Labor Markets And Innovation Multiple Chapters

¶ … administered to 50 respondents. The data obtained from these participants was credible for analysis since there were no substantive missing values. The questions were based on a Likert Scale that made it easier for participants to provide their responses and enhance reliability. Data obtained from this instrument was analyzed using descriptive statistics and measures. In this case, the researcher utilized Cross Tabulation analysis and Chi-Square analysis. Participants' Demographics

This study had 50 respondents working in German and Swiss labor markets though the research was not restricted to participants from German or Swiss origins. Actually, the respondents were from different nationalities though they were working in German or Swiss labor markets as shown in the table below.

Table 1: Nationality of Respondents

Nationality

Number of Respondents

Percentage

German

14

28%

Swiss

6

12%

Italian

7

14%

Lebanese

2

4%

Indian

7

14%

English

2

4%

Spanish

3

6%

Polish

3

6%

Danish

2

4%

Georgian

2

4%

Salvadorean

1

2%

Lithuanian

1

2%

Source: Own Elaboration

The study respondents included C-level executives (CEOs, COOs, HR Managers, HR Advisors, Directors, Co-directors, Consultants, and Assistant Directors) who have worked in their respective companies for a period of between less than a year to more than five years. 72% of the respondents were males whereas 28% were females. On the other hand, 58% worked in German labor markets whereas 42% worked in Swiss labor markets.

Study Results in Relation to Research Objectives

The research objectives listed in the previous chapter were the basis for conducting this study and analyzing data collected from the respondents/participants. In this case, the researcher utilized the objectives as the premise for analytical comprehension of data obtained from the questionnaire that was administered to the 50 participants. Consequently, the research findings/results were grouped as follows:

Most Suitable Innovation Models

The research question that guided this study was the determination of the most suitable innovation model (closed or open) that helps in achievement of an organization's innovation goals and how they can be successfully implemented. As previously indicated, this research issue informed the study on the premise that there are complexities in understanding the most suitable model that is customized based on an organization's innovation goals (Sviokla & Wasden, 2010). In this case, the respondents in this study were working in companies or organizations that had implemented different innovation models for the business goals. 56% of the respondents are working in companies with closed innovation model whereas 44% were utilizing open innovation models as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Innovation Models Adopted by the Companies

Innovation Model

Number of Companies

Percentage

Open Innovation Models

28

56%

Closed Innovation Models

22

44%

Source: Own Elaboration

On the question of which innovation models would be suitable for the organization's operations, success and sustainable growth, the responses were as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Most Suitable Innovation Model

Recommended Innovation Models

Number of Respondents

Percentage

Open Innovation

33

66%

Closed Innovation

7

14%

Both

5

10%

Unsure (or Not Applicable)

5

10%

Source: Own Elaboration

As shown in Table 3 above, 66% of the respondents strongly believe that open innovation is a more suitable innovation model towards helping an organization achieve its innovation goals. This is followed by closed innovation model and a mixture of both closed and open innovation models and at 14% and 10% respectively. This implies that organizations should mostly consider adopting open innovation models across all business operations. If open innovation would be an unsuitable single innovation model for a company, a mixture of both closed and open innovation should first be considered before closed innovation.

The researcher examined whether these recommendations of the most suitable innovation model for organizational operations, success and sustainable growth are attributable to the respondents location. Using Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square analyses, an evaluation was carried out to determine the existence of any link between the country of operation and the suggested innovation model for organizational operations, success and sustainable growth. In essence, the researcher sought to determine whether the respondents' choice or suggestion of a suitable innovation model. This analysis would help in determining the generalization of the suggested innovation model for organizational operations, success, and sustainable growth. The use of Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square analyses in this process helps in testing the relationship between these variables. Additionally, these statistical analyses measures helps in enhancing the credibility and reliability of the recommended innovation models by this group of respondents. The results of the analysis were as shown in the tables below.

Table 4: Cross-tabulation for Link between Country of Operation and Innovation Model

Cross Tabulation Frequency Percent

Is closed or open innovation suitable for the organization's operations, success, and sustainable growth?

Closed Innovation

Open Innovation

Both

Unsure/Not Applicable

Row Totals

What country do you work in?

Germany

5

17

3

4

29

Row Percent

17.24%

58.62%

10.35%

13.79%

58%

Switzerland

2

16

2

1

21

Row Percent

9.52%

76.20%

9.52%

4.76%

42%

Column Totals

7

33

5

5

50

Column Percent

14%

66%

10%

10%

Row Percent = (Observed Value/Row Totals)*100

Row Percent for Row Totals = (Row Total/Column Totals)*100

Source: Own Elaboration

Table 5: Chi-Square Analysis for Link between Country...

...

This result is not significant at p < 0.05, which implies that the null hypothesis is rejected. Consequently, the country of operation was found to have no impact on the recommended innovation model for organizational operations, success and sustainable growth. The respondents recommendations of open innovation model as the most suitable followed by closed innovation model was not determined on the basis of where their organizations were located. Additionally, their recommendations were not necessarily based on the kind of innovation model adopted by their respective companies or organizations.
Key Success Factors for Adoption of Innovation Models

An analysis of the key success factors adopted by the organization in relation to innovation models was also conducted. This analysis was conducted based on two research objectives i.e. determining necessary success factors for effective implementation of innovation models and determine the concept and learning process of closed and open innovation. In this case, several factors were identified and included in the questionnaires administered to the 50 respondents. These factors include incorporating innovation in business strategy and operations, review of innovation models/processes towards continued success, and ensuring employees understand and implement innovation models. The other factors are establishing a corporate culture that promotes and enhances continued innovation and consideration of organizational processes/factors when choosing innovation models.

To determine whether these factors play a crucial role in the successful/effective implementation of innovation models, the researcher considered the respondents Likert Scale scores. A score of between 3 and 5 was considered high whereas a score of 1-2 was considered low in each of these factors. If the number of respondents with high scores was significantly high, the factor was considered crucial in adoption or implementation of innovation models and vice versa as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Respondents' Scores in Key Success Factors

As shown in the Figure 1, there were high scores in each of the key success factors for implementation of innovation models. Consideration of organizational factor when choosing an innovation model, incorporating innovation in business, and implementing innovation throughout the organization had a high score of 86%, 82% and 82% respectively. Establishing a corporate culture that promotes innovation, ensuring employees understand and implement innovation, review and/or changing innovation models/processes, and ensuring innovation is at the frontline of operations had a high score of 78%, 72%, 76% and 74% respectively.

The responses on the Likert Scale for these factors are utilized to determine the link between these factors and successful implementation of innovation models in an organization, especially in relation to organizational operations, success, and sustainable growth. In this case, cross tabulation analysis is carried out on each of these factors based on respondents' high scores i.e. between 3 and 5. The results of the cross tabulation is in turn utilized in chi-square analysis or test, which helps in establishing the link between the two variables based on the level of significance of 0.05 as shown in the tables below.

Table 6: Cross Tabulation on the Link between Factors and Successful Implementation

Cross Tabulation Frequency Percent

Link between Key Factors and Successful Implementation of Innovation Models

Slightly (3)

Much (4)

Very Much (5)

Row Totals

Key Factors in Implementing Innovation Models

Innovation in Business Strategy

7

22

12

41

Row Percent

17.07%

53.66%

29.27%

14.91%

Innovation in the whole organization

16

18

7

41

Row Percent

39.03%

43.90%

17.07%

14.91%

Innovation at the Frontline

8

21

8

37

Row Percent

21.62%

56.76%

21.62%

13.45%

Review of Innovation Models

15

16

7

38

Row Percent

39.47%

42.11%

18.42%

13.82%

Employees Understand Innovation

11

20

5

36

Row Percent

30.56%

55.56%

13.88%

13.09%

Corporate Culture to Promote Innovation

8

19

12

39

Row Percent

20.51%

48.72%

30.77%

14.18%

Considering Organizational Processes

16

23

4

43

Row Percent

37.21%

53.49%

9.30%

15.64%

Column Totals

81

55

Column Percent

29.45%

50.45%

20%

Row Percent = (Observed Value/Row Totals)*100

Row Percent for Row Totals = (Row Total/Column Totals)*100

Source: Own Elaboration

The results of this cross tabulation are used in chi-square analysis in Table 7. The level of significance is 0.05, which is the normal level. To determine the cumulative probability value (P), the researcher utilizes a Chi-square calculator to calculate the Chi-square score and degree of freedom based on a significance level of 0.05. As shown in Table 7, the researcher determined the overall Chi-square score through adding the chi-square score for all items or factors analyzed in the cross tabulation analysis. The overall chi-square score is then used to calculate the cumulative probability value.

Table 7: Chi-Square…

Sources Used in Documents:

References

Aas, T.H. & Jorgensen, G., 2016. Open vs. Closed Innovation: Advancing the Debate. Proceedings of ISPIM Conferences, pp. 1-12.

Aranha, E. A., Garcia, N. P. & Correa, G., 2015. Open Innovation and Business Model: A Brazilian Company Case Study. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, pp. 91-98.

Brunswicker, S. & Ehrenmann, F., 2013. Managing Open Innovation in SMEs: A Good Practice Example of a German Software Firm. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, pp. 33-41.

Creswell, J.W 2014, "The selection of a research approach," in Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp.3-24.
Dorothy, L.B. & Kraus, W.A 1985, Implementing New Technology, Harvard Business Review, viewed 6 July 2016, <https://hbr.org/1985/11/implementing-new-technology>
Martz, E., 2012. Using Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square: The Survey Says..., The Minitabl Blog, viewed 30 December 2016, <http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understanding-statistics/using-cross-tabulation-and-chi-square-the-survey-says>
Sviokla, J.J. & Wasden, C 2010, Two Views: Beyond Open and Closed Innovation, Price Waterhouse Coopers, viewed 5 December 2016, <http://www.pwc.com/us/en/view/issue-14/two-views.html>


Cite this Document:

"Labor Markets And Innovation" (2016, December 31) Retrieved July 21, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/labor-markets-and-innovation-2163433

"Labor Markets And Innovation" 31 December 2016. Web.21 July. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/labor-markets-and-innovation-2163433>

"Labor Markets And Innovation", 31 December 2016, Accessed.21 July. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/labor-markets-and-innovation-2163433

Related Documents

Labour Market Flexibility Causes and Consequences of Labour Market Flexibility The world has been going through dramatic changes for the past few decades. Uncountable inventions are made which influence not only the life of an individual but also the face of economy and nature of political affairs. Particularly speaking in the context of 21st century, the world has become so dynamic that everyday brings some news of invention and innovation. This change

("2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics," 2010) However, when you compare the unskilled immigrant with the skilled immigrants, it is clear that you are seeing a similar kind of scenario occurring. Where, they have lower costs of labor in comparison to those educated native workers. In those situations where the immigrants are unskilled, means that many state and local governments will face increased growth in the population. (Car, 2001) Yet,

Subway: The Labor Market Demand for labor The most obvious source of an increase of a demand for labor by an organization is an increase in the demand for the product or service provided by the firm. In the case of Subway, the organization provides both a product (food) and service (food preparation). When demand for sandwiches increases, the need for more workers to take orders, make sandwiches, clean the premises and

UK Labour Market The labour market is defined by the Office for National Statistics (2011) as those between the ages of 16 and 64 inclusive. They are typically categorized as either employed, unemployed or inactive. Income inequality refers to the spread of income throughout the labour market. The most common measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient. The indicator reflects the distribution of income among economic classes and is expressed

Labor Law XYZ Senior Management The Risks and Rewards of an Organized Workforce The United States is one of the least unionized countries among developed nations (Brown & Warren, 2011). Germany, Canada, and Norway have workforces that range between 20 to over 50% unionized, but in the U.S. just 10% of the workforce was unionized in 2007. The American economy is considered one of the most robust in the world, so maybe there

Innovation and Sustainability The long history of humankind has been the story of life and death, in relatively equal amounts. The problem of population growth is really the problem of less death, a result of greatly increased technological resources and understanding of the human body. As humans have been living longer lives, and particularly children who had previously been vulnerable in their youth, an increased amount of successful births has pushed