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] Global Digital Business Association 2010 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 r s (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 / [ *(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: (9); (25); (34); (30); (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 ( 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 = (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 (3 rd )  Executive Report (4 th )  Communication with colleagues and management team (1 st )  Observation (2 nd )  Meeting (5 th )  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 r s (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