Information use and working methods as drivers of innovation in tourism companies

ABSTRACT

This paper demonstrates how the strategic use of external information and an internal working method – that is, cross-functional work teams – increases the probability that tourism companies will innovate. This is demonstrated by logistic regression analyses using Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data. Simultaneously and contrary to expectations in much of the literature, the two practices are not complementary, as their interaction effect is negative. Nevertheless, the companies still win by using both external information and cross-functional work teams. Even though the effect of each variable is reduced, companies can manage the strategies to maximize the total effect. The study contributes knowledge about the drivers of innovation in tourism industries and responds to a call for more quantitative research and the use of CIS data. In addition, it contributes to the literature on complementarities between internal and external innovation practices. The paper rounds off by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the findings and the need for further research in the area.

KEYWORDS:

• Innovation driver in the tourism industry
• Community Innovation Survey (CIS)
• external information use
• cross-functional work team
• complementarity

Acknowledgements

This study is a part of author’s PhD project at the INTOP-program (innovation in services public/private sector) at Lillehammer University College (LUC). The author would like to thank associated Professors Martin Rønningen, Christer Thrane and Sverre Herstad for constructive comments and advice throughout the working process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. In some countries, respondents are looped around the information source questions if they have not reported product and process innovation. That is not the case in the Norwegian CIS. All companies respond to these questions, and companies that report no innovations in the period still report on whether the four information sources are important in their innovation activities (possibly because of planned innovation in the coming period).