Cette thèse traite d’un type d’innovation largement négligé jusqu’à aujourd’hui : l’innovation organisationnelle (IO), également connue sous le nom « d’innovation management » ou « innovation managériale ». L’objectif est d’expliquer le phénomène d’adoption de ce type d’innovation en identifiant non seulement ses antécédents internes et externes, mais aussi ses relations avec l’innovation technologique de procédés, avec laquelle elle partage un certain nombre de caractéristiques. Le modèle proposé est fondé sur la vision intégrative de l’innovation (the integrative view of innovation) qui présente un triple intérêt : (1) contrairement à la vision distinctive et linéaire de l’innovation, elle ne relègue pas l’IO au statut d’innovation de second rang ; (2) elle élargit le champ des antécédents au-delà des seuls efforts en R&D et envisage leurs effets d’interaction ; (3) elle enrichit l’explication du phénomène d’adoption d’une IO en faisant l’hypothèse que des innovations de différents types sont adoptées de manière complémentaire. Notre démarche repose sur quatre articles empiriques et une multi-méthodologie, qualitative basée sur six études de cas d’entreprises industrielles, et quantitative faisant appel à différentes méthodes économétriques. Le Lean Management représente la forme concrète d’IO à partir de laquelle les confrontations empiriques sont réalisées. Au final, cette thèse est à l’origine de trois contributions majeures. Tout d’abord, au-delà des antécédents traditionnels privilégiés dans les recherches, d’autres antécédents internes (les pratiques de mobilisation des ressources humaines et la capacité d’absorption des entreprises) et externes (les sources de connaissances) jouent un rôle crucial sur l’adoption d’une IO. Ensuite, la prise en compte des interactions entre ces antécédents s’avère essentielle pour une meilleure compréhension du processus d’adoption, certains étant complémentaires (ex : les pratiques de mobilisation entre elles ou la résistance au changement et le manque de soutien managérial) alors que d’autres sont substituables (ex : les sources externes de connaissance et la capacité d’absorption des firmes). Enfin, conformément à la vision intégrative, l’adoption de l’IO n’est pas indépendante de l’adoption d’une innovation technologique de procédés et est régie par des antécédents similaires. Toutefois, leur relation n’est pas d’ordre complémentaire au sens strict dans la mesure où il y aurait un effet d’ordre. Ces résultats débouchent sur des recommandations managériales utiles pour un meilleur pilotage de l’adoption d’une IO. / This research deals with a type of innovation largely neglected in the literature: organizational innovation, also called "innovation management" or "managerial innovation." The objective is to explain the adoption of this type of innovation by identifying not only its internal and external antecedents, but also its relationship to technological process innovation, with which it shares common characteristics. The model is based on the integrative view of innovation which presents three main advantages: (1) contrary to the linear view of innovation, it does not consider organizational innovation as a second-order innovation; (2) beyond R&D efforts alone, it allows for the integration of new antecedents and their interaction effects, and (3) it enriches the explanation of organizational innovation adoption assuming that innovation is adopted synchronously or complementarily. We used a multi-methodological approach, a qualitative study based on six case studies of industrial firms and a quantitative study using different econometric methods. Lean Management is the concrete form of organizational innovation we studied in the four empirical articles. The contributions of this research are threefold. Firstly, beyond the traditional internal and external antecedents, we show that human resource management practices, firms’ absorptive capacity and external knowledge sources play a crucial role in organizational innovation adoption. Secondly, this research demonstrates that it is essential to take into account the interactions between internal and external antecedents in order to better understand adoption processes, some of them being complementary or substitutes. Thirdly, the study shows that organizational innovation adoption is consistent with the integrative view of innovation since it is dependent of the adoption of technological process innovation, without being strictly complementary. These two types of process innovations, organizational and technological, are also found to be driven by similar antecedents. These results lead to managerial recommendations for a better management of organizational innovation adoption.

Background: Innovation and collaboration are deemed popular terms that are widely used and agreed on. It is implied that innovation without collaboration seems to be unlikely (Deichmann et al., 2017, Haanæs et al., 2018, Innov8rs, 2018). However, the meaning behind innovations of disruptive, incremental, or radical character remains vague and presumably differs between practitioners, just as it differs among scholars. Also, the literature only implies how collaboration can be used effectively for innovation, whilst focussing more on what forms of collaborations are existing.   Research questions: How is innovation understood in the CIC? How does the CIC work together in order to realise cross-industry collaborations for innovation?   Purpose: This study aims at investigating the variety of innovation understanding and how it is applied in collaborations, based on the views of practitioners from different companies that are part of the Cross Industry Club.   Method: This research is designed as an exploratory case study and follows a qualitative strategy with abductive reasoning. Data is collected through nine semi-structured interviews with representatives from five different companies.   Conclusion: The study revealed that practitioners have other aspects in mind which define their understanding of innovation compared to scholars. By that, the usage of innovation terminology is rather arbitrary in practice. The influence of innovation frameworks on the understanding of innovation and the collaborative work have been revealed. Innovation in a cross-industry collaboration, in its purpose and characteristics, is similar to the work of communities of practice. Challenges that appear during the emergence of a collaboration like the CIC, and values that affect the initial work towards cross-industry projects, have been identified.

Background: Most of the existing literature regarding innovation and innovation strategies focus on high-tech industries. In contrast low- and medium-technology industries are receiving very little attention despite the category is making up the largest part of the manufacturing industries in OECD countries. The phenomenon could be the result of misconceptions regarding innovation process in low- medium-tech industries and existing pre-eminence of linear model of innovation. Investigating the realities of innovation strategies in the low- and medium technology industries would help crystallise the understanding of innovation strategies within low- and medium technology industries uncovering key factors for innovation under the industry category. Research question: How do organisations under low- and medium-technology industry category innovate and what is the impact the chosen innovation strategy or a combination of innovation strategies have on the organisation? Purpose: The purpose of this study is to understand which innovation strategies (open, closed, exploitative, explorative or a combination of these strategies) organisations under low- and medium technology industry implement and how such innovation strategies impact the organisation. The aim of the study is to crystallise the understanding in how LMTs innovate, which innovation strategies they select and what influences the selection of innovation strategy. Method: Abductive research approach is used for the study. Qualitative research method is a primary source of data gathered from 8 organisations operating under low- and medium- technology industry category. The data was gathered via semi-structured interviews with C- level executives and management responsible for innovation initiatives. Theoretical framework: The literature will present knowledge based view and outline the link between knowledge and open, closed, exploitative and explorative innovation strategies. Findings & conclusion: Ability to identify relevant knowledge and assimilate it drove innovation within the LMTs assessed. Innovation strategies were selected based on understanding of additional information requirements and market environment in their respective markets. Various combinations of innovation strategies were used at the assessed organisations. Some of the assessed organisations used more open or more closed innovation strategies based on business circumstances. Open innovation strategies enabled fast knowledge accumulation and problem solution discovery. Organisational cultures influence the choice of innovation strategies. Peoples’ knowledge drives performance.

Huvudsyftet med denna uppsats är att analysera hur svenska organisationer arbetar med öppen innovation, i vilka former de gör det och vilken typ av innovationer de producerar. Uppsatsen definierar även uttryckligen begreppet "dolda problem" inom organisationer och kopplar sedan det till innovationsteori. Definitionen av öppen innovation har utvecklats tillsammans med förståelsen för begreppet, vilket i sig utgör en övertygande teori för både organisationer och forskare i strävan efter teknisk utveckling. De befintliga modeller som beskriver öppen innovation är emellertid inte förenliga med hur definitionen av termen har utvecklats. Genom att kartlägga nuvarande litteratur och innovationsteori, föreslås i denna uppsats en förening av två befintliga öppna innovationsmodeller som bättre passar den nuvarande definitionen. I uppsatsen föreslås också att syntetisk innovation - ett begrepp beskrivet i denna avhandling - är den primära typen av innovation som produceras inom en öppen innovationsram. Resultaten, analysen och diskussionerna baseras på en litteraturstudie, en handlingsstudie och fyra fallstudier av innovationsinitiativ i Sverige. Analyserade genom den föreslagna ramen visar resultaten att resurstypen som delas mellan firmor i ett öppet samarbete är mer empiriskt viktig än indikerat från befintliga innovationsmodeller. Det indikeras också att företagens permeabilitet förändrar vilken typ av innovation de producerar. Arbetet indikerar också att dolda problem empiriskt löses genom syntetisk innovation som särskilt kan uppnås i en öppen innovationsmiljö. / The primary purpose of this thesis is to analyze how Swedish organizations work with Open Innovation, in what forms they do so, and what type of innovations they produce.  Secondarily, it explicitly defines the notion of "hidden problems" within organizations and subsequently links it to innovation theory. The definition of Open Innovation has evolved alongside the understanding of Open Innovation itself, and it constitutes a compelling theory for organizations and researchers alike in the pursuit of technological advancement. The incumbent models that describe Open Innovation, however, are not compliant with the definition of the term. By surveying the current literature on Open Innovation, and Innovation theory, this thesis proposes a unification of two incumbent Open Innovation models that better fit with the definition of Open Innovation itself. It also suggests that Synthetic Innovation as defined in this thesis is the primary type of innovation produced under an Open Innovation framework. The results, analysis, and discussions are based on a literature review, an action study, and four case studies of innovation initiatives in Sweden. Analyzed through the proposed framework, the results from this thesis indicate that resource type is more empirically important than evident from incumbent innovation models. It also suggests that the permeability of firms, created in an Open Innovation environment, alters the type of innovation they produce. The research shows a need to update the early, yet fashionable, models of Open Innovation to better map against the current definitions. It also indicates that hidden problems result in a particular type of Synthetic Innovation that is especially achievable through Open Innovation.

Titel: Från innovationsprocesser till realiserade innovationer i en privat och en offentlig organisation - En jämförande studie av innovationsledare och coacher Författare: Mathias Malmgren Jäll & Niklas Hjorth Handledare: Anna Larsson Examinator: Tomas Backström Kurs: INO325, Examensarbete i innovationsteknik på kandidatnivå. Syfte: Syftet med undersökningen är att skapa en bild av hur innovationsarbetet fungerar i realiteten i en offentlig- respektive en privat organisation utefter deras redan kartlagda innovationsprocesser. Intentionen är att kunna identifiera om de arbetar efter sina processer, hitta likheter och skillnader mellan respektive organisation samt möjliggöra en diskussion om vilka som kan anses mest innovativa i sitt arbete. Metod: Författarna har använt en kvalitativ forskningsmetod med utgångspunkt ur ett hermeneutiskt förhållningssätt med en huvudsaklig deduktiv ansats. Teori: Den teoretiska referensramen baserar sig på innovation allmänt i både den privata- och den offentliga sektorn. Sedan beskrivs Eskilstuna Kommuns och Volvo CE:s innovationsprocesser ingående och hur de ska fungera utifrån teoretiska grunder. Empiri: Författarna har intervjuat personer som har rollerna som innovationsledare inom Eskilstuna Kommun och coacher inom Volvo CE. Det har gett en bild av hur innovationsarbetet fungerar i realiteten i en offentlig och en privat organisation samt vilken syn respondenterna har på innovation och vilka förutsättningar de anser finnas för att bedriva ett innovationsarbete inom respektive organisation. Analys: Både den offentliga- och privata organisationen befinner sig bara i början av sina innovationsprocesser. De innovationsledare och coacher som intervjuats ser sig främst som ett stöttande element på sina arbetsplatser och ser det som svårt att realisera innovationer i den situation de befinner sig i nu. Den offentliga organisationen vill skapa ett värde för att människor ska få det bättre medan den privata organisationen är hårt styrda av produktutveckling och värdet ligger där i en slutprodukt som kunden kan köpa. Inom båda organisationerna ser de ett hinder i att strukturerna är invanda vilket inte gynnar ett innovationsarbete. Slutsats: För offentliga Eskilstuna Kommuns del visar det att innovationsledarna inte funnit sina roller ännu och att det kan antas finnas en osäkerhet i hur innovativ organisationen egentligen är. För privata Volvo CE finns tillräckligt med resurser att tillgå, det största hindret kan ses i var idébäraren ska vända sig inom organisationen samt att ledningens perspektiv befinner sig för långt ifrån den övriga organisationen. Innovationsprocesserna kan anses likvärdiga i teorin i sina sätt att arbeta. Privata Volvo CE kan anses vara innovativare i nuläget. / Title: From innovation processes to realized innovations in a private and in a public organization - a comparative study of the innovation leaders and coaches Authors: Mathias Malmgren Jäll & Niklas Hjorth Mentor: Anna Larsson Examinator: Tomas Backström Course: INO325, Bachelor’s Degree project Purpose: The purpose of the survey is to create a picture of how the innovation process works in reality practice in a one public and one or private organization compared to along their already charted innovation processes. The intention is to find out if they are working along with their processes, identify similarities and differences between the organizations and allow a discussion of who can be considered the most innovative of the organizations. Method: The authors have used a qualitative research method with a hermeneutic approach from the start as well as a mainly deductive approach. Theory: The theoretical framework is based on innovation generally in the private and public sectors. Then the authors describes Eskilstuna Municipality and Volvo CE's innovation processes in detail and how they should work in theory on theoretical grounds. Empiricism: The authors have interviewed people who have roles as innovation leaders in Eskilstuna municipality and coaches within Volvo CE. It has given a picture of how the innovation process works in reality in a public and in a private organization, as well as what a sight the respondents think of on innovation and what conditions they consider makes it possible is to pursue innovation strategies within their respective organizations. Analysis: Both the public- and the private organization is just in the beginning of their innovation processes. The innovation leaders and coaches see themselves primarily as a supportive element in their work and see it as difficult to realize new innovations in their current situation they are in now. The public organization wants to create value to people to be better off, while the private organization is tightly controlled by the product and the value is the there in an end product that the customer can buy. In both organizations, they see an obstacle in that the structures are ingrained, which not benefit the work with innovation. Conclusion: For public Eskilstuna municipality part shows that the innovation leaders have not found their roles yet and there is it may be assumed to be uncertainty in how innovative the organization really is. For private, Volvo CE are sufficient resources available, the biggest obstacle can be seen in who people with new ideas is supposed to turn to within the organization as well as that the management's perspective is too far away from the rest of the organization. The innovation processes can be considered equivalent in theory in their way of working, but private Volvo CE can currently be considered more innovative in reality.

Résumé : La présente thèse porte sur le développement d’un modèle d’intervention au profit des agents de développement économique méso dans un contexte de co-innovation et au niveau de l’entrepreneuriat technologique. Grâce à une expérience de plus de quinze ans comme agent de développement économique, une problématique managériale a émergé tranquillement. Les agents de développement économique n’avaient pas à leur disposition les outils d’intervention qui leur permettent de faire face aux nouvelles réalités du développement économique par l’innovation. Une première question peut se poser: qu’est-ce qui a changé dans l’innovation ? Tout d’abord, les savoirs sont de plus en plus complexes et diffus. En effet, les sciences et les technologies, surtout si elles ont atteint un certain degré de maturité, se développent de plus en plus en fonction d’usages qu’elles pourraient remplir (ces derniers étant fonction des besoins exprimés par les usagers). Par ailleurs, tout en se complexifiant à cause de leurs ramifications, les technologies sont de plus en plus accessibles aux usagers, ce qui leur permet de ne plus être seulement consommateurs de technologie, mais également producteurs et codéveloppeurs de produits et services. C’est en ce sens que l’on voit exploser le développement des applications mobiles. En définitive, on passe d’une innovation qui est linéaire, développée en vase clos ou en collaboration entre entreprises et centres de recherche triés sur le volet, qui est par la suite valorisée puis éventuellement commercialisée, à une innovation de nature systémique à la fois portée par des entreprises, des gouvernements et des usagers, ce qui est convenu d’appeler désormais la co-innovation. Par contre, les moyens dont disposent les agents de développement économique ne sont plus adaptés à cette nouvelle réalité. En effet, les outils dont bénéficient ces derniers sont basés sur les principes suivants : 1) la spécialisation sectorielle selon le modèle de Porter (1993), avec la stratégie des grappes où les agents de développement économique faisaient de la concertation et de l’animation du milieu ou 2) la diversité sectorielle et individuelle (Florida, 2005; Jacobs, 1969), où l’on s’est concentré sur la formation entrepreneuriale et sur les visites aux entreprises pour les aider dans leur croissance. Ces stratégies ont été payantes en termes de concertation et de développement hyperlocal, mais sont à la recherche d’un nouveau souffle, notamment en matière d’intergrappes et de cohérence supralocale. Au tournant des années 1990, on voit apparaître la notion de systèmes régionaux d’innovation, qui sont une première tentative de penser le développement économique sous forme systémique. En revanche, les aspects normatifs ont vite disparu des recherches universitaires, ce qui n’a pas permis aux agents de développement économique de s’approprier ces notions, la plupart les trouvant trop compliquées pour y voir de réelles applications en matière d’intervention en développement économique. Enfin, depuis les années 2000, la notion d’innovation ouverte apparaît et suscite beaucoup d’intérêt chez les agents de développement économique, mais ceux-ci manquent encore de modèle afin de pouvoir l’utiliser de façon plus structurée, au-delà de la simple stratégie de gestion de la propriété intellectuelle, comme véritable outil de co-innovation. Ainsi, la question de recherche suivante a été dégagée des éléments issus de la profession et d’une revue de littérature exhaustive: quel nouveau modèle de développement économique (DÉ) basé sur la co-innovation et au niveau de l’entrepreneuriat technologique peut-on développer et quelles seront alors les nouvelles méthodes d’intervention pour les agents de DÉ ? Pour répondre à cette question, la théorie enracinée est apparue comme une méthode de recherche appropriée, car elle permettait la théorisation, essentielle dans le développement d’un modèle. Vingt et une entrevues ont été menées entre août et décembre 2012 entre le Québec, les États-Unis et la France. Les résultats de cette recherche sont les suivants : 1) le niveau d’intervention adéquat en matière de développement économique par l’innovation est le niveau régional, soit les agents de développement économique de type méso (entre le macro et le micro), 2) le processus de développement économique par la co-innovation est un processus intermédié en deux temps. En effet, les agents de DÉ méso travaillent à identifier des problématiques et des besoins communs à différents écosystèmes, et ce, en comptant sur leur réseau. Grâce à ce mécanisme, les agents de DÉ créent des communautés (surtout technologiques) autour desquelles des opportunités intrapreneuriales apparaissent. Celles-ci pourront se transformer en projets structurants qui, à leur tour, pourront déboucher sur des opportunités entrepreneuriales. 3) L’agent de développement économique est à la fois un intrapreneur (qui défend ses projets dans sa propre structure organisationnelle) et un exopreneur (qui défend ses projets dans différentes communautés). Les résultats de cette recherche ont d’ores et déjà servi à la mise sur pied de nouvelles formes d’intervention au niveau méso avec le développement du programme de financement de la Ville de Montréal PR@M-Est, qui est basé directement sur les principes de co-innovation. Par ailleurs, les recherches suscitent de l’intérêt dans plusieurs agglomérations en France et auprès des professionnels en développement économique au Québec et en France. Enfin, des recherches subséquentes ont été identifiées afin de venir compléter le corpus de savoir en matière de développement économique par la co-innovation, notamment en ce qui concerne le partage de rente économique (monétisable ou non) entre les initiateurs de démarches co-innovantes et leurs contributeurs. / Abstract : For a few years, economic developers have integrated innovation to their practice as the engine for economic development. It is now well understood that innovation and economic development are intertwined with the seminal work of Schumpeter more than a century ago. Many researches have been done since, but the very dynamic nature of innovation, and thus the economic developers’ actions, needs constant reassessment. Innovation is changing from a linear perspective where firms, research centers and universities try to develop and commercialize new products and services, based on scientific researches, the so-called Public-Private Partnership, to a systemic form where firms, research centers and universities are still involved in the innovation process, but where more and more Public-Private-People Partnerships can occur. Why is innovation becoming a systemic process? One of the explanations lays in the greater complexity of knowledge and a greater distribution of it. In the meantime, more people can access technologies, as it is seen with the blooming of mobile applications. Since then, the way of innovation process occurs is dramatically changing, and more contributors can join the process, including as usual private companies or government, but also users. What is new with the users is that they are not only involved for commercialization purpose, but now also as co-developers and co-creators. By acknowledging those shifts, economic developers should also change the way they are acting to foster economic development and innovation. So, it is time to develop new forms of intervention in a context of co-innovation. They have to step back to see that their actions are done at the macro level (even if it has been practiced at the regional level) and generally based on industrial concentration with MAR and his industrial districts, on one side and specialization, on the other side with Porter and his clusters’ strategy. The idea is to nourish innovation by geographical, cultural, institutional and social proximity. In doing so, it helps tacit knowledge to flow from one company to another and to bring to the market new products and services more rapidly. Economic developers works with geographic proximity and implements clusters strategies all over the world with different results. So the mechanistic aspect of the strategy is not that simple. Actually, clusters are now shifting to a systemic perspective and try to open-up collaboration between clusters and enhance cross sectorial projects. It also has been demonstrated that innovation is more about people than organizations. Since Jacobs, and later with Florida, the spotlight has been put on the individual as the engine of creativity and innovation. Jacobs thought that knowledge is embedded in the individual expertise, and Florida worked on the creative class which represent about 30% of the population, and who is made of people who promote creativity and changes in some place, generally cities. With Jacobs and Florida, the quality of place is critical because it can help to attract talents. At that micro level also, works on the entrepreneur-opportunity dyad is important. With the neo-classic theory, entrepreneurs can use information asymmetry to exploit opportunities and bring their creativity to the market. Entrepreneurs are very special in essence, even though it has not been establish that they have some special traits, it seems that they have in common a way to act creatively and transform this creativity into opportunities and economic development. For economic developers, it means to develop supportive actions towards entrepreneurs: training, entrepreneurs club, special funding for example. But, the difficulties lay in: how can economic developers develop a more structured model for their interventions to entrepreneurs? Moreover, some do believe that these micro levels approaches can be self-organized and that there is no need for public policy towards entrepreneurs. At the meso level, economic developers can improve, particularly regarding the Regional Innovation System (RIS), the way they can foster business serendipity across networks. Since Chesbrough has defined the concept of open innovation, a more systemic approach to innovation seems to be accepted by economic developers. But, once again, there is lot of work to do to better understand how economic developers can put into practice those new approaches. Thus, neither the macro level approach, which is too mechanistic, nor the meso approaches level, which is to complex, nor the micro level, which doesn’t allow public policy, seem to offer a proper answer to economic developers with the systemic approach of innovation. This dissertation tries to answer the following question: What model can be developed for economic developers in context of co- innovation and technological entrepreneurship? Grounded theory as presented by Corbin and Strauss (2008) was the methodology in this survey. As it is permitted in grounded theory, the literacy has been completed by works on complexity theory, network theory and structural holes and co-innovation. Twenty-one interviews have been conducted in Montréal, the Province of Québec province, France and The United States between August and December 2012 with economic developers, scientific and technological parks managers, co-creation spaces organizers and entrepreneurs. The main conclusions of this research in an academic perspective are: 1. The correct level to support co-innovation is the meso level: this level allows macro and micro level actions to be coherent in a more interdependent perspective. The meso level is a medium term perspective at the regional level. The economic developers mostly use projects and communities of practice to do their actions regarding co-innovation; 2. The process for the economic development through co-innovation is intermediated and two-fold: a) Economic developers identify common needs in their ecosystems through their networks. In doing so, they create communities in which intrapreneurial opportunities occur. Some of these intrapreneurial opportunities lead to structuring projects. b) These projects open-up entrapreneurial opportunities that help regional economic development; 3. Finally, Economic developers are both intrapreneurs (leading project in their own organisations and exopreneurs (leading projects in communities). But as we want to develop something operational for economic developers, we also created an algorithm, which will help them to structure co-innovation actions (how to identify needs, communities, partners, etc.), but also a guide to use the right co-innovative tool at the right moment in their process of co-innovation. Some results of this research has been put into practice with the new program as PR@M-Est at the City of Montréal, this program is based on business serendipity and on co-innovation principles. This research shows some interest in France also. Of course this research has some limits, particularly with the size and the diversity of the sample, but we are confident it could open the way to further research in the field.

Inledning I arbetet besvaras forskningsfrågan ”hur definierar Stadsledningskontoret innovation idag och hur kan de skapa en gemensam grund för deras framtida innovationsarbete”. Metod Under rubriken metod redogörs det hur utförandet av arbetet gått till samt motivering till vald metod. Anledningen till detta avsnitt är för att ge en uppfattning till hur författarna tänkt kring arbetets uppbyggnad. De valda metoderna är kvalitativ metod i kombination med aktionsforskning. Teori Här beskrivs den teori som behandlas, genom den här rubriken kan det ges en förståelse för vilka områden som kommer att beröras i arbetet. Teorin presenteras i tre teman, Innovation, Förutsättningar för ett innovativt arbete i grupp, och Gemensam grund. Empiri Under rubriken empiri presenteras data från tre intervjuer, en workshop samt en enkät. All empirisk data har samlats in hos Stadsledningskontoret i Västerås stad. Empirin visar på en splittrad organisation som saknar tidliga riktlinjer för deras innovationsarbete. Det visar sig också att medarbetarna saknar ett tillåtande klimat och det råder delade meningar om vad innovation egentligen innebär för Stadsledningskontoret. Analys Under den här rubriken sammanställs den teoretiska referensramen samt empirin tillsammans, för att ge en förståelse för hur de olika områdena hänger samman. Analysen tyder på att Stadsledningskontoret saknar en tydlig grund och riktlinje för deras innovativa arbete, de har även svårt att se innovation som något internt. De saknar också en gemensam syn på vad innovation är vilket är en av grundförutsättningarna för innovation. Diskussion I detta avsnitt diskuteras hur Stadsledningskontoret kan gå tillväga för att skapa en gemensam grund för deras framtida innovationsarbete. De med mandat i organisationen bör etablera en tydlig vision med Stadsledningskontorets innovationsarbete, där det tydlig framgår vad innovation innebär. De bör även till detta skapa tydliga mål och strategier för att uppnå denna vision och hur de skall gå tillväga för att implementera denna vision i hela avdelningen. Detta för att alla inom organisationen skall sträva efter ett gemensamt och tydligt mål. Slutsats Under rubriken slutsats kommer analysen mynna ut i hur Stadsledningskontoret kan arbeta vidare för framtida innovationsarbeten. Stadsledningskontoret behöver höja kunskapsnivån om vad för kontext innovation kan uppstå i, att det inte enbart är externt. De bör också fastställa var innovation skall betyda för dem och arbeta för att gemensamt etablera en gemensam grund internt för vad innovation skall vara för Stadsledningskontoret. Vidare bör de också arbeta med klimatet på avdelningen. / Introduction This essay answer the research question how the City Executive of Västerås City define innovation today and how they can create a common ground for their future innovation. Method The heading methodology describes how the performance of work have been done and justification for the selected method. The used methodology is qualitative method combined with action research. Theory The theory are presented under this heading and will generate an understanding on which areas are involved in the essay. The theory presented in three themes, innovation, prerequisites for an innovative group work, and common ground. Empiricism Under the heading empirical the data from three interviews are presented, a workshop and a questionnaire. All empirical data has been collected at the City Executive of the City of Västerås. Empirical data show a divided organization that lacks guidelines for their innovative efforts. It shows that employees do not have a tolerant climate and there is disagreement about what innovation actually means for the City Executive Office. Analysis This heading compiled the theoretical framework and empirical data together, to give an understanding of how the different areas are linked. The analysis suggests that the City Executive Office lacks a clear basis and guideline for their innovative work, they have difficult to see innovation as something internally and they also lack a shared vision of what innovation is, which is one of the basic conditions for innovation. Discussion This section discusses how the City Executive can proceed to create a common ground for their future innovation. Those with a mandate in the organization should establish a clear vision with the City Executive Office work on innovation, where it clearly states what innovation means. They should also be found to create clear goals and strategies to achieve this vision and how to go about implementing this vision of the entire department. This is to everyone in the organization should seek a common and clearly defined goal. Conclusion Under the headline conclusion, this analysis will culminate in the City Executive to work on for future innovation projects. City Executive Office needs to raise the level of knowledge about what the context of innovation can arise in, which is not only externally. They should also establish what innovation will mean for them and work jointly to establish a common basis internally what innovation will be for the City Executive Office. Furthermore, they should also work with the climate in the department.

No description available.

<p> </p><p> </p><p>Innovation and regional development are two topics that were (separately) very much discussed by scholars, and in recent literature there have been attempts to combine and show how the former can contribute to the latter. At the same time, different types of regional agglomeration systems have been developed and discussed such as: clusters, hubs, innovation systems, technopolies, and knowledge cities. However, there is a significant gap in literature when it comes to innovation zones. As a result, there is a need to look into the role of innovation zones in regional development and examine the possible benefits (if any) that the innovation zones can provide to the region to which they are affiliated</p><p> </p><p>.</p><p> </p><p> </p> / MASTERS THESIS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

<p> </p><p>Background: In mobile phone industry, Smartphones are gaining popularity as an effective communication tool, providing users with “Smart” functionalities of both cell-phone and Personal Digital Assistant (PDA). Experts in mobile industry expect that smartphones are going to be dominant in mobile phone market. However, Smartphone industry is facing a different reality, with its declining sales and less market share, forcing research companies (Gartner, Canalys, etc.) to change their expectations. This situation leads us to another important and often ignored perspective of innovation challenges, i.e. consumers' resistance; as consumers' adoption and purchase decision makes a significant difference in the success of innovative products.</p><p>Problem: Innovation has been called as a key factor for companies to survive and grow in the long run, especially in the dynamic & complex markets and uncertain economic circumstances. Despite the successful outcome of innovations, inhibition or delay in the diffusion of innovation may translate this success into market failure, where resistance has been called as one of the main reasons for inhibiting or delaying the innovation diffusion. Consumers adoption of innovation depend upon several factors: the most important of which are specified as consumers’ characteristics (psychological characteristics of consumers; how they view the innovativeness with respect to that particular product), and the innovation characteristics (outcome and effects of innovation). Past research on innovation & consumers characteristics represents good relationship among the innovation/consumers factors and the adoption/implementation of that innovation by consumers.</p><p>Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the relationship between consumers' resistance and different factors from innovation and consumers' characteristics. Thereafter, important factors are identified that mainly affect/determine consumers' resistance to smartphones. Moreover, the inter-relationship (correlation) among the selected factors is found out, to know the affects of each factor on other factors.</p><p>Method: Following abductive approach, confirmatory factor analysis has been done on pre-test questionnaires to test, improve, and verify the constructs (variables/questions) for measuring the hypothesized factors. A theoretical model has been proposed from the hypotheses; and Structural Equation Modeling has been applied, where results are estimated through Partial Least Square and AMOS approaches, using a sample of 330 respondents from Sweden. SmartPLS software has been used to estimate results, thereafter, AMOS has been used to check and verify the results. Almost same results have been derived from both approaches, while results from PLS are found as more satisfactory.</p><p>Conclusions: Five out of eight hypotheses have been supported by our empirical data, where H1 i.e. relative advantage, H3 i.e. complexity, and H4 i.e. perceived risk, are from innovation characteristics, while H6 i.e. motivation, and H7 i.e. „favorable attitude towards existing products‟ are from consumers' characteristics. Motivation, Complexity, Relative Advantage, and Perceived Risk are found as important factors (as per their order) that affect/determine consumers' resistance to smartphones. Relative Advantage & Motivation are found as positively correlated, and Perceived Risk & Complexity are found as positively correlated. Negative correlation has been found between Perceived Risk and relative advantage. Similarly, negative correlation has been found between motivation and complexity. The proposed model of consumers resistance to smartphones shows an acceptable goodness of fit, where 65% (R-square value) of variation in consumers resistance is caused/explained by the hypothesized factors.</p><p> </p> / The Presentation (Defense) has been attended by Cecilia Bjursel instead of our supervisor Desalegn Abraha.