Print ISSN 2777-0168| Online ISSN 2777-0141| DOI prefix: 10.53893 https://journal.gpp.or.id/index.php/ijrvocas/index
16
Set Up 5P Model to Figure out the Different Factors of Innovation between Employees from Developing and Developed countries
Tran Thi Khanh Mai & Day Jen-Der
*National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Applied Industrial Management Department, Taiwan, ROC.
Email address:
*Corresponding author
To cite this article:
Tran, T. K. M. ., & Day, J.-D. (2022). Set Up 5P Model to Figure out the Different Factors of Innovation between Employees from Developing and Developed countries. International Journal of Research in Vocational Studies (IJRVOCAS), 2(3), 16–23.
https://doi.org/10.53893/ijrvocas.v2i3.138
Received: November 29, 2022; Accepted: December 12, 2022; Published: December 16, 2022
Abstract:
The primary goal of the research is to establish a 5P model. The 5P model is a five-stage paradigm that comprises preparation, promotion, process, purpose, and prosperity. Inside each of the five phases are 16 critical variables. To study the various parameters mentioned above, 202 employees from emerging and developed nations were recruited. We discovered that 152 applicants work in companies of the same level after completing 202 questionnaire 1 surveys under "which level is your firm's standing”. These applicants will be invited to complete the second inquiry, titled "Company Needs 5P to Go Forward." An independent T-test of 107 responses from 152 employees revealed that the greatest difference between the two groups was caused by the strength component in the promotion stage. Except for the inspection in the process stage, all of the 5P elements created a substantial difference between the two groups. Group 1 has a greater disparity between the two groups than Group 2. Activity in the process stage is the most important factor for group 1; strategy in the prospective stage is the most important factor for group 2. Employees of Group 1 are choosing time in preparation, strength in promotion, activity in process, product in purpose, and strategy in the prospective stage as the most important factors. Employees in Group 2 selected employee preparation, competition in promotion, activity in process, service in purpose, and strategy in the prospective stage as the most essential factors. The factors have a significant impact on the outcomes. By changing the level of 16 factors in the "5 P model," the level of the company will be changed.Keywords:
5P model, five levels, 16 factors, innovation1. INTRODUCTION
The market for modern industry is competitive these days.
Competitiveness is caused by a large number of conflicts that benefit the companies. Thus, should a company expect to be a winner in its market, it needs to find out the successful factors of its competitors and compare them with itself. After figuring out important factors, the company is able to run processes in order to transfer the factors to a higher level and achieve success. The situation is referred to as "that company's
innovation." The term "innovation" has been used to describe both the process that uses new knowledge, technologies, and processes to generate new products as well as the new or improved products themselves [1].
In this research, authors discovered that categorizing the market by levels and determining the factors that influence levels will help companies progress step by step toward their goal of safety and health. Spotting a company at certain levels also allows the company to determine how many new levels it
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53893/ijrvocas.v2i3.138 17
still needs to visit. The factors exist in the company as a result of a process of accepting strengths and weaknesses, respecting its values, and discovering new passions and dreams with a deeper meaning than the surface. The function of factors causes businesses to examine and question their operations. In a little more detail, distinction levels make innovation more clearly visible. Making plans in stages to solve problems is not a new topic.
Following TTM [2] explains intentional behavior change along a temporal dimension that utilizes both cognitive and performance-based components. Based on more than two decades of research, the TTM has found that individuals move through a series of stages pre-contemplation (PC), contemplation (C), preparation (PR), action (A), and maintenance (M) in the adoption of healthy behaviors or cessation of unhealthy ones [3]. In addition, expanding the old definition to a new hypothesis about five stages of innovation in companies is the main target of research. Five stages will create general conditions for each level of company innovation.
Furthermore, we will continue to discuss the importance of each factor and provide some ideas to supplement the company's strategy in order to help it reach a higher position the next time. Innovation research has been conducted in a variety of ways, including the use of levels of innovation in individuals, teams, projects, or organizations [4], as well as the intensity of innovation [5]. Other authors [6] have defined other features of innovation, such as its magnitude and its effects on firms’ competencies, seeking to explore the differences between incremental and radical innovation. As regards the typology of innovations, [7] shows three pairs of types of innovation: administrative innovation and technical innovation, process innovation and product innovation, and radical innovation and incremental innovation.
The technical innovations refer to products, services, and technologies in the production process. They relate to the basic activities of an organization and focus on the product or process [8]. This type of innovation is facilitated by a high level of professionalism, low formalization, and low centralization. The administrative innovations involve organizational structure and administrative processes. These innovations are indirectly related to the basic activities of the organization and more directly to the management of those activities [9]. Administrative innovations are facilitated by low levels of professionalism, high formalization, and high
centralization. Product innovations are represented by the new products or services introduced to meet the needs of the market.
Such innovations are reflected in new products or services on the market, to the benefit of [10]. Process innovations are new elements introduced in the various processes carried out at the level of the organization. The adoption of product innovations and the process are different in various stages of the organization's development [11]. Radical innovations are represented by the fundamental re-conceptualization of a business. This type of innovation can be approached on three levels: product (new ideas or technology), process (new methods of product and service delivery to consumers), and the combination of the two levels mentioned above [12].
Thompson [13] Creative innovation adopting innovation
"Creative innovation" refers to the ability of the organization to implement and carry out technological innovation through its own system, usually materializing in new products or services. Adoptive innovation, on the other hand, refers to the ability to use new ideas from outside the organization, adapting those ideas to implement change in the management system of the organization or in the relationship between the system’s components. An adoptive approach to innovation is addressed mainly in areas such as strategy or management by processes leading to new strategies, a new company image, or new organizational structures.
Regarding the previous research, a serious problem exists in the article and is not strong enough in the continuously changing situation these days. The previous idea was realized during the firm stage, so the method cannot provide a company with information about the prospective stage. Although there are high-level companies on the market, there is no understanding of what to expect at the next level. According to research, a large number of companies in the industry are concerned with determining the purpose and prospects.
Understanding the stages of innovation, companies are able to prepare their actions sooner and stronger than their rivals.
In a general point of view, the 5P Model is a model including five stages as well as a plan to resolve the majority of problems. The five stages are: preparation, promotion, process, purpose, and prosperity. For each step, the factors that affect the stage will be written down. According to [13], [14], and [15], as well as the results of the practical, there are 16 factors whose frequency affects the innovation system. Having four factors affecting the preparation stage (technology, time,
three factors affecting the process stage (decision, activity, examination), three factors affecting the purpose stage (product, service, partner), and three factors affecting the prospective stage (state economy, strategy, leadership style), by forming the characteristics of each factor, a 5P will be created as a basic standard level.
Following the recent level of technology in the industry, all of these factors will be considered in the research. In my paper, companies in the industry will be divided into five levels. The step's purpose is to assist companies in gaining a general understanding of the history of technology and their current market position, such as which parts of a system are relevant to their level of industry and which parts need to be updated and considered due to the different levels of awareness between companies and the market. The levels determined are able to provide the chance for companies to point out who is their competitor, which level will be the next level, where is the new market, and what will pull it down.
Therefore, establishing the levels of industry is helpful for statistics.
A large number of meaningful studies for each level will be possible by grouping companies of the same level. In addition, at each level, we could separate many groups with dependencies and independence variables to analyze other topics relating to innovation or other fields. On the other hand, creating levels for industries could handle groups in general and each company in particular more effectively.
Furthermore, the levels are determined by researching the key factors affecting their system. If a company has no idea how to separate standards, this will help the company understand which factors must be included in the system. Six factors, for example, are: manufacturing technology, leadership style, customer service, customer need, competitiveness strategy, control system, and market stage economy of product or service. Each factor includes five relevant scales.
Thus, classifying levels is the first step in preparing a company for innovation. This step is quite important and useful for the research.
2. DETAILS EXPERIMENTAL
2.1. Materials and Procedures
Type and purpose of methodology
In the first questionnaire survey, we are attempting to determine which of the five levels of companies in the industry employs qualitative research. The goal of using this method is to collect data from 152 employees from various companies who have the same level of education and took the test at the start.
In the second questionnaire survey, there are two types of research utilized for analysis. The first type is qualitative research, which is used for determining the factors most important for each stage and each group. Therefore, it could point out the factor that makes the largest and most significant difference between the two groups.
The second type of research that was used for analysis is quantitative research. The purpose of the study is to show the relationship between two factors among the 16 factors in 5P and examine how differences in thinking about factors affect innovation in 5P between two groups through observations in numerical representations and through statistical analysis, along with questionnaires that will be given out to respondents for the statistical representation of the findings in the study.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53893/ijrvocas.v2i3.138 19
Sampling Method
To begin, we used a convenience sample to collect participants. In Research 1, the study focuses on the level of employees and countries, so only employees from developing and developed countries are required for the test. Only employees from companies with a level three can continue to take the Research 2 test.
Secondly, in order to collect data to analyze 5P, we used a voluntary response sample. From the 152 employees who passed round 1, we hope as many participants can finish our next survey in round 2.
Thus, because the population needs to be greater than 100 so that we still have simple random sampling in the research, we must put in the effort to regard enough individuals for the meaning of the test.
Two questionnaire survey.
My questionnaire surveys were referred to OECD (1994).
Internal OLIS document DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(94)4, OECD (1976). “The measurement of innovation related activities in the Business enterprise sector”, OECD/DSTI internal discussion paper DSTI/SPR/76.44., Godin (2009), THE HARMONISED SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, JULY 23, 2012.
The first questionnaire survey
The first questionnaire survey, "Which level company is standing in the industry?" consisted of seven questions and five responses. The majority of questions have a five-answer scale ranging from 1 to 5. Our range is from 7 to 35. Because the research focuses on categorizing five levels, we will divide range scores into five sections (1–7), [7–14], [14–21], [21–28], and [28-35]. For each questionnaire, participants could give more than one answer; they just need to check the boxes they want. We will use the mean to explore the final score in case the question has more than one answer.
Furthermore, by calculating the sum of the seven answers and comparing it with the five-section score, we are able to find out what the level of company standing is. Technology, market share, customer needs, leadership style, competitive style, and manager systems are all factors in the survey. The level of company will be presented clearly within six questions seven main factors.
Level 0-1 has a score from 1 to 7.
Level 1-2 has a core from 7 to 14.
Levels 2 and 3 have scores ranging from 14 to 21.
Level 3-4 has a score of 21 to 28.
Level 4–5 has a score of 28 to 35.
The second questionnaire survey
The second table of the questionnaire asks for information on the factors that influence each stage of innovation. Five stages are preparation, promotion, process, purpose, and prosperity, and they include sixteen questions: The sixteen factors are: technology, time, employee, finance, competitiveness, strength, resolving social problems, decision, activity, examination, product, service, partner, strategy, stage of the economy, and leadership style.
The score for each questionnaire is from 1 to 5.
1 = unimportant 2 = fairly important.
3 = slightly important 4 = neutrality important.
5 = really important.
After completing da ta, we conduct research using the correlation coefficient and T test analysis. The correlation coefficient test assists both groups in understanding whether the relationship between two factors in 5P is negative or positive. A t test analysis will reveal whether or not the difference between the two groups is significant. If the result is larger than 0.05, the difference is not significant. The difference is considered significant if the result is less than 0.05. The distinction denotes which country makes a greater difference than another. The means of each group demonstrate which factor is most important for each stage and each group.
This analysis is based on 200 responses from employees of companies in Vietnam and some developed countries. To begin, in terms of the figures, the number of employees who completed the questionnaire in section score [1-7] is 12 (6%), [8-14] is 8 (4%), [14-21] is 30 (15%), [22-28] is 152 (75%), and [28-35] is 0 (0%). This means that companies in recent industries have the highest percentage of companies at levels 3-4. Then, the next step in industrial technology is e- commerce technology and Industry 4.0.
First, the practical: some companies are unable to meet all of the survey standards with the same score; many companies are at level 3, but some factors appear at other levels. However, from a general point of view, the difference in scores among questions is not large, and weaknesses always exist in a system. Following this, we could accept the survey with a neutral attitude.
As a result, there are a large number of companies at levels three to four. Companies in levels 3-4 have characteristics such as using e-commerce technology, needing to add value chains to their processes to compete with other companies, increasing system security, taking care of foreign telecom policies in their financial systems, and so on. The customers of the company need advanced quality and branding.
The department always informs the customer of potential problems and offers solutions at the appropriate level.
Customer service centers will use automated marketing techniques (such as streaming and automating processes) to increase efficiency.
However, these companies need to move up to levels 4-5 when using the cyber-physical system in manufacturing.
Customers always require potential products, which is one of the level's characteristics. The service department always analyzes the data of customers. The company's decision must be forced to follow the system's decision. The type of competition that a company considers is R&D investment.
Mass consumption characterizes the stage economy. In terms of participant results, the histogram below depicts the distribution of five levels of companies in the industry.
Secondly, the table showed the mean and std. Deviation of two groups by using T-test analysis. The largest mean is the most important factor. In group 1, the most important factor in the preparation stage is time (Mean = 4.18, SD = 0.878), the strength in the promotion stage (Mean = 4.113, SD = 0.725) is most important. The activity (Mean = 4.47, SD = 0.696) in the process stage is most important. The product (Mean = 4.22, SD = 0.639) in the purpose stage is most important. In the prospective stage, the strategy (mean = 4.07, SD = 0.828) is most important.
The most important factor among the five stages of Group 1 is activity in the process stage. Following the results of each stage in the previous chapter, time in the preparation stage, strength in the promotion stage, activity in the process, product in the purpose stage, and strategy in the prospective stage are the most important factors for each stage of group 1.
Of these, activity in the process is the most important factor among the five stages in Group 1. According to the survey results, the following factors are most important when selecting employees in Group 2: employee in the preparation stage; competitive in the promotion stage; activity in the process stage; service in the purpose stage; and strategy in the prospective stage. In which case, strategy is the most important of the 16 factors in employee thinking for Group2.
Third, the final study result is the factor that makes the greatest difference in thinking between the two groups and for each stage. According to the statistics, the greatest difference
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53893/ijrvocas.v2i3.138 21
in thinking between two employee groups from two countries occurred during the promotion stage (mean difference = 0.835). In addition, the significant value demonstrated some differences in thinking between two groups for each stage. The preparation stage includes four factors: technology, time, people, and finance.
The significant results of four factors were less than 0.05, indicating that all factors in the stage made a significant difference in employee thinking in the preparation stage between two groups. The promotion stage, like the preparation stage, includes three factors: competition, strength, and social problem resolution. Because results are less than 0.05, employees of two groups have significant differences in thinking about competitiveness, strength, and resolving social problems when conducting innovation in the promotion part.
In addition, the process stage includes three factors: decisions, activities, and examinations. Significant results at this stage revealed two factors that made a significant difference between two groups: decision and activity.
The examination factor made no significant difference between the two groups because the significance value is greater than 0.005. The purpose stage, including three factors, showed the significant difference in thinking of employees between the two groups in terms of product, service, and partner. Three factors—strategic direction, stage of economy, and leadership style—presented a significant difference between two groups in the final stage, prospective.
Furthermore, because all factors (except examination) showed a significant difference between two groups, the difference in means will favor the group having more consideration than the other. In the preparation and promotion stage, four factors showed that the most difference occurred in group 1. The fact that two factors made a significant difference indicates that group 1 made the greatest difference in the decision and activity factors. For the examination factor in the process stage, the difference occurred by chance.
Purpose and prospective stage have six factors (product, service, partner, strategy, stage of economy, leadership style) that are significantly different between the two groups. Almost all employees in Group 1 chose neutral or strongly important answers. As a result, employees in Group 2 chose answers that were slightly and neutrally important.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Firstly, the research demonstrated that having a large number of companies is at levels three to four in my research.
The next level at which companies need to move up is industry 4.0. The result provides opportunities and challenges for these organizations. Secondly, the research found that certain factors are most important for each stage. Developed countries prioritized time as the most important factor during the planning stages. Researching the right time and setting a period of time for applying the new idea are key factors for the preparation stage of Group 1. Employees in Group 1 believe that knowing the exact time will assist the company in effectively innovating and that processes will not conflict due to a lack of time.
However, employees in developing countries had a choice, and this employee factor is most important. Employees in Group 2 reported that the company always prioritizes transfers at the employee level over innovation. As a result, employees with a high educational level will be more likely to survive and retain their positions at the company.
Similarly, in step two—promotion—strength is most
developing countries. In the promotion stage of innovation, companies have employees working in developed countries who always expect that the new innovation will help the company improve its strength for a long time and as much as possible. And companies in developing countries could improve their competitive level as much as possible through innovation. Companies have employees in Group 2 who believe that successful innovation is the only way to beat competitors.
In the process stage, among three factors, both groups chose activities that are most important during the innovation process. The careless activities during innovation will create a large number of new problems, such as different concepts of thinking between employees and managers, technical errors, create a large number of new problems, such as different concepts of thinking between employees and managers, technical errors.
As a result, carrying out all activities precisely and meticulously will make the examination process faster and more effective.Employees in developed countries chose the product as the most important factor out of three in the purpose stage, whereas employees in developing countries chose the service as the factor that required the most attention. A large number of employees from developing countries want to concentrate on improving the service to attract investors first.
Employees in developed countries, on the other hand, chose to improve the overall new product on a large scale first. Making the new product will help companies in developed countries survive longer in their positions in the market.
Furthermore, companies in developed countries have greater access to research funds than companies in developing countries. Thus, trying to make new products gives companies more benefit than focusing on other factors. In the end, both groups selected strategy as the most important factor out of the three. Both groups seriously take care for renewing, detailing and wilding strategy consecutively. Third, out of the sixteen factors, group 1 chose activity as the most important, while group 2 chose strategy as the most important. Fourth, with the exception of the examination factor, all of the factors made a significant difference between the two groups. The factor that made the greatest difference between the two groups was promotional strength. The employee made the greatest difference in preparation between the two groups. Strength was the most significant difference in promotion between the
was the most significant difference in purpose between the two groups. The factor that made the largest difference between two groups in perspective was strategy. The greatest disparities between the two groups were observed in developed countries.
5. CONTRIBUTION
Regarding contributions Through the research, the author hopes to show the real situation for companies in the industry recently. By forming five basic stages, the approach will give the company more good options for improving their system.
Companies absolutely learn about their competitors and future market needs based on the sixteen factors developed by 5P, as well as which factor, they must consider the most. When a company wants to expand its market, it must first understand the different ways of thinking of employees in other companies or countries. The results of the large percentage difference will determine whether a company succeeds or fails in innovation.
References
[1] Rostow. (1960). The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-16
[2] Kotler, P. & Sidney J. Levy (1969). Broadening the Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp.10-15 [3] Kotler, P. (1967). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning
and Control. Prentice Hall.
[4] S.Gopalakish.(1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management, Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 15-28
[5] Hounshell. (1984). David A. From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Volume 90 Issue 5
[6] Cowan. (1997). Ruth Schwartz. A Social History of American Technology. New York: Oxford University Press, Volume 85, Issue 2, 1 September 1998, Pages 643
[7] MM Fischer. (1998). The Innovation Process and Network Activities of Manufacturing Firms. 38th European Congress of the Regional Science Association.
[8] 2001.The Development of Mass Production Has a Dramatic Impact on Industry and Society.
[9] PeterTufano. (2003). Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Financial Innovation. Chapter 6.
[10] Kostas. (2006). Innovation process. Make sense-using systems thinking. Volume 26, Issue 11. Pages 1201-1302
[11] Błach. (2011). Financial innovations and their role in the modern financial system. Vol. 7, Iss.3, pp. 13-26
[12] Morrar. R. (2014). Innovation in Services: A Literature Review.
Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(4): 6-14
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53893/ijrvocas.v2i3.138 23
[13] Peter Kesting. (2016). The impact of leadership styles on innovation management - a review and a synthesis. Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Song, Niu JIM 3, 4 (2015) [14] Paul Trott. (2017), An examination of product innovation in
low- and medium-technology industries: Cases from the UK packaged food sector. Journal ISSN :0048-7333
[15] Day, Jen-Der, (2017), ICOI International conference of organizational innovation, From Here to There 10 P Creates Innovation
