subsidiaries of a German multinational company operating in Europe and Asia and ... the innovation processes followed by the two subsidiary firms operating in ...
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
98
The Implementation of Innovation by a Multinational Operating in Two Different Environments: A Comparative Study Mohamed Zain, Stanley Richardson and Mohd Nazri Khan Adam The aim of the paper is to examine the innovation initiatives and processes followed by two subsidiaries of a German multinational company operating in Europe and Asia and to compare the innovativeness of their operations in these two locations. The study examined the innovation processes followed by the two subsidiary firms operating in Germany and Malaysia, the actual problems faced by them, the critical success factors involved in the implementation, and the work climates of the firms. Interestingly, it was found that both firms followed similar innovation processes. Nevertheless, different types of problems and critical success factors were applicable to both firms. The results showed that the Malaysian subsidiary faced more behavioural problems while the German subsidiary encountered more technical problems. Further, the study showed that a lack of knowledge was the common problem faced equally by both firms. The study demonstrated that the German subsidiary had better working climate compared to its counterpart in Malaysia. Finally, the German subsidiary was found to be more innovation-active than the Malaysian subsidiary as it introduced more types of innovation, interacted with more types of entity in the external environment and introduced more types of training.
Introduction
M
any definitions of innovation can be found in the literature (see Rickards & Moger, 1991; Nystrom, 1990; Vrakking, 1990; West & Farr, 1990). One of the most repeatedly used definitions is by Zaltman et al. (1973) which said that an innovation is ’an idea, practice, or material artefact perceived to be new by the relevant adoption unit’. In fact, the same definition is used by other researchers such as Daft (1982), Damanpour and Evan (1984), Damanpour (1991) and Freeman (1982). The term is constantly regarded by some as analogous with invention while others consider the term as commercialisation of invention or the process of converting a discovery into a marketable products (Freeman, 1973, 1982; Rickards, 1985). This study takes a broad definition of the concept of innovation by defining it as ’the process of matching organisational and environmental means and needs’
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
since the outputs of the successful matching of the two items are the innovation products in the form of new ideas to be adopted by the organisation (Zain, 1993). There is no simple or single way to describe innovative companies and identify their attributes. In this study, Zain’s attributes were adopted to describe innovative companies. He believed that innovative companies are those that introduce many types of incremental and technological innovation, have interaction with many types of entity in the environment and conduct many training programmes for their employees. It is worth noting that Zain (1995) and Zain and Rickards (1996) preferred not to dichotomise firms into the classification favoured by earlier scholars including Ekvall (1983): ‘more innovative’ and ‘less innovative’ (or ‘stagnant’). He believed that it is more adequate to use ‘more innovation-active’ and ‘less innovation-active’ to describe firms that adopt many types of innovation. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION IN TWO ENVIRONMENTS
Abbey (1983) said work climate is ‘a relatively enduring quality of an organisation’s internal environment that results from the behaviour and policies of members of the organisation, especially its top management’. Further, he stated that work climate is ‘more of an attitude or culture which must be fostered by top management and must eventually permeate downward throughout the whole organisation’. Ekvall et al. (1983) made a major attempt at measuring the creative organisational climate. They defined organisational climate as ‘a conglomerate of the attitudes, feelings and behaviour which characterise life in an organisation’. This definition was based on the assumption that each employee in the organisation has his own perception of the climate. Ekvall et al. constructed and validated an instrument to measure work climate known as the Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ). In this study, CCQ was used to assess the work climate in Germany and Malaysia. The issue of implementation has drawn much interest from researchers (Rickards, 1988). It is crucial that organisations understand the factors and problems involved in the implementation processes so as to optimise benefits from investment in the innovation (Cooper, 1998). There are many critical factors that contribute to successful implementation of innovation. Drucker (1993) emphasised entrepreneurship and customerfocus to ensure successful innovation. Kanter (1983) described specific circumstances under which innovation can flourish in the organisation. She wrote that the key to the United States corporate renaissance lies in innovation, open organisational environment and the practice of participative management that welcomes and encourages new ideas arising in the organisation. Angle and Van De Ven (1989) said that the implementation period begins when application and adoption activities are carried out for an innovation. Once the innovation is created, the next implementation process is to introduce the innovation to the market, moving it to the operating sides or distributing it to potential users. The implementation takes a different process when the innovation is developed elsewhere. In such a situation, the activities involve the host organisation carrying out certain activities to introduce and adopt the innovation. Further, Van De Ven (1986) argued that there are four types of problems which are faced during the implementation of innovation namely the human problems (e.g., managing change resistance), the process problems (e.g., converting new ideas into profitable operation, communi-
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
99
cation), the strategic problems (e.g., leadership transition, knowledge management) and finally the structural problems (e.g., managing relationship between functions). Zain (1995) categorised the main problem into four types: knowledge problems, general problems, technical problems and market problems. While more innovation-active firms had greater technical problems, less innovationactive firms were discovered to have greater human problems.
Objective of the Study The main objective of the study was to examine the innovation initiatives and processes followed by a German multinational company (MNC) in two different locations and environments (Germany and Malaysia) and to compare the innovativeness of the firm in these two locations. Considering that the two countries are very different, i.e., a developed Germany and a developing Malaysia, it would be interesting for us to determine and compare the innovativeness of the same firm operating in these different geographical, social, and cultural environments. The German MNC is one of the most reputable and largest electrical, electronic and engineering company in the world (ranked in the top 30 of the Fortune Global 500 as at 3 May 2001). Two subsidiaries of a German multinational company (MNC), each is involved information and communication network business, were investigated namely: a Germany subsidiary and a Malaysian subsidiary. The objective was divided into the following sub-aims: 1. To identify the stages involved in the implementation processes of innovation in both firms. 2. To identify the types of problems that both firms faced in the implementation processes. 3. To identify the key factors that influence the success of the innovation processes. 4. To investigate the working climate that exists in both firms. 5. To determine the innovativeness of each firm based on Zain’s (1995) attributes of innovative companies.
Justification for Choosing the German MNC Subsidiary Firms The focus of this study is on the two subsidiary firms of the German MNC which are involved in information and communication network business in Germany and
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
100
Malaysia (henceforth, for convenience purpose, both firms will be referred to as ‘Germany’ and ‘Malaysia’, respectively). The German MNC was chosen for the study as it is well known for its successful innovations (The company’s official web page, 2000). The information and communication network is a business segment within the German MNC, established in 1997 and has customers in more than 150 countries. Currently the German MNC’s information and communication network business is the world’s number one supplier of voice and data networks (company Annual Report, 2000). The company is therefore considered as well established due to its long history and experience in industrial innovations (company Bulletin, June 2000). It should be noted here that all research and development (R&D) activities by the company were carried out in Germany and not in Malaysia.
Research Hypotheses Based on the purpose of this study, five alternate hypotheses were developed : HA1 : Germany follows different implementation processes from Malaysia HA2 : Germany faces more technical problems than Malaysia HA3 : Germany has different favourable factors to innovation than Malaysia HA4 : Germany has better working climate than Malaysia HA5 : Germany is more innovation-active than Malaysia
Population and Samples The population was the total employees in each of the two subsidiary firms (Germany and Malaysia). Each had a workforce of approximately 9,111 and 135, respectively. A total of 20 interviewees and 60 questionnaire respondents (i.e. 10 interviewees and 30 respondents from each firm) were selected for the research.
Methodology Firstly, interviews were conducted to obtain preliminary information on various types and stages of innovation projects. Zain’s (1995) Interview Schedule, which consisted of 20 openended questions, was used in the interview to investigate fifteen types of innovations. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes. Ten interviewees were selected randomly from various departments and levels in each firm. Next, Zain’s (1995) Innovation Inventory Questionnaire was distributed to 30 respondents from various departments and levels. The levels ranged from top level managers (Managing Director, General Manager), middle level managers (MIS Manager, Sales Manager) and lower level managers and non-managers (Consultants, Assistant Managers, Blue Collar Workers). Each questionnaire took about 10 minutes to complete. The questionnaire has 20 structured questions directed at various stages, factors and problems involved in the innovation processes. The same respondents were then asked to complete Ekvall’s (1983) Creative Climate Questionnaire (CCQ) which
Table 1. Ekvall’s Dimensions of Creative Climate Dimensions
Descriptions
Freedom
The independence in behaviour exerted by the people in the organisation. The emotional involvement of the members of the organisation in its operations and goals. The emotional safety in relationship. The eventfulness of the life in the organisation. The amount of time people use to elaborate ideas. The presence of personal and emotional tensions in the organisation. The spontaneity and ease that is displayed in the organisation. The occurrence of encounters and clashes between viewpoints, ideas and different experience or knowledge. The extent to which new ideas are treated constructively. The promptness of response to emerging opportunities.
Challenge Trust / Openness Dynamism / Liveliness Idea Time Conflicts Playfulness / Humour Debates Idea Support Risk Taking
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION IN TWO ENVIRONMENTS
101
Table 2. Innovation Initiatives and Sources of Innovation Ideas STAGES
GERMANY
MALAYSIA
2.6831 3.367 3.367 3.3 3.267 3.567 3.367 3.4 2.75
2.717 3.233 3.133 3.117 3.050 3.433 3.2 3.233 2.95
New ideas originates from top management New ideas originates from all levels of the organisation New ideas are deliberated on by a special committee Committee members are selected from relevant departments in the organisation A feasibility study to determine its viability is carried out by the committee The final decision on the adoption is made by the top management Management approves appropriate resources Feedback on the use of the innovation are sought by the management Any innovations that has been adopted but later found not beneficial to the organisation is disposed off
consists of 50 structured questions. The questionnaire investigated ten dimensions of creative climate (shown in Table 1) (Talbot et al., 1992) and lasted about fifteen minutes.
Hence, the first alternate hypothesis is rejected which indicates that Germany and Malaysia followed similar innovation implementation initiatives and processes.
Results
Problems in Implementation
The results below were based on the responses from questionnaires responses. First, F-test was conducted to test whether Germany’s and Malaysia’s populations have equal variability. Since no evidence was found to suggest differences in variances (based on F-test, F statistics = 1.25 ; p50.05), t-test is considered appropriate to compare means between the two populations. The following results were derived based on t-test at p50.01:
Table 3 shows that four types of problems were unexpectedly faced by both firms, based on their experience in handling innovation projects. The most obvious problem faced by both firms was lack of knowledge. Further, Germany was found to have more technical than behavioural problems while the reverse was true for Malaysia. Hence, the second alternate hypothesis is accepted which means that Germany faced more technical than behavioural problems when implementing innovation while the reverse was true for Malaysia.
Implementation Processes A list of steps followed by the two firms during the implementation process is in Table 2. The results show that both firms actually follow similar steps and stages in the implementation process (note that insignificant t-values were derived for all items in Table 2 at p50.01).
Factors Favourable to Implementation of Innovation The various factors perceived to be favourable to the implementation of innovation are summarised in Table 4 (a tick refers to favour-
Table 3. Responses on the Unexpected Problems Encountered During Innovation Project (T-Test Results) Unexpected Problems
Knowledge : Lack of ideas, information and experience Technical : problem with technological skill, lack of time, problems with fund Behavioural : Difficulties in managing behaviour and attitudes of employees Markets : Difficulties in understanding markets and customers
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
Germany
Malaysia
Significance Level
3.5171 3.15 2.733 2.517
3.133 2.9 3.35 2.467
p50.01 p50.01 p50.01 p50.05
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
102
Table 4. Responses on the Factors Favourable to Successful Implementation of Innovation Favourable Factors
Germany
Management openness to new ideas Top management support and commitment to innovation Well designed project schedule and plan Proper rewards system to encourage ideas and innovation Qualified staff, skills and expertise Having awareness that innovations are important to the organisational survival and competitiveness Adequate monitoring and feedback Customer acceptance, participation and commitment Having clear project mission, vision, strategies, objectives and direction Organisational structure that is less hierarchical Need to constantly scan the external environment Good communication among affected parties Use of effective management techniques Ability to handle crisis and surprise Gradual approach to innovation Human approach to innovation Appropriate leadership style Progressive corporate culture Organisational adaptability
[ [ [ [ [ [
3.2831 3.283 3.333 3.467 3.467 3.283
[ X [ [ [ [
3.217 2.933 3.133 3.333 3.367 3.1
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ X X [ [ [ [
3.333 3.5 3.333 3.283 3.333 3.333 3.333 2.983 2.933 3.25 3.317 3.367 3.3
[ [ [ X X [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [
3.283 3.3 3.1 2.933 2.933 3.283 3.25 3.1 3.283 3.0 3.233 3.1 3.133
able factors and a cross refers to non-favourable factors). It can be noted that not all factors are applicable to each firms (t-value is significant at p50.01 for all factors). Further, some factors were found favourable to Germany but not to Malaysia and vice versa. Based on these results, the third alternate hypothesis is accepted which means that Germany had different
Malaysia
favourable factors to innovation implementation than Malaysia. Some interesting observations in the Malaysian operations could be seen from Table 4 where there was lack of top management commitment to innovation, more hierarchical organizational structure, and less environmental scanning carried out by the firm.
Table 5. Work Climate of Firms Based on Ekvalls’ Method of Assessment Dimensions of Work Climate Challenge / Motivation Freedom Idea Support Liveliness / Dynamism Playfulness / Humour Debate Trust / Openness Conflict (Reverse Scored) Risk Taking Idea Time Overall Index Standard Deviation
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
Germany
Malaysia
2.262 2.23 2.1 2.36 2.27 2.0 2.0 1.61 1.92 1.90 2.07 0.37
1.86 1.85 1.70 1.86 1.73 1.73 1.58 1.41 1.57 1.49 1.68 0.34
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION IN TWO ENVIRONMENTS
103
Table 6. Types of Innovation Implemented in Both Firms No
Types of Innovation
Germany
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Product Product Quality Market Marketing Strategy Methods of Financing Organisational Structure Ways of Managing Information Perception on General Attitude Towards Innovation Ways of Managing Technical Function Employment Practice Industrial Relation Practice Ways of Dealing With The Government or External Institutions Method of Operation Supply Sources
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [
Work Climate Between Firms The results obtained on work climate are shown in Table 5. Overall, Germany had a better work climate as compared to Malaysia in all dimensions of Ekvall’s CCQ (t-value is significant at p50.01 for all items). Hence, the fourth alternate hypothesis is accepted.
Innovativeness Between Firms Based on Zain’s (1995) attributes of innovativeness, the results showed that Germany is more innovative or innovation-active than Malaysia. It was found that Germany intro-
Malaysia
1.9333 1.933 1.683 1.45 1.15 1.933 1.817 1.867 1.683 1.633 1.75 1.717 1.867 1.583
[ [ [ [ X [ [ X [ X [ [ [ [
1.367 1.433 1.15 1.2 0.92 ( less than 1) 1.2 1.3 0.96 ( less than 1) 1.0 0.96 ( less than 1) 1.117 1.067 1.2 1.067
duced more types of innovation, interacted with more types of entity in the environment and implemented more types of training programs as compared to Malaysia. The fifth alternate hypothesis is therefore accepted. Table 6 shows that Germany perceived all types of innovation as ‘present’ while Malaysia reported only 11 as ‘present’ and 3 as ‘absent’ 4 (a tick refers to ‘presence’ and a cross refers to ‘absence’; t-value is significant at p50.01 for all items). Table 7 shows that Germany perceived more interaction of the firm with regard to the external environment as compared to Malaysia (t-value is significant at p50.01). Table 8 indicates that Germany perceived more introduction of training programmes as
Table 7. Perception on the Interaction of Firms with External Environment Question
Germany
Malaysia
3.734
3.30
How do you perceive the interaction of your company with regard to the external environment?
Table 8. Perception on Training Programmes Question How do you perceive the introduction of training programme in your firm?
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
Germany
Malaysia
3.705
3.13
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
104
compared to Malaysia (t-value is significant at p50.01).
Discussion Table 4 shows that both firms follow similar implementation processes. With respect to the source of ideas, both firms indicate that new ideas comes from all levels rather than management (Table 2 row 1 score less than 3; row 2 score more than 3). This shows that ideas are welcomed from all employees in both firms. Based on rows 3 to 8 of Table 2, both firms carry out similar innovation initiatives although the extent of evidence obtained varied slightly (Germany has a slightly higher mean score, i.e., respondents in Germany show stronger agreement on the innovation initiatives and processes they followed than respondents in Malaysia). This suggests that Germany employees are more aware of the implementation initiatives and processes and perhaps have better communication among themselves during the innovation processes than their colleagues in Malaysia. The fact that both firms emanate from the same top level management (both report to their headquarters in Munich, Germany and hence, both have to follow a similar innovation policy directed from the headquarters) may be the best reasons for such similarities in the implementation initiatives and processes followed by Germany and Malaysia. From Table 3, it can be interestingly noted that there were four types of problems unexpectedly faced by both firms based on their experience in handling innovation projects. The most obvious problems of both firms are lack of knowledge (the highest score for both firms). This sheds some interesting point and may lend support to the proponents of knowledge management in implementing innovation (Nonaka et al., 2000). The variability in the magnitudes of the problems was not unexpected considering the fact that both firms are within the same company but operating in different cultures. We may assert that there is a cultural effect that account for the difference in the types of problem faced by both firms. Table 4 shows that Germany has more technical problems while Malaysia has more behavioural problems. One possible reason that may account for the difference in problems is that both countries have different education systems with different values and priorities. It is possible that more emphasis is given in the German education system to solve human / interpersonal problems as compared to Malaysia. Further, both countries have
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
different stages of social development, which may influence the societal values. Given that Germany is more advanced economically and technologically, it is likely that German society views change more positively than Malaysian society. Malaysian society may be more conservative, have higher resistance to change and therefore have more behavioural problems in the implementation of innovation. Since many firms in Germany have a longer industrial history than in Malaysia, it is possible that German employees are more experienced in managing innovations, more knowledgeable in mobilising resources for innovation (including the human resource) and therefore more adept at handling people problems in innovation projects than Malaysian employees. Table 4 shows that different favourable factors are perceived in the implementation of innovation in both firms. It can be noted that not all factors are applicable to each firms (t-value is significant at p50.01 for all factors). While Germany perceived top management support, flexible structure and continuous environmental scan as more favourable, Malaysia perceived crisis management and gradual approach as more critical than Germany. The sophistication and complexities of technologies involved in the innovation processes are different depending on the type and scale of innovation project. For example, we would expect that technology used in small departmental office systems is much simpler than organisational wide computer networks. Further, there are different level of uncertainties associated with different types of innovation. Hence, it may be, that because Germany and Malaysia have different types of innovation projects of a different scale and business environment, factors favourable to the implementation of innovation might also be different. Table 5 shows that Germany has a higher score for each dimension of Ekvall’s Creative Climate Questionnaire (t-value is significant at p50.01 for all items). This shows that Germany reported a better creative climate than Malaysia (overall index for Germany is 2.07 while Malaysia: 1.68). Hence, it can be said that Germany perceived : more independence in action (freedom), more emotional commitment to organisational goals (challenge), more confidence in work relationship (trust), more liveliness at workplace (dynamism), more time to develop ideas (idea time), less tension at workplace (conflict), more spontaneity in working (playfulness), more pluralism in work views (debates), more encouragement for new ideas (idea support) and more promptness to new opportunities (risk taking). The fact that Germany has a better work
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION IN TWO ENVIRONMENTS
climate may be a reason for its higher innovativeness than Malaysia (see Tables 6, 7 and 8). However, it must be noted that the method (Ekvall’s CCQ) used was entirely based on individual perceptions. Perception is only a part of studying work climate (Ekvall, 1983). Hence, further research is suggested to study work climate by other means to support this results (such as observation by a panel of qualified assessors). Finally, the study demonstrated that both Germany and Malaysia were innovationactive in the sense that both introduced many types of innovation (Table 6), interacted with reasonable amount of entity in external environment (Table 7) and implemented many training programmes (Table 8). However, the results indicate that Germany was more innovation-active than Malaysia (t-value is significant at p50.01) as it perceived more types of innovations for future needs (Table 6). Further, Germany was found to have a better perception (t-value is significant at p50.01) of their company’s overall performance with regard to training programmes (Table 7) and interaction with the external environment (Table 8). This is an important finding as it shows that the firm with the higher score of creative climate tended to be more innovationactive, and vice versa. Hence, it can be deduced that a favourable working climate is important to facilitate the implementation of innovations. There were several limitations of this research, most of which are concerned with the use of perceptions to derive results (note that these limitations do not deny the significance of the results, they only caution the researchers against excessive statistical confidence in the findings). The research was conducted in a natural environment with no control groups. Hence, the subjects in this study might be liable to various factors, which may confound the results (e.g. varying language skills, cultural differences and individual work experience). We also need to note that, judging from the number of employees, the German operation was much bigger than the Malaysian operation which might also contribute to the differences in the findings. Further, this study compared two specific German MNC subsidiary firms: Germany and Malaysia. The results, therefore, may not be widely generalizable to other firms. However, it should be noted that the German MNC represents a major player in the global manufacturing industry (Fortune Global 500, May 2001). Thus, the results may be applicable to some multinationals operating in the same manufacturing industry.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
105
Conclusion This research was conducted to compare the implementation processes in Germany and Malaysia. Firstly, it indicates that the processes followed are similar in both firms. However, different critical success factors are applicable to both firms. Further, there are notable differences in the type of problems faced by both firms during the implementation processes. Overall, Germany was found to have more technical problems and less behavioural problems. Interestingly, the study showed that lack of knowledge was a common problem faced by both firms. This supports the significance of knowledge management in implementing innovation. Further, Germany was found to have a higher score for creative climate as compared to Malaysia. Finally, the result demonstrates that Germany was more innovation-active than Malaysia as it introduced more types of innovation, interacted with more types of entity in its external environment and introduced more types of training.
Notes 1. calculated by using a 4 point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree. 2. calculated by using a 4 point scale where 0 = Not at All Applicable, 1 = Applicable to Some Extent, 2 = Fairly Applicable, 3 = Applicable to a High Degree. 3. calculated by using a 3 point scale where 0 = Absence of Innovation, 1 = Presence of Minor Innovation, 2 = Presence of Major Innovation. 4. calculated by using a 3 point scale where 1 = The company has interacted with very few external entities, 2 = The company has interacted with few entities, 3 = The company has interacted with fair amount of entities, 4 = The company has interacted with many entities, 5 = The company has interacted with too many entities. 5. calculated by using a 3 point scale where 1 = Very few programmes have been introduced, 2 = Few programme have been introduced, 3 = Fair amount of programmes have been introduced, 4 = Many programmes have been introduced, 5 = Too many programmes have been introduced
References Abbey, A. and Dickson, J. W. (1983) Work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 362–368. Angle, H. L. and Van De Ven, A. H. (1989) Suggestion for managing the innovation journey. In Van De Ven et al. (eds.), Research on The
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
106
Management of the Innovation Process: The Minnesota Studies. Harper and Row, New York. Cooper, J. A. (1998) Multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Management Decision, 36, 8. Daft, R. L. (1982) Bureaucratic versus bon bureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change. In S.B. Bacharach (ed.), Research in The Sociology of Organisation. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. 1, 129–166. Damanpour, F. and Evan, W. M. (1984) Organisational innovation and performance: The problem of organisational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly. Damanpour, F. (1991) Organisational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 555– 590. Drucker, P. (1993) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper Business. Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J. and Waldenstrom-Linblad, I. (1983) Creative organisational climate. Construction and validation of a measuring instrument. Report 2. The Swedish Council for Management and Work Life Issue Faradet, Stockholm. Fortune Global 500, (WWW document). (N.D./ May 2001) URL: http://www.fortune.com Freeman, C. A. (1982) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. 2nd. Edition. Frances Pinter, London. Freeman, C. A. (1973) A study of success and failure in industrial innovation. In B. R. Williams (eds), Science and Technology in Economic Growth. Halsted, New York. 227–245. Kanter, R. (1983) Change Masters. Simon and Schuster. Nystrom, H. (1990) Technological and Market Innovation; Strategies for Product and Company Development. Wiley, Chichester. Rickards, T. (1985) Stimulating Innovation. Frances Pinter, London. Rickards, T. and Moger, S. (1991) Innovation questionnaire used in the EUROSPACE study. Manchester Business School, UK. Rickards, T. (1988) Creativity and innovation: a transatlantic perspective. In T. Rickards and
Volume 11
Number 2 June 2002
S. Moger, Creativity and Innovation Yearbook, Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK. 1, 69–77. Talbot, R. Cooper, C. and Barrows, S. (1992) Creativity and Stress. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1, 183–193. van de Van, A. (1986) Central Issues in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607. Vrakking, W. J. (1990) The innovative organisation. Long Range Planning, 23, 94–102. West, M. A. and Farr, J. L. (eds.) (1990) Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organisational Strategies. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Zain, M. M. (1993) A Field Study of Adoption and Implementation of Innovation by Manufacturing Firms in Malaysia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Manchester University, United Kingdom. Zain, M. M. (1995) Innovation implementation in Malaysian firms: process, problems, critical success factors and working climate. Technovation, 15, 375–385. Zain, M. M. and Rickards, T. (1996) Assessing and comparing the innovativeness and creative climate of firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12, 109–121. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973) Innovations and Organisations. Wiley, New York.
Mohamed Zain is Professor of Innovation and Technology Management at the Graduate School of Management, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. Stanley Richardson is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia and Mohd Nazri Khan Adam is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
