Oscar Amundsen, Tone Merethe Aasen, Leif Jarle Gressgård and Kåre Hansen
26
business (Kelley, 2010; Lindegaard, 2010). Lindegaard (2010) further suggests that the implementation of open
innovation principles implies a need for employees to be able to manage relations with various external
contributors.
Research on employee-driven innovation is based on an assumption that all employees have the potential
for creative thinking, and will be able to contribute to innovation and change. The significance of employee
involvement in innovation was substantiated as early as 1871, when the exploitation of ideas from employees
was referred to as important to increase the quality and lower the costs of products (Tidd & Bessant, 2009). A
century later, researchers, such as Stalk, Evans, and Shulman (1992) and Hamel and Prahalad (1994), stated that
changes in competition put new demands on innovation effectiveness, which created a need for new work
processes and new organisational structures. Their conclusion was that the purposive use of employees’
knowledge, referred to as core competence, can and will result in increased innovation capacity. The premises
emphasised as important for successful EDI are the increased awareness of the inherent innovation potential
among both employees and leaders, and the introduction of systematic approaches to the general involvement of
employees in innovation (Bessant & Caffyn, 1997, Hallgren, 2008; Høyrup, 2010; Smith, Kesting, & Ulhøi,
2008; Tidd & Bessant 2009). Although EDI is still a fresh concept, diverse definitions are emerging. An
example is Smith et al. (2008, p.1), who claim that EDI is: “…the generation and implementation of novel ideas,
products and processes originated by a single employee or by joint efforts of two or more employees.”
Current research on EDI can be divided into two main strands. The first strand discusses the implications of
EDI, which can be further divided into two categories. These are direct effects, such as product quality,
productivity and aspects related to work environment, and indirect effects, including results related to business
and social economics (Zwick, 2004). Surprisingly, within this strand of research documentation of the actual
effects of EDI on innovation, capacity or value creation is limited (exceptions can be found, e.g., Belangér,
2000; Tidd & Bessant, 2009; Zwick, 2004). The predominant focus is on qualitative parameters, and few have
actually tried to quantify the effects of EDI-practises. An explanation for this may lie in the complexity of such
studies, which involve longitudinal analyses of larger numbers of factors that are often interrelated and that
affect the outcome of innovation processes in different ways (Heller, Pusic, Strauss, & Wilpert, 1998). Hence,
the task of identifying and separating EDI-effects from other conditions may be very complicated. Nevertheless,
an increased focus on EDI is emphasised to be of importance as a basis for sustained competitive advantage
(Heller et al., 1998; Kelley, 2010). Among the studies that substantiate this claim is the EPOC study (1997),
which is based on answers from 6000 corporate managers from European countries. Nearly nine out of ten of
these managers perceive a positive correlation between EDI and economic performance. Another line of studies,
which include contributions from work research, suggest that the cultivation of internal qualities, like autonomy
and collaboration, strengthens individual motivation and satisfaction (Axtell et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2008) and
improves upon organisational measures like turn-over, quality of work and sickness absence (Black & Lynch,
2004; Kelley, 2010).
The second and most comprehensive strand of EDI-research addresses the conditions for EDI, which is
related to organisational arrangements and organisational context (Byrne et al., 2009; De Jong & Kemp, 2003;
Smith et al., 2008; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Studies on different levels, whether individual (Scott &
Bruce, 1994), group (Paulus & Yang, 2000) or organisational (Byrne et al., 2009), all point out factors and
conditions that are important for the initiation and development of EDI. Among the main factors identified is the
importance of the recognition by management of the need to give priority to innovation, and to adapt for these
processes through the generation, registration, evaluation and realisation of ideas. Other key factors are the
collaborative climate between management and employees (Tierney et al., 1999; Wilkinson & Dundon, 2010),
as well as the interaction between colleagues, and between employees and externals (Cummings & Oldham,
1997; Smith et al., 2008). Furthermore, the results of the studies indicate that work life traditions and marked
conditions may influence whether, and how, employees are involved in innovation (Black & Lynch, 1996, 2001,
2004; Zwick, 2004).
The currently most comprehensive literature review to map factors that cause or affect the development of
EDI-practices was performed by Smith et al. (2008). They identify four main factors that influence the
potentiality of EDI: leader support, autonomy, cooperation and innovation climate. It is worth noticing that the
authors also emphasise that the interpretation of these factors differs as the innovation process progresses. As an
example, “leader support” is emphasised by the authors as the single most important condition for successful
EDI. At an early stage of innovation, support and protection stand out as the main managerial responsibilities,
while at later stages, management focus should shift towards resource allocation. Incidentally, this suggestion is
supported by longitudinal studies of Norwegian companies (Gjelsvik, 2004). The second factor identified by
Smith et al. (2008) is autonomy, which means the delegation of decision-making authority to employees, and the
opportunity for them to perform their tasks without supervision or extensive control. Autonomy is emphasised
as a significant enabler of innovation, particularly at the stages of idea generation and idea refining. Next, Smith
and his colleagues argue that collaborative groups are generally more creative than individuals when it comes to
the generation and exchange of new ideas. As with the previous factors, the stage of the innovation process