Overcoming resistance to innovations: an approach for the ... - CiteSeerX

Int. J. Technology Marketing, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, 2009

199

Overcoming resistance to innovations: an approach for the use of communication tools within the innovation process Nadin Dörner* Center for Innovation University of St. Gallen Dufourstrasse 40a CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland Fax: +41 (0)71 224 73 01 21 32 E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Sebastian Gurtner and Michael Schefczyk Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Technische Universität Dresden Helmholzstrasse 10 01069 Dresden, Germany Fax: +49 (0)351/46336883 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The objective of this article is to show the need for a situation-adapted use of specific communication tools within the different phases of the innovation process. Therefore, this research provides an approach on how activities, objectives and resistance change during the innovation process. Eventually, it is shown how a key person can use specific communication tools to foster innovation and overcome internal resistance. Keywords: resistance communication tools; innovation process.

to innovation; key persons of innovation; internal communication; process promoter;

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Dörner, N., Gurtner, S. and Schefczyk, M. (2009) ‘Overcoming resistance to innovations: an approach for the use of communication tools within the innovation process’, Int. J. Technology Marketing, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, pp.199–216. Biographical notes: Nadin Dörner studied Business Administration at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, and is now employed as a Research Assistant at the Center for Innovation of the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Sebastian Gurtner is a Research Assistant at the Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation of Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. He focuses on technology management and the diffusion of innovations, especially in the healthcare sector.

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

200

N. Dörner, S. Gurtner and M. Schefczyk Michael Schefczyk is a Professor at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, and holds the Chair for Entrepreneurship and Innovation. His academic work includes several publications in the fields of venture capital and entrepreneurship.

1

Introduction

Innovation is a crucial factor of success for business. Growth is needed to survive during the stagnation of the industrial economy. This growth is expected from innovation (Wentz, 2008). An optimised innovation process plays a critical role, as it disciplines the innovation activity of the company. Therefore, it can help increase the efficiency of innovation activity by accelerating its rate and decreasing the consumption of resources. A prime example of an optimised innovation process is given by Japanese automotive manufacturer Toyota, which managed to reduce the time-to-market of the Prius by two months. But even an optimised innovation process can hardly prevent internal resistance. Again, Toyota’s Prius serves as an example. The hybrid technology was assessed to be too immature and risky, even by the corporate staff. Overcoming this internal resistance to innovation can be seen as a central challenge for innovation management. The existing literature on innovation points out the key persons of innovation as a determining factor for success (Hauschildt, 2004). Yet, most of the research only concentrates on their functions and duties (Witte, 1977; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Gemünden and Walter, 1999; Hauschildt, 2004; Rost et al., 2007). Furthermore, approaches to the strategic planning of innovation processes can be found (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1988; Mohr, 1997; Wagner, 2006). However, the determination of the actions necessary for operative implementation is missing. Internal communication is supposed to be an important factor for the optimal flow of innovation processes. As each phase of the innovation process contains different tasks and characteristics, the research focuses on these differences in terms of communication. The existing literature provides approaches to a phase-specific design of internal communication along the innovation process (Thom, 1980; Gierschner, 1991). However, these are rather abstract and descriptive. More precisely, approaches for the use of specific communication tools are missing. This seems even more astonishing, as specific communication tools provide instruments for key persons to help the innovation succeed. Therefore, the objective of this article is to show the need for a phase-specific use of communication tools within the innovation process. For this purpose, this research provides an approach on how activities, objectives and resistance change during the innovation process. Based on a broad review of the existing literature about the innovation process, we derive a basic innovation process. In a next step, we assess the existing communication tools according to their ability to meet phase-specific requirements. For this purpose, we first design a qualitative assessment model. Eventually, we give practical implications by suggesting how a key person can use specific communication tools to foster innovation and overcome internal resistance. The results of the assessment are then transferred into a phase-specific catalogue of communication tools.

Overcoming resistance to innovations

2

201

Theoretical background

2.1 Key persons of innovation Innovation normally causes considerable changes in the previous way of working. Hence, it is often regarded as an annoyance, upheaval or even senseless turbulence (Thom, 1980; Hauschildt, 2004). Thus, innovation encounters resistance during its development. To overcome this resistance, individuals who show commitment and enthusiasm about the innovation are needed (Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001). Some of the concepts that deal with these key persons are the gatekeeper approach and the champions approach. The literature on organisational innovation presents another key-person concept: the change agent. Change agents are defined as charismatic heroes of organisational change (Caldwell, 2003) or individuals who actively strive to overcome resistance or conflicts (Greif et al., 2004). To overcome resistance, Kotter and Schlesinger (1988) suggested various strategies for change agents: communication, manipulation, training, negotiation and agreement, participation or compulsion (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1988). Communication is also pointed out as a crucial factor in other publications concerning organisational change (Mohr, 1997). Research done by Witte (1977) and Hauschildt (e.g., 2004) regarding the management of barriers to innovation introduced another concept: the promoter model. Witte’s (1977) original model contains the promoter of power and the technology promoter. Later, it was supplemented by the process promoter (Chakrabarti and Hauschildt, 1989) and the relationship promoter (Gemünden and Walter, 1999). What all types of promoters have in common is that they use their communication, power and technology skills to foster innovation and overcome resistance (Gurtner et al., 2008). Key persons are important drivers of innovation in all of the mentioned concepts, as they are responsible for overcoming resistance. A possible way to do this is to convince the opponents of the benefit induced by innovation (Schirmer, 2000). This, in turn, can only be achieved by communication. In other words, to gain a broad acceptance of innovation, key persons consequently have to communicate at least with all the opponents of innovation. However, the integration of everyone involved in the innovation process would be a better way. Therefore, it can be stated that internal communication plays an important role in the innovation process.

2.2 Communication tools Following the definition of Bruhn (2007), internal communication is corporate communication that addresses an internal audience. The functions of internal communication can range from persuasion and information to dialogue (Meier, 2002; Burkart, 1998; Moser, 2007). To achieve these communication goals, internal communication tools can be used (Bruhn, 2007). The marketing literature provides a variety of communication tools to manage communication. Table 1 presents an overview of those being used within organisations.

202 Table 1

N. Dörner, S. Gurtner and M. Schefczyk The tools for internal communication

Type of communication

Communication tool

Personal communication

Appraisal Presentation Team communication Workshops Employee event

Printed communication

Employee newspaper Employee newsletter Placard on a bulletin board

Communication through electronic devices

Telephone conversation E-mail Intranet

Communication through audio-visual devices

Business TV Conference call Video conference

2.3 Innovation process According to Cooper (2001), the innovation process is a formal blueprint accompanying a new product from idea to launch. The existing literature on innovation management provides a broad variety of models regarding the innovation process. As the objective of this paper is to show how the individual phases of the innovation process differ concerning internal communication requirements, it is important to find an innovation process whose phases are clearly distinguished from each other. Thus, we propose a four-phase process (see Figure 1) derived from Gerybadze’s (2004) innovation process. Figure 1

The four-step innovation process

The next section describes the four phases in more detail, providing information about the specific characteristics, the personnel involved, the activities carried out and the sources of resistance. This provides the basis for deriving the requirements that internal communication has to meet within the phase. The first phase, ‘idea generation’, contains the active search for ideas. The goal is to find as much ideas as possible and then assess them in terms of attractiveness and risk (Herstatt and Verworn, 2003). Thus, this phase is characterised by creative chaos. Due to the lack of information concerning the market, technology, required resources and


203

strategic fit, there is a high uncertainty. Furthermore, high complexity results from the dynamics and intricacy of the tasks (Vahs and Burmester, 2002; Herstatt and Verworn, 2003). Therefore, one single person is normally not capable of solving the problem on his or her own. Hence, teamwork is of high importance in this stage (Thom and Etienne, 2000). Team members can be persons from every division of the entity that maintains market or technology relationships. The activities carried out in this phase are idea generation, assessment and selection. There can be different sources of resistance. First, trying to develop something new could be seen as criticism regarding the current situation (Hauschildt, 2004). Second, resistance can be caused by the desire for stability and adherence to the status quo. Hence, persuasion and justification are important. Third, the resistance of ignorance can result from high complexity. Eventually, organisational resistance can complicate the collaboration between individuals. In terms of communication, we thus draw the following conclusions for this first phase. First of all, communication can stimulate creation (Ebadi and Utterback, 1984; Gierschner, 1991; Varey, 1995). This, however, requires a high degree of freedom of communication, which means that communication flows without restraint (Thom, 1980; Thom and Etienne, 2000). Ebadi and Utterback (1984) argued that due to complexity, a broad variety of transboundary communications has to be used. To handle uncertainty, it is important to gather as much information as possible (Goldsmith, 2001) and intensify its exchange among the different divisions. In case of organisational resistance, the dialogue function of communication is important. The resistance of unwillingness, on the other hand, brings the convincing function of communication at the centre, whereas in the case of resistance of ignorance, the information function of communication is important to resolve it. The second phase, ‘concept development’, is aimed at the creation of a product concept that contains certain characteristics, e.g., core product, service offering, target market, positioning strategy and business plan (Klink, 2008; Cooper, 2001). Just like the first phase, this phase is also characterised by uncertainty and complexity, though creative chaos is replaced by a goal-oriented way of working. Accordingly, marketing, sales, Research and Development (R&D) and control are the involved divisions of this phase. They can fulfil their duties isolated from each other, but should be aware of the arrangement of tasks and the exchange of information. Because of high complexity, innovation can face a high resistance of ignorance. Organisational resistance can also restrain the necessary collaborations between divisions. Regarding time efficiency, the restriction of freedom of communication seems to be reasonable (Thom, 1980). As the concentration among divisions is of high importance in this phase, a regular exchange of information through the division heads should be institutionalised. The third phase, ‘product development’, contains technical realisation on the one hand (Papies, 2006) and preparation for launch on the other hand (Cooper, 2001). Similar to a project, the development process is executed for the first and only time (Vahs and Burmester, 2002). Furthermore, specific points of time for the start and end can be defined. Although uncertainty decreases in the process, it still determines the project (Vahs and Burmester, 2002). The way of working is characterised by strict discipline and a high level of detail and structure (Klink, 2008). The fuzziness that determines the early stages disappears more and more. This phase is focused on the technical work that results in a functional model or prototype and the preparation for the upcoming production ramp-up (Sabisch, 1991). The production personnel have

204

N. Dörner, S. Gurtner and M. Schefczyk

to be introduced to technological operations (Sabisch, 1991; Ulrich and Eppinger, 2008). Furthermore, production is planned and the necessary resources and machinery have to be ordered. Above all, the launch has to be prepared. Thus, the sales personnel have to be well-informed about the new product and its functionality. According to those activities, the involved divisions are R&D, marketing and sales, purchasing and production. As expertise is an important factor in this stage, the resistance of ignorance could hinder the project. The resistance of unwillingness can also occur if the personnel feel insecure about the consequences of the innovation concerning their workplace or field of activity. Moreover, organisational resistance can handicap the project because there is a requirement for the coordination of resources and collaboration. According to the definition of communication, we assume that its major duty in this phase is to guarantee that employees in all divisions are informed about the new product. Furthermore, addressing the issue of possible consequences for employees that could come along with innovation and, therefore, can cause uncertainty is important (Varey, 1995). Thus, at this point, emotional aspects can affect communication. The last phase, ‘launch and market penetration’, comprises production ramp-up, launch and market penetration. Therefore, a great amount of resources is necessary. Though the new product has been tested in the previous phase, there is still uncertainty about customers’ reactions. To have a stable production process, the start-up of machinery and enlargement of know-how grow in importance (Sabisch, 1991). Furthermore, marketing actions are initiated. In this context, the first contact between the consumer and the product is of high importance for the acceptance and economic success of innovation (Vahs and Burmester, 2002). This first contact is provided by the sales personnel, who should be very well-informed about the product and highly motivated to sell it (Stern and Jaberg, 2005; Aumayr, 2006). The divisions involved in this phase are production, marketing and sales. As in the third phase, organisational resistance can hinder the project at this stage because the coordination of resources is needed. Moreover, the resistance of ignorance can occur because the personnel again have to understand the function of the innovation. As sales personnel’s identification with the new product is of high importance in this phase, one task of communication is to convince them of the innovation. Hence, emotional aspects are fundamental.

3

Phase-specific communication tools

3.1 Assessment model and assessment To rate the communication tools, we first developed an assessment model. As communication tools can only be described in a qualitative way, this model will be of this character. The criteria that are used are presented in Table 2, which also explains the possible value and how it is assessed. Afterwards, each communication instrument will be assessed relating to each criterion. Subsequently, we list the critical requirements that internal communication has to meet in each phase of the innovation process. In a final step, we will bring together these requirements of the single phases of the innovation process and the assessed communication tools to find the three most adequate communication tools for each phase. Thus, the resulting catalogue of internal communication tools for the innovation process will be quite lean and concise.

Overcoming resistance to innovations Table 2

205

Assessment criteria and operationalisation

Criterion

Parameter value

Assessed through

1 Stimulation of creativity

Low Average High Low Average High

Freedom of communication

2 Possibility to have an influence on someone

3 Possibility of institutionalisation 4 Reduction of uncertainty Objective Emotional 5 Overcoming resistance Ignorance Unwillingness Organisational 6 Participants

Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High

Content of message Extent of message Direction of communication Credibility Degree of formalisation Content of message Extent of message Function of communication

Members of the same hierarchical level Members of different hierarchical levels Members of the same and different hierarchical levels

Direction of communication

Low Average High

Reach

The first criterion, ‘stimulation of creativity’, will be appraised by the level of freedom of communication. The more free the communication, the better creativity can unfold itself, e.g., informal communication provides space for a free exchange of ideas beyond controlled meetings and official channels (Thom and Etienne, 2000). As informal communication in its purest form cannot be managed, adequate substitutes have to be found. Team communication, employee events and workshops can affect informal communication. Hence, these communication tools are classified as stimulating, whereas, e.g., business TV and newsletters are graded as nonstimulating. As the classification of the intranet may not be that obvious at first glance, we will shine a light on it. We consider the intranet to be highly stimulating because it can be used to hold a competition of ideas. Moreover, it can support the expression of inconvenient ideas, because there is usually no direct criticism. Furthermore, it is possible to pick up published ideas and enhance them or find a new area of application. The ‘possibility to have an influence on someone’ criterion considers to what extent the communication tool is able to convince personnel of the innovation. In other words, it illustrates how the attitude towards the innovation can be shaped. This opinion, in turn,

206


is based on the available information. Thus, this component can be influenced by objective information (Stroebe et al., 2002). As the affective component comprises the feelings for the object, it can be influenced further by emotions (Stroebe et al., 2002). To assess this criterion, the direction of communication as well as the content and extent of the message are examined. Regarding these aspects, it can be said that, e.g., appraisal is appropriate to influence someone, whereas, e.g., employee newspapers are not considered convenient. The criterion ‘possibility of institutionalisation’ points out to which degree communication is suitable for repetitiveness, which is assessed through the level of formalisation. Moreover, the necessary effort to prepare the communication tools is taken into consideration. That is, the lower the necessary effort, the more often the communication tool can be applied. Thus, employee newsletters are appropriate for institutionalisation, whereas employee events, although these can be well-prepared, will not take place that often because the preparation efforts are very high. Another criterion is the ‘reduction of uncertainty’. This is first distinguished in uncertainty that results from a lack of objective information (concerning the market, technology or resources) and in uncertainty caused by emotional aspects. The first can be reduced through providing objective information. Therefore, the extent of the message has to be taken into consideration again. As already mentioned, the more comprehensive a message is, the better background information and context can be provided. Regarding the reduction of uncertainty that results from emotional aspects, communication must provide emotional content. This can be realised through nonverbal communication, trust and credibility. Compared to a presentation, an appraisal is more suitable to establish a basis for trust between the participants because the framework is much more personal. The next criterion, ‘overcoming resistance’, relies on the different functions of communication. They can be summarised as: (a) information to overcome the resistance of ignorance, (b) persuasion to overcome the resistance of unwillingness, and (c) dialogue to overcome organisational resistance and reduce the resistance of ignorance. The last criterion is ‘participants’. On the one hand, it is based on the number of recipients. On the other hand, it considers who can communicate with whom. In other words, the direction and reach of communication are the most important characteristics for assessment. Table 3 presents the results of the assessment of each communication tool according to each criterion.

3.2 Phase-specific analysis of the results With the help of the defined criteria and the requirements of communication discussed above, we can now identify the phase-specific relevance of the criteria. For each phase, the most relevant criteria were defined. To find out which three communication tools are the most suitable for different phases of the innovation process, we look at the parameter value of the relevant criteria. A communication tool that is not dominated by the other is classified as adequate. If less than three communication tools can be found, those that are dominant in only one criterion will be included. Further gradation will be made until three communication tools are found. If there are more than three suitable communication tools, we compare them directly and weigh the pros and cons.

Overcoming resistance to innovations The assessment of communication tools

Possibility of institutionalisation

Objective

Emotional

Capability

Unwillingness

Organisational

Direction

Reach

Overcoming resistance

Possibility to have an influence on someone

Reduction of uncertainty

Stimulation of creativity

Table 3

207

Appraisal

{

z

}

z

z

}

z

z

}

{

Presentation

{

}

}

z

}

z

}

{

z

z

Team communication

z

z

}

z

z

z

z

z

{

{

Workshop

z

}

{

z

}

z

}

z

z

{

Employee event

z

z

{

}

z

}

z

z

z

z

Employee newspaper

{

{

z

z

{

}

{

{

z

z

Employee newsletter

{

{

z

z

{

z

{

{

}

}

Placard on a bulletin board

{

{

z

}

{

}

{

{

}

z

Telephone conversation

}

}

}

{

{

}

}

z

z

{

E-mail

{

}

z

z

{

z

}

}

z

}

Intranet

z

}

z

z

}

}

}

}

z

z

Business TV

{

}

{

}

}

}

}

{

}

z

Conference call

}

}

}

{

{

}

}

}

{

}

Video conference

}

}

{

}

}

}

z

}

{

}

Communication tool

Notes:

Participants

{ … low parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of the same hierarchical level. } … average parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of different hierarchical levels at criterion ’participants’, reach: variable. z … high parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of the same and different hierarchical levels.

3.2.1 Phase 1 In the first phase (‘stimulation of creativity’), the reduction of objective uncertainty and overcoming the resistance of ignorance are the most relevant criteria. As shown in Table 4, team communication and workshops have high parameter values concerning all three relevant criteria. Both being representatives of personal communication, they contain verbal and nonverbal elements. Furthermore, they can be a means to initiate informal communication. Thus, they are both important for stimulating creativity. Moreover, they can reduce objective uncertainty because they are able to provide objective information, as the message can be quite extensive. The intranet is solely

208


dominated by overcoming the resistance of capability. This resistance is caused by the high complexity of the problem-solving process that can be addressed better if direct communication and immediate feedback are possible. These requirements cannot be met by the intranet. Still, it provides the possibility to rapidly gather the necessary information. Furthermore, as the stimulation of creativity is particularly important in this phase, the intranet for team communication and workshops are the most adequate communication tools. Table 4

The assessment of the first phase Stimulation of creativity

Reduction of objective uncertainty

Overcoming resistance of capability

Appraisal

{

z

}

Presentation

{

z

z

Team communication

z

z

z

Is not dominated concerning all three criteria

Workshop

z

z

z


Employee event

z

}

}

Communication tool

Employee newspaper

{

z

}

Employee newsletter

{

z

z


{

}

}


}

{

}

E-mail

{

z

z

Intranet

z

z

}

Business TV

{

}

}

Conference call

}

{

}

Video conference

}

}

}

Notes:

{ … low parameter value. } … average parameter value. z … high parameter value.

Notes

Is not dominated concerning the two criteria; at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is still an average parameter value


209

3.2.2 Phase 2 The most relevant criteria in this phase are the possibility of institutionalisation, overcoming organisational resistance and the resistance of ignorance. As we can see in Table 5, team communication and e-mail are the most adequate communication tools, followed by workshops and employee newsletters. Team communication and e-mail are both able to help overcome the resistance of capability because they fulfil the information function. Hence, team communication supports horizontal communication it is further well suited to overcome organisational resistance, whereas e-mail is not that well-suited regarding this criterion. Since team communication cannot be fully institutionalised, team communication is only assessed at an average level concerning this criterion, whereas e-mail is considered highly suitable in this term. Despite those concessions, no communication tool fits better in the second phase. Workshops and employee newsletters follow. As they are dominant concerning different criteria, we weigh their relevance to decide which one we should choose for the top three. For concept development, a close coordination of the separate divisions is of high importance. Therefore, we assume the overcoming of organisational resistance as more relevant than the possibility of institutionalisation. Accordingly, workshops are ranked higher than employee newsletters.

3.2.3 Phase 3 In the third phase, we face seven criteria that are highly relevant: the possibility to have an influence on someone, the possibility of institutionalisation, the reduction of emotional uncertainty, overcoming the resistance of ignorance, overcoming organisational resistance and both aspects of participants (direction and reach). The analysis shows that an employee event is able to meet six of the seven requirements and is, therefore, most suitable for this phase. It is rather poorly assessed only with regard to the possibility of institutionalisation because of the high effort of preparation that is necessary. Nevertheless, it contains verbal and nonverbal elements, can trigger informal, horizontal, diagonal and bidirectional communication and is able to fulfil the three functions of communication: information, dialogue and persuasion. Therefore, it is the communication tool that best fits the third phase. Appraisals and team communication are second best. Thus, together with employee events, they make up the top three communication tools of the product development phase.

3.2.4 Phase 4 In the last phase, the possibility to have an influence on someone and both aspects of participants are critical. As we can see from Table 7, employee events, the intranet, presentations and e-mail are the most adequate communication tools in this phase. The employee event is capable of having an influence on someone because it can impart emotions best. Therefore, it can change the attitude towards the innovation and provide the basis for identification with the new product. Furthermore, an employee event involves all personnel – another critical criterion of this phase. Presentations, the intranet and e-mail follow. As information has to be searched and collected actively by the recipients and is not delivered to them the intranet cannot guarantee that information is achieved by all personnel, the use of e-mail seems to fit better.

210


Table 5

The assessment of the second phase Overcoming resistance

Communication tool Appraisal


Capability

Organisational

}

}

z

Notes

Presentation

}

z

{

Team communication

}

z

z

Is not dominated concerning two criteria; at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is still an average parameter value

Workshop

{

z

z

Is not dominated concerning two criteria; at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is only a low parameter value

Employee event

{

}

z

Employee newspaper

z

}

{

Employee newsletter

z

z

{


z

}

{


}

}

z

E-mail

z

z

}

Intranet

z

}

}

Business TV

{

}

{

Conference call

}

}

}

Video conference

{

}

}

Notes:

{ … low parameter value. } … average parameter value. z … high parameter value.

Is not dominated concerning two criteria; at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is only a low parameter value


Overcoming resistance to innovations Table 6

211

The assessment of the third phase


Reduction of emotional uncertainty

Capability

Organisational

Direction

Reach

Participants

Possibility to have an influence on someone

Overcoming resistance

Appraisal

z

}

z

z

z

}

{

Presentation

}

}

}

}

{

z

z

Team communication

z

}

z

z

z

{

{

Workshop

}

{

}

}

z

z

{

Employee event

z

{

z

z

z

z

z

Employee newspaper

{

z

{

{

{

z

z

Employee newsletter

{

z

{

{

{

}

}


{

z

{

{

{

}

z


}

}

{

}

z

z

{

E-mail

}

z

{

}

}

z

}

Intranet

}

z

}

}

}

z

z

Business TV

}

{

}

}

{

}

z

Conference call

}

}

{

}

}

{

}

Video conference

}

{

}

z

}

{

}

Communication tool

Notes:

Notes Is not dominated concerning four criteria; at the three criteria at which it is dominated, there are still two average parameter values and only one low parameter value

Is not dominated concerning four criteria; at the three criteria at which it is dominated, there are still one average parameter value and only two low parameter values

Is not dominated concerning six criteria; at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is a low parameter value

{ … low parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of the same hierarchical level. } … average parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of different hierarchical levels at criterion ‘participants’, reach: variable. z … high parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of the same and different hierarchical levels.

212


Table 7

The assessment of the fourth phase Participants Possibility to have an influence on someone

Direction

Reach

Appraisal

z

}

{

Presentation

}

z

z

Team communication

z

{

{

Workshop

}

z

{

Employee event

z

z

z

Employee newspaper

{

z

z

Employee newsletter

{

}

}


{

}

z


}

z

{

E-mail

}

z

}

Is not dominated concerning two criteria because a reach variable means that it can be high at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is still an average parameter value

Intranet

}

z

z


Business TV

}

}

z

Conference call

}

{

}

Video conference

}

{

}

Communication tool

Notes:

Notes Is not dominated concerning two criteria; at the one criterion at which it is dominated, there is still an average parameter value


{ … low parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of the same hierarchical level. } … average parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of different hierarchical levels at criterion ‘participants’, reach: variable. z … high parameter value at criterion ‘participants’, direction: exchange between members of the same and different hierarchical levels.


4

213

Results and practical implications

As a next step, we transform the findings of the phase-specific analysis into a catalogue that can help the key persons of innovation to drive the innovation process. We name this catalogue ‘the 4 × 3 method of internal communication in the innovation process’ because we suggest the use of three communication tools in all four phases. The key persons should be responsible for initiating and coordinating the application of communication tools. They should be supported by communication experts for optimal realisation (Bruhn, 1995). In the ‘idea generation’ phase, the stimulation of creativity, the reduction of objective uncertainty and overcoming the resistance of capability are important. On this basis, team communication, workshops and the intranet are the most appropriate communication tools. All of them can stimulate the necessary creativity that does not just happen in one’s head, but emerges from the interaction that supports the mutual development of ideas (Leenders et al., 2003). Moreover, they enable the circulation of information and fulfil the information function of communication. In the second phase, the possibility of institutionalisation, overcoming organisational resistance and the resistance of capability have to be taken into consideration. The communication tools that best meet the requirements are team communication, workshops and e-mails. Team communication could be realised by meetings between cross-functional teams. The persons in charge of each involved division can exchange all relevant information. In this way, the necessary cooperation can be guaranteed (Thom, 1980). Furthermore, those meetings can prevent organisational resistance. E-mail can be used to inform about news regularly. Hence, cooperation is again supported. Workshops are particularly suitable for the mutual exchange of knowledge and can help overcome the resistance of ignorance. In the ‘product development’ phase, internal communication is assessed by seven criteria. As in the second phase, the key persons can support the cooperation of the involved divisions by institutionalising team communication through meetings. The inclusion of emotional aspects gains increasing importance because the possibility to have an influence on someone, the reduction of emotional uncertainty and overcoming the resistance of unwillingness are critical requirements of this phase. Hence, the key persons should initiate the use of appraisals because no other form of communication is able to create as much understanding and trust as personal communication (Herbst, 2003). The preparation of the product launch towards the end of this phase, on the one hand, needs as many recipients as possible to be reached by communication. On the other hand, emotional aspects play a pivotal role. In combination, the requirements can be met best by employee events. That can be realised by a kickoff, at which the new product is presented. This could provide the basis for a broad acceptance among personnel or even lead to a collective identification with the new product (Stern and Jaberg, 2005). In the fourth phase, the most important aspects are the possibility to have an influence on somebody and the participants. The appropriate communication tools besides employee events are presentations and e-mail. Due to the fact that the employee events are organised for the same purpose as in the third phase and needs a lot of financial and organisational effort, we suggest initiating it only once. It could, therefore, take place at the transition of the third phase to the fourth phase. A similar effect as

214


caused by employee events can be reached by the presentations of the management. For example, a speech gives consideration to the possibility of influencing someone and reaches lots of recipients at the same time (Merten, 1999). Finally, key persons can ensure that the personnel have all the relevant information about the new product, written down by the use of e-mail. The 4 × 3 method of internal communication in the innovation process aims to guarantee an unobstructed innovation process. For the key persons, it can be seen as a tool that helps fulfil their duties, e.g., by supporting them to overcome resistance. This could help set the course for serial innovation and increase the innovation activity of a company. Figure 2 summarises the 4 × 3 method of internal communication in the innovation process. Figure 2

5

The 4 × 3 method of internal communication in the innovation process

Limitations and further research

Giving an impression on how different communication tools can foster innovation in different stages of the innovation process, this research has limitations regarding significance. The definition of a standard innovation process can be seen as a first critical aspect since each company has different operational sequences and internal structures. Therefore, an individual innovation process can specify characteristics and, hence, ideal communication tools. Quantitative research should focus on the differences induced by the different sizes of companies, the type of innovation (product or process) and degree of innovation (radical versus incremental). Differences can also be expected in different industrial sectors. For example, a biotechnology venture will have a very specific innovation process, which has a much longer time horizon and product outcome. Modern methods of communication such as weblogs or viral marketing are not yet discussed concerning their aptitude for internal communication. Thus, they are not considered in this contribution. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to investigate them in further research. Furthermore, the appropriate use of the identified communication tools is a crucial factor. In other words, communication skills are just as relevant as the tools used. As a summary, it can be stated that this work contributes to the phase-specific organisation of internal communication in the innovation process. The provided results are, however, of a theoretical nature and are in need of empirical support.


215

References Aumayr, K.J. (2006) Erfolgreiches Produktmanagement: Tool-Box für das professionelle Produktmanagement und Produktmarketing, Wiesbaden: Gabler. Bruhn, M. (1995) Integrierte Unternehmenskommunikation: Ansatzpunkte für eine strategische und operative Umsetzung integrierter Kommunikationsarbeit, Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Bruhn, M. (2007) Kommunikationspolitik: Systematischer Einsatz der Kommunikation für Unternehmen, München: Vahlen. Burkart, R. (1998) Kommunikationswissenschaft: Grundlagen und Problemfelder: Umrisse einer interdisziplinären Sozialwissenschaft, Wien: Böhlau. Caldwell, R. (2003) ‘Models of change agency: a fourfold classification’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.131–142. Chakrabarti, A.K. and Hauschildt, J. (1989) ‘The division of labour in innovation management’, R&D Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.161–171. Cooper, R.G. (2001) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, New York: Perseus. Ebadi, Y.M. and Utterback, J.M. (1984) ‘The effects of communications on technological innovation’, Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.572–585. Gemünden, H.G. and Walter, A. (1999) ‘Beziehungspromotoren: Schlüsselpersonen für zwischenbetriebliche Innovationsprojekte’, in J. Hauschildt and H.G. Gemünden (Eds.) Promotoren: Champions der Innovation, Wiesbaden: Gabler. Gerybadze, A. (2004) Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement: Strategie, Organisation und Implementierung, München: Vahlen. Gierschner, H-C. (1991) Information und Zusammenarbeit bei Innovationsprozessen, Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Goldsmith, D.J. (2001) ‘A normative approach to the study of uncertainty and communication’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.514–533. Greif, S., Runde, B. and Seeberg, I. (2004) Erfolge und Misserfolge beim Change Management, Göttingen: Hogrefe. Gurtner, S., Klink, H., Dörner, N., Uecke, O. and Schefczyk, M. (2008) ‘Dynamisation of the promotor model – an explorative study along the innovation process’, Paper presented at the International Product Development Management Conference, Hamburg, 30 June–01 July. Hauschildt, J. (2004) Innovationsmanagement, München: Vahlen. Hauschildt, J. and Kirchmann, E. (2001) ‘Teamwork for innovation – the “troika” of promotors’, R&D Management, Vol. 31, No. 1. Herbst, D. (2003) Praxishandbuch Unternehmenskommunikation: Professionelles Management – Kommunikation mit wichtigen Bezugsgruppen – Instrumente und spezielle Anwendungsfelder, Berlin: Cornelsen. Herstatt, C. and Verworn, B. (2003) ‘Bedeutung und Charakteristika der frühen Phasen des Innovationsprozesses’, in C. Herstatt and B. Verworn (Eds.) Management der frühen Innovationsphasen, Wiesbaden: Gabler. Howell, J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990) ‘Champions of technological innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.317–330. Klink, H. (2008) Entwurf und Management eines “Konzeptors” für hochgradige Produktinnovationen: effektive Konzeptentwicklung in der Frühphase des Innovationsprozesses mittels organisationaler Intelligenz, Dresden: TUDpress. Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1988) ‘Choosing strategies for change’, in H.J. Leavitt, L.R. Pondy and D.M. Boje (Eds.) Readings in Managerial Psychology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

216


Leenders, R.T.A.J., Engelen, J.M.L. and Kratzer, J. (2003) ‘Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 20, Nos. 1–2, pp.69–92. Meier, P. (2002) Interne Kommunikation im Unternehmen: Von der Hauszeitung bis zum Intranet, Zürich: OrellFüssli. Merten, K. (1999) Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft, Münster: LIT. Mohr, N. (1997) Kommunikation und organisatorischer Wandel: Ein Ansatz für ein effizientes Kommunikationsmanagement im Veränderungsprozess, Wiesbaden: Gabler. Moser, K. (2007) Wirtschaftspsychologie, Heidelberg: Springer. Papies, S. (2006) Phasenspezifische Erfolgsfaktoren von Innovationsprojekten: Eine projektbegleitende Längsschnittanalyse, Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. Rost, K., Hölzle, K. and Gemünden, H.G. (2007) ‘Promotors or champions? Pros and cons of role specialisation for economic process’, Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), Vol. 59, No. 4, pp.340–363. Sabisch, H. (1991) Produktinnovationen, Stuttgart: Poeschel. Schirmer, A. (2000) ‘Widerstände gegen Innovationen: Erfahrungen aus der Einführung von Entscheidungsunterstützungssystemen für die Personaleinsatzplanung’, Zeitschrift Führung und Organisation, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp.340–348. Stern, T. and Jaberg, H. (2005) ‘Erfolgreiches Innovationsmanagement: Erfolgsfaktoren – Grundmuster – Fallbeispiele’, Wiesbaden: BetriebswirtschaftlicherVerlag. Stroebe, W., Jonas, K. and Hewstone, M.R. (2002) Sozialpsychologie: Eine Einführung, Heidelberg: Springer. Thom, N. (1980) ‘Grundlagen des betrieblichen Innovationsmanagements’, Königstein/ Ts.: Hanstein. Thom, N. and Etienne, M. (2000) ‘Organisatorische und personelle Ansatzpunkte zur Förderung eines Innovationsklimas im Untermehmen’, in G. Häflinger and J. Meier (Eds.) Aktuelle Tendenzen im Innovationsmanagement, Heidelberg: Physica. Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2008) ‘Product design and development’, New York: McGraw-Hill. Vahs, D. and Burmester, R. (2002) Innovationsmanagement: Von der Produktidee zur erfolgreichen Vermarktung, Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Varey, R.J. (1995) ‘Internal marketing: a review and some interdisciplinary research challenges’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.40–63. Wagner, E. (2006) ‘Effective communication during planned change: an evaluation from the recipient’s perspective’, Dissertation, The Oxford Brookes University Business School, Oxford. Wentz, R-C. (2008) Die Innovationsmaschine: Wie die weltbesten Unternehmen Innovationen managen, Heidelberg: Springer. Witte, E. (1977) ‘Power and innovation: a two-center theory’, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.47–70.