The Implementation of Social Innovation Learning Model Based on Local Wisdom: A Study of Traditional Fabrics in Indonesia Retno Kusumastuti, Umanto, Achmad Fauzi, Eko Sakapurnama [email protected]Abstract Innovation activities should be carried out by every organization not merely to survive but also to grow and develop. To be able to compete with other products, the innovation should have a competitive advantage. This study aims to analyze the determinants of innovation activities in MSMEs producing Indonesian traditional fabrics by exploring the potential of local wisdom values to enrich unique superior products that cannot be duplicated. Innovation through co- creation activities involving customers, suppliers and competitors will create superior value proposition. This process of value creation is a fundamental source of innovation to create regional competitive advantage. This study applies mixed methods by combining quantitative and qualitative methods with concurrent mixed methods. The locus of the study is woven fabric of Bayan in North Lombok and Central Lombok. The findings show that the learning model of innovation activities at the level of MSMEs occurs in the form of alignment and adaptability.
30
Embed
Retno.docx · Web viewThe Implementation of Social Innovation Learning Model Based on Local Wisdom: A Study of Traditional Fabrics in Indonesia. Retno Kusumastuti, Umanto, Achmad
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Implementation of Social Innovation Learning Model Based on Local Wisdom:
16-28 Years Old29-41 Years Old42-54 Years Old55-65 Years Old
The age of MSMEs
The average of working hours of the employees
30%
4%65%
2%
6 hours/day7 hours/day8 hours/dayNo Answer
7.1 Social Innovation Learning Model of MSMEs of Woven Fabrics in CENTRAL
LOMBOK
Related to the environmental changes, each organization can implement strategic
management in innovation learning. Tushman and O'Reilly state that every organization can
carry out alignment and adaptability process. The findings of the study show that most of
MSMEs of woven fabric in North Lombok and Central Lombok District carry out both
processes.
Alignment
5.8
94.2 UnfavorableFavorable
Alignment is measured by using three statements, namely “The management system of the
organization is in line with organizational goals”; ”The management system of the
organization is still inefficient and wasting available resources”; and “The management
system of the organization makes many people carrying out similar work". The answers show
that 94.2% of respondents state that Alignment is in favorable category, while the rest of
5.8% state that Alignment is in unfavorable category.
Adaptability
7.7
92.3
UnfavorableFavorable
Adaptability is measured by using three statements, namely “The management system of the
organization allows people to search for new ways/practices/methods”; “The management
system of the organization is flexible in allowing people to respond to the various
environmental changes”; and “The management system of the organization always keeps
abreast as a result of changes in business priorities”. The answers show that 92.3% of
respondents state that Adaptability is in favorable category, while the rest of 7.7% state that
Adaptability is in unfavorable category.
Ambidexterity in MSMEs
Ambidexterity in MSMEs indicates explorative innovation learning within MSMEs. The
secondary data show explorative and exploitative learning activities for the respondents in
Central Lombok.
Exploratory Learning Activities
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3.8
96.2
Unfavorable
Favorable
Exploratory Learning Activities is measured by using four statements, namely “Every
individual can search for new business opportunities in terms of design/motif/pattern of
fabrics, manufacturing process and market expansion”; “Every individual focuses on
improving the quality of traditional fabrics, manufacturing process and market expansion”;
“Every individual must be able to adjust to the occurring changes”; and “Every individual
must learn new skills and knowledge related to running a traditional business”. The answers
show that 96.2% of respondents state that Exploratory Learning Activities is in favorable
category, while the rest of 3.8% state that Exploratory Learning Activities is in unfavorable
category.
Exploitative Learning Activities
0102030405060708090
100
Category 1; 7.7
Category 1; 92.3
Unfavorable Favorable
Exploitative Learning Activities is measured by using five statements, namely “Every
individual has the opportunity to obtain their own knowledge and experience”; “Every
individual focuses on the work given without regard to new opportunities”; “Every individual
has the clarity of their responsibility”; “I always focus on short-term work (1 year)”; and “I
can do the work using existing knowledge and skills”. The answers show that 92.3% of
respondents state that Exploitative Learning Activities is in favorable category, while the rest
of 7.7% state that Exploitative Learning Activities is in unfavorable category.
Knowledge Co-Creation Process
In terms of knowledge flows within MSMEs, the process can occur from leaders to
subordinates (top down) and subordinates to superiors (bottom up).
Top Down
7.7
92.3
UnfavorableFavorable
Top Down is measured by using single statement, namely “I immediately provide guidance
and instruction for the work that must be carried out by the employees”. The answers show
that 92.3% of respondents state that Top Down is in favorable category, while the rest of
7.7% state that Top Down is in unfavorable category.
Bottom Up
Bottom Up is measured by using single statement, namely “I gain experience, skills and
knowledge from subordinates directly”. The answers show that 84.6% of respondents state
that Bottom Up is in favorable category, while the rest of 15.4% state that Bottom Up is in
unfavorable category.
15.4
84.6
Unfavorable
Favorable
7.2 Social Innovation Learning Model of MSMEs of Woven Fabrics in NORTH
LOMBOK
The learning of MSMEs at the organizational level in responding to environmental changes
can occur in alignment and adaptability process. The findings of the study show that the level
of approval of the respondents related to this statement is generally above 80 percent.
Alignment
Alignment is measured by using three statements, namely “The management system of the
organization is in line with organizational goals”; ”The management system of the
organization is still inefficient and wasting available resources”; and “The management
system of the organization makes many people carrying out similar work".
Unfavorable37%
Favorable63%
Unfavorable
Favorable
The answers show that 63% of respondents state that Alignment is in favorable category,
while the rest of 37% state that Alignment is in unfavorable category.
Adaptability
Adaptability is measured by using three statements, namely “The management system of the
organization allows people to search for new ways/practices/methods”; “The management
system of the organization is flexible in allowing people to respond to the various
environmental changes”; and “The management system of the organization always keeps
abreast as a result of changes in business priorities”. The answers show that 100% of
respondents state that Adaptability is in favorable category.
100 Unfavorable
Favorable
Ambidexterity in MSMEs
Ambidexterity in MSMEs indicates explorative innovation learning within MSMEs. The
secondary data show explorative and exploitative learning activities for the respondents in
North Lombok.
Exploratory Learning Activities
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1.9
98.1
Unfavorable
Favorable
Exploratory Learning Activities is measured by using four statements, namely “Every
individual can search for new business opportunities in terms of design/motif/pattern of
fabrics, manufacturing process and market expansion”; “Every individual focuses on
improving the quality of traditional fabrics, manufacturing process and market expansion”;
“Every individual must be able to adjust to the occurring changes”; and “Every individual
must learn new skills and knowledge related to running a traditional business”. The answers
show that 98.1% of respondents state that Exploratory Learning Activities is in favorable
category, while the rest of 1.9% state that Exploratory Learning Activities is in unfavorable
category.
Exploitative Learning Activities
Exploitative Learning Activities is measured by using five statements, namely “Every
individual has the opportunity to obtain their own knowledge and experience”; “Every
individual focuses on the work given without regard to new opportunities”; “Every individual
has the clarity of their responsibility”; “I always focus on short-term work (1 year)”; and “I
can do the work using existing knowledge and skills”. The answers show that 75.9% of
respondents state that Exploitative Learning Activities is in favorable category, while the rest
of 24.1% state that Exploitative Learning Activities is in unfavorable category.
Exploitative Learning Activities
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
24.1
75.9
Favorable Unfavorable
Knowledge Co-Creation Process
In terms of knowledge flows within MSMEs, the process can occur from leaders to
subordinates (top down) and subordinates to superiors (bottom up).
Top Down
100
Unfavorable
Favorable
Top Down is measured by using single statement, namely “I immediately provide guidance
and instruction for the work that must be carried out by the employees”. The answers show
that 100% of respondents state that Top Down is in favorable category.
Bottom Up
100
Unfavorable
Favorable
Bottom Up is measured by using single statement, namely “I gain experience, skills and
knowledge from subordinates directly”. The answers show that 100% of respondents state
that Bottom Up is in favorable category.
4. Conclusion
The learning model of innovation activities at the level of MSMEs occurs in the form of alignment and adaptability. Most respondents state that the management of the organization is still in line with the objectives, namely to preserve the culture of Indonesia as well as to make the ends meet through profit seeking. In this learning process, the flow of knowledge occurs between superiors and subordinates. Generally knowledge inflow in MSMEs is still in the form of tacit knowledge passed down from one generation to the next. Innovation learning is carried out in exploitative or exploratory manner, although in practice they have not reached the stage of scaling from a process of social innovation. There are many prototypes produced but limited in a traditional way that should be consistently maintained.
REFERENCES
Barney, J. B., and Clark, D. (2007). Resource Based Theory. Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Birkinshaw, J., and Gibson, C. (2004). “Building Ambidexterity into an Organization”. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45(4).
Comez, Pinar. (2013). “How Ambidexterity and Leadership Behaviors Affect Firm Performance: The Role of Market Turbulence”. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 18(2).
Conway, E. et al. (2009). “The Development of an HR Measure to Capture Ambidextrous Learning”. In: British Academy of Management (BAM) Conference 2009: The End of the Pier? Competing Perspectives on the Challenges Facing Business and Management. UK: Brighton.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). “The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation”. In Kilmann, R. H., Pondy, L.R., and Slevin, D. (Ed.), The Management of Organization, Vol. 1: 167-188. New York: North-Holland.
Huseini, M. (2010). “Mencermati Misteri Globalisasi: Menata Ulang Strategi Pemasaran Internasional Indonesia melalui Pendekatan Resource-Based”. Usahawan, No. 1.
Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, W. (2005). “Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Ambidexterity: The Impact of Environmental and Organizational Antecedents”. Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 57(4).
Kusumastuti, R. (2013). Membangun Keunggulan Bersaing melalui Dual Ambidexterity pada Lippo Karawaci: Aplikasi Multi Metodologi Cognitive Map dan Soft Systems Methodology Kontinum Dual Imperatives. Dissertation. Administrative Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia.
Kutrakun, Alongkorn.(2013).“Process and Dynamics of Social Innovation: Case Studies of Local Initiatives in Northern Ireland”. Japan Social Innovation, Vol. 3, No.1.
Lee, Peter. (2014). “Social Innovation”. Washington University Law Review, Volume 92, Issue 1.
Lodhi, A.S. (2012). “A Pilot Study of Researching the Research Culture in Pakistani Public Universities: The Academics’ Perspective”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 31.
Luzon, M.D.M., and Pasola, J.V. (2011). “Ambidexterity and Total Quality Management: Towards a Research Agenda”. Management Decision, Vol. 49(6).
March, J. G. (1991). “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”. Organization Science, Vol. 2(1).
Nonaka, Ikujiro., Toyama, Ryoko., Hirata, Toru. (2008). Managing Flow: A Process Theory of Knowledge-Based Firm. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
O’Reilly, C.A., and Tushman, M.L. (2008). “Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovatot’s Dilemma”. Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 28.
Raisch, S., and Birkinshaw, J. (2008). “Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators”. Journal of Management, Vol. 34(3).
Raisch, S., et al. (2009). “Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance”. Organization Science, Vol. 20(4).
Ramli et al. (2013). “The Concept of Research University: The Implementation in the Context of Malaysian University System”. Asian Social Science, Vol. 9(5).
Satrya, I Dewa Gde. “Opini: Batik dan Inkorporasi Pariwisata Kita”, Jawa Pos, October 2, 2009.
Senge, Peter. (2008). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Sivrais, S.E., and Disney, C. (2006). “Changing the Culture of Research Administrators at a Public University”. Journal of Research Administration, Vol. 37.
Zohreh, S., Nadergholi, G., and Ali, K. (2011). “Developing a Research University in Iranian Higher Education System: A Model Presentation”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 15.
Tushman and O’Reilly. (1996). “Ambidextrous Organization”. California Management Review, 38(4): 8-30.
Moulaert, Frank., MacCallum, Diana., Mehmood, Abid., and Hamdouch, Abdelillah. 2013. International Handbook of Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham UK & Southampton USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Creswell, John W.(1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (p.164). California: SAGE Publications.