Openness towards culture and innovation Dirk Schmittchen & Dennis Wolff 25 th May, 2004 Hauptseminar: Innovation, change & decision making in international

Openness towards culture and innovation

Dirk Schmittchen & Dennis Wolff25th May, 2004

Hauptseminar: Innovation, change & decision making in international organisationsProf. Dr. Jürgen BenekeSS 2004

25th May, 2004 Dirk Schmittchen & Dennis Wolff

I Introduction

II Global innovation

a. Innovative regions and global hubs

b. Patentation in Germany, Japan and the United States

c. Innovation in biotechnology and genetic engineering

III Influences on innovation

a. Sociocultural influences

i. Biotechnology and genetic engineering

ii. Business mentalities in the United States, Europe and Japan

b. Social-philosophical and theoretical approaches

i. Innovation policy: Private industry versus planned economy

ii. The human being as an innovative factor

iii. Karl Popper: The social technique of small steps and the innovative society

IV Conclusions and discussion

Structure


Innovative regions and global hubsht

tp:/

/ww

w.u

ndp.

org/

hdr2

001/

popu

pmap

.htm

l

Technology hubs:

1. Silicon Valley, US

2. Boston, US

3. Stockholm, Sweden

4. Israel

[…]

19. Bavaria, Germany

27. Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany

37. Saxony, Germany


Patentation in Germany, Japan and the United States

Share in international patents worldwide between 1982 and 1992

USA: 28%

Japan: 23%

Germany: 18%

Leading positions:

Japan: Micro-electronic industry

USA: Genetic engineering industry

Germany: Environmental technology


Innovation in biotechnology and genetic engineering

Germany: Reservations towards biotechnology

USA: Heading for leading position

Japan: Highest awareness of biotechnology in the world


Sociocultural influences

Biotechnology and genetic engineering

Germany:

High governmental registrations

Projects are realised abroad

Pure research is loosing ground

Japan:

Highest support worldwide

Growing need for improved regulations

Government forces research aggressively


Business mentalities in the United States, Europe and Japan

United States

„Triumphant individual“1 as an ideal of American society

Small hierarchical barriers

Efficient organization of the whole innovation process /

1: Bleicher, K. (1989), Chancen für Europas Zukunft. p. 94. Frankfurt.



Europe

Group 1: Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal

Group 2: Germany, Austria, Belgium

Group 3: France, United Kingdom

Group 4: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands



Europe: Innovation share13,71%

25,24%

26,86%

34,29%Group 1 (Greece, Spain,Italy, Portugal)

Group 2 (Germany,Austria, Belgium)

Group 3 (France, UK)

Group 4 (Denmark,Finland, Sweden,Netherlands)


Innovative regions and global hubsht

t p:/

/ww

w.u

ndp .

org/

hdr2

001/

p opu

pmap

.htm

l

Technology hubs:

1. Silicon Valley, US

2. Boston, US

3. Stockholm, Sweden

4. Israel



Europe: Gross Domestic Product per capita

80,30%

108,00%101,50%

109,30%

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

120,00%

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Group 1 (Greece,Spain, Italy,Portugal)Group 2 (Germany,Austria, Belgium)

Group 3 (France,UK)

Group 4 (Denmark,Finland, Sweden,Netherlands



Europe

Driving forces for innovation in Europe:

High receptiveness to new ideas

Well-developed equity



Japan

Styles of management

Bottom-up management

Suggestions by workers to improve work process and quality of production

Evolutionary management

Voluntary efforts of middle-level managers to develop new products

Strategic management

Companies‘ top management



Japan

Characteristics of management structures:

Strong centralization

Motivation incentives concern social status


Social philosophic and theoretical approaches

The government‘s role in the innovation process

Interdependences between political and economic system

Economy of central planning has failed to equal successes of public industry

Protectionist government according to principles of economic liberalism creates best atmosphere for successful innovation process

Bureaucracy is worst promoter of innovations

Governmental deregulation and decentralization for successful innovation process



The human being as an innovative factor

Human being remains independent

Sociocultural background is not unchangeable



Karl Popper: The social technique of small steps and the innovative society

Which social technique leads to the most innovative society?

Utopian social technique:

All human efforts aim at establishing the ideal society

A society‘s innovation policy serves to achieve this goal

Efforts of generations have no use for themselves

Low motivation for innovation



Karl Popper: The social technique of small steps and the innovative society

Which social technique leads to the most innovative society?

Social technique of small steps

Interest in the present time and not in an utopian future

Innovation policy of human beings refers to themselves

Mistakes as an integral part of innovation processes

Gradual improvements constitute developement of mankind

High motivation for innovation


Conclusions

Different innovation behaviour is existing

Sociocultural differences influence innovation behaviour, e.g.:

Focus on individualistic efforts in the United States

Equitable societies in Northern Europe

Company as important social entity in Japan

But: simplified thinking must fail due to general factors, e.g.:

Governmental regulation

Human being as an individual

Level of a society‘s equity, privacy and liberty

Documents

Openness towards culture and innovation Dirk Schmittchen & Dennis Wolff 25 th May, 2004 Hauptseminar: Innovation, change & decision making in international