3.6 Data analysis and Interpretation
This process is concerned with analyzing data collected and interpreting it to make sense of it. It is among the most important processes in a study because it provides meaning to the data. In its absence, it would not be able for researchers to determine the way companies should implement innovative ideas into the market (Vanhaverbeke and Peeters, 2005). Different strategies can be utilized to analyze and interpret the data, but the one selected should be dictated by research design that determines the manner in which data is collected and interpreted (McFadzean, O’Loughlin, and Shaw, 2005). As a result, not every method of analyzing data can be utilized in this study and even any other study.
In line with the above understanding, the data collected from the research participants was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) program. This program, unlike Excel, has many tools for analyzing data and it is easier to generate outcomes in relation to the study’s objectives (Adner and Kapoor, 2010). It consists of descriptive and inferential statics that are critical in describing data and generalizing findings based on the sample utilized in a study. The descriptive statistics were utilized to describe the characteristics of the research participants in form of frequency and percentage tables whereas correlation test was utilized to determine the rate of correlation between various variables in the study (Doganis, 2006). Before analysis, the data collected from research participants were entered into SPSS program and checked to ensure that it was clean. Upon making sure that it did not consists of missing data and that the data was entered the way it was in the questionnaire utilized to collect it, then the analysis was conducted with the help of various tools in the program (Davenport, Leibold, and Voelpel, 2006). Frequency tables were utilized to tabulate the outcomes of various Likert-based questions whereas bivariate correlation was utilized to determine the way research participants’ perception of innovative ideas influenced various innovative work behaviors in the company (Fichman, Santos, and Zheng, 2014). The frequencies, percentages, and correlation identified were utilized to inform the way the airline company would commercialize its innovative ideas (Schaltegger, Ludeke-Freund, and Hansen, 2012; Nambisan et al., 2017). In addition, the results were also utilized to determine the way the employees felt about innovative ideas in the company in relation to its competitors.
This part of the study provides the study’s findings in relation to its objective of determining the manner in which an airline company would commercialize its internal innovations. It focuses on the characteristics of the data that was collected and the patterns it provided in relation to the study’s findings. It also describes the data in a manner that makes sense to every person who would be interested in the study. It evaluates the correlation between the promotion of innovative ideas in the company and various innovative work behaviors that form part of the dependent variable (Slater and Mohr, 2006). Finally, it concludes by providing an overview of the major findings to establish the processes that the company should utilize to commercialize its internal innovative ideas. In line with previous practices, it establishes that the company should either adopt new ideas as soon as competitors introduce them into the market or develop its own ideas and introduce them into the market.
4.2 Data Description
The first part of research questions sought to determine the way participants felt about innovation in the company. The results indicated that the majority of them did not feel that the company was doing enough to promote an innovative culture among them because it did not welcome new proposals. In addition, they did not feel that the management team was actively involved in seeking innovative ideas among them. Some felt that the company perceived innovation as too risky and resisted it at all costs. In spite of this, the participants did not feel that employees were penalized for the new ideas that did not work probably because they did not believe that the company was doing enough to promote such ideas. Regardless, they felt that project managers were doing enough to promote and support new ideas in a creative way. Accordingly, most of them felt that they would explore, generate, promote, and implement new ideas if they were given the opportunity to do that.
With regard to the development of new channels for promoting innovation, the participants provided varying results. Some of them felt that the firm was offering these channels on a continuous basis whereas others felt that it was not doing so probably because they did not see the firm as actively involved in seeking innovative ideas. In this respect, some of the participants felt that the firm was dealing with suggestions and complaints from customers on a timely basis whereas others felt that it was not doing so. In relation to marketing new ideas, most of the participants felt that the company was not doing better than its competitors were because it was slow in implementing new ideas and even introducing them into the market in comparison to its competitors. Additionally, they felt that the company did not emphasize managerial innovations aimed at improving processes in the company suggesting that new ideas were not implemented in the company.
In relation to the above, the participants provided varying results in relation to what the firm was doing to promote innovative ideas among them. Some of them felt that it was not improving the quality of its products and introducing them as new products or even to emerging markets whereas others felt it was doing so to their satisfaction. In addition, the majority of them felt that it was not introducing innovative ideas and products flexibly in line with customers’ needs. More importantly, a sizeable number of them felt that the company with the help of the management team was not doing enough to modify its products on a continuous basis and releasing them to emerging markets. Because of the way the majority of the participants felt about new ideas in the company, most of them indicated that the company had not more innovative services/products than its competitors had in the last five years introduced. This suggested the need for further development of new ideas in the company to counter those from competitors and help employees develop them (Ramachandran, Devarajan, and Ray, 2015). In addition, it pointed to the need for the company to develop and implement new ideas into the market.
For the above reason, the participants were asked to indicate the process that they felt that the company should utilize to counter threats from competitors and meet customers’ needs. Prior to that, they were asked to indicate whether they knew of any idea in the company aimed at enhancing the organization’s competitiveness in the airline business. All of them indicated that they knew of such ideas. Accordingly, they were asked to indicate the innovation strategy they considered most effective in the airline business. The majority of them (40%) were in favor of early market innovator, 30 percent of them were in favor of early adopter, 15 percent were in favor of mainstream market early majority, 8 percent were in favor of late majority whereas 7 percent were in favor of laggard. The results indicated that majority of the participants were in favor of early market innovation and early adoption suggesting that the company should either adopt new ideas as soon as possible or develop its own ideas and introduce them to its business practices. Indeed, when they were asked to recommend the most efficient strategy for the company to adopt, majority of them were in favor of early market innovator and early adopter.
4.3 Correlation Test
To determine the extent to which the research participants’ perception of innovative ideas in the company influenced their innovative work behaviors, a correlation test was carried out and its outcomes are as Table 4.3.1 depicts. The results indicate a strong correlation (0.637), which is significant between opportunities for exploring new ideas and perception of promotion of innovative ideas. This suggests that if employees would be encouraged to develop new ideas, they would definitely explore those ideas for the benefit of the company. Similarly, the results indicate a strong correlation (0.635), which is significant, between the generation of new ideas and the promotion of innovative ideas in the company. In addition, the results indicate a strong correlation (0.664), which is significant, between the promotion of new ideas and perception of such ideas in the company (Cohen 1992). Finally, although there is a correlation between the implementation of new ideas and promotion of innovative ideas in the company, the correlation between them is weak (0.126) suggesting that it might not influence research participants significantly.
The above findings provide conflicting results because on one hand, some participants feel that the company is not doing enough to promote the development of innovative ideas among employees. On the other hand, a group of participants feels that the company is doing something probably through project managers to promote the development of new ideas in the company. In line with these results, the majority of the participants feel that in the last five years, the company has not introduced new ideas into the airline business in comparison to competitors. In spite of this, the majority of them feel encouraged to explore new ideas for the sake of enhancing the company’s competitiveness whereas others feel encouraged to generate and promote new ideas among themselves. In this respect, most of them recommend that the company should enhance its innovative practices by either becoming an early adopter of new ideas and practices in airline business or develop its own ideas and introduce them into its business practices before its competitors do so. If the company were to do either of the above, then it would enhance its competitiveness in the airline business and be able to commercialize its internal innovations for its benefits.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), pp. 306-333.
Cohen, L., 1992. Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), pp. 155-159.
Davenport, T., Leibold, M., and Voelpel, S., 2006. Strategic management in the innovation economy: strategy approaches and tools for dynamic innovation capabilities. Erlangen, Publicis.
Doganis, R., 2006. The airline business. New York: Routledge.
Fichman, R., Santos, B., and Zheng, Z., 2014. Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), pp. 329-353.
McFadzean, E., O’Loughlin, A., and Shaw, E. 2005. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 1: the missing link. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), pp. 350-372.
Nambisan, S. et al., 2017. Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), pp. 223-238.
Ramachandran, K., Devarajan, T., and Ray, S. 2015. Corporate entrepreneurship: How? Vikalpa, 31(1), pp. 85-97.
Schaltegger, S., Ludeke-Freund, F., and Hansen, E., 2012. Business cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, 6(2), pp. 95-119.
Slater, S., and Mohr, J., 2006. Successful Development and Commercialization of Technological Innovation: Insights Based on Strategy Type. J Prod innov manag, 23, pp. 26–33.
Vanhaverbeke, W. and Peeters, N., 2005. Embracing Innovation as Strategy: Corporate Venturing, Competence Building and Corporate Strategy Making. Creativity and innovation management, 14(3), pp. 246-257.
|1||Our firm normally encourages employees to be innovative|
|2||The management team normally seeks innovative ideas from employees|
|3||Our firm perceives innovation as risky thereby resists it|
|4||Employees are normally penalized for new ideas that fail to work|
|5||Project managers normally support innovative ideas, creative processes, and experimentation by promoting them|
|6||Our firm offers new channels for promoting innovative ideas on a continuous basis|
|7||Our firm deals with customers’ complaints and suggestions on new products/services urgently with utmost care|
|8||Our firm emphasizes on introducing managerial innovations|
|9||In marketing innovations (particularly in terms of entering new market), our firm is far much better than its competitors|
|10||New services and products in our organization take up against competitors|
|11||Introduction of new services and products in our organization is often first-to-market|
|12||Customers perceive our new products as original|
|13||Our firm has introduced more innovative services and products than its competitors over the last five years|
|14||Our company normally improves old products to develop new products/services|
|15||Our company raises new products from scratch|
|16||Our firm delivers new products according to customers’ needs|
|17||Our firm modifies the design of its products/services and introduces them fast to the market|
|18||Our firm is able to develop new products/services on timely basis and introduce them into market as soon as possible|
|Innovative work behaviors|
|19||I feel encouraged by our firm to explore innovative ideas|
|20||I feel encouraged by our firm to generate new ideas for the firm’s benefit|
|21||I feel encouraged by the firm to promote new ideas among colleagues|
|22||I feel encouraged by the firm to implement new ideas|
4. If yes, which innovation strategy do you consider most effective to airline companies?
5. Of the above strategies, which one would you recommend for your organization?
Table 4.3.1: The correlation coefficients for various variables
|Perception of innovative ideas||Opportunity exploration||Idea generation||Idea promotion||Idea implementation|
|Perception of innovative ideas||Pearson Correlation||1||.637**||.635**||.664**||.126|
|Opportunity exploration||Pearson Correlation||.637**||1||.474*||.482*||.266|
|Idea generation||Pearson Correlation||.635**||.474*||1||.803**||.417*|
|Idea promotion||Pearson Correlation||.664**||.482*||.803**||1||.024|
|Idea implementation||Pearson Correlation||.126||.266||.417*||.024||1|
|**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|
|*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).|
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more