Innovation typology in tourism
but on modes of learning and innovation. However, their approach is of great relevance for the topic of this section, since it details diverse characteristics of each mode of innovation. The two categories are Science, Technology and Innovation, and Doing, Using and Interacting. Besides, their theory is based on a quantitative analysis that allows the identification of a set of indicators for both STI and DUI learning modes. They also emphasize that the theory can help to develop the strategy of firms and that it can be also applied to processes at the macro level.
The STI learning mode is related to activities where scientific and technical knowledge are codified. Formalization of activities such as R&D, training and linkages with universities play here a major role. Consequently, in order to make knowledge transferable within the organization, the strategy relies on knowledge codification. Nevertheless, there is also a tacit component in the interaction between researchers in R&D departments.
In contrast, the DUI learning mode is experience-based. Consequently, interactions are based on tacit knowledge. In the DUI learning mode, innovation originates in problem- solving situations. As a result, skills and know-how of employees are developed. Therefore, organizational coordination in diverse forms such as project groups may enhance innovation activities. Besides, user-producer interaction plays a major role in this mode of learning.
The results of the empirical study carried out by Jensen et al. (2007) indicate that firms that apply one of the two modes tend to be high innovative. However, the most innovative firms tend to combine elements from the DUI and the STI modes.
Sundbo (2001) also points out that the combination of both innovation structures is the most appropriate to enhance innovation performance. Thus, it is possible, that organizations combine both structures, or that the same organization have different structures in diverse areas.
Nevertheless, the environment may influence the application of one or another innovation structure. Thus, some structures can be more innovative than others in specific environments. The sector may also influence one structure to be more appropriate than the other. In this matter, large firms in industries that mainly generate innovations through the development of R&D processes tend to apply the managerial structure. In contrast, organizations in industries based on SME’s such as tourism tend to enhance innovation through the interaction between individuals.
Nevertheless, it appears that while interactions between individuals are situated at the core of the innovation process, formalization of innovation may be a complementary factor rather than a main determinant of innovation. In this matter, Guia et al. (2006) indicate that regarding the complexity of innovation processes, these cannot be determined or structured by an actor. Accordingly, they emphasize that innovation needs the interaction of individuals in local situations.
In relation with the adaptation of the organization to the environment, Sundbo and Fuglsang (2006) suggest an approach for organizations based on strategic reflexivity. The theory is based on reflexive interpretations about the conditions of the environment. Strategic reflexivity can be managed and organized. Firms may adapt to