Proposal of the evaluation system of preparedness of businesses for implementation of an innovation strategy/Imoniu pasirengimo igyvendinti inovaciju strategija vertinimo sistema.
Lendel, Viliam ; Varmus, Michal
1. Introduction
In the current period marked by the economic crisis impacts, the
innovations play an important role. Successful can only be those
businesses that invest their funds into innovation and research. It is
necessary to manage innovation activities in the business. The
innovative strategy is the basic tool that determines the innovation
direction of the business. Innovation strategy is based on business
strategy and strategic goals (West, Farr 1990).
In order to be successful in implementing the innovation strategy
and realize it in the business, there is a need to recognize the
achievements in the areas affecting the innovation strategy. Every
business is located at a different level of preparedness in implementing
innovative strategies in the business. It is therefore necessary to
identify the current level of preparedness to detect weaknesses and make
recommendations for improvement. It is necessary to have created an
appropriate methodology for assessing the readiness of the business to
implement innovation strategies.
Innovation strategy is a management concept, consisting of many
internal and external activities that enhance the innovative potential
of the business. It is necessary to stress the importance and role of
actors affecting the formation of an innovation strategy. These are the
business employees, managers, as well as customers.
2. Objective and methodology
The main aim of the paper is to acquire new knowledge in the field
of innovation management focusing on the area of innovation strategies
and highlight the possibility of creating an evaluation of preparedness
of the business for implementation of innovation strategy. Proposal of
the levels of preparedness of business for implementation of innovative
strategies in the business can significantly help to identify weaknesses
of a business in this area and identify space for further improvement.
The proposed system is intended to serve as a control tool during the
implementation of innovation strategy in the business. The aim is to
give business managers a tool for self-valuation. The management gets
the evaluation of the levels of business readiness for the
implementation of innovation strategy. Solution of the examined issues
in the paper requires the use of several methods depending on the
character of each part of the solution.
For the acquisition and collection of information the following
methods were used: method of analysis of documents (when analyzing
current and historical data relevant to the issue), questionnaire method
and the method of semi-structured interviews (data collection in
empirical research), method of observation (visiting businesses).
For the information processing mainly two methods were used: method
of quantitative assessment (formation of statistical averages,
percentages, application of statistical tests and other statistical
methods) and the comparative method (when comparing data obtained from
the relevant empirical research and the collation of data from the
analysis of secondary sources).
To solve the problem, methods of induction, deduction, synthesis
(in developing evaluation system of preparedness of business for the
application of innovation and strategy and formulation of different
levels of readiness), abstraction and modelling were used.
3. The current state of dealing with the issue
Among the professional public there is currently a debate about
definition of innovation strategy and allocation of areas of their
operation. Kovac (2007) sees innovation strategy as determining
long-term fundamental business goals and determines the activities and
resources for achieving these goals. Orientation of goals is focused on
timely response to changes in signalling of need of innovations. The
above-mentioned variability of innovation strategy is highlighted by
Zauskova (2006). Innovation strategy is often called in the scientific
literature such as e.g. scientific and technical, development-innovation
or research and development strategy. Zauskova (2006) gives some
attention to the fact that the scope of the adjective (in the context of
innovation strategy) may be wider, respectively narrower.
There are a few definitions of an innovation strategy in the
literature, but each of these cover only a section of the overall role
of an innovation strategy.
Wide variability of the notion of innovation strategy can be
documented by the following claims. Katz, Du preez and Schutte (2010)
understood an innovation strategy as:
--an incremental, functional, predetermined plan governing the
allocation of resource to different types of innovations in order to
achieve a company's overall corporate strategic objectives and,
--a decision framework guiding a company about when and how it
should selectively abandon the past and/or change its corporate strategy
and objectives in order to focus on the business of the future.
According to Gilbert (1994) innovation strategy determines to what
degree and in what way a firm attempts to use innovation to execute its
business strategy and improve its performance. Also, Tidd et al. (2007)
are inclined to believe and claim that innovation strategy helps to
understand what, why and when to carry out innovation activities. Kovac
(2007) takes a different view. According to him, we need to look at an
innovation strategy as at the introduction products of new generations
or technologies developed at intervals, which interrupt the period of
relative stability. He also highlights, that innovations bring a jump in
productivity and market share. Strecker (2009) perceives innovation
strategy as the sum of strategic choices a firm makes regarding its
innovation activity. He reminds, that innovation goals (ends) are not
included--only means. Innovation strategy is considered as a firm's
wide cross-functional meta-strategy. Dodgson, Gann and Salter (2008)
point out the importance of innovation in meeting the business
objectives, and gain competitive advantage when they state that the
innovation strategy:
--helps firms decide, in a cumulative and sustainable manner, about
the type of innovation that best match corporate objectives,
--guides decisions on how resources are to be used to meet a
firm's objectives for innovation and thereby deliver value and
build competitive advantage.
Based on a thorough analysis of domestic and foreign literature, we
can proceed to the following definitions of innovation strategy:
"Innovation strategy is innovative direction of business
approach to the choice of objectives, methods and ways to fully utilize
and develop the innovative potential of the business. This is the
direction given of its boundary, which determines the potential of
innovative strategies" (Lendel, Varmus 2011).
Based on the analysis of domestic and foreign literature, we can
also conclude that the innovation strategy is significantly affected by
the five basic (key) elements. It can be written in the form of function
with five variables that affect the implementation and actual
realization of innovation strategy:
[I.sub.S] = f([I.sub.M], [I.sub.PS], [L.sub.T], [P.sub.C],
[O.sub.S]),
where
IS--Innovation strategy;
IM--Innovation management;
IPS--Innovative potential of strategy;
LT--Lateral thinking;
PC--Pro-innovation climate;
OS--Organizational structure.
Innovation strategy given five key elements can be understood as a
comprehensive strategy based on the initiative and innovative
management, relying on its innovative potential, using as a main tool
the lateral thinking and acting in a pro-innovation climate, supported
by appropriate organizational structure.
The focus of interest of the innovation strategy is innovation and
effective work with them. The output of the innovation strategy is
created value, which makes the company more competitive, it opens up new
possibilities for the implementation (of the market, processes,
procedures, work, etc.). It mainly consists of knowledge (more in
Frappaolo 2006).
The first important factor influencing the innovation strategy is
the innovative management. Its mission is to create a working
environment that encourages innovative atmosphere. This means, above
all, confidence in the management of innovation, ensuring effective
communication and leadership to teamwork.
This element is understood as systems management support for
innovation: innovative practices, methods and resources management,
management styles and initiatives leading to improvement and greater use
of innovation in the enterprise. Ranks are also expert knowledge and
systems that are designed to ensure effective work with knowledge and
innovation-related data. This requires the management to invest in the
information systems for ensuring the free flow of information in the
enterprise. It will able to present needed ideas on the unusual places
and provoke the management to combine the fragments of information
(Zauskova 2006: 33). Important and irreplaceable role in the
implementation process and subsequent realization of innovative
strategies is allocated to managers. It is them who determine the
business goals and create enterprise policies, from which innovation
activities in the company are derived. Management through effective and
innovative strategy directly affects the management of innovation and
innovative business activities (Hittmar 2006).
The second element identified as the innovative potential of the
strategy represents a degree of innovation strategy, which would be
attained in the optimal utilization of all sources of innovation
strategy. The level of innovation potential strategy depends on the
level and quality of the components of the innovative resources of the
strategy.
As Innovation sources of strategy, we understand innovative
opportunities, skills, knowledge, experience, invention and innovation,
which the firm has available, or is able to obtain in time.
The third important element of innovation strategy is lateral
thinking. The innovation strategy must be supported by appropriate
lateral thinking, which enables them to use innovative potential of the
company in innovation area and its innovation activities. Lateral
thinking is looking for new ways of looking at the problem rather than
to proceed according to the selected logical steps (Sloane 2003: 7).
This is a set of approaches and techniques designed to find radical new
approaches to solving the problem (Bono 1993). Lateral thinking is based
on creative thinking, which is characterized by the use of appropriate
approaches to address a variety of techniques for addressing strategic
tasks (Zauskova 2006: 90).
Lateral thinking offers a wide range of nontraditional practices,
methods and techniques. Its main feature is that the detection of a
single view of the case focuses on the next. It is about to generate
alternative solutions and generate ideas. Another feature is the way of
procedures. Unusual solution procedure is based on the fact that lateral
thinking in certain phases makes a jump as opposed to vertical thinking,
which proceeds logically from one point to the next point (Bono 1998).
The key elements of the innovation strategy also include
pro-innovation climate (environment), which significantly affects the
implementation and realization of innovation strategy. Pro-innovation
climate is characterized by change, learning, flexibility, creativity
and development. It significantly influences the creating of innovative
strategies and its implementation. On the other hand, it should be noted
that innovation strategy affects the content of corporate culture
(Simkova 2006).
The last identified key element is the organizational structure.
Application of the innovation strategy, which is a manifestation of
implementation of innovation and it is usually linked to changes in
organizational structures. Innovation processes require new demands for
changes in existing structures. Bartok and Jeska (2006) indicate the
following typical structures:
--A new department for new product.
--A new business division.
--An independent business unit.
--Concrete cooperation.
--Innovation is provided by sister company.
4. Proposal of levels of preparedness of business for
implementation of the innovation strategy
Tidd et al. (2007) and Lesakova (2010) believe that, based on
research in organizations with existing systems support / development of
innovation it is possible to identify certain stages on the path to
building a successful innovative organization. Tidd et al. (2007) argue
that each of these stages takes time and there is no guarantee that the
organization gets to the next level (Fig. 1).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Table 1 shows the typical characteristics of the different levels
of involvement of business in innovation that is provided by Tidd et al.
(2007). He distinguishes five basic levels from the unconscious
involvement of business in innovation to the highest level of full, high
involvement in innovation. In this case he said about learning
organizations.
Every business is located at a different level of preparedness in
implementing innovative strategies in business. When creating different
levels of preparedness of business, we started from the breakdown
according to Tidd et al. (2007). However, other data sources were
scientific works of foreign authors working in the field of innovation
management, knowledge management and learning organizations.
Also, the basis for creating different levels were results obtained
in our own research to diagnose the level of application of innovation
strategies in businesses operating in Slovakia, interviews with their
senior managers, as well as discussions with experts at universities and
colleges in Slovakia and Czech Republic aimed at the field of
innovations.
On the basis of carried out research we propose five-speed
breakdown levels of preparedness of enterprise to implementation and
realization of innovative strategies:
--Chaotic level.
--Insufficient level.
--Acceptable level.
--High level.
--Excellent level.
Chaotic level of preparedness is responsible for the company which
has not a primary interest in working with innovation and generate
innovative activities. Management has no specific idea about the work of
innovation in the enterprise. An enterprise does not register inventions
and innovative opportunities. The company follows the usual routes and
doesn't develop new initiatives. Often it does not work through
communication in the enterprise and management staff does not know the
vision of the future of the company. This level also features an
unsatisfactory organizational structure.
The insufficient level of preparedness is responsible for the
company, which can be seen beginning the efforts to work with
innovation. The management has got a specific idea, but that is not
included in long-term business plans. Invention and innovation
opportunities are already registered, but without a consistent approach.
Employees aim to meet the specified tasks. This level is characterized
by an organizational structure with a lack of information flow security.
The acceptable level of preparedness is responsible for the company
that meets the minimum level for the implementation of innovation
strategy. The management of innovation involves the long-term plans and
committing to the necessary resources for their search. New innovative
ideas are recorded in the company. Employees try to find a solution
otherwise. In organizational structure there are still problems in the
sphere of secure corporate communication.
The high level of preparedness is responsible for the company,
which is on track to become the top innovator. Management supports the
work of innovation and determines the future direction of innovation.
The company will keep reliable records on the state of inventions,
innovative opportunities and innovation. Employees make full use of
their imagination and creativity (Blaskova 2010). Within the
organizational structure the company works as a secure flow of
information, as well as effective corporate communication.
Excellent level preparedness is responsible for the company which
can be moved to a group of top innovators and in some key elements of an
innovation strategy achieves the best values. Innovation management
fully supports the work of innovation and is actively engaged in the
process of employees. In the enterprise there is a sophisticated system
of work with innovations, including their records. Lateral thinking is
most often applied to solve the problems. Pro-innovation corporate
culture and organizational structure create a favourable environment for
further progress in the field of business innovation.
5. Proposal of the evaluation system of preparedness of businesses
for implementation of an innovation strategy
The current state of the key elements of an innovation strategy may
lead to the conclusion that to reduce the risk of failure of its
implementation it is necessary to first change the status of some key
elements and then proceed to implement innovative strategies in the
enterprise.
This is a proposal of point evaluation system of preparedness of
the business for implementation of an innovation strategy.
Implementation success and implementation of innovation strategy is
largely determined by several factors, which we describe in greater
detail (innovation management, innovative potential of strategy, lateral
thinking, pro-innovation climate, organizational structure). These key
elements of innovation strategy are reflected in five major areas:
--The area of the state of implementation of innovative methods,
sources, forms and management tools.
--Field work with invention, innovation opportunities, innovation
and knowledge.
--Field work with traditional methods, procedures and techniques of
thought.
--The area of the state of environment conducive to innovation.
--The area of the state's organizational structure.
Each area can be expressed in matrix. The matrix describes the
status of the area of the key elements, it expresses the score of each
status and provides a listing of the main risks arising from the status
of the area. The scores assigned to each status are used to calculate
the level of preparedness to the implementation of innovative strategies
in the business, resulting from a described area.
Matrix of the state of implementation of innovative methods,
sources, forms and management tools
This matrix (Table 2) follows the existence and use of innovative
methods, sources, forms and management tools in the enterprise. These
are basic areas of innovation management. The existence of the use of
innovative forms, tools, resources and management techniques greatly
affect the successful implementation of innovation strategy. By contrast
the low utilization rate of innovation management, or even lack of some
of its tools and methods that greatly affect the course of
implementation of innovation strategy in the enterprise. Innovation
strategy will be based on long-term vision and objectives are not
supported.
Matrix of field work with invention, innovation opportunities,
innovation and knowledge
This matrix (Table 3) monitors the company's ability to work
with invention, innovation opportunities, innovation, knowledge and
information on a centralized register. Degree of centralization affects
the success of the implementation of innovative strategies within the
company. If there are inventions, innovation opportunities, innovations
and knowledge of central registration, the risk of failure of the
implementation of innovation strategy is very low.
Matrix of field work with traditional methods, procedures and
techniques of thought
This matrix (Table 4) deals with the ability to solve business
problems in non-traditional innovation methods, procedures and
techniques of thought. It is the application of lateral thinking. If
there is more to generate alternatives and review, the risk of failure
of the implementation of innovation strategy is very low.
Matrix of the state of the environment of innovation
This matrix (Table 5) looks at and evaluates the level of a
supportive environment for innovation. This environment is composed
mainly of corporate culture and employees. If a company provides
pro-innovation climate, the risk of failure of the implementation of
innovative strategies in business is very low. Conversely, if in the
enterprise there is an environment that does not support the creation
and management of innovation, the initiative in implementing the
innovation strategy is doomed to failure.
The matrix of state of organizational structure This matrix (Table
6) deals with assessing the suitability of the organizational structure
for business purposes in the work of innovation. Attention is focused on
three main areas. It is the area of secure information flow within the
organizational structure, achieving effective communications within the
corporate organizational structure and implementation of innovations in
the organizational structure to support easier and faster work with
innovation in the enterprise since the margin of the three areas will
depend on successful implementation of innovative strategies within the
company.
The value of points, as well as the formulation of state and
resulting in the main risks is a matter for debate in broad scientific
domestic and foreign community.
There is a relationship between the level of readiness of
enterprise to implement innovative strategies and scoring areas of its
key elements. For this reason the enterprise can eliminate those risks,
and successfully implement innovative strategies, the number of points
with a minimum acceptable level. According to the status and the number
of assigned points to them, we made comparative tables on the basis of
which we determine the current level of preparedness of the business.
Each level is assigned a point interval (Table 7). If a business fails
in minimum acceptable levels, then it should consider whether it would
be better to first improve those areas, thereby reducing the risk of
failure in the implementation of innovative business strategies.
The proposed comparative table is based on the fact that the sum of
points for best status of the area of key elements of an innovation
strategy is 53 points (in the case of the first area it is about 12
points, second 13-points, third-10 points, 7 points of the fourth and
fifth, the last-11 points).
As the enterprise is based on the number of points located on a
different level than excellent, then they have the opportunity for the
development of innovation and transfer to a higher level.
6. Empirical research--application of the proposed evaluation
system of preparedness in business
We carried out research from May 2009 to February 2011. Our primary
task was to obtain and interpret information about the level of
preparedness and the use of innovative strategies in the medium and
large businesses operating in the Slovak Republic.
The target groups were medium and large businesses operating in
Slovakia. Research object (the final respondents) was managers of high
and middle level management of these businesses. The sample size was 348
respondents (medium and large) for the desired 95% of confidence
interval and maximum permissible error of 5%. Since the research
involved 462 respondents, the sample is considered representative.
For objectification and better explanatory ability of the research
we addressed medium and large businesses. Research involved 462 of the
medium (87.01%) and large (12.99%) businesses operating in Slovakia.
In the research we have identified the following main conclusions:
--Among the innovative activities that most of the businesses deal
with is in particular the internal research and development (50.65%),
obtaining of modern machinery, equipment, computer hardware and software
(45.24%) and training for innovative activity (38.53%).
--The biggest problem is the correct understanding of the
fundamentals of innovation strategy, which is only average. Correct
understanding of the fundamentals of the innovation strategy is referred
to only by 12.34% of respondents, who agree with the opinion that this
is innovative direction of the business with the goal to exploit and
develop its innovative potential.
--35.5% of respondents said that the innovation strategy of their
business is fully utilized, which we consider as a positive development.
--17.75% of respondents did not deal with the issue of innovation
strategy.
--Businesses that have applied innovative strategy seek to improve
especially in achieving the goals of market position, working with
information and knowledge efficiency.
--32.9% of respondents regularly review the innovation strategy.
--Only 41.13% of respondents record all the innovative ideas and
use them if necessary in contrast to 18.83% of respondents who do not
record the innovative ideas.
--46.97% of businesses identified as a major problem for using
innovation strategy in the business the lack of necessary funds. Other
problems include the low level of employee motivation (31.60%),
technical and organizational complexity (31.60%), lack of appropriate
environment conducive to development of innovation (30.52%) and
insufficient use of available resources (24.03%). As the smallest
problem the managers considered the lack of trust between management and
other departments (12.77%), lack of information about technologies and
markets (9.96%) and lack of qualified personnel (only 2.60%).
--Qualitative test of independence confirmed that there is a
relationship (dependence) between the application of the dominant
business concept and the degree of preparedness for medium and large
businesses to use innovation strategy.
The research was focused on the detection level of preparedness of
medium and large businesses operating in Slovakia for the use of
innovation strategy. Managers had available evaluation form, in which
they should evaluate activities in the field of innovation within the
marked areas of matrices that most closely match the actual situation.
The evaluation form was completed by 380 businesses.
We obtained the number of points that reflect the current state of
preparedness of businesses to implementation of innovation strategy. To
determine the level of preparedness, we used a comparative table. The
following table expresses a clear way to point intervals required for
the inclusion of business in one of five levels of preparedness. Now it
includes the obtained results.
As shown in Figure 2, most businesses are located at an acceptable
level (up 58.42%). We see this as a positive fact and a good basis for
further activities of businesses in implementing an innovation strategy.
On the other hand, we see as negative that the essential part of
businesses is located at the chaotic (8 businesses--2.11%) and
insufficient (86 businesses--22.63%) levels. These businesses must
revise their current marketing and innovation policy. Managers of these
businesses are recommended:
--develop a work plan for innovation in the business marketing,
including how to achieve it,
--overhaul of corporate strategy in order to include product and
process innovations,
--the allocation of sufficient resources (human and financial) to
innovate and search,
--introduction of a transparent record of innovative initiatives,
ideas and innovation,
--introduction of a transparent record of marketing knowledge of
workers and ensure their mutual sharing,
--use non-traditional methods of thinking,
--the establishment of pro-innovation climate for the development
of innovative ideas, creating space for open discussion of innovative
ideas and work in teams,
--increasing interest in innovation management and innovation
strategy,
--develop a suitable incentive program to encourage marketers to
deliver new, innovative ideas and initiatives.
15.26% of businesses reported a high level of preparedness to
implement innovation strategy and six businesses achieved an excellent
level of preparedness (Table 8).
In terms of segmentation of businesses according to their place of
action, i.e. by region (Fig. 3) we can conclude that best results are
reported from Trnava and Presov region. In contrast, the worst results
were obtained in Zilina and Banska Bystrica. In general, we can conclude
that different regions show a relatively similar structure of
preparedness to implement innovation strategy.
Figure 4 shows that the dividing of businesses into different
levels depending on their size is relatively different. The situation
for medium-sized businesses shows worse results than large businesses.
We conclude that in the case of medium-sized businesses the acceptable
level is of 59.38% of businesses, the insufficient level of 24.37% and
1.87% businesses are at chaotic level. 13.75% of businesses achieve the
high level and excellent only 0.63% businesses. In the case of large
businesses we can point out that high level is achieved by 23.34% of
businesses and excellent level by 6.67% of the businesses. On the other
hand, only 13.33% of businesses achieve the insufficient level.
7. Discussion
For the purposes of assessing the level of preparedness of
businesses for the implementation of the innovation strategy, we
developed a detailed methodology that can be a tool for further
evaluation in other conducted research. On the other hand, we realize
that this is a methodology which we developed based on our experience
and especially thorough analysis and synthesis of knowledge in the area
of the innovation strategy derived from domestic and foreign scientific
literature. Therefore, the characters can be subjective. For the next
application it will require the verification in the form of public
debate and wide professional experience in innovation, marketing and
management. For this purpose in the future we plan to speak with experts
at universities and colleges in particular of Poland, Lithuania, Austria
and Germany. The correctness of the selected level can be checked also
by conducting a more detailed empirical research.
Research results obtained form the basis for creating the content
of matrices, and determination of scoring. Most interviews with top
managers helped to obtain a more comprehensive view of the
implementation of innovation strategy, to identify key areas affecting
the creation of conditions (opportunities) for its implementation and
realization in the business, forming the basis of individual matrices.
In developing and elaborating the proposed system, we issued the
system of evaluation of CRM innovation from author Kopriva (2001). This
system is based on the different levels of customer relationship
management, the author uses a similar evaluation system by matrices (see
Kopriva 2001). Difference scoring in the following matrices makes
provision for the importance factor, which is reflected proportionately
in relation to its contribution to the overall preparedness of the
business for the implementation of innovative strategies. The different
levels of preparedness have been designed to clearly name the different
developmental statuses in reaching the highest levels of implementation
of innovation strategy. A similar approach can be seen even in case of
the maturity levels form model CMM (Capability Maturity Model), which
emerged in the Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon
University, pittsburgh at the beginning of the nineties of last century
(Gartner 2001).
Methodology developed represents a valuable tool for business
managers in the implementation and subsequent application of innovative
strategies. It can also be as a tool for self-assessment. Management
gets the evaluation of the level of readiness to implement innovation
strategies in the business, identify weaknesses in the business in this
area and reveals the scope for further improvement. Using the proposed
methodology, we see also in the form of a control tool during the
implementation of innovation strategy. The aim of the business marketing
should be the continuous product improvement, transfer of new ideas,
vision and emotion into them and enter them into the market as yet
unopened areas where they develop to meet new customer needs. For this
purpose, it will help the innovation strategy. For its successful
implementation at least an acceptable level is needed that ensures use
of its key elements.
8. Conclusion
At present, most of businesses are aware of the significance and
importance of innovation strategy. Almost every business is forced to
approach to innovation, not just products and services, but most
processes as well (Soviar 2009). Business just through innovation
strategy is capable of responding promptly to signalling changes in the
needs for innovation.
When designing the evaluation of preparedness for the
implementation of innovation strategy in the business, theory of
strategic management and innovation management was used. On the basis of
the analysis (literature, empirical research) we obtained the facts that
helped to design an evaluation system and point out problem areas that
affect the readiness of business for the implementation of innovation
strategy. The collected theoretical aspects related to innovation
strategy and the results of empirical research allowed us to establish
the comprehensive proposal on a readiness assessment and implementation
of innovation strategy. Analysis of domestic and foreign literature
highlighted the lack of a comprehensive evaluation system for readiness
of the business for the implementation of innovation strategy. The
authors in most cases are dealing only with different levels of
description, respectively stating involvement of business in innovation
(more Tidd et al. 2007) and Lesakova 2010). Created rating system takes
into account these findings (levels) and also based on an assessment of
current status of key elements of the innovation strategy through the
score.
Solution of the problem in the paper was focused on proposal of
evaluation system of preparedness of businesses for implementation of
innovation strategy. The decisive result is the developed methodology of
readiness assessment of business applied in the Slovak businesses.
Developed methodology is for the senior managers, not only as a control
tool, but primarily as a tool for self-evaluation, which highlights the
weaknesses of the business in terms of innovation and reveals space for
improvement.
doi: 10.3846/btp.2012.08
Acknowledgements
This paper was partially supported by the Slovak scientific grant
VEGA 1/0992/11 20112013.
References
Bartok, M.; Jeska, A. 2006. Procesy riadenia a implementacie
inovacii vo firemnych podmienkach, in Transfer Inovacii vol. 9. SJF, TU
v Kosiciach, 222-224. ISBN 80-80-73-703-0 (in Slovak).
Blaskova, M. 2010. Creative proactive-concluding theory of
motivating, Verslas: teorija ir praktika [Business: Theory and practice]
11(1): 39-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/btp.2010.05
Bono, E. 1998. Lateral Thinking: a Textbook of Creativity: the Use
of Lateral Thinking. Penguin. ISBN 9780140284492.
Bono, E. 1993. Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral
Thinking to Create New Ideas. HarperBusiness. ISBN 9780887306358.
Dodgson, M.; Gann, D.; Salter, A. 2008. The Management of
Technological Innovation: Strategy and practice. 2nd edition. Oxford
University press.
Frappaolo, C. 2006. Knowledge Management. Chichester: Capstone
publishing Ltd. ISBN 18411127051.
Gilbert, J. T. 1994. Choosing an innovation strategy: theory and
practice, Business Horizons November-December: 16-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00076813(05)80240X
Hittmar, S. 2006. Manazment. Zilina: EDIS--vydavateIstvo ZU. ISBN
80-8070-558-5 (in Slovak).
Katz, B. R.; Du Preez, N. D.; Schutte, C. S. L. 2010. Definition
and Role of an Innovation Strategy [online], [cited 02 January 2011].
Available from Internet: http://www.saiie.co.za/ocs/index.php/saiie/
SAIIE10/paper/view/119/72
Kopriva, P. 2001. CRM? A neni to riskantni? Metoda predikce rizika
neuspechu inovace CRM, in 9th International Conference Systems
Integration. Praha (in Czech).
Kovac, M. 2007. Tvorba a riadenie inovacii. Kosice: Technicka
univerzita v Kosiciach. 121 p. ISBN 80-8073-690-1 (in Slovak).
Lendel, V.; Varmus, M. 2011. Creation and implementation of the
innovation strategy in the enterprise, Journal Economics and Management
16: 819-825.
Lesakova, L. 2010. Klucove atributy uspesnych inovativnych
organizacii. Banska Bystrica: DALI-BB s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-89090-65-5 (in
Slovak).
Measure IT. Advice, Trends, Opinions and Analysis from Gartner
Measurement. Special edition. Capability Maturity Model. 2001. Gartner
[online], [cited 05 September 2010]. Available from Internet:
http://www.estrategy.ubc.ca/__shared/
assets/MeasureITGartnersCMMmodel2840.pdf
Simkova, H. 2006. Inovacny potencial podniku--oblast strategia, in
Narodna a regionalna ekonomika VI. Ekonomicka fakulta TU v Kosiciach,
400-403. ISBN 80-8073-721-5 (in Slovak).
Sloane, p. 2003. The Leader's Guide to Lateral Thinking
Skills: Powerful Problem-solving Techniques to Ignite Your Team's
Potential. Nordwolk: Clays Ltd. ISBN 0-7494-4002-3.
Soviar, J. 2009. Cluster initiatives in Zilina region (Slovak
Republic), Economics and Management 14: 528-534.
Strecker, N. 2009. Innovation Strategy and Firm Performance: an
Empirical Study of Publicly Listed Firms. Gabler Verlag.
Tidd, J.; Bessant, J.; Pavitt, K. 2007. Rizeni inovaci. Zavadeni
technologickych, trznich a organizacnich zmen. Brno: Computer press. 549
p. ISBN 978-80-251-1466-7 (in Czech).
West, M. A.; Farr, J. L. 1990. Innovation at work, in Innovation
and Creativity at work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies.
Chichester: Willey, 3-13.
Zauskova, A. 2006. Riadenie inovacii. Zvolen: TU vo Zvolene. 220 p.
ISBN 8022816345 (in Slovak).
Viliam Lendel (1), Michal Varmus (2)
University of Zilina, Univerzitna 8215/1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovak
Republic
E-mails: (1) viliam.lendel@fri.uniza.sk (corresponding author); (2)
michal.varmus@fri.uniza.sk
Received 31 October 2011; accepted 08 December 2011
Viliam Lendel (1), Michal Varmus (2)
Zilinos universitetas, Univerzitna 8215/1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakija
El. Pastas: (1) viliam.lendel@fri.uniza.sk; (2)
michal.varmus@fri.uniza.sk
Iteikta 2011-10-31; priimta 2011-12-08
Viliam LENDEL. PhD in Management (University of Zilina), lecturer
at Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Zilina.
Research interests: management of information systems, CRM, innovation.
Michal VARMUS. PhD in Management (University of Zilina), lecturer
at Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Zilina.
Research interests: innovation, innovation strategies, marketing,
marketing communication.
Table 1. Stages of development of high involvement in innovation
Stage of development
(level) Typical characteristics
Unawares involvement Occasional problem solving
Lack of effort or formal structures
Occasional afflux of activities of
intermittently idle
The dominant is the model of problem-
solving of specialist
Short-term benefits
No strategic impact
Structured involvement Formal attempts to create and sustain
high-involvement
Use a formal process for problem solving
The use of participatory
Training in the basic instruments for
involvement
Structured processing system suggestion
Reward system
Often a parallel system to normal
operations
Involvement oriented All from the level 2 + formal
to goals implementation of strategic goals
Monitoring and measurement of generated
innovation towards these goals
Linear control system
roactive involvement All from the level 3 + responsibility
for the mechanism, timing, etc. are
transferred to the realization unit
Internally managed connection (not
externally controlled)
The high level of experimentation
Full high involvement in High involvement in innovation is the
innovation predominant way of working
--Learning organization Automatic collection and sharing of
knowledge
Each is actively involved in the
innovation process
Incremental and radical innovations
Source: Tidd et al. (2007)
Table 2. Matrix of the status of implementation of innovative methods,
sources, forms and management tools
Status Points Main risks
Management has no specific 0 Innovation strategy does not
idea about the work of allow work to innovation
innovation in the Innovation strategy is
enterprise, includes ways to contrary to the perceptions
achieve it of management
The management has got a 1 Innovation strategy will not
specific idea, but that is support long-term goals of
not included in long-term innovation
business plans Innovation Strategy will be
carried out unrestrained,
without a coherent long-
term vision
The management of innovation 4 Innovation strategy is
involves the long-term plans contrary to the perceptions
and commitment to the of management
necessary human and Innovation strategy does not
financial resources for respond to current
their search opportunities and threats to
innovation
Management has a vision to 7 Innovation strategy will be
work with innovation in the realized without the support
long term. Regularly meets of employees
to assess the initial
situation and determines the
future direction of
innovation
Management has an exact idea 12
of working with innovation,
which is reflected in long-
term plans, supported by
human and financial
resources. Management
actively communicates with
staff and involves them in
shaping innovation strategy
Source: own elaboration
Table 3. Matrix of the work of invention, innovation opportunities,
innovation and knowledge
Status Points Main risks
Invention and innovation 0 It is not base Innovation
opportunities are not strategy will not support
registered the information required in
the innovation process
Invention and innovation 2 Innovation strategy in some
opportunities are not areas cannot support the
recorded conceptually necessary information
New innovative ideas are 5 Innovation strategy is to
recorded and developed use only part of their
through creative techniques innovation potential
The company shall keep 8 The risk of inconsistency of
reliable records on the information
state of inventions,
innovation and opportunities
for innovation
(implementation, backup ...)
When there is a complaint 13
about innovation (idea),
everyone knows how to deal
with it, i.e., there is a
sophisticated system of work
with their innovations
including recording
Source: own elaboration
Table 4. Matrix of the work of non-traditional methods, procedures and
techniques of thought
Status Points Main risks
The company is holding up 0 There is nothing on which we
rather good roads, doesn't can build an innovation
like inventing something new strategy
Innovation strategy has not
greater importance
Employees after completion 1 Innovation strategy will
of specified tasks are not have limited space for their
any more interested in a development
topic The lack of innovation
challenges
Employees undertake trying 3 Limited use of non-
to find solutions other than traditional tools,
now techniques and methods of
thinking
Employees with their 6 The use of lateral thinking
imagination and creativity only in specific areas
regularly contribute to the
strengthening of
competitiveness
Employees like inventing 10
something new and find a
solution often using
unconventional methods,
often at work think that it
is not possible to solve the
problem in a different way
than before
Source: own elaboration
Table 5. Matrix of the status of a supportive environment for
innovation
Status Points Main risks
Communication does not work, 0 There is no plan where to
the employees don't know place innovation strategy
about the future vision of The environment will act
the company management negatively in relation to
the innovation strategy
Employees are familiar only 2 Minimum commitment of
with their precise roles (do employees to innovation
not know the strategic
objectives of the company)
Pro-innovation corporate 7
culture with an appropriate
set of motivation program
Source: own elaboration
Table 6. Matrix of the state's organizational structure
Status Points Main risks
Poor organizational 0 There is nothing on which we
structure can build an innovation
Innovation strategy is not
effective use of information
flow and business
communication
Organizational Structure 1 Innovation strategy does not
with lack of security of respond to the stimuli
information flows
The organizational structure 4 Innovation strategy is not
of fully secure information linked to all participants
flows, but that does not The emergence of the
support effective corporate difficulties of reconciling
communication innovation activities
A functioning organizational 7 Some innovative activities
structure (to ensure will be given insufficient
efficient information flow attention
and corporate communication)
Pro-innovation 11
organizational structure
fully taking into account
the work with innovation
Source: own elaboration
Table 7. The proposed comparative table to determine the level of
preparedness
Level Point interval
Chaotic level 0-19
Insufficient level 20-28
Acceptable level 29-41
High level 42-48
Excellent level 49-53
Source: own elaboration
Table 8. Level of preparedness of businesses for the implementation of
innovation strategy according to the comparative table
Level Point Number of businesses
interval
Absolute Relative
values values
Chaotic 0-19 8 2.11%
Insufficient 20-28 86 22.63%
Acceptable 29-41 222 58.42%
High 42-48 58 15.26%
Excellent 49-53 6 1.58%
Source: own elaboration
Fig. 2. Achieved level of preparedness for implementation of
innovation strategy
Number of Businesses
Chaotic level 8
Insufficient level 86
Acceptable level 222
High level 56
Excellent level 6
Source: own research
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 3. The level of preparedness of businesses by region
Chaotic Insufficient Acceptable High Excellent
Zilina 2 28 64 22 0
Bratislava 2 20 36 10 4
Trnava 0 4 24 2 0
Trencin 2 10 26 4 2
Nitra 2 4 18 2 0
Banska Bystrica 0 12 22 10 0
Presov 0 2 16 2 0
Kosice 0 6 16 6 0
Source: own research
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 4. Level of preparedness of businesses for the implementation
of innovation strategy by size of the business
Chaotic Insufficient Acceptable High Excellent
Medium 6 78 190 44 2
Large Business 2 8 32 14 4
Source: own research
Note: Table made from bar graph.
