Melissa Brenes, VT visiting undergraduate student from Costa Rica Tech. Contact Melissa at melibrebas23@hotmail.com
Creativity and innovation are linked as concepts but also they show differences. Marsick (2009) defines creativity as “the production of novel, appropriate ideas in any realm of human activity”. This definition features creativity more like an individual capability. Innovation, as Marsick (2009) suggests “involves group and organizational capabilities needed to produce, market, and sell the fruits of creativity”. Despite the differences in their core definitions, both individual creativity and organizational innovations are influenced by corporate culture.
According to Burke & Litwin (1992), creativity and innovation in corporate culture is affected by two kinds of variables that influence organizational change:
Transformational: variables that are affected when a company interacts with the external environment (trigger change in mission, strategy, leadership and culture)
Transactional: variables at the work climate level (management, practices, structure, systems, skills, motivation, needs
Figure 1.Perception of the inclusion of CI process in the vision and mission by years of experience and type of business
The International market of US hardwood products consist of a significantly diverse mix of customers from different regions around the world; where Canada, Mexico, Asia and Western Europe have played a central role in developing the US Hardwood Industry.
According to the U.S. Hardwood Export Statistics published by the American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States has been the World’s leading exporter of hardwood lumbers and veneers in the last 2 years, accounting for a total market share of 17% and 14% respectively during 2010. The country also played a key role in hardwood log exports between 2009 and 2010, holding a total market segment share of 22% and 20% respectively, surpassed only by Malaysia by approximately 1 percentage point.
The American Hardwood Export Council also indicated (AHEC, 2011) that China, Germany and Italy led the World’s wood furniture exports between 2008 and 2010, holding a 46% of total market, while United States only reported sales equivalent to a 2% of worldwide Exports throughout this time frame (9th place furniture exports).
During the last 6 years, the US exports of hardwood products have characterized by a predominance of primary/low value added goods such as logs and lumbers, over other more complex and higher value added products such as furniture, molding, floors, among others. In view of previous research, the exports of hardwood products will be vital for the US hardwood industry to survive . (Quesada-Pineda and Smith, 2010).
The purpose of this research update is to present some of the most significant energy reduction practices in the forest products sector. This research update is currently using secondary sources, lit reviews, to discover popular energy saving practices within the forest products industry. The update will provide industry examples of best energy management practices and how these practices should be applied throughout the forest products industry.
Figure 1. Electrical Generation by Fuel (EIA 2009)
In the U.S., industrial energy demand accounts for 26% of total energy consumption supporting the statement that the U.S. is a highly industrialized country (EIA, 2010). 14% of the industrial energy demand is supplied by electricity making electrical energy demand a large source to focus on potential reduction (EIA, 2010). The forest products industry makes up a small portion of the U.S. industry however; with increasing prices on electrical demand electricity is a contemporary topic for savings correlated with manufacturing cost. Electricity prices have increased by 1.24 cents per kilowatthour from 2005 to 2009 (EIA, 2010). Energy prices are predicted to steadily increase in the future. Coal accounts for 45% of total sources used for electricity however; coal stocks have decreased between May 2010 and May 2011 by 8.6 % which is a higher percentage than expected (EIA, 2010).
Figure1 shows the predicted increase in demand for coal and natural gas as a source of fuel for electrical generation. However; due to decreased stocks in coal and natural gas, electricity prices are predicted to rise. With predicted rises in electrical prices this makes electricity cost within a manufacturing facility an important element to analyze.
Energy savings opportunities through the implementation of “lean” manufacturing principles applied to different processes within the system can be quantified. When applying lean manufacturing principles, the focus is on adding value from the perspective of the consumer. Eliminating or trimming waste from the process materializes from the idea of value adding and non-value adding through the eyes of the consumer. Waste within a process has a significant impact on manufacturing cost, where energy utilization is one predominate cost. Dominant manufacturing costs in the form of electricity consist of compressed air, inefficient motors, and lighting.
A conceptual model was developed based on preliminary studies and applied to the survey of perceptions of wood products retailers and manufacturers from Central America regarding supplier attributes, product attributes, retailer/manufacturer promotion strategy, supplier promotion strategy, potential importing barriers, and company performance. Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis were used to check the reliability and validity of the data. The results of factor analysis suggested meaningful groupings within many of the constructs, including factors such as product attributes, purchasing attributes, and supplier services. Two hypothetical models were developed and the relationships were tested for significance using ANOVA and multiple regression analyses. Barriers were found to positively affect company performance and supplier attributes. These constructs may be important to consider when Appalachian wood products companies are interested in exporting to Central American countries. Appalachian wood products companies need to invest resources and work to overcome barriers in order to be successful exporters to Central America.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model developed from the literature
Other international marketing studies were consulted to determine what attributes to consider in the survey and the conceptual model (Cossio 2007; Parhizkar 2008). The survey focused on supplier attributes, product attributes, retailer/manufacturer promotion strategy, supplier promotion strategy, potential importing barriers, and company performance.
The first hypothesized model suggested that supplier attributes would be predicted by supplier promotion and barriers (Figure 1). Although supplier promotion did not appear to be driving supplier attributes (Hypothesis 6), barriers (i.e., language barrier, quality of Appalachian wood products, transportation and logistics) was found to be a significant predictor (Hypothesis 5).
These findings of supplier promotions contradict other studies that find promotion such as personal selling to be an important supplier’s attributes (Szymanski 1988). Barriers were found to be a significant predictor of supplier attributes (Hypothesis 5). While literature suggests a negative relationship of barriers to supplier attributes, this model suggests that the relationship with barriers is positive. It is possible that suppliers may have to work harder to overcome the barriers, which, in turn, provides a positive impact on the supplier attributes. Some studies have found that companies entering a new export market need to overcome barriers (i.e. specific product design and promotion strategy). These companies have an advantage over their competition and their company performance improves by the increase of sales (Douglas and Wind 1987; Jain 1989; Cavusgil et al.1993; Cavusgil and Zhou 1994). For instance, if Appalachian wood products companies produce lumber in the dimensions required by Central American customers, then they may have competitive advantage over companies that do not produce to the desired product attributes.
by Johanna Madrigal, PhD Candidate at Virginia Tech, jmadriga@vt.edu
Innovation is a key success factor in companies with complex and volatile environments, and many researchers have been interested in demonstrate how the organization process and leadership conduct companies to be successful at innovating (Chandler, Keller, and Lyon, 2000). There is also an increasing attention to understand if individual skills are affecting the innovation process inside the companies which has led to the definition of what is known as innovation styles (Ko, 2008).
An innovation style is defined as how an individual promotes innovation, and are categorized in 4 styles, and two dimensions. The first dimension responds to what stimulates and inspires innovation, which could be facts (details and analysis) or intuition (insights and images). The second dimension responds to the approaching style of the innovation process, which can be focused (well planned and outcome oriented) or broad (perceptive and learning oriented) (Innovation Styles, 2007).Figure 1 shows how innovation styles are related to each dimension.
Figure 1. The innovation styles model (Adapted from Miller, 2007)
Each innovation style stimulates innovative thinking in a unique manner. The innovation styles are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Innovation styles (Adapted from Miller, 2007)
Benefits
By raising awareness of the innovation styles of individual, innovation environment can become more open and flexible; also, organizations will be able to select a mix of innovative people based on each solution as required. This focus on selecting the right member of the working team can reduce the amount of time to reach a solution, and increase the productivity of the innovation based teams.
References
Chandler, Gaylen N., Keller, Chalon and Lyon, Douglas W.( 2000), “Unravelling the Determinants and Consequences of an Innovation-Supportive Organizational Culture”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 25 No.1, pp 59-76
