Innovation in the Swedish service sector. - DiVA [PDF]

Innovation in the Swedish service sector. - An e-survey analysis.

Author(s): Carla Poroca de Noronha

Tutor: Sarah Philipsson

Marketing, Master Programme Examiner: Sarah Philipson Magdalena Malara Marketing, Master Programme

Subject: Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level

“Just as energy is the basis of life and ideas the source of innovation, so is innovation the vital spark of all human change, improvement and progress” Theodore Levitt

ABSTRACT Services have become the dominant sector in the economies of most industrialized countries and consequently the interest for service innovation and service companies also increased, including in Sweden. The purpose of this study is therefore, to understand the different types and sources of innovation, actors involved, company aspects and obstacles faced in different parts of the service sector. A quantitative method was applied and thus, an e-survey was sent to several service companies in Sweden. The study counts with 868 valid respondents and from the data collected a statistical analysis was made (through the computer software SPSS). In the study it was conclude that the reality of Swedish service companies is, at some extent in accordance with the theories of Sources of Innovation, Types of Innovation, Innovation Protection and Barriers of Innovation. However, some distinctions were also detected and furthers explained. Keywords: service sector, innovation, Sweden

RESUMO Nas últimas décadas o setor de serviços se tornou dominante na economia da maioria dos países industrializados e consequentemente o interesse pela inovação de serviços e empresas de serviços também aumentou, inclusive na Suécia. Portanto, o objetivo deste estudo é entender os diferentes tipos e fontes de inovação, os atores envolvidos, os aspectos da empresa e obstáculos enfrentados em diferentes partes do setor de serviços. Uma pesquisa quantitativa foi aplicada e um questionário eletrônico foi enviado para diversal empresas de serviços na Suécia. O estudo conta com 868 participantes válidos e a partir dos dados coletados uma análise estatística foi realizada (através do software SPSS). No estudo pôde-se constatar que a realidade das empresas de serviço suecas estão, até certo ponto, de acordo com as teorias de fontes de inovação, tipos de inovação, proteção de inovação e obstáculos à inovação. No entanto, algumas diferenças foram detectados e explicadas. Palavras-chaves: setor de serviços, inovação, Suécia

SAMMANFATTNING Tjänster har blivit den dominerande sektorn i de flesta industrialiserade länders ekonomi och därmed har intresset för tjänsteinnovation och serviceföretag ökat, även i Sverige. Syftet med denna studie är därför att få en ökad förståelse för de olika typer och källor av innovation, aktörerna, företagsaspekter och de innovationshinder som servicesektorn möter. En kvantitativ metod har tillämpats och således skickades en e-enkät ut till flera tjänsteföretag i Sverige. Studien har 868 giltiga respondenter och med den data som samlats in gjordes en statistisk analys (med hjälp av dataprogrammet SPSS). Studien visade att verkligheten i Sveriges servicesektor i viss utsträckning är i enlighet med de teorier som finns rörandes innovationskällor, typer av innovationer, innovationsskydd och innovationsbarriärer. Men vissa skillnader upptäcktes också och kommer att förklaras ytterligare. Nyckelord: tjänstesektorn, innovation, Sverige

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The process of writing this thesis was laborious and stressful, much time and effort were devoted to achieve the very finest results. However, everything we accomplished would not have been made possible without the support of a number of people, who guided, helped and encouraged us during the whole process. Firstly, we would like to thank and express our appreciation to all the companies that took their time and contributed to this study. We would also want to extend our appreciation to Adressleverantören that so kindly provided the list with the companies‘ addresses for this study, their help was essential. We would like to express our gratitude and thanks to our tutor and examiner Dr Sarah Philipson, Assistant professor and director of the Master program in Marketing at Linnaeus University, for her feedback, advices and guidance. Sarah, thank you very much! We would also like to thank our classmates for all the constructive criticism. It really helped us to improve this paper. Thank you guys! An enormous thank you to Alexis Delatolas, who helped us with the statistical analysis (among many other things). Many codes, values and variables later… Thank you! Your patience and expertise were of valuable help. Last, but not least, we would like to thank our family, boyfriends and friends for their support not only during these weeks of hard work and devotion, but for a lifetime of support. We just got this far because of you. Thank you for all the love, incentive and faith on us! It was only possible to get where we are because you are part of our lives.

To all of you, our sincere and grateful thanks!

Växjö, 31st of May, 2011.

Carla Poroca de Noronha [email protected]

Magdalena Malara 070 616 60 97 [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Discussion .......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 6 2.1 Service Innovation ............................................................................................................ 6 2.1.1 Types of innovation ................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Nature of innovation.................................................................................................. 9 2.1.3 How to measure Innovation .................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Sources of Innovation.............................................................................................. 12 2.1.5 Innovation Barriers .................................................................................................. 14 2.1.6 Innovation Protection .............................................................................................. 15 2.2 State-of-the-art................................................................................................................ 16 2.3 Research Question .......................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3 - Methodology ......................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Research design .............................................................................................................. 18 3.1.1 Quantitative research ............................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Electronic survey ..................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Population and Sample ................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Operationalization .......................................................................................................... 22 3.4 Validity ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.5 Reliability ....................................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 4 - Empirical Data....................................................................................................... 28 Question 01........................................................................................................................... 28 Question 02........................................................................................................................... 28 Question 03........................................................................................................................... 29 Question 04........................................................................................................................... 29 Question 05........................................................................................................................... 30 Question 06........................................................................................................................... 31 Question 07........................................................................................................................... 32 Question 08........................................................................................................................... 32 Question 09........................................................................................................................... 35 Question 10........................................................................................................................... 35

Question 11........................................................................................................................... 36 Question 12........................................................................................................................... 42 Question 13........................................................................................................................... 43 Question 14........................................................................................................................... 45 Question 15........................................................................................................................... 47 Question 16........................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 5 – Analysis ................................................................................................................ 50 Chapter 6 – Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 56 Chapter 7 – Reflections ............................................................................................................ 57 Chapter 8 – Further Research ................................................................................................... 58 References ................................................................................................................................ 59 Books & Articles .................................................................................................................. 59 Electronic Sources ................................................................................................................ 72 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix I – Classification of enterprises according to GICS, adapted to this study. ........ 76 Appendix II – Questionnaire in Swedish ............................................................................. 79 Appendix III – Questionnaire in English ............................................................................. 83 Appendix IV – Invitation email in Swedish ......................................................................... 87 Appendix V – Invitation email in English............................................................................ 88 Appendix VI – Comments left by companies ...................................................................... 89 Appendix VII – Correlation table from ordinal variables .................................................... 98

TABLE OF CHARTS Chart 1 - Employment rates across OECD countries –retrieved from OECD (2005a, p.5) ....... 2 Chart 2 - Question 01 ............................................................................................................... 28 Chart 3 - Question 02 ............................................................................................................... 28 Chart 4 - Question 03 ............................................................................................................... 29 Chart 5 - Question 04 ............................................................................................................... 29 Chart 6 - Question 05 ............................................................................................................... 30 Chart 7 - Question 06 ............................................................................................................... 31 Chart 8 - Question 06a ............................................................................................................. 31 Chart 9 - Question 06b ............................................................................................................. 31 Chart 10 - Question 07 ............................................................................................................. 32 Chart 11 - Question 08a ........................................................................................................... 32 Chart 12 - Question 08b ........................................................................................................... 33 Chart 13 - Question 08c ........................................................................................................... 33 Chart 14 - Question 08d ........................................................................................................... 34 Chart 15 - Question 08e ........................................................................................................... 34 Chart 16 - Question 08f ............................................................................................................ 34 Chart 17 - Question 08g ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 18 - Question 09 ............................................................................................................. 35 Chart 19 - Question 10 ............................................................................................................. 35 Chart 20 - Question 11a ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 21 - Question 11b ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 22 - Question 11c ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 23 - Question 11d ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 24 - Question 11e ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 25 - Question 11f ............................................................................................................ 35 Chart 26 - Question 11g ........................................................................................................... 35 Chart 27 - Question 11h ........................................................................................................... 40 Chart 28 - Question 11i ............................................................................................................ 40 Chart 29 - Question 11j ............................................................................................................ 41 Chart 30 - Question 11k ........................................................................................................... 41 Chart 31 - Question 12a ........................................................................................................... 42 Chart 32 - Question 12b ........................................................................................................... 42 Chart 33 - Question 12c ........................................................................................................... 42

Chart 34 - Question 12d ........................................................................................................... 43 Chart 35 - Question 13a ........................................................................................................... 43 Chart 36 - Question 13b ........................................................................................................... 44 Chart 37 - Question 13c ........................................................................................................... 44 Chart 38 - Question 13d ........................................................................................................... 44 Chart 39 - Question 14a ........................................................................................................... 45 Chart 40 - Question 14b ........................................................................................................... 45 Chart 41 - Question 14c ........................................................................................................... 46 Chart 42 - Question 14d ........................................................................................................... 46 Chart 43 - Question 15a ........................................................................................................... 47 Chart 44 - Question 15b ........................................................................................................... 47 Chart 45 - Question 15c ........................................................................................................... 47 Chart 46 - Question 15d ........................................................................................................... 48 Chart 47 - Question 15e ........................................................................................................... 48 Chart 48 - Question 15f ............................................................................................................ 48 Chart 49 - Question 16 ............................................................................................................. 49 Chart 50 - Correlation between questions 6 & 8 ...................................................................... 52 Chart 51 - Sources of Innovation ............................................................................................. 53 Chart 52 - Barriers of Innovation ............................................................................................. 55

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 - Reasons for exclusion of respondents. ...................................................................... 21 Table 2 - Questionnaire Operationalization schema ................................................................ 25 Table 3 - Question 01 ............................................................................................................... 28 Table 4 - Question 02 ............................................................................................................... 28 Table 5 - Question 03 ............................................................................................................... 29 Table 6 - Question 04 ............................................................................................................... 29 Table 7 - Question 05 ............................................................................................................... 30 Table 8 - Question 06 ............................................................................................................... 31 Table 9 - Question 06a ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 10 - Question 06b ........................................................................................................... 31 Table 11 - Question 07 ............................................................................................................. 32 Table 12 - Question 08a ........................................................................................................... 32 Table 13 - Question 08b ........................................................................................................... 33 Table 14 - Question 08c ........................................................................................................... 33 Table 15 - Question 08d ........................................................................................................... 34 Table 16 - Question 08e ........................................................................................................... 34 Table 17 - Question 08f ............................................................................................................ 34 Table 18 - Question 08g ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 19 - Question 09 ............................................................................................................. 35 Table 20 - Question 10 ............................................................................................................. 35 Table 21 - Question 11a ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 22 - Question 11b ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 23 - Question 11c ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 24 - Question 11d ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 25 - Question 11e ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 26 - Question 11f ............................................................................................................ 35 Table 27 - Question 11g ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 28 - Question 11h ........................................................................................................... 40 Table 29 - Question 11i ............................................................................................................ 40 Table 30 - Question 11j ............................................................................................................ 41 Table 31 - Question 11k ........................................................................................................... 41 Table 32 - Question 12a ........................................................................................................... 42 Table 33 - Question 12b ........................................................................................................... 42

Table 34 - Question 12c ........................................................................................................... 42 Table 35 - Question 12d ........................................................................................................... 43 Table 36 - Question 13a ........................................................................................................... 43 Table 37 - Question 13b ........................................................................................................... 44 Table 38 - Question 13c ........................................................................................................... 44 Table 39 - Question 13d ........................................................................................................... 44 Table 40 - Question 14a ........................................................................................................... 45 Table 41 - Question 14b ........................................................................................................... 45 Table 42 - Question 14c ........................................................................................................... 46 Table 43 - Question 14d ........................................................................................................... 46 Table 44 - Question 15a ........................................................................................................... 47 Table 45 - Question 15b ........................................................................................................... 47 Table 46 - Question 15c ........................................................................................................... 47 Table 47 - Question 15d ........................................................................................................... 48 Table 48 - Question 15e ........................................................................................................... 48 Table 49 - Question 15f ............................................................................................................ 48 Table 50- Correlations between questions 3 & 8 ..................................................................... 50 Table 51- Answers of strongly correlated variables from questions 3 & 8 .............................. 51 Table 52- Answers of weakly correlated variables from questions 3 & 8 ............................... 51 Table 53- Percentages and answers regarding Sources of Innovation ..................................... 54 Table 54- Incremental & Radical Product Innovation ............................................................. 54 Table 55- Incremental & Radical Processes Innovation .......................................................... 54 Table 56- Incremental & Radical Organizational Methods ..................................................... 55 Table 57- Summary of Conclusions ......................................................................................... 57

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Introduction

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION This thesis focuses on innovation process within the service sector and the following chapter presents the background of the thesis’ subject to create a solid basis for the reader. Thus, the reader will be able to assimilate the forthcoming theories and empirical data and create an understanding for the subject.

1.1 B AC KGROUND

In the three-sector hypothesis developed by Clark & Fourastie1 (after Sonis et al.), the economy is divided in three sectors, the primary - agriculture, fishing, and extraction - the secondary – manufacturing – and the tertiary – service. Griliche (1992) described service as everything except manufacturing, agriculture, construction and mining that occurs when the user (consumer) or the user‘s goods are changed by the one that provide the service. The importance of services to the global economy has steadily grown in recent decades (Schettkat & Yocarini, 2003), while the importance of goods has somewhat declined (Tseng et al., 2008; Berry et al., 2006). The service sector comprises approximately 70 per cent of the employment in the member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Berry et al., 2006). In major economies, such as USA, UK and France the average figure is already over 70 per cent (Love & Mansury, 2007). Today most economies actually depend for the larger part of their gross domestic product (GNP) on service (Gadrey et al. 1995). Services have become the dominant sector in the economies of most industrialized countries and Sweden is not different. For every new established company within the industrial sector, five new companies are launched in the service sector (Ekonomifakta, 2010). This has been the tendency since they started to measure it in 1993 (Ibid, 2010). During the 2000s the growth of the turnover for different branches in the Swedish service sector has been mostly positive. Since 2005 it has increased by 6-9 per cent every year (Statistiska centralbyrån, 2011). The employment in the services sector, public sector included, was nearly 74 percent of the total employment in 2009 (Almega, 2011). 3.3 million people work in the service sector (Ibid, 2011) and three of four Swedish people work with service related activities (Milton, 2010) (see chart 01).

1

see Clark‘s three edition book ‗Conditions of Economic Progress‘, 1940, 1951, 1957 and Fourastie, 1949

1|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Introduction

Chart 1 - Employment rates across OECD countries –retrieved from OECD (2005a, p.5)

Chart 01 - Employment rates across OECD countries –retrieved from OECD (2005a, p.5)

Among strategies pursued by service companies, the quest for innovation is frequently exploited. For the past decades innovation has been recognized by numerous nations and intra-national organizations as the main factor of economic wealth and growth (Galanakis, 2006). According to the EU Research Commissioner Maire Geoghegan-Quinn (di.se, 2011), innovation is as essential for a successful and modern economy, as water is for life. Pereira & Sequeira (2008) even say that in today‘s competitive world, innovation is the key to survival and growth of firms no matter in what industry they operate in. Innovation in the service sector has been described as the ―next big thing‖ in industry, and leading companies; innovation consultants; and academic researchers are shifting their focus from products to services as the next hot area (Jana, 2007). To ensure survival, firms need to make innovations that reinvent their business and market (Chen, 2011; Galanakis, 2006). This is important when organizations want to create long lasting relationships, gain profit and revenues, open up better job opportunities and increase market shares (Ahmed & Abdalla, 1999). According to Svensson (2011), it is essential to continue to develop new products that raise productivity and competitiveness to meet future prospective. Every year the Swedish government and those of other western countries spend billions of dollars on supporting their businesses by encouraging innovation and fast growing small enterprises. New support operations appear to overlook if programs have been successful and reached expected results (Ibid, 2011). 2|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Introduction

According to Hipp & Grupp (2005) efforts have increasingly been made during the past years to push the service sector and its particularities regarding innovation to the focus of economic policy studies. The roles of know-how, technology and innovation in the perspective of economic development as well as technological change are of increasing interest. Companies that operate in the service sector contribute considerably to macroeconomic and social development (Ibid, 2005). Maud Olofsson (Näringsdepartementet, 2011) states that an increasing part of Sweden‘s economy is made up of services and in the future most new jobs will be developed through service innovation. The current policies, rules, and structures in Sweden are mostly designed to promote and regulate the manufacturing sector, not giving the service-based innovations the same opportunities (Martin & Modig, 2010). However, in the last years the interest for service innovation and service companies has increased in Sweden (Edvinsson, 2011). It is politically important to invest in what is productive and generates money for the welfare. Hence, Sweden needs more innovations to become internationally competitive (Edvinsson, 2011). Recently the government has indeed been improving the conditions for innovations in the service industry (Näringsdepartementet, 2011). The Swedish government believes that by supporting the development of new innovations, the knowledge about how to create service innovations are created will certainly increase; then it will be possible for the government, together with other actors, to update existing structures and processes (Ibid, 2011). The significance and relevance for the Swedish economy of innovation in the service sector is clear and it is of utmost importance to increase the knowledge and understanding of this field and consequently for the country to gain competitiveness.

1.2 P ROBLEM D I SCUSSION

Because of the increasing relevance of the service sector more insights in the mechanism of the innovation process are needed (Arvanitis, 2008). However, this sector has not received the same focus on innovation research as the manufactory sector (Cainelli et al., 2006; Camacho & Rodriguez, 2008; Abreu et al., 2010; Castro et al., 2011). Easingwood (1986, p. 265, after Martin & Horne, 1995) says ―much has been said about new product development generally, but very little has been said about development in service 3|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Introduction

organizations particularly‖. Both Hjalager (2006) and Rhind (after Royalsociety.org, 2009) discuss that little research has been done on service innovation and how it is developing, compared to manufacturing innovation. Economic theories of innovation have had a propensity to assume that innovation in services consists of little more than adopting innovations already developed by the manufacturing sector (Gadrey et al. 1995; Love & Mansury, 2008). According to Vence & Trigo (2009) the first attempts to better understand innovation in services had a manufacturing perspective on innovation, an approach called the assimilation perspective. This perspective includes services into current innovation research and therefore perceives service innovation in the same way as manufacturing innovation. Researchers tend to study service innovation in a manner similar to the manufacturing industry (Coombs & Miles, 2000; Howells, 2000; Miles, 2001). Barras (1986) developed a model called the reverse product cycle (RPC), where he says that the service innovation follows an opposite path of manufacturing. Even though this approach has its relevant points, it is much criticized in literature because of its technological perspective and because it considers that it fits every situation (one size fit all) (Vence & Trigo, 2009). According to Arvanitis (2008), the assumption that service innovation has the same characteristics as innovation in manufacturing, is wrong because service has its particularities. Common aspects regarding features of services are summed up in the literature as: close interaction between production and consumption (co-terminality); intangible content; important role played by human resources; critical role played by organizational factors for firms‘ performance (Sirilli & Evangelista, 1998; Sundbo & Gallouj, 2000; Sarkar & Carvalho, 2005; Alam, 2006; Pires et al., 2008). These distinctive characteristics of the tertiary innovation, together with rapid technological (and non-technological) change, make measuring innovation a complex issue (Camacho & Rodriguez, 2008). According to Hipp & Grupp (2005), the characteristics of innovation activities and organization in the service sector as well as implementation differ significantly from those in the industrial sector. This view is in complete accordance with Arvanitis (2008). Hence, it is important to verify if the manufacturing approach used during decades can be applied to services, or if service innovation is indeed so peculiar that a new approach is needed.

4|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Introduction

In this sense, Coombs and Miles (2000) offer three different approaches for the study of service innovation: the demarcation approach, the assimilation approach and the synthesis approach (Love & Mansury, 2007; Castro et al., 2011). The demarcation approach argues that service innovation is distinctively different from manufacturing innovation (Arvanitis, 2008; Hipp & Grupp, 2005).This approach is based on the intangible and interactive nature of services and no comparison between manufacturing and services is possible. However, Drejer (2004) suggests that those features are not unique to service and can be applied to manufacturing. Following this thought Castro et al. (2011) consider a convergence between manufacturing and service organizations, agreeing that the peculiarities ascribed to services may not be so unique after all. The assimilation approach, as previously described, is a technology-focused view of innovation and may be too narrow for understanding the dynamics of services, as well as of manufacturing (Drejer, 2004). Many authors argue that technological and non-technological innovations are important for both service and manufacturing and that innovation may arise in numerous ways such as product, process, technological, organizational or service (Castro et al. 2011). Therefore an approach, where an extended concept of service, including the development of a new service idea or concept, was necessary (Ibid, 2011). The third approach is named synthesis approach, and it attempts to cover the missing aspects of both the demarcation and assimilation approaches. It offers a technological point of view and accounts for the product, process and organization innovations as well (Coombs & Miles, 2000). According to Tether (2005, p. 156) the ultimate aim of the synthesis approach is “to create both theoretical and empirical approaches to innovation that are able to embrace all economic activities, including manufacturing and services, without favouring some activities (and their modes of innovation) over others”. Since we consider both new product/service introductions as well as organizational and technologically driven innovations, this thesis operates according to the synthesis approach. Also because it allows for both internal and external sources of knowledge generation, which may be of relevance for the service sector innovation.

5|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Introduction/Theoretical Framework

1.3 P URPOSE

The purpose of this study is to understand the different types and sources of innovation, actors involved, company aspects and obstacles faced in different parts of service sector.

CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In the following chapter relevant concepts are presented. The chapter ends with the state-ofthe-art of the field and the statement of our research questions. 2.1 S ERVICE I NNOVATI ON

There are many definitions for innovation in literature, ―the successful exploitation of new ideas‖ (DTI, 1994 after Francis & Bessant, 2005) is a simple one. The quote “innovation, […], involves bringing something new into widespread use” (Bruce & Bessant, 2002, p. 27) show that innovations are more than just an emerging idea that will become a product. In this sense, innovation can also be defined as integrating new components, change manufacturing methods into an existing product and/or in the purpose to improve it (Ibid, 2002). Another considerably straightforward definition comes from Baumol (2002) ―the recognition of opportunities for profitable change and the pursuit of those opportunities all the way through to their adoption in practice‖. Drucker (1985) suggests that in times of rapid change the best and maybe only way a business can expect to prosper, if not survive, is by innovating. By doing so the company converts change into opportunities, but to innovate must be as organized as a systematic activity. All previous definitions have one thing in common; the sense that innovation can be managed, and hence a company that manages it better has temporary market advantage. Tidd et al. (1997) after Mayle (2006, p. 200) state that ―innovative firms—those which are able to use innovation to differentiate their products and services from competition—are on average twice as profitable as other firms‖. Schumpeter (1988, after Gurgel, 2006) proposed innovation as an evolving set of new functions that modify the methods of production, creating new shapes for the organization, and when producing new products allows the opening of new markets, by creating new ways of use and consumption. According to Schumpeter, innovation presupposes one of five new factors; the introduction of a new product, the introduction of a new method of production, the 6|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

opening of a new market, the availability of new sources of supply or a new organization in any industry. Porter (1985) states that innovation is a set of improvements on the technology and on methods of production. According to Porter, the main causes of innovation are; new technologies, new consumer needs, the emergence of a new segment in the industry, costs or opportunities of an unsteady input, or even the changes in government regulations. Mytelk (1993) describes innovation as a process by which companies introduce new knowledge on the production of products and services that are new for them, even though they might not be new for their national or international competitors. Ferraz (2002, after Colossi, 2004) complement Mytelk‘s point of view, by affirming that the concept of innovation is not limited to the products or services themselves, because a company can be extremely innovative without selling any product that is technologically superior to those of its competitors. The company can innovate by its positioning on the market, as well as its management structure. In this study, the general definition proposed by OECD (2005) is used: ―Innovation occurs when a company introduces a new or significantly improved product/service, process, or organizational method‖. According to OECD, a company does not need to develop the innovation itself, but can acquire the innovation or idea from other companies or organizations.

2.1.1 T YPES

OF INNOVATION

According to Cheng et al. (2010) companies are continuously seeking to develop new services or improve existing ones to provide greater services. In a modern society companies offer products and services faster than before and offerings are becoming more similar (Zhan, 2009). To stay competitive most businesses have to implement innovations and they look at innovations as one of its culture and core value (Ibid, 2009). Sunbo & Gallouj (1998) state that there are four types of innovation; product innovation, process innovation, market innovation and organizational innovation. New products and processes are technological innovations while new organizational and marketing methods are non-technological innovations (Arundel et al., 2007). Some argue that the differences and co-relations between product and process innovation is not clear in the service area (Wang et al., 2008). Wang et al. also argue that product innovation can be developed without the supplementary of process innovation. According to Gallaher & Petrusa (2006) 7|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

companies in the service sector have been characterized in several dimensions as having close interaction between consumption and production. Product innovation is defined as new or significantly improved goods or services regarding their technical specifications, fundamental characteristics, integrated software or other immaterial components, intended uses or user friendliness (OECD, 2005). According to Shuai & Bo (2010) companies need market innovation to sell their products. Organizational innovations are defined as the implementation of new or improved changes in the company‘s management or structure with the intention of improving the company‘s quality of goods and services, use of knowledge and the efficiency of work (Arundel et al., 2007). According to Hongsong (2010) organizational innovations are the factors that promote innovation in the organization. The company can change its environment, such as the economic system and market, update their resource allocation and production, all of which will have an effect on the organizational innovation and generate the motivation of innovation (Ibid, 2010). According to Rubalcaba et al. (2010) organizational innovations are important for the success of service firms. Process innovation refers to new and significantly improved methods of supplying and delivering services and goods, as well as new and significantly improved production technologies (Ibid, 2005). Zhang (2009) states that almost all innovations come from processes and novel ideas. Companies should regularly optimize their processes by using new technologies due to that it is the basic activities that support the service. It is the fundamental element of service innovation that makes the information within a business more understandable in every detail of the service (Ibid, 2009). In service firms, innovation relies much on communication with clients (Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003). The result should be substantial to the quality of goods and services, level of output, distribution and the production costs. It is not important if the innovation was developed by the company themselves or by another company (OECD, 2005). It is important to promote all innovations by integrating product, process, and organizational innovation to effectively transfer new ideas and business opportunities into market success (Rubalcaba et al., 2010).

8|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

2.1.2 N ATURE

Theoretical Framework

O F INNOVATION

Throughout literature many terms such as ―radical‖ ―revolutionary‖ ―breakthrough‖ ―really new‖ and ―boundary expanding‖ have been used to refer to products that involved dramatic departures from existing products. In the same way the terms ―incremental‖ ―me-too‖ ―adaptation‖ and ―copy cats‖ have been used to describe an improvement on an existing product (Alam, 2006). In this thesis the terms ―radical‖ and ―incremental‖ will be used to define the nature of the innovation, this classification is supported by Deward & Dutton (1986) and Ettlie et al. (1984) and other scholars. Cainelli et al. (2006) also mention the importance of differing both terms, explaining that incremental innovations are more sensitive to demand and market conditions. Lemos (2000) defines radical innovation as the development and introduction of an entire new product, process or organizational methods. Some examples of important radical innovations that changed the world economic profile are: steam machinery in the end of XVIII century and the introduction of microelectronics on the 1950‘s. Those and some other radical innovations stimulated the formation of patterns of growth (Freeman, 1988). A more scientific definition of radical innovation can be found in de Vries (2006), when he explains that in radical innovation the entire system of vectors is transformed into or replaced by a new system of vectors, representing a new product or service. According to de Vries there will still be a resemblance between the new system and the old system of vectors. Gallouj & Savona (2008, p. 164) also use the vectors to explain radical innovation when saying that ―radical innovation is defined by the creation of a new set of vectors of competences, technical and service characteristics‖. According to Lemos (2000) the incremental innovations refer to an introduction of any improvement to a product, process or organizational method. An incremental innovation might be, at times, imperceptible to the consumers‘ eyes and can generate growth in technical efficiency, growth in the productivity and increase quality. de Vries (2006) explains that an incremental innovation happens when the system is changed marginally through the addition or substitution of new elements. This view is also shared by Gallouj & Savona (2008, p. 164), ―incremental innovation occurs when a new characteristic is added, eliminated or substituted, but leaving the whole set of vectors unchanged‖. According to Sundbo & Gallouj (1999), Berry et al. (2006) and Pires et al. (2008), most improvements to service activities are incremental. These improvements are useful and 9|Page 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

indeed necessary, but they are limited in the kind of returns they can produce. Wu et al. (2009), say that incremental activities are in many cases just ―old wine in a new bottle‖ type ideas. The substantial effects from these innovation designs are generally doubtful. In addition, the fact that the service sector is basically composed by incremental innovation, it makes everything easier to copy and more difficult to protect (Ibid, 2009). Tidd et al. (2005, p. 12) have a different perspective of radical and incremental innovation. They use the term ‗incremental innovation‘ to describe the solutions that are new to a firm; correspondingly ‗a radical innovation‘ in their terminology depicts solutions that are ‗new to the world‘. Abreu et al. (2010) follow the same perspective, making no distinction between ground-breaking (radical) and incremental innovations, but instead between ‗novel‘ innovation – innovation new to the market or industry – and ‗non-novel‘ innovation, which is only new to the enterprise. According to Toivonena & Tuominena (2011), this perspective suggests more of a geographical context, making difficult to analyze the level of ―newness‖ or ―radicalness‖ of an innovation. Still following the same perspective, Hipp & Grupp (2005) show in their research that the incremental nature of product innovation in services can be measured in terms of degree of novelty. According to them, 16% of all the service innovators launched products between 1996 and 1998, which were new to the marketplace. Incremental innovations (only new to the firm, not new to the market) are dominant in services to a much greater extent than in manufacturing (Ibid, 2005). In this study, however, the concept of radical and incremental innovations are used according to the previous perspective, where radical corresponds to the development of a completely new product, process or organizational method and incremental innovation refers to some adjustment on the product, process or organizational method.

2.1.3 H OW

TO MEASURE I NNOVATION

According to Schramm et al. (2008), Stone et al. (2008) and Reinstalle & Unterlas (2008) it is important to measure the level of innovation within firms. While it is important to look at inputs – research and development spending – the outcome of innovative activities need to be tracked and measured to determine the impact the innovation has on the economy (Schramm et al., 2008: Bresciani, 2010). To understand innovation better the government, businesses, and academic researches should undertake research by themselves and in 10 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

collaborative efforts (European

Industrial Research

Theoretical Framework

Management Association et al.,

2009). It is crucial to improve the understanding of how much is spent on innovation and how the society benefit from it. Improved data on innovation should allow industry and sector specific analysis to comprehend that innovation manifests itself different in different parts of the economy (Schramm et al., 2008). The government should create a stronger framework for measuring and identifying innovation in the national economy, as well as increase access to data to facilitate more robust innovation research (Schramm et al., 2008). The number of publications that examine the innovation patterns of services using data obtained from innovation survey has been one of the major consequences of the great efforts of statistical agencies to better measure innovation in services (Djellal & Gallouj, 1999; Drejer, 2004). According to Hipp & Grupp (2005) the product and process innovation in services can be measured by the degree of novelty. The measurement concept for the manufacturing sector does only provide little informative value for the service sector (Adams et al., 2008). Through looking at the statistics of trademarks a new empirical approach is possible. It can be assumed that a company has registered a brand before launching the product or service on the market. Trademarks were ranked the highest in importance of various protection instruments within the service sector (Hipp & Grupp, 2005). The trademark statistics may be important when investigating the innovation activities within the service sector. Berg et al., (2008) states that measuring innovations depends on five factors. A company has to look at the input, process, outcome, social environment and physical environment (Adams et al., 2008). When looking at the product development, the process has to be measured as well. The selection of data sources is affected by the quality of the required information, as well as the availability and reliability of the information, and the issue under study (Berg et al., 2008). There are several ways to collect data, expert methods is including the authorities and expert groups as well as collecting data by interviews and questionnaires. The most critical stage of the measurement is to define the criteria to be assessed (Berg et al., 2008). One key challenge is to get a better understanding on how different innovations affect the economy (Innovation framework report, 2004; Reinstalle & Unterlas, 2008). Incremental innovations improve the performance attribute of existing goods or service in the market. Some innovations are however new to the market, which sometimes involve complementary innovations in the service support and subsystems (Innovation framework report, 2004). Process innovations are less visible but they might affect the price, cost and productivity performance. The financial performance can be measured by profits contributed by new goods 11 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

or services, sales and changes in market shares and intellectual property licensing revenues. Outputs like increased knowledge within firms and acquired competencies in managing innovations and organizational learning is more subjective and difficult to measure. Growth in real GDP and GDP per capita are the conventional measurement for the outcome and overall contribution of innovations (Hulten, 2000). Other measurement that can be useful include looking at the productivity, labor, sector trade balances, income per capita, stock market valuations, corporate earnings associated with innovation, market share and penetration of markets (Innovation framework report, 2004). According to Arvanitis (2008) and Adams et al. (2008) there are several ways to measure the level of innovation. Looking at Research and Development (R&D) and what companies spend on it measures the innovation input. The innovation output can be measured by looking at the introduction of product or process innovations, measuring the sales share of innovative products and ordinal variable assessing the technological importance of introduced product innovations (Reinstalle & Unterlas, 2008). According to Gallouj & Savona (2008), the main consequence to defining the service sector output is linked to measurement. The problems are: ―1) the nature/content of the transaction (e.g. in the service provided by a physician is it the procedure itself, the consultation, or the results of the cure?); 2) the nature of the user involvement in the definition of the service output, which makes it more difficult to standardize and consequently to price; 3) the quality change that is possibly more difficult to detect in services and to account for in price structures‖ (Gallouj & Savona, 2008, p. 154) The nature of transaction changes with the degree of customers involvements and because of that the service delivery might be determined by the cooperation and presence of the user. At the same time as services are being consumed they also are being produces which involve some amount of customer involvement (Gallouj & Savona, 2008).

2.1.4 S OURCES

OF I NNOVATION

Von Hippel (1988, p. 3) describes the sources of innovation as functional sources. He categorizes ―firms and individuals in terms of the functional relationship through which they derive benefit from a given innovation‖. The sources might be; user/consumers, suppliers and third parties, varying significantly according to the specific field of the company.

12 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

According to the OECD (2005), services firms that work with innovation rely mostly on their own resources, customers, suppliers, and even competitors. Connell et al. (2001) explain that the needs and ideas of suppliers, competitors and customers must be considered, while other external environmental factors, including economic, regulatory, social, political and ecological variables also can provide sources of ideas. Bogers et al. (2010) explain that users contribute to a producer‘s effectiveness in innovation by being the source of knowledge and helping them understand the users‘ needs. This idea goes with Von Hippel‘s (2005) theory of lead users, where lead users are the leading edge of an important market trend. Many will later follow them, and they are also users that can anticipate relatively high benefits and solutions for certain products. Schreier & Prügl (2008) also state that lead users are a promising source of innovation, because they are known for coming up with attractive user innovations. Sundbo & Gallouj (1998) found through previous European surveys that the more innovative the firm is, the more important are customers as a source of innovation. Existing customers can be an excellent source of information to service firms on areas in which their services could be improved, or suggesting new areas of activity which are either not being provided, or are currently only being provided (or better) by competitors (Miles et al., 1995; Gadrey et al., 1995; Tether, 2005) When comparing manufacturing and service firms, Tether (2005) finds that while manufacturers are more likely to innovate through using in-house R&D and collaborations with universities and research institutes, service firms are more likely to make use of collaborations with customers and suppliers, especially where they have an organizational orientation to their innovation activities. OECD (2005) shows that research institutions, including universities, business schools and government administrations, are not oriented towards satisfying the demands and solving the problems of service firms and therefore are not major contributors for their innovations. Powell (1998) argues that external linkages may help stimulating creativity, reducing risk, accelerating or upgrading the quality of the innovations made, and signaling the quality of firms‘ innovation activities. According to Caloghirou et al. (2002) the use of external sources may be particularly important for the service sector, because previous empirical research has found that the ability of knowledge sharing can be very beneficial for further exploitation of knowledge. Thus inter-firm linkages seem to promote innovativeness. According to Love & Mansury (2007) suppliers and their role in innovation is an important topic, the close relationship existing between firm and supplier can allow both 13 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

formal and informal interaction. (Freel, 2000; Hipp, 2000; Hughes & Wood, 2000; Bougrain & Haudeville, 2002; Sobrero & Roberts, 2002; Chung & Kim, 2003; Tether, 2005). According to Porter (1990, after Philipson, 2010) this typically happens in innovative clusters where the firms take advantages of the suppliers.

2.1.5 I NNOVATION B ARRIERS “The government is uniquely placed to drive innovation in public services, through allocating resources and structuring incentives. Major forces such as attitudes to risk, budgeting, audit, performance measurement and recruitment must be aligned to support innovation. Together, and with effective leadership, these will progressively overcome existing cultural and incentive barriers.”

Bradshaw & Turner (2008: 44). Barriers to service innovation can block new innovative ideas, as well as destroy the new service development process (Wei et al., 2008). According to Almega (2011b) the growth of the Swedish service sector has slowed down, because companies experienced difficulties in finding staff with needed skills. Wei et al., (2008) mentions that the competence needed to develop innovations, the protection of the innovation, political influence, capital limits, problems with technology, innovation management capabilities, and the lack of measuring the innovation performance are some of the barriers that might affect the level of service innovation. While companies‘ culture and market issues are the main drivers of innovation within the service sector, regulatory problems as well as difficulties to access skills and finance often create barriers (Bradshaw & Turner, 2008: Potter & Prot, 2007: Martins et al. 2004). By developing new processes and structures to keep the flow of ideas fresh companies can overcome these different barriers. The starting point for service innovation is to build up trust with customers and engage with them to understand their real needs (Bradshaw & Turner, 2008). Companies also place great value on idea generated internally or with collaboration with other actors, including universities. Even though processes are important to innovation, the company‘s culture is a major factor for success. It is important to create the right environment and develop a positive attitude towards creativity, risk and failure. Companies within the service sector appear to be most successful when the innovation is championed by key individuals in the organization who has the ambition, and drive, to develop and implement new ideas (Bradshaw & Turner, 2008). Bradshaw & Turner‘s (2008) study showed that companies face barriers of both internal and external nature. It is common to face cultural 14 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

barriers, have problems with selling the idea, organize different parts of the organization, or secure resources. External barriers include financial issues, regulation restrictions, different market conditions, access to the right skills, and customer/societal receptiveness to innovation (ibid, 2008). The absent, or limitation, of innovation in the Swedish service sector might be a reason for political action. According to Bager-Sjögren (2011) there are four factors that companies experience problems with and that affect the level of innovation;  Costs; limited recourses, external resources or high innovation costs.  Knowledge; Lack of qualified personnel, lack of relevant information regarding technology and the market, lack of partners.  The market; the dominance of established firms, uncertainty about the expected demand regarding the development of the product or service.  Reasons to not innovate; previous innovations are sufficient, there is no demand for innovation. One of the reasons to why companies do not innovate is that the company is able to generate profit from their old innovations (Bager-Sjögren, 2011).

2.1.6 I NNOVATION P ROTECTION According to Short (2010) there are several ways for companies to protect their inventions. One of the barriers companies in the service sector have to face is lack of protection of service innovations (Wei et al., 2008). In the service sector the protection of intellectual property (IP) plays a limited, but growing role (OECD 2005). Companies in the service sector increasingly employ formal mechanisms of IP protection, such as patents, trademarks and copyright, to protect their innovation from being imitated (Ibid, 2005). What kind of IP is used to protect the innovation varies considerably in the sector. According to Hatakama (2010) an ideal intellectual property right can promote service innovation. The right should promote the sharing of innovative services, protect the service invention as well as offer minimum incentives for investment and inventions. Patenting the invention is one way of protection and gives the owner the right to use, make, and import and export the invention in the country that covers the patent. (Short, 2010) It protects products and processes that include new functions and technical aspects (Short, 2010) and has a lifetime of 20 years in European Union and the US (Andolsen, 2006). The 15 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

patent requirements differ however across countries and regions (OECD, 2005). According to Short (2010:16) “A patent is an intellectual property (IP) right, granted as a territorial right for a limited period”. In major OECD regions the differences in patent regimes affect the patentability of business methods and software, the numbers are however increasing. (OECD, 2005) Because of uncertainty about the effect of patenting the innovation processes and levels of innovation, companies are taking a more active stand on IP protection. Because the diffusion of the service is delayed, patenting the services often does not benefit the public. (Hatakama, 2010) Manufacturing inventions are to a higher degree protected by patents then service inventions. According to Andolsen (2006) and Her et al. (2011) trademark is a way of distinguishing one or several items or services. By register a design, a company can protect their inventions appearance from their competitors. Registered trademarks are a way to differentiate through logos, signs, marks or symbols and prevents other to use a similar trademark or change the value of the original (Short, 2010). Another way for companies to protect their innovations is through trade secrets. (Andolsen, 2006). These secrets are information that is not shared with the public (Donova, 1992) and most likely provide economic benefits to the owner (Andolsen, 2006). A company cannot register or apply for trade secret protection but there are laws that protect the owner from other using their trade secret. Copyright is another way of protection by gaining monopoly (Fabunmi, 2007). It usually is literary, artistic, musical or dramatic works. Protection by copyright gives the owner exclusive rights to distribute, sells copies, reproduce and launch displays of the product (Andolsen, 2006; Fabunmi, 2007). All different ways of protecting the innovation, with the exception of copyright, are more widely used by manufacturing firms in both Europe and Japan (OECD, 2005). The largest gap between service and manufacturing companies are patenting where service firms reported, on average, only half the rate of use (5% versus 10%). In general European firms tend to patent less compare with US or Japanese firms (Ibid, 2005).

2.2 S TATE - OF - THE - ART

The consensus in the literature is that service firms do innovate, but may not do so in quite the same way as manufacturers (Barras, 1986; Gadrey et al., 1993; Miles et al., 1994; Sundbo, 1997; Coombs & Miles, 2000; Gallouj, 2002). However, there is also another group 16 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Theoretical Framework

in literature that believe the gap between service innovation and manufacturing is not as large as perceived and it is valid to research service under the same criteria as manufacturing (Howells, 2000; Love & Mansury, 2008; Vence & Trigo, 2009). Both groups are empirically validated and supported by other peers. In the literature, von Hippel is the pioneer and dominant author regarding sources of innovation. His concepts of different sources of innovation (users, suppliers, third parties) have also been further developed by other authors (Connell et al., 2001; Caloghirou et al. 2002; Schreier & Prügl, 2008; Bogers et al., 2010; Philipson, 2010) but von Hippel‘s original ideas are kept. von Hippel‘s studies are also empirical validated and supported by peers. According to Sunbo & Gallouj (1998) there are four types of innovations; product innovation, process innovation, market innovation and organizational innovation. The different types of innovations are supported by other researches; OECD (2011), M‘Henni (2010), Schrör (2008), Trott (2008), Ulusoy (2007) and Tidd et al (2005). There are many scholars that also support the classification of innovations by their nature; ―radical‖ and ―incremental‖, some of them are: Ettlie et al. (1984), Dewar & Dutton (1986), Henderson & Clark (1990), Orlikowsk (1991), Germain (1996), Leifer et al. (2000) and Cainelli et al. (2006). Bradshaw & Turner‘s (2008) state that companies are faced by different internal and external barriers. These barriers are also acknowledged by Leonidou (2004), Information Management (2004), Kronimus et al. (2008) and Business Call to Action (2011). According to Short (2010) there are several ways for companies to protect their inventions. Companies can protect their innovation with patent, trademark, secrecy and copyright (Andolsen, 2006). These different ways of protecting the innovation are also argued by Donova (1992), Fabunmi (2007), Amara et al. (2008), Short (2010) and Her et al. (2011). The theories of ―Sources of Innovation‖, ―Types of Innovation‖, ―Barriers of Innovation‖ and ―Innovation Protection‖ presented in this study are dominant in their field and in this thesis we relate them with the data collected. 2.3 R ESEARCH Q UESTION



Is the reality of Swedish service companies validating the theories of ―Sources of Innovation‖, ―Types of Innovation‖, ―Barriers of Innovation‖ and ―Innovation Protection‖? 17 | P a g e

4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY In this chapter the methodological framework of this thesis is presented. It is important to offer the reader the choice made by the author among different methods and structure, and therefore show the reliability of the data collected. 3.1 R ESEARCH DESIGN

3.1.1 Q UANTITATIVE

RESEARCH

Research method can be simply described as a technique for collecting data which can be used as a tool to solve problems and develop new knowledge (Holme & Solvang, 1997; Bryman & Bell, 2007). In literature there are different angles of research strategy that can be chosen; Holme and Solvang (1997), explains that there are two possible methodological approaches: quantitative method and qualitative method. The most significant difference between a qualitative research and a quantitative research design is that the former is mainly focused on words not numbers, while the latter employ number measurements for collecting data and emphasizes quantification (Bryman & Bell, 2007). However many other differences can be observed between the two strategies. Saunders et al. (2000) say that in a quantitative the collection of results is numerical and with standardized data, and the analysis is conducted through the use of diagrams and statistics. In a qualitative research instead the collection of results is in non-standardized data requiring classification categories and the analysis is conducted through the use of conceptualization. The choice between methods is one of the key factors for a research, making methodology of great importance when developing a study in any discipline (Bartezzagh, 2007). However, Downey & Irelan (1979) state that is necessary to apply the chosen method to a specific research method to see which is most appropriate. The main reason justifying the choice of method is the research question, the main theme and the nature of the data to be collected (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This paper is focused on a quantitative research, since the intention is to generalize (through statistics analysis) its findings to the population studied. Hussey & Hussey (1997) describe the quantitative approach as having its nature and focuses on measuring a phenomenon. Therefore, most quantitative management research uses questionnaires or surveys as the method of collection, and it commonly involves the numerical analysis of data (Partington, 2002).

18 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

3.1.2 E LECTRONIC

Methodology

SURVEY

The internet has greatly impacted the field of survey research as the number of electronically–administered surveys continues to grow (Shannon et al., 2002). Previous efforts have suggested that many of the principles of paper surveys apply to electronic surveys (esurveys) (Dillman, Tortora, & Bowker, 1998; Dillman, 2000; Dillman & Bowker, 2000). However, it is necessary to improve these principles and use them most effectively with the design and implementation of electronic surveys, especially given the wide variety of formats used to conduct electronic surveys (Shannon et al., 2002). According to Dillman (2000), e-surveys methods have the potential to bring efficiencies, including nearly complete elimination of paper, postage, mail out and data entry costs, depending on the research aim, a e-survey can overcome international boundaries (a significant barrier when conducting international researches), in addition the timeframe of implementation can be much reduced. Although the advantages of e-surveys generally outweight their disadvantages, they can pose some challenges (Conway & Thomas, 2003). It often requires programming skills to develop and to implement the survey, it depends on respondents‘ technology skills, most of the times it implies great concerns of privacy and security, and it depends on respondents‘ access to technology (more of a problem when the research is done of the general population) (Ibid, 2003). Electronic surveys have taken on a variety of forms; from simple email surveys to sophisticated web survey systems (Shannon et al., 2002; Conway & Thomas, 2003). According to Conway & Thomas (2003) there are three types of survey. The first is the email survey. These are typically contained in an e-mail message or as an attached file (Bradley, 1999; Shannon et al., 2002). They are fast and require little technological skill to develop, as they are displayed in basic-text format. Respondents are asked to reply to the email and indicate their responses in the reply message or as part of the attached file (Schaeffer & Dillman, 1998). However, these surveys raise concerns regarding privacy and anonymity, as the respondent‘s e-mail address is generally included with his/her responses. A second type of electronic survey is the email invitation linked to a web-based survey (Conway & Thomas, 2003). Respondents are usually sent an e-mail message with a link to the URL address for the survey. According to Shannon et al. (2002), these surveys offer great advantages in terms of data analysis as responses can easily be downloaded into a spreadsheet or statistical analysis software program. However, it is not possible to assured the respondents‘ bias. A third form of survey is the web surveys, which are accessible to anyone who visits the webpage where 19 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

the survey is based (Conway & Thomas, 2003). This type is considered to require the greatest amount of technological knowledge and skill of the researcher and the most uncontrollable regarding sample (Ibid, 2003). In this research the second form of e-survey is used; email invitation leading to a webbased survey. To overcome the barriers of this type of e-survey some precautions will be taken into considerations. According to Shannon et al. (2002) samples must be clearly defined and authenticated and the researchers should consider using passwords or PIN numbers to control for sampling error and establish credible samples. In the case that passwords or PIN numbers are not used, responding samples should be carefully examined and those that are not eligible should be eliminated to maintain consistency with the sampling plan and yield credible results (Ibid, 2002). For this reason, the validity of the sample of this research is achieved by the use of a code provided to the target respondents, by doing so the survey is protect from random visitors to the page were the survey is based. Additional precautions are also taken to protect respondents‘ privacy and ensure the confidentiality of their responses. When analyzing electronic surveys, Jeavons (1998) found that when requested to provide the email address individuals stopped completing surveys. Respondents must feel comfortable when responding to electronic surveys and trust researchers have taken precautions to guard their privacy and the assurances of confidentiality should be in the pre-notification e-mail (Shannon et al. 2002). This study follows the advice in literature and provides assurance of confidentiality in the email invitation. Email addresses are not required in the survey, unless the respondents want to provide it. The respondents‘ confidentiality is protected by the fact that only the researchers of this paper have access to the data provided; no third parties are involved in the analysis. All the emails sent are individualized, which will prevent the perceptions of ―spamming‖ that might occur due to continued unsolicited e-mail messages (Mehta & Sivadas, 1995; Sheehan & Hoy, 1999). As suggested by Shannon et al. (2002) the communication is personalized and provides the essential elements of the research, including a clear overview of the study‘s purpose, motivation to respond, assurances of confidentiality and privacy and who they contact should they have questions. This advice was reinforced by a recent meta-analysis of electronic survey studies which found personalized pre-notification and number of contacts to influence response rate (Cook et al. 2000). When constructing the questionnaire, the industry

20 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

classification system used was the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) 2 . This structure is considered to be flexible, universal, evolving and accurate. The GICS methodology has been widely accepted as an industry analysis framework for investment research, portfolio management and asset allocation. In addition, the current trend towards sector-based investing has also greatly benefited from the GICS methodology (MSCI, 2011) (see appendix I). 3.2 P OPULATI ON AND S AMPLE

To be included as respondents in this study, three criteria needed to be met: -

Be a firm providing service;

-

Be established in Sweden;

-

Have at least one employee. For this study an extended list of 7402 firms was provided by e-postleverantören.

Through personal research, 193 firms more were found and after cross referencing with the previous list 161 were of unique value and consequently added as respondents, giving a total of 7563 firms. However, after sending the questionnaires a reduction of the list was necessary due to different aspects, see the following table (01). Table 01 - Reasons for exclusion of respondents. Table 1 Reaso ns for exclus io n of respo nde nts.

Reasons for exclusion

Number of firms

Already closed/sold/bankrupt

152

Invalid email address

1596

Protected against not registered emails3

782

Responsible person was absent (on vacation/maternity leave/paternity leave/congress/travelling, etc.)

294

TOTAL

2824

There are 548 448 companies in Sweden that provide services, which is 60 % of all the existing companies in Sweden (Ekonomifakta, 2011). Therefore, since the sample of this 2

A system developed by Standard & Poor's in collaboration with Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI). that consists of 10 sectors, 24 industry groups, 68 industries and 154 sub-industries 3 These companies are not allowed to receive emails from addresses that are not previously registered on their contact list.

21 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

study was reduced to 4739 firms it corresponds to approximately 0.86% of the total population of Swedish service companies. It is difficult to include the total population in one study. Hence, few studies do so. There are many reasons for that, one is because it is troublesome to gather information of a whole population and it requires a high financial investment (Devine, 2010). Another reason is that if the total population is inestimable it becomes impossible to embrace it all (Ibid, 2010). Also, if the population needs to be narrowed down to be manageable there is the risk of becoming of little importance (Studenmund, 2010). Similar studies of the service sector have been done by other researchers. According to Tether et al. (2002) the second European Community Innovation survey (CIS-2) provides data on services' technological innovation behavior and includes twelve European Union countries and Norway. Over 12 000 service companies, with at least 10 employees, around Europe participated (Tether et al., 2002). Howells & Tether (2004) studied the extent and patterns of innovation in service firms compared to manufacture firms in Europe. They used a survey undertaken for the European Commission by Gallup Europe (2002) that included 3 014 European enterprises. Ebling & Janz (1999) used data from the 1997 wave of the Mannheim Innovation Panel in the Service Sector with a sample of 1 010 companies when analyzing the relationship between export and innovation activities of the German service sector. When Blind (2003) studied the role of standards in the European service sector he used an online survey were 364 European companies responded between June 2002 and January 2004. The purpose of his research was to identify future needs regarding service standards to derive policy conclusions (Blind, 2003). For this study it was not manageable, reasonable or even possible to include the entire population, once the number of Swedish service companies increases every moment and the financial scope of this study is much limited. However, comparing to previous similar researches the sample of this study is enough to extend the results to the whole population.

3.3 O PERATIONALI ZATION

The questionnaire used in this study is custom-designed (see appendix II, for the Swedish version and appendix III for English), but its construction follows guidelines proposed by researchers in literature (Gillham, 2000; Fowler, 2002; Reynolds et al., 2007). In the invitation email that precedes the e-questionnaire there is a brief presentation of the topic, intention, elaboration and purpose of the survey, it is also available in two versions; Swedish 22 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

and English (see appendices IV and V). The survey itself starts with questions regarding the respondent and company‘s information. The answers of this section provide an overview of the company‘s size, time of establishment, main activity, economic status and target market. This data offers the possibility to compare the level of innovation among different types of companies. According to OECD (2007), there are significant differences in innovative performance regarding firm size. Large service-sector firms (250 or more employees) appear to be considerably more innovative than small firms (fewer than 50 employees) and mediumsized firms (50-249 employees) (Innobarometer, 2007; Eurostats, 2009). According to the European Communities (2004) the vast majority of firms in the service sector are small; in the CIS3 Survey, small firms accounted for more than 80% of all service-sector firms. The turnover itself is not a measure of the success of an enterprise - high levels of turnover do not necessarily imply high profits - but it is a measure of output (Ibid, 2004). The results of the CIS3 survey show that a company with innovative activities tended to have a higher turnover rate than the ones without any innovative activities. We therefore, would like to know if Sweden fits the same profile as those previous researches. The second section of the e-questionnaire comprises 5 sub-sections, according to the related theory. The first sub-section regards the different types of innovation and the company‘s focus towards them. According to OECD (2005b) innovation surveys can provide equal coverage of all types of innovation and cover marketing and organizational innovation to some extent, while still maintaining product and process innovations as the core innovation types, or they can focus exclusively on product and process innovation. Sundbo & Gallouj (1998) distinguish among four types of innovation — product innovation, process innovation, organizational innovation and market innovation — and highlight the latter two as being most pronounced in the service sector (OECD, 2005a). This thesis therefore covers all four types, because we believe that all types of innovation contribute at some extent to a better overview of the innovative level of activities in a company. To focus the study only on product and process innovation or only on organizational and market innovations would be narrowing and neglecting other innovation possibilities. The second sub-section correspondent to innovation protection, because the current European patent system is very expensive and complex, including the expenses after the patent is granted (Thepharmaletter.com, 2011). This is widely recognized as being an impediment to innovation in Europe. Therefore, it is important to know if service companies nowadays still protect their innovation, and which type of protection is the most common 23 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

among them. According to European Communities (2004), within the EU, 17 % of enterprises with innovation activity applied for at least one patent during the period 1998 to 2000, compared to just 2 % of enterprises without innovation activity. This result is expected, at some extent, because companies that do not innovate do not need to protect anything. Across the EU, trademarks were the most frequently used alternative to patents as a formal protection method, used by 21 % of enterprises with innovation activity (Ibid, 2004). We therefore, would like to know if Sweden follows the same patterns as those previous researches. The third sub-section concerns the sources of innovation. It might be of some difficulty to determine the original source of information that ignited a particular innovation project, but once detected it can be considered an important aspect to be studied. According to the CIS3 survey, approximately 60% of the service firms develop their innovations internally (European Communities, 2004). Regarding importance, the source of innovation within the enterprise received 40% and was considered the most important. The next source of information considered as being highly important was clients or customers; 28 %, followed by suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software; 20 % and trade fairs and exhibitions; 16% (Ibid, 2004). Regarding the nature of innovation, in the service sector the innovation is mostly considered to be non-technical and result from small, incremental changes in processes and procedures that do not require much formal research and development (OECD, 2000) The final sub-section of the questionnaire concerns innovation barriers. According to previous researches (CIS3; OECD, 2005a, Innobarometer, 2007; Eurostats, 2009), economic factors are the most hindering aspects towards innovation, most of them regarding the high costs of innovation. Internal factors were also a hampering aspect, mainly the lack of qualified personnel. We therefore, would like to verify if this data consists with the Swedish reality. The structure of the e-survey is resumed on the following table 02.

24 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

Table 02 – Questionnaire Operationalization schema. Table 2 Q uestionna ire Operatio nalizat ion sche ma

Theory

Innovation related information

Company‘s information

Question

Main authors

1.

Eliminatory question

2.

Respondent‘s reliability

3.

Relation of firm size with innovation

OECD, 2005a / European Communities (2004)

4.

Relation of time of establishment with innovation

To be evaluated

5.

Clustering the service sector

Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)

6.

Relation of turnover with innovation

European Communities (2004)

7.

Relation of the target market with innovation

To be evaluated

8.

Different types of innovation (product, process and organizational)

Sunbo & Gallouj (1998)

10.

Innovation protection

Andolsen (2006)

11.

Sources of innovation

von Hippel (1988; 2005)

Relation of types of innovation and sources of innovation. Nature of innovation.

von Hippel (1988; 2005) / Sunbo & Gallouj (1998)

Innovation barriers

Wei et al. (2008) / Bradshaw & Turner (2008)

9.

12. 13. 14. 15.

3.4 V ALIDI TY

Babbie (1998, p.94) has a simplistic definition of validity ―it is a measure of ‗accuracy and precision‘‖. In the same context validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure (Yancey, 1999; DeVon et al., 2007; Aven & Heide, 2009). A much complex and expanded definition comes from Messick (1990, p. 1), ―validity is an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of interpretations and actions based on test scores or other modes of assessment‖. Both aspects of validity should be taken into consideration: internal and external. The external validity - the degree to which the findings of the research can be generalized to a population setting (Bryman & Bell, 2007) – can be considered of high degree since the answers obtained reflect the reality of a group in the service sector, and therefore can 25 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

be applied to the whole population. In difference to qualitative research, the quantitative method is designed to be generalized. The internal validity – the extent to which the researchers‘ observation match the theoretical ideas it is developed – of this research counts with a vast and well investigated literature review, in which many factors, explanations and relationships have been proved and serve as basis for the presented study. Surveys are considered to be superficial because the answers are in a standardized form, which puts a strain on validity. However, some providences were taken to increase the validity of the questionnaire in this study and to ensure that it measures what it proposes. Firstly, to ensure fully understand of the questionnaire‘s content little theoretical expressions were used, and the ones used had its meaning described in the referred question. By doing so, we avoid misunderstandings and make certain a accurate response. Secondly, the questionnaires were answered by persons with high understand of the subject in question. This assures that the respondent has the necessary knowledge to complete the questionnaire accurately. Finally, the questions offered the option ―other‖, which gives the opportunity to the respondent to be very specific if not finding the desired answer. Therefore, with all the precautions that were taken, we believe that the consequences for choosing a survey as the measurement tool will have no deep impact in the validity of this study. We also believe that the concepts and theories used are extremely pertinent, which makes the Operationalization process of this study very appropriate.

3.5 R ELI ABILI TY

Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result on repeated trials, it is the consistency of the ‗‗measuring instrument‘‘ (Aven & Heide, 2009). The same meaning can also be found in Bryman & Bell (2007) where they describe reliability as the degree to which a study can be replicated. Reliability can be considered therefore, synonym of generalizability (NCTE, 2003), equitability (Gordon et al., 1996), or consistency. The standardized stimulus presented in a survey increases its reliability and so goes a long way toward eliminating unreliability in the researcher's observations. A important aspect that according to Patel et al. (1994) can increase the reliability of a study are the precautions taken in order to ensure that the questions presented in a survey are interpreted in the way the researcher planned. Therefore, before sending out the questionnaire, it passed through rigorous supervisions, where several adjustments were made. After carefully finalize 26 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Methodology

the structure, content and questions a pre-test was made with four respondents of the service sector, after suggestions and recommendations more adjustments were made. Finally, the construction of the questionnaire was concluded. The stability reliability (also known as test/re-test reliability), which refers to the agreement of measuring instruments over time, has not yet been tested, since no other research made use of this exact questionnaire. Therefore, the stability reliability of this study can only be measured once the other researches use this questionnaire in forthcoming studies, then the results can be compared and correlated with the initial test to give a measure of stability. However, with the high degree of credibility achieved in this study, due to the transparency of the methodological steps presented, it is probable that future studies will achieve the same results. The inter-rater reliability is the extent to which two or more individuals agree. In this study the inter-rater reliability is of higher degree since there is no subjective analysis from the researchers, there is no rating system.

27 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

CHAPTER 4 - EMPIRICAL DATA In this chapter all the data collected through the survey is presented.

Q UESTION 01 - Does your company offer goods or services?

le 3 Question 01

Chart 2 Q uestion 01

Table 03 – % of question 01 Answers

Frequency

Only goods

Percent

12

1.4

Only services

573

64.7

Both goods and services

295

33.3

5

.6

No Do not know Total

1

.1

886

100.0

This is an eliminatory question. The respondents that answered ―Only goods‖, ―No‖ and ―Do not know‖ were automatically eliminated from the study. Hence, without the 18 respondents that did not classify, this study has a total amount of 865 respondents. Where 64.7% are companies offering only services and 33.3% are companies offering both, goods and services. Q UESTION 02 - What is your position at the company?

able 4 Question 02

Chart 3 Q uestion 02

Table 04 – % of question 02 Responses

Percent

Answers Freq.

%

of Cases

Owner / Partner

407

39.0

46.9

CEO

248

23.8

28.6

33

3.2

3.8

104

10.0

12.0

Research & Development Manager Marketing Manager Secretary Other Total

50

4.8

5.8

201 1043

19.3 100.0

23.2 120.2

Since it was possible to choose more than one alternative, the number of frequency is higher than the number of respondents. The majority of the answers corresponded to ―Owner / 28 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Partner‖ and ―CEO‖ (39.0% and 23.8%, respectively), many times the respondents combined both. Among ―Others‖ the majority of the answers were ‗Manager of a different department‘, ‗CFO‘, ‗Consultant‘ and ‗Manager‘s assistant‘. Q UESTION 03 - How many employees does your company have in Sweden?

able 5 Question 03

Chart 4 Q uestion 03

Table 05 – % of question 03 Answers

Frequency

Percent

Less than 20

395

45.5

20 - 49

270

31.1

50 - 249

148

17.1

250 - 499

32

3.7

500 or more

21

2.4

Do not know

2

.2

868

100.0

Total

Among the 868 respondents, 93.7% refers to small or medium-sized companies, while the remaining 6.3% corresponds to large-sized companies. Q UESTION 04 - Was your company established after January 1st, 2005?

Table 6 - Question 04

Chart 5 - Q uestion 04

Table 06 – % of question 04 Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

101

11.6

No

765

88.1

2

.2

868

100.0

Do not know Total

As it can be seen in the chart above the majority of the enterprises (88.1%) were established before January 1st, 2005. Correspondently, 11.6% refers to the new companies.

29 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Q UESTION 05 - Within the following options, what is the main activity of your company? Table 7 - Q uestion 05

Chart 6 - Q uestion 05

Table 07 – % of question 05 Answers Banks Broadcast, cable & satellite Constructions & engineering Diversified financial services Education Environmental & facilities Health care providers Hotels, resorts & cruise lines Human resource & employment Insurance Internet, software & IT services Marketing Movies & entertainment Real estate Restaurants Security & alarm Specialized consumer services Telecommunication services Transportation and logistics services Other Total

Freq.

%

5 8 97

.6 .9 11.2

38

4.4

26 24 6 58

3.0 2.8 .7 6.7

31

3.6

19 96

2.2 11.1

63 20 77 23 11 136

7.3 2.3 8.9 2.6 1.3 15.7

13

1.5

85

9.8

32 3.7 868 100.0

The area with the largest amount of respondents (15.7%) was ―Specialized consumers service‖, which includes residential services, home security, legal services, personal services, renovation and interior design services, consumer auctions and wedding & funeral services. ―Construction & Engineering‖ and ―Internet, software & IT services‖ had approximately the same amount of respondents (11.2% and 11.1%, respectively). Followed by ―Transportation & logistics‖ (9,8%) referring to companies providing air freight transportation, courier and logistics services, including package and mail delivery and customs agents, passenger air transportation, goods or passenger maritime, rail or land transportation, vehicle rental and taxi companies. Also, operators of airports and companies providing related services (excludes cruise-ships). ―Real estate‖ (8.9%) referring to companies or trusts engaged in the acquisition, development, ownership, leasing, management and operation of properties (industrial, residential, shopping malls, neighborhoods, etc.), ―Marketing‖ (7.3%) referring to companies providing advertising, marketing or public relations services. And ―Hotels, resorts & cruises‖ (6.7%), which includes travel agencies, tour operators and related services.

30 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Q UESTION 06 - Comparing your turnover of 2010 with the 2008, did the annual income of

your company decrease, increase, or remain approximately the same (within plus or minus 5%)? Table 8 - Q uestion 06

Chart 7 - Q uestion 06

Table 08 – % of question 06 Answers

Frequency

Percent

Decreased

125

14.4

Increased

421

48.5

Approximately the same

241

27.8

81

9.3

868

100.0

Do not know Total

The majority of the respondents (48.5%) had the turnover of the company increased, while 27.8% stayed approximately the same and 14.4% decreased. In the following questions (6a & 6b), the results show that the companies that decreased its turnover did it mostly by ―10 to 25%‖ (50.0%) or ―less than 10%‖ (30.6%). The companies that increased its turnover did it mostly by ―10 to 25%‖ (53.6%) or ―less than 10%‖ (24.0%). Q UESTION 06 A - Decreased by…

Q UESTION 06 B - Increased by… Chart 8 - Q uestion 06b

Table 9 - Question 06a

Table 10 - Q uestion 06 b

Table 10 – % of question 06b

Table 09 – % of question 06a Chart 9 - Q uestion 06a

Answers

Less than 10% 10% to 25% 25% to 50% More than 50% Do not know Total Missing System Total

Freq.

38 62 11 8

%

Valid %

4.4 7.1 1.3 .9

Answers

Freq.

%

Valid %

30.6

Less than 10%

101

11.6

24.0

50.0

10% to 25%

225

25.9

53.6

8.9

25% to 50%

39

4.5

9.3

6.5

More than 50%

27

3.1

6.4

Do not know

5

.6

4.0

124 744 868

14.3 85.7 100.0

100.0

28

3.2

6.7

Total Missing System

420 448

48.4 51.6

100.0

Total

868

100.0

31 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Q UESTION 07 - Which of the following are important markets for your company‘s goods or

services?

Table 11 - Question 07

Chart 10 - Q uestion 07

Table 11 – % of question 07 Responses

Answers

Freq.

Percent of Cases

%

Other companies

664

56.2

76.5

Individual consumers

411

34.8

47.4

99

8.4

11.4

7 1181

.6 100.0

.8 136.1

Public sector Other Total

Since it was possible to choose more than one alternative, the number of frequency is higher than the number of respondents. The majority of the companies (76.5%) have ―Other companies‖ as an important market. Also with a high rate of response is ―Individual consumers‖ with 47.4%. With a much lower percentage is ―Public Sector‖ with only 11.4%. The majority of companies that answered other have both other companies and the public sector as important markets.

Q UESTION 08 - For the past two years, did your company perform any of the following

innovative activities? 

Introduced new or significantly improved goods or services

Table 12 - Q uestion 08a

Chart 11 - Q uestion 08a

Table 12 – % of question 08a Answers Never Sometimes Often Do not know Total

Frequency 76 343 429 20 868

Percent 8.8 39.5 49.4 2.3 100.0

The majority of the companies ―often‖ introduced new or significantly improved goods or services (49.4%), followed by 39.5% of the respondents that replied ―Sometimes‖. Only 8.8% answered ―Never‖.

32 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara



Empirical Data

Introduced new or significantly improved processes for producing services Table 13 - Q uestion 08 b

Table 13 – % of question 08b Answers

Frequency

Never Sometimes Often Do not know Total

Percent

145 567 113 43 868

16.7 65.3 13.0 5.0 100.0

Chart 12 - Q uestion 08 b

The number substantially reduced referring to processes for producing services, while the majority (65.3%) answered that the company ―Sometimes‖ did so. Followed by a low percentage of ―Never‖ (16.7%) and ―Often‖ (13.0%). 

Introduced new or significantly improved logistics, delivery or distribution processes Table 14 - Q uestion 08c

Chart 13 - Q uestion 08c

Table 14 – % of question 08c Answers

Frequency

Percent

Never

487

56.1

Sometimes

264

30.4

Often

65

7.5

Do not know

52

6.0

868

100.0

Total

According to the results the great majority of the respondents (56.1%) ―Never‖ improved logistics, delivery or distribution processes. Only 30.4% answered ―Sometimes‖ for the same activity and a minimum of 7.5% said to do it ―Often.



Introduced new or significantly improved support processes

Table 15 – % of question 08d Answers Never Sometimes Often Do not know Total

Frequency 134 581 120 33 868

Percent 15.4 66.9 13.8 3.8 100.0

33 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Chart 14 - Q uestion 08 dTa ble 15 - Q uestion 08d

Most of the companies (66.9%) answered ―Sometimes‖ for introducing new or significantly improved support processes such as maintenance, computer systems, etc. Followed by low percentages of ―Never‖ and ―Often‖ (15.4% and 13.8%, respectively).



Introduced new or significantly improved organizational methods

Table 16 - Q uestion 08e

Chart 15 - Q uestion 08e

Table 16 – % of question 08e Answers

Frequency

Percent

Never

146

16.8

Sometimes

580

66.8

Often

101

11.6

Do not know Total

41

4.7

868

100.0

This question follows the same pattern as the previous one. The majority (66.8%) ―Sometimes‖ introduces new or significantly improved organizational methods. While only 16.8% ―Never‖ do it and 11.6% ―Always‖ do it.



Carried out in-house research and development

Chart 16 - Q uestion 08f

Table 17 - Q uestion 08f

Table 17 – % of question 08f Answers

Frequency

Percent

Never

494

56.9

Sometimes

215

24.8

Often

120

13.8

Do not know Total

39

4.5

868

100.0

494 respondents answered that the company ―Never‖ carried out in-house research and development, corresponding to 56.9%. 215 answered ―Sometimes‖ (24.8%) and 120 respondents answered ―Often‖, corresponding to 13.8%.

34 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Table 18 - Q uestion 08g



Contracted out Research & Development from other companies, consultants, universities, etc. Table 18 – % of question 08g

Chart 17 - Q uestion 08g

Answers

Frequency

Do not know

Percent

49

5.6

Never

599

69.0

Sometimes

147

16.9

Often

73

8.4

Total

868

100.0

The amount of respondents answering ―Never‖ increases even more when asked if the company contracted out Research & Development, going to 599 respondents (69.0%). While the numbers for ―Sometimes‖ and ―Often‖ remain low (16.9% and 8.4%, respectively).

Q UESTION 09 - Over the past two years, which of these types of innovation received most

effort by your firm? Table 19 - Q uestion 09

Chart 18 - Q uestion 09

Table 19 – % of question 09 Answers

Goods / Service innovation

Freq.

Percent

472

54.4

79

9.1

Organizational innovation

109

12.6

All of them about equally

72

8.3

124

14.3

Process innovation

Do not know Other

12

1.4

Total

868

100.0

The great majority of the respondents (54.4%) answered ―Goods / Service innovation‖ as been the type of innovation that received most effort by the company. In second place is ―Organizational innovation‖ with 12.6 %, followed by ―Process innovation‖ with 9.1%. Unexpectedly, a considerable amount of respondents answered ―Do not know‖ corresponding to 14.3%.

35 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Q UESTION 10 - How does your company protects its innovations?

Table 20 – % of question 10 Answers

We do not protect them

Responses Freq.

Percent of Cases

%

695

69.4

80.1

28

2.8

3.2

5

.5

.6

Copyright

80

8.0

9.2

Trademark

83

8.3

9.6

Secrecy

89

8.9

10.3

9

.9

1.0

12 1001

1.2 100.0

1.4 115.3

Patent Software patent

Registration of design patterns Other Total

Since it was possible to choose more than one alternative, the number of frequency is higher than the number of respondents. The great majority of respondents (80.1%) ―Do not protect‖ their innovation. There is a thigh difference among ―Copyright‖ (9.2%), ―Trademark‖ (9.6%) and ―Secrecy‖ (10.3%). The majority of companies that answered other stated that they cannot protect their innovation.

Q UESTION 11 - In the past two years, among the following options, how often they were the

source of ideas for the innovative activities of your company? 

The company‘s production engineers or technicians Table 21 – % of question 11a Answers

Freq.

%

Never

120

13.8

Sometimes

120

13.8

Often

397

45.7

We do not have this department

203

23.4

Do not know Total

28

3.2

868

100.0

―Often‖ was the most common answer among respondents (45.7%), while ―Never‖ and ―Sometimes‖ coincidently received the same amount of answer which corresponds to 13.8%. However, 203 companies ―Do not have this department‖, which refers to 23.4% of the respondents. 36 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara



Empirical Data

The company‘s marketing department Table 22 – % of question 11b Answers

Freq.

Never

%

94

10.8

Sometimes

462

53.2

Often

117

13.5

We do not have this department

172

19.8

Do not know Total

23

2.6

868

100.0

53.2% of the respondents answered that ―Sometimes‖ the Marketing department is a source of the innovation of the company, corresponding to (53.2%) of the total. ―Often‖ and ―Never‖ received much less answers, with 13.5% and 10.8%, respectively.



The company‘s design staff

Table 23 – % of question 11c Answers

Never Sometimes Often We do not have this department Do not know Total

Freq.

382 114 84 259 29 868

%

44.0 13.1 9.7 29.8 3.3 100.0

29.3% of the respondents (259) answered that the company does not have a design staff. However, the companies that do have a design staff answered as follow: ―Never‖ contribute as a source of innovation 44.0%, ―Sometimes‖ with 13.1% and ―Often‖ with 9.7% of the answers.

37 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara



Empirical Data

The company‘s management

Table 24 – % of question 11d Answers

Never

Freq.

%

36

4.1

Sometimes

287

33.1

Often

515

59.3

We do not have this department Do not know Total

7

.8

23

2.6

868

100.0

According to 515 respondents (59.3%) the company‘s management is often a source of innovation. Followed by 33.1% answering ―Sometimes‖ and only 4.1% ―Never‖.



The company‘s research department Table 25 – % of question 11e

Answers Never

Freq.

%

374

43.1

Sometimes

52

6.0

Often

67

7.7

348

40.1

We do not have this department Do not know Total

27

3.1

868

100.0

The results show that the majority of the companies ―Do not have this department‖ (40.1%) or the research department ―Never‖ contribute as a source of innovation for the company (43.1%). Consequently a much lower number was addressed to ―Sometimes‖ (6.0%) and ―Often‖ (7.7%).

38 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

 Consumers / Clients

Table 26 – % of question 11f Answers

Never Sometimes Often We do not have this department Do not know Total

Freq.

82 604 143 7 32 868

%

9.4 69.6 16.5 .8 3.7 100.0

The results show that in the majority of the companies consumers are ―Sometimes‖ a source of innovation. This number is followed by ―Often‖ (16.5%) and a low rate for ―Never‖ (9.4%).

 Suppliers Table 27 – % of question 11g Answers

Freq.

%

Never

451

52.0

Sometimes

308

35.5

Often

41

4.7

We do not have this department

19

2.2

Do not know

49

5.6

868

100.0

Total

In the majority of the answers (52.0%) suppliers are ―Never‖ a source of innovation for the company. In amount of 308 respondents (35.5%), however, answered that ―Sometimes‖ suppliers are a source of innovation. A much lower percentage is addressed to ―Often‖, only 4.7%.

39 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

 Third parties

Table28 – % of question 11h Answers

Freq.

%

Never

535

61.6

Sometimes

210

24.2

Often

19

2.2

We do not have this department

16

1.8

Do not know

88

10.1

868

100.0

Total

The results show that 535 respondents (61.6%) answered that third parties are never a source of innovation for the company. This number is followed by 210 respondents (24.2%) answering that ―Sometimes‖ third parties are a source of innovation. Insignificant percentage is attributed to ―Often‖ and ―Do not have this department‖. However, 10.1% of the respondents ―Do not know‖ if thirds parties are or not a source of innovation.



Competitors Table 29 – % of question 11i Answers

Freq.

%

Never

459

52.9

Sometimes

310

35.7

33

3.8

9

1.0

Often We do not have this department Do not know Total

57

6.6

868

100.0

As can be seen in the chart above, the majority of the answers (52.9%) were ―Never‖, not considering competitors as a source of innovation. ―Sometimes‖ is in second position with 35.7% of the total answers. Only 3.8% was attributed to ―Often‖.

40 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara



Empirical Data

Value chain partners Table 30 – % of question 11j Answers

Freq.

%

Never

462

53.2

Sometimes

247

28.5

Often

41

4.7

We do not have this department

33

3.8

Do not know

85

9.8

868

100.0

Total

According to the results, value chain partners are mostly ―Never‖ a source of innovation, with 53.2%. While the answers for ―Sometimes‖ were 28.5%, ―Often‖ only receive 4.7% of the total answers. 

Complementors Table 31 – % of question 11k Answers

Freq.

%

Never

462

53.2

Sometimes

250

28.8

Often

35

4.0

We do not have this department

28

3.2

Do not know

93

10.7

868

100.0

Total

The results show that 53.2% of the respondents answered that complementors are ―Never‖ a source of innovation. This number is followed by 28.8% addressed to ―Sometimes‖. Consequently, ―Often‖, ―We do not have this department‖ and ―Do not know‖ have a low rate of response. The majority of companies that answered other said that their employees are the biggest source of innovation.

41 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Q UESTION 12 - In the last two years, has your company introduced new or significantly

improved goods or services to your customers using the following methods of innovating? 

Developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties with little or no modifications by your company Table 32 – % of question 12a Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

172

19.8

No

597

68.8

Do not know Total

99

11.4

868

100.0

 Customized or modified products or services that were originally developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties Table 33 – % of question 12b Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

225

25.9

No

555

63.9

Do not know Total

88

10.1

868

100.0

 Developed entirely new or significantly improved products or services in-house

Table 34 – % of question 12c Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

554

63.8

No

233

26.8

Do not know Total

81

9.3

868

100.0

42 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

 Developed entirely new products or services in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities, etc. Table 35 – % of question 12d Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

180

20.7

No

610

70.3

Do not know Total

78

9.0

868

100.0

As the results for question 12 show the majority of the companies did not introduce new or significantly improved goods or services developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties with little or no modifications by the company (68.8%); customized or modified products or services that were originally developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties (63.9%); or developed entirely new products or services in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities etc. (70.3%). The majority of the companies however, developed entirely new or significantly improved products or services in-house (63.8%).

Q UESTION 13 - In the last two years, has your company introduced new or significantly

improved processes using the following methods?  Acquiring processes developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties with little or no modification by your company

Table 36 – % of question 13a Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

114

13.1

No

668

77.0

Do not know Total

86

9.9

868

100.0

43 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

 Customizing or modifying processes originally developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties

Table 37 – % of question 13b Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

174

20.0

No

609

70.2

Do not know Total

85

9.8

868

100.0

 Developing entirely new processes or significantly improving existing ones in-house

Table 38 – % of question 13c Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

555

63.9

No

244

28.1

Do not know Total

69

7.9

868

100.0

 Developing entirely new processes or significantly improving existing ones in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities, etc.

Table 39 – % of question 13d Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

169

19.5

No

622

71.7

Do not know Total

77

8.9

868

100.0

According to the results presented above, the majority of the companies did not introduce new or significantly improved processes developed by clients/consumers, suppliers 44 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

or third parties with little or no modification by the company (77.0%); customized or modified processes originally developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties (70.2%); or in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities, etc. (71.7%). The companies, however, developed entirely new processes or significantly improving existing ones in-house (63.9%).

Q UESTION 14 - In the last two years, has your company introduced new or significantly

improved organizational structure using the following methods?  Adopting organizational methods developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties with little or no modification by your company Table 40 – % of question 14a Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

104

12.0

No

684

78.8

Do not know Total

80

9.2

868

100.0

 Customizing or modifying organizational methods originally developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties

Table 41 – % of question 14b Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

117

13.5

No

667

76.8

Do not know Total

84

9.7

868

100.0

45 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

 Developing new or significantly improved organizational methods in-house

Table 42 – % of question 14c Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

556

64.1

No

241

27.8

Do not know Total

71

8.2

868

100.0

 Developing new or significantly improved organizational methods in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities, etc.

Table 43 – % of question 14d Answers

Frequency

Percent

Yes

123

14.2

No

663

76.4

Do not know Total

82

9.4

868

100.0

According to the results the majority of the companies did not introduce new or significantly improved organizational structure by adopting organizational methods developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties with little or no modification by the company (78.8%); by customizing or modifying organizational methods originally developed by clients/consumers, suppliers or third parties (76.8%); or in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities, etc. (76.5%). The companies, however, developed new or significantly improved organizational methods in-house (64.1%).

46 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

Q UESTION 15 - How do the following options negatively affects your company towards

innovation?  Government lack of incentives Table 44 – % of question 15a Answers

Frequency

Percent

Not at all

500

57.6

Sometimes

131

15.1

Frequently

47

5.4

Do not know

190

21.9

Total

868

100.0

 Lack of knowledge Table 45 – % of question 15b Answers

Frequency

Percent

Not at all

298

34.3

Sometimes

442

50.9

Frequently

61

7.0

Do not know

67

7.7

868

100.0

Total

 Lack of skilled staff Table 46 – % of question 15c Answers

Frequency

Percent

Not at all

281

32.4

Sometimes

436

50.2

Frequently

87

10.0

Do not know

64

7.4

868

100.0

Total

47 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

 Company‘s management Table 47 – % of question 15d Answers

Frequency

Percent

Not at all

180

20.7

Sometimes

263

30.3

Frequently

356

41.0

Do not know Total

69

7.9

868

100.0

 Company‘s regulations Table 48 – % of question 15e Answers

Frequency

Percent

Not at all

365

42.1

Sometimes

332

38.2

Frequently

84

9.7

Do not know

87

10.0

868

100.0

Total

 Lack or resources Table 49 – % of question 15f Answers

Not at all

Frequency

Percent

95

10.9

Sometimes

310

35.7

Frequently

407

46.9

56

6.5

868

100.0

Do not know Total

According to the results the majority of the companies do not consider that there is a lack of incentive from the government (57.6%); the company’s regulation is also not considered as a barrier to innovate from 42.1% of the respondents, but by 38.2% it was ―Sometimes‖ considered as a barrier. The lack of knowledge is considered by 50.9% to ―Sometimes‖ be a barrier, but 34.3% believe that it is ―Not at all‖ a barrier. The lack of skilled 48 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Empirical Data

staff is considered ―sometimes‖ to be a barrier by 50.2%, however, 32.9% believe that it is ―Not at all‖. Company‘s management and lack of resources appear to be the largest barriers towards innovation. According to the results 41.0% of the respondents believe that company’s management is ―Frequently‖ a barrier, while 30.3% answered ―Sometimes‖. Regarding lack of resources 46.9% consider it to be a ―Frequent‖ barrier, while 35.7% believe it to ―Sometimes‖ be a barrier. Companies that answered other also said that their customer demand, lack of time, resources and employees affect the innovation negatively.

Q UESTION 16 – Are you interested on the result of this survey?

Even though we received a good amount of answers, the majority of the respondents are not interested on the results of this study. Many companies left their comments (both positive and negative) when asked to freely write about the service sector (see appendix VI).

49 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Analysis

CHAPTER 5 – ANALYSIS In this chapter an analysis between the data collected and the theoretical framework previously exposed is presented. Here, the Operationalization of the study is finalized. According to OECD (2007), there are significant differences in innovative performance regarding firm size. Large service-sector firms (250 or more employees) appear to be considerably more innovative than small firms (fewer than 50 employees) and mediumsized firms (50-249 employees) (Innobarometer, 2007; Eurostats, 2009). In this study a correlation between company size and the frequency to which the company introduces a new or significantly improved product (good or service), processes for producing services, support processes and organizational methods was found, even though weak (see table 50). However, the results did not show a strong correlation between the company size and introduction of a new or significantly improved logistics, delivery or distribution process, in-house research & development and contracted-out research & development (also see table 50, for a complete table of correlations see appendix VII). Table 50 – Correlations Questions 3 & 8 Research & Introduced new or significantly improved…

Development

support processes

How many

Pearson

employees

Corr.

does your

processes,

for

logistics,

such as

producing

delivery or

maintenance,

goods or

your

distribution

computer

organizational

services

services

processes

systems, etc.

methods

Contracted In-house

out

.208

.119

-.075

.123

.127

-.088

-.069

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.001

.033

.000

.000

.011

.048

Count

846

823

815

833

825

827

817

company have in Sweden?

___ - correlated ___ - weakly correlated Therefore, it is plausible to say that larger companies are, at some extent, more innovative when it comes to introduction of product (good or service), processes for producing services and support processes and organizational methods (see table 51), but not

50 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Analysis

so much towards logistics, delivery or distribution process, in-house research & development and contracted-out research & development (see table 52). Table 51 – Answers of strongly correlated variables from question 3 & 8 Strongly Correlated Variables Do not know

Never

Sometimes

Often

Count

Count

Count

Count

How many

Do not know

0

0

2

1

employees

Less than 20

47

173

339

191

does your

20 – 49

15

60

256

197

company have

50 – 249

15

31

137

89

250 – 499

4

8

32

22

500 or more

3

1

17

16

in Sweden?

Table 52 – Answers of weakly correlated variables from question 3 & 8 Weakly correlated Variables Do not know

Never

Sometimes

Often

Count

Count

Count

Count

How many

Do not know

1

2

0

0

employees

Less than 20

38

308

227

109

does your

20 – 49

15

234

85

42

company have

50 – 249

18

109

73

30

250 – 499

5

24

14

2

500 or more

7

11

11

9

in Sweden?

The data collected confirms the European Communities (2004) statement that the vast majority of firms in the service sector are small; in the CIS3 Survey, small firms accounted for more than 80% of all service-sector firms. In this study 76.6% of the respondents were small-sized firms. When analyzing the companies‘ turnover status, we notice a peculiar trend. 48.5% of the companies increased its turnover, while 27.8% remained approximately the same. This large amount of companies with increased turnover might have been due to the economic depression that occurred in 2008. Hence, these two last years where the economy is recovering from this depression led to an obvious increase in the companies‘ turnover. Even though the companies that increased their turnover did not necessarily innovate. Therefore, 51 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Analysis

the correlation of the companies‘ turnover status with the innovative level of activities developed by them, do not comply with the results of the CIS3 survey, where it showed that a company with innovative activities tended to have a higher turnover rate than the ones without any innovative activities. Future research is necessary, in a completely recovered economy, to verify if the pattern will persist. It can be seen in the results, however, that a company that ―often‖ introduces an innovative activity has a higher probability to increase its turnover comparing with the companies that ―sometimes‖ or ―never‖ do so (see chart below) 4

.

According to Sundbo & Gallouj (1998) organizational innovation is one of the most frequent in the service sector. However, when analyzing the results it was noticed that organizational methods corresponded only to 12.6% of the respondents, which means that organizational method was only the second type of innovation most frequent among the companies, the first being product (goods or services) innovation, by a large difference. When analyzing the incidence of innovation protection among firms, the result was somewhat surprising. The great majority of the companies do not protect their innovations (80.1%). The result of the most common protection also differs from the ones exposed by European Communities (2004), where across the EU, trademarks were the most frequently used alternative to patents as a formal protection method, used by 21 % of enterprises. In this study, the most common protection used is secrecy with 10.3%, while trademark had only 4

The answers ―do not know‖ and ―we do not have this department‖ were excluded from the data presented

52 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Analysis

9.6% of adepts. It is difficult to define the reason for such results, but it is important to keep in mind that most of the companies do not have the need to protect their innovations. An interesting point in this aspect is that even though Internet, software & IT services corresponded to 11.1% of the respondents, software patent corresponded to only 0.6% of the total amount of answers, inferring that the branch of the service sector that should use this type of protection the most, does not do so. When it comes to the sources of innovation in the companies, the results show that the most commons are: the management of the company, clients/consumers, the marketing department and production engineers/technicians (see chart below). Meaning that most of the source of innovation comes from inside the company, which is in agreement with previous survey, where it is stated that approximately 60% of the service firms develop their innovations internally (European Communities, 2004). In the same survey the next source of innovation considered as being highly important was clients/consumers; 28 %, followed by suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software; (Ibid, 2004). In this study, clients/consumers appear as the second most important source of innovation, the suppliers however, are not considered as important as the marketing department or production engineers, coming only as the fifth source (see percentages in table 53) 5.

Never Sometimes Often

5

The answers ―do not know‖ and ―we do not have this department‖ were excluded from the data presented

53 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Analysis

Table 53 – Percentage and answers regarding sources of innovation. Company’s production engineers or technicians

N

Marketing department

%

N

Company’s management

%

Clients/ Consumers

Suppliers

N

%

N

%

N

36

4.3

82

9.9

451 56.4 308 38.5

Never

120 18.8

94 14.0

Sometimes

120 18.8

462 68.6

287 34.2

604 72.9

Often

397 62.3

117 17.4

515 61.5

143 17.2

%

41

5.1

Regarding the nature of innovation, in the service sector the innovation is mostly considered to be non-technical and result from small, incremental changes in processes and procedures that do not require much formal research and development (OECD, 2000). However, in this study it was found that when it comes to product (goods or services) innovation the majority of the companies develops radical innovation, mostly in-house. Incremental innovations come in second place, just before radical innovation in collaboration with other institutions (see table 54). Table 54 – Incremental & Radical product innovations6

Incremental

N

Radical in-house

%

N

%

Radical in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities, etc.

N

%

Yes

225

28.8%

554

70.4%

180

22.8%

No

555

71.2%

233

29.6%

610

77.2%

Referring to process innovations the same patterns can be identified, the most common nature of innovation is radical, and developed in-house. The difference between incremental and radical out-sourced, however, is reduced (see table 55). Table 55 – Incremental & Radical processes innovations7

Incremental

N

6 7

%

Radical in-house

N

%

Radical in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities etc.

N

%

Yes

174

22.2%

555

69.5%

169

21.4%

No

609

77.8%

244

30.5%

622

78.6%

The answer ―do not know‖ was excluded from the data presented The answer ―do not know‖ was excluded from the data presented

54 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Analysis

When it comes to the organizational methods, radical in-house innovations are still the most common nature of innovation. The difference now is that radical out-sourced innovations appear as the second most common, leaving incremental innovations as the last most common nature of innovation (see table 56). Those findings go against previous researches, such as the above presented OECD (2000), where it is presented that in the service sector the innovation is mostly considered to be of incremental nature (OECD, 2000). Table 56 – Incremental & Radical organizational methods8

Incremental

N

Radical in-house

%

N

%

Radical in collaboration with other companies, consultants, universities etc.

N

%

Yes

117

14.9%

556

69.8%

123

15.6%

No

667

85.1%

241

30.2%

663

84.4%

Regarding the barriers of innovation the results found were in accordance with previous researches (CIS3; OECD, 2005a, Innobarometer, 2007; Eurostats, 2009), when they state that economic factors are the most hindering aspects towards innovation, especially when it comes to the high cost of innovation. However, internal factors were also a hampering aspect, mainly the company‘s management, lack of qualified personnel and lack of knowledge see chart below).

8

The answer ―do not know‖ was excluded from the data presented

55 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Conclusion

CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSION 

Is the reality of Swedish service companies validating the theories of ―Sources of Innovation‖, ―Types of Innovation‖, ―Barriers of Innovation‖ and ―Innovation Protection‖? When it comes to the correlation firm size and frequency to which the company

introduces innovative activity, we conclude that it is according to the theory, but it is weaker towards logistics, delivery or distribution process, in-house research & development and contracted-out research & development. Therefore, larger companies are, at some extent, more innovative. It is difficult to get to any conclusions when it comes to the relation between turnover and the level of innovation, because the results showed a strong trend towards an increase on the turnover, which might be for many other reasons, other than innovation. The findings towards the type of innovation that receives most efforts from the companies, goes against what is in the theory, when it was shown that organizational innovation is not one of the most frequent in the service sector. Therefore, we conclude that organizational is important and common among companies however, it is not the most frequent type of innovation as described on theory. In regard to the protection of innovation, we conclude that the results obtained differ from previous researches and theory. Trademark is not the most common type of protection used by the companies, instead the most frequent protection used is secrecy. Our results show some accordance with the theory when it comes to the sources of innovation. We therefore, conclude that the theory and the companies‘ reality are the same towards client/consumer, when they are considered to be an important source of innovation. However, it differs when it comes to suppliers as sources, because they are not the most common font of innovation among Swedish service firms. When analyzing our results it was found that the majority of the companies develop radical innovation rather than incremental. Therefore, we conclude that there is a difference between what is commonly said in theory and the reality of the Swedish service companies. Regarding the barriers of innovation we conclude that there is a great relation between theory and reality. The economic and internal factors are the most hindering aspects towards 56 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Conclusion/Reflections

innovation. We believe that the fact that the result showed that the government is ―not at all‖ a contributor against innovation is because of all the incentives programs and support given from the Swedish government towards innovation. Table 57 – Summary of Conclusion

Theory

Yes

Larger companies are more innovative than smaller companies

Validating theory At some No Inconclusive Extent X

Relation turnover and level of innovation

X X

Sources of Innovation

X

Types of Innovation Barriers of Innovation

X

Innovation Protection

X

Nature of Innovation

X

CHAPTER 7 – REFLECTIONS  Even though the questionnaire was carefully revised and pre-tested, some companies felt that it was hard to answer. And we believe that some questions could have offered other options, such as question 7.  We also realize that some companies did not participate on our survey because of secrecy, lack of time and also lack of interest on given any sort of contribution.  The short period of time and the lack of resources to develop such an extensive study were most definitely a constrain to the number of respondents, and probably the results of this study.

57 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Further Research

CHAPTER 8 - FURTHER RESEARCH In this study a general and organizational perspective was taken, a more specific research would be interesting to see, specific branch of the Swedish service sector, or even a specific innovation problem. We also believe that it would be interesting to look at innovation from a customer‘s perspective, for example, which branch should be more innovative in order to fulfill their needs. Further research should also be done in an economy fully recovered from the economic depression that occurred in 2008. By doing so, clearer results towards the turnover status could be found. We also believe that would be interesting to see why service companies do not protect their innovation.

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. Benjamin Franklin 58 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

REFERENCES B OOKS & A RTICLES

Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Kitson, M. & Savona, M. (2010) ―Policies to enhance the 'hidden innovation' in services: evidence and lessons from the UK‖, The Service Industries Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99-118. Adams, R., Neely, A., Yaghi, B. & Bessant J. (2008) ―Proposal for Measures of Firm-Level Innovation Performance in 12 Sectors of UK Industry‖, National Endowment for Science Technology and the Art, pp. 1-119. Ahmed, A.M. & Abdalla, H.S. (1999) ―The Role of Innovation Process in Crafting the Vision of the Future‖, Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 37, pp. 421-424. Alam, I. (2006) ―Service innovation strategy and process: a cross-national comparative analysis‖, International Marketing Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 234-254. Amara, N., Landry, R. & Traore, N. (2008) ―Managing the protection of innovations in knowledge-intensive business services‖, Research Policy, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 15301547. Andolsen, A. (2006) ―Get smart! About intellectual property‘, Information Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 36-42. Arundel, A., Kanerva, M., Van Cruysen, A. & Hollanders, H. (2007) ―Innovation Statistics for the European Service Sector‖, Pro INNO Europe INNO metrics, pp. 1-43. Arvanitis, S. (2008) ―Explaining innovative activity in service industries: micro data evidence for Switzerland‖, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 209–225. Aven, T. & Heide, B. (2009) ―Reliability and validity of risk analysis‖ Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 94, pp. 1862-1868.

59 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Babbie, E. (1998) The Practice of Social Research, 8th ed., Wadsworth Publishing Company, Westford, MA. Bager-Sjögren,

L.

(2011)

‖Statistiska

indikatorer

på

tjänsteinnovation

tillväxtanalys arbete med den svenska innovationsundersökningen 2011‖ Myndigheten för tillväxtpolitiska utvärderingar och analyser, pp. 1-66. Barras, R. (1986) ―Towards a theory of innovation in services‖, Research Policy, vol. 15, pp. 161-173. Bartezzaghi, E. (2007) ―Quantitative versus qualitative: Putting the question in the right perspective‖, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, vol. 13, no. 01, pp. 193– 195. Baumol, W.J. (2002) The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Berg, P., Pihlajamaa, J., Poskela, J., Lempiala, T., Haner, U. & Mabogunje, A. (2008) ―Measurement of the innovation front end: viewpoint of process, social environment and physical environment‘, PICMET '08 - 2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, pp. 1112-1120. Berry, L.L., Shankar, V., Parish, J.T., Cadwallader, S. & Dotzel, T. (2006) ―Creating new markets through service innovation‖, Sloan Management Review, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 5663. Blind, K. (2003) "Standards in the service sectors: An Explorative Study", FhG ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 1-9. Bogers, M., Afuah, A. & Bastian, B. (2010) "Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions", Journal of Management, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 857-875. Bougrain, F. & Haudeville, B. (2002) ―Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities‖, Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 735-747.

60 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Bradley, N. (1999) ―Sampling for Internet surveys: an examination of respondent selection for internet research‖, Journal of the Market Research Society, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 387-395. Bresciani, S. (2010) ―Innovation within firms: a survey in the Piedmont area‖, International Journal of Quality and Innovation, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 138-152. Bruce, M. & Bessant, J. (2002) Design in business – Strategic innovation through design, Pearson Education, London. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007) Business research methods, 2 ed., Oxford University Press, New York. Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R. & Savona, M. (2006) ―Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level analysis‖, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 30, pp. 435–458. Caloghirou, Y., Vonortas, N.S. & Ioannides, S. (2002) ―Science and technology policies towards research joint ventures‖, Science and Public Policy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 82-94. Camacho, J.A. & Rodriguez, M. (2008) ―Patterns of innovation in the service sector: some insights from the Spanish innovation survey‖, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 459 — 471. Castro, L.M., Montoro-Sanchez, A. & Ortiz-De-Urbina-Criado, M. (2011) ―Innovation in services industries: current and future trends‖, The Service Industries Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 7-20. Chen, K.C.J. & Hung, M. (2010) ―Perspective Main Industry Country Innovation Policy and Innovation Research Performance of Global‖, IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology, pp. 244-249. Cheng, C., Chen, J. & Tai Tsou, H. (2010) ―Market Creation Service Innovation: Identification and Verification‖, 7th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, pp. 1-6.

61 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Chung, S. & Kim, G.M. (2003) ―Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: the supplier‘s standpoint‖, Research Policy, vol. 32, pp. 587-603. Conway, M. & Thomas, S. (2003) ―Using electronic surveys‖, no. 0301, ASTD. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thomson, R. (2000) ―A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or Internet-based surveys‖, Educational & Psychological Measurement, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 821-826. Coombs, R. & Miles, I. (2000) ―Innovation measurement and services: The new problematique‖ In Metcalfe, J.S. & Miles, I. ―Innovation systems in the service economy: Measurements and case study analysis‖ (pp. 85–103). Boston: Kluwer. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3 ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. de Vries, E.J. (2006) ―Innovation in services in networks of organizations and in the distribution of services‖, Research Policy, vol. 35, pp. 1037-1051. Devine, Å. (2010) Internationalization and performance among small and medium-sized firms: A study of furniture producers in Sweden. Linnaeus University Dissertations, no. 17/2010. DeVon, H.A., Block, M.E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D.M., Hayden, S.J., Lazzara, D.J., Savoy, S.M. & Kostas-Polston, E. (2007) ―A Psychometric Toolbox for Testing Validity and Reliability‖, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 155-164. Dewar, D. R. & Dutton, E. J. (1986) ―The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis‖, Management Science, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1422-1433 Deward, R.D. & Dutton, J.E. (1986) ―The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis‖, Management Science, vol. 32, no. 11, p. 1422-1433.

62 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Dillman, D.A. (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Dillman, D.A., Tortora, R.D. & Bowker, D. (1998) ―Principles for constructing web surveys: an initial statement‖ Washington State University Social and Economic Sciences Research Center. Donova, S. (1992) ―Patent, Copyright and Trade Secret Protection for Computer Software‖, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 33-38. Downey, H.K. & Ireland, R.D. (1979) ―Quantitative versus Qualitative: Environmental Assessment in Organizational Studies‖, Journal of Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 630-637. Drejer, I. (2004) ―Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpeterian perspective‖, Research Policy, vol. 33, pp. 551–562. Drucker, P.F. (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. William Heinemann Ltd, London. Ebling, G. & Janz, N. (1999) “Export and Innovation Activities in the German Service Sector; Empirical Evidence at the Firm Level”, Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) Department of Industrial Economics and International Management, pp. 1-24. Ettlie, E. J., Bridges, P. W. & O‘keefe, D. R. (1984) ―Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical versus Incremental Innovation‖, Management Science, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 682-695. Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P. & O‘Keefe, R.D. (1984) ―Organisation strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation‖, Management Science, vol. 30, no. 6, p. 682-695. European

Industrial Research

Management Association,

Association, European Association

of

Research

European &

University Technology

Organizations, ProTon Europe (2009) ―Joining Forces in a World of Open Innovation: 63 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

For collaborative research and knowledge transfer between science and industry guidelines‖, issued

by

development

knowledge transfer

public

and

the

main European organizations supporting research, companies,

universities,

and

research organizations, pp. 1-30.

Fabunmi, A. B. (2007) ―The Roles of Librarians in Copyright Protection in Nigeria‖, International Journal of African & African American Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 84-93. Fowler, F. (2002) Survey research methods, 3rd ed., Applied social research methods, vol. 1, Sage Publication Ltd., California. Francis, D. & Bessant, J. (2005) ―Targeting innovation and implications for capability development‖, Technovation, vol. 25, pp. 171–183. Freel, M.S. (2000) ―Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing SMEs: the case of an English region‖, Small Business Economics, vol. 15, pp. 27-45. Freeman, C. (1988) ―Introduction‖ in Dosi, G. et al., Technical changes and economic theory, Pinter Publishers, London. Gadrey, J., Gallouj, F. & Weinstein, O. (1995) ―New modes of innovation - how services benefit industry‖, International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4-16. Galanakis, K. (2006) ―Innovation process: make sense using systems thinking‖, University of Warwick, vol. 26, pp. 1222–1232. Gallaher, P.M. & Petrusa, E.J. (2006) ―Innovation in the U.S. Service Sector‖, The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 31, pp. 611-628. Gallouj, F. & Savona, M. (2008) ―Innovation in services: a review of the debate and a research agenda‖, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol. 19, pp. 149-172. Germain, R. (1996) ―The Role of Context and Structure in Radical and Incremental Logistics Innovation Adoption‖, Journal of Business, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 117-127. 64 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Gillham, B. (2000) Developing a questionnaire, Continuum, London. Gordon, B., Engelhard, G., Gabrielson, S. & Bernknope, S. (1996) ―Conceptual issues in equating performance assessments: Lessons from writing assessment‖, Journal of Research and Development in Education, vol. 29, pp. 81–88. Griliche, Z. (1992) ―Output Measurement in the Service Sectors‖, University of Chicago Press, pp: 1-22. Gurgel, M.F. (2006) ―Criatividade & Inovação: uma Proposta de Gestão da Criatividade para o desenvolvimento da Inovação‖, COPPE/UFRJ - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Hatakama, H. (2010) ―Protect and share innovative service as a commons‖,7th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, pp. 1-6. Henderson, M. R. & Clark, B. K. (1990) ―Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms‖, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9-30. Her, I., Mostafa, K. & Hung, H-K. (2011) ―A Hybrid Trademark Retrieval System Using Four-Gray-Level: Zernike Moments and Image Compactness Indices‖, International Journal of Image Processing (IJIP), vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 631-646. Hipp, C. & Grupp, H. (2005) ―Innovation in the service sector: the demand for servicespecific innovation measurement concepts and typologies‖, Research Policy, vol. 34, pp. 517–535. Hipp, C. (2000) ―Information flows and knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive business services: scheme for a conceptualization‖, in: J. S. Metcalfe & I. Miles (Eds) Innovation systems in the service economy. Measurement and case study analysis, pp. 149-167, Kluwer Academic, Boston. Hjalager, A-M. (2006) ―A review of innovation research in tourism‖, Tourism Management, vol. 31, pp. 1–12. 65 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Holme, I.M. & Solvang, B.K. (1997) Forskningsmetodik: om kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder, 2ed., Studentlitteratur AB, Lund. Hongsong, L. (2010) ―The research on the recognition model of enterprise organizational innovation motivation‘, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, pp. 449-453. Howells, J. & Tether, B. (2004) ―Innovation in Services: Issues at Stake and Trends‖, ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition (CRIC) Institute of Innovation Research) University of Manchester, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels - Luxembourg, pp. 1-140. Howells, J. (2000) ―Innovation & services: New conceptual frameworks‖, CRIC Discussion Paper No. 38, Manchester, The University of Manchester and UMIST. Hughes, A. & Wood, E. (2000) ―Rethinking innovation comparisons between manufacturing and services: the experience of the CBR SME surveys in the UK‖, in: J. S. Metcalfe & I. Miles (Eds) Innovation systems in the service economy. Measurement and case study analysis, pp. 105-124, Kluwer Academic, Boston. Hulten, R. C. (2000) "Measuring innovation in the new economy‖, University of Maryland and National Bureau of Economic Research, pp. 1-33. Hussey, J. & Hussey, R. (1997) Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students, Macmillan Business, London. Jana, R. (2007) ―Service Innovation: The Next Big Thing,‖ Business Week. Kronimus, A., Roos, A. & Stelter, D. (2008) "M&A: Dont but Not Out: A Survey of European Companies' Merger and Acquisition Plans for 2009", The Boston Consulting Group. Kuhn, T.S. (1961) ―The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science‖, The history of science society, vol. 52, no. 02, pp. 161-193.

66 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Kuusisto, J. & Meyer, M. (2003) ―Insights into Services and Innovation in the Knowledge Intensive Economy‖, Technology Review – National Technology Agency, no. 134. Leifer, R., McDermott, M. C., Colarelli O'Connor, G., Peters, S. L., Rice, P. M. & Veryzer, W. R. (2000) “Radical Innovation: How Mature Companies Can Outsmart Upstarts‖, Harward Business School. Lemos, C. (2000) ―Inovação na era do conhecimento‖ chapter 5 in Lastres, H. & Albagli, S., Informação e globalização na era do conhecimento, p. 122–144, Editora Campus, Rio de Janeiro. Leonidou, L. C. (2004) ―An Analysis of the Barriers Hindering Small Business Export Development‖ Journal of Small Business Management‖, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 279–302. Love, J.H. & Mansury, M.A. (2007) ―External Linkages, R&D and Innovation Performance in US Business Services‖, Industry & Innovation, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 477-496. Martin, C.R. & Horne, D.A. (1995) ―Level of success inputs for service innovations in the same firm‖, International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 40-56. Martins, S., Couchi, C., Parat, L., Federico, C., Doneddu, R. & Salmon, M. (2004) ―Barriers to entrepreneurship and business creation‖, European Entrepreneurship Cooperation, EEC, pp. 1-49. Mayle, D. (2006) Managing innovation and Change, 3ed, Sage Publications, London. Mehta, R. & Sivadas, E. (1995) ―Comparing response rates and responses content in mail versus electronic mail surveys‖, Journal of the Market Research Society, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 429-439. Messick, S. (1990) Validity of test interpretation and use, Educational Testing Service, Princeton.

67 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Miles, I. (2001). ―Services innovation: A reconfiguration of innovation studies‖, PREST Discussion Paper 01–05, Manchester, The University of Manchester. Miles, I., Kastrinos, N. & Flanagon, K., (1995) Knowledge-intensive Businesses Services: their roles as users, carriers and sources of innovation, A report to DG13 SPRINTEIMS, Prest, Manchester. OECD (2000) ―Promoting innovation and growth in services, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development‖, Paris. OECD (2001) ―Innovative Networks: Cooperation in National Innovation Systems‖, Paris, pp. 48–76. OECD (2005a) ―Growth in services fostering employment, productivity and innovation‖, Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level. OECD (2005b) ―Promoting innovation in services‖, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy. OECD (2005c) ―The measurement of scientific and technological activities‖, Oslo Manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd ed., A joint publication of OECD and Eurostat, Paris. Orlikowsk, J. W. (1991) “Radical and Incremental Innovations in systems development: An empirical investigation of case tools‖, Center for Information Systems Research Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 1-25. Partington, D. (2002) Essential skills for management research, Sage Publication, London. Pereira, A. & Sequeira, J. (2008) ―Do R&D and Marketing Departments Perceive Innovation Fundamentals

Through

the

Same

Lenses?‖, IEEE

International

Engineering

Management Conference, pp. 1-6. Philipson, S. (2010) ―Sources of innovation – revisited‖ Article presented at the International Conference for the Advancement in Management, ICAM, Atlanta. 68 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Pires, C.P., Sarkar, S. & Carvalho, L. (2008) ―Innovation in services - how different from manufacturing?‖ The Service Industries Journal, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1339-1356. Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York. Potter, J. & Prot, A. (2007) ―Promoting entrepreneurship in south east Europe policies and tools‖, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 1-135. Powell, W. (1998) ―Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries‖, California Management Review, vol. 40, pp. 228-240. Reinstalle, A. & Unterlas, F. (2008) ―What is the right strategy for more innovation in Europe? Drivers and challenges for innovation performance at the sector level‖, Austrian Institute for Economic Research (WIFO), pp. 1-159. Reynolds, R. A., Woods, R. & Baker, J. D. (2007) Electronic surveys and measurements, Idea Group Reference, Hershey. Rubalcaba, L., Gallego, J., Hipp, C. & Gotsch, M. (2010) ―Organisational Innovation in Services‖, Consortium Europe INNOVA SectoralInnovation Watch, pp. 1-52. Sarkar, S. & Carvalho, L. (2005) ―Which model is best suited to measuring innovation in tourism sector‖, Paper presented in International Conference Theoretical Advances in Tourism Economics, Portugal. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2000) Research methods for business students, 2 ed., Prentice Hall/Financial Times, Harlow. Schaeffer, D.R. & Dillman, D.A. (1998) ―Development of standard e-mail methodology: results on an experiment‖, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 378-397. Schramm, C., Ballmer, S., Bernd, L.D., Branchard, J., Buckley, G., Collins, A., Eskew, M., Hodges, L., Menzer, J., Palmisano, J.S., Arora, A., Chandy, R., Cooper, B.K., Jorgenson, W.D. & Siegel, D. (2008) ―Innovation measurement, tracking the state of 69 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

innovation in the American economy - a report to the secretary of commerce by the advisory committee on measuring innovation in the 21st century economy, pp. 1-20. Schreier, M. & Prügl, R. (2008) ―Extending lead-user theory: antecedents and consequences of consumers' lead userness‖. Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 24, no. 04, pp. 331-346. Shannon, D.M., Johnson, T.E., Searcy, S. & Lott, A. (2002) ―Using electronic surveys: advice from survey professionals‖ Research & Evaluation, vol. 8, no. 1. Short, W. (2010) ―Drawing up a patent to protect your inventions‖, Poultry World, vol. 164, no. 1, pp. 16. Shuai, Y. & Bo, W. (2010) ―Synergistic Innovation Mechanism Based On Industry Life Cycle‖, 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE). Sirilli, G. & Evangelista, R. (1998) ―Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: results from Italian surveys‖, Research Policy, vol. 27, pp. 881–899. Sobrero, M. & Roberts, E.B. (2002) ―Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development‖, Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 159-182. Sonis, M., Azzoni, C.R. & Hewings, G., ―The three-sector growth hypothesis and the eulermalthus economic growth model: application to the analysis of GDP dynamics of Brazil 1985-2004-2020‖, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USA. Statistiska centralbyrån (2010) Omsättning och lager inom tjänstesektorn: fjärde kvartalet 2010 - Turnover and inventory statistics for the service sector fourth quarter 2010, Statistcs Sweden. Stone, A., Rose, S., Lal, B. & Shipp S. (2008) ―Measuring Innovation and Intangibles: A Business Perspective‖, Science & Technology Policy Institute, pp. 1-27. Studenmund, A. H. (2010) Using econometrics – A practical guide, 6th ed., Prentice Hall. 70 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Sundbo, J. & Gallouj, F. (1999) ―Innovation in seven european countries‖, Report 99:1, Roskilde University Centre for Service Studies, Roskilde. Sundbo, J. & Gallouj, F. (2000) ―Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services‖, International Journal of Services Technology and Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15-36. Tether, B., Miles, I., Blind, K., Hipp, C., de Liso, N. & Cainelli, C. (2002), "Innovation in the service sector; Analysis of data collected under the Community Innovation Survey (CIS-2)", Centre for Research on Innovation & Competition, The University of Manchester. Tether, B.S. (2005) ―Do Services Innovate (Differently)? Insights from the European Innobarometer Survey‖, Industry and Innovation, vol. 12, no. 2, 153-184. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. & Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (3rd ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. Toivonena, M. & Tuominena, T. (2011) ―Emergence of innovations in services‖, The Service Industries Journal, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 887-902. Trott, P. (2008) Innovation Management and New Product Development, 4th ed., Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Tseng, C-Y., Kuo, H-Y. & Chou, S-S. (2008) ―Configuration of innovation and performance in the service industry: evidence from the Taiwanese hotel industry‖, The Service Industries Journal, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1015–1028. Vence, X. & Trigo, A. (2009) ―Diversity of innovation patterns in services‖, The Service Industries Journal, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1635-1657. von Hippel, E. (1988) The sources of innovation, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York. von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge.

71 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Wang, L., Peng, X., Tao, Y. & Hu, S. (2008) ―The typology of service innovation - evidence from Chinese KIBS sector‖, 4th IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, pp. 912-916. Wei, J., Wang, L., Tao, Y. & Wang, T. (2006) ―Factor Analysis on the Performance of Financial Services‖, Zhejiang University, pp. 1-9. Wu, S-H., Huang, S. C-T., Tsai, C-Y. D. & Chen, Y-C. (2009), ―Service innovation in franchising convenience store: an exploratory study‖, International Journal of Electronic Business Management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 137-148. Yancey, K.B. (1999) ―Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment‖, College Composition and Communication I, vol. 50, pp. 483–503. Zhang, J. (2009) ―A Study of Implementing Path of Service Innovation‖, International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, pp. 583-586. E LECTRONIC S OURCES

Almega (2011a) ―3,3 miljoner arbetar i tjänstesektorn‖, vieved 20 April 2011, . Almega (2011b) ―tillväxten bromsas av kompetensbrist‖, viewed 13 April 2011, . Bradshaw, T. & Turner, A. (2008) ―Excellence in service innovation CBI/QinetiQ report on innovation

in

UK

service

sector

businesses‖,

viewed

29

April

2011,

. Business Call to Action (2010) ―Barriers to Progress: A review of Challenges and Solutions to Inclusive

Business

Growth",

viewed

28

May

2011,

<

http://www.businesscalltoaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Barriers-to-InclusiveBusiness-Final-LR.pdf>.

72 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Di.se (2011) ―Sverige bäst i EU på innovationer‖, viewed 30 March 2011, . Dillman, D.A. & Bowker, D.K. (2000) ―The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists‖, available at . Edvinsson, D. (2011) ―Tjänsteinnovationer skapar nya värden‖, viewed 13 april 2011, . Ekn.se

(2010),

‖Introduktion

stora

företag‖,

viewed

18

May

2011,

Ekonomifakta (2010) ―Nystartade företag efter näringsgren‖, viewed 20 April 2011, . Ekonomifakta

(2011)

―Företag

per

bransch‖,

viewed

06

May

2011,

. Europeiska unionen, (2007), ‖ Definition av mikroföretag, små och medelstora företag‖, (2003/361/EG),

viewed

18

May

2011,

Eurostats (2009) ―European Business: facts and figures‖, chapter 25 – Business services. Available

at:

. Information Management (2004) ―AIIM Survey Shows Organizations Face Internal and External Barriers in Adapting to New Compliance Environment‖, Information Management Special Reports, viewed 28 May, 2011, . 73 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Innobarometer (2007) ―Analytical report‖, The Gallup Organization, upon the request of DG Enterprise

and

Industry.

Available

at:

. Innovation framework report (2004) ―Measuring Innovation for National Prosperity‖, Innovation Framework Report January 2004 Version 3.0, p: 1-18, viewed 26 April 2011, < http://www.ibm.com/ibm/governmentalprograms/innovframe2.pdf>. Jarring, K. (2010) ―Så bygger du ett serviceföretag‖, viewed 20 April 2011, http://micco.se/2010/09/sa-bygger-du-serviceforetag/ Jeavons, A. (1998) ―Ethology and the Web: Observing respondent behavior in Web surveys‖, Proceedings of the Worldwide Internet Conference, Amsterdam: ESOMAR, available at: http://w3.one.net/~andrewje/ethology.html. M‘Henni, H. (2010) ―Innovation surveys: toward international standards‖, Workshop on Science, Technology and Innovation Observatories in ESCWA member Countries, pp. 1-14, viewed 28 May, 2011, . Martin, J. & Modig, S. (2010) ―Regeringen antar strategi för ökad tjänsteinnovation‖, viewed 13 April 2011, . MSCI (2011) ―Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS®) – GICS – MSCI‖, viewed 6 April 2011, . NCTE (2009) Standards for the assessment of reading and writing - revised edition, Viewed 02 May 2011 . Näringsdepartementet (2011) ―Svenska innovationer - vilka tänker du på?‖, viewed 13 April 2011, . OECD

(2011)

―Innovation:

The

OECD

Definition‖,

viewed

28

May,

2011,

74 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

References

Royalsociety.org (2009) ―Grand plan for invigorating the service sector‖, viewed 4 April 2011, http://royalsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=8433&terms=hidden+wealth Schettkat, R. & Yocarini, L. (2003) ―The Shift to Services: A Review of the Literature‖, IZA Discussion Paper, no. 964. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp964.pdf Schrör, H. (2008) ―Statistics in focus: Industry, Trade and Services‖, Eurostat, viewed 28 May,

2011,

. Sheehan, K.B. & Hoy, M.G. (1999) ―Using e-mail to survey internet users in the United States: methodology and assessment‖, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol. 4, no. 3, available at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html. Svensson, R. (2011) ―När är statligt stöd till innovativa företag och entreprenörer effektivt?‖, Svenskt

näringsliv,

viewed

31

March

2011

Thepharmaletter.com (2011) ―EU Commission proposes unitary patent protection to boost research and innovation‖, Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology News, viewed 26 May 2011, . Ulusoy, G. (2007) ―Innovation: Some insights‖, International Cultural and Academic Meeting

of

Engineering,

viewed

28

May

2011,

.

.

75 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

APPENDICES A PPENDIX I – C LASSI FICA TION OF ENTERPRISES AC COR DING TO GICS, ADAP TED TO THIS STUD Y .

 Security & Alarm Services Companies providing security and protection services to business and governments. Includes companies providing services such as correctional facilities, security & alarm services, armored transportation & guarding.  Environmental & Facilities Services Companies providing environmental and facilities maintenance services. Includes waste management, facilities management and pollution control services.  Human Resource & Employment Services Companies providing business support services relating to human capital management. Includes employment agencies, employee training, payroll & benefit support services, retirement support services and temporary agencies.  Transportation Companies providing air freight transportation, courier and logistics services, including package and mail delivery and customs agents, passenger air transportation, goods or passenger maritime, rail or land transportation, vehicle rental and taxi companies. Operators of airports and companies providing related services (excludes cruise-ships).  Constructions & engineering Companies engaged in primarily non-residential construction. Includes civil engineering companies and large-scale contractors.  Hotels, Resorts & Cruise Lines Owners and operators of hotels, resorts and cruise-ships. Includes travel agencies, tour operators and related services not classified elsewhere.  Restaurants Owners and operators of restaurants, bars, pubs, fast-food or take-out facilities. Includes companies that provide food catering services.  Education Services 76 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

Companies providing educational services, either on-line or through conventional teaching methods. Includes, private universities, correspondence teaching, providers of educational seminars, educational materials and technical education. Excludes companies providing employee education programs classified in the Human Resources & Employment Services Sub-Industry  Specialized Consumer Services Companies providing consumer services not classified elsewhere.

Includes residential

services, home security, legal services, personal services, renovation & interior design services, consumer auctions and wedding & funeral services.  Marketing Companies providing advertising, marketing or public relations services.  Movies & Entertainment Companies that engage in producing and selling entertainment products and services, including companies engaged in the production, distribution and screening of movies and television shows, producers and distributors of music, entertainment theaters and sports teams.  Broadcast, cable & satellite Owners and operators of television or radio broadcasting systems, including programming. Includes, radio and television broadcasting, radio networks, and radio stations. Providers of cable or satellite television services. Includes cable networks and program distribution.  Health Care Providers & Services Providers of patient health care services not classified elsewhere. Includes dialysis centers, lab testing services, and pharmacy management services. Also includes companies providing business support services to health care providers, such as clerical support services, collection agency services and staffing service. Owners and operators of health care facilities, including hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and animal hospitals.  Banks

 Diversified Financial Services 77 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

Providers of consumer finance services, including personal credit, credit cards, lease financing, mortgage lenders, travel-related money services, pawn shops, credit agencies, stock exchanges, specialty boutiques, investment management and/or related custody and securities fee-based services. Includes companies operating mutual funds, closed-end funds and unit investment trusts.  Insurance  Real Estate Companies or Trusts engaged in the acquisition, development, ownership, leasing, management and operation of properties (industrial, residential, shopping malls, neighborhoods, etc.)  Internet Software, IT & Services Companies developing and marketing internet software and/or providing internet services including online databases and interactive services, web address registration services, database construction and internet design services. Providers of information technology and systems integration services. Includes information technology consulting and information management services. Providers of commercial electronic data processing and/or business process outsourcing services. Includes companies that provide services for back-office automation, companies engaged in developing and producing software designed for specialized applications for the business or consumer market. Includes enterprise and technical software.  Telecommunication Services Providers of communications and high-density data transmission services primarily through a high

bandwidth/fiber-optic

cable

network.

Operators

of

primarily

fixed-line

telecommunications networks and companies providing both wireless and fixed-line telecommunications services not classified elsewhere. Providers of primarily cellular or wireless telecommunication services, including paging services.

78 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

A PPENDIX II – Q UESTI ONNAIRE IN S WEDISH

79 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

80 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

81 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

82 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

A PPENDIX III – Q UESTI ONNAIRE I N E NGLISH

83 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

84 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

85 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

86 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

A PPENDIX IV – I NVITATI ON EMAIL IN S WEDISH

Till , I dagens konkurrenskraftiga värld är innovation en nyckelfaktor för överlevnad och tillväxt, oavsett bransch. Med hänsyn till detta är det av stor vikt att studera innovationer på djupet. Vi är två studenter som studerar marknadsföring på magisterprogrammet vid Linnéuniversitetet och vi vill undersöka graden av innovation och dess särdrag i den svenska servicesektorn. Nya och fördjupade kunskaper inom detta område kan leda till ökad förståelse för tjänstesektorn. • Detta frågeformulär består av 16 frågor; • Det tar cirka 10-15 minuter att genomföra; • All information är konfidentiell; • För att säkerställa giltigheten sätter du in den här säkerhetskoden i frågeformuläret: Din medverkan är mycket viktig! För att besvara enkäten, klicka på länken nedan: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dFlqYXBWbmNmNEhzUGVzVUVPVEVsdFE6MQ#gid=0 Tack för din medverkan! "Tjänster är framtiden. I de flesta västerländska länder kommer 75% av bruttonationalprodukten från tjänster, och deras roll i sysselsättningen är mer än 85%. Det är därför inte förvånande att Näringsdepartementet efterlyst mer innovation inom tjänstesektorn för att öka konkurrenskraften. Men hur ser det ut? Hur innovativa är svenska tjänsteföretag? Ingen vet! Och ingen har ens brytt sig om att ta reda på det! Två av mina studenter, Magdalena Malara och Carla Poroca de Noronha, som studerar magisterprogrammet i marknadsföring, har tagit på sig att göra en stor undersökning av just detta. Om de får en hög svarsfrekvens kommer du att tjäna på det och det kommer att kunna resultera i en mer aktiv politik för att främja innovation. Därför vädjar jag till er att hjälpa dem i denna forskning!" Dr Sarah Philipson, Assistant professor Linnéuniversitetet.

och

ansvarig

för

Masterprogrammet

i

marknadsföring

vid

Denna forskning stöds av:

Om du har några frågor eller kommentarer vänligen kontakta oss: Carla Poroca de Noronha 0707633773 Magdalena Malara 0706166097 [email protected] School of Business and Economics

87 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

A PPENDIX V – I NVITATION EMAIL I N E NGLISH

To , In today's competitive world, innovation is the key element for survival and growth of firms no matter what industry. Considering the importance, it is of extreme significance to study this subject in depth. Hence, we, two Master students in Marketing of Linnaeus University in Växjö, are currently studying the level of Innovation and its specificities in the Swedish Service Sector. New and extended knowledge in this area will lead to increased understanding of the service sector.    

This questionnaire consists of 17 questions; It takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete; All information provided is confidential; To secure the validity of the data provided please insert this security code in your questionnaire:

Your cooperation is very important! To start answering the questionnaire, please click on the link below: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dFlqYXBWbmNmNEhzUGVzVUVPVEVsdFE6MQ#gid=0 Thank you for your cooperation! “Services are the future. Already 75 % of the gross natural product of most western countries comes from services; and their role in employment is even bigger, more than 85 %. It is hence not surprising that “Näringsdepartementet” has called for more innovativeness in the service sector to increase its competitiveness. But what is the state of affairs? How innovative are Swedish service companies? Nobody knows! And nobody has even bothered to find out! Two of my master students in the Master program in Marketing at the Linnaeus University, Magdalena Malara and Carla Poroca de Noronha have taken on themselves to make a massive study of just that. If they get a high response rate you will profit from that and it will impact public policy to become more active in promoting service innovativeness. I therefore appeal to you to help them in this pioneering research!” Dr Sarah Philipson, Assistant professor and director of the Master program in Marketing at Linnaeus University This research is supported by:

If you have any questions or comments please contact us: Carla Poroca de Noronha 0707633773 Magdalena Malara 0706166097 [email protected] School of Business and Economics

88 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

A PPENDIX VI – C OMMENTS LEFT BY COMP ANIES

Because of confidentiality agreement, the names on the comments were replaced by XX.

General comments;

1. Trögheten kunskapsmässigt och gamla knytningar inom vår branch = affärssystem är stor vilket innebär att samtidigt som mycket stora omkostnader i våra kunders organisationer såväl som deras "supply chain" avsevärt skulle kunna reduceras så hindras ofta initiativ av rena nonses skäl.

2. En stor del av ungdomsarbetslösheten kan lösas helt och hållet här, ge småföretag möjlighet att ta in ungdomar till lärlingslöner. Det skulle lyfta väldigt många verksamheter, och sprida kunskap åt båda hållen. Ungdomar kommer med nytänkande, bef företagare står för tradition. När samtalet uppstår löser resten sig på egen hand, våga testa, släpp loss kraften i mötet mellan människor. Sänkt moms på restaurangbesök, JA!, det handlar om så mycket mer än lägre priser på mat, det skapar möten och dialog. Grogrunden för allt företagande, och till slut landets välfärd.

3. Kunder tror ofta att de besitter samma kunskap som det företag de anlitar. Man borde lära sig som köpare att lita på den expertis man anlitar.

4. Det är krävs mycket energi för att orka vara innovativ, detta med anledning av mycket byrokrati, och administrativa ting som speglar vardagen.

5. Innovationer i tjänsteföretag är intimt sammankopplade med organisatoriska förändringar. Och organisatoriska förändringar är i sin tur sammankopplade med dels interna omflyttningar av medarbetare och dels ett behov av att kunna avveckla befintlig personal som gör "gamla saker" och anställa ny personal som gör "nya saker". Den arbetsrätt, och den kultur som är en följd av denna arbetsrätt, förhindrar och försvårar organisatoriska förändringar och därmed möjligheterna att dra nytta av innovationer i tjänsteföretag.

89 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

6. Innovation byggs oftast upp i lag, olika personer med gemensam drivkraft.

7. Den tjänst vi tillhandahåller är gammal och beprövad. Den innovation som blir kommer oftast av krav eller önskemål från kundkrestsen. Vi försöker uppfinna nya metoder, men det är ganska svårt.

8. Låt inte andra leda innovation / kreativitet / produktutveckling i din organisation. Led själv och ta hjälp av er personal, övriga inspirationskällor och låt organisationen skapa en egen process för detta.

9. Krångliga och ibland diffusa skatteregler är hämmande för utvecklingen av tjänster och produkter på Internet.

10. Transportsektorn ändras inte så mycket. Så det finns mycket att göra inom denna sektorn med nytänkande

11. Innovation inom tjänstesektorn lider hårt av att i stort sett alla aktörer såsom

banker,

politiker,

investerare

med

flera

är

starkt

inriktade

på

produkttillverkning och produktförsäljning. För tjänsteinnovationer finns inte kompetens att bedöma marknaden, man vill ha fasta värden som säkerhet.

12. Det är inte alltid utvecklingen skett till det bättre.

13. Administrativt krångligt och resurskrävande att söka bidrag från myndigheter som fått medel tilldelade för att stötta företag som arbetar med innovationer. Utfallet känns även ofta mycket slumpmässigt.

14. Hämtade hit tjänsten/psykologiska metoden från USA där den utvecklades först. Viss kulturell anpassning gjordes sedan, och därefter har fokus de senaste sju åren legat på marknadsföring och tillväxt.

15. Allmännyttans innovationer begränsas av lagar och förordningar,såväl lokala som statliga. 90 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

16. Tyvärr är kunderna relativt konservativa i sin uppfattning och vill ofta ha det som det var förra gången. Kan bero på att man då vet vad man får och törs inte riskera ett "misslyckande" eller något som i alla fall uppfattas som sämre än gången innan.

17. Inom vår bransch redovisning och revision, är det lagar, regler och praxis som i stort styr hur våra processer bör gå till. Graden av hur mycket man i företaget arbetar med innovationer är kopplat till i vilken grad man kan tänka sig att utnyttja de tekniska lösningar som finns, och genom att följa med i framtida lösningar med t.ex. sociala medier, kopplat till vad reglerna ger för utrymme.

18. Vi skulle kunna göra så mycket mer på företaget om vi satsade resurser på det. Men majoriteten av ledningen (= ägarna av bolaget) är rädda för att satsa ordentligt på nya medarbetare. Fler utvecklare/programmerare med högre lön hade kunnat driva vår produkt framåt men istället väljer vi att ta det försiktigt och göra kunder besvikna när vi inte kan leverera nyheter inom rimlig tidsram.

19. Efter 15 år med tjänsteutveckling är det vår erfarenhet att de mest framgångsrika konceptet är att bygga tjänsten tillsammans med kunden när man gör affären. Att sitta på kammaren och fundera skapar ofta tjänster som är svåra att sälja. Däremot bör man använda kunskap (gärna akademiskt) som grund för att skapa hållbara tjänster (jag själv delar min tid mellan företagande och forskning på Universitet vilket har varit mycket framgångsrikt för vår produkt/tjänsteutveckling). Successiv förfining i samråd med kunden är också ett bra framgångsrecept.

20. Även om vi har en bra affärsidé eller möjligheten att utveckla hjälpmedel för flytt- och transporttjänster så innebär detta kostnader som oftats inte går att hämta hem hos våra kunder. Kunders fokus är enbart lägsta pris vilket oftats innebär att nyskapande inte lönar sig, våra kunder intresseras sig inte om vi har utvecklat ett nytt sätt att flytta gods eller utvecklat ett nytt verktyg etc. Vårt fokus ligger på arbetsmiljö för våra anställda, vi får inga nya kunder eller bätttre betalt från kund men vi behåller rätt personal vilket är ytterst viktigt i en lågstatusbransch som flytt är med många oseriös aktörer.

21. Anser

att

det

är

viktigt

att

stimulera

förutsättningarna

att

arbete

med

innovationsfrågorna i verksamheter och även koppla dem till hållbarhetsfrågor. 91 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

22. Inom logistik och transportsektorn drivs enligt min mening utvecklingen av våra kunder beroende på deras dynamiska marknadskrav. Vi anpassar oss för att vi måste och vi vill helst fakturera kunderna för all förändring som de orsakar oss och således reagerar snarare än agerar.

23. Fall inte i fällan att tro att vi kan leva på enbart tjänsteproduktion, d.v.s. att substansproduktion ska ske utanför Sveriges gränser och sedan transporteras hit. Då riskerar vi att hamna i Island- eller Storbritannien-posistionen som trodde att de hade en sån fin "post-industriell" ekonomim där värden nu modernt påstods produceras av tjänster, när de i själva verket hade flummig, icke-substansiell "värdetillväxt" i enorma finansbubblor. Har vi inte konkurrenskraft också i vår varuproduktion så kommer vi att halka efter i välfärd och välstånd, och så faktiskt också med rätta. Hur länge kommer de nya produktionsländerna att fortsätta att låta oss designa och lägga på s.k. emotionella värden som stora påslag i priserna på deras produkter? Varför skulle inte de investera i design- och varumärkes-utbildningar i stället för att ta också de delarna av värdekedjan? Se på USA: att importera det mesta av sina varor är ett recept för handelsobalans och ett ohanterligt stort budgetunderskott. Jag skulle gärna vilja få feedback hur ni ser på dessa makroekonomiska frågor.

24. Då vi är ett av kreditupplysningsföretagen i Sverige regleras vi hårt av lagar vilket gör att vi ibland hindras i att vara innovativa. En av dessa nytillkomna lagarna är att vi måste tillsända alla privatpersoner en upplysningskopia när det görs en kreditupplysning. Detta kan tyckas vara bra för integriteten men är också ett stort hot mot att många företag väljer att inte ta kreditupplysningar på privatpersoner för att det blir för kostsamt. Vi har ännu inte sett konsekvenserna av detta men troligtvis kommer många mer att hamna i skuldfällor än vad det varit tidigare. Vårt köpbeteende idag ser helt annorlunda ut mot vad det gjorde för 10 år sedan då kopian försvann. Idag handlar vi i stor utsträckning på nätet. Här har man under många år tagit upplysningar på privatpersoner för att delvis undvika kreditförluster men det har även varit ett skydd mot att privatpersoner som har dålig ekonomi och är belastade inte skall kunna dra på sig ytterligare skulder. Dessutom är kopian en stor miljöbov både vad gäller våra skogar att det skall transporteras via post. Här levererar vi kopian i så stor utsträckning 92 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

som möjligt elektroniskt. Lagarna hänger således inte med i utvecklingen och förhindrar oss att vara innovativa.

25. Det är stor brist på riskvilligt kaptial för tjänsteutveckling i projket som vi driver dvs små bolag med 30-50 miljoner i omsättning. Detta är nog det största hindret.

26. Att myndigheterna som kommun och skatteverket samkör sina register så att företag som hyr lokaler också finns som skattskyldiga så kan men få bort de som svartar hela omsätningen.

27. Jag är övertygad om att graden av tvärkontakter över dicipliner och roller har en stor betydelse. Ju fler nya kombinationer ju mer innovation.

28. Att det är förvånande att innovationerna (tekniska & organisatoriska) i transportnäringen är så få, då branschen är en mogen, konkurrens utsatt och lågmarginal bransch. Detta borde stimulera till nya och effektiva innovationer.

29. Vi arbetar löpande med förbättringar internt o externt. Men så som frågorna är formulerade känns de lite främmande o pretentiöst att svara bra/ofta på. Vi tänker nog inte i termer av innovationer.

30. vi säljer företag. har väldigt lite med innovationer att göra och det vi kan göra är att förbättra presentationer, processer och förhandlingar/avtal. men det har inte med innovationer i er bemärkelse att göra. Vi utför en hel del research inom vårt internationella nätverk för att få kännedom om alla transaktioner som görs i olika branscher och värderingar mm vilket gör oss till bättre förmedlare samt kan användas i marknadsföringen.

31. Lagen om offentlig upphandling används ofta av tjänstemän i kommuner och landsting på ett sådant sätt att det missgynnar mindre företag i olika upphandlingar. Främst genom att gör anbuden oerhört komplexa, men även storleken på anbuden utesluter ofta mindre företag.

93 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

32. Det saknas möjlighet till finansiering av forskning och innovationer inom teknik för samhällsäkerhetsområdet. MSB finansierar i princip endast forskning inom humaniora, och SME:er kan inte söka forskningsmedel, annat än som en del av Universitet och Högskola. Tillämpad forskning görs dock även av företag som SME:er.

33. Om Sverige ska gå mot ett ökat fokus i värdekedjan måste även kunskapsföretag såsom konsulter inom Informations- och kommunikationsteknologier kunna få full forskningsfinansiering.

34. Jag är inte helt säker på om arkitektkontor är lämpliga i den här typen av undersökningar - många av era frågor verkar röra en helt annan typ av verksamhet. Det är också svårt att dra gränsen mellan innovation och praxis inom arkitekturen. Vi gör sällan samma projekt två gånger - trots detta har alla projekt mycket gemensamt. Vår typ av verksamhet går ut på att skapa originallösningar i ett sammanhang. Allt och inget vi gör är innovationer. Lycka till i er forskning.

35. Jag tror att på ett litet företag handlar mycket av innovationskraften om den gemensamma känslan i kombination med de strukturer, processer och strategier som präglar verksamheten. Vi har varit med om en tuff period där det blev en nedåtdrivande dynamik och hämningar, dolda agendor och frustration. Vi har också varit med om tuff period där det tvärt om söktes innovativa lösningar med kraft och engagemang. En central fråga är den gemensamma viljan och förutsättningar för att driva arbetet från insikt till resultat tillsammans. En annan central fråga är hur vi lyckas nyttja missförstånd, problem, nya situationer, etc. för att hitta innovativa lösningar snarare än att fastna på i dem. Det finns mycket att säga om detta, det är ett mycket intressant ämne som jag gärna är med och diskuterar.

36. Det finns inte något företag som inte säljer tjänster. Alla produkter förbrukas för att leverera en tjänst.

37. Vissa frågor är svåra att svara på vi jobbar med bemanning och kunden står för den formella arbetsledningen hos kundföretaget. Grafiska branschen helt utelämnad bland 94 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

branschalternativen trots en omsättning på 25-30 miljarder och ett kraftigt växande inslag av tjänster/service. Vidare har jag besvarat frågorna för hela kedjan.

38. De här frågorna är jättesvåra att svara på för en redovisningsbyrå. Risken är stor för att jag feltolkat vad det är ni frågar efter då det inte riktigt klart framgår för mig. Jag har tolkat innovation som nya idéer och inte alltid sådana idéer som det går att ta patent på. Det kan vara små förändringar som ändå förbättrar ett arbetssätt på ett dramatiskt sätt för våra kunder. Ofta handlar det om att börja använda befintliga program på ett nytt effektivare sätt i kombination med andra programvaror o dylikt. Möjligheten att jobba mot kunder på avstånd genom on-line programvaror o dylikt. Sådant är absolut inte nytt på något sätt då stora företag redan använt tekniken i många år. Det som ÄR nytt och som har en stor impakt på småföretag är att stora företags tekniska lösningar har gått ned så kraftigt i pris att de är tillgängliga för alla företag oavset storlek. Webbteknikens låga priser förbättrar processer i små företag.

39. Den mesta innovationen inom tjänstesektorn sker pga av specifika kundkrav, själva innovationen sker ute hos kunderna, genom anpassning av existerande produkter. Vilket är helt rätt. Sedan kan man "ta hem" det och göra generellt tillgängligt för marknaden.

40. XX har initierat och skapat konceptet kring en innovationsplattform i XX som heter XX. Låter detta intressant är ni välkomna till XX för en dragning. Visionen strävar efter att XX skall bli en nationell, europeisk satsning. Med vänlig hälsning Syfte: En internationell

plattform

för

Akademi–Näringsliv–Samhälle/Politik–Medborgarna

Innovation är syftet och entreprenörskap är drivkraften. En samlande plats för Europa som mobiliserar, samordnar och driver utvecklingen framåt. En ny internationell, återkommande mötesplats med globalt fokus som syftar till hållbar tillväxt. Ett tillfälle att skapa medial uppmärksamhet och strålkastarljus på såväl ämnet som regionen. En plattform för ekonomisk och hållbar tillväxt i XX, Sverige och Europa. En arena för breddningen av innovationskonceptet mot social och kommersiell innovation. En regionsammanhållande åretrunt-bas i XX. XX är en internationell arena och mötesplats för såväl social som kommersiell innovation och entreprenörskap i skärningspunkter mellan kunskapsområden, där hållbarhetsperspektivet är det 95 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

överskuggande paraplyet för samliga valda kunskapsområden. 2015 års tema skulle kunna

vara

Health

–

Economy

–

Sustainibility.

Mötesplatsen

blir

en

världsangelägenhet, (jfr t ex World Economic Forum i Davos, Schweiz).

41. Entreprenörskap, möjlighter att bygga buffertar hos både företag och enskilda individer skulle främja innovations- och entreprnördarbete påtagligt. Idag oerhört svårt särskolt för enskilda tt bugga upp en reserv för att satsa på något annat ofta innovationer, idéer. Även för de flesta mindre och medlestora verksamhterna är detta svårt. onödigt mkt av investeringarna gåtr därfr till renodlade riskkapitalister, instituationer och inte sälla utlndska intressenter. Gott så men Sverige nehöver ett mkt mer akrivt innovations- och entreprenördsklimat om vi skall klara resan uppåt i det (kunskaps-) samhälle som äve politikerna målar upp. Stort glap där mellan politisk retorik och floskelbingo och verkligheten hos oss som arbetar med innivation, entrenprenörskap och försken att resa kapitalmedel/resurser för att komma framåt.

42. Det finns offentliga medel att söka, vi har bland annat fått bidrag från tillväxtverket för att finansiera vår produktutveckling, men även vinnova har olika program man kan söka. Kanske kan det vara intessant att veta hur företag finansierar sin innovation?

43. Lägre moms för tjänsteproduktion och ökade möjligheter att bygga kapital för utveckling av service och tjänster (bokslutspolitik, dvs lägre skatteuttag, investeringsfonder, resultatutjämningfonder etc för tjänsteutveckling).

44. Det finns en oroväckande fixering att satsa på och bara lyfta fram tjänsteinnovation från politiskt håll. Vi måste lyfta oss en nivå och se på makroperspektivet. Det handlar om att från politiskt håll skapa goda förutsättningar för kreativt företagande oavsett form, inte om att tvinga in företag i givna exploateringsmodeller eller premiera speciella former av innovation. Politiker ska stimulera kreativitet och entreprenörskap i sin helhet, oavsett om det handlar om produkter, tjänster eller kombinationer. Därför, den största utmaningen just nu är inte fokus på en speciell strategi för innovation om tjänster, utan en samlad strategi för innovation som helhet i Sverige. Och sporra kreativitet oavsett form samt och stötta kommersialisering av den!

96 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

45. Tycker att fråga 15 saknar det viktigaste alternativet: Det företag saknar mest är bristen på idéer och fantasi. Det är aldrig en regerings fel eller att det saknas resurser för att stödja en bra idéer, eller att det saknas kompetens. Det saknas helt enkelt oftast det viktigaste, bra idéer om har en chans att flyga i verkligheten.

46. Kanske detta är den underliggande utmaningen vi har, att hantera och förändra vårt inlärningssätt och flockbeteende?

Positive comments

47. Lycka till ! Kör hårt!.

48. Lycka till med studien.

49. Intreserad av att få tillgång till resultatet och er input om ni har några idér inom vår bransch

50. Lycka till med ert arbete!

Negative comments 51. Varför skickar ni ut undersökning via mail och inte via sms med länk? Känns väldigt omodernt. Det var nästan så jag inte svarade.

52. Varför blandar ni engelska och svenska. Använd svenska. Sen kan man ju undra vad detta var till för nytta? Och vad f..n betyder Submit?

97 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011

Innovation in the Swedish service sector: an e-survey analysis de Noronha & Malara

Appendices

A PPENDIX VII – C ORRELATION TABLE FRO M ORDINAL VARIABLES

* Correlations in yellow, strong correlations in green, the most strong correlations in pink.

98 | P a g e 4FE02E - Business Administration, Thesis, Advanced level. Tutor and examiner: Sarah Philipson

Spring/2011