Search results1 – 3 of 3
The purpose of this study is to test the usefulness of the literature-based innovation output (LBIO) approach to identify innovation types from press releases of…
The purpose of this study is to test the usefulness of the literature-based innovation output (LBIO) approach to identify innovation types from press releases of hospitality firms and to evaluate if the typology captures the effect of innovation on firm value.
The LBIO approach was applied to three years of press releases from two publicly traded lodging firms in the USA announcing innovations. A database of lodging and innovation relevant terms was compiled. Starting with classifications found in the innovation literature, the researchers coded each announcement. Coded announcements were clustered into innovation types using pairwise similarity analysis. Event study analysis assessed the efficacy of the overall method to find types that were useful to measure the impact on firm value from the company’s adoption of an innovation.
Cluster analysis identified four lodging innovation types: property and location, marketing, strategic development and guest experiences. These types corresponded closely with the innovation classification suggested by the Oslo Manual. The event study found that the typology was useful in determining the market value effects of an innovation.
This study focused on innovation; future studies might test other organizational factors. The study uses data from two large, publicly traded hospitality firms and may not extend to smaller, privately held businesses. A key implication is that human coding is sufficient to identify innovation types that correspond closely with existing classifications and affect firm value.
This study successful learns from hospitality press releases to identify a hospitality innovation typology and tests type impact on firm value.
The purpose of this paper is to empirically demonstrate that drivers of venture capital (VC) investments are different across three broadly defined sectors: high-technology manufacturing, medium-technology manufacturing and services, and low-technology services. Moreover, such differences also exist across industries within each of these sectors.
The basic hypothesis is that “not only different stages of VC investments have different drivers, but VC investments in different sectors of the economy are also driven by different drivers.” The paper tests this hypothesis using a Poterba (1989) type supply and demand framework in the multivariate time-series regression analysis.
This paper empirically demonstrates that drivers of VC investments are different across three broadly defined sectors: high-technology manufacturing, medium-technology manufacturing and services, and low-technology services. Moreover, such differences also exist by stages of investment and across industries within each of these sectors. In particular, the paper finds that the importance of the number of VC-led initial public offering (IPO) transactions as the main driver of VC investment decreases with the level of technology involved in the sector. IPO transactions are particularly important in software, networking and equipment, and business products and services industries. In contrast to earlier literature, however, the paper do not find a more pronounced effect of IPOs for seed and late stages of VC investments. Similarly, the positive impact Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – which mainly impacts public companies – also intensifies with a decrease in the level of technology involved in the sector, and the paper do not find a negative impact. The Act is important particularly for VC investments in medium- and low-tech sectors and in early or expansion stages.
In analyzing the determinants of VC in a supply and demand framework as in Poterba (1989), the paper differentiates between different sectors (17 industries) and stages of VC (four stages: seed, early, expansion, late). Such level of differentiation is novel and allows more refined and better targeted public policy measures.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the linkage among three factors – shareholder‐manager relationships (or corporate governance), customer supplier relationships, and…
The purpose of this paper is to explore the linkage among three factors – shareholder‐manager relationships (or corporate governance), customer supplier relationships, and innovation, for two groups of UK firms in the speciality chemicals and electrical equipment industries.
This research was exploratory. In total, 12 companies were studied in depth. The level of innovation was measured through a questionnaire and interviews were carried out with managers, important customers and suppliers. A comparison of management practices was established between the more and the less innovative companies.
This research finds a close connection between shareholder‐manager relationships, customer and supplier relationship management and innovation. The firms subject to arms‐length relationships with shareholders (as UK‐based public limited companies) had more distant relationships with suppliers and customers and poorer innovative performance.
The validity and reliability of the conclusions require the undertaking of quantitative studies. Other aspects apart from those explored could affect the level of innovation of companies.
In the more innovative companies, strategic and investment plans tend to look to the long‐term (five years plus). And, customers and suppliers are involved from the beginning in the development of new products and production processes. Lack of shareholder engagement strongly inhibits “long‐termist actions”, which include the development of such close relationships with customers and suppliers.
This paper is the first to look at the possible link between corporate governance, customer and supplier relationship management and the level of innovation and has research and practical implications.