https://doi.org/10.37815/rte.v34n2.927
Original articles
Propuesta
metodológica para mejorar la innovación empresarial del sector logístico en
Cartagena, Colombia
Jorge Armando Luna Amador
1
jlunaa@unicartagena.edu.co, aescobare@unicart=
agena.edu.co <=
/span>
2
Sent: = 2022/03/26<= o:p>
Accepted: 2022/06/21
Published: 2022/06/30
Abstract
Summary: Introduction,
Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion and Conclusions. How
to cite: Luna, J., Escobar, A. & Arrieta, V. (2022).=
Methodological
proposal to improve organizational innovation in the logistics sector =
of
Cartagena, Colombia. Revista Tecnológica - Es=
pol,
34(2), 247-263. http://www.rte.espol.e=
du.ec/index.php/tecnologica/article/view/927
This paper aims to design a methodological proposal to
improve the innovation of companies belonging to the logistics sector in
Cartagena, Colombia. The multiple case study methodology was applied, where
nine axes that directly affect organizational innovation (strategy, culture,
planning, people, tools, products/services, processes, efficiency, and
capitalization) were analysed. The sample consisted of five Logistics Servi=
ce
Providers located in Cartagena. Among the main results of the research, it =
was
found that planning is fundamental for improving organizational innovation
because it is essential to have a stipulated strategic direction and to des=
ign
a plan to propitiate an innovative culture in the company. Additionally, the
company's diagnosis showed that most have innovative resources and processe=
s;
however, they do not have the necessary tools to implement the processes
effectively. Finally, four of the five companies are working to develop an
innovative culture, which places culture as the second most crucial axis af=
ter
planning. These results led to the proposal of a methodology that seeks to
improve organizational innovation levels and mainly focuses on three phases:
Strategic Direction, Processes, and Results.
=
Keywords: Innovative Culture, Planning, Organizations, Processes, Methodology,
Logistics Operator.
Resumen
Este trabajo investigativo bus=
ca
estructurar una propuesta metodológica para mejorar la innovación de las
empresas pertenecientes al sector logístico en Cartagena, Colombia. Se apli=
có
la metodología de estudio de casos múltiples, donde se analizaron nueve ejes
que inciden directamente en la innovación organizacional (estrategia, cultu=
ra,
planificación, personas, herramientas, productos/servicios, procesos,
eficiencia y capitalización). La muestra estuvo conformada por cinco Operad=
ores
Logísticos ubicados en Cartagena. Entre los principales resultados de la
investigación se encontró que la planeación es fundamental para mejorar la
innovación organizacional debido a que es fundamental tener un direccionami=
ento
estratégico estipulado y diseñar un plan para propiciar una cultura innovad=
ora
en la empresa. Adicionalmente, el diagnóstico de las empresas arrojó que la
mayoría cuentan con recursos y procesos innovadores; sin embargo, no cuentan
con las herramientas necesarias para implementar los procesos de manera
efectiva. Finalmente, cuatro de las cinco empresas están trabajando para
desarrollar una cultura innovadora, lo que sitúa la cultura como el segundo=
eje
más importante después de la planificación. Estos resultados llevaron a la
propuesta de una metodología que busca mejorar los niveles de innovación
organizacional y se enfoca principalmente en tres fases: Dirección Estratég=
ica,
Procesos y Resultados.
Introduction
Innovation
management is an important source of sustainable growth and a determining
factor in achieving competitive advantages (Nimf=
a et
al., 2021; Tali et al., 2021), which allows companies =
to
remain and succeed in a complex organizational environment composed of
uncertain markets.
There
are different positions and approaches of academics and researchers on the
concept of innovation. Schum=
peter (1934) states that in capitalist
systems, companies remain in an evolutionary process of new goods and servi=
ces,
new methods, and market and organizational structures. From this evolutiona=
ry
process lies the importance of innovation. Innovation, according to =
Chesb=
rough et
al.(2018) and Lavikka et al. (2021), is not about generating=
new
value or creating new things (inventions) but about creating value for
customers, therefore, for the company.
Druck=
er
(2002) defines innovation as the
effort to create a change with a defined purpose and commercial or
organizational potential. He also stated that having ideas was easy and hav=
ing
good ideas were complicated. However, what is vital for the company is
constantly generating good ideas and materializing them in products, servic=
es,
or processes. On the other hand, Gault=
(2020)
and Goldman & Gabriel (2005) say that innovation is
found everywhere, since innovation is spoken of in the scientific and techn=
ical
literature, but also the social
sciences. Hence, innovation has become an emblem of society used to solve m=
any
of the problems that arise in an unstable environment.
Currently,
the phenomenon of innovation is being studied from a multidimensional
perspective, which includes several types of innovation, such as innovation=
s in
product, process, marketing, and organization; the latter being the type of
innovation to be analyzed in this research (Kore=
n &
Palčič, 2015; Lalic et al., 2019, 2017; Palčič et al.,
2020).
According
to Macha=
do &
Davim (2020), when academic literatur=
e speaks
of organizational innovation, reference is made to three large areas of stu=
dy:
a) the innovation itself, b) the different types of innovation in organizat=
ions,
and c) changes in the structure of the organization.
Organizational
innovation effects the price and the quality (differentiation of goods and
services). The European Union (Euro=
pean
Commission, 1995) describes it as the mech=
anisms
that generate internal business interactions and make up the networks with
which the organization communicates with its environment. Finally, the OECD =
(2018) defines innovation as implementing
new methods in business practice, jobs, and company-environment interaction=
s.
The organizational
innovation model of the COTEC
Foundation (2013) states that innovation
management is based on five interdependent stages: focus, training,
implementation, monitoring, and learning. Additionally, they consider that
innovative attitudes in companies are opt for innovation, recognize it as an
operation, and value innovation. The COTEC Foundation is widely recognized =
in
innovation due to the models and methodological tools it has developed, as =
well
as the reports about the state of innovation in different sectors that it h=
as
published (Math=
ison
& Primera, 2007; Ortiz, 2016). In this sense, different
authors have referenced the reports, models, and tools developed by COTEC to
carry out their research. Among these authors we can mention Ateho=
rtúa (2022), Casas=
and
Urrego (2013), Doume=
cq et
al. (2013), and D’Al=
vano and
Nuchera (2011). All=
of
the aforementioned confers validity to using the COTEC model for the
methodological proposal developed in this research.
Based on
the above, this research article aims to develop a methodology for the
improvement of organizational innovation in the logistics sector of Cartage=
na, Colombia;
a sector that has been a beneficiary of the neoliberal policies of economic
opening implemented by the Colombian government in recent years. In fact, a=
ccording
to Foreign Trade Statistical System -DIAN-SIEX-, Cartagena is the most
important customs office in Colombia, with a value of US$ 19,639 million, w=
hich
corresponds to 47.6% of the total products processed in the country and sent
abroad in 2021 (Dire=
ction of
Taxes and Customs in Colombia, n.d.).
Despite
the above, some drawbacks affect the competitiveness of Cartagena´s logisti=
cs
sector, such as the lack of technological development in transport systems =
and
port terminals and the insufficient incorporation of track and trace techno=
logy
to implement the “last mile” in e-commerce logistics (Arri=
eta
Rodríguez et al., 2018). Based on the preceding,=
Arrie=
ta
Rodríguez et al. (2018) indicate that there is a=
need
for companies in the logistics sector to develop innovation strategies that
allow them to differentiate themselves and be more competitive internationa=
lly.
The
methodology used for the developing this quantitative and explanatory resea=
rch
was the study of multiple cases, considering that the analysis of
organizational innovation is complex and implies the study of multiple
participants. This case study was delimited to five companies in Cartagena´s
logistics sector, which were subjected to structured surveys in order to
determine their levels of organizational innovation based on the Organizati=
onal
Innovation Model developed by the COTEC
Foundation (2013). This tool that has had =
a great
impact on the academic community and has been used as a guide for the
development of research such as the one presented here.
In
general terms, this paper consists of a introduc=
tion
with a review of the postulates of theoretical references that have contrib=
uted
to the construction of innovation concepts, delving into organizational
innovation. Next, the methodology used to determine and analyze the levels =
of
organizational innovation in logistics companies is presented in order to subsequently develop the proposed methodol=
ogy to
improve the levels of organizational innovation in these companies. Finally,
conclusions or final considerations are shown as results of the findings
obtained during the research process.
A multi=
ple case
study was carried out to develop this research. It is a methodological tool
widely used in organizational studies (Yin, 2014)=
. It is the most appropriate strat=
egy when
seeking to answer how and why a contemporary phenomenon occurs when the
researcher has little control over the facts and events (Yin, 2014)=
. For Mills et al=
. (2010), case studies can be defined as i=
n-depth
research on data obtained in a given period from one or more companies, in
order to analyze the context and the processes involved in the phenomenon u=
nder
study. In this sense, this case study is presented as empirical research th=
at
studies a contemporary phenomenon (organizational innovation) within its re=
al
context, with no visible limits between the phenomenon and the context. For
this purpose, different sources of information are used.
Case studies can be simple when the= y refer to one company or multiple when two or more companies participate ADDIN CSL_CITATION {"citationItems":[{"id":"ITEM-1","itemDa= ta":{"author":[{"dropping-particle":"",&= quot;family":"Yin","given":"Robert",&quo= t;non-dropping-particle":"","parse-names":false,&q= uot;suffix":""}],"id":"ITEM-1","iss= ued":{"date-parts":[["2014"]]},"publisher&quo= t;:"SAGE Publications Inc.","publisher-place":"New York",&q= uot;title":"Case Study Research: Design and Methodology","type":"book"},"uris":[&quo= t;http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=3D8f38fb2a-561d-4b71-9360-2028a7f= 3657c"]}],"mendeley":{"formattedCitation":"(Y= in, 2014)","plainTextFormattedCitation":"(Yin, 2014)","previouslyFormattedCitation":"(Yin, 2014)"= },"properties":{"noteIndex":0},"schema":"= ;https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.= json"}(Yin, 2014)Gonzalez (2= 016); Nagano et al. (2014); Orth et al. (2021); Santa-Maria et al. (2021) and Tarafdar & Gordon (2= 005)Stake (2013)(COTEC Foundation, 2013; El País, 2013)(COTEC Foundation, 2013)(Blasco et al., 2010; Pa= mies et al., 2020; Ruiz & García, 2013)(Enjolras et al., 2014)(Petit et al., 2011)(Attallah et al., 2019)(Banu, 2018)(Jones-Evans et al., 2018)Table 1-.
Table 1
Description
of the Organizational Innovation Axes
|
DESCRIPTION |
|
|
Culture |
Dissemination of innovation information to employees,
management of innovation processes with suppliers, good relationship with
clients, reward for contributing new ideas, the company's management
motivates employees to innovate, innovation issues are discussed in execu=
tive
meetings. |
|
Strategy |
Attendance at fairs and innovation events, the existenc=
e of
specific innovation objectives within the organizational plan, knowledge =
of
government programs to support business innovation, new goods or services=
are
advertised, the existence of strategic alliances with training centers and
universities. |
|
Planning |
the company draws up innovation plans and projects,
establishing a specific company budget for innovation activities. |
|
People |
Regular staff training on innovation aspects. |
|
Processes |
Formalized processes to participate in government progr=
ams
to promote business innovation and having a department dedicated to
innovation procedures. |
|
Tools |
Availability of tools and indicators to measure innovat=
ion
in the company. |
|
Products/Services=
|
Launching new products and/or services on the market,
improvement of existing products and/or services, innovation in marketing
processes. |
|
Efficiency |
Availability of a system to value and measure intangible
assets and productivity related to innovation. |
|
Capitalization |
Increase in intangible assets. |
Source: prepared by the authors, ba=
sed on COTEC Fou=
ndation
(2013)
In order to comply with the organizational innovation axes, a company sho= uld have more than 80% compliance. The ideal state of organizational innovation= is reached when all the axes are fulfilled. Each of the nine axes measures specific aspects of organizational innovation. Companies reach the axis’required level of organization when they meet mo= st of the questions in that axis.
Each of the axis has a specific qua= ntity of questions out of the total surveys questions. In this sense, the culture ax= is has eight questions, strategy eight questions, planning two questions, peop= le three questions, processes five questions, tools two questions, products/services four questions, efficiency two questions, and capitalizat= ion two questions. Each question has a proportional weight; for example, the process axis – which has five questions –has a percentage value of 20% each= .
Based on the above, if a company me= ets all the questions of a specific axis, it gets 100% compliance. However, if it d= oes not comply with some questions, its compliance percentage decreases proportionally to the weight of each unfulfilled question.
For its part, the documentary revie= w is a primary source of information that provides relevant data on the company’s processes. For this, access to the organizations’ strategic plan, annual reports, procedural manuals, technical and commercial value proposition documents, and financial documentation was requested. These reviews are important to compare with the responses provided during the surveys and all= ow to check whether the innovation processes are properly documented in the company. Additionally, there was a review of public documents of the compan= ies, web pages, and studies of the logistics sector in Cartagena. All of the foregoing is useful to analyze which aspects of organizational innovation are duly documented in the companies under study and to give mea= ning to the results obtained in the surveys. As mentioned, the survey results and their comparison with the business documentary information were validated u= sing the expert criteria technique (Pamies et al., 2= 020).
The semi-structured interviews were= applied to experts in the logistics sector who made it possible to contextualize and analyze the results obtained from the surveys and the documentary review. Additionally, with their experience and knowledge of the logistics sector, = it was possible to structure a methodology according to the needs of the compa= nies under study, which could be projected towards other companies in the sector= .
Finally, with the information colle= cted and thanks to the different data gathering techniques, an analysis was carried = out, which allowed the design of the proposed methodology to improve organizatio= nal innovation in the logistics sector companies in Cartagena, Colombia.
Resu=
lts and Discussion
Diagnosis of Organizational Innovation
The results obtained from the nine pillars or axes proposed in the methodology allow us to determine the current state of organizational innovation in companies under study. The results of each of the five companies under study are described in detail below.
In the case of PTOM company – see Figure 1<= /span>- it can be observed= that it reaches an ideal level of organizational innovation in the axes of culture, strategy, planning, people, processes, products/services, and capitalizatio= n. On the other hand, in the axes of tools and efficiency, the ideal level of organizational innovation is not reached due to the inexistence of an innovation department or an accounting system to identify the value of the company’s intangible assets.
Figure 2<= /span> shows that PTOS com= pany have ideal levels of organizational innovation in the axes of culture, planning, people, tools, products/services, and efficiency, whereas it did = not reach the required levels in the axes of strategies, processes, and capitalization.
Figure 3<= /span> shows that MROL com= pany reached the levels of organizational innovation in the axes of culture, strategy, planning, people, and capitalization. However, in the axes of processes, tools, products/services, and efficiency, the required level was= not reached.
Figure 1
Innovation variables in PTOM company
Source:
prepared by the authors, based on COTEC Foundation (2013)
Figure 2
Innovation variables in PTOS company
Source:
prepared by the authors, based on COTEC Foundation (2013)
Figure 3
Innovation variables in MROL company
Source:
prepared by the authors, based on COTEC Foundation (2013)
For its part, Figure 4 shows that SERP com= pany stood out with acceptable levels of organizational innovation in the axes of culture, planning, people, and capitalization. However, it did not reach the required levels in the axes of strategy, processes, tools, products/service= s, and efficiency.
Figure 4
Innovation variables in SERP company
Source:
prepared by the authors, based on COTEC Foundation (2013)
Finally, Figure 5= shows that INTG company reached acceptable levels of organizational innovation in= the axes of planning, processes, efficiency, and capitalization. On the other h= and, the required level in the axes of culture, strategy, people/means, tools, a= nd products/services was not reached.
Figure 5
Innovation variables in INTG company
Source:
prepared by the authors, based on COTEC Foundation (2013)
In general terms (as seen in Table 2), none of the compa= nies analyzed reached an ideal state of organizational innovation. PTOM was the company that achieved the highest level of compliance with the axes of busi= ness innovation (culture, strategy, planning, people, process, product/service, = and capitalization). Conversely, INTG was the company that showed the lowest le= vel of compliance achieving only four axes (planning, processes, efficiency, and capitalization).
Regarding the axes, the one that obtained the highest degree of compliance was planni= ng, which was fulfilled in each company. In contrast, the axis related to the t= ools was the one with the lowest level of compliance (acceptable results were achieved in only one company). The foregoing shows that companies are appro= ving budgets to develop innovation projects. However, companies do not have sufficient physical and technological tools to execute those projects, impl= ying a barrier in their materialization.
Table 2
Organizational innovation level of compli=
ance
in companies under study
|
AXES/COMPANIES |
PTOM |
PTOS |
MROL |
SERP |
INTG |
|
Culture |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
NO |
|
Strategy |
YES |
NO |
YES |
NO |
NO |
|
Planning |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
People |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
NO |
|
Processes |
YES |
NO |
NO |
NO |
YES |
|
Tools |
NO |
YES |
NO |
NO |
NO |
|
Product/ Service |
YES |
YES |
NO |
NO |
NO |
|
Efficiency |
NO |
YES |
NO |
NO |
YES |
|
Capitalization |
YES |
NO |
YES |
YES |
YES |
Source:
Own elaboration
Methodological proposal for the improveme=
nt of
organizational innovation
The strategic diagnosis showed that planning process is vital for developing an innovative culture in the organization and executing innovative corporate projects. However, the diagnosis also showed that companies do not have the necessary tools to carry out these planned innovation initiatives. These results are crucial when designing the methodological proposal for the improvement of organizational innovation in the population under study, as = it is described below:
Firstly, planning is fundamental for improving organizational innovation because it = is essential to have a stipulated strategic direction and to design a plan to propitiate an innovative culture in the company. The importance of planning= is demonstrated when 100% of the companies analyzed comply with this axis. In = this sense, the proposed methodology must start from a planning or strategic direction focused on organizational innovation.
Additionally, it is important to ensure the availability of resources, formalized process= es, and tools to carry out organizational innovation projects. The companies’ diagnosis showed that most companies have some innovative resources and processes. However, some of the companies did not have tools such as laboratories, specialized software for Business Intelligence, Blockchain technology for the implementation of Smart Contracts, and automated equipme= nt for storage logistics. The lack of these tools impedes the effective implementation of processes; therefore, the innovation tools must be essent= ial in the proposed methodology.
Finally, fourof the five companies analyzed are working = to develop an innovative culture, which places culture as the second most vital axis after planning. The aforementioned may indi= cate that achieving an innovative culture should be a relevant factor in the proposed methodology for organizational innovation.
It is relevant to mention that the proposed methodology has limitations in its application because the foreign trade logistics sector of Cartagena includes different members, such as customs agencies, port terminals, shipping companies, land carriers, practical pilot service companies, tug service companies, customs warehouses, logistics operators, international cargo age= nts, and diving service companies. Each of them has different processes for the execution of their business activities. Hence, it is difficult to design a methodology that fully adjusts to all the companies belonging to the differ= ent links of the supply chain, even though these companies have a common denominator: to achieve a smooth operation of foreign trade and its inherent logistics activities. For this reason, it should be clarified that this methodological proposal applies to Logistics Service Providers, the type of company selected to carry out this study.
The guidelines of this methodology are presented taking into account the result= s of the diagnosis implemented with the companies under study and the methodolog= ical proposals of theoretical references such as Beltrán & Pulido (2012) and Cândido et al. (2015). Among the variety = of factors used in their research, they point out the importance of strategic design, processes, and results.
Based on the above, this methodological proposal starts from the STRATEGIC DESIGN variable since the research results showed that innovation is an issue that should be conceived from the strategic level and make it flow to the other hierarchical levels of the organizations in a coordinated way. Then, the PROCESS variable refers to the processes, tools, and activities required to promote innovation in the company. Finally, the RESULTS variable is include= d to identify the results of all the innovation management implemented with the previous variables. Each of the above variables will be described in-depth,= and some management indicators will be designed for control, monitoring, and follow-up purposes:
Table 3
Methodological variables for=
the
improvement of organizational innovation in the Strategic Design phase
|
PHASE |
VARIABLES |
DESCRIPTION |
|
Strategic Design |
Senior Management |
This is the head of the organization (Partners=
); inclusion of innovation in the corporate values,
mission, vision and objectives of the organization. The objectives set mu=
st
be achievable and consistent with reality. |
|
Resources |
Allocation of an economic budget for the
management of innovation, authorization to involve all the human talent t=
hat
makes up the organization in its different departments, authorization of
spaces and time to carry out innovation activities. In this sense, innova=
tion
is not seen as a waste of time. |
|
|
Search and identification of human resources f=
or
innovation |
Identification of the leader and person
responsible for innovation management who must inspire the rest of the
organization. Search, participation and evalua=
tion
of innovation groups by departments. These groups for innovation manageme=
nt
includes different professionals from different areas. |
Source: own elaboration
Table 4
Indicators of methodology va=
riables
for the improvement of organizational innovation in the Strategic Design ph=
ase
|
PHASE |
VARIABLE |
INDICATOR |
|
Strategic Design |
Senior Management |
Corporate objectives aimed at innovation/ Tot=
al
Corporate objectives |
|
Resources |
1) Economic
resource authorized for innovation/ Total income 2) Authorized time for innovation/ Total work=
ing
hours |
|
|
Search and identification of human resources =
for
innovation |
Percentage of compliance with the required pr=
ofile |
Source:
own elaboration
Table 5
Methodological variables for=
the
improvement of organizational innovation in the Processes phase
|
PHASE |
VARIABLES |
DESCRIPTION=
|
|
Process |
Tools |
Equipment and
technologies, surveys, R+D+I department, management systems for innovatio=
n.
To innovate, it is necessary to be organized, therefore the existence of
management systems that guarantee the organization of the company is
important. |
|
Internal and external sources of innovation |
Participatio=
n of
all employees, suppliers, customers, port, customs and environmental
authorities, universities, and community in the innovation activities. In
other words, all the agents from which information necessary for the
generation of innovation can be obtained. Institutional
actors are also involved in this variable and strategic alliances are
generated in order to promote an adequate inno=
vation
ecosystem. This variable
seeks to know the perception of the community about corporate social
responsibility, since growth is not only conceived for the company, but f=
or
the territory where it is located and it must =
be
aligned with regional development plans. These activi=
ties
can be implemented through the formation of work networks with representa=
tives
belonging to each of the aforementioned stakeholders<=
/span>.
In these meetings specific commitments must be established which must be
recorded in minutes with responsible individuals and compliance deadlines=
. |
|
|
Process innovation management |
Commercial, =
operational and administrative management. Inclusion=
of
innovation in the main processes that make up the business activity of the
company. |
|
|
Plan of activities for innovation |
Meetings, dissemination of information,
brainstorming, entertainment and recreation
activities that provide a setting for the generation of ideas; economic a=
nd
verbal motivation for employees; participation in innovation fairs;
innovation projects and training for innovation. |
Source:
own elaboration
Table 6
Indicators of methodology va=
riables
for the improvement of organizational innovation in the Processes phase
|
=
PHASE |
=
VARIABLE |
=
INDICATOR |
|
=
Process |
Tools |
=
1)
Management systems with modules specialized in innovation / Total managem=
ent
systems used in the company =
=
2)
Total technological resources authorized for innovation management / Total
resources used =
=
|
|
Internal and external sources of innovation |
=
1)
Total of internal sources of information for innovation / Total of intern=
al
sources =
=
2)
Total of external sources of information for innovation / Total of extern=
al
sources |
|
|
Process innovation management |
=
Total
of main processes that include innovation / total of main processes |
|
|
Plan of activities for innovation |
=
Total
activities executed for innovation / Total activities planned for innovat=
ion |
Source:
own elaboration
Table 7
Methodological variables for=
the
improvement of organizational innovation in the Results phase
|
PHASE |
VARIABLES |
DESCRIPTION<= o:p> |
|
Results |
Model or prototype |
Design of the innovation process in the compa=
ny,
in this way the dynamics of innovation will be easier=
and it should be disseminated to all the employees involved. |
|
Adequate accounting systems |
As a result =
of
the innovation, an adequate accounting system is found, which is adapted =
to
the innovation management and allows identifying the intangible assets
generated by the innovation process. The growth of
sales as a result of the innovation management=
and
the improvement of the services provided. |
|
|
Efficiency |
Lower costs =
in
service operations provided, innovative processes that allow a quicker
provision of the service. |
|
|
Culture |
Change in the
behavior of employees oriented towards innovation. Habits, permanent
motivation, experimentation, breaking the status quo, frequency of meetin=
gs,
appropriation of knowledge for innovation. There must be knowledge transf=
er, capture and appropriation of new knowledge. Innovati=
on
becomes part of the organization's DNA. |
Source:
own elaboration
Table 8
Indicators of methodology va=
riables
for the improvement of organizational innovation in the Processes phase
|
PHASE |
VARIABLE |
INDICATOR |
|
Results |
Model or prototype |
Number of improved processes / Number of
innovation activities |
|
Adequate accounting systems |
=
1)
Total sales invoiced as a result of innovation
activities / Total investment for innovation =
2) Total intangible assets resulting from inn=
ovation
activities / total intangible assets Note: Intangible assets generated internally =
by
innovation activities will be measured in accordance with the provisions =
of
the International Accounting Standards (IAS): "The cost of an internally generated
intangible asset, for the purposes of the initial measurement, will be the
sum of the disbursements incurred from the moment in which the element me=
ets
the conditions for its recognition, established in relation to the condit=
ions
necessary to be an asset and to be recognized”. This condition can be fou=
nd
on IAS 38. |
|
|
Efficiency |
Operating costs for service provision prior to
implementation of innovation activities - Operating costs for service
provision after implementation of innovation activities |
|
|
Culture |
=
1)
Total monthly meetings to discuss innovation issues / total monthly meeti=
ngs =
2) Total New Ideas Submitted by Employees / T=
otal
New Ideas Approved by Employer 3) Total working time dedicated to innovation
activities / Total working time |
Source:
own elaboration
The methodological proposal pres=
ented
above, arises from the results obtained in the strategic diagnosis of the
companies under study. Additionally, the expert opinion method was used to
validate the elaboration of the phases, the variables, and the indicators of
the methodology proposed. The expert opinion has been widely used as a
validation instrument for methodological proposal in the field of innovatio=
n (Monsonís-Payá et al=
.,
2017).
Conclusions
This research showed the current=
state
of organizational innovation of five companies in the logistics sector in
Cartagena, showing that none of them has been able to reach an ideal state =
of organizational
innovation. This result is because they do not fully comply with the nine a=
xes
used to measure innovation in these companies (culture, strategy, planning,
people, processes, tools, product/service, efficiency, and capitalization).=
On average, the companies analyz=
ed
reach levels of innovation above 80% in five of the nine measured areas, wh=
ich
shows the need for logistics companies to improve their levels of
organizational innovation to reach the ideal state (100% on all nine axes).
Based on the foregoing, the methodological proposal for improving organizat=
ional
innovation was structured.
The methodological proposal was
designed considering the importance of the planning axis in the companies
analyzed. The relevance of the planning axis positions it on the first phas=
e of
the methodological proposal which focuses on strategic direction.
Additionally, the proposal consi=
ders
the interdependence shown by the axes of processes and tools, which must be
developed jointly to get better results. The importance of the interdepende=
nce
between processes and tools was evidenced in the strategic diagnosis, which
showed that most companies have processes and resources dedicated to innova=
tion.
However, they do not have tools such as specialized software, blockchain
technology, and automated equipment to implement those innovation processes=
effectively.
For this reason, the methodological proposal in its Process phase contains a
Tool variable to ensure that companies have the necessary tools to implement
their innovation processes.
Finally, it tends to create an
innovative culture since companies will be innovative when their members
internalize an ideology focused on creativity and develop habits for genera=
ting
new ideas.
Despite all the efforts that are=
being
made in the logistics companies in Cartagena, it is evident that they still
have some weaknesses in the management and generation of innovation. Theref=
ore,
it is important to make available methodological tools like this one, which
intend to improve levels of organizational innovation.
For future stages of this research, it is expected to implement the proposed methodology in the five selected companies. Then, carry out a comparative analysis to determine ifthere was an improvemen= t in the levels of organizational innovation. Finally, the academic community is invited to carry out studies like this in other economic sectors in order to provide companies with methodological tool= s to improve their innovation levels and, hence, their competitiveness.
References
Arrieta Rodríguez, D. A., Guzman, H. L., & González, =
J.
S. (2018). Análisis De Las Empresas De Cartagena Del Sector Logístico Portu=
ario
Basado En El Modelo De Configuración Estratégica De Danny Miller. Revista
Aglala, 9(1), 62–90. https://doi.org/10.22519/22157360.1182
Atehortúa, J. (2022). Propuesta de Gestión de la
Innovación Tecnológica en la administración de la tierra bajo la norma ISO
19152 : 2012 LADM COL . Estudio de Caso : Catastro Medellín
[Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano]. https://repositorio.itm.edu.co/bitst=
ream/handle/20.500.12622/5584/LuzJeannette_AtehortuaGoez_2022.pdf?sequence=
=3D1&isAllowed=3Dy
Attallah, S. A. A., Mamlook, R., & Al-Jayyousi,=
O.
(2019). A proposed methodology for measuring sme innovation. Arab Gulf
Journal of Scientific Research, 37(2).
Banu, G. S. (2018). Measuring innovation using key
performance indicators. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 906–911.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.128
Beltrán Duque, A., & Pulido, B. (2012). Innovación:
estrategia que contribuye a asegurar crecimiento y desarrollo en micro,
pequeñas y medianas empresas en Colombia. Revista Sotavento, 19,
104–113. https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/sotavento/article/vie=
w/3344
Blasco, J., López, A., & Mengual, S. (2010). Para Con=
ocer
Las Experiencias E Interés Hacia Las Water Activities With Special Attentio=
n To
Windsurfing. Ágora, 12(2005), 75–96.
https://www.eutm.es/journal/index.php/gt/article/view/85/83
Cândido, A. P., Vianna, C. T., Gauthier, F. O., Aradas, A.
R.-P., & Koslovsky, M. A. N. (2015). Proposta de modelo para avaliação e
supervisão de gestão da inovação tecnológica em pequenas e médias organizaç=
ões.
Espacios, 36(20), 8. https://www.revistaespacios.com/a15v36n2=
0/15362008.html
Casas, R. D., & Urrego, N. M. (2013). Selección de mo=
delo
de gestión tecnológica para pymes colombianas. Revista Científica, <=
i>1(17),
125. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.4572
Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation=
. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471
COTEC Foundation. (2013).=
La
Innovación en las Pymes Españolas. Fundación COTEC.
D’Alvano, L., & Nuchera, A. H. (2011). Uso de técnica=
s y
el desarrollo del proceso de innovación en las organizaciones de servicio. =
Actas
de Las XIV Congreso Latino-Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica - ALTEC 20=
11,
409. http://oa.upm.es/11543/
Direction of Taxes and Customs in Colombia. =
(n.d.). ESTADÍSTICAS DE COMERCIO EXTERIOR.
https://www.dian.gov.co/dian/cifras/Paginas/EstadisticasComEx.aspx
Doumecq, J. C., Domingo, P. J., & Antonio, M. O. (201=
3).
La Gestión de la Innovación Tecnológica y el Desarrollo Territorial (GIT). =
Dyna, Oc=
tober.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259282203
Drucker, P. (2002). The Discipline of Innovation. <=
i>Harvard
Business Rview, 80, 95–100.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11192227_The_Discipline_of_Innovat=
ion
El País. (2013). Cotec crea una herramienta para medir la
capacidad de innovación de las pymes. Teritorio PYME.
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2013/02/27/emprendedores/1361978053_=
587363.html
Enjolras, M., Galvez, D., Camargo, M., & Morel, L.
(2014). Proposal of a methodology =
to
elicit maturity curves: Application to innovation and protection capabiliti=
es
of SMEs. 2014 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and
Innovation: Engineering Responsible Innovation in Products and Services, ICE
2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2014.6871592
European Commission. (1995). Libro Verde de la Innovac=
ión.
European Commission.
Gault, F. (2020). Measuring Innovation Everywher=
e.
Edward Elg.
Goldman, R., & Gabriel, R. (2005). Innovation
Happens Elsewhere: Open Source as Business Strategy (First edit). Morgan Kaufmann.
Gonzalez, I. V. D. P. (2016). As Características para o Surgimento da Aprendizagem Organizacional, da Inovação e da Gestão da Inova= ção: Estudo de caso múltiplo em empresas industriais do setor de cosméticos. = Espacios, 37(31), 32. https://www.revistaespacios.com/a16v37n31/16373132.html<= o:p>
Jones-Evans, D., Gkikas, A., Rhisiart, M., & MacKenzi=
e,
N. G. (2018). Measuring Open Innovation =
in
SMEs. In Researching Open Innovation in SMEs (p. 536). World Scienti=
fic.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1142/10733
Koren, R., & Palčič, I. (2015). The
impact of technical and organisational innovation concepts on product
characteristics. Advances in Production Engineering and Management, =
10(1),
27–39. https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2015.1.190
Lalic, B., Anisic, Z., Medic, N., Tasic, N., &
Marjanovic, U. (2017). The impact of organizational innovation concepts on =
new
products and related services. 24th International Conference on Producti=
on
Research, ICPR 2017, 110–115.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ugljesa-Marjanovic/publication/3238881=
19_THE_IMPACT_OF_ORGANIZATIONAL_INNOVATION_CONCEPTS_ON_NEW_PRODUCTS_AND_REL=
ATED_SERVICES/links/5ac387b6a6fdcccda661053b/THE-IMPACT-OF-ORGANIZATIONAL-I=
NNOVATION-CONCEPTS-ON-NEW-PROD
Lalic, B., Rakic, S., & Marjanovic, U. (2019). =
Use
of industry 4.0 and organisational innovation concepts in the Serbian texti=
le
and apparel industry. Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, 27(3),
10–18. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.0737
Lavikka, R., Chauhan, K., Peltokorpi, A., &
Seppänen, O. (2021). Value creation and capture in systemic innovation
implementation: case of mechanical, electrical and plumbing prefabrication =
in
the Finnish construction sector. Construction Innovation, 21(=
4),
837–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-05-2020-0070
Machado, C., & Davim, J. P. (2020). Entrepre=
neurship
and Organizational Innovation (First Edit). Springer International
Publishing.
Mathison, L., & Primera, C. (2007).
INNOVACIÓN : FACTOR CLAVE PARA LOGRAR VENTAJAS COMPETITIVAS
INNOVATION : KEY FACTOR TO ACHIEVE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES Introducción
Consideraciones Iniciales. Revista NEGOTIUM / Ciencias
Gerenciales, 7, 65–83.
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3D2573532
Mills, A., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). = Multiple-Case Designs. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n216<= o:p>
Monsonís-Payá, I., García-Melón, M., & Lozano, J. F.
(2017). Indicators for responsible
research and innovation: A methodological proposal for context-based weight=
ing.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(12).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122168
Nagano, M. S., Stefanovitz, J. P., & Vick, T. E.
(2014). Organizational context as a support to innovation: A comparative ca=
se
study in Brazilian companies | O contexto organizacional como aporte à
inovação: Um viés comparativo de casos em empresas Brasileiras. Gestao e
Producao, 21(3), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X510
Nimfa, D. T., Islam, A., Latiff, A. S. A., & Wa=
hab,
S. A. (2021). Role of Innovation Competitive Advantage on Strategic Orienta=
tion
Dimensions and Sustainable Growth of SMEs in Nigeria. Communications in
Computer and Information Science, 1477 CCIS, 46–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86761-4_5
OECD. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for
Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. In The Measurement of
Scientific; Technological and Innovation Activities.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264304604-en.pdf?expires=3D1635=
188344&id=3Did&accname=3Dguest&checksum=3DA0EFE082698559115B1F2=
1499AE294A1%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
Orth, P., Piller, G., & Rothlauf, F. (2021). How
Companies Develop a Culture for Digital Innovation: A Multiple-Case Study. =
In Lecture
Notes in Business Information Processing (Vol. 430).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87205-2_15
Ortiz, J. (2016). COTEC, 1990-2015. Un Cuarto de Siglo
Impulsando la Innovación. COTEC.
Palčič, I., Klančnik, S., Ojsteršek, R., Lerher, T., Buchmeister, B., & Ficko, M. (2020). The Use of Organizational Innovation Concepts in Manufacturing Companies. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communicati= on Technology: Vol. 591 IFIP. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57993-7_9<= o:p>
Pamies, M., Cascales, A., & Gomariz, M. (2020). La
validación de expertos en el proceso de adaptación de cuestionarios. El
cuestionario de transferencia de la formación del profesorado no universita=
rio.
In La docencia en la Enseñanza Superior. Nuevas aportaciones desde la
investigación e innovación educativas (pp. 528–538). Ediciones OCTAEDRO.
https://octaedro.com/libro/la-docencia-en-la-ensenanza-superior/
Petit, C., Dubois, C., Harand, A., & Quazzotti, S.
(2011). A new, innovative and
marketable IP diagnosis to evaluate, qualify and find insights for the
development of SMEs IP practices and use, based on the AIDA approach. World Patent Information=
, 33(1),
42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2010.03.001
Ruiz Suárez, M., & García Rubiano, M. (2013). Adap=
tación
Lingüística Y Validación Del Cuestionario De Justicia Organizacional De
Colquitt Con Una Muestra De Trabajadores Colombianos Linguistic Adaptation =
and
Validation of the Colquitt Justice Organizational Questionnaire Applied To
Colombian Workers. 16(29), 65–83.
http://portal.unisimonbolivar.edu.co:82/rdigital/psicogente/index.php/psico=
gente
Santa-Maria, T., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Baumgartner, =
R.
J. (2021). Framing and assessing the
emergent field of business model innovation for the circular economy: A
combined literature review and multiple case study approach. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 26, 872–891.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.037
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic
Development. Harvard University Press.
Stake, R. (2013). Multiple Case Study Analysis.
The Gilford Press.
Tali, D., Uzir, M. U. H., Maimako, L. N., Eneizan, =
B.,
Latiff, A. S. A., & Wahab, S. A. (2021). The impact of innovation compe=
titive
advantage on product quality for sustainable growth among SMES: An empirical
analysis. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Manageme=
nt,
16(3), 39–62.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353573368_The_Impact_of_Innovation=
_Competitive_Advantage_on_Product_Quality_for_Sustainable_Growth_among_SMEs=
_An_Empirical_Analysis
Tarafdar, M., & Gordon, S. R. (2005). How information technology capabilities influence
organizational innovation: Exploratory findings from two case studies. P=
roceedings
of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems=
in
a Rapidly Changing Economy, ECIS 2005.
https://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/how-information-tec=
hnology-capabilities-influence-organizational-innovation(7dba75bd-3d07-4e21=
-a6db-538f28251aa5).html
Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methodology. SAGE Publications Inc.
5
Methodological proposal to improve organizational
innovation in the logistics sector of Cartagena, Colombia=