Porter and Stern (2002) asserted that firms operating in advanced nations whose economies are innovation-based would not obtain a sustained competitive.

Porter and Stern (2002) asserted that firms operating in advanced nations whose economies are innovation-based would not obtain a sustained competitive advantage if they were not able to “create and then commercialize new products and processes and shift the technology frontier as fast as their rivals can catch up” (p. 2).

Does Organizational Training Help Firms Operating and Competing in the Innovation-Based Economy

Innovate? A Survey of Training Professionals

by

Vichet Sum, Ph.D.[Assistant Professor of Management, University of Maryland – Eastern Shore]

www.vichetsum.com

Global Digital Business Association2010 Annual Conference

Abstract

Outline

Problem Statement & Purpose of the Present Study

Research Methods

Research Results

Conclusion & Recommendation for Practice

Questions & Answers

Training Innovation (Measures of Innovation)

Abstract

Relationship: Strategic Integration of Training & Innovation

Findings: Training Contributes to Measures of Innovation

Findings: Statistically Significant Relationship

rs (97) = .566, p < .01

Problem: Training is Strategically Important?

Problem Statement & Purpose

To Contribute to a Greater Understanding of the Impact of Training on the Firm’s Innovation

Question 1: To what extent does organizational training contribute to the firm’s innovation as perceived by training professionals?

Question 2: How do training professionals determine the extent to which organizational training contributes to the firm’s innovation?

Question 3: Is there a relationship between the training professionals’ perceived involvement in the integration of training in their firms’ business strategies and the extent to which organizational training contributes to their firms’ innovation?

Design: Non-Experimental Using Online Survey

Research Methods

Population (N): 6450 Training Professionals

Required Sample Size (n): 376 (n = 6450 / [1 + 6450*(0.05)²] = 376)

Number of Invitations Sent: 450 (One follow-up)

Response Rate: 107 or (107/450)*100 = 23.77%

Instrument Validity : Literature Review & Panel of Experts

Instrument Reliability: Cronbach's α (alpha)

Gender: Male (48) & Female (63)

Research Results: Participants

Age Groups: 21-30 (9); 31-40 (25); 41-50 (34); 51-60 (30); 61-70 (9)

Location of Participants: 20 different US States

Job Title: Training Manager: 28 (25.2%) Training Consultant:19 (17.1%) Training Director: 17 (15.3%) Training Specialist: 16 (14.4%) Trainer:12 (10.8) HR Manager: 8 (7.2%) Instructional Design Manager: 5 (4.5%)

Job Tenure: 1 – 5 Years (62); More than 5 Years (45)

Education: Bachelor (37); Master’s (56); Doctorate (13)

Industry: Service(74); Manufacturing(25); Retailing (10)

Research Results: Participants’ Firms

Size: Small (100 or Less Employees): 26 Medium (101-1000 Employees): 20 Large (1001 or More Employees): 61

Engagement in Global Operations: YES (58); NO (51)

Question 1: To what extent does organizational training contribute to the firm’s innovation as perceived by training professionals?

Research Results: Question 1

Improvement of New Product/Service Design: 2.66 Effective Introduction of New Products/Services to the Market: 2.87 Effective Introduction of New Business Processes: 3.30 Improvement of Current Products/Services: 3.45 Improvement of Current Business Processes: 3.34

n = 107; alpha = .876

5 (Very High) 4 (High)3 (Moderate)2 (Low)1 (Very Low) 0 N/A

Research Results: Question 2

Question 2: How do training professionals determine the extent to which organizational training contributes to the firm’s innovation?

Training Evaluation (3rd) Executive Report (4th) Communication with colleagues and management team (1st) Observation (2nd) Meeting (5th) Other

Research Results: Question 3

Differentiation Strategy: 3.59 (92) Cost Leadership Strategy: 3.24 (84) Focus Strategy: 3.53 (79) Market Penetration Strategy: 3.45 (71) Product/Service Development Strategy: 3.46 (79) Market Development Strategy: 3.25 (68) Diversification Strategy: 2.86 (73)

Alpha: .930

Question 3: Is there a relationship between the training professionals’ perceived involvement in the integration of training in their firms’ business strategies and the extent to which organizational training contributes to their firms’ innovation?

5 (Very High) 4 (High)3 (Moderate)2 (Low)1 (Very Low) 0 N/A

Research Results: Question 3 (Cont’d)

Question 3: Is there a relationship between the training professionals’ perceived involvement in the integration of training in their firms’ business strategies and the extent to which organizational training contributes to their firms’ innovation?

Research Results: Question 3 (Cont’d)

Question 3: Is there a relationship between the training professionals’ perceived involvement in the integration of training in their firms’ business strategies and the extent to which organizational training contributes to their firms’ innovation?

Training Innovation (Measures of Innovation)

Conclusion & Recommendation for Practice

Relationship: Strategic Integration of Training & Innovation

Findings: Training Contributes to Measures of Innovation

Findings: Statistically Significant Relationship

rs (97) = .566, p < .01

Top Management: Needs to Genuinely Recognize Strategic Importance of training

Top Management: Needs to Integrate Training in Every Business Strategy

Training Professionals: Rely More on Objective and Scientific Methods in Evaluating the Impact of Training on the Firm’s Bottom Lines

Thank You