Coeficiente de discriminación y tipos de ruido

Building on the above, we argue that the sources of process innovation are not yet fully explored (cf. Pisano, 1997; Reichstein & Salter, 2006). This can be partly explained by the fact that the nature of process innovation has inherent properties that make it difficult to study the phenomenon. In particular, process innovation can often be incremental and hidden in other activities, while limited data access also plays a role (Adler & Clark, 1991; Argote, 1999; Dosi, 1988; Hatch & Mowery, 1998; Hollander, 1965; Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; OECD, 1997; Rosenberg, 1976, 1982; Tremblay, 1998). Furthermore, a specific driver of process innovation is learning-by- doing, although its precise antecedents are relatively unknown (Adler & Clark, 1991; Hatch & Mowery, 1998; Macher & Mowery, 2003; Rosenberg, 1982; von Hippel & Tyre, 1995). It is therefore important to further explore the importance of non-R&D innovation in general and the role of manufacturing and production floor workers in process innovation in particular.

In this thesis, we go beyond R&D as the main driver for learning and innovation— which is how it has traditionally been considered (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Dosi, 1988; Freeman & Soete, 1997). In particular, we explore how non-R&D activities contribute to the innovation process (cf. Tremblay, 1998). We furthermore specifically focus on process innovation, which has been relatively under-explored in the literature (Hatch & Mowery, 1998; Pisano, 1997; Reichstein & Salter, 2006). In this thesis, process innovation is defined as the development of new or significantly improved production technology. It can be expected that process innovation developed by the firms that use them are driven by particular motivations and economic benefits that are fundamentally different than innovations (embedded in products) that the firm sells (von Hippel, 1988, 2005). It is however important to study the more detailed attributes of user innovation by user firms. As we have strong indications from the literature that process innovation might be to a large extent driven by learning-by-doing (Garvin, 1993; Leonard-Barton, 1992b; Rosenberg, 1982; von Hippel & Tyre, 1995), we particularly investigate manufacturing and production floor workers as a non-R&D source of learning and process innovation (cf. Pisano, 1994, 1996). As learning-by-doing takes place on the production floor and thus remote from the R&D department, we expect that process innovation can be

characterized as having a large informal component, especially when it is driven by contribution of production floor workers. Given the importance of learning-by-doing, it is also important to explore which firm-level capabilities and practices drive the contribution of production floor workers to process innovation (cf. Macher & Mowery, 2003). For example, investments in human capital and the application of certain work practices could affect production floor workers’ ability to learn-by-doing and absorb knowledge and to share and retain this knowledge.

Based on the above, the objective of this thesis is to increase the understanding of the

antecedents and impact of process innovation in user firms by exploring the role of non-R&D activities in general and the role of manufacturing and learning-by-doing in particular. This implies linking different perspectives that are not always well

connected in the literature. To get a complete and precise picture of the development of process innovation, it is furthermore important to take both a holistic and a more detailed perspective. In other words, we need to connect different empirical phenomena to better understand the relationships among them (cf. Arora, 1996; Arora & Gambardella, 1990; Athey & Stern, 1998; Colombo & Mosconi, 1995; Galia & Legros, 2004; Ichniowski, Shaw, & Prennushi, 1997; Laursen & Foss, 2003; Laursen & Mahnke, 2001; Milgrom & Roberts, 1995; Roper, Du, & Love, 2008). This also requires dealing with some measurement and econometric issues in order to empirically explore our research questions (see below). It furthermore entails the utilization and integration of different theories or views that each provides us with a piece of the puzzle we try to solve. We therefore draw from a variety of general theoretical perspectives in order to understand the detailed mechanisms behind the processes that we explore. In addition to the general literature on management of technology and innovation (e.g., Allen, 1977; Chesbrough, 2003; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Rosenberg, 1982; Teece, 1986; Tushman & Anderson, 1986; Utterback, 1994; von Hippel, 2005), we draw from the resource-based view of the firm and other capability-based perspectives (e.g., Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996; Helfat et al., 2007; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Teece et al., 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984), the economics of organization and agency (e.g., Milgrom & Roberts, 1992, 1995), social psychology (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Amabile, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 1985), and human resource practices (e.g., Baron & Kreps, 1999; Ichniowski et al., 1997; Lazear, 1998).

A holistic perspective for example entails bringing together intra-firm and inter- organizational innovation and learning (Becker & Knudsen, 2006; Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995; Takeishi, 2001). We therefore explore the role of different functional areas in the firm—in particular R&D, manufacturing and marketing—in the innovation process. We specifically address which types of external knowledge these functional areas absorb (cf. Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), while we also investigate the interdependencies among them (cf. Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Jansen, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005; Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; Maidique & Zirger, 1985; Rochford & Rudelius, 1992; Song, Montoya-Weiss, & Schmidt, 1997; Zirger & Maidique, 1990). We furthermore specifically emphasize the different process of learning and innovation for process innovation compared to product innovation (cf. Baldwin et al., 2002; Cabagnols & Le Bas, 2002; Kraft, 1990; Martinez-Ros, 1999; Reichstein & Salter, 2006; Rouvinen, 2002; Simonetti et al., 1995). This has important implications for innovation research in general and for our understanding of the relationship between internal and external sources of innovation in particular (cf. Becker & Knudsen, 2006; Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006; Foss, Laursen, & Pedersen, 2008; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Smith et al., 1995; Takeishi, 2001).

Furthermore, by more specifically focusing on innovation that takes place without R&D, this thesis contributes to the understanding of informal innovation and thereby informs researchers engaged in the measurement of innovation. For example, while there is already important evidence on informal R&D (Archibugi et al., 1987, 1991; Kleinknecht, 1987, 1989; Kleinknecht et al., 1991; Santarelli & Sterlacchini, 1990), this thesis particularly explores the importance of non-R&D innovation (cf. Rosenberg, 1982; Tremblay, 1998). We not only use existing innovation surveys but also develop our own questionnaire to study the informal nature of process innovation, thereby adding to our general understanding of the (informal) nature of innovation—process innovation in particular—while also providing results that can be compared to other innovation measurement efforts (cf. Godin, 2005; Kleinknecht et al., 2002; Lhuillery, 2001; OECD, 1997, 2002; Patel & Pavitt, 1995; Smith, 2005). As such measurement efforts serve as an input for policy making decisions, this thesis also informs policy makers about some of the limitations and opportunities related to

the measurement of innovation. The attention of policy makers—and innovation scholars alike—generally goes to more ‘formal’ innovation efforts rather than ‘informal’ efforts (cf. Gault & von Hippel, 2009; Jensen et al., 2007). Thus, when informal attributed of process innovation are not well measured by policy makers, this will lead to incomplete measures and consequently misaligned policy tools.

The questionnaire that we conducted moreover allows us to explore the general characteristics and importance of process innovation as well as the more detailed drivers of process innovation and learning-by-doing (cf. Adler & Clark, 1991; Hatch & Mowery, 1998; Hollander, 1965; Macher & Mowery, 2003; Pisano, 1994, 1997; Reichstein & Salter, 2006; von Hippel & Tyre, 1995). While we investigate the general characteristics of process innovation in user firms, another particular focus of this thesis is on the firm-level capabilities and practices that drive learning-by-doing which in turn leads to more process innovation. More specifically, we explore which complementary systems of managerial practices are implemented in our sample of manufacturing firms and to what extent these practices drive process innovation through learning-by-doing. In addition to improving our understanding of the drivers of learning and innovation (cf. Amabile, 1988, 1996; Cannon & Edmondson, 2005; Edmondson, 1999; Galunic & Rodan, 1998; Thomke, 1998a, 2003; Thomke, von Hippel, & Franke, 1998), this thesis hereby also contributes to the literature on incentives (agency) and human resource management practices (cf. Baron & Kreps, 1999; Becker, 1993; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ichniowski et al., 1997; Laursen & Foss, 2003; Laursen & Mahnke, 2001; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005).

Another contribution of this thesis is that we also explore different types of process innovation. More specifically, we investigate the distinction between major and minor process innovation (cf. von Hippel, 1976). In particular, we study major process innovation which is defined as an innovation that gives the user firm a major functional improvement, while we also study minor process innovation which has a minor functional utility for the user firm. We are therefore not only able to identify the drivers of learning-by-doing and process innovation but we can also more specifically show which systems of managerial practices drive either major or minor process innovation. Hereby, we also add to the literature on innovation management

in general and the literature on radical and incremental innovation in particular (cf. Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Ettlie et al., 1984; Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Gatignon et al., 2002; Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997; Henderson, 1993; Henderson & Clark, 1990; Tushman & Anderson, 1986).

Our study also complements some important work related to the sources of process innovation. Von Hippel & Tyre (1995) and Pisano (1994, 1996, 1997) provide a good background for this thesis as they specifically study the locus of process innovation, but they do not explicitly study radical or incremental innovation. Enos (1962) and Hollander (1965) moreover study the importance of process innovation but limit themselves to either major or minor process innovation, respectively. Furthermore, this thesis complements Reichstein & Salter (2006) who explore the determinants of process innovation, using a different definition of radical and incremental innovation. They however do not explore the role of learning-by-doing. Moreover, with our focus on learning-by-doing and process innovation, we also go beyond most of the existing studies that view learning-by-doing as an automatic process or mainly explore its effect on productivity improvements (e.g., Adler & Clark, 1991; Argote, 1999; Arrow, 1962; Hatch & Mowery, 1998; Macher & Mowery, 2003; Yelle, 1979). Finally, we contribute to the literature on user innovation by exploring a particular type of user innovator—namely, user firms—and by even more specifically focusing on the role of learning-by-doing and production floor workers (cf. Lee, 1996; Ogawa, 1998; von Hippel, 1976, 1988, 2005; von Hippel & Tyre, 1995).