1
LEADING INNOVATION:
UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS
IN THE SINGAPOREAN CONTEXT
ERNEST NG
MICHELLE BLIGH
Claremont Graduate University
School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences
123 East Eighth Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: (909) 607-3715
Fax: (909) 621-8905
Email: ernest.ng@cgu.edu
Email: michelle.bligh@cgu.edu
2
ABSTRACT
This study examines Singaporean managers’ ideas and experiences with innovation in
organizations. We conducted five focus groups with practicing middle managers in various
industries. We found that managers defined innovation primarily in incremental rather than
radical terms, and focused primarily on market-driven process and product innovations.
Facilitators included developing an innovative mindset, rewarding employees appropriately, and
providing employees with freedom to develop new ideas. Barriers were lack of resources and
attention to devote to innovation, cultural emphasis on harmony and avoiding failure, and the
inability of local companies to retain talent. Managers discussed the government as a critical
driver for innovation. Implications for developing innovative leadership in Singapore are
discussed.
KEYWORDS: innovation, creativity, leadership, management, Singapore, cross-cultural
3
“One of the basic challenges managers in a developing country face is to find and identify those parts of their own
tradition, history, and culture that can be used as management building blocks.” – Peter Drucker
The economic progress of Asian countries like Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, and China has
been well documented, but a continual reliance on lower-cost efficient manufacturing as the
main source of competitive advantage cannot continue. This is especially true in small exportdriven economies like Singapore, where economies of scale are more difficult to exploit and
increased global competition continually stress margins. Without the development of sustainable
innovation within the country, these nations will be continually dependent on external sources
for economic growth. Understanding this relationship between innovation, progress and global
competitiveness, small, developed Asian countries like Singapore have made investing in
innovation infrastructure a strategic national priority (Tan & Phang, 2005). Therefore, any
business or government leader attempting to implement innovation-centered strategic initiatives
without a clear understanding of the innovation process and the cultivation of creativity in his or
her cultural context will produce mediocre returns at best.
Innovation is a hot ‘buzzword’ in the global business community these days, but the
meaning and implications to practicing managers and executives is rather nebulous. Eisenberg
(1999) defines innovation as the implementation of creativity to organizational-level products or
processes, and Drucker (1993) best summarized the importance of innovation by labeling it one
of the two basic functions of a business enterprise, along with marketing. While all leaders
understand the necessity of innovation, many still seem unaware of the complexities and
implications of an innovation driven policy in their organizations. Innovation is a discipline, not
serendipity. Innovation must be viewed less as occasional product breakthroughs and reaction to
the current competitive environment, but more as an ongoing pattern of strategic behavior
ingrained in all of an organization’s operations (Milton-Smith, 2003). But as in any discipline,
4
there is not one nor should there be one uniform strategy for execution. Different people, groups,
and organizations have different competencies, and require differentiated instruction to
maximize results. The research is clear, management models are difficult to transfer between
cultures (Black & Porter, 1991; Farh & Cheng, 2000; Gassmann, 2001), and much in the same
way, Mumford and Licuanan (2004) conclude that current leadership models mainly developed
to manage routine settings are also rarely applicable to the ambiguous situations characteristic of
innovation projects. Therefore, this study attempts to lay the groundwork for a culturally based
model of innovation leadership by understanding how current leaders view the innovation
landscape and their specific organizational context.
This study focuses on Singaporean organizations as an important place to examine
innovation for two reasons: the vast differences between Singaporean culture and organizational
characteristics that are believed to facilitate innovation, and Singapore’s ambition to become an
innovation-based society. These reasons create a paradox in need of a solution, and
understanding Singaporean-specific factors related to the advancement and hindrance of
innovation is the first step in developing a viable solution.
A leader’s role in the innovation process
Innovation can be conceptualized as a value chain consisting of three main steps: idea
generation, conversion, and diffusion (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007). The factors that facilitate
this process are very fragile and disruptions in any part of the chain can prevent an idea from
becoming a viable innovation. Much of the leadership work involving innovation either focuses
on idea generation (Mumford, 2000) or diffusion (Rogers, 1995) and not how they work in
sequence. What the research demonstrates is that some of the organizational characteristics vital
to idea generation can negatively influence diffusion, and vice versa, if not for competent
5
leadership. A certain amount of dissent (Nemeth, 1997), disruption (Christensen, 2004), and
disorder (Schein, 1997) are needed for idea generation, while structure, submission, and support
(Rogers, 1995) are needed for the other links in the chain. Competent leadership is the linchpin
that allows the innovation process to flow across the different environments in the value chain
(de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).
Potential cultural obstacles to innovation
Singapore is famous for the strictness and impartiality of its laws, and is considered one
of the “world’s purest meritocracies” (Hampden-Turner, 2003). Characteristic to a meritcentered culture is their preference for predictability and order. Hofstede (1980) confirms these
cultural assumptions by finding Singaporean managers to be high in power distance and
uncertainty avoidance. Failure becomes unacceptable, so risky projects are avoided in favor of
small, measured projects with tangible and sustaining effects on the bottom line. In a cultural
climate such as this, the spirit of innovation within indigenous firms, predictably, remains low
(Groth & Peters, 1999).
This is not helped by Singaporean managers’ over-dependency on multi-national
corporations (MNC) taking all the risk on developing innovations (Goh, 2006). The appetite for
risk is too small for Singaporeans, so they leave all the innovating to the resource-rich MNCs.
And as a result, Singapore produces fewer entrepreneurs per head of population than almost all
advanced economies (Hampden-Turner, 2003).
Potential facilitators of innovation
Nevertheless, Singapore has many of the conditions that make it ripe for innovation.
Javidan (2007) in his research on forward-thinking cultures found Singapore emerging as the
most future oriented culture, meaning there is cultural support for delayed gratification, planning,
6
and investment. In addition, Singapore’s multi-cultural population is a possible facilitator, as
research has found that diversity can increase creativity and innovation (Gassmann, 2001). Miron
et al. (2004) finds that people have the ability to be creative and also be attentive to details and
rules. These characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Basadur (1992) even documented how
structure is used in Japanese organizations to promote creativity, motivation, and teamwork.
Though there are many current barriers to innovation according to the research, not all is
lost. Culture is not static; it is dynamic and malleable (Li & Karakowsky, 2002). Though it might
seem that the current Singaporean culture does not support, stimulate or reward creativity, it is
incorrect to say that the culture squashes or suppresses creativity (Sawyer et al., 2003). Creativity
and innovation do exist. Singapore did not develop into the place it is today without innovation,
but as the question remains, “What must it do to continue developing?” Are there any unique
practices or barriers that exist that need to be resolved for Singapore and other Asian nations
facing similar issues to succeed with innovation? These issues will be explored in this paper.
METHODS
Participants
31 executive MBA students (26 male and 5 female) were recruited from a Singaporean
university. All participants had a minimum of several years of experience managing subordinates
as part of their daily tasks and had substantial responsibilities in their organization. Participants
came from various industries like high-tech manufacturing, health care, chemicals, and finance.
About half of the participants were employed by multinational corporations.
Procedure
Five semi-structured focus groups of six to eight participants were held during the winter
of 2007. Participants were offered extra credit in their class for participation. Each focus group
7
lasted approximately one hour. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and
then asked a series of questions. Participants’ responses and interactions were recorded and
transcribed for analysis.
Analysis
Analysis followed procedures established by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
From the transcripts, two researchers worked independently to code initial key themes. The
transcripts were coded using ATLAS/ti, a code-based theory building software package.
Following Miles and Huberman (1994), coding of the data took place in two primary stages. The
first stage involved a list of codes generated a priori from previous literature, as well as some
initial inductive codes that developed from themes that emerged in the initial stages of data
collection. In the second stage of coding, or pattern-level coding, the network capabilities of
ATLAS/ti were utilized to help group the categories obtained in the first level of coding into
analytic units and higher-order concepts and categories. These analytic units were then used to
examine linkages and interrelationships among concepts. The data analysis process therefore
remained partially inductive throughout these phases of initial and pattern-level coding. Finally,
significant quotes from each of the themes were identified.
RESULTS
Defining Innovation in the Singaporean Context. Figure 1 displays the most frequent
themes that emerged in response to a question that asked participants to define innovation. The
majority of responses were categorized as Process and Cost Related innovations: “Innovation to
us is challenge the status quo, everyday you look at our process or product, the way we do
things, we just want to do it differently in hopes of achieving quality, cost reduction, or anything
that’s better, even safer.” Other frequent themes involved identifying ways to improve a product
8
incrementally to provide better service or cost savings, identifying market driven niches or
opportunities, as well as identifying collaborative partnerships with other companies. Crosscutting these themes, innovation was frequently defined using an external, market-driven focus.
For example, one manager put it this way: “to us innovation is really the ability to identify
product line architecture and invest in it in a way that will give us market competitive advantages
and at the same time able to fit into our customer’s product plans as well. If we invent something
or innovate something that is technologically great but is not something they need or in their
product, they are going into another direction and we are not innovating in that direction, then it
will not be helpful.”
Facilitators of Innovation. Overall, respondents spoke of a number of themes around
what facilitates innovation in their organizations, and what specifically they can do as managers
to play an important role in this process. Specifically, managers spoke of the important role of
the culture of the organization in providing an open, yet critical or questioning forum for
pursuing new ideas. In addition, managers discussed the role of providing some freedom or
flexibility for their employees to develop creative ideas, but recognized that this does not work in
all organizational contexts. They suggested that creating this freedom and relaxing their directive
leadership style could also be interpreted as not providing enough structure, or as not doing their
jobs effectively as managers. Finally, providing appropriate incentives (primarily monetary),
having a structure or procedure in place for evaluating and recognizing innovative ideas, and
allowing employees to work collaboratively in teams also emerged as important themes in our
focus groups.
The Singaporean Government. Another important theme that emerged across our five
focus groups was the role of the government in driving Singaporean innovation. As one manager
9
put it, “I think a lot is driven by the Singapore government…innovations, finding funding, using
IT to do all these. The Singapore government is very good in doing this, especially in public
services, but even for the private sector the same you can apply for R&D funding. During my
time as R&D director, 50% of my salary was paid by the government for 7 years. And certainly
there is a lot of incentive for private organizations to invest in R& D because of all those
government incentives.” Another manager emphasized this point even more strongly: “At this
point of time innovation in Singapore is still very much government-driven in terms of R&D and
innovation culture. Really, in Singapore at this point in time innovation is government.” In
addition, there were comments that suggested this government-supported push for innovation
went beyond financial incentives and agenda-setting to attempts in creating social support and
norms for innovation as well. For example, one manager stated, “I think the government in
Singapore is trying to start this, kind of making people aware that you need to innovate and that’s
having that kind of support socially, the government will really make a lot of effort to help
people to innovate.”
Barriers to Innovation. One of the barriers to innovation that emerged in our focus
groups was the importance of social harmony in the Asian context. According to one manager,
Given the culture in Asia sometimes, more and more, in leading companies you are made
to work in teams, and you have to be careful about how you give credit, especially to
people who came up with the very first idea, or who worked the hardest, you’ve got to
reward them and recognize them in a way that doesn’t make them feel left out, or give
them some negative ramification afterwards, that the rest of the team members don’t
think that this guy is too on the ball, right, he’s spoiling the market, everybody works 8
hours, and he works 12, and he gets ostracized. So there is an artwork to recognizing
them because it’s important to let people know that innovating, taking risks, making
things better, you will be rewarded, but at the same time, doing in such a way that
preserves the team integrity, the healthy dynamics that goes on and encourages it instead
of destabilizing it.
10
Another frequent theme was represented by the emphasis on avoiding failure in the
Singaporean context. Managers discussed the fear of failure, the emphasis on following
regulations and orders and meeting deadlines, as well as what they termed the “Kiasu syndrome”
in Singaporean culture. One manager described it as follows: “We have this so called ‘Kiasu
syndrome’: In Singapore anything that is defective they want to overhaul. They just want to strip
everything apart, just look into every single point, which we are trying to eradicate. This does not
help. This is not what the customer wants. The customer just wants repair, and at a minimum so
that it costs less … So, to me innovation is like trying to change from this mentality into not
doing what the customer doesn’t want.” Another manager described it as being “afraid to lose”
or the fear of being left behind.
Another set of obstacles revolved around the lack of time, energy, and resources
permitted in employees’ daily work schedules and lives to devote to innovation. The lack of time
in most employees schedules “retards innovation because nobody just has the time to really look
what can we do, how can we do things better, because we are really achieving for deadlines, just
to meet deadlines.” Similarly, lack of resources was often cited as a reason for the inability to
innovate, along with the idea that innovation is “easy to say, but it’s really tough to push
innovative ideas through,” especially in light of strict government regulations and standards.
Finally, managers mentioned the inability to retain key talent as an important limitation to
innovation. Figure 3 provides an overview of the most frequently mentioned themes in response
to innovation barriers.
DISCUSSION
Our study makes three significant contributions to the research on innovation and
leadership that are valuable to organizations and governments committed to improving
11
innovation in Asia and one finding specific to Singapore. First, there is a growing desire to
innovate, but in a culture rooted in hierarchies and obedience, a significant cultural gap between
the young and old creates obstacles. The younger generation is more vocal and voices their
opinions freely, only to have the older generation insist on obedience and consistency, which
leaves more progressive managers with the difficulty of balancing contradicting management
strategies. Compromises are made in terms of resources and time to appease both sides, which
only serve to handicap new projects towards failure. Therefore, if innovation is to flourish, there
must be clear alignment between business strategy, senior leadership, and organizational culture
paying special attention to how those things interact with the native cultural values.
Second, while researchers (Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986) have found that
rewards significantly reduce the intrinsic motivation needed for innovation and creativity, our
results demonstrate that without clear rewards, external motivation, and properly defined
channels Asian employees in the region are content to maintain the status quo. Without external
cues and specific directions, it becomes difficult to preserve social harmony and employees are
satisfied at maintaining wu wei1. Consistent with this idea, Niu and Sternberg (2003) found that
once Chinese students were given permission to be creative, their creative products were judged
as creatively no different than U.S. students. When the Chinese students were not specifically
given the instruction to be creative, their products were significantly less creative than U.S.
students. Together, these findings support the need to develop new models of creativity and
innovation management specific for the values and practices of Asia.
Thirdly, the hesitation towards investing in innovation is fueled by misunderstandings of
innovation and has lead to a policy of adaptation and customer-driven improvements rather than
1
Taoist philosophy that has been translated as “creative quietude,” or the art of letting be.
12
innovations driven on developing market leadership through the identification of new spaces and
neglected markets. The current strategy merely aims to maintain the current position in the
market with the hopes that improvements may somehow expand their market. In addition, the
constant focus on cost and process efficiency as primary innovation products only serve to
further reduce employee resources and attention needed to reflect and be creative. Obviously, it
is impossible for indigenous small to medium enterprises to compete head-to-head with MNCs
on a resource level, but unlimited resources does not necessarily guarantee successful
innovations. In fact, Nohria and Gulati (1996) found an inverse U-curve in the relationship
between resources and innovation. As a matter of fact, large MNCs can actually create
significant space for indigenous disruptive innovators to enter markets neglected by the MNCs.
For Singapore specifically, the effective and efficient governance of the nation’s needs
creates a vacuum of initiative on the part of the indigenous private sector. The government has
taken the lead by restructuring the education system, importing foreign talent, and developing the
necessary infrastructure to attract MNCs, which combined with the “Kiasu syndrome,” has
unexpectedly created a psychological chip on the shoulders of the indigenous people. It is not
enough to leave it up to the next generations, who have been schooled differently to have the
creative ideas and innovations. Innovation can occur now, and Singapore’s small market size is
not necessarily a disadvantage. Peter Drucker (1985) states, “those entrepreneurs who start out
with the idea that they’ll make it big- and in a hurry- can be guaranteed failure” (pg. 34). Most
innovators start small, but their recognition of innovation opportunities allow them to grow as
the market they chose to exploit matures.
Concluding Thoughts
13
What the results of our study emphasize is the difficulty of developing significant
innovations within an established business. Small process-based or social innovations can be
accomplished through continuous problem finding, problem solving, and implementation to
create a more efficient and effective workforce, but the innovations that contribute to market
leadership take an organizational climate significantly different from one that sustains the current
business (Christensen, 2002).
In addition, while global R&D networks are flourishing and Singapore has come to house
many companies’ R&D units, MNCs have become very adept at keeping core innovation in their
home countries according to the National Academies study on innovation in global industries
(Macher & Mowery, 2008). So even though MNC R&D facilities are springing up around the
globe, the core innovation, the profit generating innovation, is still situated at home. If a nation
like Singapore is to compete globally, continual dependence on attracting MNC R&D networks
as a means to spur indigenous innovation is unlikely given the tendency of the population for the
security and prestige offered by global MNCs.
Finally, innovation occurs when an idea meets a need. Innovation is not about risk taking;
it is about focusing on opportunities (Drucker, 1985). This pragmatic philosophy is well suited
for the Singaporean cultural landscape. The clear rules, the ease of starting a business, and
enormous government support in Singapore all provide great infrastructure for indigenous
innovators to capitalize on. Now it is about debunking the myth of innovation as a highly risky
endeavor, and reworking it into the disciplined, pragmatic approach that Drucker first wrote
about in the mid-80s.
Limitations, Implications, and Directions for Future Research
14
The results of this study will need to be replicated in a variety of industry and
organizational settings in order to establish the extent to which the initial themes uncovered in
these focus groups generalize to other contexts. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that
focus group data are a reflection of respondents’ perspectives, rather than completely objective
accounts of reality. Further research will be necessary in order to assess whether the perceptions
of innovation managers reported here differ in practice from how employees perceive and
discuss it from their perspectives. Finally, the potential for reactivity, social desirability and
impression management are all important limitations of qualitative research of this nature. In
order to overcome these limitations, every effort was made to ensure informants of
confidentiality, and respondents reported a high level of comfort in discussing these issues with
their peers from different companies and industries.
While further research is necessary to explore innovative leadership in a variety of
industry and organizational settings in Singapore, this study takes an important first step toward
identifying how effective managers may facilitate innovation. In turn, this information can be
used to identify areas of training and education in order to foster innovative cultures, rewards,
collaborative partnerships, and teamwork. Employees who are educated about the types of
leadership behaviors and resources that are most effective in facilitating innovation can make an
important difference in helping to foster more innovative cultures and processes. In addition,
starting a dialog with future business leaders about how they can begin to support their
subordinates, and learn how their actions might be affecting their employees’ production of
innovative ideas, may well better inform managers, business executives, and policy makers about
how to improve their business performance and make Singapore more competitive in the global
marketplace.
15
This study is somewhat unique in its emphasis on uncovering managers’ own
interpretations and concerns of innovation in the Singaporean context. Managers at very different
stages of their careers, across different industries and contexts were given the opportunity to
reflect on their needs for leadership support to help drive innovation, and provide suggestions
and input into how innovation could be facilitated or hindered. Existing studies have not
examined the innovation process at this level of detail in the Singaporean context, and future
research could utilize survey methodologies to examine the extent to which these themes
resonate differently in various organizations and contexts. In addition, capturing employee
perspectives would provide an important supplement to the current research.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T.M., Hennessey, B.A., & Grossman, B.S. 1986. Social influences on creativity: The
effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 1423.
Basadur, M. 1992. Managing creativity: A Japanese model. Academy of Management
Executive, 6: 29-40.
Black, J.S., & Porter, L.W. 1991. Managerial behaviors and job performance: A successful
manager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of International
Business Studies, 22: 99-113.
Christensen, C. 2002. The rules of innovation. Technology Review, 105(5): 33-38.
de Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D.N. 2007. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 10: 41-64.
Drucker, P.F 1993. Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. NewYork: HarperCollins.
Drucker, P.F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: HaperCollins.
Eisenberg, J. 1999. How Individualism-Collectivism moderates the effects of rewards on
creativity and innovation: A comparative review of practices in Japan and the US.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 8: 251-261.
16
Farh, J., & Cheng, B. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese
organizations. In J.T. Li, A.S. Tsui, and E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and
organizations in the Chinese context: 84-130. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Gassmann, O. 2001. Multicultural teams: Increasing creativity and innovation by diversity.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 10: 88-95.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goh, A.L.S. 2006. Evolution of industrial policy-making in support of innovation: The case of
Singapore. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 3: 110-125.
Groth, J.C., & Peters, J. 1999. What blocks creativity? A managerial perspective. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 8: 179-187.
Hampden-Turner, C.M. 2003. Culture and management in Singapore. In M. Warner (Eds.),
Culture and management in Asia: 171-186. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Hansen, M.T., & Birkinshaw, J. 2007. The innovation value chain. Harvard Business Review,
85(6): 121-130.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Javidan, M. (2007, July). Forward-thinking cultures. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8): 20.
Li, J. & Karakowsky, L. 2002. Cultural malleability in an east Asian context: An illustration of
the relationship between government policy, national culture, and firm behavior.
Administration & Society, 34: 176-201.
Macher, J.T. & Mowery, D.C. 2008. Innovation in global industries: U.S. firms competing in
the new world. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Milton-Smith, J. 2003. Cultivating innovative, high-technology enterprises: Insights from the
Asian experience. Paper presented at the XX IASP World Conference on Science &
Technology Parks, Lisboa, Portugal.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2004. Do personal characteristics and cultural values that
promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25: 175-1999.
17
Mumford, M.D. 2000. Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human
Resource Management Review, 10: 313-351.
Mumford, M.D., & Licuanan, B. 2004. Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and
directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 163-171.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R.J. 2003. Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case
of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40: 103-115.
Nemeth, C.J. 1997. Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review,
40: 59-74.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? The Academy of
Management Journal, 39: 1245-1264.
Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Sawyer, R.K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R.J., Feldman, D.H., Nakamura, J., &
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2003. Creativity and development. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Schein, E.H. 1997. Strategic pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tan, K.S., & Phang, S.Y. (2005, April). From efficiency-driven to innovation-driven economic
growth: Perspectives from Singapore. World Bank Policy Research Working Papers.
18
FIGURE 1.
Most Frequently Cited Definitions of Innovation
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Process and cost
Service
New technology
utilization
Market based
solutions
Collaborative
partnerships
Sample Quotations for Innovation Definitions
Code
Process and Cost
(n = 12)
Service (n = 6)
New Technology
Utilization (n = 4)
Market Based
Solutions (n = 2)
Partnerships (n = 2)
Sample Quotation
“Innovation to us is challenge the status quo, everyday you look at our
process or product, the way we do things, we just want to do it differently
in hopes of achieving quality, cost reduction, or anything that’s better, even
safer”
“We produce products for others. We don’t have our own products. So it is
basically not really innovation, it’s not really a new product. But it’s a
really new way, new ways to the things which can add value to the product,
which can add value to the cost and which can add value to the customer.”
“For us innovation means migrating the product line to a newer
technology”
“Innovation here is to identify what is in the market and then be able to
think about a product that we may be able to do”
“So it is something that, I mean we have to, it is a collaborative approach,
we often have to share our product roadmaps, at least at a higher level with
some of our key customers, and they do likewise, so that we can see how
we can work together, partner with them to win in the marketplace for
them, and also for us eventually. So I think in a way that is how we look at
innovation.”
19
FIGURE 2
Most Frequently Cited Facilitators of Innovation
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Culture/Innovation
Mindset
Rewards
Freedom
Disciplined
process
Teams
Sample Quotations for Innovation Facilitators
Code
Culture/Innovation
Mindset (n = 16)
Rewards (n = 8)
Freedom (n = 8)
Disciplined process
(n = 4)
Teams (n = 2)
Sample Quotation
“I think sometimes it also depends on the company’s culture, I have two jobs so, the
first job I had, it goes without saying, it’s very easy to get ideas across and because you
feel quite comfortable talking about things and bringing up new things, and if you just
say la, this is the job, well ok, it’s done, it will be carry out in some way, which
everyway it doesn’t matter, but in some companies they are just not tune to that, so if
there is no culture of critical thinking in the company, no matter how much room you
give, it won’t work, because the subordinates will feel lost about ‘oh how should I
execute the work with so little instruction.’
“If the idea is good, we give them certain amounts, there’s a bigger monetary reward.”
“I think what I can do as a manager to improve innovation is stop being so directive,
do not give step by step instructions. Just give them my end objective and see what
creative ideas they come up with. And based on my experience, I can evaluate and
adopt the best thing.”
“The three of us actually sit inside the conference room to review each and every idea.
When an idea is rejected, we give them an explanation why it is not accepted and give
some kind of recommendation of where they should work on, and they revise it and
resubmit. We actually have an all-employee meeting and for that month the top three
ideas will get selected, we ask them to come out, we talk about what they have, what
idea was contributed, how does it benefit the company, give out the monetary reward
in cash, shake their hands and thank them. We actually reply to them why is it, if it is
accepted, there will be a resource assigned so they work on it. If it is rejected we
actually tell them why it is rejected, it could be a repeated idea, or something that is
already implemented, so they know what happened to their idea.”
“So it is something that, I mean we have to, it is a collaborative approach, we often
have to share our product roadmaps, at least at a higher level with some of our key
customers, and they do likewise, so that we can see how we can work together, partner
with them to win in the marketplace for them, and also for us eventually. So I think in
a way that is how we look at innovation.”
20
FIGURE 3
Most Frequently Cited Barriers to Innovation
12
10
8
6
4
2
an
d
m
lh
ia
oc
/s
re
ltu
cu
n
ia
As
Fe
ar
of
Fa
ilu
re
ar
te
At
&
e
m
Ti
of
ck
La
Ta
G
le
ov
nt
er
R
nm
et
en
en
tio
tR
n
es
tri
ct
io
ns
/R
eg
ul
at
io
ns
on
io
nt
rc
ou
es
R
of
ck
La
Ki
as
u
y
n
es
0
Sample Quotations for Innovation Barriers
Code
Lack of
Resources (n =
10)
Lack of Time &
Attention (n = 8)
Asian Culture/
Social Harmony
(n = 6)
Fear of Failure/
Kiasu (n = 6)
Talent Retention
(n = 6)
Government
Regulations/
Restrictions (n =
2)
Sample Quotation
“The other constraint that I see is that the organization is always pushing for the
productivity improvement so what happen is resources is always limited, today you have
4 engineers they are trying to cut down one, and the next day you have 3 then 2 then 1.”
“People actually spend more time at work, and they have less time to reflect, they are just
trying to meet deadlines.”
“There is a mentality that ‘I just have what I have. I live enough. I feed my family
enough and everything, the rest is that I have to devote my time to religion and family. I
don’t want to have the responsibility to innovate… If I have that, I can’t do this.’”
“I actually don’t think the environment here is very encouraging for innovation because,
of the fact that the cost of failure is high in our society, when there is a failure, the cost of
it is very high, so people are more focused on accomplishing the task.”
“They have a so called pick up scheme to encourage researchers from government
research institute to go work in the local companies for two years, the salary is paid by
the government. But the local companies to take advantage of those schemes hire one or
two to work for two years on a certain project, but after that they are not usually able to
retain scientists to continue to work for the company as permanent staff. Those people
after two years will go back and join some bigger company.”
“In Singapore I think there are too many restrictions, like if you say you are in the food
business, first of all you must meet certain regulations before you can even set up a
kitchen, so all these are very restricting.”