4.1 Article

Antecedents and Barriers to Product Innovation - a Comparison between Innovating and Non-Innovating Strategic Business Units in the Wood Industry

期刊

SILVA FENNICA
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 659-681

出版社

FINNISH SOC FOREST SCIENCE-NATURAL RESOURCES INST FINLAND
DOI: 10.14214/sf.239

关键词

product development; obstacles for innovation; innovation strategy; organization

类别

资金

  1. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
  2. Department of Forest Products at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased competitive pressure from low-cost economies and substituting materials has raised the need for new strategies focusing on product differentiation in the Nordic wood industry. With the aim to identify factors that can facilitate increased product innovation activity, this study compared organizational characteristics and perceived barriers to product development among innovating and non-innovating strategic business units (SBUs) in the Swedish and Finnish wood industry. Multivariate analysis of data from a cross-sectional sample of 110 SBUs suggested that organizational size and educational level among white-collar workers are significant antecedents of product innovation activity. Furthermore, the difficulty of giving practical priority to development work in the everyday stress was identified as the most important perceived barrier to product development among managers in both innovating and non-innovating SBUs. A low competence level among the personnel and a low need to innovate was perceived to be the second most important barriers to product development among managers in, respectively, innovating and non-innovating SBUs. Practitioners who wish to increase product innovation activity in the wood industry are advised to promote an increased educational level in wood industry companies. They are further encouraged to seek ways to reduce the perceived barriers to product innovation identified in this study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据