The impact of strategic innovation management practices on firm innovation performance

Abstract

In a highly competitive environment, innovation is the essential key to a firm obtaining a dominant position and gaining higher profits. Therefore, the understanding of which strategic innovation management practices lead to success is very important. The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of innovation strategy, organizational structure, innovation culture, technological capability and customer and supplier relationships, which appear in the literature as strategic innovation management practices in business enterprises, on firm innovation performance. In this context, data collected from 132 managers at 66 firms operating in the manufacturing sector in the TRB2 zone of Turkey were analyzed. The partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method was used to test hypotheses of study. The analyses revealed that innovation strategy, organizational structure and innovation culture significantly increased firm innovation performance. However, no significant impacts of technological capability and customer and supplier relationships on firm innovation performance were determined.

Critical successful factors for innovation in vietnamese firms

“…There is a support for Hypothesis 2 with 10% of significance. This result is consistent with findings of Kalay and Lynn (2015) determining the positive impact of strategy for innovation on innovation success in a company. It is really important for a company to plan innovative strategy as well as establish policy for innovation such as encouraging innovative ideas and diffusing them in the company.…”

The impact of organizational structure on management innovation: an empirical research in Turkey

“…Radical innovations bring about extreme modifications in an organization's activity and demonstrate an obvious move from what was done before, whereas incremental innovation brings about a more moderate level of change from initial practices. Radical type innovation has a greater chance of occurrence when an organization has an informal, centralized structure; while those of the incremental kind are likely to happen in organizations that have structures which are decentralized and complex (Kalay and Lynn, 2015).…”

“…According to some scholars, an organizational structure based on formal control may increase innovative performance by enabling coordination among different functional units, increasing the level of cost effectiveness, decreasing uncertainty and minimizing mistakes (Schultz et al, 2013). On the other hand, various authors (Hage and Aiken, 1967;West, 2000;Kalay and Lynn, 2015) have shown that a negative relationship exists between formalization and innovation. Increasing formalization reduces the extent of freedom of employees by prescribing procedures and potentially sanctioning some courses of action, providing specific directions as to appropriate actions, directing and enforcing these actions, and constraining employees' ability to engage in discretionary behaviors (Raub, 2007).…”

“…Shepard (1967) posits that flexibility within a system is facilitated by a low level of formalization, and this flexibility is key for the generation of ideas. The dominant opinion regarding the impact of formalization on performance in innovation endorses a low degree of formalization (West, 2000;Kalay and Lynn, 2015;Raub, 2007). Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:…”

“…Both factors of organizational structure are expected to have an impact on innovative outputs (Ettlie et al, 1984;Damanpour, 1991). __________________________________________________________________________________ 126 et al, 2013), most studies conclude that decentralized and non-formalized organizational structures are more conducive to innovative performance (Hage and Aiken, 1967;West, 2000;Cardinal, 2001;Jansen et al, 2006;Kalay and Lynn, 2015). Thus, it is commonly held that centralization and formalization impede innovation; whereas non-formal, 'horizontal' arrangements are thought beneficial to the cultivation of innovative ventures (Russell and Russell 1992;Mumford et al, 2008).…”