you would expect: men with beards and ponytails who take time out from their comâ
companies that this is a great way to reward their employees and free them from domestic
Hemfrid now has 10 000 regular customers and 1 326 employees, 70%of them born abroad
employees in Finland and had a turnover of $100m in 2011. Michael Hed, the company†s CEO
-ing employees and tackling public health challenges Not welcomed by all members and initially with some
occurs when employees are engaged in what they like or think they are trained specially. †It is likely
Employees who are motivated at work are more likely to be persistent, creative and productive They will also be much more permeable to learn
of common goals with employees that the old model based on performance metrics in monetary terms
and adaptability by employees in order to be executed smoothly inside the organisation. We all know there is usually an innate resistance in humans and only
Motivation and Performance of Employees. International Journal of Business and Management. 2013. Available from http://dx. doi. org/10.5539/ijbm. v8n14p80
Whether as customers, employees, managers financiers, partners, or citizens in communities every stakeholding individual can bring capital to
employees around the world. They are able to design and manufacture electronic components devices or systems.
performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people
moderated by enthusiast employees. He asked the question †how might we leverage user contribution
Humor from employees stimulates readiness for change, thus the organisation should foster inter -nal approval of positive humor and the expression
individuals, designers, retired employees, scientists suppliers, or other enterprises for new ways to generate idea,
employees when selecting our interview partners Five of our selected companies represent micro firms with less than 10 employees, while ten of
them employ between 10 and 50 employees. The sample of interviewees was selected in a way to provide a broad range of work fields in the area of
craftsmen businesses including carpenters mechanical engineers, metal workers, footwear producers, sports equipment technicians, electrical engineers, bricklayers and manufacturers of
Also, internal sources such as employees are still considered important sources of innovation Interviewee 8: â€oeyou have to consider that the
employees, who are working on the front line and who have gathered a tremendous amount of experience within their specific area of expertise
our employees are actively involved in the development process of new ideas. I am the one responsible for condensing and
are made in collaboration with our employees because without their involvement it is difficult to consequently succeed. â€
customers, employees and other corporations are accepted as sources for invention. This study supports theoretical assumptions, which point out
that large firms(>250 employees) are collaborating on average with more external partners than small firms.
should have less than 500 employees. The companies are active in a wide range of industries.
and have 500 employees; other companies are just a few years old and have less than five employees.
The reader should thus not be surprised by the heterogeneity 13 of the cases. The diversity of the themes we will discuss illustrates how open innovation can take
less than 20 employees) that is active in the bicycle accessory market. It is a third-generation, family
Jaga also explored initiatives to spur the creativity of employees and external partners by setting up
employees, for instance, did not understand why management was preoccupied with managing the network of partners while internal management problems also had to be solved.
firm in the case inventors are companies doing contract research, external designers, or employees Several firms we interviewed chose not to co-patent an invention that was developed co with their
SMES are companies with less than 250 employees (N=792; lager companies (â ¥ 250 employees;
N=175 The calculation covers the period 2002-2004 Open innovation can be measured in different ways.
reflects external R&d per employee Collaborative innovation indicates whether innovating firms engage in collaborative innovation activities with
collaboration per employee Variable Small and medium-sized enterprises N-SME=792 Large firms N-large=175
Moreover, small contests can be held among employees, suppliers, and local communities of designers, engineers, and so on
Customers, employees and other firms are the most common sources of new ideas, but the use of venture capital, outsourcing of R&d and
Not only customers but also firms'employees can contribute to a firm's overall innovative performance. Both in closed and open innovation paradigms, individual
employees play a crucial but different role. Thus, a firm should foster a culture in
-organizational networking between employees of different firms. Several case studies illustrate that informal ties of employees with employees of other organizations or
institutions are crucial to understand how new products are created and commercialized (Chesbrough et al. 2006). ) Morgan (1993) observed in the early
processes had diminished a role in favor of informal networks of employees. These networks were in many cases cross-boundary linking employees of (locally bounded
10 networks of firms. The strength and dynamics of these connected groups of employees has a significant impact on firms'knowledge creating capability.
1 Another important dimension of technology exploration is inter-organizational networking. For instance, R&d alliances between noncompeting firms have become
to how informal networks of employees in networked organizations may facilitate (or hamper knowledge creating and integration
provides evidence that small firms (firms with less than 1000 employees) continually increased their share of total industrial R&d spending in the US during the last two
employees were still responsible for 38%of total industry R&d spending in 2005 compared to 71%in 1981 (National Science Foundation, 2006.
inclined to use networks and customer and employee involvement in the innovation process, we expect to find that in general manufacturing firms are involved more in
SMES are defined as firms with up to 500 employees. However there is still great difference in the innovation strategies of small firms (up to 100
employees) and medium sized enterprises (100-499 employees. The innovation processes of larger firms are structured typically more and professionalized, and
-organizational networks, the involvement of employees and that of customers in the innovation processes seems to be equally feasible for both small and large SMES, the
Netherlands, defined as all firms with no more than 500 employees. Firms with less than 10 employees (i e. micro-firms) were excluded from the sample, because in
general they have no or very limited in-house R&d activities. Besides, the population of micro-firms contains a relatively high share of start-ups.
Type of industry 10-99 employees 100-499 employees total Manufacturing †food and beverages (NACE codes 15-16) 40 21
To measure the role of employees, respondents had to indicate to which degree employees were stimulated to contribute to innovation processes, e g. by investing in
employees†ideas and initiatives, creating autonomous teams with own budgets to carry out innovations, or stimulating employees†external work contacts in order to
employees that belong to the R&d department and those that are coming from other organizational parts of the company
%Employee involvement 93%42%57%1 %Network usage in innovation processes 94%29%67%4
of network partners, customers and employees in innovation processes is fairly 21 common among Dutch SMES.
Especially employee involvement, customer involvement, the use of network partners and (to a lesser extent) outsourcing of R&d have experienced a substantial increase in
Customer involvement, employee involvement, and the usage of networks in the innovation process appear to be the main types of open innovation practices
Employee involvement 94%93%0, 4 0. 41 0. 41 0, 1 Network usage in innovation processes 95%94%0, 3 0. 24 0. 26 0, 3
Table 4 shows that larger SMES (100-499 employees) are on average much stronger involved in outsourcing R&d, participation in other firms and in-and out
-licensing, as compared to the small SMES(<100 employees. Both size categories show no significant differences with respect to customer and employee involvement
networking with partners because these are practices that have no discriminating power since all firms are involved actively in them.
employees n=376 100-499 employees n=229 F-value 10-99 employees n=376
100-499 employees n=229 F-value Technology exploitation Venturing 27%32%1, 9 0. 11 0. 14 1, 5
License IP to other firms 6%16%18,9**0. 01 0. 04 2, 1 Technology exploration
Customer involvement 97%98%1, 2 0. 30 0. 50 22,8 **Employee involvement 92%96%3, 0 0. 37 0. 48 7, 5
*Network usage in innovation processes 94%95%0, 2 0. 20 0. 33 8, 8
**Employee involvement 98%99%38%388,9 **Network usage in innovation processes 99%100%44%317,7
the involvement of network partners, customers and employees in their innovation processes. Some of them also rely on outsourcing of R&d,
customer involvement and to a minor extent on employee involvement and network partners. This is, of course, a (too) narrow interpretation of open innovation
**Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 0. 07 18,2 **Network usage in innovation processes 0. 29 0. 27 0. 05 5, 1
Share of firms with 100-499 employees (vs. 10-99 empl. 55%34%25%12,0
non-R&d employees in the innovation process The different answers of the respondents to the question what drives them to get
and ideas of current employees Policy*Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees is desirable
Motivation*Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation and commitment *Only used for coding motives related to employee-involvement
Table 8 below shows that for almost all open innovation practices pursued by SMES the most important motives are market-related ones.
For the majority of respondents using new innovation methods is regarded as a way to keep up with market
involvement of non-R&d employees in the innovation process: this innovation practice is related to three motives that are clearly different from the other motives
Employee involvement n=256 Control%1 1 3 1 1 9 Focus%3 8 0 1 0
Employee involvement is the only type of innovation in which the respondents do not mention the objectives listed in the other types of innovation.
respondents that involve non-R&d employees in their innovation process do so because they feel that the skills of their employees can be utilized in a more efficient
way, and that they can complement the innovation initiatives of the management and/or R&d department.
In addition, many companies involve employees for motivational reasons. Up to 15%of the respondents is convinced of the added value
of employee involvement for innovation; often this is part of the firm's policy in this case. Another 22%sees the involvement of employees mainly as a way to motivate
them. The direct impact on the bottom-line in that case is less important as employees are engaged primarily in the innovation process to increase their overall performance
on the job. Finally, market considerations are also important: after all, employees may be closely related to the market
and therefore have a better idea than managers or engineers about the potential success of products and the problems they experience
In this case, employee involvement is a valuable source of knowledge in the innovation process Finally, there are also motives that are primarily related to specific types of
Competent employees Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor flexibility Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to change
Idea management Employees have too many ideas, no management support Table 10 shows the extent to which the barriers mentioned above matter for each of
the different types of open innovation activities. Organization and corporate culture -related issues that typically emerge
or, in the case of venturing, employees who leave the organization. These inter-organizational relationships frequently lead to
Employee involvement n=88 Administration%28 13 10 --Finance%10 0 5 --Knowledge%5 5
employees %--24 Commitment%--51 Idea management%--8 Other%8 3-8 -Total%100 100 100 100 100
When involving employees, it often turns out that they do not have required the 35 capabilities or skills to make a valuable contribution to innovation,
up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from
individual employees just gets too large to handle in an efficient way. This, in turn poses new challenges to managers when they want to get the most out the creativity of
Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour H200801 12-11-2008 Investigating Blue Ocean v. Competitive Strategy: A Statistical
employees, including those who are employed not at the ovation 29 (2009) 423†437 internal R&d department.
that informal ties of employees with employees of other ARTICLE IN PRESS chn organizations are crucial to understand how new products
by individual employees is a means to foster organizational success (e g. Van de ven, 1986. Work has become more
employees can be involved in innovation processes in multiple ways, for example by taking up their suggestions exempting them to take initiatives beyond organizational
deï ned as 10†99 employees) and medium-sized ones 100†499 employees. Past work has shown that there is a
great deal of difference in the innovation strategies of small and large ï rms (e g. Vossen, 1998;
deï ned as enterprises with no more than 500 employees and was implemented by means of computer-assisted
10†99 employees and 100†499 employees. Enterprises with less than 10 employees (micro-enterprises) were excluded
since they generally have limited no or identiï able innova -tion activities, and this population usually contains many
Employee involvement Leveraging the knowledge and initiatives of employees who are involved not in R&d, for example by taking up
suggestions, exempting them to implement ideas, or creating autonomous teams to realize innovations Technology exploration
99 employees 100†499 employees Total 21 22 32 53 128 288 17 24 60
networking and employee involvement are fairly common innovation practices. Outward and inward licensing of IP
Employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking appear to be main types of open innovation conducted by both manufacturers and services
Employee involvement 93 42 57 1 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 38 61 1 dus
Employee involvement 94 93 0. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 97 0. 8 External networking 95 94 0. 6
employees) are more likely to engage in open innovation On all technology exploitation and exploration practices
mind that employee involvement, customer involvement Table 5 Incidence of and perceived trends in open innovation practices between siz
10†99 employees n  376 %100†499 employees n  229 %Ma Z (U
Technology exploitation Venturing 27 32 1. 4 Outward IP licensing 6 16 4. 3 Employee
involvement 92 96 1. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 98 1. 1 External networking
respondents with 100†499 employees are (much) larger Especially for the technology exploration activities med
Whitney 10†99 employees n  376 100†499 employees n  229 Mann†Whitney
Z (U 0. 11 0. 14 1. 2 0. 01 0. 04 1. 5 0. 37 0. 48 2. 8
the practices of employee involvement, external involve -ment and external networking. The second component contains R&d outsourcing and outward and inward IP
rely on the involvement of employees and customers, and external networking, features which are shared with cluster 1
Employee involvement 98 99 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 99 External networking 99 100 External participation 44 31
Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 Technology exploration Customer involvement 0. 52 0. 38 External networking 0. 29 0. 27
including employee invol -vement and external networking. Medium-sized enterprises are represented clearly over and their innovation activities
qualities, and initiatives of employees †30 Policy Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees
is desirable †15 Motivation Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation and commitment
†22 Other 19 11 Total 100 100 ion Technology exploration e ent %Customer involvement
Employee involvement is the only item where motives are different than for the other items.
However, employee involvement is also the outcome of an †internal organizational policy†or it is
employees. These two motives are dictated not necessarily by innovation objectives Table 9 identiï es the main managerial and organiza
-ing, employees who leave the organization. These inter -organizational relationships frequently lead to problems concerning the division of tasks and responsibility, the
Competences Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor ï exibility †Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to
change †Idea management Employees have too many ideas, no management support †Other 7
Total 100 100 ployee olvement 88 %Customer involvement n  68 %External networking n  53
When relying on employees to imple -ment open innovation, it often turns out that they do not
to take up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from individual employees just
gets too large to handle in an efï cient way. This, in turn poses new challenges to managers when they want to get
with employee involvement and external networking, and ending with more †advanced†practices like IP licensing
particularly applies to employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking. These innovation practices were introduced to respondents in such a way that
micro-enterprises (with less than ten employees) were excluded. As these enterprises have been repeatedly identiï ed as sources of breakthrough innovations
with 10†499 employees. This is partly due to the screening questions, but also because it was decided that manu
customer involvement, following with employee involve -ment and external networking, and ending with more advanced practices which require formal budgets and
Employee involvement 0. 72 0. 13 0. 01 Customer involvement 0. 59 ï¿0. 08 0. 10
employee creativity into practicable ideas. R&d Management 32 387†395 Von Hippel, E.,2005. Democratizing Innovation.
employees, including those who are employed not at the ovation 29 (2009) 423†437 internal R&d department.
that informal ties of employees with employees of other ARTICLE IN PRESS chn organizations are crucial to understand how new products
by individual employees is a means to foster organizational success (e g. Van de ven, 1986. Work has become more
employees can be involved in innovation processes in multiple ways, for example by taking up their suggestions exempting them to take initiatives beyond organizational
deï ned as 10†99 employees) and medium-sized ones 100†499 employees. Past work has shown that there is a
great deal of difference in the innovation strategies of small and large ï rms (e g. Vossen, 1998;
deï ned as enterprises with no more than 500 employees and was implemented by means of computer-assisted
10†99 employees and 100†499 employees. Enterprises with less than 10 employees (micro-enterprises) were excluded
since they generally have limited no or identiï able innova -tion activities, and this population usually contains many
Employee involvement Leveraging the knowledge and initiatives of employees who are involved not in R&d, for example by taking up
suggestions, exempting them to implement ideas, or creating autonomous teams to realize innovations Technology exploration
99 employees 100†499 employees Total 21 22 32 53 128 288 17 24 60
networking and employee involvement are fairly common innovation practices. Outward and inward licensing of IP
Employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking appear to be main types of open innovation conducted by both manufacturers and services
Employee involvement 93 42 57 1 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 38 61 1 dus
Employee involvement 94 93 0. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 97 0. 8 External networking 95 94 0. 6
employees) are more likely to engage in open innovation On all technology exploitation and exploration practices
mind that employee involvement, customer involvement Table 5 Incidence of and perceived trends in open innovation practices between siz
10†99 employees n  376 %100†499 employees n  229 %Ma Z (U
Technology exploitation Venturing 27 32 1. 4 Outward IP licensing 6 16 4. 3 Employee
involvement 92 96 1. 7 Technology exploration Customer involvement 97 98 1. 1 External networking
respondents with 100†499 employees are (much) larger Especially for the technology exploration activities med
Whitney 10†99 employees n  376 100†499 employees n  229 Mann†Whitney
Z (U 0. 11 0. 14 1. 2 0. 01 0. 04 1. 5 0. 37 0. 48 2. 8
the practices of employee involvement, external involve -ment and external networking. The second component contains R&d outsourcing and outward and inward IP
rely on the involvement of employees and customers, and external networking, features which are shared with cluster 1
Employee involvement 98 99 Technology exploration Customer involvement 98 99 External networking 99 100 External participation 44 31
Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 Technology exploration Customer involvement 0. 52 0. 38 External networking 0. 29 0. 27
including employee invol -vement and external networking. Medium-sized enterprises are represented clearly over and their innovation activities
qualities, and initiatives of employees †30 Policy Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees
is desirable †15 Motivation Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation and commitment
†22 Other 19 11 Total 100 100 ion Technology exploration e ent %Customer involvement
Employee involvement is the only item where motives are different than for the other items.
However, employee involvement is also the outcome of an †internal organizational policy†or it is
employees. These two motives are dictated not necessarily by innovation objectives Table 9 identiï es the main managerial and organiza
-ing, employees who leave the organization. These inter -organizational relationships frequently lead to problems concerning the division of tasks and responsibility, the
Competences Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor ï exibility †Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to
change †Idea management Employees have too many ideas, no management support †Other 7
Total 100 100 ployee olvement 88 %Customer involvement n  68 %External networking n  53
When relying on employees to imple -ment open innovation, it often turns out that they do not
to take up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from individual employees just
gets too large to handle in an efï cient way. This, in turn poses new challenges to managers when they want to get
with employee involvement and external networking, and ending with more †advanced†practices like IP licensing
particularly applies to employee involvement, customer involvement and external networking. These innovation practices were introduced to respondents in such a way that
micro-enterprises (with less than ten employees) were excluded. As these enterprises have been repeatedly identiï ed as sources of breakthrough innovations
with 10†499 employees. This is partly due to the screening questions, but also because it was decided that manu
customer involvement, following with employee involve -ment and external networking, and ending with more advanced practices which require formal budgets and
Employee involvement 0. 72 0. 13 0. 01 Customer involvement 0. 59 ï¿0. 08 0. 10
employee creativity into practicable ideas. R&d Management 32 387†395 Von Hippel, E.,2005. Democratizing Innovation.
that large firms(>250 employees) are collaborating on average with more external partners than small firms.
should have less than 500 employees. The companies are active in a wide range of industries.
and have 500 employees; other companies are just a few years old and have less than five employees.
The reader should thus not be surprised by the heterogeneity 13 of the cases. The diversity of the themes we will discuss illustrates how open innovation can take
less than 20 employees) that is active in the bicycle accessory market. It is a third-generation, family
Jaga also explored initiatives to spur the creativity of employees and external partners by setting up
employees, for instance, did not understand why management was preoccupied with managing the network of partners while internal management problems also had to be solved.
firm in the case inventors are companies doing contract research, external designers, or employees Several firms we interviewed chose not to co-patent an invention that was developed co with their
SMES are companies with less than 250 employees (N=792; lager companies (â ¥ 250 employees;
N=175 The calculation covers the period 2002-2004 Open innovation can be measured in different ways.
reflects external R&d per employee Collaborative innovation indicates whether innovating firms engage in collaborative innovation activities with
collaboration per employee Variable Small and medium-sized enterprises N-SME=792 Large firms N-large=175
Moreover, small contests can be held among employees, suppliers, and local communities of designers, engineers, and so on
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011