Discussion of Qualitative Empirical Data

69 In Q14 (“Does the employees choose their own work tasks?”) the case is the same as in Q8. However, in Q14, the question in the interview only focuses on the employee’s work tasks, whereas the statement in the survey focus both on the employee’s work tasks as well as the company’s overall strategy.

In both Q18 and Q19, the statement in the survey and the question in the interview are formulated, so a comparison is possible. Again the perception of internally and externally innovation and the perception of a systematic approach can be different depending on the respondent.

With the discussion of the quantitative data collected by the conducted surveys, in order to compare with the qualitative data collected from the conducted interviews and examine innovation culture in the studied SMEs, it becomes clear that the validity of the surveys can be discussed. However, the intention with the quantitative data has throughout the research been to use it as a support to the qualitative data, and the quantitative data therefore can be argued to provide useful support of the qualitative data.

70 With cause-of-effects as a strategy for selecting cases in this research, it can be discussed how representative the cases are for generalizing on innovation culture in SMEs. With the chosen strategy for selecting cases, the selection is based on a positive outcome - in this research a continuous growth in turnover for the SMEs - and that the effects for that positive outcome are based on innovation and innovation culture. It could here be discussed whether innovation culture is an effect for the positive outcome or if other effects have caused the positive outcome. However, with the research, examination and analysis of the cases, it becomes clear that innovation culture plays a central role in the studied SMEs’ growth.

From the analysis of the qualitative empirical data, numerous implications emerge. When using the literature as a framework for analysis, some of the factors for successful innovation culture are only illustrated by a few examples from the conducted interviews. In most instances, examples from the other cases are not included, as the factors are not explicitly stated from the respondents in the interviews but more implicitly stated. In order to provide an answer to the research question and present the most decisive factors for innovation culture, the conclusion of the research will however be based on explicitly stated examples of decisive factors for innovation culture in the conducted interviews, as this will minimize the personal interpretation of what organizational factors are decisive for innovation culture in SMEs.

From the literature on organizational culture, the framework regarding different levels of corporate culture can be identified in the studied SMEs.

The respondents in the interviews rather easily exemplified both examples of artefacts and norms. Shared basic values, on the other hand, seemed more difficult to exemplify for the respondents. Nevertheless, practical exemplified or not, shared basic values were by the respondents expressed as important in all the cases and as the least visible part of the culture.

Regarding factors for having the company’s culture as a competitive advantage, it can be discussed how important rare and imperfectly imitable culture needs to be. However, a valuable culture can from the analysis be argued to be important as a competitive advantage.

Concerning the distinction between organic and mechanistic cultures (Burns and Stalker, 1961) the analysis identifies the SMEs to have both mechanistic

71 as well as organic cultures. The movement from an organic culture to a mechanistic one (Hauschildt & Salomo, 2007) does however not seem to be a general tendency in the cases, and it can therefore be argued that the different phases in the innovation process do not require a move from an organic culture to a mechanistic one in SMEs.

Regarding the creation of culture, it is clear that the culture in the SMEs has been built, as argued by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) and that there is a strong focus on this.

Engagement, enthusiasm, risk-taking in a safe environment, learning and independent thinking are by Goffin and Mitchell (2017) defined as factors for innovation culture. It can though be discussed if there is equal importance of all of them, as risk-taking is mentioned several times compared to the other factors. The definition of a safe environment as a factor for innovation culture can be discussed as the environment in general are safe, but the employees can, at the same time, be challenged in this safe environment. Encouraging and rewarding new ideas as a decisive factor for innovation culture can be discussed. Both factors can be seen as important for innovation culture, but what seems to be the case is that rewarding of new ideas happens on team level and that reward comes in the form of acknowledgement rather than in the form of bonuses.

Concerning the framework of innovation cultures in SMEs, as presented by Wolf, Kaudela-Baum and Meissner (2012), NBI is the most represented type in the studied SMEs. However, as also argued in the case, the type does not appear in an absolute form, and therefore the importance of distinguishing between the different types of innovation in SMEs can be discussed. If an SME cannot be identified as having a specific innovation profile, the very purpose of distinguishing between different innovation profiles becomes indifferent.

Business Cases

The business cases included in the literature review is used as a framework to answer the second part of the research question of how the organizational factors can be practised to create a successful innovation culture in SMEs.

However, as briefly discussed in section 2.5, the use of successful innovation culture in major global companies as a framework might be problematic, as

72 organizational structures and processes in major global companies can be different compared to the organizational structures in Danish SMEs.

In the Apple case, only pieces of the innovation framework presented can be identified in the studied SMEs. Neither the form of leadership, organizational structure, secrecy, a narrow focus, the structure for product development or the management tool used in Apple can be directly identified in all of the SMEs. Therefore it can be discussed how transferable the innovation framework in Apple is for SMEs, as the culture in SMEs seems to be very different from the one in Apple.

In the Google case, the use of innovation principles seems more usable as a framework as some, but not all of these, can be identified in the SMEs. When the qualitative empirical data were analysed by the use of principles of dynamic capabilities and a continuously changing organization, a general way of adapting to changes in the market could not be identified in the studied SMEs. However, when including the quantitative empirical data on the subject, it became clear that the employees perceive the SMEs as adaptable to new changes in the market, and the two principles can here be argued to assert themselves as a part of the innovation culture in SMEs. The principle people-centric approach seems from the analysis as a fundamental approach to be innovative, as all of the SMEs identify their employees to be very important for them. The principle of an open organization that networks with its surroundings seems from the analysis to be partly useful to practise an innovation culture in SMEs. The extent of which the organization networks with its surroundings can though be discussed, as there is no general answer on how much the organization networks with its surroundings. Nevertheless, from the analysis, the collaboration or networking with clients and the studied SMEs is of importance for innovation.

In the LEGO case, the framework for innovation is presented as seven truths about innovation. Here, as in the Google case discussed above, some of the truths are usable for creating an innovation culture in SMEs, whereas others are not. Of the usable ones, hire diverse and creative people, is the case in all of the studied SMEs. However, the level of creativity - in the Comparative Case Study Matrix (Appendix 4) presented as innovative people - is

73 important, as there is no need for entrepreneur-like employees in the SMEs.

Another relatively usable truth in the LEGO case is about setting the course towards “blue ocean” markets. However, the studied SMEs do also recognize the importance of “red ocean” markets. Be customer-driven and create a foundation for open innovation can also be identified as usable truths, as the studied SMEs innovate together with their customers. However, it can be discussed whether the SMEs listen to the majority’s opinion as the employees in the SMEs are the decisive part for creating innovation. The two truths about using the whole innovation spectrum and building an innovation culture and what these entail do however, not seem to have much of importance for creating a successful innovation culture in the studied SMEs.

To sum up the discussion, of using the business cases as a framework for creating a successful innovation culture in SMEs, a tendency of low usability of the principles in the business cases for creating a successful innovation culture in SMEs emerges.

When focusing on the usability of the individual business cases, only principles from Google and LEGO can be argued to be used for creating a successful innovation culture in SMEs.