The impact of collaboration strategy in the field of innovation on the effectiveness of organizational structure of healthcare institutions
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.04(1).2020.04
-
Article InfoVolume 4 2020, Issue #1, pp. 37-51
- Cited by
- 1290 Views
-
263 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The need for innovative development of healthcare institutions is determined by the necessity to increase the efficiency of organizational processes based on the formation of new models of cooperation, which will make it possible to get access to new technologies and knowledge. The goal of the study is to determine the parameters of the impact of innovative open cooperation strategy and the strategy of innovative closed cooperation of healthcare institutions on the effectiveness of their organizational structure in the context of dissemination and the use of knowledge. Simulation modeling was applied to generate the most effective organizational management structure in the context of innovative cooperation and knowledge exchange within the organizational processes “Inside-out” and “Inside-in”. It is substantiated that the strategies of innovative cooperation “Open Innovation/Closed Innovation” have a significant impact on the organizational structure of management of healthcare institutions in terms of the “degree of centralization” (Dci), “degree of mediation” (Dii), and “degree of centralization of powers” (Dpi). The values of the selected criteria range from 25,52% to 61,50% in the case of Dii, and from 34,53% to 52,63% in the case of Dci, which indicates a higher efficiency of organizational knowledge exchange processes in healthcare institutions, which adhere to the Open Innovation strategy of innovative cooperation. Therefore, there are significant differences in the effectiveness of the management’s organizational structure depending on the degree of openness of innovative cooperation of healthcare institutions. The strategy of innovative openness allows increasing the number and quality of connections in the context of knowledge exchange between the subjects (actors, agents) of the organizational structure (in a broad sense, considering internal and external levels of externality) of healthcare institutions, regardless of the distance between them and the level of similarity.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)D83, O36, I19
-
References47
-
Tables3
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual model of organizational structure of a healthcare institution based on matching “factors of influence-skills” in the context of promoting Open innovation
- Figure 2. Areas of influence of the conceptual model of medical institutions’ management in the context of promoting Open innovation on its organizational and economic mechanism
- Figure 3. Subject-subject interactions at four levels of externality for healthcare institutions
-
- Table 1. Criteria for the effectiveness of organizational structure of 8 subjects (actors, agents) of healthcare institutions from the standpoint of the Open Innovation or Closed Innovation cooperation strategy
- Table 2. Criteria for the effectiveness of organizational structure of 10 subjects (actors, agents) of healthcare institutions from the standpoint of the Open Innovation or Closed Innovation cooperation strategy
- Table 3. Criteria for the effectiveness of organizational structure of 12 subjects (actors, agents) of healthcare institutions from the standpoint of the Open Innovation or Closed Innovation cooperation strategy.
-
- Agustini, M. H., Athanasius, S. S., & Retnawati, B. B. (2019). Identification of green marketing strategies: Perspective of a developing country. Innovative Marketing, 15(4), 42-56.
- Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.
- Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
- Bahemia, H., Sillince, J., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2018). The timing of openness in a radical innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective. Research Policy, 47(10), 2066-2076.
- Bahemia, H., Squire, B., & Cousins, P. (2017). A multi-dimensional approach for managing open innovation in NPD. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(10), 1366-1385.
- Bass, F. M. (2004). A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables. Management Science, 50(12_supplement), 1825-1832.
- Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.
- Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2016). The impact of financial slack on explorative and exploitative knowledge sourcing from universities: evidence from the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(4), 689-706.
- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (2001). The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Camargo, M., Fonteix, C., & Delmotte, F. (2013). Complex data structures in product design: a sequential approach to elicit customer perceptions. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 5(1), 45-57.
- Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Chukhray, N. I., & Mrykhina, O. B. (2018). Theoretical and methodological basis for technology transfer from universities to the business environment. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(1), 399-416.
- Chukhray, N., & Mrykhina, O. (2020). Technology assessment to transfer them from an engineering university to a business environment. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(4), 504-516.
- Csaszar, F. A. (2013). An Efficient Frontier in Organization Design: Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Exploration and Exploitation. Organization Science, 24(4), 1083-1101.
- DeCanio, S. J., Dibble, C., & Amir-Atefi, K. (2000). The Importance of Organizational Structure for the Adoption of Innovations. Management Science, 46(10), 1285-1299.
- Dondolo, H. B., & Madinga, N. W. (2016). Ease of use, security concerns &attitudes as antecedents of customer satisfaction in ATM banking. Banks and Bank Systems, 11(4), 122-126.
- Durugbo, C., Hutabarat, W., Tiwari, A., & Alcock, J. R. (2011). Modelling collaboration using complex networks. Information Sciences, 181(15), 3143-3161.
- Durugbo, C., Tiwari, A., & Alcock, J. R. (2013). Modelling information flow for organisations: A review of approaches and future challenges. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 597-610.
- Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
- Fillol, C. (2004). Apprentissage et systémique: Une perspective intégrée. Revue française de gestion, 149(2), 33-49.
- Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221.
- Grynko, T., Koshevoi, M., & Gviniashvili, T. (2016). Methodological approaches to evaluation the effectiveness of organisational changes at communication enterprises. Economic Annals-ХХI, 156(1-2), 78-82.
- Grynko, T., Krupskyi, O., Koshevyi, M., & Maximchuk, O. (2018). Tangible and intangible rewards in service industries: Problems and prospects. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 13(8), 2481-2491.
- Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85-112.
- Kiesling, E., Günther, M., Stummer, C., & Wakolbinger, L. M. (2011). Agent-based simulation of innovation diffusion: a review. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 20(2), 183-230.
- Kozmenko, S., & Volkovets, T. (2014). Modeling the environmental taxation: the case of Ukraine. Environmental Economics, 5(2), 7-13.
- Krupskyi, O., & Grynko, T. (2018). Role of cognitive style of a manager in the development of tourism companies' dynamic capabilities. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 24(1), 1-21.
- Kuzheliev, M., Rekunenko, I., Boldova, A., Zhytar, M., & Stabias, S. (2019). Modeling of structural and temporal characteristics in the corporate securities market of Ukraine. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(2), 260-269.
- Kuznetsova, N., Rahimova, L., Gafurova, V., Simakov, D., Zinovyeva, E, & Ivanova, L. (2017). External Environment as a Factor of Ensuring the Competitiveness of Organizations in the Regional Market of Medical Services. European Research Studies Journal, 20(4a), 308-322.
- Ollila, S., Yström, A., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Beyond intermediation: the open innovation arena as an actor enabling joint knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 72(4), 273.
- Pavlova, T., Zarutska, E., Pavlov, R., & Kolomoichenko, O. (2019). Ethics and law in Kant’s views: the principle of complementarity. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(4), 651-664.
- Pisano, G. P. (2009). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Strategic Direction, 25(4).
- Plastun, A., Drofa, A., & Klyushnik, T. (2019). Month of the year effect in the cryptocurrency market and portfolio management. European Journal of Management Issues, 27(1-2), 29-35.
- Prokopenko, O., & Omelyanenko, V. (2018). Marketing aspect of the innovation communications development. Innovative Marketing, 14(2), 41-49.
- Steiner, A. (2000). Design and implementation of an organizational model for Open Innovation: Contribution to collaborative innovation (Doctoral thesis, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France).
- Steiner, A., Morel, L., & Camargo, M. (2012). Toward autonomy of ideas: conceptual framework for open innovation. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (pp. 1-11). Munich, Germany.
- Steiner, A., Morel, L., & Camargo, M. (2014). Well-suited organization to open innovation: empirical evidence from an industrial deployment. Journal of Innovation Economics, 13(1), 93.
- Sulistiawan, D., & Rudiawarni, F. A. (2019). Do stock investors need to discuss to reduce decision bias? Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(3), 1-9.
- Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
- Teece, D. J. (2019). Strategic renewal and dynamic capabilities. Strategic Renewal, 21-51.
- Velychko, O., & Velychko, L. (2018). Matrix structures in management of quality of educational and scientific work of Ukrainian universities. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(1), 133-144.
- Velychko, O., Velychko, L., & Kharytonov, M. (2018). Managing efficiency in higher education: A case of Ukrainian universities. Social Sciences, 7(8).
- Von Hippel, E. (2007) The Sources of Innovation. In C. Boersch and R. Elschen (Eds.), Das Summa Summarum des Management. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
- Walker, D. H. T., Bourne, L. M., & Shelley, A. (2008). Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 645-658.
- Westergren, U. H., & Holmström, J. (2012). Exploring preconditions for open innovation: Value networks in industrial firms. Information and Organization, 22(4), 209-226.
- Wood, J., Sarkani, S., Mazzuchi, T., & Eveleigh, T. (2012). A framework for capturing the hidden stakeholder system. Systems Engineering, 16(3), 251-266.
- Yakobi, K. (2016). An empirical investigation of banks employees’ interactions & workflow influence during social media advent: A case study of two commercial banks. Banks and Bank Systems, 11(4), 90-96.