Organisational Innovation Strategies in the Context of Smart Specialization

Abstract

Regional economic performance is positively linked to entrepreneurship capital because it creates new direction for public policy that focuses on instruments to enhance entrepreneurship capital. However, studies related to Entrepreneurship and Innovation had somewhat established a disadvantage position for knowledge-intensive enterprises located in rural area. The EU Smart Specialization approach supports the promotion of innovation activities in regions and embraces the concept of open innovation, not just investment in R&D but a system approach that exploits complementarities, promises high potential, are new and aimed at experimenting and discovering technological and market opportunities that can provide learning spill overs to other economy. This paper present a case study of an Estonian production company for Maritime function wear. This example reveals that despite the fact that the company's headquarters is located in Western Estonia countryside (peripheral part of Europe and rural part of the country) an enterprise can gain the position of an international market leader based on interregional operations. The discussed model highlights how high-tech enterprises can benefit from different smart specialization strategies in different regions by implementing organizational innovation strategies. The underlying business concept and its related success factors, exhibits strong affinities with the concept of smart production and logistics in relationship with fractal enterprises, paved way for a sustainable development and demonstrated that even in rural areas high-tech entrepreneurship can be successfully implemented.

On sustainable production networks for Industry 4.0

“…The Hambach plant enjoys a very small production depth of only 10% and it is organised in such a way that the supplying system partners install their delivered components or modules with their own workforce directly into the Smart car during the assembly process. Such a networked production process with modular or fractal structural components will be investigated and discussed in this paper in accordance with the already mentioned concepts we will call such structures a networked modular factory (Olaniyi, Reidolf 2015;Prause 2015).…”

“…Another, but close concept was coined by Warnecke (1996) with his operations management model of a fractal enterprise which emphasised self-similarity, self-organization, self-optimization, goal-orientation, and dynamics as wining attributes of flexible and adaptable manufacturing organizations. Olaniyi and Reidolf (2015) pointed out the compatibility of fractal structures with Industry 4.0 by highlighting the ability for self-organization, self-optimization, goal-orientation, and dynamics as success factors. But all concepts dedicate large attention to disposition, decision making and innovation.…”

“…Current research results on Industry 4.0 highlight that modular or fractal company concepts together with new business models for smart supply chain management might be suitable even for the integration of the SME sector (Olaniyi, Reidolf 2015;Prause 2015Prause , 2016. Historically, Wildemann (1988) brought modular production structures into the academic discussion by stressing the intra-company view whereas Sturgeon (2002) focussed more on crosscompany value chains by considering modular production networks by investigating market similar relations between designers and integrators on one side and contract manufacturers on the other side.…”

Energy Security and Energy Efficiency Issues: Household Perspective in European Countries

“…This assumption is based on economic law of universal converging. Besides we assume that energy efficiency would gradually increase, and respectively energy intensity would diminish due to technological progress and energy stewardship behavior (Tvaronavičienė 2012; Dudzevičiūtė et al 2014;Laužikas et al 2015, Grubicka, Matuska 2015Ala-Juusela et al 2014;Dobele et al 2015;Olaniyi, Reidolf 2015;Oganisjana, Surikova 2015;Tvaronavičienė, Černevičiūtė 2015;Leonavičius et al 2015;Baublys et al 2015;Ignatavičius et al 2015).…”

The impact of regime-switching behaviour of price volatility on efficiency of the US sovereign debt market

“…So, markets should follow a random walk in the short-term as stated by Malkiel (2003). Though these assumptions do not always reflect the real picture, since market participants in reality are affected by an array of factors, such as obvious structural changes of economy (Akhmadeev & Manakhov, 2015;Dezellus, Ferreira, Pereira, & Vasiliūnaitė, 2015;Dudzevičiūtė, Mačiulis, & Tvaronavičienė, 2014;Korsakienė & Tvaronavičienė, 2014;Oganisjana, Surikova, & Laizāns, 2015;Prause, 2015;Rezk, Ibrahim, Tvaronavičienė, Sakr, & Piccinetti, 2015;Shatrevich & Strautmane, 2015;Travkina & Tvaronavičienė, 2015;Tvaronavičienė & Černevičiūtė, 2015;Tvaronavičienė, Mačiulis, Lankauskienė, Raudeliūnienė, & Dzemyda, 2015;Wahl, 2015), economic growth mode, external and internal threats (Balitskiy, Bilan, & Strielkowski, 2014;Ignatavičius, Tvaronavičienė, & Piccinetti, 2015;Kalyugina, Strielkowski, Ushvitsky, & Astachova, 2015;Lankauskienė & Tvaronavičienė, 2012;Munteanu & Tamošiūnienė, 2015;Stasytytė, 2015), approaches towards innovations and decision-making patterns (Bistrova, Lace, & Tvaronavičienė, 2014;Čirjevskis, 2015;Dobele, Grinberga-Zalite, & Kelle, 2015;Lace, Natalja, & Rumbinaite, 2015;Mostenska & Bilan, 2015;Olaniyi & Reidolf, 2015;Rosha & Lace, 2015;Šimberová, Chvátalová, Kocmanová, Hornungová, & Pavláková Dočekalová, 2015;Slapikaitė, Tamošiūnienė, & Mackevičiūtė, 2015;Tvaronavičienė & Černevičiūtė, 2015;Tvaronavičie...…”