an empirical founded model of employee driven innovation in firms
Peter Nielsen
Aalborg University

Increasing learning challenges confronting Human Resource Management
• Globalization and political priorities
• Technological developments
• Dynamic and innovative capabilities
• HRM adapting learning and knowledge management
• Building an empirical founded model

Has the firm introduced new products/services during (period), when excluding minor improvements of existing products?
Yes, one
Yes, more than one
No
1993 – 1995* 1998 – 2000* 2003 - 2005
8,4
51,7
47,4
45,4
52,4
45,3
43,5
2007 – 2009
14,5
48,3
33,9
Don’t know 0,4 2,2 2,8 3,3
How is the economic return on the firm’s innovation efforts during (period) evaluated?
Large return
Some return
Poor return
No return
Don’t know
2003 - 2005
26,3
57,6
10,2
1,6
4,3
2007 – 2009
10,2
55,1
22,0
4,7
8,2

• Summing up the firm score on:
– Product or service innovation in the period
– Management evaluating large or some economic return
• Composite indexes of innovative performance
2003 – 2005 2007 – 2009
Innovation + return
No innovation + return
52,2
47,8
50,5
49,5
• Almost two third of the firms scoring innovation + economic return in 2007 – 2009 also score innovation + economic return in 2003 – 2005:
What characterizes these firms ?

• Two forms of knowledge are important for innovations:
– Scientific and professional agreed methods producing formalized and codified knowledge (STI)
– Experimenting with work related ideas and handling of complex problem solving in network collaboration (DUI)
 STI – Science-Technology-Innovation:
– Research and development (R&D), codified and documented knowledge development (ICT), by means of scientific methods and highly skilled employees
 DUI – Doing-Using-Interacting:
– Relational learning in organizations, consious experience based and problem oriented use of competence development and network relations to customers and suppliers
• Combining STI + DUI double the chances of product or service innovation

• Cross disciplinary work groups
• Integration of functions
• Delegation of responsibility
• Autonomous work groups
• Quality circles/groups
• Systems for collecting employee proposals
• Education sequences tailored to firm’s needs
• Long-term educational planning
• Cooperation with Danish costumers (on product/service development)*
• Cooperation with foreign costumers (on product/service development)*
• Cooperation with Danish subcontractors (on product/service development)*
• Cooperation with foreign subcontractors (on product/service development)*
• Cooperation with universities, knowledge institutions etc. (on product/service development)*
* The 2005 measurement of cooperation was not specified on product/service development which is indicated by the brackets

Index dimensions are weighted by share of employees included or after importance of the principle, according to management of the firm
High developed
Medium developed
Low developed
Learning rel. 2005 (LO5) Learning rel. 2009 (LO9)
31,6 28,2
32,4
36,0
37,6
34,3

Decisive or high importance of relational learning for continuous development of employee’s competence in firms with high level of organizational learning 2005 and
2009
Sparring with management etc.
Planned job rotation
Team organization
Cooperation and network
LO high 2005 (diff. LO low) LO high 2009 (diff. LO low)
68,5 (35,0) 75,3 (39,2)
17,3 (9,6)
66,7 (42,8)
23,5 (17,4)
61,7 (46,5)
64,9 (48,7) 67,3 (51,6)
More than 50% of employees in vocational groups participated in formal training and qualification in 2003-2005 and 2007 - 2009 with high level of organizational learning
2005 and 2009
High educated
Skilled employees
Unskilled employees
LO high 2005 (diff. LO low) LO high 2009 (diff. LO low)
48,3 (30,1) 43,2 (26,4)
44,8 (23,1)
39,1 (25,6)
38,3 (17,5)
36,4 (20,6)

Logistic regression on innovation performance of learning organization (LO) level
2005 and 2009, firm sector and size.
(baseline: Low developed LO; Other services; 1 – 49 employees)
2005 2009
High developed LO (2005)
Medium developed LO (2005)
Manufacturing
Construction
Trade & transport
Finance & Information
50 – 99 employees
100+ employees
Model 1**
6.416 *
2.558 *
0.559
0.174 *
0.629
1.526
1.288
2.228 *
Model 2***
4.437 *
2.085 *
0.731
0.140 *
0.662
1.388
1.300
2.353 *
Model 1**
5.007 *
2.707 *
0.705
0.101 *
0.663
0.845
1.128
2.485 *
Nagelkerke R 0.277 0.239
0.256
* Significant at 0.00 level
** Model 1 includes organizational principles, educational planning and external cooperation
*** Model 2 excludes the external cooperation relations
Model 2***
4.202 *
1.655 *
0.852
0.108 *
0.773
0.869
1.119
2.655 *
0.241

At which phase in the change process are the employee representative or/and the employees concerned involved?
1998 – 2000* 2007 – 2009
Idea phase
Decision phase
Implementation phase
No involvement
Don’t know
21,1
21,3
41,9
15,7
-
34,5
24,7
32,5
4,2
4,2
Attitudes of employees
Qualifications of employ.
Attitudes of middle manag.
Qualifications of middle m.
Cooperation committee
Work environment comm.
Shop stewards
2000
Furthered
32,7
Hampered
14,7
26,7
43,8
35,6
21,6
-
11,3
14,8
17,8
2,0
-
18,8 6,1
Furthered
2010
39,3
38,0
55,2
49,2
21,6
23,1
17,9
Hampered
6,0
5,7
5,0
6,2
3,5
2,5
3,7

Horizontal and vertical challenges
Innovation
Strategy
Learning
Relations
Employee
Participation
Employment
Relations
Innovation
Performance
Integrative model of managing learning for innovation