Human Capital in the Innovative Performance: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Wilmer Carvache-Franco.

The relationship between human capital and innovative performance in service companies has been studied in countries with fast-growing economies and knowledge-intensive companies. The variable training in innovation activities is positively related to service innovation, but not to process innovation, because service innovation requires a greater development of skills and abilities than process innovation in these activities.

  • human capital
  • innovative performance
  • training
  • specialized personnel

1. Introduction

Innovation is a driver of a country’s economic development (Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016; Pejić Bach et al. 2015). In developed countries, human capital is the most important source of innovative performance in companies (Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016). In developing countries, many companies have low innovation capacity and as a result have a low level of competitiveness (Pejić Bach et al. 2015), due to low investment in research and development and several internal barriers in companies such as the lack of qualified personnel (Zanello et al. 2016).
Innovation in service companies has had less interest in specialized literature than manufacturing or product innovation (Gopalakrishnan et al. 1999). Innovation in service companies represents a strategic advantage (Prajogo and Oke 2016; Storey and Kahn 2010) and sustained growth for these companies (Tadic et al. 2015). Service companies require human capital for innovation, that is, to develop skills and abilities in staff (Storey and Kahn 2010). The evidence of the relationship between human capital and innovative performance in service companies is concentrated in knowledge-intensive companies (Doloreux and Frigon 2020; Figueiredo et al. 2019)
There is a strong expansion in knowledge-intensive service companies that are considered essential for the development of economies because they contribute to the generation of employment and wealth (Miles et al. 2018), so it is important to know how service companies innovate and examine these companies regarding the relationship between human capital and innovative performance.
Human capital is considered a part of the intellectual capital of a company, including knowledge, skills, know-how, education, and learning capacity (Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016). Human capital is formed by education (Carter 1989; González et al. 2016), training (Chatterjee 2017; Hewitt-Dundas 2006), and experience at work, especially in previous R&D processes (Allameh 2018; González et al. 2016). Its main purpose is to create innovation in companies through generating new ideas, and creating and improving products and services (Agostini et al. 2017).
The relationship between human capital variables and innovative performance has been studied in fast-growing economies (Ma et al. 2019) and in companies with complex knowledge (Buenechea-Elberdin et al. 2018) and knowledge-intensive service companies (Doloreux and Frigon 2020), but there are few studies in other contexts, such as companies in developing countries that have less qualified workers and service companies handle less complexity of knowledge, so it is not known in these other contexts if the variables of human capital are related to the innovative performance of companies. Little is known yet about how human capital or the skills and abilities acquired by workers affect innovative performance in service companies (Chowhan 2016; Nieves and Quintana 2018), and there is a gap in the literature on the relationship between human capital and innovative performance (Van Uden et al. 2017).

2. Innovation as a Source of Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Strategy

The resource-based view of firms considers innovation as a result of the resources and capabilities available to the company (Barney 1991; Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984). In this theory, knowledge is considered the main resource for innovation (Grant 1996). In the open innovation paradigm, knowledge in the company for innovation may be limited, so they seek to increase knowledge by acquiring external knowledge through links with other market players (Bogers et al. 2018), but the company requires an absorption capacity that allows internalizing the external knowledge that reaches the company as a result of interactions with other companies and organizations (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Laursen and Salter 2006). In service companies, there is a relationship between human capital and the absorptive capacity of the company in such a way that the more human capital the company has, the greater its capacity to absorb external knowledge or assimilate new knowledge in the company (Doloreux and Frigon 2020). Absorptive capacity is a determining factor for innovation in developing countries (Pekovic et al. 2015). Human capital has been widely recognized as a driver of business innovation (Jones and Grimshaw 2012). The main elements of human capital are knowledge, skills, know-how, education, and learning capacity (Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016). Human capital is formed by education, training, willingness to change at work, and job satisfaction, and is composed of tangible and intangible resources, all of which lead to the competitive advantage of companies (McGuirk et al. 2015). Human capital is considered a part of the intellectual capital of a company, and although the benefits of human capital are not visible, knowledge is the main factor of human capital (Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016). Knowledge-based human resource management methods with a mediatory role of human capital impact the innovative performance, including those practices purposefully designed to enhance knowledge processes within an organization. (Shahtaheri and Teymournejad 2020). Ethical leadership with the mediating role of human capital impacts the innovative performance of companies, because it encourages ideas for staff innovation (Ullah et al. 2021). Human resource management can increase the human capital of organizations by managing to share the tacit knowledge that employees have (Oliveira et al. 2021), and knowledge-based human resource management increases the intellectual capital of the company, and this is the innovative performance of companies (Kianto et al. 2017). The main purpose of human capital is to create innovation in companies through generating new ideas, and creating and improving products and services (Agostini et al. 2017). Human capital specifically in service companies has the ability to create new knowledge and lead to innovation and competitive advantage (Prajogo and Oke 2016). Innovation is achieved by using the skills and abilities of staff to generate new knowledge or new uses of knowledge or combine knowledge to achieve innovation (Rupietta and Backes-Gellner 2019). Innovation can also be increased by the company’s human capital through the role of social capital, which leads to more prudent and sustainable innovative organizations (Samad 2020). Empirical evidence in the literature indicates that human capital has a greater impact on innovative performance in companies in fast-growing economies (Ma et al. 2019) and in companies that manage complex knowledge (Buenechea-Elberdin et al. 2018) and knowledge-intensive service companies or those that provide sophisticated knowledge-based services (Doloreux and Frigon 2020) because the workers represent the company’s R&D capabilities, practical knowledge, experience, and know-how (Ma and Yu 2021). However, a critical portion of the knowledge required for service innovation comes from the knowledge of workers and is created outside of formal R&D activities (Capozza and Divella 2019), such as the customer relationship network or at the points of contact between customers and employees (O’Cass and Wetzels 2018). There are differences between service innovation and manufacturing innovation: Service innovation companies sometimes have a lower level of R&D intensity (Durst et al. 2015), so in these companies, the knowledge of the workers and the links with other companies and organizations have an important role to acquire external knowledge, since knowledge and innovative ideas can come from different sources and arise from their daily activities or from employees, internal R&D, and from other external sources such as customers, suppliers, service providers, and universities (Zieba et al. 2017). Service innovation can also come from co-creation processes with other actors, mainly customers andsuppliers (Hidalgo and Herrera 2020). The literature on service innovation, although it has been increasing in recent years, is still scarce, but it recognizes that services are intangible and sometimes personalized to the needs of the client, which is why service innovation is different, so service companies do not always carry out R&D to innovate, but they do need to increase knowledge to innovate (Durst et al. 2015), so these companies have different ways in which they achieve knowledge for co-creation and transfer of knowledge for innovation between service companies (Figueiredo et al. 2019). Therefore, further studies on service innovation are required (Durst et al. 2015). Despite the little empirical evidence on the relationship of the human capital variables examined in this research with innovative performance in service companies, little is known about how human capital, or the skills and abilities acquired by workers affect the innovative performance in service companies (Chowhan 2016; Nieves and Quintana 2018) so there is a gap in the literature on the relationship between human capital and innovative performance (Van Uden et al. 2017). The variables of human capital are related to the stock of knowledge, quality of knowledge, and development of human capital, so the variable of the knowledge stock can be measured by the total number of workers available to the company since it represents the stock of knowledge for innovation and includes the key workers in the knowledge regarding human capital in the company and can lead to innovation (Mariz-Pérez et al. 2012; Sánchez Muñoz et al. 2014). Human capital contributes with knowledge, skills, and know-how (Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016), and increases the absorptive capacity of the company (González et al. 2016), which is a capacity to absorb external knowledge acquired by the company through links with other companies and organizations. Innovation comes from finding new knowledge or new uses for knowledge for which human skills are used (Rupietta and Backes-Gellner 2019) and represents the previous experiences (González et al. 2016). Depending on this stock of knowledge and experiences, the company increases its human capital and can also increase its innovative potential. Considering these factors, the following hypothesis was argued.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
Company workers are positively related to the innovation of services and processes of the service companies.
Human capital is acquired through formal education where skills are developed (Allameh 2018; González et al. 2016). It is considered that such workers, through formal education, acquire knowledge and develop skills and that such workers can internally expand knowledge to other workers in the company. Further, workers with higher education are in a better technical position to recognize the external knowledge that comes to the company through external sources of information and internalize it in the company so that it is available for innovation (Carter 1989). The management literature has identified highly qualified human capital as a crucial dimension of the innovation process in the company (Fonseca et al. 2019). Higher education provides workers with skills and abilities (Carter 1989; González et al. 2016), and these skills are used in innovation in companies (Capozza and Divella 2019; Aleknavičiūtė et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2005; Van Uden et al. 2017). These human skills provided by higher education increase the human capital of the company, and workers with formal education have a better capacity to help identify and internalize the external knowledge that the company requires for innovation (Carter 1989). Further, workers with a higher education are a measure of human capital. Considering these factors, the following hypothesis was argued.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Workers with higher education are positively related to the innovation of services and processes of service companies.
Human capital is acquired through training and experience at work, especially in previous R&D processes (Allameh 2018; González et al. 2016). Human capital is also measured with the variable training for innovation activities. It is identified with the training of workers in companies in the various innovative activities and is important because it increases skills, knowledge, and skills for innovation (Lin and Chen 2006). Training also increases the level of specialization of workers which promotes innovation in the company (Chatterjee 2017; Hewitt-Dundas 2006). The evidence of companies that invest in professional training is that they have high returns on investment and economic benefits (Samoliuk et al. 2021). Human resource management such as training aimed at improving staff skills is more effective for innovation in emerging economies than formal education of workers (Capozza and Divella 2019). The mediating effect of learning orientation in the company and business strategy contributes to the results of innovation. Therefore, through training in innovation activities, the company improves its innovative potential (Meekaewkunchorn et al. 2021). Considering that training increases knowledge, provides skills, and develops skills to staff, complementing the skills provided by higher education and providing specific skills for innovation in companies (Chang et al. 2011; Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2012; Ottenbacher et al. 2006; Van Uden et al. 2017). It increases knowledge for innovation (Lin and Chen 2006), and also increases the level of specialization of workers which promotes innovation in the company (Chatterjee 2017; Hewitt-Dundas 2006). Training in innovation activities increases the human capital of the company and its potential to develop innovations. Considering these factors, the following hypothesis was argued.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
Training in innovation activities is positively related to the innovation of Services and processes of service companies.

References

  1. Aleknavičiūtė, Rasa, Viktorija Skvarciany, and Simona Survilaitė. 2016. The Role of Human Capital for National Innovation Capability in Eu Countries. Economics and Culture 13: 114–25.
  2. Pejić Bach, Mirjana, Anđelko Lojpur, Sanja Peković, and Tatjana Stanovčić. 2015. The Influence Of Different Information Sources On Innovation Performance: Evidence From France, The Netherlands And Croatia. South East European Journal of Economics and Business 10: 89–101.
  3. Zanello, Giacomo, Xiaolan Fu, Pierre Mohnen, and Marc Ventresca. 2016. The creation and diffusion of innovation in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys 30: 884–912.
  4. Gopalakrishnan, Shanthi, Paul Bierly, and Eric H. Kessler. 1999. A re-examination of product and process innovations using a knowledge-based view. Journal of High Technology Management Research 10: 147–66. Available online: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-d3f8d0f1-ce25-3aae-80ae-bd996f44ad9c (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  5. Prajogo, Daniel I., and Adegoke Oke. 2016. Human capital, service innovation advantage, and business performance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 36: 1–32.
  6. Storey, Chris, and Kenneth B. Kahn. 2010. The Role of Knowledge Management Strategies and Task Knowledge in Stimulating Service Innovation. Journal of Service Research 13: 397–410.
  7. Tadic, Ivana, Željana Aljinovic Barac, and Nikolina Plazonic. 2015. Relations between human capital investments and business excellence in croatian companies. International Journal of Social Education, Economics and Management Engineering 9: 745–50. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb6f/e44e7a55ce1295a8d4527915f0a5a656dd7b.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  8. Doloreux, David, and Anthony Frigon. 2020. Innovation in knowledge intensive business services (KIBS). Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration 37: 122–34.
  9. Figueiredo, Ronnie, João J. Ferreira, Rogério Guerra Silveira, and Alvaro Teixeira Villarinho. 2019. Innovation and co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: The Spinner model. Business Process Management Journal 26: 909–23.
  10. Miles, Ian Douglas, Veronika Belousova, and Nikolay Chichkanov. 2018. Knowledge intensive business services: Ambiguities and continuities. Foresight 20: 1–26.
  11. Carter, Anne P. 1989. Knowhow trading as economic exchange. Research Policy 18: 155–63.
  12. González, Xulia, Daniel Miles-Touya, and Consuelo Pazó. 2016. RandD, worker training and innovation: Firm-level evidence. Industry and Innovation 23: 694–712.
  13. Chatterjee, Joydeep. 2017. Strategy, human capital investments, business-domain capabilities, and performance: A study in the global software services industry. Strategic Management Journal 38: 588–608.
  14. Hewitt-Dundas, Nola. 2006. Resource and capability constraints to innovation in small and large plants. Small Business Economics 26: 257–77.
  15. Allameh, Sayyed Mohsen. 2018. Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: The role of social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 19: 858–74.
  16. Agostini, Lara, Anna Nosella, and Roberto Filippini. 2017. Does intellectual capital allow improving innovation performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context. Journal of Intellectual Capital 18: 400–18.
  17. Ma, Li, Xin Zhai, Weiguo Zhong, and Zhi-Xue Zhang. 2019. Deploying human capital for innovation: A study of multi-country manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics 208: 241–53.
  18. Buenechea-Elberdin, Marta, Josune Sáenz, and Aino Kianto. 2018. Knowledge management strategies, intellectual capital, and innovation performance: A comparison between high- and low-tech firms. Journal of Knowledge Management 22: 1757–81.
  19. Chowhan, James. 2016. Unpacking the black box: Understanding the relationship between strategy, HRM practices, innovation and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Journal 26: 112–33.
  20. Nieves, Julia, and Agustin Quintana. 2018. Human resource practices and innovation in the hotel industry: The mediating role of human capital. Tourism and Hospitality Research 18: 72–83.
  21. Van Uden, Annelies, Joris Knoben, and Patrick Vermeulen. 2017. Human capital and innovation in Sub-Saharan countries: A firm-level study. Innovation 19: 103–24.
  22. Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120.
  23. Penrose, Edith Tilton. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Sharpe.
  24. Wernerfelt, Birger. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5: 171–80.
  25. Grant, Robert M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109–22.
  26. Bogers, Marcel, Henry Chesbrough, and Carlos Moedas. 2018. Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review 60: 5–16.
  27. Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128–52.
  28. Laursen, Keld, and Ammon Salter. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27: 131–50.
  29. Pekovic, Sanja, Anđelko Lojpur, and Mirjana Pejic Bach. 2015. Determinants of innovation intensity in developed and in developing economies: The case of France and Croatia. International Journal of Innovation Management 19: 1550049.
  30. Jones, Barbara, and Damian Grimshaw. 2012. The Effects of Policies for Training and Skills on Improving Innovation Capabilities in Firms. Compendium of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention. NESTA. Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, p. 38. Available online: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_effects_of_policies_for_training_and_skills_on_improving_innovation_capabilities_in_firms.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  31. McGuirk, Helen, Helena Lenihan, and Mark Hart. 2015. Measuring the impact of innovative human capital on small firms’ propensity to innovate. Research Policy 44: 965–76.
  32. Shahtaheri, Seyed Ali, and Kaveh Teymournejad. 2020. Effects of knowledge-based, intellectual capital and innovation methods on human resource management: Case study of ministry of education, Tehran district 7. International Transaction Journal of Engineering Management and Applied Sciences and Technologies 11: 1–9.
  33. Ullah, Irfan, Bilal Mirza, and Amber Jamil. 2021. The influence of ethical leadership on innovative performance: Modeling the mediating role of intellectual capital. Journal of Management Development 40: 273–92.
  34. Oliveira, Márcio, Paulo Pinheiro, João M. Lopes, and José Oliveira. 2021. How to Overcome Barriers to Sharing Tacit Knowledge in Non-Profit Organizations? Journal of the Knowledge Economy 1: 1–32.
  35. Kianto, Aino, Josune Sáenz, and Nekane Aramburu. 2017. Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Journal of Business Research 81: 11–20.
  36. Rupietta, Christian, and Uschi Backes-Gellner. 2019. Combining knowledge stock and knowledge flow to generate superior incremental innovation performance—Evidence from Swiss manufacturing. Journal of Business Research 94: 209–22.
  37. Samad, Sarminah. 2020. Achieving innovative firm performance through human capital and the effect of social capital. Management and Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society 15: 326–44.
  38. Ma, Biyu, and Dingming Yu. 2021. Research on the influence of RandD human resources on innovation capability—Empirical research on GEM-listed enterprises of China. Managerial and Decision Economics 42: 751–61.
  39. Capozza, Claudia, and Marialuisa Divella. 2019. Human capital and firms’ innovation: Evidence from emerging economies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 28: 741–57.
  40. O’Cass, Aron, and Martin Wetzels. 2018. Contemporary issues and critical challenges on innovation in services. Journal of Product Innovation Management 35: 674–81.
  41. Durst, Susanne, Anne-Lauren Mention, and Petro Poutanen. 2015. Service innovation and its impact: What do we know about? Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 21: 65–72.
  42. Zieba, Malgorzata, Ettore Bolisani, Marco Paiola, and Enrico Scarso. 2017. Searching for innovation knowledge: Insight into KIBS companies. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 15: 282–93.
  43. Hidalgo, Antonio, and Rafael Herrera. 2020. Innovation management and co-creation in KIBs: An approach to the ICT services sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 161: 120278.
  44. Mariz-Pérez, Rosa M., M. Mercedes Teijeiro-Alvarez, and M. Teresa García-Alvarez. 2012. The relevance of human capital as a driver for innovation. Cuadernos de Economia 35: 68–76.
  45. Sánchez Muñoz, Paloma, Asunción López López, and Juan Carlos Salazar Elena. 2014. Gestión del Capital Intelectual y Desempeño Innovador. Resultados para España a partir del PITEC. Available online: https://cpage.mpr.gob.es/producto/gestion-del-capital-intelectual-y-desempeno-innovador/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback