•  
  •  
 

Abstract

It is revealed that Indonesia’s Innovation in 2021 is ranked 87th out of 132 countries based on the Global World Index. It is a two-place drop from 2020 where Indonesia was previously ranked 85th. The sectors that appear to have the lowest innovation scores are the business progress sector, human development and research, scientific output, and creative output. This innovation rank indicates that business people in general, including in the precast concrete business sector in Indonesia, have not made good innovations in working on and maximizing their market potential and result in the weak competitiveness of domestic companies with foreign companies entering Indonesia. The implementation of the Innovation Management System in precast concrete companies is aimed to develop and disseminate innovation capabilities, evaluate performance, and increase competitiveness towards the desired results. The implementation of an effective innovation management system depends on the commitment of the company’s top management and their ability to promote innovation capabilities and cultivate the company's innovation culture. The identification and correction of innovation improvements in the innovation management system that has been and is being implemented in precast concrete companies will go through five innovation processes, namely identification opportunity, create concept, validate concept, develop solutions, and deploy solutions. The ongoing research has reached the concept validation stage or the third stage of the five innovation processes. At this stage, an approach was taken using the delphi method. This approach starts from defining the standard content and construct variables and validating them by experts by surveying precast concrete companies. From the results of the analysis, it was found that the existing condition of state-owned companies in Indonesia that have implemented ISO 56002; 2019 is in the third position, namely point 3.2 of the competent level stages where at this stage guidance is needed in order to increase competitiveness as a risk of actions that occur to build a culture of innovation.

References

Al-Tit, A.A. 2017. Factors affecting the organizational performance of manufacturing firms. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manage. 9: 1–9.

Bourne, H., Jenkins, M., Parry, E. 2019. Mapping espoused organizational values. J. Bus. Ethics. 159(1): 133–148.

Carayannis, E., Grigoroudis, E. 2014. Linking innovation, productivity, and competitiveness: Implications for policy and practice. J. Technol. Transfer. 39(2): 199–218.

Darmaki, S.A., Omar, R., Ismail, W.K.W. 2023. The effect of reward strategies on radical innovation: Critical review of literature on designing a dynamic rewards system. Curr. Top. Bus. Econ. Finance. 4: 160–173.

Dziallas, M., Blind, K. 2019. Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technovation. 3–29.

Edwards-Schachter, M. 2018. The nature and variety of innovation. Int. J. Innovation Stud. 2(2): 65–79.

Hidalgo, A., Albors, J. 2008. Innovation management techniques and tools: A review from theory and practice. R&D Manage. 38(2): 113–127.

Hyland, J. 2021. Towards management system for innovation. Lett. Stand. 9(1): 11–19.

Idris, M.C., Durmuşoğlu, A. 2021. Innovation management systems and standards: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. Sustainability. 13(15).

Jantz, R.C. 2017. Vision, innovation, and leadership in research libraries. Lib Inf. Sci. Res. 39(3): 234–241.

Kahn, K.B. 2018. Understanding innovation. Bus. Horiz. 61(3): 453–460.

Kumar, R. 2011. Research Methodology, 3rd ed. New Delhi: Sage.

Laland, K.N., Boogert, N., Evans, C. 2014. Niche construction, innovation and complexity. Environ. Innovation Societal Transitions. 11: 71–86.

Leavengood, S., Anderson, T.R., Daim, T.U. 2014. Exploring linkage of quality management to innovation. Total Qual. Manage Bus. Excellence. 25(9–10): 1126–1140.

Liu, C.H. 2017. Creating competitive advantage: Linking perspectives of organization learning, innovation behavior and intellectual capital. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 66: 13–23.

Maier, A., Brad, S., Fulea, M., Nicoar, D., Maier, D. 2012. A proposed innovation management system framework–A solution for organizations aimed for obtaining performance. Int. J. Econ Manage. Eng. 6(11): 3235–3239.

Najafi-Tavani, S., Najafi-Tavani, Z., Naudé, P., Oghazi, P., Zeynaloo, E. 2018. How collaborative innovation networks affect new product performance: Product innovation capability, process innovation capability, and absorptive capacity. Ind. Mark. Manage. 73: 193–205.

Nazif, E. 2019. Innovation planning. Vilnius Univ. Open Ser. (2): 49–54.

Rodegheri, P.M., Serra, S.M.B. 2020. Maturity Models to evaluate Lean Construction in Brazilian projects. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 17(2): 1–21.

Song, M., Wang, S. and Zhang, H. 2020. Could environmental regulation and R&D tax incentives affect green product innovation? J. Cleaner Prod. 258.

Stacho, Z., Potkány, M., Stachová, K. and Marcineková, K. 2016. The organizational culture as a support of innovation processes’ management: A case study. Int. J. Qual. Res. 10(4): 769–784.

Download

Share

COinS