1. Managing Human Resource Learning for Innovation Managing Human Resource Learning for Innovation an empirical founded model of employee driven innovation in firms Peter Nielsen Aalborg University

2. Increasing learning challenges confronting Human Resource Management Globalization and political priorities Technological developments Dynamic and innovative capabilities HRM adapting learning and knowledge management Building an empirical founded model

3. Dependent variable: Innovative performance 1993 – 1995*1998 – 2000*2003 - 20052007 – 2009 Yes, one 51,7 45,4 8,414,5 Yes, more than one45,348,3 No47,452,443,533,9 Don’t know0,42,22,83,3 Has the firm introduced new products/services during (period), when excluding minor improvements of existing products? 2003 - 20052007 – 2009 Large return26,310,2 Some return57,655,1 Poor return10,222,0 No return1,64,7 Don’t know4,38,2 How is the economic return on the firm’s innovation efforts during (period) evaluated?

4. Innovative performance Summing up the firm score on: – Product or service innovation in the period – Management evaluating large or some economic return Composite indexes of innovative performance Almost two third of the firms scoring innovation + economic return in 2007 – 2009 also score innovation + economic return in 2003 – 2005: What characterizes these firms ? 2003 – 20052007 – 2009 Innovation + return52,250,5 No innovation + return47,849,5

5. Innovation strategies Two forms of knowledge are important for innovations: – Scientific and professional agreed methods producing formalized and codified knowledge (STI) – Experimenting with work related ideas and handling of complex problem solving in network collaboration (DUI)  STI – Science-Technology-Innovation: – Research and development (R&D), codified and documented knowledge development (ICT), by means of scientific methods and highly skilled employees  DUI – Doing-Using-Interacting: – Relational learning in organizations, consious experience based and problem oriented use of competence development and network relations to customers and suppliers Combining STI + DUI double the chances of product or service innovation

6. Building learning relations Cross disciplinary work groups Integration of functions Delegation of responsibility Autonomous work groups Quality circles/groups Systems for collecting employee proposals Education sequences tailored to firm’s needs Long-term educational planning Cooperation with Danish costumers (on product/service development)* Cooperation with foreign costumers (on product/service development)* Cooperation with Danish subcontractors (on product/service development)* Cooperation with foreign subcontractors (on product/service development)* Cooperation with universities, knowledge institutions etc. (on product/service development)* * The 2005 measurement of cooperation was not specified on product/service development which is indicated by the brackets

7. Learning relations (LO) 2005 and 2009 Index dimensions are weighted by share of employees included or after importance of the principle, according to management of the firm Learning rel. 2005 (LO5) Learning rel. 2009 (LO9) High developed31,628,2 Medium developed32,437,6 Low developed36,034,3

8. Learning relations (LO) and development of competences LO high 2005 (diff. LO low)LO high 2009 (diff. LO low) Sparring with management etc.68,5 (35,0)75,3 (39,2) Planned job rotation17,3 (9,6)23,5 (17,4) Team organization66,7 (42,8)61,7 (46,5) Cooperation and network64,9 (48,7)67,3 (51,6) LO high 2005 (diff. LO low)LO high 2009 (diff. LO low) High educated48,3 (30,1)43,2 (26,4) Skilled employees44,8 (23,1)38,3 (17,5) Unskilled employees39,1 (25,6)36,4 (20,6) More than 50% of employees in vocational groups participated in formal training and qualification in 2003-2005 and 2007 - 2009 with high level of organizational learning 2005 and 2009 Decisive or high importance of relational learning for continuous development of employee’s competence in firms with high level of organizational learning 2005 and 2009

9. Learning relations (LO) and innovative performance in 2005 og 2009 20052009 Model 1**Model 2***Model 1**Model 2*** High developed LO (2005)6.416 *4.437 *5.007 *4.202 * Medium developed LO (2005)2.558 *2.085 *2.707 *1.655 * Manufacturing 0.559 0.731 0.705 0.852 Construction0.174 *0.140 *0.101 *0.108 * Trade & transport 0.629 0.662 0.663 0.773 Finance & Information 1.526 1.388 0.845 0.869 50 – 99 employees 1.288 1.300 1.128 1.119 100+ employees2.228 *2.353 *2.485 *2.655 * Nagelkerke R0.2770.2390.2560.241 Logistic regression on innovation performance of learning organization (LO) level 2005 and 2009, firm sector and size. (baseline: Low developed LO; Other services; 1 – 49 employees) * Significant at 0.00 level ** Model 1 includes organizational principles, educational planning and external cooperation *** Model 2 excludes the external cooperation relations

10. Employee participation 1998 – 2000*2007 – 2009 Idea phase21,134,5 Decision phase21,324,7 Implementation phase41,932,5 No involvement15,74,2 Don’t know-4,2 At which phase in the change process are the employee representative or/and the employees concerned involved? 20002010 FurtheredHamperedFurtheredHampered Attitudes of employees32,714,739,36,0 Qualifications of employ.26,711,338,05,7 Attitudes of middle manag.43,814,855,25,0 Qualifications of middle m.35,617,849,26,2 Cooperation committee21,62,021,63,5 Work environment comm.--23,12,5 Shop stewards18,86,117,93,7 (percent shares) Have the following factors furthered or hampered the organizational development of the firm?

11. Managing the challenges Horizontal and vertical challenges Innovation Strategy Learning Relations Employee Participation Employment Relations Innovation Performance Integrative model of managing learning for innovation