CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Several studies have shown the importance of innovation as a key factor in

business performance (Baker and Sinkula, 2022) Damanpour, Kathryn and

William (2019); Tomas, Robert and Gary (2022); Roberts, 2019). Leading global

corporation such as Apple Inc., 3G, and Proctor and Gamble largely have their

outstanding business success to a sustained record of innovation. Despite the well-

documented association between innovation and business performance, many

companies struggle in their attempts to become successful innovators (Jaruzelski,

Merle, and Randolph, 2022).

The available evidence shows that the companies that are most successful at

innovation approach it in a holistic and systematic way, developing an innovation

strategy that is fully integrated with their business mission and goals, and aligning

their organizational culture and organizational systems with the strategy.

Relatively few organizations take this approach; however, if innovation occurs at

all, it is more often in an adhoc fashion that has little connection to core business

goals (Desouza, Caroline, Yukika, Peter, Sridhar, Sanjeev and Jeffrey (2019). In

the PricewaterhouseCoopers global survey of CEOs (2021), fewer than 10% of

respondents described their organization as an “active innovator.

often requires extensive changes in organizational culture and systems, which can

be difficult to achieve, not to mention disruptive, costly, and time-consuming

activities. Though the potential long-term benefits are considerable, firms are often

focused on short term gains and cost reductions and are unwilling to invest time

and resources into organizational transformation efforts. The high risks of failure

associated with major organizational change projects may also be a deterrent

(Harold, 2013).

Practices regarding innovation management (IM) in firms are one of the

main topics of interest in business, politics and academic environments (Lopez-

Nicolas and Merono-Cerdan, 2021). This interest is not surprising because

innovation is assessed as the most important differentiation strategy to acquire a

competitive advantage in the market. The concept of innovation is defined as a

new structure or management process, a policy, a new plan or programme, a new

production process, or a new product or service produced in an enterprise (Lopez-

Nicolas and Merono-Cerdan, 2021). Freeman (2012) defines the concept of

innovation as marketing a new (or developed) product or as technical, design,

production, management and commercial practices in the use of a new (or

developed) process or equipment commercially for the first time (Bessant and

Tidd, 2022).

2
 IM refers to the entire set of innovative practices involving the analysis of

competition mechanisms, such as creating an innovative vision, harmonizing

business strategy, expanding the strategy to all organizational levels, market

tendencies, technologies and competitor acts (Sanchez, Lago, Ferras, and Ribera,

2021). Because the concept of IM describes a process composed of many parts,

there is not a common and clear definition on which all scholars agree regarding

the content and components of the concept. To overcome this confusion, Dankbaar

(2013) suggested two approaches that are different from each other but, at the same

time, complementary. According to Dankbaar (2013), IM can be defined as either

establishing preconditions in the enterprise that will encourage human creativity or

the process of information usage. IM refers to firms managing technology,

business processes (customers, suppliers, financial and external resources, etc.) and

human relationships (culture, communication, organization, etc.) in a way that will

support and encourage innovation. In this context, the success of innovation

depends on owned resources (human, equipment, technology, information, etc.)

and the ability of the organization to manage these resources.

IM is a process that has different components and, at the same time, requires

the management of these different components as a whole (Igartua, Garrigos, and

Hervas, 2018). When the literature regarding IM practices is examined, it is seen

that the leading determinants of IM practices are innovation strategy (IS),

3
organizational structure (OS), innovation culture (IC), technological capability

(TC) and customer and supplier relationships (CSR) (Igartua, Garrigos, & Hervas-

Oliver, 2018); Sanchez, Lago, Ferras, & Ribera, (2021); Terziovski, 2018). The

impacts of these IM practices on firm innovation performance outputs are

controversial within the literature. Scholars setting forth the resource-based

approach argue that firms possessing the IS, flexible OS, IC, TC, effective CSR

and innovative products that other firms do not possess will achieve high

performance (Han, Kim, and Srivastava, 2018). In other words, according to these

scholars, more innovative firms that are significantly different from their

counterparts provide value to the customers, as a result of which is increased

competitive advantage. Scholars asserting the contrary specify that less innovative

products are less uncertain and may possess more synergy, leading them to be

more successful (Calantone, Chan, and Cui, 2016).

The literature on firm innovation performance contains a limited number of

studies dealing with the impact of the above-mentioned IM practices in a manner

independent from each other (Igartua, Garrigos, and Hervas-Oliver, 2018);

Sanchez, Lago, Ferras, and Ribera, J. (2021); Terziovski, 2018). Moreover, there is

not any research addressing the impact of these practices on firm innovation

performance by modeling IM practices as a whole. Therefore, the purpose of this

4
study is to explore the impact of IS, OS, IC, TC and CSR, which appear as IM

practices in firms, on firm innovation performance.

Extent literature suggests there are many barriers to innovation and that

these are both internal and external to a firm. The external barriers include the lack

of infrastructure, deficiencies in education and training systems, inappropriate

legislation, an overall neglect and misuse of talents in society. Some major internal

barriers include rigid organisational arrangements and procedures, hierarchical and

formal communication structures, conservatism, conformity and lack of vision,

resistance to change, and lack of motivation and risk-avoiding attitudes.

The present environmental problems call for more environmentally benign

technology. For instance, Kemp (2019) opined “the past two decades witnessed a

heightened concern over environmental degradation of the various options open to

society to reduce the environmental burden, technology is widely considered as the

most attractive”. The theme (that technology is the best option in environmental

performance and sustainability) is favored by many recent studies (Igartua,

Garrigos, & Hervas-Oliver, (2018); Walker, and Aravind, (2019) and Baden-Fuller

and Haefliger, (2013). However, due to the diverse environmental problems since

the 2010s, tensions were inevitably triggered within the firms, encouraging them to

formulate internal processes; innovation, technology and non-technology drivers.

Especially adequate governance, planning and organizational processes should be

5
integrated within the organization to move in line with environment changes

(Almeida, and Melo, 2022). We suppose that neither MI nor TI on its own can spur

sustainability and performance, but both types of innovation are complementary.

As pointed out by Vaccaro, Jansen, Van-den, and Volberda (2022), competition

has pushed firms towards technological changes and firms need to renew their

internal structures. However, the changes are not concerned with offering new

products and services, but also altering the nature of management within

organizations.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In today’s business environment, enterprise keeps evolving ways of

outwitting one another in the marketplace in order to remain competitive and

achieve their strategic goals. One of such strategies is innovation. The increasingly

competitive business environment has made it imperative for enterprise to put in

place systems and processes that will guarantee appreciable enterprise performance

in the interest of its stakeholders. To this end, several solutions have been

developed to ensure that desired enterprise outcomes are achieved despite the

dynamics of competition. Innovation is one concept that has gained enormous

popularity in both business research and practice. This study takes a look at how

the nature of innovation management and how its application has affected key

enterprise outcomes.

6
 Despite available success step of giant firms, not all firms in particular

industries have desire to be competitive by engaging in innovative practice. On

account of this many firms are stagnant and often die. This study wants to examine

the rate IC, OS, TC and how they impact on organization performance. This

challenge is the provocation of this study.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The primary objective of the study is to examine innovation management

and enterprise performance. The specific objective of the study is;

i. To determine the extent to which innovation strategy (IS) may influence

enterprise performance in cinema firms.

ii. To identify impact of innovation culture (IC), on enterprise

performance in cinema firms

iii. To examine the extent to which customer and supplier relationships

(CSR) influence enterprise performance in cinema firms.

iv. To assess the extent to which technological capability affect enterprise

performance in cinema firms.

7
1.4 Research Question

The study was guided by the following research questions:

i. To what extent does innovation strategy (IS) influence enterprise

performance in cinema firms?

ii. What are the impacts of innovation culture (IC), on enterprise performance

in cinema firms?

iii. To what extent does customer and supplier relationships (CSR) influence

enterprise performance in cinema firms?

iv. To what extent does technological capability affect enterprise performance

in cinema firms?

1.5 Scope of the Study

This study was to examine innovation management and enterprise

performance. The study was limited to the two cinema firms in Asaba metropolis

namely; Genesis Cinemas and Cartege Cinemas Asaba.

Contextually, this study viewed extent literature knowledge in innovation

management and firm performance. Conceptually, many of innovation and firm

performance are literally taken at the ordinary everyday usage. The study has no

intent to delve into concept outside the study title.

8
1.6 Significance of the Study

The study is of significant to general public, the policy makers

(government), and researchers. Finding of the study will be of benefit to the

general public because it will portray the importance of innovation to the society

and how innovation can help grow the economy. The study will show on

innovation increase enterprise chances to react to changes and discover new

opportunities. It can also help foster competitive advantage as it allows enterprise

to build better products and services for your customers.

The study will serve as a guide to policy makers (government) in make

policy that will increasing the rate of return for new technology and encouraging

its development, including: direct government funding of R&D, tax incentives for

R&D, protection of intellectual property, and forming cooperative relationships

between universities and the private sector.

The research outcome will be of help to future researchers who intend to

conduct research on innovation management and enterprise performance. It will

serve as a source of information to support further studies related to the

intravenous infusion.

9
1.7 Limitation of the Study

The researcher was affected by the usual constraints and problems common

with similar researches in Nigeria. Summarized below are some of the constraints,

i. Difficulty generating relevant data: There was challenge in generating

data for the study and travelling to the various communities to administer

questionnaire, however, the researcher was able to generate enough

information, data and complete the project accordingly.

ii. Research limited is limited to only two (2) cinemas in Asaba.

1.8 Definition of Term

Enterprise: is another word for a for-profit making company, but it is most often

associated with entrepreneurial ventures. People who have entrepreneurial success

are often referred to as “enterprising.”

Enterprise performance: refers to the management, monitoring and analysis of

key business metrics across all facets of an enterprise, across departments, LoBs

and subsidiaries with the goal of improving processes, efficiency and strategic

cohesion.

Innovation: is the introduction of a new or improved good or service.

Innovation Management: is the process of managing innovative ideas.

10