Please see all abstracts in order of presentation times.

11:10 – 11:35   |   Failing to learn from failure in innovation: A systematic literature review,Nhien Nguyen, NTNU
Senior Opponent: Lene Foss, UiT- Arctic; Junior Opponent: Karin Wigger, Nord Uni.
Failure, innovation, and learning go hand in hand. Failure is inevitable in innovation, and learning can subsequently transform it into success. Yet organizations are not good at learning from failure. Although there have been numerous studies of learning from failure or failure in innovation, there has been no systematic investigation to date of why firms fail to learn from failure in innovation and how they can learn properly. This literature review is intended to help bridge this gap. By reviewing literature that combines these three elements – innovation, learning, and failure – we aim to answer the research question “Why organizations fail to learn from failures in innovation; and how they should learn from innovation failures?” The study contribution is two-fold: providing a holistic overview of important themes and findings in extant literature; and addressing potential future research direction.

11.35 – 12:00   |   Do ‘green’ employment effects vary across industries? Implications for green growth, Christine Mee Lie, UiO- TIC
Senior Opponent: Arne Isaksen, UiA; Junior Opponent: John-Erik Rørheim, UiS
This article investigates the impact of green innovation on employment growth, employing firm-level innovation survey data from South Korea. We focus especially on the industry-dimension, investigating whether displacement or compensation effects vary across industries and according to subtypes of green process innovations. The results demonstrate that both green and non-green product innovations are associated with significant increases in employment growth. More specifically, a 1% increase in sales growth from new products is associated with a less than 1% increase in employment. Thus we find evidence of new products being produced more efficiently than old. Process innovations on the other hand matters little for employment growth overall, implying that the feared trade-off due to productivity improvements remains unconfirmed. Finally results are found to vary across industries, especially when simultaneously accounting for subtypes of green process innovations.

12:00 – 12:25   |   In Search of Alignment: A Review of Impact Assessment in Entrepreneurship Education, Uladzimir Kamovich, UiT- Arctic
Senior Opponent: Gry A. Alsos, Nord Uni.; Junior Opponent: Nhien Nguyen, NTNU.
We draw on the concept of instructional alignment as a framework for understanding the impact of entrepreneurship education interventions at the university level. Instructional alignment assumes that effective instruction requires congruence between three instructional components: intended outcomes, instructional processes, and assessment criteria.
The concept is brought into focus to undertake an exhaustive literature review, covering the 15-year period between 2000 and 2015, of entrepreneurship education impact studies. The framework allows to identify and examine few empirical studies that meet our inclusion criteria.
This study breaks novel theoretical ground in entrepreneurship education literature by applying a fundamental component of effective instruction, instructional alignment, to the entrepreneurship education literature on impact assessment. Contribution for education practitioners and policy makers entails a coherent picture that might eliminate confusion and fallacy about the impact of entrepreneurship education interventions.

12:30 – 13:30   |   LUNCH – served in BI’s Cafeteria – Fine dining – 7th Floor (for all attendees,please let us know if you can’t attend)

SESSION 2: STUDENT PRESENTATIONS, Session Chair Bjørn T. Asheim, UiS
13:30 – 13:5   |   A theory of trade secret management leading to improvements in appropriability, Haakon Thue Lie, NTNU
Senior Opponent: Knut Sogner, BI; Junior Opponent: Beniamino Callegari, BI
This paper contributes to the theory of intellectual property management and innovation management at the firm level. Trade secrets function as an appropriation mechanism for firms, together with other formal intellectual property mechanisms. Trade secrets are described in literature both as an informal and formal mechanism. As the new legal regimes of trade secrets are established in USA and EU, trade secrets clearly become a formal mechanism.
Appropriation mechanisms have been researched for decades. They have also become institutionalized as part of the statistics data for innovation in EU and European standardization efforts. The mechanisms include “lead time advantages” and “complexity of design”. The paper discusses these, and other possible appropriation mechanisms, and suggest to relate more complex concepts to intellectual property only.
Based on these observations, a model for trade secret management is developed. This model is leading to improvements in appropriability from better management of a key appropriation mechanism

13:55 – 14:20   |   Adapting existing solutions to new problems: a case study of innovation activities among the Norwegian petroleum-related supply companies in crisis, Jakoba Straml Gonzalez, UiO-TIC
Senior Opponent: Bjørn T. Asheim, UiS; Junior Opponent: Nina Hjertvikrem, UiS
How do companies adapt innovation activities when they experience a sudden crisis that shakes the established patterns of innovation processes in a supply chain? This paper studies the strategies that the supply service companies in the oil and gas industry in Norway undertook to adapt their capabilities to innovate after the collapse of the oil prices mid-2014. After a boom period (2009-2014), the industry had to lower drastically the costs and improve the efficiency and productivity. The paper is based on a case study of two groups of supply service companies, 5 subsea technology supply companies and 5 subsupply companies, with semi-structured interviews with R&D and management staff in these companies as the main method of data collection. The results of the analysis indicate that the two groups of companies learned to do in-house R&D more efficiently and tied themselves more to the customers to be able to understand and respond to the new demand for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In an uncertain market situation they experienced risk aversion from the customers against their new inherently cost-effective solutions in favour of low-cost solutions. This, however, did not discourage them from pursuing innovation completely, but rather encouraged them to comply with their needs, even though sub-optimal in relation to the existing technological competences they possess, as well as to engage in internal R&D until the situation recovers. The reason for such behaviour was the emphasis on maintaining the linkage together with the expectation of an imminent upturn and the belief in reestablishment of the previous patterns of work. According to the supply service companies, their experience from previous downturns is that the ones that have a strong relationship with solutions that respond to the needs of the customers will have a competitive advantage when the downturn is over. This suggests that the belief system posed limits to the adaptation of the innovation capabilities of the supply service companies.

14:20 – 14:45   |   Challenges of value co-creation in service eco-innovations: Lessons from the ‘Green retrofit’ network in Northern Denmark, Karin A. Wigger. Nord Uni.,Roberto Rivas Hermann, Nord university and Rosanna Garcia, North Carolina State University
Senior Opponent: Arne Isaksen, UiA; Junior Opponent: Nhien Nguyen, NTNU
Environmental regulations and increased environmental awareness promote service eco-innovation in manufacturing industries. Service eco-innovations, such as the retrofitting of vessels aim to minimize resource-use and to reduce waste and pollution by expanding products’ lifetime or improving their eco-efficiency. Complex and modular service innovations require often technological and experience complementarities of multiple suppliers and the continuous involvement of the costumer. Prior studies highlight the importance of co-creation of value in collaborative innovation. However, the challenges of value co-creation in service eco-innovation is an understudied phenomenon. Therefore, the paper addresses the following research question: ‘What are the challenges of co-creating value in service eco-innovation?
A case study of building a “one-stop” service of green retrofit of vessels in Northern Denmark sheds light on the challenges of value co-creation in service eco-innovations and provides insides on the role of eco-efficiency and product lifetime expansion through services resulting from collaborative innovation. The findings unveil three distinct types of challenges. 1) The value challenge: Contrast between the economic and environmental value expected; 2) the co-creation challenge: Co-creation of value among suppliers that share the same or similar competences and resources; 3) the value capture challenge: Sustained financial and environmental benefits for each individual firm taking part in collaborative innovation.

14:45 – 15:10   |   Competence as a driver for industrial energy efficiency investments: a study of Norwegian manufacturing firms, Mette Talseth Solnørdal, UiT- Arctic
Senior Opponent: Knut Sogner, BI; Junior Opponent: Tuukka R. R. Mäkitie, UiO-TIC
Human use of fossil fuel and emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) is commonly accepted as the main causes for global warming. In recent years, climate protection has therefore become one of the core political issues worldwide. In Europe, EU and collaboration countries like Norway recently adopted new environmental targets for 2030 . The 2030 targets include a 40% reduction of GHG emissions and improvement of energy efficiency by 27 % relative to the 1990 level {EEA, 2015 #4015}. The industrial sector is the most important energy consumer, and holds a substantial potential for energy efficiency improvements. In this context much emphasis has been put on the role and potential of new environmental energy efficiency technology. Previous research on industrial energy efficiency has mainly focused on the energy efficiency gap, and barriers preventing companies to implement energy efficient technologies. Some scholars have taken this research one step further, investigating factors that help companies to overcome the identified barriers. There is however very little knowledge about driving forces that stimulate manufacturing companies to invest in energy efficiency technologies. Drawing on elements from innovation and organizational theory, this paper respond to this identified gap in the energy efficiency literature. The paper set to explore the relationship between manufacturing firms’ competence and their propensity to invest in energy efficiency R&D. Competence is here divided into three categories; competence of R&D staff, R&D investments and R&D cooperation with external partners. The analysis will be based on econometric estimations, using panel data from the Community Innovation and R&D Survey on Norwegian manufacturing firms, collected by Statistics Norway in the period 2008-2014

15:10 – 15:30   |   COFFEE BREAK – Move to 2 parallel sessions

15:30 – 15:55   |  Networks and Innovation in the Subsea Industry in Rogaland: A Multi-Modal Analysis of Network Structures, Nina Hjertvikrem, University of Stavanger
Senior Opponent: Lene Foss, UiT- Arctic; Junior Opponent: Beniamino Callegari, BI
Knowledge flows in networks can occur through various mechanisms; when companies collaborate, when labourer switches employer and when companies monitor each other. However, most contributions study these mechanisms in isolation, while few studies look at the interplay between the various forms of knowledge flows in a network. Several studies have shown that collaboration among firms increases a firm’s innovation performance, the decision and mechanism around which actors to include in the collaboration network is less known. We examine how recruitment and monitoring networks affect the collaboration network.
This paper is based on interviews with 30 companies in the subsea sector in Rogaland. This is a network of suppliers to the oil and gas industry, which is agglomerated in Rogaland. Due partly to regulatory characteristics of the industry and demands from lead customers in the region for collaboration among their suppliers, the collaboration network is very dense. This is associated with a high level of knowledge flow, but potentially also with lock-in. The study examines the internal and external network structure among the subsea firms in terms of collaborative relations, recruitment and monitoring.
The data is analysed using social network analysis in which the structures of the three different network modes are compared. Logistic quadratic assignment procedure is carried out to see if a link being present in the recruitment network and/or the monitoring network will increase the probability of that same link between two firms are present in the collaboration networks. The results revealed an overall high degree of knowledge exchange among the organizations making up the subsea cluster. Furthermore, the empirical study showed that if a firm A monitors firm B, they are more likely to collaborate, and if firm A has recruited from firm B they are also more likely to collaborate.

15:55 – 16:20   |  Determinants for grant funding: How network centrality affects European higher education institutions’ participation in Horizon 2020, Simen Enger, UiO-TIC and KD
Senior Opponent: Roger Sørheim, NTNU; Junior Opponent: Haakon Thue Lie, NTNU
This study presents an empirical analysis of 2216 European higher education institutions (HEI) from 27 countries and the factors affecting their propensity to apply and successfully participate in the 8th European framework programme (EU FP), Horizon 2020. We utilize detailed participation data at the organisational level from Horizon 2020 for the first two years of operation (2014–2015). This enables us to separate between those institutions in the sample that have chosen not to apply, those that apply but are rejected, and those that are granted participation in collaborative projects. Our study does also account for the cumulative network effects from prior EU FP participation in the 7th program. The results show that HEIs with no prior network centrality apply and participate to a less extent than others with low or high levels of network centrality, suggesting persistence in participation. Factors affecting HEI abilities to apply and participate vary depending on the degree of network centrality. For those with no centrality size positively predicts both applications and participations, while external funding affects applications. For HEIs with low levels of network centrality, scientific reputation is strongly associated with number of applications but not participations. While for the group with high levels of centrality this does not matter to the same extent as the research intensity does for both number of applications and participations. Our results do also indicate country-level differences in disfavour of new member states, and benefits of holding a university status and an orientation towards physical and engineering sciences.

16: 20– 16:45   |  Innovation under money manager capitalism: Schumpeterian profitless prosperity and the “money view”, Beniamino Callegari, BI Norwegian Business School
Senior Opponent: Magnus, Gulbrandsen, UiO- TIC; Junior Opponent: Johan Miörner, Circle, Lund Uni.
Schumpeter envisioned an evolving economic theory to match evolving economic phenomena. In particular, the economic impact of innovation depends on the forms of funding available to the entrepreneurial function, their sources and economic aims. The largely neoclassical economics of innovation of today has dispensed with the Schumpeterian dynamic view of economic theory. As a result, innovation is crystalized as a Solovian residual, conceptualized as a generic driver of corporate profitability, national and global economic growth, with little concern for the potential fallacies of composition involved. The paper explores alternative conceptual avenues by combining Schumpeterian and Minsky’s interpretation of Keynesian theory, analyzing the role of innovation under the “Money Manager Capitalism” regime of today. Schumpeter’s forgotten concept of “profitless prosperity” is integrated with the developing “Money View” perspective to provide an alternative description of the innovation process of the present. Its development has been shaped by the twin forces behind the emergence of today market-based funding: the reach for yield, and the reach for security. Under current dominant financial institutions, the process of innovation can be conceived as a driver of financialization and inequality rather than economic growth.

16:45 – 17:10   |  Challenges during business start-up and growth, Oxana Bulanova and Lars Kolvereid, Nord Uni.
Senior Opponent: Roger Sørheim, NTNU; Junior Opponent: Jakoba Straml Gonzales, UiO-TIC
The proportion of women start-ups remains low in Norway and hardly reaches 20% (ssb.no, 2013). Despite the government encouragement, men have started the majority of limited liability companies except one industry – personal service (personlig tjenesteyting) in 2013.
The study addresses the following three research questions: (1) What are the most important challenges faced by businesses during start-up and during growth stages? (2) What are the most important personal challenges entrepreneurs face during business start-up and growth stages? (3) Do men and women entrepreneurs face different business and personal challenges during start-up and growth stages?

17.30   |  TAPAS DINNER AND WINE – Everyone Welcome! In front of B2-060.

15:30 – 15:55   | The green fling: Market volatility in incumbent industries and sustainability transitions in an oil-fuelled economy, Tuukka R. R. Mäkitie,Jakoba Sraml Gonzalez, Håkon Normann, Keith Smith & Taran Thune University of Oslo, TIC
Senior Opponent: Bjørn T. Asheim, UiS; Junior Opponent: Mette Talseth-Solnørdal, UiT- Arctic

Innovation studies tend to focus on the emergence of novelty and new industries, and often regard incumbent industries merely as locked into path dependence. Recent literature in transition studies has contributed to this need by outlining different types of pressures and environments which influence the transformation of incumbent industries. We further contribute to this literature by investigating how incumbent industry’s economic pressures co-vary with their engagement in sustainable technologies. Empirically, we investigate the diversification of Norwegian oil and gas (OG) industry (especially suppliers firms) into offshore wind power (OWP) in the period 2005-2015. We analyse how changes in OG market, indicated by oil price and varying levels of investment (i.e. market demand) in the Norwegian Continental Shelf, co-occur with the OG industry’s engagement in diversification into technologically related OWP. The paper aims to develop a process study methodology for investigating co-evolution between industries and particularly the role of conditions in the core market of industry incumbents, and the market conditions significance for industry incumbent’s diversification into an emerging industry. By using several data from e.g. a survey, interviews and media sources, our preliminary results indicate that the oil price and investment level have the characteristics of negative correlation with the engagement of OG industry in OWP. In other words, when OG market faces a downturn it engages increasingly in OWP, but refocus back to OG market when the OG market recovers. We argue that even though the diversification of industry incumbents can benefit the emergence of new industries e.g. through knowledge spillovers, such involvement through on-off behaviour can also have negative consequences for industry development of OWP due to the lack of commitment of key actors. We point to the need in transition studies to understand the role of incumbent industry’s economic environment for their involvement in the development of clean technologies.

15:55– 16:20   |  Innovation in tourism – The use of Community Innovation Survey (CIS) in a service context, Anne Jørgensen Nordli, Lillehammer University College
Senior Opponent: Tatiana Iakoleva, UiS ; Junior Opponent: Christine Mee Lie, UiO-TIC
The overall goal of this thesis is to investigate the use of Community Innovation Survey (CIS) in a service context. The CIS is a quantitative innovation instrument, rooted in manufacturing, but used to measure innovation in both manufacturing and services. Literature address that parts of innovation remain hidden when using such an instrument in service industries like for example tourism, low-tech industries or creative industries. Consequently, this thesis use the tourism context to explore the concept of “hidden innovation”. The thesis contributes with a better understanding of CIS-measured innovation as well as hidden innovation and address how CIS can be improved. Additionally, the thesis contributes to the tourism innovation literature by showing how innovative culture and work environments encouraged by the top management increases the innovative capacity of tourism companies.
Innovation or service innovation are complex concepts. A literature review shows how innovation in manufacturing and services respectively have similarities as well as differences at the same time. Consequently, it is challenging to measure innovation with the same instrument. I argue that it is necessary to use both quantitative and qualitative methods/designs to investigate and analyse such a complex phenomenon. Accordingly, this thesis takes a mixed method approach to the research goal. The thesis consist of four papers that all contributes to the overall goal of the thesis. Paper 1 is conceptual, paper 2 and 3 are qualitative and paper 4 a quantitative paper.
The tourism industry is selected as the context for investigating the use of CIS and the concept of hidden innovation. Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries with high demands to companies’ innovative capacity. Furthermore, is innovation research on the tourism industry limited, and studies that include relatively new and little studied contexts, can contribute to theory and concept development. Consequently, the industry represents a relevant and interesting empirical source for this thesis and for innovation studies in general.
The empirical findings reveal several examples of hidden innovation. Those examples make it possible to indicate characteristics of hidden innovation. Hidden innovation is, as expected, smaller innovations with a lower investment level compared to the enterprises’ CIS reported innovations. The hidden innovation mostly follows accelerated innovation processes, where planning happens almost at the same time as the innovation is carried out in practice. Hence, hidden innovation may happen everywhere in the organisation and does often not involve top management. In other words, the hidden innovations are challenging for top management to report if they do not have routines for gathering information about it. Moreover, an important evaluation-stage of innovation processes is revealed, which could be for example evaluation meetings on existing services, work practices or working routines etc. It seems that most hidden innovations are triggered of such evaluation, a stage that hasn’t been viewed attention yet in the literature. The evaluations can be either organized, for example after a tourism season or weekly meetings, or unorganized evaluation in the daily communication among employees.
Based on the empirical findings the thesis suggests that the CIS should not be dismissed but rather improved. Improvements include adjustments in regard to technical language and formulations. Also routines for gathering information reported in CIS surveys could be improved. Another issue is that it might be more appropriate to distinguish between type 1 (quite extensive or precious innovations) and type 2 (smaller and incremental) innovations, than it is to distinguish between the four innovation types: product, process, organization and market innovation. However, the suggested improvements in the thesis considers the use of CIS in a tourism context and whether these improvement can be applied to other service contexts should be further investigated.
Findings also indicate how the set of indicators on working methods that stimulates creativity and new ideas (included in the 2008-2010 CIS survey), should be included permanently in the future. For example was cross-functional work teams and non-economic incentives found as drivers of innovations measured with the CIS-instrument in tourism. The discussion in the thesis addresses how these working method-indicators are closely connected to work culture and work environment, and makes it possible at least to some degree, to identify whether companies’ top management supports an innovative work environment. Considering the evaluation stage that is found as an early stage in hidden innovations, evaluation represents in the cases a method to trigger new ideas that again lead to innovation. Thus, the thesis suggests that a question of whether companies use evaluation as a working method should be added to the set of working method indicators.
This paper is aimed to be presented at the NORSI-conference 2016 and is a very first draft to the theoretical background of my PhD-Thesis. 

16:20 –16:45   |  Responsible Research and Innovation: A Systematic Review, Raj Kumar Thapa, UiS
Senior Opponent: Gry A. Alsos, Nord Uni.; Junior Opponent: Adeline Hvidsten, BI
Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is gaining increasing attention in the recent years. The aim of this article is to contribute to the ongoing conceptual development of RRI and provide initial guidance for firms on becoming or being responsible in their innovation procedures. Responsible research and innovation practices are meant for reduction of societal undesirable risky research and innovation and to focus on creating social and ecological values in addition to economic value. In a systematic literature review (SLR) of responsible innovation, social and environmental responsibility related scholarly articles published in academic journals over 20 years period, the authors will develop a synthesized conceptual framework into which RRI practices and processes can be mapped. The paper provides insight into the promise of the RRI concept for understanding and advancing responsible innovation in firm level.

16:45 – 17: 10   |  Innovation and metamorphosis towards strategic resilience, Marta Morais-Storz, NTNU, Rikke Stoud Platou, NTNU, and Kine Berlid Norheim, NTNU
Senior Opponent: Magnus Gulbrandsen, UiO- TIC; Junior Opponent: Olga Mikhailova, BI
Looming large in mainstream management strategy literature is the assumption that organizations must learn to quickly predict and adapt to their environments, and that resilience is the ability to swiftly rebound post disturbance. This paradigm is problematic and inoperative for managers both because it is difficult to ascertain the level of environmental complexity, turbulence, and uncertainty and how precisely to react to it and because once there has been a reaction, rebounding to a previous stable state may be pathological within the new context in which the organization finds itself. Therefore, the basic premise of this paper is that the environment is complex, turbulent, and uncertain, and that resilience in such an environment is not about rebound or survival but about continual metamorphosis and innovation. This conceptual paper addresses two fundamental questions: (1) What does it mean to be resilient in the context of environmental complexity, turbulence, and uncertainty? (2) How might organizations achieve strategic resilience? In answering these questions a model of strategic resilience is presented, whereby organizational legacy is a defining antecedent, top-management team future orientation is a fundamental belief system, and problem formulation is a key deliberate process. From this, theoretical propositions are suggested that may shepherd future research on strategic resilience.

17.15   |  TAPAS DINNER AND WINE – Everyone Welcome! In front of B2-060.